Rejoining the EU

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 749128 relating to the UK applying to rejoin the EU.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.

I thank Robert McMaster from Reading Central, who started the petition and is in the Gallery, as well as the 111,687 people who signed it, including 199 of my constituents. One of Mr McMaster’s biggest frustrations with Brexit is that it was never defined. It was not about what our future relationship would look like; it was simply about leaving the treaties on the European Union, and our post-Brexit relationship with the EU has left Britain worse off than if we had remained a member. People can feel that, and polling shows that most of the British public now regard Brexit as a mistake.

In whose interest was Brexit? It was certainly in the interest of countries such as Russia that want to see Britain’s influence weakened and Europe fractured. With Brexit, that is what they got. With Russia doing everything it can to provoke further division and war in Europe, this petition is a good opportunity to ask ourselves not just whether we should rejoin the EU, but the much bigger questions of what relationship we want with Europe, why, and how we get there.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents voted to leave the EU because they were bombarded with lies, from the mythical £350 million a week for the NHS that never appeared to the lie that immigration would come down when it actually trebled. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Prime Minister’s announcement of the new national centre for information defence will help protect our constituents from foreign state influence as we consider our relationship with the EU again?

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend raises a fundamental point. These are very real things that have been known for a long time, but we have not moved quickly enough to address them. I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement about that threat centre, because it is the only way that we can drill down beneath the surface of what is being said online and understand who is influencing our politics.

The answers to those questions about what our future relationship should look like will determine how we secure our prosperity for the future.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

Two thirds of my constituents recognise the folly of Brexit, because they realised that 20,000 jobs in Glasgow city depended on the EU, and now they realise that there is an additional £250 on their food bill. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that solidarity is always better than separation, that the unintended consequences of smashing apart our union are evident in the Brexit conversation, and that the optimal arrangement for my constituents in Glasgow South West and for Scotland is to be part of a strong United Kingdom inside a better settlement with the European Union?

[Tony Vaughan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is not what just his constituents think; the polling shows it is what most people across the country think.

My hon. Friend alludes to not just an economic argument but a much wider one about where we belong. I will dwell on the economics, because it is important to start with that. My constituency of Folkestone and Hythe is a good place to look at where things have gone wrong. We are home to the channel tunnel, which is one of the main gateways to Europe; for us, the relationship with Europe directly affects whether lorries move, whether businesses can recruit and whether exports reach customers, as well as whether our young people can seize opportunities abroad.

It is fair to say that Mr McMaster’s case is, above all, an economic one. He argues that our relationship with the EU has made our economy smaller and our trading relationship with our nearest and largest markets more difficult.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

As a former MEP and as MP for one of the youngest constituencies in the country, it is important for me to say on the record that Brexit has been a disaster for young people. Opportunities that the EU offered, such as the ability to live, work and learn alongside our friends in Europe, are now gone, and Brexit’s devastating economic impact has been felt mostly by young people. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a closer relationship with the EU would positively impact our young people, including those in Manchester Rusholme?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree, and that is why it is so vital that progress is made immediately on the youth experience scheme, about which I would be grateful to hear from the Minister later.

Every single economist agrees with Mr McMaster’s assessment that we have been left in a much worse economic position, and the experience of businesses in my constituency is proof that he is right. Alcaline, a major local employer, is an international haulage company that serves customers across Europe. Nearly a quarter of its fleet is currently off the road, not because it lacks work, but because its British drivers can only spend 90 in every 180 days in the Schengen area due to post-Brexit rules and EU drivers are hard to find because they need a work visa and have to deal with all the friction at the UK border. This is a major local business that should be expanding but, because of Brexit rules, is struggling to survive. It is a travesty that haulage firms across the country are going bust because of these kinds of post-Brexit rules.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I am grateful, Sir Edward. I will bear that in mind. I will take a very brief intervention from my hon. Friend and will be sparing thereafter.

