Labour Party MP for Dulwich and West Norwood since (elected). An MP continuously since .
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
265
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
2
As currently published
Declared while sitting for Labour
£1,570
1 of 2 entries state an amount
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | MP | Dulwich and West Norwood | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
| Date | Category | Entry | Declared value | Sitting for | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4. Visits outside the UK | International visit to Switzerland between 05 November 2025 and 07 November 2025Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland | £1,570 | Labour | Register record | |
| date registered | 8. Miscellaneous | Vice President of the Local Government Association. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record |
<Question HRSContentId="{140F2E1B-F17B-4B8E-8E9C-F0C4AAF1CCDD}">22. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{573AD019-993A-483D-8EC9-A4755104B7D6}">What steps she is taking to reform the leasehold sector.</QuestionText> </Question>
Leaseholders living on Barrington Road and St James’s Crescent in my constituency, in buildings owned by Metropolitan Thames Valley housing association and built by the contractor Guildmore, have been trapped in limbo for more than four years. They are unable to sell and worried about fire safety, while MTVH and Guildmore continue to argue between themselves about who is responsible for fire safety defects in the building, who will complete the remediation, and who will pay for it. There is still no plan or timescale, and communication has stalled. The last substantive update that I received was back in May of this year. Can I ask the Secretary of State for her personal support and intervention in unlocking this completely unacceptable dispute, so that my constituents can at last sleep soundly in their homes and make plans for their futures?
The Government’s commitment to children and young people is clear in the scale of the education reforms they are bringing forward, from the restoration of early years services through Best Start family hubs to the expansion of childcare, the roll-out of free breakfast clubs, curriculum reform, special educational needs and disabilities reform, technical and vocational qualifications from the age of 14, work experience, social media regulation and apprenticeships. It is the Education Committee’s role to scrutinise the detail of the Government’s policies and their delivery, but there can be no doubt as to the scale of their ambition for children and young people across our country. I welcome the announcement in the Budget of the establishment of a new parental allowance for self-employed fathers, partners and adopters. This will enable parents who have previously been excluded from parental leave and pay to have precious bonding time together as a family with their baby or adopted child.<span id="624" class="column-number" data-column-number="624"></span> Earlier this year, my Committee published a report on reading for pleasure, which documented the immense benefits it brings children and young people in the development of empathy and compassion, good mental health and wellbeing, language skills and attainment at school. We also highlighted the concerning drop in the number of children and young people choosing to read for pleasure and a range of interventions that are needed to turn the situation around. I therefore welcome the additional £15 million that the Government have allocated in the Budget to increase access to books for young children. I would add, however, that the most concerning decline in reading for pleasure is seen among teenagers, and that school libraries can play a hugely valuable role in supporting children to sustain reading at secondary school. My Committee has called on the Government to extend their important pledge to deliver a library in every primary school to secondary schools, which could be done with an investment of £15 million. I hope that the Government will continue to look at how that important pledge can be extended. On examining the delivery of apprenticeships, my Committee noted that children and young people are not provided with nearly enough information about apprenticeships, and that this information often does not come in time for them to properly consider apprenticeships as an alternative to university. I therefore welcome the expansion of the mayoral apprenticeship brokerage pilots, which have the potential to ensure both that employers are supported to offer more apprenticeships and that young people have access to information about these fantastic opportunities in their local area. I further welcome the increase of £60 million a year for new PE and sport partnerships. This will increase the availability of high-quality opportunities for children and young people to participate in sport and physical activity in school and in their local area, directly contributing to better physical and mental health. However, the Committee remains concerned about some areas of interest to us that were not covered by the Budget. Our report on higher education and funding raised concerns about the impact of the international student levy on higher education institutions and a lack of join-up between the Home Office and the Department for Education. The Government’s impact analysis for the proposed international student levy now