Helen Hayes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents have been profoundly failed by Thames Water for many years, with frequent leaks and bursts, inadequate investment in our infrastructure, clogged up roads and, to add insult to injury, skyrocketing bills. Thames Water is a failing organisation. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not accept a proposal to exempt Thames Water from fines for four years? It should be held to the same standards of accountability as the rest of the industry and if it fails, the Government should step in to place it in special administration, with a view to bringing it back under public control.

• 24 Feb 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for his powerful speech in opening the debate. In June 2016, my constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, following a campaign in which I and my team worked as hard as we have in any election where my name was on the ballot paper. For the vast majority of residents in Dulwich and West Norwood, the UK’s membership of the EU and their consequential status as both British and European citizens was fundamental to their identity, and their loss by such a narrow margin was viscerally felt. The loss has turned out to be much greater than the replacement of our burgundy passports with navy ones. During the campaign, we consistently raised our evidence-based concerns that Brexit would harm our country. We were accused of scaremongering, but on every single one of the issues on which we campaigned, the passage of time has proved us right.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes the point very well. It is the reality of people’s lives. People come to all of us who represent constituencies at the heart of the housing crisis in the most desperate of circumstances—in circumstances that everybody would agree are completely unacceptable—and there is no relief for them, because the options that are on the table are simply unaffordable, and what is affordable is unacceptable. I am grateful to the Government for listening and for changing the deprivation criteria to include housing costs. I also completely recognise the very deep poverty and deprivation that affect other parts of the country. I grew up in the north-west and before I was elected to Parliament, I worked with communities all over the country. This should be about not pitting different areas of our country against each other, but resourcing and empowering local authorities right across our country to meet the needs of their communities. Some of those needs are universal, and some are specific. While I welcome the changes made to the formulae in recent weeks, inner-London councils will still remain in a very difficult financial situation as a consequence of the settlement that was finalised yesterday.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will go on to talk a little about some of the further measures that I believe the Government need to take on this journey of tackling child poverty. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is clear that, in the medium term, investment to bring down child poverty reduces the demand on public services that is caused by poor physical and mental health, and by poor education outcomes, which are caused by poverty. Removing the cap is projected to increase the health and education standards of 2 million children who would otherwise have been affected by the cap. By removing the two-child cap, this Labour Government are projected to deliver the biggest ever reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament. I am proud of the other measures that our Government have already announced to help families, which will also help to reduce child poverty: the expansion of free school meals to all children whose families are on universal credit, the delivery of universal free breakfast clubs and the reduction in school uniform costs. The Government’s commitment to children can be in no doubt. The Education Committee is working jointly with the Work and Pensions Committee to undertake formal scrutiny of the Government’s child poverty strategy. We want the strategy to be as effective as possible, and over the coming weeks we will be listening to evidence from experts on the impacts that the measures announced will have and on whether more should be done. I want the Government to be truly ambitious in tackling child poverty. We should not simply lift the poorest children just above a threshold—important as that is—but ensure that children can truly thrive right across our country. That will require action on some of the other causes of poverty, including housing costs—a shocking number of children are living in temporary accommodation—and food and energy costs. We must provide access to support for families in communities, and an education and skills system that really works for everyone. Those are the questions that our Committees will turn to in the coming weeks, but this step today is fundamental. The Bill sets the context for an ambitious strategy and will be transformative for families. I am proud to vote for it today.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Children’s Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  On the work on extra-familial harms, what engagement is the Minister having with colleagues in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government? That very much reflects my perspective as a constituency MP and the heartbreaking cases I have seen in my constituency, where a family needed to move due to an extra-familial harm to a child. The social housing system is unable at the moment to protect the family’s tenancy rights. What happens is that families then move into temporary accommodation, and the whole stability of their life unravels as a consequence. In the previous Parliament, I put forward a proposal under the name Georgia’s law, which was named for one of my constituents who experienced exactly that, with utterly tragic consequences for her family. I wonder whether the Minister might pick that up with colleagues cross-departmentally.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Education Committee · Hansard source