[Tulip Siddiq]

On the topic of local businesses, 87% of my constituents voted to remain in the EU, but kitchen designer Neil Lerner told me that he had to close the doors on a family business that had lasted for more than 30 years because of a severe downturn in sales caused by Brexit, a local bakery told me that its paperwork nearly doubled before it closed because of Brexit, and—this is my personal favourite—John Atkins, who ran a flower stall next to the Royal Free hospital for nearly 40 years, said that, because of post-Brexit bureaucracy, the cost of tulips has gone up by 50% since 2020. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that Brexit has made our high streets significantly worse?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will give her a further example—it will be my last. I have a sole trader in my constituency who has for three decades hand-made stringed instruments and exported his craftsmanship across the world. In some years, most of his sales went to the EU, but under post-Brexit rules, one Italian customer had to be charged around €1,000 in import costs on an instrument worth €3,200. That business faces post-Brexit red tape that is making it extremely difficult for him to compete. He describes it as

“nail after nail being hammered into a coffin”

for his business.

We have heard of three different businesses that are in quite different environments but tell the same story: these post-Brexit trading arrangements have added cost, delay and uncertainty to British businesses that should be focusing on investment and growing. How can we be serious about reindustrialising our country while our British manufacturers are being hammered day after day by trading rules that are purely a creature of Brexit? In 2026 we cannot accept that status quo any longer.

I fully support what the Labour Government have been doing to strengthen our ties with Europe—the work on the agrifood agreement, a youth experience scheme, Erasmus+ and a security and defence partnership are useful steps—but the measures that would make the most difference to our country are not in those draft agreements, at least as it appears so far.

Given the need to reindustrialise our nation, the economic challenges that we face, the need to address irregular migration and, most fundamentally, the need for democratic and rule-of-law-respecting states to pull together and stand up for our values against Russia’s vile war of aggression in Ukraine, we cannot, as a country, afford to keep taking small steps away from the disastrous Brexit settlement that we have now. Instead, we should be looking at all the options for fundamentally refreshing our relationship with Europe, which I believe is strongly in the interests of British people, and the Prime Minister is absolutely right to be calling for a more ambitious approach.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Will the hon. and learned Member give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I will take interventions a bit later. I will make some progress.

Many of my constituents who voted to leave the EU, whose decision I respect, agree with me that, 10 years on, the world is changing. Technology is changing, migration flows are changing, our climate is changing, and wars start, spread and are fought differently. All that leaves us as a nation far more exposed to external shocks. I think that most people are pragmatic enough to see that when the world changes it is a good idea to ask ourselves how we should change with it.

As a country, we have formidable strengths: the English language, the rule of law, a trusted legal system, world-class universities, financial and professional services, and leading science and research. Our future economic model should be to combine all those strengths and be the best place in Europe to invent, make, finance and export, but we will not achieve that by keeping rules that make it difficult for manufacturers to access their nearest market, for exporters to sell their goods or for companies to operate across borders.

I want very quickly to say something about asylum and immigration, because it is an important element of why we must have closer relations with Europe. When we left the EU, we lost the returns agreement that we had with it and were left with no returns agreement at all. Small boat crossings then shot up. Today we are left negotiating one-off, ad hoc arrangements with individual countries—most recently with France—which are hard-won but too limited in scope to tackle the problem fully.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I need to press on, because of the time.

We now have no access to the Eurodac fingerprint database, so we do not know how a person has travelled through Europe or whether they have already claimed asylum elsewhere. Despite all those constraints, the Government are making huge strides to reduce irregular crossings, but we could be making infinitely more progress if we were working inside the EU or more closely with it. We need practical co-operation with all our European partners, including action against people-smuggling networks, intelligence sharing and stronger enforcement, all of which will drive a faster, fairer asylum system here at home.

In conclusion, I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to investigate and set out the long-term options for our relationship with Europe, and I urge the Minister to make sure that membership is on the list of possible options. I am also keen to hear from him on the following points. First, what progress are the Government making in securing the agrifood agreement, access to the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—defence loans programme and the youth experience scheme? Secondly, what action are we taking to ensure that British manufacturing does not suffer as a result of the EU’s “Made in Europe” scheme? Thirdly, do the Government see any way forward based on our current—or even future—arrangements to negotiate away the 90/180 rule that has been so devastating to hauliers? Finally, what consideration are the Government giving to levying tariffs on imports of Chinese electric vehicles so that we can have alignment with the EU and protect our domestic car industry?

