Oral Answers to Questions
Helen Hayes Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
That is a characteristically good idea from the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I will discuss it with my Cabinet colleagues.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The terms of reference for the Public Health England report on covid-19 disparities promised recommendations for further action to reduce disparities in risk and outcomes, yet the report did not include a single recommendation. The Government have since announced that the equality hub in the Cabinet Office will review existing actions, commission further data and undertake further engagement. I ask the Minister: where is the urgency? On what date will we see a clear, detailed action plan to stop further preventable deaths and address the appalling inequality of this pandemic? When will the Government demonstrate, with their actions, that black lives matter by putting in place the protections that black, Asian and minority ethnic workers and communities need to keep them safe from coronavirus?
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill
Helen Hayes ExcerptsTuesday 2nd June 2020
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 View all Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I would like to thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate this afternoon. My particular thanks go to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for their speeches, which demonstrated their depth of commitment both to democratic representation and to the communities they serve, and raised important issues about the detail of this Bill.
Several Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester and for Pontypridd, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), raised important points about the impact of this legislation on representation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Strong devolved representation within the nations is critical to the integrity of our United Kingdom. A Bill that reduces the number of parliamentary constituencies in the devolved nations while increasing the number of English seats risks putting further strain on the integrity of the Union. I hope that the Leader of the House will address that point directly when he responds to the debate.
Members from all parties agree that the periodic review of constituency boundaries is a vital part of our representative democracy, and that this review is long overdue. It is our constituencies that give shape and meaning to our democratic process, and they ensure that the concerns of each part of our diverse United Kingdom are given voice and representation. For that reason, it is crucial that long-held community ties form the basis of constituency boundaries, bringing together communities that share common interests and needs. That point was made well by a number of hon. Members who spoke of the risk of villages being split or severed from the towns that they rely on. These things matter to our communities. It is therefore extremely disappointing that the Government have again refused to compromise on the issue of the 5% electoral tolerance. What response can the Leader of the House provide to the apolitical academic experts who have highlighted the restrictive and damaging impact that the 5% quota will have on constituency boundaries? Just a slight widening of the electoral quota to 7.5%, as supported by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, will vastly improve the geographic and community coherence of new boundaries and as a result ensure better representation for communities.
When the Government introduced the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in 2010, a pre-legislative inquiry heard evidence from several witnesses that the proposed number of 600 constituencies chosen by the Government was not based on clear evidence. The Hansard Society told the Committee that the number had been
“plucked from thin air—600 simply being a neat number.”
The Government have now made a U-turn on that arbitrary number but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) mentioned, the 2013 review based on 600 constituencies cost the taxpayer in the region of £700 million, and the 2018 review is likely to have a cost of upwards of £8 million. Does the Leader of the House accept that the Government’s political indecision has been a waste of taxpayers’ money? Will he clarify for the record how much the 2018 boundary review cost?
Many Members have raised the issue of the alarming removal of parliamentary oversight from the process. Parliament has an important role to play as an emergency backstop to prevent power grabs by the Executive, but the Tories are attempting to remove that backstop, thereby threatening serious unforeseen consequences for the future of our democratic process. Such a move is of deep concern for the integrity of our parliamentary democracy. In response to concerns, the Government assert that removing Parliament from the process will ensure that the boundary commissions’ reports will be implemented without interference from either Government or Parliament, but that is not strictly true. The Government make the legislation that instructs the boundary review process, and Ministers have already taken political advantage of the process by creating a loophole in the Bill. Without parliamentary oversight, the handbrake that previously prevented the Tories from removing 50 MPs on an entirely arbitrary basis no longer exists. If passed, the new legislation will allow the Tories to force through reductions to the number of MPs without any backstop in place to prevent it.
We are talking about a Government found by the highest court in this land to have unlawfully shut down Parliament, suspending democratic accountability and attempting to gag democratic opposition. This is not hyperbole or idle speculation; it happened just last year. In such a context, there can be no guarantee that Ministers will not take advantage of the silencing of Parliament in favour of strengthening their own Executive power. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will not simply use the loophole to force through a reduction in the number of constituencies, or any other changes that are not included in the Bill, further down the line?
