Political Donations

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I want to start by taking stock of where we are as a country. We are in a particular moment in British history. The Conservative Government that this Labour Government replaced did a number on this country in two ways. First, as we have heard from other hon. Members, our electoral and political system has been diminished—for instance, the Electoral Commission has fewer teeth. Secondly, vast swathes of our country feel hopeless. When I knocked on doors over the past two years, I began to feel that the opposition was not in fact the Conservative party but hopelessness. Whether it is the fabric of our society being torn apart or our public services being underfunded, people have been cast adrift, and they are increasingly unconfident about the ability of democracy to fix our problems. That is why fixing these problems is so important for this Government.

We are also in a particular moment in world history. That moment is one of democratic backsliding, and of the rise of authoritarianism, populism and misinformation. If we as a leading western democracy do not fix our rules around political donations and our electoral and political system, we will not be able to contribute to the survival of democracy in this moment, when democracy faces such a significant challenge. We have to get it right for our own people, but we have to get it right, too, for the democracies of the world.

It is important, therefore, that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to protect democracy by strengthening the rules on donations, and that the Prime Minister has said that he wishes to protect democracy from the threat of interference. The Government are right that we need to move further and faster to protect our elections and our national security against foreign interference. That means shoring up and shielding the integrity of our democracy and our institutions, which have been made vulnerable to foreign actors by some of the changes made by the previous Government, which we have heard about.

We also need to reflect on the fact that this world moment involves a particular intersection between the concentration of wealth that can sway elections in the hands of a small number of people who happen to be tech billionaires, and the fact that these wealthy men are foreigners to our country. If they were to get engaged in our politics under the current system, they could sway our elections through donations, as well as through their use of technology and communication channels. That is particularly important, because there are challenges around the use of the online space to spread misinformation, the role of artificial intelligence and the role of hacks, as well as questions about donations to political parties, candidates and agendas.

We know the names of some of these tech billionaires: Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates or Sergey Brin. There is also, as we all know, Elon Musk. I talk about Elon Musk here for illustrative purposes, rather than just to single him out as an individual; any of the individuals I have just mentioned could use their tech wealth to be involved in the political activities of this country. But as I saw when I went to Queen’s Park Infant Academy and spoke to some of the younger people there, they are concerned about foreign donations into our country’s political system.

One young person said to me, “What do you make of Elon Musk?” I did not quite know what to say, so I flipped the question back and said to that child, “Well, what do you make?” Her answer was absolutely pitch perfect. She said, “Why is a South African-born person, who lives in the United States, has funded a presidential election there, and is now part of the US Government, threatening to get involved in UK politics. I can’t even have a say in UK politics.” I think she makes an interesting point, and I thank her for making it.

Elon Musk cannot legally make a donation personally to a British political party, but he could go through UK subsidiaries of his companies, and we ought to be worried about that. He has suggested that he could donate significant sums of money to a political party in the UK. My concern is not about who he chooses to give that money to—I would not want his money coming to the Labour party. My concern is about his ability to give that money under present rules and the influence that that could buy. We have to be concerned about that.

There is a second point: we have a prevalence of wealth among tech billionaires, who may be getting involved in the political system of our country, and these are individuals who also have control over platforms, such as X and Starlink in the case of Elon Musk. That gives him significant control over access to information, and also over the integrity of information on those channels. For instance, with Ukraine, he has made on-again, off-again threats to end Starlink’s support for Ukraine. With X, we know that he has removed content moderation, and as a consequence we have seen that site become a den—a haven—for misinformation and populist rhetoric. We need to think not just about donations and who donates, but about what power those people have to influence agendas through their control over tech and social media channels.

This is dangerous not just within a democracy, but on the world stage. Elon Musk might be talking about funding one political party in the UK, but he could fund parties around the world if their electoral laws allow. It is not just about his view of one particular party in this country, it is about his view of particular agendas—here I will mention his endorsement of Alternative für Deutschland in Germany.

How do we go about toughening up the rules? I believe there are three things that we can do. First, we should close the loopholes, and ensure that when companies make their profits in the UK for two years, they are able to make donations, but at no other time. We should also introduce a requirement for political parties to know their donor and identify the true source of donor funds. Secondly, we need to have a tough deterrent for those who break the rules. Frankly, if Elon Musk were to become actively involved in financing UK political parties and then to breach election law, the maximum fine that the Electoral Commission could levy is £20,000. I do not think that a man who is worth £263 billion is going to be very concerned about £20,000.

Thirdly, we need to look at closing the loophole in our donations system that allows donations from shell companies that have never even made a profit in the UK. Often, they have chosen to be in shell companies because they do not want to contribute tax towards our welfare system, to fund the schools and the hospitals that many of our voters depend on and whose improvement they say is their main priority.

We need to strengthen democracy by strengthening our rules around donations. We need to be conscious of the threat to democracy in the UK and around the world from the concentration of wealth in tech billionaires, who often have narrow agendas. We need to be especially conscious of the capacity of those billionaires not just to fund our politics but to distort it through the communication channels that they have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

I want to sum up some of the contributions made by colleagues. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, who of course opened the debate, for the points in her speech; to the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his contribution; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for his contribution, as well as other hon. Members—I hope I am not missing colleagues out—including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell).