Mr McMaster, the petitioners, businesses and many people in Folkestone and Hythe who want a closer relationship with Europe are not asking us to turn back wistfully; they are asking for hope again. They are asking for recognition that we are all paying a Brexit bill: our manufacturers, our farmers, our universities, our young people, our hospitality sector—I could go on. Brexit has not served our national interest. The world we now find ourselves in demands new choices about how we can prosper in the years ahead. I thank the petitioner and those who signed the petition and look forward to hearing from colleagues and the Minister about how we move forward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Listening to this debate is amusing, but rather depressing in other ways. There is a heartfelt hope among a great many people here that rejoining the EU would somehow be transformative for the British economy, which they think has done much worse as a result of being outside the EU. [Interruption.] That is the thesis, isn’t it? Let’s look at the facts.

The UK economy has outgrown France and Germany since we left the EU in 2021. In fact, some of our economic growth is a direct result of leaving the EU. We have not over-regulated our tech sector in the way that the EU has, so we are getting the lion’s share of inward investment and far greater gross value added in that sector than France or Germany. Interestingly, the tech sector has been excluded from the EU reset talks.

Before covid, the City of London employed some 500,000 people. Today, over 680,000 people are employed in the City. The financial services sector is booming outside the EU because we have scrapped MiFID II, the bonus cap and regulations on derivatives trading, and all the people who left because of the fear campaign are coming back.

What is the basis for saying the EU has damaged our economy except for these two forecasts, which are conjectural projections and not things that have happened? They are not facts. They are quoted by the OBR and the Treasury and the Prime Minister believes them, and I am sure there is sincere belief in those figures across Westminster Hall today, but they are not facts. The only facts are that the UK economy has grown by 7.9% over that period, while France’s economy has grown by 6.8% and Germany’s economy has grown by only 1.1%. I was not aware that Germany or France had left the EU and that their economies had been damaged by their leaving, but that is the basis on which we are being told that we have damaged our economy.

[Tony Vaughan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

No, I will not give way; I am going to be very brief.

Services exports to the EU have rocketed, because there is no single market in services and we export a huge amount to the EU, as we do to the rest of the world. Overall, our trade has boomed since Brexit; our trade with the EU and the rest of the world combined has grown very substantially.

Does anybody know what proportion of GDP is represented by goods exports to the EU? Hon. Members are quoting all these businesses from their constituencies, but how representative are they of the economy as a whole? The EU may be our single biggest export market, but it represents only 6% of our GDP. Hon. Members are looking very puzzled, because people have brainwashed themselves. They think that trade is the entire economy, but it is not; trade is only a proportion of the economy.

Our trade with the rest of the world has expanded much more in comparison with our period in the single market. For example, between 1997 and 2019, when we were in the single market, goods exports to non-EU countries grew by 85%, but goods exports to the EU fell from 10% to 7.8%. Our exports to the EU were already declining. Why was that? It was because the internal market is a failure. The countries that form the internal market today represented 30% of global GDP when we joined the single market in 1992. These are Library figures that I am citing, by the way; Members can go and check them out. Today, the EU represents 17.3% of global GDP. It is declining; it is losing global share.

The United States had 25% of global GDP in 1992 and it still has 25% of global GDP. Why is that? It is because its economy is much less regulated, it has much lower taxes, it rewards enterprise and risk, and it is not mired in the Code Napoléon and the way of cautiously regulating everything that the EU is. If the EU could deregulate, it would possibly be in our economic interests to join it, but it is incapable of deregulating. Therefore, the case for joining the single market has collapsed in the few minutes in which I have been speaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank all hon. Members for turning up today and speaking in this debate. It is interesting that we have had one Conservative MP, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), a Reform MP—the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) is almost out the door, but I am going to acknowledge him all the same; he has left his colleague the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) in his place—and the shadow Minister speak up to defend the status quo. Their defence of the current Brexit rules referred to evidence that, I think it is fair to say, was selectively referenced and in denial of where the weight of the evidence is.

