Sir John Hayes
MP for South Holland and The Deepings · Conservative · United Kingdom
“On the subject of keeping land habitable, the hon. Lady will be familiar with the fact that the Lincolnshire fens, and particularly South Holland and The Deepings, are entirely flat, without even the undulation equivalent to the Mendip hills.”
“They have shown by their example that carelessness, and only when they have been prevented from doing harm have they ceased to do so. I am delighted that the Government are now taking steps to prevent children from accessing social media and mobile telephones; I would like to go much further, actually, and I hope the Government will.”
“What has occurred is the distortion of public discourse, the enabling of widespread fraud and the provision of the means for every imaginable form of harm, from hardcore pornography being available to children, to internet gambling addiction, suicide sites and much more. Now, the prospect of AI will make all that still more chilling.”
“I absolutely agree. That is why I began by describing what has occurred over the last quarter of a century and the misunderstanding—a pervasive one that affected all political parties and Governments of all kinds—that a dangerous fascination with novelty was more important than the certainty that I have just outlined. The hon.”
“Gentleman is right, and of course it is true that there will be the advantages that he describes, particularly in the research field. My fear is that they will obscure, in the eyes of those who have the power to make a difference, the points that the hon. Member for Poole made.”
“I know from my dealings with the hon. Gentleman that he is a good and effective Member of Parliament who takes a very responsible view of these things, but we must not let the virtues that he describes blind us to the vices. That is what happened with the internet.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Sir John Hayes, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 13.
“It is certainly true that one perverse choice leads to other consequences, and when people become involved in drugs, it often leads to all kinds of horrors. The key thing is therefore to stop people getting involved in drugs, and successive Governments, including this one, have intended to do that. Through a series of measures, we try to deter people from involvement in drugs, to deal with drug dealers and to do all the other things that you will not allow me to speak about at length, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I would be deviating from the content of the amendments if I did—”
“Grotius, the jurist, once said that criminal justice was about “the infliction of an ill suffered for an ill done”, and that sense that the punishment must fit the crime rings true now, as it did when he made that observation. The Minister needs to explain whether the Bill is about practicalities or principle. I have yet to determine which position the Government have taken.”
“I do agree with my hon. Friend. Just stepping back a moment, Ms Ghani, I am mindful that the only female Speaker we have ever had once famously declared, “Call me Madam”, so I will from now on call you Madam Chairman rather than anything else. It is certainly true that we need a war against drugs, drug dealing and all the effects of drugs, but it would be quite wrong to separate that from the public desire to see people who do bad things dealt with appropriately. When those bad things are at their extreme, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton pointed out, we are speaking of extremes—acts of violence against women, minors and, let us face it, men—they need to be dealt with with severity. There is nothing wrong with saying that because it is what most people intuitively feel, and it is right that they do.”
“Perhaps it is because of some quasi-Freudian need to explain crime in more complex terms than it may warrant—for it is simply a question of someone wanting something they cannot get and using force, violence or some other means to get it.”
“Where those can be provided through learning in prison, that undoubtedly has beneficial results—I have seen that myself in prison, where I have met both the people who run such services and the people receiving them. The hon. Lady is therefore right. However, I am really speaking about something more fundamental than that, which is a willingness to recognise —as the hon. Lady did, by the way, in her brief intervention —that punishment matters. The reticence or unwillingness to declare that as openly as I have, or the attempt to ignore or avoid it, is at odds with the instincts of the vast majority of our constituents. It is, perhaps, a product of a society that has lost its moral compass, where right and wrong have been eroded through a kind of moral relativism.”
“The hon. Lady makes a valid point. While I attack the rehabilitationist dogma, I do of course believe that we should try to save souls, and the best way of doing that is to address people’s fundamental problems, as many Members across the Committee have said in the course of this debate. That might be about ensuring that people have adequate learning, or it might be about the acquisition of a particular skill. The hon. Lady will know from her rich experience in these matters that if someone can get a job when they leave prison, they are much less likely to reoffend. When someone in those circumstances is unable to get a job, it is usually a result of the fact that they do not have core skills, in terms of basic competencies, or specialist skills.”