There were some excellent contributions about some of the outstanding issues that we need to address, as a Parliament and a Government, by my hon. Friends the Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Stroud (Dr Opher), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), and, of course, by the Front-Bench spokespeople, the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).

Various questions were raised in the debate. In relation to the issues surrounding donations, we recognise that further work needs to be done. The Government are concerned about the growing threat of foreign interference and are focused on ensuring that we have systemic resilience and institutional strength. Of course, any suspected breaches of the rules, now or in the future, will remain a matter for the Electoral Commission or the police.

A number of colleagues mentioned donations from overseas electors. As has been mentioned, the franchise change for British citizens living overseas came into effect on 16 January 2024, removing the 15-year limit on overseas citizens’ voting rights. Overseas voters have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and that includes the right to donate to the parties or candidates they support, but foreign money is not permitted, and it is a criminal offence to facilitate an impermissible donation. Political parties can accept donations only from registered electors, and overseas electors are subject to the same counter-fraud measures as domestic electors, including having their identities confirmed as part of the registration process. Colleagues asked questions relating to the 15-year rule; we have no plans to reintroduce it.

A further question was raised about increasing the maximum fine that the Electoral Commission can impose for breaches of the political finance framework. As I stated earlier, robust enforcement of political finance rules by the Electoral Commission is crucial for maintaining public trust in our electoral system. As I said, that is why, as part of delivering on our commitment to strengthen the rules around political donations, we will look at any changes that are necessary to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate.

The strategy and policy statement was raised. We recognise the vital role that the Electoral Commission plays in the UK’s democratic system, promoting public confidence in the democratic process and ensuring its integrity, and this Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections. The current strategy and policy statement does not reflect the Government’s priorities, and we will not keep it in its current form. Alongside our broader electoral reforms to strengthen democracy, we will be reflecting on what actions are necessary in relation to the statement in the coming months.

Hon. Members raised the issue of safeguards against political donors being given favourable treatment in relation to Government contracts—for instance, PPE contracts. The Procurement Act 2023 strengthens existing obligations in respect of conflicts of interest. Contracting authorities must take all reasonable steps to identify, mitigate and keep under review conflicts and potential conflicts of interest. Where a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage, and if steps to mitigate it cannot avoid that advantage, the supplier must be excluded from that procurement.

Hon. Members raised the issue of foreign nationals being allowed to donate in UK elections. Electoral law ensures that only those with legitimate ties to the UK can donate. That includes people of varying nationalities who are established in the UK and are legitimately entitled to vote in certain elections, such as resident Commonwealth citizens. We do not propose to renege on that principle; instead, we are focusing our efforts on the real risk of foreign interference coming from external actors with no such legitimate links.

Reference was made to lobbying. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 ensures that there is transparency around meetings between Ministers and external groups. When it comes to foreign influence, additional controls are being implemented through the foreign influence registration scheme that will require those being directed by a foreign power to carry out, or arrange for others to carry out, political influence activities to register with the scheme.

I look forward to continuing discussions with colleagues, and I am happy to follow up in writing if there are outstanding issues that I have not been able to address.

[Tom Hayes]

The Labour party was elected on a manifesto that committed to giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote; the Minister referred to this earlier. Can she confirm that we will give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, and perhaps set out a rough timetable for when that might happen?

[Rushanara Ali]

We have already set out our plans in Parliament, and before the summer recess we will set out a strategy in relation to what we intend to do, including the legislation.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Brewer]

I completely agree. The Government should be more ambitious in the Bill to ensure that building regulations mandate nature-friendly developments to provide sustainable and healthy housing.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I agree that Britain is among the most nature-depleted countries in all of Europe. Does the hon. Member agree with Greenpeace, the Green Alliance and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that if development is done hand in hand with nature, both can thrive, and that the Bill achieves that?

[Alex Brewer]

I agree that nature and building should go hand in hand, and I hope that the Bill will start to achieve that. Good green and sustainable design works for everyone concerned. Sufficient insulation in homes prevents heat loss and reduces bills and carbon emissions. Solar energy production and proper flood protections are other obvious examples where investment up front pays dividends down the line. A great example in North East Hampshire is Hart district council offices. Since the installation of solar panels on the roof, a phenomenal 57,000 kWh of electricity has been generated each year. Imagine if we put solar panels on every new house that was built.

Major issues such as flooding and drainage plague many areas up and down the country. In my constituency, Hartley Wintney high street, Hook and the surrounding areas are frequently flooded because of blocked drains, as surface water cannot drain away effectively after heavy rainfall. Hartley Wintney fire station even had to raise all its electrical sockets higher up the wall because the flooding has been so frequent. Our local businesses are struggling to get sufficient insurance. The Bill should include a binding commitment to the land use framework, which would help to determine where more permanent land use change can occur, to find the optimum balance between food production and ecosystem services such as flood risk management, climate mitigation and biodiversity.