I will start with the remarks of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, who challenged the idea that Brexit has damaged our economy and referred to the fact that the GDP of other countries is lower than ours. But that is not the point: the comparison is with the situation that we would have had if we had not left the European Union. That point was made earlier. The National Bureau of Economic Research has found that our GDP was 6% to 8% lower by the end of 2025 than it would have been if we had not left the EU. It also found that investment in the UK was 12% to 13% lower, employment was 3% to 4% lower and productivity was 3% to 4% lower; the OBR agrees.

The hon. Member also minimised the significance of individual examples given by numerous hon. Members in this room about Brexit-related red tape and British exporters. But the evidence is clear: our trade volumes are billions less than before Brexit. For example, a study by the LSE found that in 2022, there was £27 billion less in goods exports, which is a 6% reduction compared with the no-Brexit counterfactual, and 14% of firms stopped exporting to the EU altogether after post-Brexit trading arrangements came into force. That research found that smaller firms were particularly affected by those arrangements, whereas larger firms were able to absorb the additional costs. That is what hon. Members are seeing all over the country.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

I fear that the hon. Member’s points have not moved with the evidence, but I will give him a chance to respond.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The logic of the Government’s position is that because Canada sends 75% of its exports to the United States of America, they had better join the United States and give up their sovereignty in order to get rid of barriers to trade. The idea that Canada will become an associate member of the EU and that the EU is going to be able to get a grip of Canada seems rather fanciful, but can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Carney logic about the UK being in the single market does not apply to his own country?

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention but as far as I can see, none of what he said is relevant to the question of whether any of his points are well founded. The evidence is as I have read out. He needs to engage with the weight of the evidence, not the selective examples that those who oppose a closer relationship with Europe ultimately rely on.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I will not. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire, who is not here any more, at least accepted that our exports have been hit by Brexit, but his point was different. He said that where we have used our Brexit freedoms, we are better off. He seemed to be saying that where we do not have alignment, we are doing better. I am afraid that is not correct. UK firms that have to comply with multiple regulatory regimes will obviously incur greater costs to be able to trade with multiple markets. I have heard consistently from businesses that, as all hon. Members have said today, it is where we have no alignment that there have been disastrous consequences for businesses. The 90/180 rule the Minister referred to as being a fixity for now, which was negotiated by the Opposition, is just one example of those problems. Even if there were some benefits from regulatory divergence, they pale in comparison to the damage done to our economy by Brexit, so the thesis of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is wholly unsupported by the weight of the evidence.

The hon. Member also doubted whether the asylum returns agreement we had with the EU was ever used. The fact is that we sent back more people than we took under that agreement until 2016, the year of the Brexit vote, so it was a useful tool for addressing irregular migration. In any event, its absence was relied on and manipulated by smugglers to drum up business. The consequence of that was the boat numbers going up.

I accept that this debate will not end today. It has been a lively debate. I thank the Minister for his remarks and clarifications. I thank the petitioner, Mr McMaster, for creating this opportunity for Parliament to debate this important issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) said, these are conversations that have never gone away. They are constantly brought back to me in my constituency work, as they are for other hon. Members. I hope that, as the Prime Minister said, these conversations will lead to progress on a matter that is at the heart of how to build a prosperous nation for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 749128 relating to the UK applying to rejoin the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend is a true champion for children and young people and families right across his community. He raises an important point. The SEND consultation we have brought forward is a joint document with the Department of Health and Social Care, because we know that this is about having a system that better responds not only to children’s educational needs when they are in school, but to wider health needs. That is why our Experts at Hand initiative will make sure there is better, targeted specialist support for all children who need it, avoiding the lengthy waits, the arduous process and the adversarial system that too many parents have to endure at the moment.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

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

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)]

From this month, employers can publish new voluntary action plans to tackle the gender pay gap and support women in the workplace going through the menopause, which is a vital step forward in improving workplace equality. We are working with employers and encouraging them to take the meaningful actions we know can work. With our women’s health strategy, the landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, stronger protections for maternity and pregnant women, and expanded childcare, this Government are supporting women to thrive at work.