  More

  As Chair of the Education Committee, I am pleased to present to the House our fifth report of this Parliament, “Solving the SEND Crisis”. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. This inquiry was our first major undertaking in this Parliament. We chose the subject because the crisis in special educational needs and disabilities provision—SEND—is not just a challenge, but a moral imperative. Our report focuses on practical steps that can deliver an education system where every child, regardless of their needs, is given the opportunity to flourish. The crisis touches every corner of our education system, from early years to post-16 education. It affects 1.7 million children and young people, their families, their teachers and a wide range of other professionals. For too long, children and young people have been let down by a system that is fragmented, not fit for purpose and, as a consequence, often too adversarial. Our report sets out a road map for change—a vision for an inclusive, equitable and sustainable SEND system, grounded in the voices and experiences of the children and families it serves. Over eight months, we conducted a rigorous inquiry. I put on record my thanks to everyone who took part. We received over 890 written submissions and held seven oral evidence sessions. We heard from children and young people with SEND, whose courage and clarity moved us profoundly. We heard from parents exhausted by battles for basic rights, from teachers stretched beyond capacity and from professionals yearning to deliver but constrained by broken systems. We visited schools in Norfolk and learned from the inclusive model in Ontario, Canada, where children’s needs, not processes, drive support and where SEND provision is everyone’s responsibility. The evidence is stark. The number of children identified with SEND has risen by 400,000 in a decade to 1.7 million. Nearly half a million children have an education, health and care plan, and 1.2 million rely on SEND support. Behind those numbers lie stories of frustration, exclusion and unrealised potential. Parents told us about sleepless nights, navigating a maze of bureaucracy, and the impact on the whole family of having to fight constantly just for their child to be able to access education. Teachers spoke of the deep frustration they experience when they are unable to meet every child’s needs. Local authorities describe the invidious situation they face, holding the statutory responsibility for delivering for every child, but without the powers to do so, and with a funding crisis that is driving them to the edge of bankruptcy. This is not what inclusion looks like—this is a system at breaking point. Our report identifies a series of critical failures and offers practical, evidence-based solutions. First, inclusive education remains an aspiration, not a reality. A decade after the 2014 reforms, there is still no shared definition of what inclusion means. Without clarity, schools, local authorities and families are left adrift, with no consistent standard to aim for and no clear accountability for delivering it. We call on the Department for Education to publish a clear definition of inclusive education within three months, underpinned by national standards for SEND support and ordinarily available provision, backed by statutory duties and proper funding. Secondly, trust has collapsed. Parents and carers feel sidelined, blamed or forced into costly legal battles to secure their child’s rights. Last year, 95% of SEND tribunal appeals were upheld, a damning manifestation of systemic failure. We must rebuild trust through genuine partnership. This means treating parents and carers as equal partners in their child’s education, ensuring access to independent advocacy and making transparency the cornerstone of every process. Thirdly, while there are many committed, highly skilled professionals who work hard every day to deliver for children, there are some fundamental ways in which our workforce are not equipped to deliver. Teachers and support staff are dedicated but overstretched, lacking the training and resources to meet rising needs. Special educational needs co-ordinators are in short supply and are too often regarded as the sole person with responsibility for SEND support in a school. Educational psychologists are mired in assessments, preventing them from directly delivering interventions and sharing their expertise with other professionals. We propose a cross-departmental SEND workforce strategy, jointly led by the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, to invest in training, to secure the recruitment of specialists and to free professionals to focus on frontline support. Fourthly, funding is broken. The notional £6,000 threshold for SEND support, unchanged since its introduction in 2014, is woefully inadequate. High-needs deficits are spiralling, and the statutory override is a temporary plaster on a deepening wound. We urge the Government to commission a full cost-benefit analysis of inclusive education and to ensure sufficient funding in the high-needs block to deliver early intervention, which can transform lives and reduce long-term costs. Finally, accountability is failing and there is a structural misalignment of statutory responsibilities and powers. We heard time and again that health and social care partners are too often absent from the SEND table and cannot be held to account. In education, accountability is unevenly distributed, leading to an understandable over-reliance on the statutory part of the system—the education, health and care plans—because it is accountable. We also heard that local authorities do not have the powers or the funding to deliver the school places that are needed, which is contributing to their financial pressures as they are forced to purchase expensive independent school places to meet