LGBT+ History Month

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in a debate that was opened with such excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne).

It is also an honour to speak having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), whose mention of “Beautiful Thing” got me thinking about the different ways that queer culture has been depicted in our culture. He reminded me of a social media post a few weeks ago by the TV critic Scott Bryan, who said that over his lifetime, LGBT+ and queer storylines have gone from

“being a rarity or…too controversial”

decades ago, to being in soaps, where they were often depicted as a moral outrage,

“to being occasionally mentioned but never explored (aka the gay best friend)”.

In other words, LBGT+ characters were presented but their storylines were never developed. Later, there would be some exploration, but typically there would be a tragic ending and the character would die. Later still, a gay or LGBT+ character might be explored, but only after the watershed, and really only to be embraced by an LGBT+ audience. In more recent years, we have seen the creation of queer shows, which may be targeted at younger people to tell them that everything is going to be okay, or, as we saw with “Heated Rivalry”, something altogether different—I think I will leave my description at that.

In thinking about that, I realised that what we are talking about are largely lesbian and gay TV shows, not trans TV shows. In turn, that made me realise that, although Pride is primarily of, by and for the people who dance under the same rainbow, it is also about liberation for everyone from prejudice. Really, we can only open our eyes to a safe and more compassionate society if we listen to trans people and protect them.

I want to reflect what some of my constituents who are trans have said to me. They have told me that they believe that too often their identities, their rights and the care that they receive are separated completely from what they need, and politicians do not listen to what they have to say. We do not realise that, although we talk in debates about the difficulties that trans people face, the predominant narrative is not universally true. It is not the case that all trans people are constantly suffering, depressed or impoverished. Susannah, who lives in my constituency, said:

“I am a very happy person leading an ordinary, productive and caring life. I am loved by my family, loved by friends. Trans people are doctors, accountants, crafts people, nurses, teachers, pilots, shopkeepers, carers… we are good and decent people spread across the country, leading productive lives.”

When we tell stories like my constituent’s, we are telling stories about real people and real families, and we are talking about the harms and the opportunities that society chooses to prevent or permit. In telling these stories, I also want to pay tribute to the parents of trans children; when society at large seems to have it out for their kid, that often takes a toll on them. They have fierce, unwavering love, but often that is ignored and their concerns go disregarded. I want them to know that I am listening to their views, just as I am listening to the views of their trans children.

That is particularly important because, although we do not choose our sexual orientation or gender identity, being openly gay or trans very much is a choice. I could no more be straight than a trans person could make themselves cisgender. The alternative is to stay in the closet and feel shame wash over you—a shame that can lead to anxiety, depression and sometimes even suicide. Being gay or trans is about choosing yourself—that is the choice. When our opponents try to make the cost of choosing yourself too severe to bear, when they try to make transgender people cisgender by denying them care or surgery, when they say that they seek to spare young people from medical care or surgery, they are effectively implying, although they do not say it, that people can be cured of being transgender—that all it takes to convert them is the denial of gender-affirming medical care or surgery.

That is important to dwell on given that Parliament will—very soon, I think—be considering a ban on conversion practices. We can ban the practices, but we have to realise that the rhetoric itself can be used to attempt to convert. Opponents do not care at all about the danger involved in forcing a transgender person to be cisgender, and they do not care that it will not work. Just as they would not see that forcing a gay person to be straight is dangerous and will not work, so they do not realise it about transgender people.

I choose to support trans young people in making their own decisions about transition, from early and more reversible options such as changing a name or pronouns, or starting puberty blockers, to less reversible options such as surgery, which usually come later. I choose to support trans youth in deciding their own identity and future, because it is wrong to force them to identify with the sex they were assigned at birth.

In fact, all of us here would choose to support anyone and everyone, in deciding their identity, to choose themselves, whatever that means and whatever it may be. When politicians in this place, on issues affecting trans people, divide us with rhetoric that inflames, unconcerned by whether the things they say can be backed up by evidence, they are pursuing a politics based on scapegoating, not science. Those who say that this move can be contained to trans people should know this: trans people can never be sidelined or sacrificed, because every human is entitled to dignity and respect. That comes through in the words of my constituent Antonia, who says:

“As a trans woman all I want is to receive the same health care, freedom and be able to live my life the same as everyone else. We work, pay bills, go shopping, watch TV and have friends. We’re not a cult or a freak show.”

In the words of Mich,

“The phobia whipped-up towards the trans and gender non-conforming is so disproportionate to the small numbers of us and how unthreatening we are — we’re just trying to live our lives”.

On its own terms, the argument falls apart. When trans people are attacked, it is not just harmful to trans people; it is about attacking trans people today, potentially with a view to attacking other minorities tomorrow. History warns us what happens when the way is paved and the bar is lowered for all minorities to be attacked. Too many of us who are not trans or gay simply are not free in our society and our country to choose themselves in their everyday life, and that is a problem.

We must all support trans young people. When we do not, it continues a problem that we have in our society of ignoring young people full stop. Whether it is about sexual orientation, gender or something else entirely, younger people go unlistened to. When that happens, it has a hugely negative impact on them. We should all choose to support trans and gay young people, but we should especially choose to support children and young people.

If we listened to many young trans people and enabled them to choose, we would listen to what they have to say about puberty blockers. Puberty blockers are reversible, but puberty is not. Puberty blockers can stop the harms of an unwanted, irreversible puberty, as children watch their bodies change in ways that might be difficult or impossible to undo later. That is why it matters that young people do not miss the window in which blockers can prevent the irreversible physical changes of puberty while simultaneously extending the diagnostic period. In other words, blockers are a way to buy time and enable young people to have the choice and freedoms to explore their identity without the added stress of pubertal changes. With blockers, children report feeling less anxious and more comfortable with themselves. Liberated from the constant dread of puberty, they can bring their focus back to the things that matter in childhood and everyday life—learning, socialising and simply being kids. We know that pubertal suppression can help the mental health of trans children.

I said that we need to think about the science; at least eight recent studies have linked pubertal suppression to improved mental health, including a UK study that found improvements in overall psychological functioning. Those who oppose or query what I say should look at Rosalia Costa’s piece in the Journal of Sexual Medicine from 2015. Similarly, a study by a Harvard medical school research group found that adolescents who received puberty blockers had lower odds of experiencing suicidal ideation later in life compared with those who desired blockers but were unable to access them. There was an article by Jack Turban in Pediatrics in 2020 that is comprehensive on that point.

This goes to the point that we need all policy decisions to be led by the clinical evidence, but we also need to be clear-minded about what that means. In clinical medicine, it can never be known for sure what an outcome will be for patients. Medicine is always a field of probabilities, not certainties, and that will be true of puberty blockers. It is because they are so hotly politicised that we have to be careful to hold puberty blockers to the same standards as all other medication; we cannot allow the debate to fixate only on the risks and unknowns from medications that are emotionally charged and heavily politicised in our country. We need to do that, because gender dysphoria is real. It can show up in serious ways, including eating disorder symptoms and other mental health struggles. When we allow younger people and children to experience those harms, we are doing them and our society a disservice.

I hope that all politicians in this place will be led by the science and by compassion. I hope that with this Labour Government, we will see not just the conversion practices ban come forward in the time before the next King’s Speech, but, over the course of the first term of this Labour Government, a movement towards a trans persons’ civil rights Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

We’re all going, aren’t we?

