Small Religious Organisations: Safeguarding

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sam Carling]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who I know has done a lot of work on this matter, in particular on making sure that the seal of confession is not exempted from mandatory reporting. I very much appreciate her work on that, which is really important. She says—I am sure that she has the correct figure—that it takes on average 26 years for someone, having been a victim, to report child sexual abuse. That goes to show that we cannot have a duty that relies on that reporting. We must ensure that people are empowered and will report their reasonable suspicion.

I met all the stakeholders I have just cited and many more, and not all back the Government position. The NSPCC is deeply concerned that the professional sanctions proposed by the Government as the only consequence for non-compliance are not enough. It does not want sanctions that could lead to a criminal record, but very much wants stronger civil sanctions, including potential fines, so I would argue that there is ample space for a well-thought-through compromise here. I have drafted an exemplar amendment, showing how civil sanctions could work. It is based on the Home Office fine-issuing powers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and Baroness Grey-Thompson tabled the amendment in the Lords, for debate earlier today.

Similarly, the NSPCC feels strongly that the mandatory reporting duty should include reasonable suspicion as a trigger. That raises concerns about why the Home Office said to me that the NSPCC did not hold that position, and used that point to bolster the Government position. Some other stakeholders cited as agreeing with the Government have also expressed a much more nuanced position to me, accepting that the position is finely balanced, and that their concerns could be ameliorated through effective training—there have been amendments on that previously.

On these issues, the international evidence is so clear. Many countries with mandatory reporting have criminal sanctions, including a significant majority of US states, France, Australia, Croatia and Canada.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On reasonable suspicion, does he agree with me that in any closed community, including religious organisations, it is a characteristic of abuse that people have suspicions, but often nobody feels able to speak up? Bringing reasonable suspicion into the definition for mandatory reporting, and putting that on the statute book, is a really important safeguard in that context. It creates an additional duty that could allow us to deal with circumstances that are pretty common.

[Sam Carling]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. In the debate in the House of Lords earlier today, Baroness Grey-Thompson gave a good example from when she was a younger athlete of sports coaches’ behaviour that she had observed. She believes that if there had been a duty relating to reasonable suspicion, it could have helped in dealing with some of that.

In none of the countries I named earlier has the feared chilling effect arisen, despite strong sanctions for failure to report. Nevertheless, as I have set out, firm civil sanctions would be a fair compromise, supported by virtually all stakeholders. On the concerns about floods of reports, we just have to look at the international evidence. Those floods just do not happen. Extensive research by Professor Ben Mathews in Western Australia, which has both criminal sanctions and the inclusion of reasonable suspicion, found that while there was an increase, the number of substantiated investigations—those with a finding of abuse—doubled, from an annual mean of 160 in the pre-law period to 327 in the post-law period. That indicates that twice as many sexually abused children were being identified. Compare that to Wales, where IICSA was told that the introduction of a weaker duty in 2016 had

“not led to a substantive change in practice”.

At this point, I want to highlight that the NSPCC, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation all clearly want the Government to criminalise the intentional concealment of abuse. Clause 79 of the Bill criminalises stopping a mandated reporter from carrying out their duty to report. That is welcome, but it needs to be broader. In the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other small religious groups, there is ample evidence that religious leaders regularly stop victims or their parents reporting abuse to police because it will “bring reproach on God’s name”. As parents and victims will not be mandated reporters, that will remain completely legal. Once again, I urge the Government to close these loopholes.

The Government’s own impact assessment indicates that the duty will increase the number of child sexual offences recorded by police by just 0.3%. Vulnerable children need us to create a much stronger duty to report this abuse, as IICSA recommended. By doing so, we can shine much-needed light on safeguarding failings in small religious groups and others, and protect so many children.

I will now move on to discuss other safeguarding issues in small religious groups, beginning with shunning. In the Jehovah’s Witnesses, this has long been called “disfellowshipping”. When someone commits a serious sin in the eyes of the religion, their believing family and friends are ordered to shut them off entirely and treat them as though they are dead.

