John Hayes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Apr 2025 · Parthenon Marbles: British Museum Act 1963 · Hansard source

  More

  Or in Spalding.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Parthenon Marbles: British Museum Act 1963 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will know Socrates famously said that the only thing worth knowing is that we know very little, but we do know that these marbles are part of western civilisation. They are not exclusively part of Greek civilisation; we all have ownership of them, and the British Museum’s stewardship has been profound and valued. Are we to return every Canaletto to Italy or gain every Hockney back from abroad?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You, like me, have long been a supporter of Britain’s nuclear test veterans, so I wonder whether you could advise me. Given that Government lawyers have finally admitted, after 73 years of denial, that tests may have taken place at the time that those veterans were in the south Atlantic—they say that “information may have been recorded by scientists carrying out radiation monitoring”— surely a statement in the House by a Government Minister is required. How can I facilitate that? [ Official Report , 25 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 14WC.] (Correction)

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady is right about the moving process or trend that she has described, but the trouble is that it is part of a bigger problem, is it not? It is the problem of judicial activism, and it is not new. For some time, judicial activists have sought to do exactly what she has said, and it is they, not people in this House, who endanger the separation of powers.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The chairman of the Sentencing Council has argued that the sentence should be tailored to the offender, but my constituents—and, I suspect, those of the Secretary of State—think that the sentence should be tailored to the offence and its effect on the victim. That is what counts, not the background, circumstances, history or origins of the offender.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend deserves great credit for championing the cause of justice and obliging the Government to follow suit, albeit grudgingly. Leaving aside the fundamental injustice that he describes—the two-tier justice system—does he acknowledge that what the Sentencing Council proposes and continues to do undermines popular faith in the rule of law and justice and, as the Lord Chancellor herself says, tears the whole system apart?

• 8 Apr 2025 · National Wealth Fund: Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Economic policy should benefit all regions of Britain, including rural counties such as Lincolnshire, where we grow a disproportionate amount of the food that feeds the nation. Does the Chancellor recognise that, in an age when the two biggest economies in the world are protecting their industries—including agriculture—the time has come to reinvest in manufacturing and to consume more of what we produce here in Britain? To echo the call of the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson, we should buy British. That means using Government procurement to back British jobs, British projects and British workers.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Persecution of Christians · Hansard source

  More

  To be blunt, we have a lot of influence in Nigeria, so I would go as far as to say, “No trade and no aid until their Government act on this.”

• 8 Apr 2025 · Persecution of Christians · Hansard source

  More

  That we live in a strange age is beyond doubt. The guilt-fuelled self-loathing that poisons so many tiny bourgeois minds extends beyond the disowning of where we have come from—our shared history—to being insecure about who we are. To deny the Judeo-Christian roots of western civilisation is to ignore the essence of the values, which by underpinning what we share make us capable of the judgments necessary to know what is right. Widespread insecurity about our Christian heritage neuters the response, by people who should know better, to the persecution of Christians. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) spoke about parliamentary questions; I asked one when 70 Christians were found beheaded in the Congo. The response I got was full of broadly drawn liberal platitudes about universality and multilateralism, and it said that the Government were saddened—not outraged, disgusted or determined to do something, but saddened. Well, that quiet sadness is an acquiescence of people who, in G. K. Chesterton’s words, exercise unquestioning tolerance. He said, “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” The truth is that throughout the world Christians face discrimination, largely in the name of the Islamisation of parts of the world that used to be Christian. The middle east is a classic example, where the number of Christians has fallen sharply over my lifetime and where Christians continue to be persecuted—in the birthplace of the son of God, bear in mind. In an age that falsely divides people into victims and victors, too often people in the west see Christians as victors even where they are being persecuted. I simply ask the Minister: will he prioritise this issue? Will he put on a statutory footing the role of the person designated to defend minority religions? Will he make sure that the Government’s policy in respect of aid and foreign affairs addresses the persecution of Christians worldwide?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Persecution of Christians · Hansard source

  More

  Of course that is true, but it is not the whole story because the persecution of Christians predates much of that. For example, in the middle east, the Ottoman empire gave licence for persecution on exactly the grounds I described: aggressive Islamism perpetuated by the Ottomans led to the persecution of Christians, particularly in Palestine, Bethlehem and similar places. Conflict matters, but it is not all that matters.

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms · Hansard source

  More

  The very distinction between fact and fiction is being eroded, and I fear that young people’s consciousness of that is being so damaged that we will be unable to navigate the journey to truth that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is about the great internet giants, but it is also about the keyboard warriors. Umberto Eco described the internet as the “empire of imbeciles”; the trouble now is that people cannot tell the difference between imbeciles and experts.