My final point is about the electoral registration dataset on which this review will be based. We are currently facing exceptional circumstances. I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that the 2020 electoral register will be heavily affected by the current coronavirus crisis, but this is still the enumeration date set out on the face of the Bill. We cannot expect local councils to do the proactive outreach work that is needed to maintain an up-to-date and fully accurate register while providing an emergency response to a global pandemic. The costs of fighting coronavirus have taken an immense financial toll on councils, and they now face a £10 billion funding gap, which the Government are unwilling to fill. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will accept an amendment to the enumeration date to December 2019? This pragmatic change—in the context of a review for which we have waited 20 years, taking place in unprecedented circumstances—will avoid the new constituency boundaries being based on an incomplete and potentially unrepresentative register.
The Labour party supports the democratic principle of the boundary review, but the Government must consider the implications of the restrictive 5% tolerance along with the 1 December 2020 enumeration date. We remain deeply concerned about the removal of parliamentary oversight from a process that has always had this scrutiny. I encourage Members from across the House to support the reasoned amendment and to reject the continued centralisation of power in the hands of the Executive at the expense of Parliament.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Helen Hayes ExcerptsFriday 20th December 2019
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank voters in my constituency for re-electing me to serve as their Member of Parliament. It is an honour to represent one of the most diverse constituencies in the country. In 2016 it voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, and, in my experience, the strength of my constituents’ pro-EU views has only grown over the past three years.
The vast majority of my constituents did not vote to “get Brexit done”, and my mandate from them is to keep standing up for our values in Dulwich and West Norwood and to champion their interests. Our values are those of outward-facing internationalism, a celebration of diversity and community solidarity. These are the values that underpin our support for membership of the EU and these are the values that lead us to be deeply concerned about Brexit and this Government’s reckless approach to it.
Our values lead us to be concerned about the protections people are afforded in their workplace, the protection of our environment and our response to the climate emergency. They lead us to prioritise human rights and to be concerned about how Governments are held to account for human rights abuses which happen on their watch. And they lead us to be concerned about refugees and to want the UK to play a full role in responding to the global refugee crisis by welcoming people who have lost everything and helping them to rebuild their lives. Indeed, many of my constituents are already playing their part through community sponsorship groups and they want to see the Government doing the same.
We are dismayed to see in the Bill the Government jettison their previous commitment to the Dubs amendment on child refugees and the non-regression clauses, which were designed to ensure that the UK does not move backwards on workers’ rights relative to the EU—or at least that if the Government did so it would be completely transparent and they could be held to account. In relation to human rights, the previous Government removed the UK’s commitment to the charter of fundamental rights. The Bill further waters down the commitment to the European convention on human rights, and the political declaration makes no mention of rights previously protected by the EU charter of fundamental rights. There is a real risk that hard-won rights fought for over hundreds of years could be watered down by this or any other future Government.
The Prime Minister’s reckless approach to the implementation period is nothing short of a disgrace. There is not a shred of evidence that a trade deal with the EU can be secured within a year. The EU says it cannot. All trade deal precedents indicate that it cannot. Yet the Prime Minister seeks to enshrine in law the UK’s crashing out of the EU with no trade deal in just a year’s time. Brexit will not be done; it will be doing its worst to communities up and down the country. Jobs will be lost and lives left devastated if we crash out in a year’s time. I urge newly elected Government Members to reflect very carefully on what exactly this will mean for the communities they represent, and to heed the warnings of UK manufacturers about the dependence of supply chains on our membership of the single market and customs union.
None of this is hypothetical. It is about the ability of thousands of people to go to work in secure, well-paid jobs that keep a roof over their family’s head. It is about the rights of working people to holiday pay, maternity and parental leave, sick pay and protection from discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that, actually, in many cases UK standards are higher than those of the European Union? I am very confused as to why Opposition Members keep using the EU as a gold standard when actually it is the UK that is the gold standard.
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not accept that that is the case. Nor do I accept that the Bill does anything other than leave those rights to the mercy of any future Government. I do not trust this Prime Minister to maintain the standards we have derived from the EU.
