Earlier this month, Kent Local News published the full record of how each of Kent’s 18 MPs voted on a proposed national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. In fairness, we then wrote to every one of those MPs and invited them to explain or comment on their vote. This is what came back — and it is a short list.

Of the 18 MPs we contacted, exactly one replied with a substantive explanation of how they voted. Twelve sent automated acknowledgements confirming their office had received the email. Five did not respond at all. And most striking of all: not one of the ten Kent MPs who voted against the amendment offered an explanation in their own words.

A reminder of the vote

The vote, on 8 January 2025, was on a Conservative “reasoned amendment” to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which called for a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. It was defeated by 364 votes to 111. Among Kent’s MPs, ten voted against it, two did not vote, and six voted in favour — the full breakdown, name by name, is set out in our original report.

Crucially, the story did not end there. The Government later reversed its position and, in June 2025, established a full national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs, now chaired by Baroness Longfield. The inquiry the amendment called for is, in other words, now under way.

The one MP who answered

The single substantive reply came from Mike Martin, the Liberal Democrat MP for Tunbridge Wells — one of the two Kent MPs recorded as not voting. In a detailed statement, he explained that he abstained deliberately, and why.

“The sexual abuse of children is the most horrific of crimes,” he began. “Tangible action is needed to stop child sexual exploitation in all its forms… Therefore, I welcome the Government’s decision to establish an Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs led by Baroness Longfield.”

On the vote itself, Mr Martin was blunt about why he did not back the Conservative amendment:

“A reasoned amendment is a wrecking motion. Had it passed, it would have instantly killed the entire Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. This would have wiped out critical progress on children’s safeguarding and social care measures contained in the Bill. Furthermore, a reasoned amendment is a non-binding expression of opinion. The Tories’ amendment carried no power to force the Government to launch an inquiry. Using the victims of this horrific scandal as a political football for a cynical stunt was shameful.”

“Because the Conservative amendment was a dangerous legislative trap designed to kill a vital safeguarding bill, the Liberal Democrats refused to engage with it, and I abstained from the vote,” he said.

He also pointed to the earlier seven-year Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: “An inquiry into child sexual abuse chaired by Professor Alexis Jay has already happened. It lasted seven years and brought forward 20 recommendations to better protect children. When the Conservatives were in power, they failed to make any progress in implementing these recommendations. Instead of backing their reasoned amendment, the Liberal Democrats tabled our own amendment at Committee Stage calling for the recommendations of the Jay inquiry to be implemented in full.”

Those characterisations — a “cynical stunt”, “shameful”, a “dangerous legislative trap” — are Mr Martin’s own words, reported here as his stated position. Kent Local News does not adopt them. For balance, the Conservatives who tabled the amendment — including Kent’s own Laura Trott, who moved it — have consistently argued the opposite: that it was a genuine attempt to force a national inquiry that the then-government was resisting. None of Kent’s Conservative MPs responded to our invitation to restate that case in their own words.

The silence from the rest

Every MP was given the same opportunity, and the same seven days, to comment. Twelve offices sent automated replies acknowledging receipt but no further response followed. Five MPs — Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) and Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe), both Labour, and Conservatives Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich), Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) and Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) — did not reply at all.

It is only fair to note that MPs receive a very high volume of correspondence, and that a non-reply is not the same as a refusal. But it is equally fair to observe that a vote on whether to hold a national inquiry into the sexual abuse of children is not a routine matter — and that, of the ten Kent MPs who voted the amendment down, none has yet been willing to explain that decision to their constituents in their own words.

The invitation stays open — and a word on what is at stake

Kent Local News takes no party-political position on this, and we do not pretend to. But we make no apology for holding one principle above the party fray: the protection of children from sexual exploitation is paramount, and it must never be subordinated to political advantage of any colour. It is a matter of national shame that this evil was allowed to go unchecked for so long, and that so many victims were failed for so many years while it did. That children are still being groomed and exploited today is not a reason for less scrutiny of our lawmakers, but for more.

Reasonable people can argue about the mechanics of any single Commons vote — and, as Mr Martin’s response shows, they do. But the principle beneath it is not complicated, and in our view no procedural argument should ever be allowed to obscure it. A vote on how the state confronts the organised sexual abuse of children is not an ordinary vote, and every MP who casts one should weigh, soberly, what it means for the victims — past, present, and those not yet spared. The very least those victims are owed is that the people elected to represent this county be willing to explain, in their own words, the choices made in their name.

To date, only one of Kent’s eighteen MPs has done so. The invitation remains open, and we will publish any further response we receive, in full.

Sources