The same applies when someone voluntarily leaves. The Australian royal commission looked at this too, through the lens of the position in which it places victims of abuse, saying:

“The Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s practice of shunning members who disassociate from the organisation has the very real potential of putting a survivor in the untenable position of having to choose between constant re-traumatisation at having to share a community with their abuser and losing that entire community altogether.”

It happens all the time. The culture of non-reporting and forgiveness for child abusers leads to them remaining at large. Victims are silenced, told that their abusers have been forgiven by God; many leave, and then it is they who lose their entire families. It is victim blaming taken to extremes.

Let us consider those removed involuntarily for apparent “grave sins”. What might constitute a grave sin? Well, how about being gay? Religious teachings regularly equate homosexuality with paedophilia—they are lumped together. Let me read a brief quote from the Jehovah’s Witness “Awake!” magazine, a key publication intended to teach believers:

“True, some individuals may very well be prone to homosexuality… but…a Christian cannot excuse immoral behaviour by saying he was ‘born that way.’ Child molesters invoke the same pathetic excuse when they say their craving for children is ‘innate’. But can anyone deny that their sexual appetite is perverted? So is the desire for someone of the same sex.”

Children growing up in that religion are subjected to this bile constantly. I would know—I was one of them. But at least I survived. Lots do not; people like Stephen, the nephew of one of the religion’s governing body members, who died by suicide in January 2020, having been disfellowshipped and ostracised for being gay. Yet the organisation is considered a charity in the UK. It holds tax exemptions and is eligible for direct UK Government funding through Gift Aid. How can that be right? How can an organisation that causes so much harm be charitable?

It is not the only example. There are many small religious organisations active in the UK that expose children to horrific teachings, particularly about women and girls. At Prime Minister’s questions recently, I highlighted the National Secular Society’s “Mission and Misogyny” report, which is full of such examples. There was a recent example near the Minister’s constituency; in January, the NSS reported that the Green Lane masjid and community centre in Birmingham streamed a sermon in which listeners were told that

“discipline in the case of rebellion”

is one of the

“rights of the husband over the wife”,

that husbands have a right to “obedience” as well as a right to “intimacy”.

I must be clear at this point, as I hope I have been throughout, that these extremist examples happen across faith traditions. This example is Islamic; I have equally spent a lot of time up to now talking about a Christian example. These organisations must not cloud our view of the many religious charities that do brilliant work to support people, but they point to a broken charity system in need of repair.

That is why I have been calling for a review into charity law and regulation. We must have ways to ensure that organisations that promote harm towards vulnerable people, particularly through mandated shunning, cannot gain the tax, reputational and funding benefits of a charity. The Charity Commission must also seriously step up its game as a regulator, as there is a serious pattern of failing to take action despite repeated requests, which the “Mission and Misogyny” report lays bare.

I want to also put on the record my shock at the recent case in which the Charity Commission took legal action against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to stop the ombudsman laying before this House reports detailing complaints upheld against the commission. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I sit, had to bring a privilege motion to force the ombudsman to release the files—which it wanted to do—because of the commission’s legal threats blocking it. I understand that the commission has still pursued that legal action. It is not on.

I ask the Minister whether she will make herself popular with the Treasury by agreeing that organisations promoting hate and abusive practices such as shunning should not be eligible for public money, and therefore support my calls for a thorough review of charity status. Will she also agree that either the Government or the relevant Select Committee should consider a thorough deep dive into the Charity Commission’s approach to safeguarding issues?

Finally, I want to briefly touch on a third issue: safeguarding and coercion in medical settings. Again, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are the clearest example. As many people will know, their religion teaches not to accept blood transfusions, which is described as a “personal choice” that they make. But when the consequence for not taking that choice is shunning and the permanent cutting off of family and friends, is it a choice? Maybe—and religious freedoms of adults to make medical decisions must always be allowed. Similarly, people must always be free to request visits from religious ministers during medical treatment or a hospital stay.