“Secondly, I suggested taking emergency measures to provide prison places. After all, during covid, we built Nightingale hospitals; I suggested that we build Fry prisons, named after the Tory prison reformer Elizabeth Fry, which will not be lost on the historians here in the Chamber. I do not see why that could not be done. Thirdly, we should certainly explore prisons that have been closed in recent times, under Conservative and Labour Governments, and see which could be used, either temporarily or on a permanent basis. There is a whole range of measures that we could take. It is not easy, and I say that knowing what it is like being a Government Minister. None of those things are easy, but they are all worthy of further exploration because of the effects that the legislation will have.”
“I agree with the hon. Lady, actually. I remember visiting the former Justice Secretary—the former Member for Cheltenham, Alex Chalk—with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), to tell him that we would not vote for it if that Government brought forward a measure to let people out early. My position on this matter has been entirely consistent; I would not have voted for a Conservative measure that let people out of prison early any more than I will vote for this measure tonight. I suggested three things to the then Justice Secretary: first, that we deal more robustly with foreign national offenders; again, our constituents would be astounded and appalled if they realised just how many foreign national offenders are in our prisons.”
“The reasons are as I described them; they are practical, but there is an underlying sentiment that I tried to articulate: it is a fear of punishment and an unwillingness to recognise the retributive nature of criminal justice. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) set out far more eloquently than I ever could, the effects are likely to be devastating for our constituents and communities across the country—and bear in mind that it will happen in every part of this country, every constituency will suffer as a result of the legislation. Each one of us will, as good constituency MPs, have to cope with some of these effects. The alternative is, as I described when responding to an earlier intervention, to look at every possible means of accommodating people in prison who deserve to be incarcerated—”
“As my right hon. Friend says with her typical clarity and passion, it may be that the Government bow to public pressure—and there will undoubtedly be public pressure of a kind she describes. We are speaking about people who have done serious harm, including sex offenders of the most extreme kind and violent repeat offenders. These are not people who have committed minor indiscretions; they are very serious criminals. The public will resist their release and protest about it, and the Minister may well feel obliged, as I am sure he is a man of principle, to return to the House and amend the legislation when its effects are truly and fully seen. My judgment would be that the facts speak for themselves: thousands of people will be let out of prison who certainly should not be.”
“On a purely technical point, I am right hon. and so are my right hon. Friends the Members for Tatton and for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), but let us put that to one side. It is a matter of public record that I almost never disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville. The truth is, she is right: we should have built more prisons much earlier. We could have anticipated these things—they can be modelled, after all. By the way, Governments are often surprisingly poor at modelling—I saw that throughout my time in government—but we should have modelled this, given the trend change in the prison population.”
“] It is not that we did nothing—far from it; we did many good things of the kind she described—but, unfortunately, not enough account was taken over a long enough period. It is not largely about the immediate policy of the previous Government. It goes back much further than that to a series of Governments of both major parties over a long time indeed. The modelling that I described is decade-long modelling. It is an extremely difficult business to get planning permission to build a prison. The last Government often struggled with resistance to having a prison built or expanded in a locality. It is usually local constituency MPs—we can imagine such people: Liberal Democrat types—who come here and say one thing— [ Interruption. ] Notice that I said “types” rather than just Liberal Democrats.”
“I noted those figures earlier. My right hon. Friend is right—we also rarely disagree, and I did not disagree with a word she said earlier—that more prison places were added, but there are two things about that. What we did not really take necessary account of was the effect of sentencing policy. If more people are sentenced to incarceration, perfectly properly, that changes the trend. We certainly could have dealt more effectively with foreign national offenders than we did, which was another growing problem. Furthermore, over a long period of time, while we were adding places we took some prison places out. We need to think about the number of prisons that closed. She is therefore right. [ Interruption.”
“Our difference of opinion will never be reconciled in a few brief exchanges, but it is important to note that a range of sentences are available to the courts—not just prison—and the key thing, about which I am sure we agree, is that those sentences need to be fitting to the events, fitting to the effects of the crime and fitting to the interests of the victims, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said in moving his new clause.”
“The thing that I most admire about the hon. Gentleman is his sartorial style—I glanced across towards him earlier, and I was going to say to him as I left the Chamber, “I love your suit”—but I rarely agree with what he says. We come from very different perspectives. In a sense—I do not mean to be unkind—his view is part of the problem. The problem is the persistent idea that putting people in prison is cruel and nasty. Of course, it is pretty nasty, and most of our constituents think it should be—in fact, they probably think it should be nastier than it is.”