It is about the protection of our woodlands, rivers and coastal habitats at a time when the environment could not be more important. It is about the practical expression of our values in the way that we treat the world’s most vulnerable children.
I understand that the Prime Minister has a majority that means he will pass the Bill and we will leave the European Union, but my constituents will not be denied a voice in that debate. Make no mistake: the Bill will deliver nothing but damage to the UK on many fronts. I will oppose it, I will stand up for my constituents’ values and interests, and I will hold the Government to account for the consequences of their reckless actions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Helen Hayes Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn
Those were memorable occasions. There was courage and determination in support of the families and those who were bereaved, but there was also a strong determination to make sure that Grenfell never happens again anywhere else.
I think that the Grenfell survivors are the heroes of all this. When people go through a tragedy, the natural human instinct is to put it behind them, move away and do something else if they have that choice or opportunity. The survivors have not done that; they have stayed in the community and kept that community together, in order that the rest of us might learn the lesson of the pain they went through.
The limited scope of the inquiry was agreed by the Government. The fact that phase 1 looked only at what happened on the night of 14 June is important, because many questions inevitably remain unanswered and the recommendations do not cover the range of issues that need urgent action from Ministers. The Prime Minister talked about the whole truth, but sadly the whole truth is not yet with us.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
One of the unanswered questions for phase 2 of the inquiry relates to the types of flammable cladding that are out there on buildings right now. The Government’s response to date has focused solely on ACM-type cladding. There has been a failure both to acknowledge fully that there are other types of cladding that might be just as flammable and just as much of a risk, and to commission an adequate range of tests so that building owners and residents can know what is on their buildings and what response is required. Will my right hon. Friend join me in calling on the Government urgently and ahead of the second phase of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report to address comprehensively the range of flammable cladding that is still putting residents at risk?
Prime Minister’s Statement
Helen Hayes Excerpts(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for everything that he has done for Northern Ireland. I think he would agree that the one thing that would really make a difference now to all those policy fields in Northern Ireland, and take Northern Ireland furthest forward the fastest, would be if we could get the Stormont Assembly up and running again and if the parties came together for government in Northern Ireland once more.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
At any point in the past three years, the Government could have agreed to internationally binding legal commitments to maintain existing workers’ rights and environmental protections and ensure that rights keep pace in the future. At every stage, they have refused to do so. Can the Prime Minister explain why people across this country should believe his empty promises now? If he is so confident that the British public will not see through his hollow rhetoric, why is he so afraid of giving them a final say?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady will know that the provisions on workers’ rights and environmental protections in the political decision are very ambitious. We want to maintain the highest possible standards. She should understand that whenever the EU introduces a new provision on workers’ rights, even if it is in some way inferior to our own by then, Parliament will have an opportunity to consider that new provision from the EU and put it into UK law.
Principles of Democracy and the Rights of the Electorate
Helen Hayes Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
In Dulwich and West Norwood, 77% of people voted to remain in the EU—the seventh highest pro-remain vote in the country. My constituents are not remoaners; they are not anti-democratic. They are citizens with deeply held and sincere convictions. Yet since June 2016, 77% of my constituents and 48% of voters across the country have been told that we must be quiet and that our views no longer count. We have been told to be silent in the face of the Government’s own evidence that Brexit will harm the UK economy. We have been told to be silent as we raise important questions about the future of scientific research, the supply of medicines, the regulation of chemicals and the future of trade. We have been told to be silent as we raise grave concerns—not discussed at all during the referendum campaign—about the impact of Brexit on the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland. We have been told to be silent as we have raised concerns about the increase in hate crime and the anxiety of EU nationals living in our communities.
The continual dismissal and denigration of the views of 48% of UK voters—77% of my constituents—has been extraordinary. It is not how Governments should, or usually do, behave in a democracy.
In 2016, faced with a very narrow result, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) had the opportunity to define Brexit in a way that reached across the divide—in a way that took seriously both the result of the advisory referendum and the concerns of almost half of those who voted about the impact of Brexit on our economy, security, rights and access to medicines. Instead she spent six months saying nothing but “Brexit means Brexit”, while the right of the Tory party, and Nigel Farage, moved into the vacuum and defined Brexit as the hardest, most extreme Brexit possible.