In the Jehovah’s Witnesses, though, requests for religious ministers will be met with the arrival of a hospital liaison committee. This is a group of elders whose role is simple: to enforce the rules on blood transfusions. They will “help” patients by advocating for their personal choice not to accept blood and will always claim that decisions are for the patient to make. However, the elders’ handbook, which I have here, clearly states that Witnesses should be strongly encouraged to fill out durable powers of attorney for someone else to refuse blood on their behalf. Either way, the hospital liaison committee will be there, watching. If the patient does not comply with the no-blood rule, they can expect to be disfellowshipped and shunned promptly. With the HLC there, there is little hope of being able to make a real personal choice in private if it differs from religious teaching. That really is coercion.

Ministers of religion can no doubt provide huge support and relief to patients of all faiths, and they do so, but I would argue that they should not be allowed to advocate for patients’ medical wishes where there is a clear conflict of interest, as in these cases. Furthermore, these bodies must only be allowed in when the patient requests them. A former HLC elder has approached me with allegations that some NHS trusts have established policies to call the HLC by default when a Jehovah’s Witness is admitted. No doubt it is done with the best of intentions, as they do not want to do anything wrong, but given that those HLCs exist to push an agenda that may not be the patient’s, that is a serious problem.

I will close by asking the Minister if she will liaise with Department of Health and Social Care colleagues and push for a review of NHS trust policies towards these bodies to ensure that they are called only when a patient requests it, and that patients have clear opportunities to articulate their final decision in respect of any treatment and receive treatment away from the HLC if they so wish.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for his speech, and I am grateful to other Members for their important contributions today. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Government’s commitment to safeguarding and protecting children and adults from harm across all settings, including within religious and faith communities. I want to give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire for securing this debate and for the compassion, thoroughness and persistence that he has shown this House on this issue.

Let me first be clear that this Government recognise the central role of faith in our national life, and we are committed to building a Britain where all communities feel safe and where the contributions of people of faith and belief are warmly welcomed and richly valued, as are the contributions of those who, like myself, have no faith—well, I have a lot of faith, but none that would be recognised or organised.

The insights of faith and belief groups should and do play an important role in the national conversation around safeguarding children and preventing violence against women and girls. The other central point to make at the outset is that the Government utterly condemn all acts of psychological, emotional, physical and sexual abuse against children and adults in all settings, including religious settings of any size or denomination. All such acts should be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. As with every case of abuse, my thoughts are first and foremost with the victims and survivors.

As this House knows, we are taking forward an ambitious range of measures to improve safeguarding and child protection. Through the violence against women and girls strategy published last year, which deploys the full power of the state to achieve this aim, and through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are strengthening multi-agency safeguarding arrangements and improving information sharing. We are also taking forward work to safeguard and protect children from harm in out-of-school settings, including religious organisations offering education in their own faith.

All out-of-school settings have a legal duty to safeguard and protect children from harm in their care. To support them in meeting this duty, the Department for Education has published guidance setting out the safeguarding standard that they should meet and last year launched a call for evidence to gather views on potential approaches to strengthening safeguarding further, including regulation. The Department for Education is currently analysing the responses and continuing engagement with key stakeholders, and will respond in due course.

We are also taking action on the recommendations of IICSA, which have been mentioned, including establishing a child protection authority to improve the national oversight and leadership of child protection and introducing through the Crime and Policing Bill a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse. The duty will create a culture of knowledge, confidence and openness among those most likely to be alerted to child sexual abuse. It will help children and young people to trust that their voices will be heard when they speak out. The duty will apply to those working or volunteering with children in faith settings. There will be no exceptions based on religious practices. We will continue to engage with groups that may be impacted to help them manage the implementation of this new duty.

My hon. Friend raised some specific points about the Government’s mandatory reporting duty, which I would like to address. We are grateful for the expertise of the child protection sector in shaping the new duty. Our shared aim is to have a regime that is effective for children and workable for professionals.

For the avoidance of doubt, the organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned have always fully supported the Government policy of not applying criminal sanctions to the failure to report. It is true that they also advocate for robust action against the deliberate concealment of abuse, but there is a qualitative difference between a lapse in reporting and taking active steps to deter it, or destroying or concealing evidence. The Crime and Policing Bill reflects that distinction by creating a criminal offence of obstructing a reporter from carrying out their duty, punishable by up to seven years in prison. The question of whether failures to report should be subject to sanctions was fully considered during the Bill’s parliamentary passage. Earlier today, on Report in the other place, the House rejected a proposition to amend the Bill to that effect.