I come again to the question of new houses. We need them and we need them fast, but this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that our new homes are properly fit for the future. They must be built in the right place, with the right infrastructure and with proper consideration for our food security, biodiversity and carbon footprint. Communities do not mind new homes, but people also want GP appointments, NHS dentists, rural bus services and to be able to drive down roads with no potholes. There is an opportunity to be ambitious here, and it is being missed. I urge the Government to be bolder and to strive for planning that is as committed to the environment, to integrated infrastructure and to our local communities as it is to housing.

Political Finance Rules

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this important debate. The lack of transparency in the funding of our political parties is well documented, although I suspect not so well known among members of the public, who tend to associate the corrupting influence of money in politics with other countries, usually very far away. The reality is that it is taking place on our doorstep.

According to research done by Transparency International, almost �1 in every �10 reported by political parties and their members since 2001 has come from unknown or questionable sources. Some �42 million comes from donors alleged or proved to have been involved in other corruption, fraud or money laundering, and �38.6 million comes from unincorporated associations that have not reported the source of their income, despite Parliament introducing new transparency rules in 2010. The rest of its findings highlight millions from donors alleged or proved to be intermediaries for foreign funds and/or a hidden source, and millions from companies that have not made sufficient profits to support the political contributions they have made.

Other research has confirmed that successive Governments have invested trillions in the defence industry. Our new Government are also proposing to increase defence spending to 2.5% and then to 3%. The defence industry is reportedly responsible for approximately 40% of all corruption worldwide, and much of the money that we and other countries spend in defence is funnelled back through opaque channels into political parties and members. The industrial military complex needs to be investigated and dismantled.

The fact is that our political finance rules are too weak on hidden money, making the system vulnerable to subordination from rich individuals and secretive vested interests. My constituents and people from our country are concerned by the malign influence on Government policy of parties, Governments and Opposition Members and other Members accepting millions from state and industry lobbies, corporations and mega-rich donors.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a case. Does he agree that foreign money has no role in our democracy, and that one of the strongest ways in which we can clean up our politics and indeed strengthen our democracy is to make sure that the Electoral Commission has real teeth and has higher fining powers? Does he also agree that where we have concerns about foreign money coming into our country, we should have particular concerns about money coming from people such as Elon Musk?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. The action that the Electoral Commission should be permitted to take should not just be limited to bigger, greater fines for donors. There should be consequences for those accepting donations and potentially being influenced.

My constituents and the people of this country see and feel in their daily lives the deep impacts of pro-rich, pro-war, anti-poor and anti-consumer decisions and policies. The solution lies in reforms: to tighten spending rules; to shine a light on the source of financial contributions; to lower spending limits to reduce campaign costs and reliance on large donations; to introduce donation caps of �10,000 a year for individuals and organisations, as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life; to remove the corrupting influence of big money in politics; and to close loopholes to ensure that overseas trips for parliamentarians are funded only by trusted sources.

The UK used to lead the way on funding transparency. The UK was a founding member of the Open Government Partnership, and placed third in the 2014 OECD open data index, but in recent years the UK has slipped. The most recent OECD rankings saw the UK fall to 24th place, with stories about dodgy dealings, personal protective equipment procurement and Ministers� disappearing WhatsApp messages all contributing to the decline in the trust that the public place in their politicians.

As has been mentioned, it should be a cause for grave concern that of the �85 million of private donations in 2023 alone, two thirds came from 19 donors giving more than �1 million each, the highest ever share of mega donations. If we do not want our politics to go the way of American politics, with British equivalents to the likes of Elon Musk and his fellow tech billionaires blatantly using money to buy influence and remake politics in their own interests, we need tighter regulation of political finance than we currently have, and full transparency for the public.

English Devolution and Local Government

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I have been consistently clear on the elections. Elections do cost money, but how can we justify having an election to then have another election within 12 months, which will cost huge sums of money for taxpayers? I gently say to the hon. Member that councillors were elected and that we are working with local councillors to deliver for local people.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

As a councillor for nearly 10 years, I welcome the devolution proposals. As Bournemouth East MP, I backed Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council becoming part of the Hampshire proposal, and so did the BCP Labour group. Frankly, we have closer economic ties and geographic similarities with Hampshire. BCP council voted for a Wessex deal late in the day, and I am disappointed that BCP will not be prioritised for devolution of skills where they could have been under a Hampshire proposal. How can I ensure that my local communities will not be left behind, and will the Deputy Prime Minister secure a meeting for me with the Local Government Minister to put BCP back on the agenda?

[Angela Rayner]

I am happy to facilitate a meeting and, as I said before, the Minister for Local Government is happy to meet with local leaders. We want to see more devolution. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s disappointment on skills. We want to push forward with devolution, unlocking the potential and pushing power down from Whitehall into local areas, and I am sure that his meeting with the Minister will be fruitful.