“The mission I give to the Government is that they jettison the Bill before it does harm, think about how they can devise and deliver alternatives to that and be bold in making a case for a retributive system of criminal justice in a way that so few people have for so long.”
“By far the best and most straightforward way of dealing with recidivism is to take people out of harm’s way, and by that I mean taking them out of doing harm. If someone has committed a very serious crime, such as rape, murder or very violent assault, locking them up means they will not do it again. Releasing them means, too often, that they will; the statistics speak for themselves. If the Government want to really deal with recidivism, they should do three things: increase the number of whole-life sentences, raise the minimum sentence for a whole range of crimes and raise maximum sentences. To do that, they have to build more prisons.”
“No, I do not. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on using the word “appreciated” exactly as in its dictionary definition. I did appreciate his sartorial style, but that is not to say that I either admired or approved it. [ Laughter. ] In respect of David Gauke, who is a former colleague and was commissioned to produce that report, I do not agree in essence with it. I am more inclined to agree with the analysis of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. There is a huge mistake in assuming that incarceration is not of itself beneficial—to deal with the simple issue of recidivism, people cannot do harm when they are locked up.”
“We now move to the wind-ups. We have plenty of time, not that that is an invitation for speeches of an undue length. Members should keep it poignant but pithy. In that spirit, I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Will Forster.”
“This is the first time I have seen the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box in his new role, and I welcome him. He mentioned religious freedom. That freedom must not be allowed to conceal the malevolence of Sharia courts, which operate in places across our constituencies—there are around 85. Indeed, we are described as the western capital of Sharia law. Although they have no legitimate lawful authority, those courts are reinforcing all kinds of horrors, including discrimination against women and non-believers, polygamy and other such things. It is time that there is a debate on this issue in the House, for we need to shine a light on that malevolence. There can be only one law in this country: the law that applies to each of us and all of us.”
“If it were not so sinister, it would be quaint to hear the Secretary of State say that it is international, novel and modern, and therefore it must be good. Try telling that to Jaguar Land Rover workers, M&S customers, or postmasters and postmistresses. Will the right hon. Lady recognise what I recognised when I was the Home Office Minister responsible for national cyber-security: when one concentrates data and makes it interconnected and interoperable, one also concentrates risk, and the risk is that people lives will be damaged and possibly even destroyed?”
“I remind Members that they need to bob to catch my eye—I can see they are already doing that. Let us try to get everyone in by limiting the length of speeches. I will not set a limit; I will leave that to Members’ discretion. I call Liz Saville Roberts.”
“I am going to call people for the wind-ups just before 10.30 am. You can see what time it is, so let us try to get everyone in—be powerful and pithy, please.”
“Thank you very much to everyone for being so disciplined with their speeches. We have had an excellent debate so far. Let us hope that continues. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.”
“I will call Jenny Riddell-Carpenter to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. Other Members should be aware that they can contribute only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. Sadly, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate, because we have only half an hour.”
“I call the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—no, I am underselling him. I call the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.”
“The truth that dare not speak its name, at least on the other side of the Chamber, is that the public know what many on this side know too: that many more people should be imprisoned for much, much longer. Successive Governments have failed to grasp that nettle, because they have given in to what the Justice Secretary, who, by the way, is a personal friend of mine— [Interruption.] He is desperate to avoid that description. They have given in to what the Justice Secretary amplified today, namely the foolish idea that crime is an illness to be treated rather than a malevolent choice to be punished. We need a retributive justice system that recognises what the public recognise: that people like the thug whom my right hon. Friend described need to be punished, and punished severely.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; he is always courteous in the Chamber. Let us be clear: is the Bill a result of too few prison places —I acknowledge, by the way, that successive Governments have built too few prisons—or is it driven by a certain ideology? Is it about rehabilitation, which I describe as the treatmentist approach to crime? There is a confused message emanating from this Chamber. On the one hand we are told that it is a matter of convenience, because we do not have the places, but on the other hand we are told it is a matter of principle, because we do not believe in prison. Where does the hon. Member stand on that?”