The question of what triggers the duty—for example, whether to include the observation of signs and indicators —is a separate matter, although I recognise that, because these issues are often debated in tandem, some conflation may have crept in. The Government have not claimed the same stakeholder endorsement for our chosen threshold for the duty. Although some stakeholders favour adding recognised indicators or reasonable suspicion that abuse has occurred, as I have set out previously the Government’s view is that we need to deliver a model that is clear, proportionate and operable, anchored in direct disclosure, witnessing or recorded material. As with all aspects of the duty, we will keep that under review, but we are confident that the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance.

Let me respond to some of the points that have been raised. I often feel anxious that people think that any organisation that they raise will not be considered as part of the duty, but most people in positions of trust—we do not need to name them—are covered by the duty because they work in regulated activity with children. That is the core definition in the Bill for a mandated reporter. In other words, if a person’s role as a sports coach already brings them into regular close contact with children, they are in scope.

[Helen Hayes]

My constituent is a survivor of abuse within a religious organisation, and she represents a larger group of survivors at the same organisation. She has found the Charity Commission to be utterly ineffectual and far too slow in dealing with her complaint. When I wrote to the Minister about this issue, she referred me to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. When I wrote to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, I was referred back to the Home Office. The religious organisation continues to operate with the suspicion that the practices that led to the abuse claimed by my constituent are continuing. We are a couple of years down the line in raising these concerns, so will the Minister advise me how I can get some traction on behalf of my constituent to ensure that her allegations and those of other survivors of the organisation are properly dealt with, and that the organisation cannot continue to operate with the same practices?

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Helen Hayes to ask the final question.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

In 2018, in the Windrush scandal, many of my constituents suffered the detriment of being denied access to their own country. A part of the learning from that scandal is that people do not always read information that is in the public domain, and they do not always have a hotline to Home Office messaging. One of my constituents is in Australia and was due to come back, but his father has been placed on end of life care, so he has had to extend his visit. Another constituent, who was due to travel next week, only found out about the new requirements this week, and it is too late for her to apply for a passport. The scale of the cases raised today implies that there is a problem. What assurance can the Minister give my constituents that this is not another Windrush scandal in the making, whereby British citizens end up being denied access to their own country?

[Mike Tapp]

I take the lessons from the Windrush scandal extremely seriously. I meet the Windrush commissioner on a regular basis to ensure that we fix those wrongs, and that they never, ever happen again. I reject my hon. Friend’s framing. People can apply for a passport, a certificate of entitlement or an emergency travel document, and there is a phone line that they can contact. If she would like to meet on Monday to go through the specifics of the cases she mentioned, then I am happy to do so.

Violence against Women and Girls Strategy

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words and her reminder of the many years that passing the Online Safety Act took. Many of us will remember them—I was about to say “fondly”, but I am not sure that was necessarily always the case. First and foremost, I would not be afraid of doing any of the things that she has highlighted. The hon. Lady was not here, but the Act took 10 years to get to its current legislative state, and it has only really been rolled out since July. The Government have repeatedly said, and what they say in the strategy, is that where we need to go further, we absolutely will.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and warmly welcome this strategy. I pay tribute to her for delivering this strategy and for her years of personal commitment to the safety of women and girls. I welcome in particular the focus on educating children about misogyny and driving misogyny out of our schools. My hon. Friend will know that the Ofsted inspection framework has previously been largely silent on the issue of misogyny, allowing examples to occur where schools have been rated “outstanding” despite girls at that school having widespread experience of sexual harassment and abuse by their peers. What engagement is she having with Ofsted to ensure that all the Government’s objectives are aligned and that no school where girls routinely experience misogynistic harassment and other behaviours can be regarded as “exceptional”, “strong standard” or “expected standard” under the new framework?

[Jess Phillips]

The Government have released new curricula on healthy relationships education. Working with Ofsted to ensure that schools are monitored against the delivery of that education is one of the most important things we can do. Schools just saying they do it, and then the teaching never being looked at to see whether it is any good, has led to a hodgepodge and, frankly, some terrible behaviour around the country. I will absolutely take her point away and speak to my colleagues in the Department for Education, which is a fundamental pillar—I am starting to talk like a civil servant; they say “pillar” about everything—in this strategy, because if a school is not safe, how could it be “outstanding”?