Proportional Representation: General Elections

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

Although I do not want to upset the camaraderie going back and forth across the Chamber, this is debate, and this is democracy. I am sure we can all agree that no voting system is perfect; we are choosing between imperfect systems. That is a fact. We must decide based on what works best for our country, and PR is not the panacea that everybody is talking about today.

In 2011, we put the question to the British people. They overwhelmingly rejected the alternative vote system, choosing to stick with first past the post.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

On Monday morning, I visited the year 10 citizenship class at St Peter’s school in Bournemouth, where I spoke with several young people, including Ozzie, who was only just born at the time of the last vote. He asked me whether I agreed that too many people feel their vote does not count, that too many younger people feel disconnected from democracy, and that the continuation of first past the post will leave more people—particularly younger people—disconnected from democracy.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

The Bill finally removes section 21 no-fault evictions, and today’s amendments will strengthen the fairness of the market for a wider set of tenants. On behalf of all the Sallys and Rachels, I wish to acknowledge the work of this Government in their commitment to rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants and to produce changes that are pro-market, pro-tenant and pro-community. The abolition of section 21 notices and the fair changes that we need cannot come soon enough. It is too late for some people, but this Bill and its provisions will ensure that people in Portsmouth and across the country have access to a good-quality and fair housing system.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

There can be few places in our country that need this Bill more than Bournemouth East. A total of 33% of households in my constituency are in private rented accommodation, which is considerably more than the national average of 19%. In Boscombe West, a ward, 60% are private renting, and in East Cliff, where I live, it is 56%. Rents went up in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole by 9% in the year to October 2024, which is higher than the national average. Some 81% of respondents to Shelter’s Dorset survey in BCP said that they were struggling to pay their rent. As somebody who used to lead a mental health charity, I know the link between health outcomes, poor mental health and poor rented accommodation. For everybody living in poor rented accommodation in Bournemouth East, I know there will be a significant effect on health outcomes.

I want to talk briefly about the abolition of no-fault evictions and bring my constituents into the debate. My constituent Caroline from Boscombe had lived in overcrowded private rented housing with her two children with special educational needs and disabilities for 11 years before being given a section 21. Being forced to move at short notice has significantly negatively affected her mental health. The Labour Government’s abolition of so-called no-fault evictions in the Bill will go a long way to giving tenants like Caroline greater security.

I also welcome a decent homes standard now being applied to the private rented sector. My constituent Naomi, from Boscombe, recently contacted me about the repeated incidence of mould in her one-bedroom rented flat, which she shares with her partner and their 10-week-old baby. The flat also has dangerous loose floorboards, a leaking shower and fire doors that do not close. Her landlord continues to ignore her emails. The provisions in the Bill that apply the decent homes standard to the private rented sector will give renters like Naomi safer, better-value homes and remove the blight of poor-quality homes from our communities.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. May I raise the case of one of my constituents? He is a dad with a young daughter, and he has a chronic illness. Not only did he have many unfair deductions to his deposit at the end of his tenancy, but the landlord refused to fix the shower because they claimed it was some other sort of device—what a disgrace. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get through that Division Lobby, fight for our constituents and reform renters’ rights once and for all?

[Tom Hayes]

I never disagree with my hon. Friend, and his point shows why we need the Bill.

I welcome the Bill’s protections against unreasonable rent rises and rental bidding. My disabled constituent Tracey, also from Boscombe, got in contact with me about how a substantial hike in her rent acted as an effective eviction as she was unable to pay. Despite looking to use her personal independence payment towards her rent, she was forced to look for alternative accommodation, and we all know how difficult that is in the private rented sector for people with disabilities. I welcome the protections in the Bill against unreasonable rent rises because they will provide much-needed security for renters like Tracey who struggle to find appropriate accommodation in the rented sector to meet their needs.

I also welcome the introduction of a new ombudsman service, which will provide quick, fair, impartial and binding resolutions for tenants’ complaints about their landlord, bringing tenant-landlord complaint resolution on a par with established redress practices for tenants in social housing or consumers of property agent services. I welcome the move to make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants in receipt of housing benefit or other benefits or with children when choosing to let their property. That particularly affects James in my constituency, who is homeless and cannot secure private rented housing because he is in receipt of benefits.

All of us who hold constituency surgeries week in, week out will know these stories. All of us have campaigned for better renters’ rights because we have heard those stories on the doorstep, and I commend the Government for bringing forward the Bill at such an early stage in this Parliament. We must of course make the point that not all landlords are bad, but the Bill is important because it weeds out those bad landlords so that the good landlords—those who care about their tenants and who provide an important duty to the housing market—can continue to have a good reputation, and so the overall market continues to have that good reputation.

I commend the Bill and the ministerial team for bringing it forward. I am thrilled that renters in Bournemouth and across Britain will finally, after many years of delay, get the renters’ rights they deserve—no, that they are entitled to.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Let me begin by thanking all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been a thoughtful and good-natured debate, and while there are many genuine points of difference and emphasis, there is a consensus across the House that reform of the private rented sector is long overdue and must be taken forward.