[Tony Vaughan]

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?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I completely agree that we must ensure that women and trans people feel safe and are protected from harassment. We will treat everyone with the dignity and respect they deserve, because those are our values, and that is made clear in the Equality Act 2010. We have also been clear that we expect duty bearers to follow the Supreme Court ruling, and to seek legal advice where necessary. I recently received an updated code of practice from the EHRC. I am grateful to it for its work. My intention is to lay the draft code before Parliament in May, as soon as possible after the election period.

Middle East

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am not trying to pick divisions between our allies on this. I was presented with a different scenario: whether we should accede to two requests in relation to action to be taken. That is different and it requires careful consideration of both the lawful basis and the viable plan. That is the basis on which I took the two decisions that fell to me. Different decisions fall to other Prime Ministers.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. I assure him that we have been and will continue to take all necessary action to safeguard those interests in relation to this case.

China and Japan

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

Sixty per cent of motors used to cross the channel are coming from China, so of course it is right to engage appropriately in China on this issue, and to get this agreement on information sharing and working to ensure that those engines cannot make their way from China to the north coast of France.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. Of course, technological advancement in AI is going to change the way that the Government work, and the way that all of us work, but the key thing about the publication of UK Research and Innovation’s document this afternoon is that it is implementing a record £86 billion-worth of investment over the spending review period—the largest ever investment in research and development. We have to trust UKRI and this Government to put that money into the places that will benefit the country most, and that means more jobs in more communities all over the country.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)]

This Government are determined to ensure that young people can seize the opportunities that AI brings. That is why we are giving 1 million secondary school pupils skills in tech and AI as part of our TechFirst skills programme. It is why we are replacing the currently over-narrow computer science GCSE and exploring a new qualification in data science and AI for 16 to 18-year-olds, so that we can tear down the barriers to success and give young people the chances and choices they deserve to get the jobs of the future.

[Tony Vaughan]

Research commissioned by DSIT estimates that by 2035 approximately 10 million UK workers will be in jobs where AI will be part of their responsibilities. PwC estimates that 18% of existing UK jobs face a high probability of automation by 2035, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that young people in my constituency are well prepared for the integration of AI into their daily working lives, so that we can minimise the chances of unemployment in the future?

Digital ID

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the petitioner, Mr Sutcliff, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate.

The issue of digital identification has certainly added to my postbag in recent months. Many of my constituents’ concerns are real, legitimate and understandable. They include data security, the cost of the scheme, the potential for infringements of the right to liberty, the creation of a “papers, please” society, the chance of ID theft and fraud, and concerns about accessibility for all, as about 1.5 million people in this country are digitally excluded.

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

Not at the moment.

Six per cent of the population do not have access to smartphones. Pensioners, the disabled and the homeless could be particularly affected. I believe it is vital that the Minister and the Government listen carefully to those concerns and that they be heard during the public consultation, which will begin in the new year. I will be making my representations; I urge my constituents to do so too.

I want to make two points about why, in principle, I support the idea of digital identification. First, I believe that a digital credential has the potential to make an individual citizen’s day-to-day life easier and more convenient. In a world where we already pay, bank and travel digitally, book and manage GP appointments digitally, file our tax returns digitally and access many public services digitally, the argument for secure, universal digital credentials to replace multiple forms of verification is highly appealing. It would be more secure than many citizens’ existing password systems. My dad would remember his early attempts at passwords, such as “password123”, later improved to “Sausages123” —with a capital S for added security.

The most important point is that I believe that digital ID will strengthen right-to-work checks. One reason why that is important is to fight back against the epidemic of organised crime across our country. I was in one high street in my constituency a couple of weeks ago where three vape and tobacco shops have sprung up over the last few months selling £5 packs of cigarettes, which are obviously illegal. I was told that it takes His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, trading standards and the police to shut one of them down, and that even when they do, it reopens in a few hours.