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise for not being here in the early part of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so moved by what the hon. Lady says. The truth is that the discourse she describes has been brutalised. Complex ideas have been made simple—or at least apparently simple—and malignance has been given licence, exactly as she said. My advice to any new Member of this House is: do not get involved. I am not involved in social media at all, but I have an immense profile in my constituency, because I occupy the real world, not the virtual world. Real-world contact with people is always more valued and more valuable.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  The Lord Chancellor is right that equality before the law lies at the heart of popular respect for justice. However, I must say to her that it is not this House that endangers the separation of powers, but judicial activists, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has made palpably clear, who are more interested in making laws than applying them. Will she, as my right hon. Friend requested, let this House know whether she retains faith in the Sentencing Council and its members or whether, like me, she believes that having been exposed, they should now do the honest and right thing and resign?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening with intent to the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution. It may be that the Government are more innocent than he suggests and that there is not this hidden agenda he is describing, but in the words of a Northern Irishman, C. S. Lewis, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” Even if there is not a hidden agenda, in the end, in the name of the victims—the customers—this will end up being regulatory, bureaucratic and costly.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to give the Secretary of State time to read the clause. He owes me now, Madam Deputy Speaker. The key thing is that we must not use EU standards as the default. The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) is right that we have the authority to make our own standards, and we often do so very well. But the risk is that where we have not yet done that, the EU standard will become the default position. The Minister can make it crystal clear to us today that that is not the case.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but I collect ceramics, by the way, so I am extremely interested in them. He is right that we should support and, indeed, revere the British ceramic industry, but many laws already prevent the kind of counterfeiting he describes and other laws prevent illegal substances from being used and sold in the manufacture of goods. There is a lot of existing statute that protects consumers from the kind of practices he describes.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he is making a wonderful contribution to our affairs, which is indicative of the beauty of science, about which we hear too little. Before he rushes—hurtles, one might say—into the future, can he say a word about the peculiarly British measurements that informed my childhood? I mean things such as pecks, perches, rods and bushels, for each of those was rooted in the way that he described.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time—it is very generous of him. I think that we should jointly sponsor a Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman and I, not you and I, although we would love for you to be involved. He and I could jointly sponsor a “Made in Britain” Bill that would do exactly what he describes. I am not sure that this piece of legislation is necessary to do that, for we have that power in this House as it stands. Let us get little crowns printed on eggs again, let us have “Made in Britain” printed on everything, and let us go back to “Foreign made”, which was formerly widely used. I would love to see “Foreign made” stamped on imported goods—then people would not buy them!