In the time I have available to me, I will respond to a number of the amendments and key arguments. In his contribution, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), suggested that Government new clauses 13 and 14 risk locking out of the rental market those renters who are on the financial margins and fettering landlords and tenants coming to fair agreements on tenancies in the assured regime that we are introducing. I gently say to him that he seriously downplays the imbalance between landlords and tenants, and the fact that requiring multiple months of rent from a tenant in advance when agreeing a tenancy is unfair, places considerable strain on tenants and can exclude some people and families from renting altogether.

Landlords will continue to be able to take a holding deposit of up to one week, a tenancy deposit of five or six weeks’ rent and up to one month’s rent in advance before a tenancy has begun. They will also be free to undertake the necessary referencing and affordability checks to give them confidence that a tenancy is sustainable for all parties. If and when they are not satisfied by the outcomes of pre-tenancy checks, options are available to tenants and landlords to ensure that rent in advance need not be used—requesting a guarantor or engaging in landlord insurance, for example. I hope that provides the shadow Minister with a degree of reassurance on that point.

The shadow Minister tabled a number of amendments—several of which we debated in detail in Committee. With regard to amendments 57, 58 and 60, I restate the argument that I made in Committee: fixed terms mean that tenants are locked into tenancy agreements without the freedom to move should their personal circumstances change, and compel tenants to pay rent regardless of whether a property is fit to live in, reducing the incentive for unscrupulous landlords to complete repairs. For that reason, the Government remain firmly of the view that there is no place whatsoever for fixed terms of any kind in the new tenancy regime that the Bill introduces.

A number of hon. Members referred to problems with short-term lets. The Government are cognisant of the impact that excessive concentrations of short-term lets can have on the affordability and availability of local housing and the sustainability of local communities. We are committed to monitoring that issue and, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), knows, we are exploring what further powers local authorities need to bear down on it. However, putting an arbitrary deadline in law, as new clause 2 would do, is not the way to proceed.

Playgrounds

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of playgrounds by local authorities.

Thank you for the opportunity to lead this important Westminster Hall debate on the future of playgrounds under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. Fixing our public services and securing our unity as a country are serious issues to consider and serious goals to pursue. We need to be on the side of working people. We also need to be on the side of playing children: we need to be as serious about the play of children as we are about the work of adults. If anyone listening is in doubt, that is because our country has trivialised play for too long. I am astonished that there has only ever been one national play strategy, which was launched 17 years ago. I am also astonished that this is the first debate on the subject in eight years and—at an hour—the longest for 17 years.

Is it any wonder that people feel pushed out by politics and disaffected by democracy, when playgrounds are so ignored that they have been left to fall to pieces, with large pieces of equipment missing, and largely exclude children with special educational needs and disabilities? Is it any wonder that our playgrounds are rotting, when our Parliament barely discusses them and when the last Government to invest in them—a Labour Government—did so 17 years ago, only for their £235 million programme to be cut three years later by the coalition Government?

Why does it matter so much for this new Labour Government to help children to play? Let me tell hon. Members, in the words of my constituents. I launched a survey before Christmas, once this debate was confirmed; we had sought the debate following a roundtable with local parents. I am pleased to see a constituent who attended that roundtable, Anne-Marie Burr, here today. Anne-Marie helped to launch the Our Spaces BCP Facebook group, which brings parents together to campaign for better play equipment.

My survey has received 642 responses, and I thank everyone who has shared their views. I have read every response and every comment on Facebook and Instagram. It is time to take the Minister on a tour of beautiful Bournemouth and of my constituents’ viewpoints.

First, the main thing that parents tell me they want from playgrounds for their children is a place to grow, to experiment, to push themselves, to learn alongside others and to be free from a screen-obsessed childhood. Niamh from Springbourne says it well:

“Creativity is built in these free spaces where kids create their games and realities.”

Niamh’s daughter was obsessed with the monkey bars. I can relate. They have built capabilities that Niamh knows only a playground could have built. For Skye in Pokesdown, playgrounds

“give children a safe place to play and explore.”

For Natalie in Southbourne,

“unstructured free play helps children develop in many ways, including their cognitive development”.

Charlotte, also in Southbourne, agrees:

“Playgrounds are essential for child development”.

Playgrounds provide critical space for imaginative play, in the view of Chloe in Springbourne, Susie, Milo and Lillie-May in Southbourne, Louise and Kelly in East Southbourne, Christine, Lucy and Amy in Queen’s Park, Angela in Muscliff and Verity in Tuckton. Mark in Littledown talks about the joy that his young children feel when they play and when they develop as they play. He says that

“they love to go to the park. It’s a good thing for them to do. It develops them both physically and in terms of engaging with other children”.

Thomas in Southbourne sees the same joy in his children’s play:

“Good playground equipment helps children to develop physical skills like bounce and grip, but most of all, they are fun!”

My second point is that in a cost of living crisis, playgrounds give families places to spend time at no cost. Joanne in Muscliff is right to say that they provide free activity; that point is echoed by Nicole in Moordown, Louise in Charminster, Laura in Springbourne, Sarah in Iford, Victoria in Muscliff, Victoria in Pokesdown and Candice in Tuckton.