Immigration System

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

If I am to get in as many Members as possible, we will need pithy questions and short answers, please. For a masterclass in that, I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I represent a constituency that is enriched and sustained every day by people who have come from overseas to make their home here, especially those who came as members of the Windrush generation. It is important that they hear from this place that they are not only valued and appreciated but part of us. Last week, the Office for Students published another report on the precarious situation facing our universities. This announcement includes a levy on universities in relation to their international students. What engagement has the Home Secretary had with her counterpart at the Department for Education on the impact of her measures on the financial sustainability of universities?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. British citizens have heritage from all over the world, and people came here as part of the Windrush generation. We will shortly appoint the Windrush commissioner to ensure that Home Office standards are upheld and that that contribution, through generations, is properly recognised and respected in our country. The White Paper sets out that we will explore the international student levy. That work, which is being led by the Education Secretary, will consider how we can ensure that investment goes into supporting skills in the UK.

Tackling Child Sexual Abuse

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

First and foremost, I pay the hon. Gentleman absolute credit. For years, he has spoken up about this issue—I am actually surprised that we have not had closer conversations. I would very much welcome some time with him to understand exactly what is going on in his local area—I think that is actually being arranged, from the letters he has sent to me. I am more than happy to sit down with him. Absolutely nothing that I have said today suggests that Bradford would not be able to access funding from the Home Office, just as Oldham has, to undertake the work that might be needed there. I would very much welcome a conversation with him about that.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the progress that she is making. I thank her for her very long and deep commitment to this issue and to seeing justice for victims. I will ask her about the version of mandatory reporting that she proposes to introduce. My understanding is that the mandatory reporting duty will apply in situations where a person has witnessed abuse or received a disclosure of abuse, which seems to be quite a high bar. There are many examples of abuse taking place in schools and in children’s homes, for example, in which it emerged later that suspicions of abuse were very widespread, but nobody witnessed the abuse, received a disclosure of it or reported their suspicions, allowing the abuse to continue. Is my hon. Friend confident that the version of mandatory reporting that she is introducing is at the right threshold? Will she commit to review the impact of the new measure once it has taken effect and to strengthen it in future if needed?

[Jess Phillips]

I praise my hon. Friend for her commitment to these issues over the years. She is right: the thresholds for mandatory reporting are a finely balanced tool. We had to land on the criminal justice outcomes for the most egregious cases, as other Members have mentioned, where it seemed that social workers were directly covering up and where there were professional sanctions when people just failed to report. She talked about the issue of signs. I very much hope that that will be dealt with in the training and the roll-out of this measure, but when any new law comes into place and we roll out training, we will absolutely review it as we go along.

Knife Crime: Children and Young People

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this important debate, and for his thoughtful speech. I join him in paying tribute to Ciaran Thapar, whose work took place in my constituency. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), who made a moving statement on behalf of his constituents. I grew up near Parbold Hill and Southport, and it grieves me deeply to hear about the appalling violence in both those communities.

I rise to speak in this debate on knife crime with great sadness, because today, just after 5 am, a young man lost his life on Coldharbour Lane in my constituency after being stabbed. I visited the scene this morning and stood at the police line as the forensic officers undertook their work. I spoke with community members who were confronted with the shocking aftermath of this violence as they went about their day. I thought about the family, whose day would begin with a knock on the door from police officers, and the utterly devastating news that their loved one would not be coming home ever again. It is hard to feel anything but despair in these circumstances.

I know that hon. Members across the House will wish to join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the family and friends of the young man who lost his life. We do not yet know his identity, but we know that there will be people who loved him, and who are suffering the most visceral pain and loss today. I also pay tribute to the emergency services who attended the scene this morning.