It is a principle of democracy that we all seek to win the argument—that we seek to provide evidence to justify a position, to reassure and persuade those who disagree with us, and ultimately to achieve a mandate to proceed. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead put her Tory-party-facing version of Brexit to the people in 2017, and they took away her majority and her mandate.
In this context, it is no surprise that my constituents’ pro-remain views and their deep fears about what Brexit will mean for them, and for our country as a whole, have only grown and strengthened, these past three years. The Government have done nothing to reassure them; nothing to provide evidence that their concerns are unfounded; nothing to prove that they respect and take seriously their values and their views. Instead we have a Prime Minister who is facing down his opponents with the language of hate, a Government who have failed to provide any assurance that our communities—
Mr Seely
I do not quite understand how the hon. Lady can keep talking about the language of hate when I have just given her examples of the abuse that Labour MPs are putting out there about their opponents, and also material from the Labour party conference, which I presume that she may have been at, where she sees the abuse from extremists aimed at moderate Labour party MPs. The abuse is coming from the left.
Helen Hayes
To be absolutely clear, the reference to a surrender Bill—the language of “traitors”, the language of “surrender”—is the language of war, and that is being used by our Prime Minister, in an utterly irresponsible and reckless way.
As I was saying, the Government have done nothing to prove that they respect and take seriously the values and views of my constituents. We have a Government who have failed to provide assurance that communities will not face job losses, shortages of food and medicine, and lower environmental standards; and a Government who are prepared to put at risk peace in Northern Ireland, casting aside the Good Friday agreement.
Democracy is a process of governance, not a moment in time. In a context where the Government have failed to reach out, failed to engage and reassure and failed to provide evidence and win the argument, the only option is to allow that process to continue—to hold another vote, not on the same proposition as the first, but on what we now know, to allow people to vote again on whether they have confidence that the Government have been able to negotiate a deal that can secure their future, protecting their jobs and security.
I say this again: my constituents are not remoaners; they are engaged citizens—internationalist and outward-looking in their views and values, worried about their families, their communities and their future, and this Government have ignored, denigrated and failed to reassure and convince them. They deserve better than this failing Government and our reckless, irresponsible Prime Minister. They deserve more democracy, not less. They deserve a people’s vote.
Prorogation of Parliament
Helen Hayes Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I rise to speak on behalf of the 8,738 residents in Dulwich and West Norwood who signed the petition in opposition to Prorogation—the eighth-highest proportion of constituents in any constituency in the country—and on behalf of all my constituents, who will be denied their voice and democratic representation as a result of Prorogation today.
It has been argued that Prorogation is normal ahead of a Queen’s Speech, and that only three days of parliamentary time are being lost; we would normally break for conference recess anyway. However, we are not in ordinary times. Brexit has riven our country. We know that the Government’s own analysis shows that there is no version of Brexit that does not inflict damage on the UK economy, and that a no-deal Brexit will deliver a calamity for jobs, the supply of medicine and food, and peace in Northern Ireland. A no-deal Brexit poses a catastrophic threat to so many of the things that our constituents hold dear and on which they depend. To prorogue Parliament at such at time is not normal business; it is an outrage to our democracy.
My constituents voted overwhelmingly—77%—to remain in the European Union. I represent one of the most diverse constituencies in the country. We are internationalist and celebrate diversity. Our values are European values. The strength of feeling in my constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood has not diminished since 2016; it has strengthened and deepened. Since June 2016, however, 77% of my constituents and 48% of voters across the country have been told that we must be quiet, and that our views no longer matter. Even in the face of evidence that Vote Leave broke the law to an extent that might have been sufficient to influence the result of the referendum, we have been told that we must be quiet. We have been told that we must be silent in the face of evidence of the impact of Brexit, which was never discussed during the referendum campaign—most notably, the impact on the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland. We have been told to be silent as the definition of Brexit, which was not discussed during the 2016 referendum, has become ever more reckless, right wing and extreme.