The third point that residents have raised is that playgrounds are vital outdoor spaces for parents and families who do not have space at home. Stephanie in Littledown and Iford says it well:

“For some children they do not have access to outside space at home and therefore playgrounds are vital for the health of this group of children.”

Kimberly in Muscliff agrees that playgrounds provide

“a place to go and meet others…lots of children don’t have access to a garden or the kind of equipment that is in a playground.”

Rachel in Muscliff says it brilliantly:

“We need safe outdoor spaces for our children to be able to enjoy. It also helps with reducing isolation.”

When the world of children is constantly shrinking, that is even more important.

My fourth point is that sadly some politicians tell children to get outside more, but it is not fair to criticise them for spending time on their screens, enjoying play in the only way they know how. It is usually the same politicians who have forced them, through policies and funding cuts, to shrink their world to their home or—even worse—to the smartphone in their hand. When playgrounds are being locked up or sold off and when parents lack safe outdoor spaces, where is left for children to go? As Alice in Boscombe says:

“How can we keep our kids away from screens when playgrounds are broken, unattractive, a lot of times unkept and dirty?”

What will the consequence be?

Parents know that few of the social skills that children need as adults will be acquired through the scrolling of bottomless social media feeds. Anyone who has seen a two-year-old master the touch-and-swipe interface of a smartphone knows that we risk more and more children at younger and younger ages spending more and more hours scrolling through bottomless feeds. Parents are concerned. Helen in Southbourne says that

“with the rise of screen time in the younger generation, we as adults must provide exciting, enjoyable and affordable alternatives.”

Sian in Springbourne says that we need playgrounds

“so children aren’t stuck behind screens all day.”

Young brains are being rewired. We want children to be children, because that is a good thing in its own right, but we must keep it in mind that the growing number of children hooked on social media today may become a growing number of patients of mental health services and economically inactive adults, contributing less in tax to the Treasury while increasing demand on already strained publicly funded services. Just as our predecessors in Parliament passed legislation more than a century ago to protect children against work-based childhoods, we can pass a safer phones Bill to make smartphones less addictive for children.

My fifth point is that playgrounds are important places for children with special educational needs and for their carers. Our lack of play spaces shrinks the world of children, but it particularly shrinks it for those with special educational needs and disabilities. Terrie from Springbourne told me:

“After my autistic daughter’s school were unable to meet her needs, I ended up home educating her. The local park is a place where she can socialise, get fresh air and exercise. She genuinely looks forward to our daily park time.”

Kathryn from Boscombe says:

“Aside from children’s physical development, it’s also a place children (and parents) can go when mental health takes a dive. As a mum of children with SEN this is essential to our daily routine!”

Terri from Muscliff says:

“There is barely any accessible play equipment in our local area for children with complex needs. If a child uses a wheelchair, there is nothing that they can do in parks.”

Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I am coming to my sixth and last point. Playgrounds can also help to end the isolation that parents can feel; it is not just children who benefit. Anna from Southbourne says:

“On lower, more exhausted days I’ve had some really special moments of connection with parents I don’t know in playgrounds while our children play.”

For Matthew from Springbourne, playgrounds offer

“a place to meet friends and other parents alike.”

Laura, also from Springbourne, says:

“The social and psychological value of play parks as part of the fabric of a healthy community should not be underestimated. As a parent to my young daughter, the park was often the only place I might interact with other adults/parents on a given day, and it was a nexus for exchanging local information and support.”

Most heartbreakingly, Mary from Queen’s Park says

“Playgrounds can be a lifeline for mothers who are in distress. I have met mothers who are escaping domestic abuse, poor housing, depression, loneliness or just need a change”.

In an age of isolation, polarisation and insecurity, society can be reinvigorated in the playgrounds of our country. Democracy is made in the playgrounds and given new life among the monkey bars, swings and slides and between strangers on benches. Parents may have their children as the unifying feature at first, but over time all kinds of conversations bubble up on that bench that would not otherwise have happened. This Parliament can only be as strong as our playgrounds.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making excellent progress; I love the six points that he has given us. I am happy to say that my constituency has a number of historic parks such as Alexandra Park and Platt Fields Park. However, as he points out, a third of British young people have no access to any nearby playgrounds. Surely that is not acceptable. Does he agree that we need to increase access to nature and green spaces to give children and young people better and stronger emotional and physical wellbeing?

[Tom Hayes]

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is a champion for play in his area. In Bournemouth East, contact with a play area is at 35%, which is a significant problem, and I know that it is worse around the country.

I ask the Minister to help. First, as we have an hour for this debate, I invite him to meet Eugene Minogue of Play England, who is here today, with visiting Bournemouth residents, such as Anne-Marie, and with me to take the matter further.

Secondly, this is unfinished business for Labour. Ed Balls and Andy Burnham—whatever happened to them?—published the first national play strategy for England 17 years ago. Much of the strategy stands up today, but my view and that of important leaders in the sector is that it could be dusted off. The Minister could be the new Andy Burnham. He could be the new Ed Balls: he could help people to “Strictly Keep Playing”. The Minister and the Treasury may be reassured to know that a strategy does not necessarily require significant additional funding. All we need is changes to policy to better spend the money already in the system.