One of the best things to happen to me over Christmas was to be at the celebration of Brad and Tom’s wedding.

[Tom Hayes]

The shadow Minister is talking about the introduction of same-sex marriage, and I want to emphasise that that was a moment of cross-party history. The Liberal Democrat Baroness Featherstone worked as part of the coalition Government with the Conservatives to introduce that legislation, which was carried overwhelmingly by Labour MPs. Does the shadow Minister recognise that as an example of cross-party consensus behind LGBT rights, which we should celebrate?

[Mims Davies]

I am delighted that it was the Conservative Prime Minister who I came into the House under who drove that legislation through. It truly was cross-party— I very much agree. Today is not about one-upmanship; it is about celebrating our party, our place and all the work we do where we can.

I had the joy of headlining and co-DJing the LGBT Conservatives’ closing party at party conference in 2025. It was the 50-year celebration. People described it as a cross between DJing and a Peloton class. The Terrence Higgins Trust reception is another staple of our party conference calendar. We hear at those events from members of our party—I am sure this has happened across many parties—who had to meet in secret. Those are now some of our most popular events at conference, and that shows deep pride in the change that we have all seen.

The first HIV testing was funded under a Conservative Government, and I am pleased to say that I got tested—as, I am sure, did many others—here in Parliament this week. It was quick and easy, and it was important to remind people that they can show their status, and get treatment and peace of mind for themselves and their loved ones. It rightly tackles the stigma that remains; the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) mentioned “the gay plague” and the previous stigma.

I encourage people to sign up to get a test online and have it delivered to their door, whether they are in my constituency, in Sussex or in the rest of the United Kingdom. Being rural or far away from a sexual health clinic should not hold people back from getting tested and staying safe. I welcome the updated HIV strategy, which builds on previous heavy lifting by the Conservatives. In 2014, we legalised self-testing kits for HIV, and they were rolled out in 2015. We then had the PrEP trial in 2017. This gives me the opportunity to point out that women, older people and ethnic minorities are all more likely to get diagnosed late, so they should look after themselves by taking the test.

I thank all the charities and campaigning groups, because we all want to say the same thing: love who you love and make sure that you take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. It is key that we get more ambitious with PrEP usage in order to get to the goal to which we are all committed: ending new HIV cases.

Finally—I have said this previously, especially to my constituents, but it is especially true as we head towards Valentine’s day—we all need to be clear that no matter what political party people support, where they live or who they love, they should never feel unsafe or worried about who they are. We will always work together to strive for dignity, inclusion and compassion.

Key Stage 1 Curriculum

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Play is firmly back on the agenda in this Parliament, as symbolised by the new APPG on play. On Wednesday last week, we heard from, among others, Ruth Lue-Quee—My Mummy Teacher—about the importance of this petition.

In England, we rightly pride ourselves on an early years foundation stage that places play-based pedagogy at the heart of learning, but for children, that approach ends abruptly at the school gate of year 1. My constituent Rachel Peck, a key stage 1 teacher and early years practitioner, says:

“The need for play doesn’t suddenly disappear at five. Removing play so early removes the very opportunities children need to develop creativity, collaboration, problem-solving and communication.”

My constituent Louise Jane tells me:

“Children in Key Stage 1 are still so young. Sometimes it feels like the system sees them as numbers and data—when they are so much more than that.”

We know that active play stimulates the release of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, which supports memory, focus and neuroplasticity. Put simply, we know that movement helps the brain to grow. We also know that play offers challenge and risk, so that children develop self-regulation, emotional resilience and the ability to manage stress—essential social skills that cannot be taught by a child sitting down with a worksheet.

My constituent Rachel Peck says:

“We spend the rest of children’s school lives trying to teach skills that should have been naturally developed through play alongside their peers.”

I agree. Yet when children enter key stage 1, we find that play becomes a reward and its withdrawal a sanction, without realising that it is often the absence of movement and play that drives the behaviours that then get punished. My constituent Kate Bethune, whom I met at one of my surgeries, told me:

“We are crushing children’s natural creativity and curiosity because we are obsessed with compliance and early testing. Many children are simply not developmentally ready to sit still and write for long periods.”

So what do we need? We need to make play-based pedagogy and continuous provision statutory in key stage 1, thereby creating a clear national expectation that play is a developmental need, not an enrichment activity.

I want to thank Veronica Woodward of St Walburga’s, Leanne Dixon from Stourfield junior school, Pauline Sweetman from Stourfield infant school, Vanessa Webster from Epiphany, Michelle Dyer and Imogen Bull from the Avonbourne academies, and Chris Jackson from Avonwood school. Last Friday, Chris hosted us for one of my SEND roundtables, so that we could hear from teachers and headteachers about what future reform should look like. They were convinced that play-based pedagogy is critical for supporting children’s wellbeing and trying to address some of the issues that occur in later life. Just this morning, I was at St James’ school and spoke with the headteacher, Mr Brown, and the assistant head, Mr Parsons, who is also a key stage 1 teacher, and they too agree.

We are in a rare reform window. The decisions that are being made now on curriculum and assessment will shape classrooms for years, and with them children’s confidence, wellbeing and attainment. This is not about choosing play over learning; it is about choosing play because it is learning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

Absolutely, Mrs Barker. The point that I was going to make was that if children are not using social media, that will free up more time for play. That is why that issue is really important. We all want to achieve the same things: more resilience and more capability. Hopefully the Minister will confirm whether the Government agree with us that the use of screens at such a young age can have a detrimental effect, and confirm whether they will progress with the evidence.

I accept that many parents are simply trying to do their best, and they want to have the best opportunities for their children. That is why I implore the Government to take a deep, hard look at the official Opposition’s approach to the use of screens and social media, and to the use of phones in schools. We have called for the use of phones in schools to be officially banned to allow for greater standards in schools. We are worried about the fact that children now spend more time online. Just last week I read reports that some young people try to swipe, and even tap, on books because they use digital devices.

[Tom Hayes]

This is a debate about whether play ought to be a mandatory part of key stage 1—do the official Opposition support that?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I made that very clear. We support the education statutory framework as it is, but I think that the questions around social media and the use of phones are really pertinent. That is what parents are writing to us, as Members of Parliament—

Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see a constituency neighbour in the Chair, Sir Christopher. My constituency has three universities: Bournemouth University, Arts University Bournemouth and the Health Sciences University. They are committed to achieving zero suicides, and have a joint strategy intended to ensure that no person loses their life. I would like to put on the official parliamentary record the names of Paul Millgate, Callum Jewell and Alec Channing. Their lives were lost, as was the love that they gave to their families.

Universities provide significant support for student wellbeing, but it is worth reflecting on what needs to go beyond that. My constituents are benefiting from studying at Bournemouth University and the duty of care that it provides. Bournemouth University is going as far as it possibly can to provide this care, but as we have heard in this debate, introducing a statutory duty of care can achieve two important things: first, a level playing field between the higher education sector and other sectors, and secondly consistency in the standards of care that students and staff can expect across the whole country. It is great that we have fantastic constituency examples of universities that care deeply for their students and staff, and that exercise that care deeply, but we need to make sure that every staff member and student benefits from that type of care.

