When the House of Commons voted on a proposal for a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs, ten of Kent’s eighteen MPs voted against it, and two did not vote at all. Six — every single one of them a Conservative — voted in favour.

The vote took place on 8 January 2025 and has become one of the most bitterly contested moments of this Parliament. Kent Local News has gone through the official parliamentary record constituency by constituency, so that every voter in the county can see exactly how the person who represents them voted. The full list is below.

What the vote actually was

On 8 January 2025 the House of Commons debated the second reading of the government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Conservatives tabled a “reasoned amendment” — moved by Sevenoaks MP and shadow education secretary Laura Trott — which would have declined to give the Bill its second reading and instead called on the government to establish “a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”

The amendment was defeated by 364 votes to 111. It’s recorded as Commons Division 74. Worth being precise about what the vote actually meant: those who voted for the amendment were backing an immediate national inquiry; those who voted against were voting to give the schools Bill its second reading, and the government argued a fresh inquiry was unnecessary because the earlier seven-year Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse had already reported. Readers can weigh that argument for themselves — but the recorded vote is a matter of public record, and it’s set out in full here.

How Kent’s MPs voted

Voted AGAINST the national inquiry amendment (10):

  • Ashford — Sojan Joseph (Labour)
  • Canterbury — Rosie Duffield (Independent; elected as Labour in 2024)
  • Chatham and Aylesford — Tristan Osborne (Labour)
  • Dartford — Jim Dickson (Labour)
  • Dover and Deal — Mike Tapp (Labour)
  • East Thanet — Polly Billington (Labour)
  • Gillingham and Rainham — Naushabah Khan (Labour)
  • Gravesham — Lauren Sullivan (Labour)
  • Rochester and Strood — Lauren Edwards (Labour)
  • Sittingbourne and Sheppey — Kevin McKenna (Labour)

Did not vote (2):

  • Folkestone and Hythe — Tony Vaughan (Labour)
  • Tunbridge Wells — Mike Martin (Liberal Democrat)

Voted FOR the national inquiry amendment (6):

  • Faversham and Mid Kent — Helen Whately (Conservative)
  • Herne Bay and Sandwich — Sir Roger Gale (Conservative)
  • Maidstone and Malling — Helen Grant (Conservative)
  • Sevenoaks — Laura Trott (Conservative), who moved the amendment
  • Tonbridge — Tom Tugendhat (Conservative)
  • Weald of Kent — Katie Lam (Conservative)

A note on the two who did not vote

A recorded “did not vote” isn’t the same as a deliberate refusal. The parliamentary record can’t distinguish a planned abstention from an absence for illness, a formal “pairing” arrangement, or other duties. In this case the Liberal Democrats abstained as a party on the amendment, so the non-vote by Tunbridge Wells MP Mike Martin reflects that party position — straightforward enough. The non-vote by Folkestone and Hythe MP Tony Vaughan is a different matter: a Labour member whose colleagues were trooping through the “No” lobby, his absence is simply what the official record shows. His office, like all those named here, has been invited to explain.

The government later changed its mind

The story didn’t end there. After sustained public pressure and an audit by Baroness Louise Casey, the Prime Minister reversed the government’s position on 14 June 2025 and announced a full national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs — the very thing the January amendment had called for. On 9 December 2025 the Home Secretary appointed Baroness Anne Longfield to chair it, under the Inquiries Act 2005, with a budget of up to £65 million over three years.

The inquiry the Commons declined to order in January now exists.

That reversal is central context, and it cuts both ways. Supporters of the MPs who voted “No” point out the inquiry is now happening regardless; critics ask why it took a defeated amendment, an audit and five months of pressure to get there. Both points are fair. Neither cancels the other out.

Why we are publishing this

How your MP votes on a question of child protection is not a private matter. It’s the public record of a public servant, and constituents are entitled to see it plainly. Kent Local News takes no party position on how anyone should have voted — our job is to report accurately what happened and let the people of Kent judge for themselves. Every MP named in this article has been contacted and invited to comment, and any response we receive will be published in full in a follow-up.

Sources

IMPRESS regulator