Thirdly—I am eager to discuss this point at greater length—the Government could implement play sufficiency legislation for English children to achieve equality with Welsh and Scottish children. A perfect opportunity to do so exists through the planning and infrastructure Bill; that was in Play England’s general election manifesto. The Government could give playgrounds the same status as sports facilities by extending Sport England’s remit to play areas so that consideration of playgrounds becomes a statutory duty, as with sports facilities. Following this Government’s welcome change to paragraph 104 in chapter 8 of the national planning policy framework, which provides protection for formal play spaces, I would love to work with the Minister to bring that into meaningful practice.

I urge the Government to mandate local authorities to map play facilities and their current state and quality. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council has done so voluntarily, not because it was mandated. I commend BCP council for agreeing to the Plan for Play strategy—and I am not doing so purely because the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), is the last leader of the council and will respond to the debate.

I commend local councillors across Bournemouth East, particularly Sharon Carr-Brown, who has been advocating for play areas in her ward of Queen’s Park and Charminster. Indeed, it reflects the advocacy of Sharon and her co-councillor for the ward to be focused on. We will see a £75,000 grant funding bid this week; if successful, that will be flexibly spent in the ward. Some good news for Cyril Gardens is that it is about to see the replacement of a long-broken toddler swing, which just goes to show that when you campaign you can get things done.

In 1999, Tony Blair said:

“If we are in politics for one thing it is to make sure that all children are given the best chance in life.”

In 2024, the Prime Minister said that

“arguably nothing says more about the state of a nation than the wellbeing of its children.”

We have had such consistency over so many decades. Now is the opportunity for this Government to finish the business of the last Labour Government. I want to support this Government as they support Bournemouth children and families to improve their wellbeing. We can do no better than to start with a long-overdue, once-in-a-generation improvement of playgrounds.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), who is no longer here—if I have mispronounced the name of his constituency, I apologise—and everyone else who has spoken in the debate. I thank the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespeople, the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), and the Minister for their comments.

In bringing forward the debate, I wanted to ensure that the people of Bournemouth East were heard. As the Minister said, the fact that 642 local residents responded to the survey shows that there is an enormous appetite for something better when it comes to play. I want to communicate to the people of Bournemouth East that their priority will be my priority and, clearly, from what we have heard from the Minister, the Government’s priority. If we do not invest in our children by investing in play, we are sending entirely the wrong signals. After all, all our children, all over our country, deserve nothing less than the very best childhood.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the provision of playgrounds by local authorities.

Town Centres

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Murphy]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Public transport plays a role in making town centres accessible, but we must think about the wider need for infrastructure that supports all modes of travel, to ensure that additional footfall to support entrepreneurs such as Kevin and Fran.

Central to this debate is the recognition that town centres are not just about bricks and mortar, but ultimately about people. When my neighbours visit the Saturday market at the Top of the Town, I want them to see a bustling town centre with plenty to offer—somewhere they want to keep coming back to.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing a debate on this issue. Bournemouth town centre has just had a very busy Christmas period. We had fantastic Christmas lights funded by the Bournemouth town centre business improvement district. We have also had the successful opening of The Ivy, which is fantastic. Otherwise, the town feels like a ghost town. Does he agree that the roll-out of the high street rental auctions, for which Bournemouth is a pilot area, could be critical to restoring confidence in our high streets, increasing footfall and making our town centres safer? Ultimately, that will help more businesses to grow and help our local economy.

[Luke Murphy]

I completely agree. I look forward to seeing the role that those auctions can play in Bournemouth and elsewhere, and to seeing them rolled out in places like Basingstoke as well; they are a really exciting innovation.

I want our town centre to be a vibrant place that people keep coming back to. The opportunity is there, but it will take the Government, local authorities, and our communities and businesses to work together to realise that potential. Last year I stood on a Labour manifesto pledging to breathe new life into our high streets, and in February I committed to hosting the first Top of Town summit in my constituency of Basingstoke as a step towards achieving this collaboration. I hope the Department will support efforts in constituencies like mine to break down the barriers that stand in the way of local economic growth.

I hope the Minister will agree that delivering a boost to town centres like Basingstoke’s through tackling antisocial behaviour, retail crime, the scourge of empty shop fronts and soaring energy prices, and reforming outdated business rates, must be a priority for the Government if we are serious about reaching our milestone on growth in a way that improves local economies, builds up small businesses and puts more money in people’s pockets.

I would welcome—as would Basingstoke business owners like Kevin and Fran, who are here today and who met the Prime Minister during the election campaign —any updates that the Minister can provide on the work that the Government are doing on these issues.