their statutory responsibilities. We recommend statutory duties for health and social care, enforceable SEND tribunal powers for health provision and a SEND lead within the NHS to drive accountability, a statutory framework for SEND support and ordinarily available provision, and better alignment between local authorities’ responsibilities and their ability to deliver the school places that are needed to meet them. We have seen what is possible. At Aylsham high school in Norfolk, we witnessed a resource base seamlessly integrated into mainstream education where every child’s needs are met with flexibility and care. In Ontario, we saw a system where support is based on need, not diagnosis, and where parents are partners, not adversaries. These are not distant dreams; they are models that could be emulated across our country. I make it absolutely clear that the statutory entitlement to an education, health and care plan should remain unchanged. That is a commitment the Government must honour. During our inquiry, it became crystal clear to us that if we build a truly inclusive and properly resourced mainstream education system, we can ease the pressure and the struggle that so many families face in securing an EHCP, because in settings that have a whole-school approach to inclusivity, the needs of more children are met without having to go through that process. Inclusive education is not just a right; it is a necessity. It benefits every child, strengthens our schools and builds stronger communities. It is also cost-effective, reducing the long-term burden on public services by investing early in children’s potential. This report is not a catalogue of despair; it is a call for action. Our 95 recommendations offer a blueprint for reform, rooted in the lived experiences of children, families and professionals. We cannot afford another decade of delay, so I urge the Government to act with urgency and ambition, to work across Departments, to listen to those at the heart of this system, to rebuild trust and to place inclusion at the core of our education system. Every child deserves the chance to thrive. Every family deserves to be heard. Every education setting deserves the tools to succeed. Let us build a SEND system that delivers not just for today but for generations to come. Let us make inclusion a reality. I commend this report to the House.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Education Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It was a real pleasure to meet some of his constituents who came to Parliament to participate in a workshop and to present their findings and their recommendations to me, which were then submitted as evidence to our inquiry. I hope that his constituents will see their experiences and their needs reflected in our report, and I agree with him that part of the key to solving this enormously challenging area of public policy is better engagement with parents, families and professionals across the country. That is how we understand where change needs to take place, and it is how we build trust for the future.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank everybody across the country who signed this important petition, and the Petitions Committee for granting time for the debate. It is no surprise that the petition attracted such interest. Across the country, children and their families are being failed by a SEND system that the previous Conservative Education Secretary described as “lose, lose, lose”. For too many children and their parents and carers, the system is slow, adversarial and fundamentally failing to meet children’s needs. The Education Committee, which I chair, chose to focus its first full inquiry of this Parliament on solving the SEND crisis, because it is the single biggest challenge in the education system, from the early years all the way through to further and higher education. Many Members from both sides of the House heard directly from their constituents during the general election campaign, and subsequently—over and again—about the impact that the failing system has on their daily lives.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the significant issues that affect my constituents across Dulwich and West Norwood because of the lack of accessibility at our local railway stations. The Dulwich and West Norwood constituency covers part of Lambeth and part of Southwark. Unlike much of the north of those boroughs, we are poorly served by the London underground network; there is only Brixton tube station, just inside a corner of my constituency. Instead, my constituents rely on rail and buses to get to central and outer London, as well as for more local journeys. We have many stations—10 to be precise, with an 11th just outside the boundary. The stations in my constituency are Brixton, East Dulwich, Gipsy Hill, Herne Hill, Loughborough Junction, North Dulwich, Sydenham Hill, Tulse Hill, West Dulwich and West Norwood. Only three—Herne Hill, East Dulwich and West Norwood—are accessible, and only Herne Hill meets up-to-date standards of accessibility and has lifts to all platforms. The ramps at East Dulwich station are too steep, and West Norwood ticket office is not step-free, although the platforms are accessible from the street. The lack of step-free access at our local railway stations causes major problems for many of my constituents. Wheelchair users are effectively locked out of rail travel entirely at inaccessible stations. Parents and carers for small children may or may not manage to carry or drag their buggy up and down flights of stairs at their station. Even if they can, it is neither safe nor comfortable. Frail and elderly passengers are confronted with impossibly difficult climbs; there are really long flights of stairs at several stations. Loughborough Junction and West Dulwich in particular have long, steep flights of stairs that can be difficult and daunting for many passengers. The lack of accessibility at our local stations is counter to two of the Government’s strategic