“I did not know that the hon. Gentleman had done that, so may I congratulate him on that? What he says is absolutely right and will, I think, be widely welcomed across the House. However, I must press him on one point. Does he, like me, believe that such people, once caught and convicted, should spend much longer in prison? Does he agree that they should be incarcerated because punishment is the right thing for people who have done wicked things, spoiled lives, and hurt families, hurt women and hurt children?”
“I am extremely grateful to the former Attorney General for giving way. He is right to say that the matter could have been—and still could be, as I think he will also want to confirm—brought to our Committee. If, even at this late juncture, an overture were made to our Committee—clearly, it would have to be discussed at Committee—it would be perfectly possible for the Government to set out in those terms the advice they received that legitimises the position that they have taken.”
“Perhaps I can invite my hon. Friend to be helpful to the Minister. He clearly holds him in some regard, and he is right that he has got himself into something of a mess. By far the best way for the Government to proceed from hereon would be to make much more available either to this House or, as the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) suggested, to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would clarify the terms of this trade—why it happened and the assessments that were made that led up to it—in a way that the House would be able to either legitimise what the Minister claims or refute it. A lack of transparency is half the Minister’s problem.”
“The hon. Gentleman is right. Questions about why the negotiations started have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), given that the national interest is the primary concern of all responsible Governments and could easily be compromised by this deal, but will the hon. Gentleman deal with this point? It has been made absolutely crystal clear in this debate that Lord Cameron, when he became Foreign Secretary, ended those negotiations. Lord Cameron is a man of immense experience, who has probably negotiated at a level beyond anyone present in this Chamber. He would have certainly taken legal advice within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office before he closed those negotiations. Why does the hon.”
“The critical point here is that national security and the national interest are inseparable. Both depend on the sovereignty of this nation and the primacy of this Parliament, so although international treaties and agreements matter, of course, they can never matter more than that primacy. We cannot subcontract the national interest to an overseas place that in years to come might want to defend that interest, or might not, in exactly the way that my hon. Friend is describing.”
“The hon. Gentleman’s case, in essence, is that the only form of legitimacy in the exercise of power is democratic legitimacy, but that does not square with the exercise of power in all kinds of other ways, does it? We do not elect our judges—some countries do, but we do not. We do not elect all kinds of people who exercise fundamental powers. Many kinds of legitimacy are not democratic legitimacy. Surely he acknowledges that, had the Government come forward with a proposal that allowed the hereditary peerage to wither on the vine, it would be hard for anyone in the House to disagree, given that the Government had a manifesto commitment.”
“The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I am inclined to agree with him about the appointment of life peers who do not sit. I do not know the view of Members on the Government Front Bench on that, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good and valid argument. If people do not attend, it is sensible that they should not retain their right to do so. If people are appointed to the House of Lords and then never turn up, there is a good argument that there should be a point at which they should be told that they no longer have that title. However, on the matter of retirement on the grounds of age, this is a very dicey business, given that we have legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.”
“I want to inject some energy. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why I am energetic about this matter. It is preposterous to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, on the basis that they give good service that, as I have already described, legitimately can be derived from a variety of sources. Many of them are disproportionately active in that Chamber. I accept that there is a manifesto commitment, but this could be done in a much more measured, sensible and moderate way. Is that enough energy for him?”
“Just to refresh my memory, which Government instituted the arrangement whereby a certain number of hereditaries stayed and the kind of election that the hon. Gentleman describes was introduced? Was it a Tory Government, or was it a Labour Government?”
“I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is making the speech that he is, because he understands that, essentially, our system is an organic one. Constitutions are not written from a blueprint—they can be, but they are not in this country—and what he is describing is a blend of democratic legitimacy and the other forms of the exercise of power. What the Government are proposing is not a democratic House of Lords, but an appointed House. That in itself contradicts some of the speeches made by Labour Members.”
“Just to get Cromwell right: it was Cromwell, rather like Boris Johnson, who ended the Long Parliament by walking into this Chamber, so the parallel is probably closer than the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest. Cromwell was a tyrant, really, in all kinds of other ways, who wanted his son to succeed him, so he believed in the hereditary principle. On the point of substance, the point about the House of Lords is that it is a check on the power of this place, and that is a helpful thing for Governments, actually, as sometimes Governments benefit from having to think again. The continuity that is being argued for from the Conservative Benches is part of a healthy constitutional settlement. If we sacrifice that settlement, I think we will get less good, rather than better, government.”