When this young man’s name is released, it will join the names of others who have lost their life to serious violence and knife and gun crime in my constituency since I was first elected to this place in 2015. They are Jude Gayle, Kyall Parnell, John Ogunjobi, Donnell Rhule, Glendon Spence, Dennis Anderson, Beatrice Stoica, Filipe Oliveira, Chino Johnson, Ronaldo Scott and Keelen Wong. Each one was loved by their family and friends, and each one leaves a community traumatised by their loss and the circumstances of it.

When a knife or gun crime is reported in the media, we see the names in the headlines for a few short hours, and maybe again if the case comes to trial. We never hear about the ongoing trauma left behind in the local community, and the sense of loss felt not only by the immediate family but everyone who watched that person grow up and saw them out and about daily, those whose children went to school with them, and those who recognised and knew them. There is a sense of fear among parents that next time, their child might be the victim, and there are the mental health consequences of living with loss, fear and anxiety.

The causes of knife crime are complex. We need to take a public health approach to it, as though it were a disease. We should understand its pathology and take steps to prevent it taking hold, stop its spread, and treat the causes and the symptoms. I introduced a private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament to stop the availability of the most horrific weapons on our streets. I have met the lead consultants in the emergency department at King’s College hospital, who described the horrific injuries that are inflicted by machetes and zombie knives—weapons that can cut through bone, and serrated blades that inflict the most complex injuries on internal organs. They spoke about the survivability of many such injuries, compared with wounds inflicted with domestic knives, and described machetes and zombie knives as

“weapons of war on our streets”.

No one in our communities needs a machete or a zombie knife for any legitimate purpose, but they have been readily available for purchase online for as little as £10. I therefore welcome the Government’s action since July to further restrict their sale. I want further action on domestic knives. In particular, we should look at whether further restrictions can be introduced regarding age verification of those purchasing knives with pointed blades. I also want action further up the chain, to tackle those who exploit and groom our young people into serious violence—the county lines exploiters, the drug dealers and the serious organised criminals who are not spoken about enough in these debates.

In my constituency, in part because of the tragedies that we have experienced, we have seen inspiring responses from community organisations working with public services. The embedding of youth workers in hospital emergency departments was pioneered by Redthread at King’s College hospital. They provide options for young people who have been injured, or have seen their friends injured, allowing them to access support to keep themselves safe. I welcome the Government rolling out that intervention in other parts of the country.

I am also grateful to the Mayor of London’s violence reduction unit for funding Ecosystem Coldharbour through the My Ends programme. Ecosystem Coldharbour is a coalition of grassroots organisations working with young people and families in the Brixton part of my constituency. It has been working for the last three years and has delivered some really impressive results. It has built up the trust and confidence of young people and families, so that they can access help and support. It provides mentoring and training opportunities, and leads the community response when tragedies occur. It delivers trauma support to families and communities. Our communities feel empowered by that work. It is particularly inspirational to see a group of mothers who have all lost a child to serious violence working together, under the banner “Circle of Life Ignite”, to support each other and prevent further deaths.

I am inspired by the way that young leaders have been equipped through that work. I pay tribute to the work of Abdoul Lelo, an extraordinarily impressive young man who has been working with McDonald’s in Brixton to embed a youth service in the restaurant. It takes support and positive opportunities to young people where they are. There are also benefits for the staff, who have often felt unsafe and overwhelmed in their workplace. I also pay tribute to the work of Sergeant Nigel Pearce from central south basic command unit, who has pioneered a different approach to community policing, based on trusting and listening to the community, and responding respectfully and supportively to their needs and experiences. If we had more officers working in this way across the Metropolitan Police, trust and confidence in policing would be much higher.

The partnership in my constituency is called Ecosystem because of the belief of the organisations in it that all the solutions to serious violence are in the community—but the community needs help and resources to find them. That is what we have had through the violence reduction unit. My plea to the Minister is that funding for such vital work be put on a long-term footing, so that we can keep on delivering and working to tackle the scourge of serious violence. In fact, as the Minister thinks about the design of the Government’s Young Futures project, I invite her to visit Ecosystem, because we have much good practice to offer for the development of that national programme.