That is particularly the case because education opens doors for so many young people. I am a fervent fan of apprenticeships and am pleased that the Government are moving towards further investment in apprenticeships, but university will still be a place of great educational importance for our young people. I am also pleased that many of them do not regret their decision to choose a degree. Indeed, last year’s student experience survey showed that just 11% of undergraduates regretted their decision to take a degree.

We must ensure that every undergraduate’s experience is the best it can be. In introducing a statutory duty of care, we need to think carefully about what this would be. There must be clarity on what duty of care means in a higher education context, and it has to intercept with and make sense alongside existing safeguarding responsibilities, health and safety law and anticipatory duties under equality legislation. I am confident that it can, for it must. We also need to think about who would monitor and regulate compliance. Would it fall under Ofsted, the Office for Students, the Department for Education or a new regulatory body? Universities need clear expectations and pathways for managing risk.

We also need to recognise the critical importance of funding, which has been touched on in this debate. In April, I spoke about the shortfall that Bournemouth University was facing of around £15 million to £20 million, which has now more or less closed. In the view of the Office for Students, 24 higher education institutions are at risk of closure. That is a desperate situation for many institutions and our higher education setting. If we are to put this duty on universities, as I think we should, we should also think carefully about what the funding will be.

I will give a short example of what Bournemouth University does. There is a university retreat that provides self-defined crisis support for students, Monday to Saturday from 2 pm to 9 pm on the Talbot campus. It has no thresholds to access, so student mental health support is available in the here and now. For students whose needs may be more complex—or not complex enough to allow them to access healthcare support at hospitals or GPs—this service from the university provides face-to-face support, particularly in crisis moments. It provides those who are stuck on long waiting lists with immediate access to the support that they need. Critically, that is funded by Dorset HealthCare and is delivered in collaboration with it. Any duty that we provide should provide additional funding through our NHS pathways, alongside higher education institutions, so that we can get the very best for our students.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response. In particular, I am looking for the answer to the exam question: is it the Government’s intention to bring forward a statutory duty of care? What would that mean, and how would it be resourced?

Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

We understand on this side of the House that the wealth of our country does not lie in the bank accounts of casino capitalists or the title deeds of billionaires. It lies in nature, with each chalk stream and ancient woodland a national inheritance to be cherished; it lies in the bonds of community that held strong even through the years of politically imposed austerity; and, perhaps most importantly, it lies in our young people—in their talents and their hopes that shape our collective future. The benefits of a Labour Government have been most pronounced when translating into policy the belief that, for Britain to succeed, we must give all young people, whatever their background, the opportunity to fulfil their true potential.

I welcome the fact that Hormead Church of England first and nursery school in my constituency is among the first to benefit from our breakfast club programme. Together with the expansion of free school meals, these policies go some way to ensuring that no child’s learning or health is held back by hunger.

Just as central to early years development is the vital importance of every child having decent housing. We need to take a holistic approach to health, welfare and education, which recognises that a secure and stable home is the foundation for everything else in life. Currently, there are 164,000 children in temporary accommodation across the country—a record high. This means families in overcrowded conditions, children forced to travel long journeys to school and a situation which, all too often, is anything but temporary.

I welcome the Government’s £39 billion funding announcement for the affordable homes programme. The commitment to allocate 60% of this to social housing could make a real difference. To ensure that children growing up today have the best start in life, it is vital that as many of those homes as possible are built during this Parliament. Above all, we need a new generation of council housing, built to meet the needs of those that a profit-led sector will never provide for.

This will require upfront investment and difficult choices about other projects that must fall by the wayside, but we cannot ignore the human cost of delay. This is not a static problem—a building simply waiting to be repaired. Childhood does not pause. Leaving hard-working families to raise their children in cramped, mouldy accommodation with precious little space to play or learn is no way to nourish the future of our country.

Shelter is clear: we need 90,000 social homes a year for 10 years to address the affordable housing crisis, and I will keep making the case to relevant Ministers on the need to frontload this funding package. This is not just the right thing to do morally; the Centre for Economics and Business Research found that hitting the 90,000 homes a year benchmark would return billions to the public purse through lower spending on temporary accommodation, reduce benefits cost, result in less crime, and raise nearly £3 billion from the improved life chances of children. By escaping the desiccated logic of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the old lie that cuts to people equal savings, we can instead invest in our young people and, in doing so, enrich the future of our nation for all of us.

In my first year as the MP for North East Hertfordshire, I have enjoyed visiting schools and meeting students in Royston, Baldock, Letchworth, Standon, Weston and other places across my constituency. The students’ talent and optimism is always a powerful antidote to the cynicism and pettiness that can all too often pervade our politics.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

On Friday, I visited St Katharine’s primary school, where I met young people from my constituency who emphasised two really important points: first, that they want to be global citizens and a part of wider humanity focusing on the world, and, secondly, that they care deeply about nature and want to be conservers of it. Does my hon. Friend agree that our children are at their best when they are able to play the role of global citizen and can take care of the nature on our doorstep?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I wholeheartedly agree and have heard exactly the same thing from students in my constituency. Each and every one of the children in our country deserves a safe, healthy and stable home that is genuinely affordable and does not leave families struggling to make ends meet month after month. If we give the next generation the security to thrive, they will do the rest. The true legacy of this Government will be found in the laughter, learning and achievement of the nation’s children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he connects up the various agencies and Departments and points out the significance of working in close partnership. That is absolutely the right way forward.

This Government are delivering our promise to parents, providing more support to working families than ever before. We are delivering the entitlement of 30 hours of childcare a week for working families, backed by Government funding, which we expect to reach £9 billion from next year. This will save families an average of £7,500 a year and give parents, especially mothers, the freedom and choice to work. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), I have visited many primary schools in my constituency, and I am sure many Members have done the same, but I want to encourage them to visit their new Best Start family hubs as well.

Quality matters when it comes to early education and childcare. A high-quality setting is what all parents should expect for their child, but a great early years education starts with great people, and that is why we are backing the people who care for and teach our youngest children. We will raise the status of our workforce and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned, all staff matter. We will introduce a new professional register. We will train more early years teachers, because we know that their impact is significant. We will double the number of stronger practice hubs and build strong links between settings and schools, so that educators can share best practice and provide the best possible care.

[Tom Hayes]

When I talk with parents and guardians in Bournemouth East, they described the EHCP process as being adversarial and almost designed to exclude. They want a greater role earlier on in the design of their child’s EHCP. Does the Minister agree that that is an important thing that we should be seeking to achieve? Would she also agree that, as we take forward SEND reform, it is important to have families at the heart of that process?

[Janet Daby]

Absolutely; we need to make sure that there is full consultation and involvement so that people and parents feel that their voices are being heard. My hon. Friend has pre-empted me: I am now moving on to EHCPs, which is convenient.

This Government are clear that the current SEND system is difficult for parents, carers and young people to navigate and is simply not delivering the outcomes we want. While we have announced that the details of our long-term approach to SEND reform will be set out in the schools White Paper in the autumn, we are clear that any changes we make will improve the support available to families, stop parents having to fight for support, and protect the effective provision that is currently in place.

We know that many parents feel the only way their child can get the support they need is through EHCPs. However, independently commissioned insights published last year showed that extensive improvements to the system using early intervention and better resourcing of mainstream schools could have a significant impact.