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  There are three fundamental points to be made about the Bill, and I will make them more briefly than the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), although I am delighted to follow her. First, there is a constitutional issue at the heart of the legislation about the power of this House and this Parliament, and the power of the Executive. The Bill creates a permissive power for the Executive to introduce by regulation, through statutory instrument, all kinds of measures. Those who have been in the House for a long time, and perhaps those of us who have been in the House for a rather shorter time, will know what that means in practice: a brief debate in a room upstairs that will take a few minutes or perhaps a little longer. It will be thinly populated and the measure will be given scant scrutiny. The Executive should be held to account on the Floor of the House or by a Committee designed for the purpose. That brings me to my second point about the Bill. We once had a European Scrutiny Committee whose task was to look closely at all kinds of things that emanated from the European Union. The hon. Lady who spoke immediately before me described those of us in the House who are sceptical about the European Union as not being rational; she said these were irrational fears about the European Union. Were that to be true, she would probably have a point, but actually our fears are entirely rational. We know what emanated from the European Union during our membership, and it was endless bureaucracy. I acknowledge that it was often gold-plated here, but none the less it was every kind of rule and regulation, some of which were entirely superfluous to our needs because they were introduced on a pan-European basis. I learned long ago that power is best exercised when it is exercised closest to its effect. When decisions are made, they need to be sensitive to the difference they make to those affected by them. One of the reasons I was a passionate supporter of Brexit is that I want power to return to the place where it has its effect. I fear, therefore, entirely rationally, that if the default position as a result of the Bill is that we end up with European regulation, it will not be sensitive to its effect but instead will be decided upon far from where the businesses that it affects are located. So, given the second issue is about how the measure is scrutinised, I invite the Government to reinvent some kind of European Scrutiny Committee or similar. Perhaps we can call it a regulatory scrutiny Committee; perhaps it may be a body that allows the full consideration of each of the measures that the Government introduce under this umbrella Bill to ensure the House was happy with them and felt they were appropriate and had been tailored in the right way. That might be an amendment that the Government will accept, given that the Secretary of State said he was open-minded about improving the legislation during its passage. The third problem that this Bill has at its heart is the assumption about harmonisation. That term is often used and one should always be terribly fearful when it is, because it’s usually not about creating harmony but about accepting control from elsewhere. I worry that that process will snuff out some of the measures that might more usefully be adopted by Government and impose on businesses and others blunt measures that are insensitive to the particularities that prevail in our country. I do not say that is with intent, as it seems to me that the Secretary of State made clear it was not his intention, but I just fear that it will. The regulatory impact assessment and the explanatory notes that we already had seem to imply that. They say, and the Secretary of State repeated this in his opening remarks, that there are all kinds of changes—new rules, new regulations and new restrictions—happening at a pace that require the attention of Government, and that pace is so great that it is hard for the Government to keep up. My fear is, therefore, that they will adopt very broad measures rather than ones that are sufficiently tailored and sufficiently refined to meet domestic needs. With that constitutional problem of the balance between the Executive and Parliament; with that lack of scrutiny and oversight that comes from not having a body that can look at these things on a one-by-one basis; and with that tendency to produce broad-brush measures emanating from the European Union, as implied both in the Bill and in supporting documents, I have grave doubts about this legislation. It is true that we should regulate where necessary, of course; it is right in the public interest that we do so. However, we must always do so with care, because when that regulation becomes burdensome, when it frustrates innovation and when it tempers the ability to produce goods that meet popular demand, rather than becoming helpful to either customers or those that supply them, it inhibits the very things that support those businesses and aid those customers. I simply invite the Minister when he sums up to re-emphasise that the Government believe, as I do, in light-touch regulation and in regulation that only applies when there has been appropriate discussion with those affected by it, that there will be a proper dialogue between business and business representatives before new measures are introduced, and that all that is introduced will have the character that I have set out: tailored, specific and in the British interest. Our role in this place is to defend the national interest. I know that a kind of heady internationalism permeates particular parts of this Chamber—I look to my left towards the Liberal Democrats—but I have always thought that it was more important to stand up for the British people, to represent my constituents to the best of my ability and to be, as I described earlier, sensitive to the particularities of the locale that I represent and the country that I love. Is that too much to ask of Members of this House? So, I do not regard my fears about this Bill as irrational, contrary to the hon. Member for Walthamstow’s assertion; they are deeply rooted in a rational fear of the worst this Bill could bring.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  On that note, the point is the one I made to the Secretary of State: where, as the impact assessment suggests, regulations are moving at pace—the Secretary of State repeated that—we will default to a European set of standards. That is the problem, and that is certainly implied in the Bill’s impact assessment. I sought the Secretary of State’s assurance that that will not happen. If it does not happen, will there be no rules or regulations? How will that work in practice?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My experience in this place—I am mindful of what my hon. Friend has said already—is that there are two types of Bill to beware of. The first is the Bill whose provisions are so permissive, so broad, lacking the tailored approach that I described earlier, as to allow law to be applied in a way that is not expected by those who debate it as it passes through the House. The second is the Bill that makes specific provision for delegated legislation—for subsequent action by the Government. Those two types of legislation are legislation to beware of, and I say that to Members on both sides of the House, having seen Governments of all kinds introduce such Bills which became, in the end, bad laws.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  On that specific point, further to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that presumably means that the Government will press for recognition of UK standards where they prevail and where we think we are doing the job better. There will absolutely be occasions where we can learn from others, and other occasions where they can learn from us. Is that the Government’s intention? Will the Secretary of State make that clear now?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am interested in the Attorney General’s view, and we should take it seriously. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that primary legislation in this place metamorphosises in its passage through scrutiny? I have been involved in many Bills, as shadow Minister, Minister and Back Bencher, and that is precisely what happens. Ministers listen to argument, and as Bills return to the House, they reflect that argument both from here and in the Lords. Secondary legislation does not go through that process. That is why it is so important that the Bills we pass here do not contain the kind of permissive powers that facilitate so much secondary legislation.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As a Minister, I was partly involved in the introduction of a Groceries Code Adjudicator. The aim of that supermarket ombudsman was to ensure a fair food chain, yet years later, farm-gate prices bear little relation to the prices that consumers pay, and farmers and growers still struggle to get a fair deal. The Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), has suggested that the powers of the ombudsman be increased. Can we have a debate about that in Government time? My farmers, growers and food firms in Lincolnshire deserve a fair deal. They deserve to be protected from these greedy corporate behemoths.