The debate today is about young people and knife crime, but to tackle the scourge of knife crime, we must properly understand the nature of the problem and who is affected. Of the victims who have been murdered in my constituency since 2015, only two were under the age of 18. The majority were young men in their 20s, a cohort who grew up at a time when funding for youth services was being stripped away, who may find themselves unable to access employment often due to minor criminal convictions, who often have very poor mental health, who are accessing deeply damaging online content and for whom society can seem like it has very little to offer. There is currently no protocol or good practice for tackling serious violence in that cohort. The only part of the system obliged to try to help is the criminal justice system, if the person in question has committed a crime. Social services have no formal role or responsibility and mental health services are not designed with this cohort in mind, despite the fact that they are so often traumatised by the experiences, what they have witnessed in their communities and what they have seen their friends go through.

If we want to end the cycle of violence in our communities, we must turn our attention to that group. They are siblings, cousins and parents to the next generation. The key to prevention must therefore lie in helping them to turn their lives around, making support services more visible in our communities, making it easier to ask for help through services that are designed with their needs in mind and properly resourcing effective rehabilitation.

I welcome the Government’s focus on halving knife crime. My communities have suffered far too much from its devastating effects and we continue to suffer today. I urge the Minister to work with us to devise services and interventions based on the experience in our communities, because we utterly reject this violence and we just want to see it stop.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Before I call the next speaker, I want to try and get everybody in, so please can people stick to around four minutes?

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Education Committee Chair, Helen Hayes.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Several years ago, I supported, over a number of months, a constituent of mine who suffered horrific sexual abuse as a child in the care of Lambeth council, as she prepared to give evidence to the independent inquiry on child sexual abuse, chaired by Professor Jay. It was unimaginably hard for victims and survivors to give evidence to that inquiry, reliving the abuse that they suffered and being retraumatised. The fact that they did so was exceptionally important, and I pay tribute to their courage. My constituent and thousands of other victims and survivors gave their evidence so that their experiences could be at the heart of Professor Jay’s recommendations. Does the Home Secretary agree that if we are really to put victims and survivors first, the priority must be to act on what they have already told us, and to implement the IICSA recommendations at pace, and in full?

[Yvette Cooper]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to her constituent, and to the more than 7,000 victims and survivors who gave evidence to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and exploitation. The inquiry took seven years—many years of people bravely speaking out about some of the most difficult and traumatic things imaginable, which none of us would ever want anybody to have to go through. She is also right that they must not feel that their evidence was just empty words that got lost in the air, even though an inquiry took place. We have to make sure that there is action. Some of that action may be difficult, and some may require very hard work, but we have to make sure that we take it forward and make progress to protect children for the future.

Respect Orders and Antisocial Behaviour

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Select Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the measures that the Minister has set out today and the Government’s commitment to tackling antisocial behaviour, which is an urgent issue in my constituency, particularly in town centres. But the most urgent issue that we face in tackling these issues is the number of police officers. My hon. Friend will be aware that the previous Government allocated funding to recruit police officers, and then withdrew it when the Met was unable to meet its target due to a set of unique challenges in London. Can my right hon. Friend give her firm assurance that the unique challenges facing the Met are fully understood, and that the Government will provide it with the resources that it needs to tackle this very serious issue in our communities?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The Met makes up almost a quarter of overall policing. It plays a very important part in policing London, but it also has other responsibilities at national level—counter-terrorism and so on. Decisions on funding are being taken at the moment. The House will be informed in the normal way next month about the provisional settlements for policing, but I hear my hon. Friend concerns very clearly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Dan Jarvis)]

The right hon. Gentleman, who has a long-standing interest in these matters, knows that we do not comment on whether an organisation is being considered for proscription. What is clear is that Iran’s malign activities, including the activities of the IRGC, are completely unacceptable. I can give him an assurance that we keep these matters under very close review.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

For the communities in my constituency mourning the loss of a young person to knife crime, the Government’s commitment to ban zombie knives, machetes and ninja swords cannot come soon enough. Can the Home Secretary confirm that, in bringing forward this vital legislation, she will ensure that the penalties for selling those weapons illegally will be substantial and that they will apply personally to executives at the highest level in any retail outlet, including online marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The Government have a manifesto commitment to ban ninja swords and other weapons and will be taking it forward as soon as possible. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. Ensuring that lethal blades that have been used to kill teenagers on our streets are no longer available to buy or sell is a key priority. We will also implement the ban on zombie knives and zombie-style machetes, which was approved by Parliament in April.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) on his maiden speech. It was a moving speech, and I know that his family and his constituents will be very proud of his commitment to work on the issues around Crohn’s and colitis, which is a devastating and difficult disease for those who have to endure it.