Universities: Funding and Employment

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I start by putting on record my thanks to higher education. I could not be here if I had not been the first in my family to go to university, and that was possible because the last Labour Government set that high ambition for people from poorer backgrounds. This Government, too, can set that high ambition for people to go into FE and HE.

I also thank Professor Inderjeet Parmar at the University of Manchester and Professor Duncan Bell at the University of Cambridge. If they had not taught me critical thinking and helped to strengthen my sense of independence, I do not know that I would have pursued a career in politics. I say that because when I speak to professors and teaching staff at the universities in Bournemouth, the town where I am an MP, it is clear that they are passionate about the student experience and education. However, the three universities are facing danger.

We are fortunate, in Bournemouth, to have three universities, including Arts University Bournemouth, which teaches 4,000 students and was established in 1880. I was pleased to be there on Saturday, as they were hosting a youth celebration showing the ways in which they contribute to our local society. We also have Health Sciences University, which just installed Her Royal Highness Princess Anne as chancellor, showing that it is taking a leap forward in providing education, research and clinical care to help build a healthier society, and I commend the leadership of Lesley Haig there.

We also have Bournemouth University, the largest in the town. Its motto, “To learn is to change”, is one that the teaching staff and students feel deeply. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), I have been honoured to hold election hustings there, be quizzed by students, tour their facilities, meet frequently with their leadership team and attend their graduation ceremonies. It is a fantastic university, but it is in a difficult position. On 26 March, it was announced that teaching and support staff could face up to 200 potential redundancies. It was also announced that there would be a reduction of the number of faculties from four to three and a suspension of 15 courses, all to address a £15 million to £20 million financial black hole inherited by the new leadership team, which is moving quickly to put the finances right in a difficult set of circumstances. I have met constituents in surgeries to talk about the possible repercussions of that on their livelihoods and of their commitment to their students. They are worried about the possible impacts on students’ education.

Arts University Bournemouth is also in a difficult financial position, announcing earlier this year that it could be at risk of job losses due to ongoing financial pressures, having posted a deficit in the last three financial years. This shows that two of the three universities in Bournemouth are not immune from the national challenges. They are in the firing line because over the past 14 years we have seen the funding model for higher education trashed and higher education disrespected by the Conservatives. Enough is enough. I am calling on the Government to provide to all universities—and in doing so the universities in Bournemouth—the longer-term financial settlement that will offer the security that universities need to plan and the certainty that teaching staff need to develop their courses, improving both the teaching experience and professional development. That will ensure that students have the very best possible education.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point, which stands on its own merits.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

To refer back to the previous intervention, as the MP for Bournemouth East in the south-west, I can assure the House that we are very excited about the prospect of extra construction coming to our area. In fact, Bournemouth and Poole college tells me that it has 600 construction apprentices on its books, but that it is having to turn away hundreds more. Those are opportunities being lost. The college welcomes the abolition of IfATE and the speedy transfer of responsibilities to Skills England. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we should listen to colleges such as Bournemouth and Poole college?

[Damian Hinds]

Of course we should be listening to colleges such as Bournemouth and Poole college. We heard the Government announce earlier that thousands of people were going to go into construction, but then say that they could not do anything until they created this body and subsumed the functions of IfATE into it. I do not see how all those things fit together. Yes, we want more people going into construction, and a long list of other sectors too, but that does not necessarily mean an apprenticeship in every case. There is a whole suite of existing technical and vocational courses, and T-levels are still ramping up as well.

On breadth versus depth, IfATE has a huge range, with more than 600 occupational standards for apprenticeships, T-levels and higher technical qualifications. Skills England is initially looking at a narrower set of sectors, but has a much broader remit for them, so it does more than IfATE. There are three big things on its list. The first is to identify where skills gaps exist, which is itself a very significant task. It may at first glance sound obvious, but it really is not. First, there is a question of what time horizon we are talking about. Are we talking about today, or planning five, 10 or more years into the future? More significantly, I am sure people would generally say that we could train more people to go into the social care sector. The issue is not so much whether we have the training courses available, but whether people are willing and happy to go into the sector. That is a broader question.

Secondly, Skills England has to work across Government with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Migration Advisory Committee, as well, of course, as with the Labour Market Advisory Board, under the DWP. The MAC is a well-established body, having been around for a number of years, that has a remit on immigration; it will not necessarily have the same perspective as Skills England. As the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire rightly said, the ISAC is going to be given its own statutory footing, which begs the question of where in the hierarchy Skills England will be. We want this to be a body that is able to speak authoritatively right across Government.

Thirdly, Skills England is going to identify the training that should be accessible via the growth and skills levy. That, again, is a huge task. What can be funded from the levy is a huge strategic question. What specific skills should we rightly expect a firm to provide, and what should be generalisable skills for the economy?

Even after all that, there is still the big question about supply and demand at college level—this may come back to the point the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made about listening to colleges, on which he was absolutely right. We do not currently stop people doing courses because there is a surplus of people in such and such a sector and a shortage somewhere else, but some hard questions are going to come up around the funding formulae for these things to ensure that we do have enough people going into construction, social care and so on.

My contention is that each of those functions is enormous. Amendment 6 would, therefore, perform a useful role. It is not about dither and delay, but about allowing Skills England to establish itself and to carry out those key strategic functions that it is there to do, and then to be able to subsume the functions from IfATE.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

On Second Reading, I spoke about the role of supported lodgings, but I also spoke about the impact on well-meaning and responsible parents who, for a variety of reasons, choose to home-educate their children and who will be disproportionately impacted by the legislation. I realise that this issue is in part 2 of the Bill and will be debated tomorrow, but I am on a Public Bill Committee tomorrow, so I want to get on the record my support for amendments 193 to 198, tabled by the Conservative Education team, which all seek to tackle the hammer blow that the Bill applies to home-educating families. However, today I must stick to part 1—I appreciate that I was speaking slightly off topic.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 seek to further support those who have been in the care system by providing a statutory basis for their support to the age of 25. Like the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), as a former member of a corporate parenting panel as a councillor, over the years I have met many young people who are looking for support and security as they start their transition to adulthood. I should at this point declare an interest as a member of Plymouth city council. I want to share a recent innovation by the council. We have a great history of cross-party working as a corporate parenting panel, but the council has just instituted paying for prescriptions and providing additional housing support for over 18s. The particularly clever point is that it charges the cost of the prescriptions back to the integrated care board, so that is a good illustration of what is going on out there and is the sort of thing we could build on.

Indeed, when I was a member of a corporate parenting panel, I felt strongly that a good way to get national recognition and national provision, as the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said, would be to pursue something like a care leavers covenant—a bit like the veterans covenant. This is not over the top. We have touched the edges of the expectations around jobs, housing and homelessness, and the implication and understanding of the veterans covenant could be extended to care leavers.

As I said, I have met many care leavers who are looking for that support. As a result, I have a particular interest in the transition to adulthood. We can stand here and talk about young people from birth to 25, but something about the transition to adulthood has always resonated with me. It is particularly important that I am able to speak about that again today.