We should be making it easier for the state immediately to verify a person’s right to work. If the police need to probe someone’s right to work, they have no ability to do so on the spot. We need to make it easier for the state to check someone’s right to work.

[Wendy Morton]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that mandatory ID would realistically stop these problem shops on the high street?

[Tony Vaughan]

If it is possible for the police to verify, in that moment, whether a person has a right to work, that will assist. The details are not there, but I am making the point that it is open to consultation. I am not here to defend the position of the Government; I am here to say that, in principle, the position has not been set out, because they are consulting on it.

Let me come back to the point, because it is really important, and the Conservative party is not engaging with it at all. If the police do not have access to right-to-work data in the moment, it makes it harder to close down these entities. No one is explaining that there is a power, because there simply is not.

[Martin Wrigley]

Is the hon. Member proposing that the police should have the right to demand access to the digital ID to prove right to work on the spot? [Interruption.]

[Martin Wrigley]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think that the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) has just asked for the police to have the right to demand digital ID on the spot—therefore, “Papers, please.”

[Tony Vaughan]

I am afraid that that is not the scenario I was setting out. I was trying to be helpful by identifying the fact that, if a vape shop is selling £5 cigarettes, they are obviously unlawful, so there is reason to probe further, but the police do not have the ability to verify right to work. Obviously the state should, in that scenario, where there is already a basis to look further—but I am not trying to say that this scheme is entirely fine.

I started my speech by identifying the legitimate concerns of my constituents and many other people. It is vital that we look at the details of everything that is proposed and ultimately have a consultation that listens to the concerns expressed, so that the policy ends up reflecting the positive benefits that I think we can get from such a system—if we get the details right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

“Why are they needed when we already have secure ways to identify ourselves?”

“This is being pushed under the façade of security.”

“The cost to the taxpayer would be prohibitive.”

“This system would be incredibly vulnerable to hacking.”

Those direct quotes from my constituents get to the heart of the point: unnecessary; overreach; vulnerable; and expensive. Nearly 5,000 people in South Northamptonshire signed the petition to oppose the Government’s plans for digital IDs. This Government really are the living embodiment of the famous phrase:

“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well, I have others.”

First, they sold the measure as a means of tackling illegal migration, but that principle has barely been mentioned in recent weeks. Now digital IDs will become the requirement for right to work checks in the UK, which may require children as young as 13 to be involved. Talk about the creeping hand of the state!

[Tony Vaughan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Bool]

If time permitted, I would happily take an intervention from any Government Member on where it was in the Labour manifesto that such a measure would be included, or if any member of the Government could actually tell us how much the scheme would cost. But I will save them the trouble, because it was not and they do not know.

The OBR has said that there has been no specific funding identified for the scheme, and it is forecast to cost £1.8 billion over the next three years. We have a Government drowning in Budget leaks and accidentally releasing prisoners left, right and centre, so how can they be trusted to create a system of ID? Any such system requires absolute buy-in from all our constituents, and we can see that the very reason we are having this debate today is that the Government have not secured that buy-in. This is a really dangerous gimmick from the Government. The devil is in the detail, and without that detail the devil is at play and the British public will pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point that we have to take into consideration. The Minister will not be able to give anyone the reassurance they deserve, which is why many of our constituents are so upset about this.

Let us be very clear about the reason we are here. The fundamental issue is that a beleaguered Prime Minister has rolled out this gimmick as nothing more than a way to stop the boats. The fact of the matter is that since Labour came into government, we have had 62,000 illegal crossings. The ID that we have in place already has not stopped them, and neither will digital ID. This gimmick has not fooled voters, and it did not fool the 3 million people who signed the petition. They can see clearly through it. First and foremost, our constituents require honesty. This will not stop the boats.