objectives. Inaccessible stations are a significant barrier to work for many physically disabled people, who cannot easily access employment in the wider London economy because they cannot get to work from Dulwich and West Norwood. Further, many people will not make the modal shift from private cars to public transport, as the Government want them to, while our stations remain inhospitable and inaccessible because the only way to access the platforms is via a steep flight of stairs. During every round of Access for All funding since I was first elected more than a decade ago, I have pressed for stations in my constituency to be granted funding to increase the number of step-free stations, but the previous Government failed to prioritise investment in my constituency. Herne Hill was upgraded with the installation of lifts under the Access for All programme in 2013. That is more than a decade with no further advancement in the accessibility of local rail travel.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Children’s Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. Today I speak on behalf of the Education Committee and, more importantly, the thousands of children across England whose lives are profoundly shaped by our children’s social care system. I put on record my thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists, who have supported this inquiry, as well as to Georgia, Jake, Lamar and Louise, the four young adults with recent experience of the care system who came to give oral evidence to the Committee in person. I know that it was not easy to speak about the challenges that they have faced, including experiences that no child should ever have to endure, but by doing so they have helped to shape our report and ensure that young people have been at the centre of our thinking. We are very grateful. Children’s social care provides essential support to some of our most vulnerable young people—children who have faced trauma, neglect, abuse, bereavement or instability. They need not only protection but love, stability and the opportunity to thrive. In December 2023, our predecessor Committee launched an inquiry into the state of children’s social care. Following the general election, my Committee resolved to continue that critical work. Our inquiry builds on substantial evidence, including the independent review of children’s social care, published in 2022, which concluded that the system was failing to meet children’s needs. The evidence we have received from care-experienced young people, social workers, local authorities, charities and academics confirms that many of these challenges persist. The system is under significant strain. Rising need, stretched budgets and workforce shortages are compromising the ability to put children genuinely at the heart of the system. We have seen a significant shift in the profile of spending on children’s social care, from spend on early help services, which has fallen 31% in real terms over the last decade, to spend on costly crisis interventions, which has rocketed. This imbalance is unsustainable. The 2022 independent review proposed a £2.6 billion uplift in children’s social care spending between 2023 and 2027, with £1 billion annually ringfenced for family help services, to shift focus toward early intervention. That recommendation has not been fully implemented. There has been rising need for children’s social care over the past decade, with the number of looked-after children standing at almost 84,000 in 2024—an increase of over 20% since 2014. These pressures reflect broader social and economic challenges. Poverty is a key driver of social care involvement, and the forthcoming child poverty strategy must be ambitious, aiming to significantly reduce the number of children growing up in financial hardship. We urge the Government to allocate a substantial portion of new funding from the spending review to restore early intervention services to 2010 levels in real terms. Prevention is not only the right thing to do by children and their families; it is also more cost-effective. The shortage of appropriate placements for looked-after children is a critical issue. In 2024, 45% of looked-after children were placed outside their local authority, and 22% were placed more than 20 miles from home, disrupting education and relationships and exacerbating trauma. We call on the Department for Education to publish a national sufficiency strategy for children’s social care, requiring every local authority to develop plans to reduce out-of-area placements and demonstrate how they are implementing best practice. Not every local authority sends children far away from home, and we believe more can be done to reduce this harmful practice. The children’s social care market is failing to deliver for children and local authorities. The excessive profits of some providers are unacceptable, and reports of financial instability among some large operators are deeply concerning. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill includes provisions to reform this market, which we welcome. However, these measures must be rigorously monitored. The Department should provide annual updates to Parliament on their impact, and if a profit cap is introduced, my Committee must be consulted on draft regulations. Our inquiry examined all forms of children’s social care: foster care, adoption, kinship care, residential care and support for disabled children. Within foster care—the most common placement type—there is a shortage of approximately 6,500 carers. We urge the Department to develop a national fostering strategy. Simply continuing to advertise for more foster carers will not be sufficient, and work is needed to address some of the practical barriers that prevent foster carers from being able to sign up once they show an interest in doing so. In particular, we are calling for collaboration with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that housing policy properly supports foster carer recruitment. Kinship care is a vital