Specifically, I welcome the Government’s confirmation in Committee that supported lodgings will be included in the Bill’s statutory guidance as a form of accommodation to be considered by local authorities. Having highlighted the value of supported lodgings to young people on Second Reading, and having seen the evidence that Home for Good and Safe Families provided in Committee, I remain convinced that they are a valuable option for young people and should be used more.

Furthermore, I know the Fostering Network is keen to see the Bill proceed and more explicitly provide for staying put, not just staying close, thereby extending the opportunity for young people to remain with their foster carers at the age of 18. Ultimately, that would be one less move they need to make if they do not have a secure home after that age. However, I am not sure that is in the final Bill—it remains to be seen. I suppose the House of Lords could make an amendment, but we will have to see where we end up.

It is disappointing that amendment 184, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), does not have Government support. It would have ensured that staying close support takes account of the views of young people, requiring local authorities to take account of the wishes of the relevant young person when providing staying close support to allow for continuous improvement. It would also have introduced a requirement to keep a record of those wishes to ensure that the young person’s views and desires are protected from the loss of knowledge when personnel change.

We have already heard about many inconsistencies in the Bill, and this feels like another. We are keen for young people to have a number that follows them all the way through school, but we are not keen to ensure that their records and their wishes as care-experienced young people are followed through and protected.

As I am sure many Members will agree, it is all well and good for us to stand here today and say that supported lodgings should be promoted, but as someone who has not been in the care system, I can speak only from the experience of receiving my family’s continuing support after the age of 18. However, I also had a choice at that stage, and it is so important that, as corporate parents, we ensure such choice continues.

My life is effectively based on my choices, which meant going away to university, but I also got to come home every holiday. Although I may have lost my bedroom to my younger brother, I still had a home right through until I moved to London for my first job— I even moved back again in my early 30s. I had the support of a home, which we are saying we should provide for those who are care-experienced.

It is essential that we recognise the value of choice for those care-experienced young people who do not have the choices we may have. If we can at least listen to them and ensure that their views and preferences are carried through the system, putting them in the driving seat, it would be beneficial to their transition to adulthood.

Clause 7 strengthens the provision of advice and support for young people aged 18 to 25 who have been in the care system. While I welcome the extension to the expectation of who local authorities support and how, it feels like a limited list—this seems like a missed opportunity.

Bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, because this is a reasonably long story that does not directly relate to these amendments until the end, but I think it is important to put it on the record. On Friday, a 33-year-old man attended my surgery to share his experience as someone who had been placed in care and then adopted. Unfortunately, this Bill does not cover his experiences.

He was sexually abused as a baby by both his parents, and he was eventually removed from home—with hindsight, he was also neglected. The impact of his life story means that he has experienced homelessness, prison on more than one occasion, and ongoing mental health issues related to the trauma he experienced. These issues extended into his adoptive life with a new mother who became an alcoholic and was physically abusive towards him.

Now a young man, despite the odds stacked against him, he has settled down, has three children and is still with their mother, although he says that is tough at times. He is a facilitator for Andy’s Man Club in my constituency, and he has set up a support group and a podcast to help others like him. On the one hand, he is a success.

However, he highlighted an issue that I think is important to raise today. He clearly articulated to me how he feels he was let down by social services when he asked to see his care records. This is where I believe his story links to the Bill. Regardless of the fact that he discovered there were two sets of records—his social services files and his adoption records—he received no support when he made a request to access them. He was simply given the files by Devon county council, and that was that.

Having read two of the five files he was given, which he found to be in a highly disorganised state, he had to stop because of their content’s significant adverse effect on him. His case highlights the need for provisions like clause 7 to go further on the staying close offer, by prompting a conversation about how we support those who have, through no fault of their own, experienced some of the most horrific early childhood experiences.

How can we better support previously looked-after adults as they continue their journey through life? I appreciate that we cannot necessarily provide this support forever, but perhaps the only thing we need to do when they access their social services records, as we do not know at what point in their life they will do so, is ensure that they receive a meeting with someone trained to explain what those records mean. That is what young adults like my constituent are requesting.

My constituent’s records contained distressing details, but they also included lots of technical language that he did not understand because he is not a social worker. He may be over 25 now, but I do not believe his experiences are age-related. I call on the Minister to ensure that guidance on the sharing of care records is explored as we finalise clause 7. This simple proposal could make an extraordinary difference.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful point about the importance of accessing coherent and organised records. However, does she agree that one of the reasons for those records being disorganised is the churn of social workers, and one of the causes of that churn is our care system’s extensive reliance on the excessive profiteering of external companies? This Bill provides for retention of care workers by ruling out excessive profiteering. Does she welcome that?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting)

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the SNP and the Liberal Democrats are experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder, and I mean that in two senses. First, they query whether this Government are committed to international human rights, when they have shown time and again that they are, although I understand that concern, given what has gone before. With this situation—where they are trying to prescribe, in primary legislation, the foreign affairs of this Government and the regularity with which they meet international organisations—I wonder too whether they are experiencing some post-traumatic stress disorder, because they know that the previous Conservative Government resorted to sticking two fingers up at our international partners and international agencies. I hope they will withdraw the new clause because they should feel reassured that this Government have a respect for human rights, international law and working with our international partners and agencies.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)]

I hope you, too, enjoyed a long and languid lunch, Dame Siobhain, after the way in which we overshot this morning’s sitting. This group of new clauses introduces requirements, in primary legislation, for the Secretary of State to put in place arrangements for closer co-operation with Europol, which includes seeking the establishment of a joint task force, providing adequate resources for participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations and the publication of an annual report.

Very few of us would quibble with what I suspect is the intended output of such clauses, but I would quibble with the means by which the hon. Member for Woking has decided to try to bring it about. He is putting things into a piece of primary legislation, which cannot be easily changed, moved or shifted about, and that creates more issues and less flexibility than what I am sure he is seeking to achieve.

I suspect that, with these clauses, the hon. Gentleman is using the Bill as a hook on which to hang requirements on the Secretary of State, so as to have a debate about how the Government will co-operate with international law enforcement agencies. I do not think he is really saying that we should be doing that in the quite rigid way that his new clauses suggest. I reassure him that we are doing what I think he wants us to do according to the new clauses, but in a much more flexible way that can be changed very quickly because it is not stuck in a piece of primary legislation. I think we also discussed it on day one in Committee.

The UK has a strong relationship with Europol, including significant permanent presence in the agency’s headquarters in The Hague. UK law enforcement agencies already collaborate with international partners through Europol-supported operations. The allocation of resources to that participation is an operational decision for law enforcement agencies, and certainly not one that should be included in primary legislation. There is regular interaction on both operational and strategic matters between Europol, this Government and the Home Office, including at the most senior levels.

As well as working with Europol, the Home Office will continue to work with a range of international bodies—including Frontex and operational work with many of the law enforcement agencies in European countries and beyond, for example—to deliver the Government’s border security objectives. That is because we recognise that border security is not just about one’s own border: quite often weaknesses in others’ borders along the traveller and migratory routes cause weaknesses for us. Indeed, sometimes visa regimes in other countries can cause problems in the UK. For example, the sudden appearance on small boats last year of large numbers of Vietnamese, who clearly had not walked from Vietnam, was caused by changes that had happened to visa requirements in other countries. Those things are interrelated. Fighting organised immigration crime is an interrelated operational, diplomatic and political matter, on which this Government are doing a great deal of work to try to strengthen it and make it more effective.