“The point has been repeatedly made from the Government Benches that this is a matter of principle and that hereditary power is unacceptable. Now, the hon. Member is right that the King has no role in introducing legislation, and so on and so forth, but the King does have immense political influence. Which Labour Back Bencher meets the Prime Minister weekly to discuss the affairs of state?”
“Madam Deputy Speaker, the king of Stoke! Which Labour Back Bencher receives a regular report from the Whips on the proceedings of this House? That is what the King has. The King rightly has powers, and he derives his power by birth.”
“Q14. Mr Speaker, I know you will agree that flags and banners, in bringing national pride, nourish individuals’ sense of worth and nurture our shared sense of belonging. Will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that across every part of our kingdom, alongside the crosses of St George in England, St Patrick in Ireland, St Andrew in Scotland and the red dragon in Wales, our flag is flown on every Government and public building—hospitals, schools, police stations and railway stations—for every Briton deserves the chance to see a forest of flagpoles and the flutter of the Union Jack?”
“I know that the purpose of these regulations is to clarify and provide for the definition of revenue in accordance with the original legislation. I simply say to the Minister that this is a helpful further step, building on the progress that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has described. It is vital that we ensure that these measures are implemented by Ofcom regularly and with enthusiasm where online providers are doing damage; that is their purpose. Parliament as a whole took too long to regulate the internet. The last Government did the right thing in doing so, and now we need to use this instrument to its full effect.”
“I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is not the real problem, as identified by the FSB and articulated by the right hon. Gentleman, that there is an unholy alliance of Eurocrats and bureaucrats, of separatists and globalist corporates, who are acting in a way that is injurious to the interests of small and medium-sized businesses that trade across our United Kingdom?”
“My hon. Friend, with typical generosity, says that we are all trying to get this right. I established that that is largely true, with the possible exception of the EU itself. There are those in the European Union, stung by the wise decision of the British people to leave that awful body, who have never really accepted that decision and have made life as difficult as possible—both for this country and for the businesses described by right hon. and hon. Members in this debate.”
“These men are now elderly; they are dying, of course, because of their age, by the week and month. However, I, along with the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and the descendants of these men, will not give up this fight. It is vitally important that the Government are clear about when those tests will be published—I wonder if you could help in that regard, Madam Deputy Speaker.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that long ago—indeed, before we were born—tens of thousands of young men were sent to a far off place to witness the first British nuclear tests. Ever since, some of us have been campaigning for their interests. Earlier this year, the Government announced that there will be a review into the blood and urine tests taken at the time of those tests; you will appreciate the significance of that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because of the risk of radiation poisoning. The Government have said that the review will be published, but we have no clarity as to when. There are tens of thousands of these records, which are being examined as we speak. Have you had any notice from Ministers on when they will come to the House with an interim report?”
“I am proud to be a member of the party of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Disraeli, who all understood that it is essential to free people from need, and that in that effort the state can be a force for good. But in freeing people from need we should not limit them to a life of dependency. It is entirely possible to believe that although welfare can be a force for good, so too can personal responsibility, and responsibility means making the kinds of choices that my hon. Friend has set out.”
“I am mindful of two of her predecessors in Birkenhead. The first is F. E. Smith, the great Tory, who talked about “all must have prizes”. Sometimes, in our modern Britain, it feels that all must have state support. The second is the late Frank Field, who is much regarded and revered in this House for his honesty about welfare reform. The Minister is right that successive Governments have failed to grasp this nettle. The truth is that the relationship between the state and the individual has changed over time. We need a welfare system that focuses support on those in the greatest need. She surely believes that, and that requires bold welfare reform. Is she up for that or not?”
“I spoke earlier about F. E. Smith, who spoke about all having prizes who had “stout hearts and sharp swords”. The stout hearts drive us to do the best for those in the greatest need, but our sharp swords should make us brave enough to recognise that there are those who are absorbing welfare expenditure that should be spent on those needy people. That is what the Government ought to do, but I heard none of that from the Minister.”