option for many children. The forthcoming kinship allowance pilot must provide financial support equivalent to that of foster carers, and we call for legislation to guarantee kinship leave entitlements. For adopted children, the adoption and special guardianship support fund must be made permanent to eliminate annual funding uncertainty. While we support the emphasis on kinship and foster care, high-quality residential care remains essential for some children. Reports of children placed in unsuitable settings such as caravans and boats are completely unacceptable—the opposite of a child-centred approach. The new regulation and inspection regime for supported accommodation is a positive step, but universal care standards must apply across all placements. The social care workforce is in crisis, with high turnover and overstretched staff increasing safeguarding risks. We call for a comprehensive workforce strategy to improve retention and reduce reliance on agency staff, which increased by 38% over the five years to 2022. Disabled children face significant barriers, including limited access to respite care and inconsistent assessments. We heard that support for disabled children is often deprioritised as social services focus on child protection concerns, and that sometimes parents of disabled children are treated with suspicion and subjected to inappropriate assessments without justification when they need support. We urge the Department to implement the Law Commission’s proposals and establish clear national eligibility criteria. Mental health support is another critical gap. Children in care are four times more likely to experience mental health challenges, yet access to services remains inadequate. We recommend piloting co-located mental health services between social care and child and adolescent mental health services, and strengthening mental health assessments for children in care. It is essential that children in care have a voice when important decisions are being made about their lives. Currently, too few children are accessing the advocacy support they are entitled to, with an average referral rate of just 5% across local authorities. We endorse the independent review’s proposal for an opt-out model of independent advocacy for all children in care, to ensure their voices are heard. Reunification with birth families, when safe and appropriate, can be a positive outcome for children and parents. However, current practice is inconsistent. The Department must evaluate reunification practices and publish national guidance to ensure it is prioritised when suitable and in the best interests of the child. There were 49,000 children on child protection plans in 2024—an increase of 1,600 from 2014. Neglect remains a significant concern, and we call for a national survey on the prevalence of abuse and neglect and a dedicated national neglect strategy. Finally, and most concerningly, support for young people when they leave care is simply not good enough. Care leavers have some of the poorest outcomes in society across a range of measures: 39% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are not in education, training or employment, compared with 13% of all young people in that age group, and it is estimated that a quarter of homeless people have been in care. Care leavers still face a cliff edge in support on turning 18. We heard from young people who had to drop A-levels and struggled to afford rent while in full-time education at the age of just 18. The Department for Education must develop a national care offer to ensure minimum standards of support across the country and review and improve the financial and housing support available to care leavers. Our children deserve a compassionate, coherent and effective social care system that places their needs at the centre. Behind every statistic is a child who deserves the same opportunities as their peers to feel safe, loved and empowered to thrive. The recommendations in my Committee’s report provide a road map for reform. We urge the Government to act swiftly in addressing rising need, restore early intervention, reform the delivery of care placements, ensure better mental health services, support the workforce and stop care leavers facing a cliff edge at the age of 18. We owe it to these children to build a system that is not merely reactive but restorative, not just efficient but compassionate, and not only functional but transformational.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Educational Attainment of Boys · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. As the Chair of the Education Committee, I want to see every child and young person engaged in learning throughout their time in education, and helped to find their individual interests and passions, whether they are academic, vocational or a mix of both, and to have built a strong foundation on which they can thrive beyond their time in education and into adulthood. In their work, my Committee and its predecessor Committee have heard about the many and varied differences between groups of children and young people and the need to do more to close those gaps in participation and attainment. Our immediate predecessor Committee launched an inquiry on the topic of the educational attainment of boys, but the calling of the snap general election last summer meant that the Committee never met to discuss the evidence received from stakeholders. I have drawn on that evidence in preparing for this debate. The Association of School and College Leaders is clear that it is important not to generalise about boys’ educational engagement and attainment. Many boys achieve well in education, demonstrating good engagement and achieving qualifications that allow them to move on to the next stage of their education, or into an apprenticeship or their first job. However, there are particular groups of boys who perform less well than similar groups of girls. Digging into and understanding this detail is an important part of addressing those disparities.