The UK regularly participates in operational taskforces with EU partners, and it is inappropriate to place on the face of a piece of legislation a statutory requirement to seek to establish a joint taskforce. That would force us to have a joint taskforce, whether or not we wanted one and whether or not it would do any good, thereby, in that case, diverting precious resources where they are not operationally needed.

I hope the hon. Member for Woking understands the points that I am making. The Border Security Commander will provide an annual report to Parliament, setting out their views on the performance of the border security system as it develops. Europol is an individual agency, among many with which UK law enforcement collaborates to achieve the Border Security Commander’s objective. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my comments on his three new clauses in the spirit in which they are intended: we know what he means, but we think that we have a better way of bringing it about in a far more flexible way than through his new clauses. If he accepts that argument, I certainly hope he will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I was listening carefully and had a lightbulb moment. Perhaps the Conservatives figured out what a deterrent was—it was crashing the economy and putting our country into such difficulty that it obliterated the pull factor. That might be a cruel thing to say. Does the hon. Member agree that we heard in evidence that there are pull factors in the UK in terms of our language, our diaspora and quality of life, and other countries may not have those same factors? If we agree to the new clause and make it easier for people who cross the channel illegally to work here, people may be even more incentivised to come here compared with other countries.

[Mr Forster]

I am happy to have given the hon. Member the chance to mention Liz Truss and attack the Conservative economic record. I take the point. If Government Members like the spirit of the new clause but do not like the detail, why have they not suggested that it should apply only to existing asylum seekers caught up in the backlog rather than new asylum seekers? I have not made that distinction. You are implying that there should be that distinction; you are not implying that, Dame Siobhain, obviously—the Government are implying that. I have not used “yous” for a while; I am afraid I did that time.

We will talk about this in a debate on a new clause that is still to come. The Government have identified that they need to improve the system. I completely agree. They have inherited a completely broken system. A further new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats would put a legislative framework around the system, to try to improve it. If the Government are so concerned about allowing asylum seekers to work, I hope they will support that new clause.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

Report on impact of carers’ minimum wage on net migration

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration.”—(Mr Forster.)

This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of implementing a carers’ minimum wage on levels of net migration.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Seema Malhotra]

I will just make this point first. In a sense, the new clause will have a very limited impact on access to benefits for those with pre-settled status, or limited leave, under the EUSS. To access income-related benefits such as universal credit, they would be required to evidence relevant qualifying activity, such as current or recent employment or self-employment. Those with settled status, or indefinite leave, under the EUSS already have full access to benefits where eligible.

On the question asked by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, I know there is broader research, and there is some data but not other data, and there are different estimates, but I am sure that she will know and appreciate that the vast majority will be working. Her question is also relevant to a more general question about those who are here and have settled status: how many are working? We know that there is different research, but the vast majority are self-sufficient.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I refer the Committee back to the oral evidence that we heard at the very start of our work. Experts were asked whether they felt that the available immigration data, which could have been improved over 14 years, was robust enough for making strong assertions. Time and again, we heard from experts that it is very hard to make assessments about the net benefit or net cost of immigration flows into our country. Do the Government intend to work alongside the Migration Advisory Committee to improve the quality of immigration data so that we can make such assessments on a more robust footing?

[Seema Malhotra]

Indeed, it is important to have data that can inform policymaking and public debate. This is a separate matter to the one of those who come to work, settle and contribute to our economy and society, which I know we all want to see—that is indeed what we see in our constituencies—but it is also important that those who come through humanitarian routes are supported to access employability skills and employment, so that they can support themselves and their families. It is important that we look at how joined-up we are and to what extent that support is in place.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendments made: 23, in clause 55, page 56, line 29, after “to” insert

“any of the Channel Islands or”.

This amendment enables certain provisions of the Bill to be extended by Order in Council to any of the Channel Islands.

Amendment 24, in clause 55, page 56, line 31, after second “to” insert

“any of the Channel Islands or”.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

This amendment enables certain amendments and repeals by the Bill to be extended by Order in Council to any of the Channel Islands.

Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

Commencement

Amendment made: 25, in clause 56, page 57, line 15, after “35” insert

“, (EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc)”.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

This amendment to the commencement clause has the effect of bringing NC31 into force 2 months after Royal Assent.

Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 30

Conditions on limited leave to enter or remain and immigration bail

“(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In section 3(1)(c) (conditions which may be applied to limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom)—

(a) omit the ‘and’ at the end of sub-paragraph (iv), and

(b) at the end of sub-paragraph (v) insert—

‘(vi) an electronic monitoring condition (see Schedule 1A);

(vii) a condition requiring the person to be at a particular place between particular times, either on particular days or on any day;

(viii) a condition requiring the person to remain within a particular area;

(ix) a condition prohibiting the person from being in a particular area;

(x) such other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.’

(3) Before Schedule 2 insert—

‘Schedule 1A

Electronic monitoring conditions

1 For the purposes of section 3(1)(c)(vi), an “electronic monitoring condition” means a condition requiring the person on whom it is imposed (“P”) to co-operate with such arrangements as the Secretary of State may specify for detecting and recording by electronic means one or more of the following—

(a) P’s location at specified times, during specified periods of time or while the arrangements are in place;

(b) P’s presence in a location at specified times, during specified periods of time or while the arrangements are in place;

(c) P’s absence from a location at specified times, during specified periods of time or while the arrangements are in place.

2 The arrangements may in particular—

(a) require P to wear a device;

(b) require P to make specified use of a device;

(c) require P to communicate in a specified manner and at specified times or during specified periods;

(d) involve the exercise of functions by persons other than the Secretary of State.

3 If the arrangements require P to wear, or make specified use of, a device they must—

(a) prohibit P from causing or permitting damage to, or interference with, the device, and

(b) prohibit P from taking or permitting action that would or might prevent the effective operation of the device.

4 An electronic monitoring condition may not be imposed on a person unless the person is at least 18 years old.

5 In this Schedule “specified” means specified in the arrangements.’

(4) In Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 (immigration bail), in paragraph 2(1) (conditions of bail), after paragraph (e) insert—

‘(ea) a condition requiring the person to be at a particular place between particular times, either on particular days or on any day;

(eb) a condition requiring the person to remain within a particular area;

(ec) a condition prohibiting the person from being in a particular area;’”.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

This new clause makes provision about the conditions which can be imposed on a grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom or a grant of immigration bail.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham and I welcome the new clause. British citizens must be safe, and they need a Government who act to protect them. I believe that the new clause will give them reassurance that we have the ability to impose tight controls and monitoring of an individual if it is deemed necessary by the authorities. We must have legislation that puts the security of our country at the top of the agenda, and the new clause gives the police the powers to impose electronic monitoring, curfews and movement bans on people who are perceived to be a threat when ECHR obligations are protecting them.

[Tom Hayes]

I want to comment briefly on the speech by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. I understand the importance of being sensitive to possible infringements and abuses of international law; indeed, in recent years, we have seen states around the world traducing it. However, I gently say to him—I hope it has not missed his attention—that the Prime Minister is a lawyer and, as a consequence of that background, he is deeply wedded to the law. In most of his speeches and statements, he refers consistently to the importance of the UK being a leader on the world stage by respecting international law.