I also want to address a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) about shops selling illegal vapes. Mechanisms for IDs are already in place, but that is still happening, so digital ID will not stop it either. What he was arguing for, whether he knew it or not, was overarching powers of intervention for the police into the private accounts of private individuals. That is the only way in which they will be able to intervene. What they need to do is investigate, like they always do.

[Tony Vaughan]

My specific example was about where an individual has a £5 packet of cigarettes that is obviously unlawful. The police have no power at all to demand right-to-work checks in that situation. Why do the Opposition oppose that principle?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Let me address that point. The problem that the hon. Gentleman poses will not be solved by digital ID—I fundamentally disagree with him about that—because HMRC already has the powers to investigate people selling illegal cigarettes, as do the police. That is why the Government have lauded the fact that there were raids just a few months ago, and closures of some of these shops. He is creating a straw-man argument that is not solved by digital ID.

Let us be under no illusion about this proposal. It opens the door to tyranny, whether it is tyranny today or tyranny tomorrow. The Minister cannot confirm that a future Government—a future Labour Government, perhaps, if that is even possible—will not take advantage of digital ID.

China Spying Case

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

As far as I can remember, the Attorney General told the House of Lords yesterday that 3 September was when he was informed that there were evidential difficulties with the case. The key point is that he had no power to intervene, because of the memorandum between the Attorney General’s Office and the CPS. The Attorney General does not get involved in evidential sufficiency.

[Alex Burghart]

Ministers do get involved; it is their job to be involved. Ministers represent the Government. Ministers represent all of us. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are entirely powerless in this instance—they are not.

A fifth example is that yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary said that he did not believe that the chief of MI5 had described China as a threat. On 16 October 2025, Ken McCallum said:

“Do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat? And the answer is, of course, yes they do every day.”

How on earth did the Cabinet Secretary not know that? This issue is of paramount importance. There are many other such examples.

The Government have an opportunity to be clear with us today, not just about the meetings and the dealings of the past six months, but on their position as it stands. Will the Minister tell us what the material difference is between “a range of threats” and “an active security threat”? The deputy National Security Adviser was keen to make that point yesterday. Perhaps most importantly of all, do the Government believe that China is an active security threat? If not, what would it take to cross that threshold? It is time for the Government to publish all the details so that we can see what really happened here.

I know that the Government will protest their innocence and claim that it is all the fault of the CPS, or the last Government, or the legislation, just as they have tried to do for weeks, but such pleas and protests are no good reason for them to refuse to publish the material we are requesting today. This House may have been spied upon. This House has a right to straight answers. This House has a right to see under the bonnet when the safety and privacy of its Members may have been compromised. This House has a right to know the Government’s real position and the Government’s real agenda. If this Government have nothing to hide, they should hide nothing from this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow]

Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I will not—too short of time.

There was nothing to prevent that because it was a question of fact. The fact is that the Government were not prepared to change their approach. It is a perfectly legitimate point for the right hon. Member for Torfaen to say to me, “Back in 2021, the policy of the Government was not to describe China as an enemy,” but at that time, we had not had the spying, the intimidation, and the direct targeting of this institution and the democratic assembly of our people that we have now seen by 2025. Things have moved on, and it was incumbent upon the Government to reconsider their approach, which was that they would not describe a duck as a duck. The witness was prepared to say, “It has webbed feet, it swims, it quacks, it has a bill—but we are not prepared to call it a duck.”

Are you telling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman can look this House in the eye and say that nobody raised this problem inside No. 10 and said, “We have a policy problem. It is a roadblock to this case. What are we going to do about it?”? Is he saying that that was never discussed with the National Security Adviser, that the DNSA never raised that with any relevant Minister? The Attorney General, when he met on 3 September, said, “Well, I couldn’t intervene on matters of sufficiency of evidence.” That is perfectly true; he cannot intervene, but he could challenge. He could say, “What do you need? Is there anything I can do by way of intercession with ministries to ensure that you get the evidence that you require?” But nothing was said. Nothing was said on 3 September because “nothing” was the policy of the Government. It was to wait while this case slid down the slope straight into the pan where no doubt many of the, not inaptly named, mandarins of Whitehall were perfectly content to see it slide.