That is not how democracy works. It is never the case that, when we vote in a referendum or general election in this country, people who were on the losing side must simply change their views and acquiesce to those who won. It is never the case that, when we vote in an election in this country, everyone’s views are static from that point on for evermore. In our democracy, it is always the case that orderly discussion and debate continue in this Parliament—it is how we resolve our differences—and that we reflect on the result of a vote, on its consequences and impacts, and on what should happen next.
To shut down debate at this time—the House has not voted on the dates of conference recess, and extensive representations were made to the Prime Minister over the summer that Parliament should be recalled—is an insult to my constituents and an outrage to our democracy.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) spoke of the times when business has finished early and we have not had matters to debate before us, but the Prime Minister has not brought any solutions to Brexit to this House for discussion and debate. He wants to close down debate in this place to force through a reckless no-deal Brexit that will inflict harm on constituents across the country. That is irresponsible and will drive even more division through our country.
Jeremy Wright
As the hon. Lady knows, I agree with the thrust of her argument that we should spend the bulk of the five weeks of possible Prorogation here discussing these issues, rather than elsewhere. Would it not be better if hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber made it clear we that we would use that time to discuss the best way for us to leave the European Union, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) said, rather than to re-fight the referendum campaign, as I fear the hon. Lady may be suggesting we should do? Is not the best way of proceeding for us to leave with a deal and forge what cross-party consensus we can to find a deal that we all agree on?
Helen Hayes
It is clear that my constituents do not want to leave the European Union. As a Back-Bench MP on the Opposition Benches, I reserve the right to represent their views and test with them how they feel and think about any deal that is on the table. We had a deal from the previous Prime Minister that was undeliverable in this House for a range of reasons on both sides of the House. We now have a Prime Minister who says he wants a deal but will not put one on the table or negotiate one in good faith with the European Union. In that context, I am not prepared to acquiesce to an “emperor’s new clothes” argument that this will somehow be fine for my constituents. I want the right to continue to represent their views and bring to this House in an orderly fashion their views and concerns, debate them with the Government and hold this reckless Prime Minister to account.
I will not be silent. My constituents’ voices will continue to be heard, and our values will continue to be represented in this debate. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to continue to oppose this Prorogation vigorously and to remain sitting this evening. This cuts to the very heart of our democracy and the ability of Members of Parliament to hold to account the Executive, who seem determined recklessly to drive us over the edge of a cliff. We cannot stand for that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Helen Hayes Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
In addition to the returners programme that we have announced today, we have ring-fenced some of that money and an additional £100,000 of funding to particular areas for women who face immense barriers to getting into work or who may have never worked but wish to do so. That includes learning English for those who have not previously had the chance.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Victoria Atkins
I am sure the whole House shares our concern at the recent events we have seen not just in London but in Southampton. As I have said before, we are clear that this is a modern, diverse society, which is precisely why we are introducing sex and relationships education to schools across the country to ensure that our children learn tolerance and understanding.
Oral Answers to Questions
Helen Hayes Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Penny Mordaunt
In both the work we do through the ILO and some new work we are doing to support trade unions in developing countries, that absolutely needs to be at the heart of the agenda. Of course, the work that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has led internationally on modern slavery absolutely requires this issue to be at the heart of what we do.
Oral Answers to Questions
Helen Hayes Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brandon Lewis
We are engaged not only across the devolved authorities but with union officials, at both ministerial and official level, on a regular basis.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
We have a robust legal framework for money in elections, to ensure that elections are free and fair. Donations to political parties of more than £500 must be from permissible donors, which include individuals on a UK electoral register, UK-registered companies and trade unions, and UK political parties. Responsibility for regulating that sits with the independent Electoral Commission.
Helen Hayes
Even this week, hundreds of thousands of pounds of dark money is being spent on social media adverts by a pro-Brexit organisation warning MPs not to “steal Brexit”. There is no information in the public domain about who is funding these ads, which are being so heavily promoted at a critical time in the Brexit process and are clearly aimed at influencing it. There is no place for dark money in British politics. The Electoral Commission has been calling on the Government to take action for years; why have the Government failed to act?
Chloe Smith
A number of recommendations have been made in this and related policy areas—for example, by the Electoral Commission and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. As would be expected, we are considering them all together and will respond in due course.