I say that because the Committee has just repealed the Safety of Rwanda Act, which was deemed unlawful by the courts. We have a Prime Minister who deeply respects international law; around the world, we have states and actors who traduce it. Having a Prime Minister and a country that are so committed to it at this point in history is really important. I gently say to the hon. Member that it is important that we are sensitive to possible infringements of international law, but we ought not to overplay the possibility of it happening here in our country, when all the evidence from the last eight months should give us confidence and hope.

[Matt Vickers]

I would be interested in the Minister’s assessment of the operational utility of the new clause. What impact do the Government expect it to have on lowering the rate of abscondence from immigration bail?

--- Later in debate ---

Increasingly in this Committee, we are trying to anticipate what the Ministers are going to say, and usually I have been pretty good at that. [Interruption.] The Minister for Border Security and Asylum is pointing to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—I know what she is going to say, because she replied directly to a question I asked about this. They always point to the fact that we have a safe route from Afghanistan but Afghanis still made up the largest group of people who came across the channel the last year. That is a fair point, but one group we never hear about when it comes to this is Ukrainians. We know of only five Ukrainians who have crossed the channel irregularly. That suggests to me that the Ukraine safe route scheme works.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the statistics that show that around 90% of people crossing the channel are men, and on the fact that men in Ukraine are typically committed to fighting the Russian invasion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

I am happy to support new clause 1—in fact, I enthusiastically support it. The challenge of speaking after the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is that most of the things worth saying have already been said. In the evidence session I highlighted that safe and legal routes are a key part of us tackling the problem. The Ukrainian scheme is a clear example of success, as is the Hong Kong scheme, yet this Government, like the last one, seem reluctant to go down that route.

[Tom Hayes]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh was just saying, that we listen to the refugee voice and think more broadly about what asylum seekers and refugees actually want?

In a previous life, I worked for an international development charity where I led UK campaigning on safe and legal routes. In so doing I took away a major learning, which is that the UK cannot be overwhelmingly the country that receives refugees and asylum seekers via safe and legal routes. That is in part because the UK alone cannot be asked to shoulder such a large responsibility, but also because many asylum seekers and refugees wish to return home and therefore want to be located in a safe country that is nearer to their home country. Is it not right that we think about this in a broader and international sense, rather than assuming that the UK has to always be the country that shoulders the responsibility, when there are other ways that we can support?

[Mr Forster]

I have some sympathy for what the hon. Member says. We talked about listening to the refugee charities. One of the notes that I made of our evidence session is that they criticised the Bill as only being half the story—saying that it tackles the supply but not the demand. They said that we needed an integrated approach, and to them this Bill was not that; it was a blunt instrument. They were sympathetic to some of the Bill, but they said that it will not fully solve the things that we want to solve.

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point that it might not be a full solution if the UK is the only country to agree safe and legal routes; but we made an agreement with Europe agreed about the Ukrainians. The hon. Member could have tried to amend the new clauses to say that the Government should be working with international partners to introduce safe and legal routes, but it seems that the Government want to dismiss any discussion of safe and legal routes whatsoever, even if working with partners.

[Tom Hayes]

Is it not the case that the Government do not think that primary legislation is the way to secure international negotiation about safe and legal routes? Actually, those conversations will be happening with the Government and partners. In fact, one of the highlights of having a new Government is a reset of our relationship with the European Union, which—in time, once it matures and restores—can help in negotiations for better routes for humanitarian assistance and support. Primary legislation is not needed for everything.

[Mr Forster]

I would really like to hear the Minister confirm that the Government are going to work with international partners to encourage a co-ordinated programme on safe and legal routes. One option, I would hope, is to agree to the new clause, but if the Government will not agree with this version, will they agree to consult on how to introduce safe and legal routes with partners? I am trying to be as moderate and practical as possible. A lot of requests from MPs do not require immediate action, but they do require the Government to consult. Is that something that the Minister would consider?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

That is a very difficult thing to say. We have some rough ideas when it comes to the Ukraine and Afghan schemes. These schemes are really worth while. We have seen them work, because there are no Ukrainians crossing the channel—we have had five individuals. It is absurd and ridiculous to suggest that every single refugee in the world is going to come, but the Government—we passed this in a clause earlier—are putting a cap and a quota on people using these safe routes. They are not interested in opening up and developing these safe routes; they want to stop and put a quota on people using them.

[Tom Hayes]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is not a binary choice between, on the one hand, safe and legal routes to the UK, and on the other, getting into a death machine boat to reach the UK? Actually, we could have refugees and asylum seekers who travelled through safe and legal routes to other countries.

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. I think we are starting to get into territory where there is general agreement. With these amendments, we are asking the Government to look at what more they could do to achieve their clear objective of smashing the gangs. The gangs are successful and will adapt to whatever is put in their way by the Bill. These people know how to work this business. People have said it has only been going five years, but this business is developing at pace. They will amend their business model and practice to adapt to whatever the Government throw at them in the new criminalisation clauses. Their trade will probably get more lucrative as a response, so let us beat them. Let us take them on. Let us really spike their business model by offering an alternative way and means to secure entry to the UK so asylum can be claimed. All we are looking for is an opportunity to develop this and have a conversation.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The arguments around this issue are reasonably well known, so I will be brief. This discussion started when Oldham asked for a national inquiry into what happened there, which it did because a local inquiry would not have the powers that are needed. For example, a local inquiry cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, or requisition evidence. We have already seen the two men leading the local investigation in Greater Manchester resign because they felt they were being blocked, yet the Government say no to a national inquiry, and that there should be local inquiries instead.

However, there have been years during which those places could have held their own local inquiries, but they have not. In many cases, as is well known, local officials at different levels were part of the problem, and even part of the deflection, so they cannot be the people to fix it. In Keighley, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has been calling for an inquiry for years, but even as Ministers argued in the House that there should be local inquiries, local politicians decided again not to hold one.

In these debates the Government often refer to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which was an important first step, but it was not—indeed, it was never intended to be—a report on the grooming gangs. It barely touches on them. IICSA looked at about half a dozen places where grooming gangs have operated, but there were between 40 to 50 places where those gangs operated, and the inquiry touches on them very lightly and does not look at the places where there were the most severe problems. It means that victims in those places have never had a chance to be heard.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome what the hon. Member says about the importance of victims, as they must be at the centre of all we do in this area. Will he outline whether he has met any victims of child sexual abuse in the past 12 months, and if he has, what they have said about the new clause? Is the new clause based on conversations with victims?

[Neil O’Brien]

The new clause is based on calls by victims for a national inquiry; I was about to come to that point. Having a proper national inquiry does not stop us from getting on and implementing any of the recommendations in the previous report. Indeed, awareness raising was one of the recommendations that was made. Without a national inquiry, we will clearly not get to the bottom of this issue, and people who looked the other way, or who covered up or deflected, will not be held to account for doing that. So far, nobody in authority has been held to account.

The Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester and the hon. Members for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) have backed some form of national inquiry, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that there should be a national inquiry if victims wanted one. Numerous victims are calling for an inquiry, so the real question is what we are waiting for.

[Tom Hayes]

Again, you are talking about victims—

[Neil O’Brien]

I am not the Chair.

