John Hayes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  We should deport the approximately 1 million people who are here illegally. We also need, as I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge, to look at the indefinite right to remain. All kinds of people—with extremely dubious pasts, presents and possibly futures—have been granted that status. Will she commit the Opposition to relook at that, because indefinite does not mean permanent?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I did say that it was under successive Governments. The reason for that is that the liberal elite of this country—I do not count the hon. Gentleman among its number—that controls far too much of the Establishment and wields too much power is at odds with the understanding which prevails in his constituency and mine of ordinary, everyday working people, who recognised what I have just said long ago but were told by people who should have known better that net migration at that level was not only tolerable but desirable. It is a complete nonsense to pretend so, and every piece of analysis justifies that.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  Of course Brexit and particularly free movement led to a massive influx of people. When David Blunkett, now Lord Blunkett in the other place, was Home Secretary, he estimated that as a result of free movement 13,000 people would arrive in this country. In fact, the figure was in the hundreds of thousands and when settled status was granted it turned out to be millions. So the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the effects of Brexit.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I will not because I know others want to get in and I am already testing the Deputy Speaker’s patience. The truth of the matter is that we need to address migration not only for the reasons I have given about population growth and the damage to social cohesion and the economy, but because unless we do so the British people will assume, and rightly so, that people here just do not get it. Well, I do, and I hope those on my Front Bench now do, and the Government need to wake up and smell the coffee pretty soon.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  There has been too much immigration to this country for far too long. I have great regard for the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), as she knows, but regard allows for sharp disagreements, and if she did not know that we disagree, she will after this speech. That level of immigration has damaged our economy, our shared sense of belonging on which social cohesion depends and our public services, by increasing population to an unsustainable level. Let me first turn to the economy. The effect of mass migration on the economy has been to displace investment in domestic skills and in recruitment and retention of labour. It has displaced investment in the modernisation of our economy and it has therefore damaged productivity by inhibiting it. It has essentially created an economy that is low-skilled and dependent on the provision of relatively cheap labour, and is therefore unfit to compete in a high-tech, high-skilled world. That is what mass migration has done to our economy. For evidence, one has only to look at the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs report, which says: “we have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.” The reason for that is that 70% of migrants are in low and medium-skilled roles. They are not the brightest and the best; they are not the people who we need to fill the vacancies that cannot be filled otherwise. Essentially, vacancies are being filled rather than providing opportunities for the vast majority of those Britons who cannot get a place in the labour market. Mass migration has certainly damaged social cohesion by undermining our shared sense of belonging. We simply cannot import that number of people—many of whom do not speak English as their first language—without significant investment in integration; yet even if we were integrating at pace, the sheer volume would make it impossible to hold many communities together. We have seen social fracture, with a risk of complete fragmentation, in many communities. Hon. Members from across the House will have visited schools where the headteacher has said proudly, “Of course, the children here speak 15 different languages,” as though that were a cause for celebration. Without a common language, there can be no currency for learning about one another and there can be no means by which we can share what makes us British. We have to promote the English language and we should abolish any attempt by any authority to translate things into foreign languages: let us make that a rallying cry from today. Finally, the population of this country is growing at an unsustainable rate. We have heard already that successive Governments, beginning with the Blair Government, then the coalition Government, Tory Governments and now this Government, I am sorry to say, have failed to recognise that if we increase net population by 700,000 to 900,000 people a year, a number that equates to the combined populations of the five cities of Cambridge, Norwich, Hull, Lincoln—

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I take the hon. Member’s point. As I did say, successive Governments are to blame for this, beginning with the Blair Government or perhaps even earlier. Would he, however, acknowledge that we cannot increase the population on the scale we have been doing without putting unbearable pressure on demand for housing, access to GPs and health services, and other public services?

• 20 May 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is not the answer, in part at least, a national statutory inquiry into what occurred, not least because we do not actually know whether it is still going on? That inquiry would expose so much, which would allow all those right-thinking people to take the action necessary and protect so many of the people who might be at risk from further horrors.

• 20 May 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  At the risk of being repetitive, will the hon. Gentleman press, as I have done—I think the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) agreed with me—for lenient sentences to be dealt with more severely? That is, the Attorney General should have extra time to review those sentences. There is nothing worse for a victim than seeing the perpetrator of the crime given an unduly lenient sentence.

• 20 May 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is a third trauma when a sentence that emanates from the court is unduly lenient. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Attorney General has the power to review unduly lenient sentences, but only within 28 days of the date of a sentence. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling for the length of time to be extended, in the name of victims?

• 20 May 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To be clear, the current situation allows victims 28 days for a referral, and the Bill extends the period for consideration to 14 days. What we want is for victims to have longer, and it seems absolutely right that that should happen. It would be a perfectly reasonable amendment for the Government to table in order to back victims. Is that really too much to ask?

• 20 May 2025 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—by the way, I have always liked her. I take at face value what she has said. Will that Law Commission review be in time to amend the Bill? That is key. If it will not be on time, how can we handle that?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The critical point about my right hon. Friend’s amendment, and indeed about new clause 16, is that they would put that on the face of the Bill. He is right to say that codes of practice and statutory guidance can be of value, but it seems to me that what is on the face of the Bill will be of fundamental importance, particularly in respect of coercion.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s objections to new clause 16, given that we have been assured throughout that the Bill would apply only to people who were terminally ill with six months to live. Is he really saying, therefore, that he does not want a new clause that would rule out from assisted death people who feel that they would be a burden on others, people with a mental disorder and people with a disability? His argument for choice is exactly the argument that in other jurisdictions has led to the expansion of assisted death to just those kinds of people.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We were assured that one of the key safeguards in the Bill’s original incarnation was a legal test. That process—had it been retained, of course—would have enabled the collection of evidence in the very way that my right hon. and learned Friend is describing. It is partly because the safeguards have been weakened that we have the dilemma that his amendments seek to deal with.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is why new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend, is so important. In other jurisdictions that have passed such laws, up to a third of people report that they have taken this step because they feel they are a burden on others. That is the truth of it—it is not always about pain—and that is the kind of autonomy that leads to disaster.

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 16 May 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Just to be clear, this is not about what, but where. Of course it is important that we have a diverse energy mix, but the hon. Lady must know that if we put solar panels on the best-quality agricultural land, we will have to import more food and extend supply chains, and so damage the environment.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  There is a further point about suitability. My hon. Friend, as a Lincolnshire MP, will know that our county produces a hugely disproportionate amount of the nation’s food. Compromising food production puts food security at risk, because the solar farms, which are industrial developments, use up land that could otherwise feed the nation.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  That concentration is ironically on some of the best land for growing. That is the problem. There seems to be a correlation between the most productive farmland and the concentration of solar applications.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to endorse everything that my right hon. Friend and neighbour has said about national economic resilience. The point about grading land is critical. To be fair to the Government, they have said that land at grades 1, 2 and 3a at least should be protected, but the problem is that the solar developers deliberately attempt to distort those distinctions by regrading land using organisations that are part of their own corporations.

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As short as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House will know that I have raised the issue of crossbows in this Chamber before. They are murderous devices in the wrong hands. In response, the Government have helpfully tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, yet I have still received no information, despite the Prime Minister’s promise that I would, about the response to the consultation. It is now well over a year old, yet we have heard nothing. May we have a statement to the House on the Government’s response to the consultation on crossbow ownership and sale as soon as possible please?