English Devolution

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

The forthcoming election for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will go ahead as planned. There is no proposal to change the boundary of what is currently a combined authority that will move to being a strategic authority. Local government reorganisation where there is an existing mayoral combined authority, providing that it is coterminous in terms of the review it has undertaken, will not have an impact at all. All that happens is the membership of the combined authority will change to reflect the new council structures as they appear.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

As a former councillor of 10 years who sought election to this place to give power back to communities, I am absolutely thrilled by this devolution White Paper, and I congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward. I have two points. On page 16, there is an ambition to make the mayor the chair of the integrated care partnership and also the police and crime commissioner, as in South Yorkshire. I commend that and would like to hear more about it. On page 94, there is a proposal for a right to buy community asset. Hengistbury Head outdoor centre in my constituency just found out that it will be a community benefit society with a lease for 99 years, but it has taken far too long to get to that place. I invite the Minister to come to Hengistbury Head outdoor centre—it may involve getting in a kayak—to find out more about what this right to buy could involve at the ground level. I would love to know more about the Government’s intent on the matter.

[Jim McMahon]

I know many Labour and Co-operative Members of Parliament have been campaigning hard on the extended community right to buy. That is about giving communities the power to take over those important community assets on their high streets and in their town centres in a meaningful way. The Minister for local growth, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), is working hard on a communities White Paper, which will provide far more detail. In the end, it is not just about that community right to buy; it is about a genuine shift where people feel far more control, power and agency in the places where they live.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree. Mistakes were made—there is no doubt about it. As the phase 2 report recommends, there should be greater oversight and regulation of people who proclaim themselves to be experts in these fields. I agree with the hon. Lady’s points.

Accountability must remain a cornerstone of our response. Those who knowingly cut corners on safety to maximise profits must face justice. We call on the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue criminal charges against those responsible, be it through a deliberate act, a willingness to look the other way, or gross incompetence. Companies implicated in such wrongdoing should not receive future public contracts. Let us be clear: this was not the responsibility of any single Government, Minister or official. As the report sets out in its opening paragraphs, failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations of all political colours. We must approach these difficult questions with the honesty and determination that they deserve, ensuring that we learn the lessons of the past to protect lives in the future.

While we have made significant progress, the journey is far from over. As we look to the future, we must acknowledge the hard questions raised by the report about past governance. Those failures occurred over decades, involving Administrations led by Labour, the coalition Government, and Conservative Governments. This was a systemic failure, which requires an open and honest response. Our party’s record demonstrates our commitment to making things right. We took swift action after the tragedy to establish the public inquiry, launch the independent review of building regulations and fire safety, and allocate significant resources to remove unsafe cladding from high-risk buildings. The Fire Safety Act 2021 implemented recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, and the Building Safety Act 2022 overhauled existing regulations, setting up the Building Safety Regulator to oversee stringent compliance measures.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Bournemouth East constituents, such as Katie from Queen’s Park in Charminster, have been in touch, horrified about the Grenfell Tower tragedy and desperate for a turning point. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to reach such a turning point? We need justice for those who were let down by the last Government. Does he also agree that we need to get rid of the social housing stigma, which has made so many people in social housing feel like they live in shame?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are so many lessons that I hope will be learned across the House. The report is clear that there has been failure by Governments of all stripes over the years, in terms of both building safety and social housing. With the Regulator of Social Housing and the new fire safety regulatory regime, it is hugely important that we turn the page, but I do not think that we will win back the trust of the people affected by this scandal, or by the cladding scandal in other areas, until we have made progress, completed the remediation, and put in place a regime that is seen to be working and bringing about the cultural change to which the Secretary of State referred. It is hugely important that we make that progress.

The actions that we have taken have made strides towards addressing safety concerns, but we recognise that more is needed. I welcome the Labour Government’s pledge to respond to all 58 recommendations within six months and to provide annual progress updates to Parliament. This is a critical moment for accountability and reform, and we stand ready to support all proportionate and necessary measures to protect public safety. Does the Secretary of State agree with the recommendation of a single construction regulator, with one Secretary of State holding end-to-end responsibility, and will that be her? Does she also agree with the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East about product manufacturers being held responsible for remediation costs, too? It is her stated policy to continue the use of the CE marking scheme for construction products in the UK, but those standards were set in 2015, three years prior to the post-Grenfell standards revision in the UK. How will she ensure that all products sold in the UK meet the post-2018 UK standard? That issue has been raised on the Floor of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is next to me on the Opposition Front Bench.

I recently met campaigners, including Steve Day, who raise the case of the 1.7 million leaseholders who do not currently qualify for the Building Safety Act 2022 protections and who still suffer from higher insurance premiums, higher mortgage rates and an inability to sell their homes. Will the Secretary of State meet him and others to see what additional measures need to be taken? Can she share with the House when announcements will be made on the future memorial on the site? Indeed, can the renovation of properties in the Grenfell community be accelerated? Can we get a target for when that will be completed? Accountability must be at the heart of the response, and those who knowingly cut corners on building safety must face justice.

Grenfell was a tragedy of unprecedented scale, but it must serve as a turning point. We owe it to those who lost their lives, to the survivors and to the public to ensure that their legacy is one of justice, reform and safety. Let us move forward with determination to build a safer future for all.