[Tom Hayes]

I apologise; that is a good point. The hon. Member is talking about victims and what they want, so I return to the question that I asked: has he met victims of child sexual abuse when tabling this new clause—yes or no?

[Neil O’Brien]

As a constituency MP I have met victims of sexual abuse, yes, and it is clear, if people have been following the debate, that victims are calling for an inquiry. Indeed, numerous people in the Labour party agree that we should have a proper inquiry, for all the reasons that Oldham originally asked for one, namely that it does not have the powers locally to get to the truth and to get justice for the victims. The new clause would create a national inquiry and we hope that at some point the Government will support it so that justice can be done and those who have let victims down can finally be held to account.

[Tom Hayes]

I want to press the point about whether any victims of child sexual abuse have been directly consulted about the proposed new clause. Before I became an MP I ran a service to support victims of child sexual abuse. I have sat with survivors and listened to some of the stories they have shared about the worst things that could happen to a human being, in order to understand the difficulties and trauma that they are experiencing. I know that rebuilding their life will involve many long years of painstaking support alongside many types of services, and I know that what they need most is the implementation of the national inquiry that has already concluded, which heard from many victims of child sexual abuse.

Having sat with and listened to victims of abuse, my big concern is that not implementing those recommendations will be a signal to them that all they have shared and said—after significant difficulty—will have been discarded. That will make people who have gone through awful experiences that have made them feel as though they lack dignity, once again feel as though the system that was there to support and listen to them has let them down, and that as a consequence they are not worthy of the dignity that, as human beings, they really ought to be entitled to.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is wrong to pretend that IICSA was a report into the grooming gangs. It was not; it was never intended to be. It looked a tiny handful of places, so many of the people who were affected by that scandal have never had the chance to have their story told. It has never been clear why having a new national inquiry would prevent us from implementing any of those previous things—it obviously would not. The argument that the Government cannot do two things at the same time is clearly wrong, so it cannot be used as an excuse not to listen to all those who have never had the chance to tell their story.

[Tom Hayes]

I believe that the Minister may be coming to that point very soon, and I am excited to hear your response to what she says—

[The Chair]

Order. Please do not use the “you” word.

[Tom Hayes]

I appreciate that. I will return to the important topic at hand.

The Minister will comment explicitly on what the hon. Member said but I will say that, although I agree that the Government can do more than one thing, a significant amount of time and money would be invested on a second inquiry. I would want that money to be funnelled directly into the support of survivors and victims, who for so many years under a Conservative Government were denied the funding that they require to receive the support that they need in response to some of the worst experiences that a human being can go through.

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Member is in danger of literally saying it is too expensive to get to the truth. He just said that the cost of a national inquiry was the obstacle to having one. I really hope that he will rethink that point.

[Tom Hayes]

I disagree strongly with the hon. Member. He knows exactly what I said, and he is choosing to put words into my mouth, as he has chosen to put words into the mouths of many other Committee members. If he wants to play that game, let us talk about whether he has focused properly on child sexual abuse in his time as an MP, quite apart from whether he spoke with any victims or survivors before tabling the amendment.

The hon. Member has been in this House since 8 June 2017, a total of 2,849 days. It took him 2,801 days before he spoke in Parliament for the first time about child sexual abuse. He may say, “Of course, I was a Minister for some of that time,” so I calculated the amount of time that you were a Minister. It is approximately 25% of your total time as an MP. I think it is important, obviously—

[The Chair]

Order. [Interruption.] Sit down, please. The hon. Gentleman is now quite an experienced Member at speaking, but why does he keep using “you” and “your”? Just avoid those expressions, because I am not involved in this debate. I am trying to be neutral. Mr O’Brien may wish to respond to your points, but please try to control yourself in that respect.

[Tom Hayes]

Thank you, Sir Christopher.

I have made my point about whether the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has used his time here to press the case on behalf of survivors and victims. I have made the point about whether he has chosen to sit with survivors and victims and listen to their stories before calling for another national inquiry that discards the views that have been given by survivors.

I have talked about the importance of the money that could be spent on a second inquiry being better spent on the support that victims and survivors so desperately need. I really wish that the Conservative party, which did so little in government to implement the recommendations that were called for by survivors, would put down the politics of this issue and stop focusing on a desperate pursuit of Reform voters, rather than the other voters they lost to the Liberal Democrats and Greens.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement that, given that the independent national inquiry covered so many types of child sexual exploitation—so many horrors that have been visited upon our young people—only one aspect of it has become the focus of political debate? We should focus on all the children and young people who have been violated, abused and hurt, mostly by men, but they seem to be forgotten even though the national inquiry covered a whole range of child sexual exploitation.

[Tom Hayes]

I could not agree more, and my hon. Friend helps me make a point that I had forgotten. You urged me to exercise control, Sir Christopher, but as you and other Members can see, I feel deeply about this topic. I feel very strongly about the importance of standing alongside survivors, and I am prepared to work with anybody in this House, of any party or none, to enhance the support that survivors receive. But having sat with survivors, I am not prepared to allow people to play politics with their experience, and for those individuals then to feign disappointment, hurt and abuse. This is not about how Members of this House feel about the honesty and truth of the words I am speaking; it is about the importance of survivors out in our communities, who have been let down for 14 years, who have suffered exploitative, abusive practices, and who will be looking to this House today to do the right thing by them. I call on the Conservatives in this Committee and across the House to do the right thing, stop playing politics, actually read the report if they have not done so already, and as a consequence show some dignity.

[Ellie Chowns]

Shortly after Christmas, a person came to see me who had given evidence to the IICSA inquiry and who was deeply upset by their perception that their experience, and the experience of others like them, was being used as a political football. They were outraged to find that the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiry had not yet been implemented. In this room, my role is to represent them. Their call is not for another public inquiry but for the implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry that has already been done.

I find it really disappointing that such serious matters are being used as a political football. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East made a valid point about the degree to which these issues were not addressed until very recently. I ask rhetorically: would this new clause even have been tabled were it not for pot-stirring tweets by Elon Musk? I very much doubt it. I therefore think this Committee should do the job we are here to do. We should scrutinise this Bill and not use it as an opportunity to play games with the lives of victims and survivors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I want to point out a tension between the arguments that we have heard. One type of argument says that the job is done; there is nothing more to find out. It dismisses calls for further work as “gesture politics”—that is one phrase that we heard this morning. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said that the grooming gangs had been “fully investigated”. I do not believe that, nor do the victims—in fact, not a single official has been held to account. More importantly perhaps, the Government do not believe it either. They argue that more work is needed—the disagreement is simply whether there should be local inquiries rather than a national inquiry. Members continue to make arguments that the Government were perhaps making at the start of the year, but that is not where the Government are now.

[Tom Hayes]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point that members of this Committee have said, in so many words, that the job is done and we do not have anything more to learn, I want to be categorical in saying that those are not the words that I use and I did not imply that in anything that I said. I look to Committee colleagues to nod if they agree. All people who spoke today have nodded to affirm that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is not a true representation of what in fact they were saying or even implying, so may I please ask him to withdraw that statement?

[Neil O’Brien]

The people who read the transcript of this debate or perhaps have been listening to it at home can judge for themselves whether what I said was a fair summary of the arguments put forward by Government Members.