There is extraordinary cheek in the right hon. Gentleman, who came to this House four or five years ago with his Humble Address when he asked for legal advice—advice on the most sensitive negotiating matters that this country was engaged in with the Berlaymont—to be disclosed for all to see, now saying that we should not see the truth of what in reality the Government were saying and doing at the time.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is almost certainly a duck, and when I apply it to what the right hon. Gentleman says, it is almost certainly a complete crock of old—

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

The wording in that statement was put in there to provide wider context of the situation, but as I have said many times, and I will keep saying it, that wording is provided independently by the DNSA without any involvement from Ministers or political advisers.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Were you in at the beginning?

[Tony Vaughan]

No.

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t bother wasting my time then.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

On 14 May, the Government announced the launch of new thematic campuses in Aberdeen and Manchester and the closure of 11 buildings, and reaffirmed the commitment on relocating 50% of senior roles outside London, which I just mentioned. The hon. Lady says these are vast commitments, but I think we need to go faster. Reform of the state is essential, and those commitments will not be the end of civil service and state reform.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his answer. Given that he leads on UK-EU relations, will he outline how the Cabinet Office will ensure that the new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will reduce the level of checks on goods at both the Eurotunnel terminal in Folkstone, in my constituency, and the Port of Dover, and improve the flow of trade? What steps are being taken to further break down barriers to trade in goods with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. and learned Friend is a powerful advocate for his constituents in Folkestone and Hythe. The SPS agreement will remove routine border checks and certification, including for goods travelling through Folkestone and the Port of Dover. It will mean that fresh produce will hit supermarket shelves more quickly, with less paperwork and fewer costs.

EU Trading Relationship

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on calling this important debate, which I am pleased about; as Members of Parliament, it is not often that we get a chance to speak so clearly about what we do to represent our constituents’ interests and the British interest.

Our job as Members of Parliament is to keep our country strong and secure, with a strong economy and strong defence, and to provide opportunity to everyone, not least our young people. That is what this debate is about: promoting the British interest. That lies at the heart of why we need to get a better deal from the European Union that gets growth for our country in the swiftest way possible, at a time when this Government are so committed to growth, by lowering the barriers and removing the red tape that have come out of the hopeless deal patched together so feebly by the last Government.

As has been said, we especially need to lower the barriers for small and medium-sized firms, which have been hit the hardest. I think of the specialist wine importer in my constituency that has to pay an extra £160 for every shipment.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Following the Tory Brexit deal, we have seen lorries backing up from Dover, through my constituency and deep into Kent now that we have customs and immigration checks. Does my hon. Friend agree that a deal to eliminate barriers on food and drink being exported to the EU would help to reduce friction at Dover and throughout our road network?

[Ben Coleman]

I absolutely agree. We need a veterinary agreement to improve the situation in our country. I agree with the proposal to allow British bands and creatives to tour more easily and that we should have more mutual recognition of professional qualifications to support our service industries. We should be as ambitious as we can. We should therefore start talking about a deal to end regulatory divergence, so that companies do not have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on two sets of standards and two sets of testing regimes.

The situation we face as a result of the deal that the Conservative Government negotiated is not patriotism: it is self-sabotage, and we need to do something about it. Part of that is about us needing to do more to give opportunity to our young people, which is why I support having a controlled youth visa scheme that provides just that opportunity.

Finally, I turn to defence, which some of my colleagues have mentioned. The UK has a huge role to play in the defence of our continent; I do not think any European countries doubt that. It is clearly in all our interests across Europe for the UK and the European Union to sign a new security agreement. We need stronger defence and new jobs in the UK and right across the continent, and that is why our Government must be absolutely clear with some other countries in the European Union. Defence and security co-operation are too fundamental to dealing with the challenges that our countries face, and they must be decoupled from other political negotiations. They are too important to be tied to debates about fishing rights or quotas.

We need cool-headed, determined and ambitious negotiations with the European Union that back Britain. In that way, we can get the better deal that my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham and the British people deserve.