It is a privilege for me to represent the communities of Dulwich, West Norwood, Herne Hill, Gipsy Hill, and parts of Brixton, Crystal Palace, Camberwell and Tulse Hill, and I am grateful to everyone who voted to send me here for a fourth time. I am especially grateful to the residents of Champion Hill ward, who voted for me for the first time in this election due to boundary changes.

I am delighted to be speaking for the first time from the Government side of the House of Commons. Over the past nine years in this place, I have seen the impact of the Conservatives’ political decisions on my constituents. I have seen the housing crisis deepen every single year. Our local schools have struggled as the schools funding formula was changed to redirect funding away from constituencies like mine with high levels of deprivation to more affluent areas of the country. Local authority funding has been decimated, affecting the ability of our local councils to keep delivering the services that residents need. Our local health services have been placed under unbearable pressure. Parents are paying more than their rent or mortgage for a childcare place, and our police are unable to fill essential roles in neighbourhood policing. There is not a single part of our public sector that is not at least partially broken after 14 years of cuts and neglect, while every Gracious Speech that I have listened to until now has made something else worse than it was before.

Among the most egregious legacies of the past 14 years of Conservative government has been the impact on the life chances of children and young people. Seven hundred thousand more children are living in poverty than in 2010. There has been a shocking decline in children and young people’s mental health. We have seen 1,300 Sure Start centres close, spiralling numbers of teenagers entering the care system and parents across the country battling for special educational needs and disabilities support. So I am deeply heartened to see that this Gracious Speech sets out a legislative programme that begins the process of renewal and restoration that our country needs and that will start to improve the life chances of children and young people.

Legislation will increase the number of teachers in our schools, improve the mental health and wellbeing of young people, ensure that no child in primary school has to start the school day hungry, increase the number of nursery places and deliver better support for young people who are at risk of serious violence. I welcome the establishment of the child poverty taskforce. Child poverty is a scourge on our society. The increase over the past 14 years is shameful, and it must be a core driving mission of the Government to eradicate it.

Child poverty does not happen in isolation. Children live in poverty because their parents are poor. The solutions to poverty are multiple and include making work pay; more genuinely affordable housing; reducing energy bills; and creating a social security system that actually acts as an effective safety net.

I understand the need both for a comprehensive strategy for tackling child poverty and for all public spending decisions to be fully funded and affordable, but two things are important. First, the child poverty taskforce must work with urgency and speed, and it must result in concrete action soon. Childhood is short, and the years that are blighted by poverty cannot be rerun. Secondly, the taskforce and the Government must follow the evidence. That includes evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Trussell Trust and a wide range of experts showing a clear correlation between the two-child cap on child benefit and increased child poverty, as well as the alleviation that would come from lifting it. I hope that the Government will consider that evidence as part of a wider, comprehensive strategy.

Several wider challenges affecting children and young people were not included in the King’s Speech but will require imminent strategic decision making from our new Government. They include the crisis in SEND support and the safety valve programme, which is forcing many councils to make impossible cuts to services that vulnerable residents rely on while families are left fighting in the tribunal for SEND support.

There is also the financial crisis in our university sector, which should be the pride of our country, helping us to face the future, prepare the next generation and deliver world-class research. Universities are also the fulcrum of the local economy in cities and towns across the country. Their collapse would be catastrophic for jobs and economic growth. The Government must therefore ensure that a plan is in place that offers meaningful interventions to stem the current crisis and allow our universities to stabilise and chart a sustainable course.

When a country invests in its children and young people, it invests in the future. When it delivers a better society for children and young people, it delivers a better society for everyone. When it acts to protect the most vulnerable. It places all of us on a more solid foundation. I welcome this Gracious Speech from our new Labour Government and look forward to seeing the Government deliver for our children and young people in the coming months.