suggests a loss of income to the higher education sector of £280 million —more than £100 million higher over three years than originally estimated. Universities consistently told us that the international student levy would prove to be relatively inelastic to increases in fees, and the impact analysis supports that. We can be enormously proud of our universities; they are internationally renowned powerhouses of economic growth and anchor institutions in their communities that offer life-changing opportunities to thousands of young people and mature students every year. However, they are facing extreme precarity in their financial sustainability, and it is vital that Government policy seeks to bolster them, not to push them over a cliff edge. I urge the Government to look carefully again at the international student levy to ensure that it is both proportionate and fit for purpose.<span id="625" class="column-number" data-column-number="625"></span> My Committee has long raised concerns about the disparity in the treatment of further education colleges and schools with regard to VAT. Further education colleges have a critical role to play in the Government’s important objective of tackling the scandal of almost 1 million young people not being in education, employment or training. Colleges are places of hope, inspiration, support and inclusion where young people can find their passion and gain the skills they need to pursue it, yet unlike schools, they cannot reclaim VAT. Ministers have written to me with a technical explanation of the rules on VAT exemptions, but they are looking at this issue the wrong way round. Whatever the technical justification, the reality is that schools and colleges are not on a level playing field with regard to VAT. The response should not be, “This is what the rules say,” but, “How can we change the system to make the rules fair?” This Budget represents the Government’s excellent commitment to children and young people, but there is further to go. My Committee will continue to press the Government and scrutinise their commitments.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to CatsMatter for all its campaigning work on the issue of cat road deaths, and to every one of the almost 200,000 people, including 209 in my constituency, who signed the petition in support of a change in the law to require drivers to report collisions with cats to the police. I am a lifelong cat lover, and I know that cats become members of our families. Whether it be my childhood cats Mitzi and Biff; Cos, the elderly ginger cat who we inherited from my husband’s grandmother when she passed away; Bella, the nervous kitten; Mr A, the rescue cat with the assertive personality; or our current cats Sylvie and Pearl, five-year-old siblings who have been with us since they were eight weeks old, I love cats. They are our companions and a constant presence in our homes, each with their own personality. I should give a special mention to Fanny, the Gipsy Hill station cat, who is loved by so many of my constituents. She oversees proceedings at our local station, makes sure that everything is in order and provides comfort and cheer to commuters as they wait for trains. When a cat dies, we feel the loss very deeply. I know the specific anxiety and distress felt when a cat simply does not come home and we have to piece together the reasons why. In our case, we have lost two cats to dogs <span id="42WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="42WH"></span>who were let out off the lead in the vicinity of our home. Both times, our much-loved pet simply did not return, and we discovered only much later what had happened to them. The uncertainty of having a missing animal compounded the eventual loss. Some 230,000 cats are killed on our roads every year, and far too often, a devastating loss is compounded by not knowing what happened or by discovering an injured or dead animal after a protracted search. I know people who, after losing a cat in such circumstances, have never been able to bring themselves to get another one—not because they do not want to, but because the pain of the loss is simply too much to contemplate living through again. The law is out of sync with the strength of public feeling on this issue, and does not adequately recognise the depth of the bonds that so many people have with their cats and how devastating their loss can be. I understand that there are some complexities about changing the law, highlighted by Cats Protection, concerning the difference between cats as roaming animals and other animals listed in the Road Traffic Act 1988, which are all required by law to be kept under control. A duty to report collisions involving cats would primarily be about easing the pain of loss by enabling owners to understand what had happened to their cat and, where appropriate, to seek treatment for it as promptly as possible. A new duty should recognise that cats are roaming animals, and that accidents happen sometimes through no fault of the driver. It would need to recognise that a cat owner who allows a cat out to engage in its natural roaming behaviour is not at fault for doing so. I agree with the points made by other Members about the need for clarity for drivers about which agency they should report a collision to, and that uncertainty extends to drivers who hit an animal currently reportable under the Road Traffic Act as well as under any new regulations concerning cats. I urge the Government to look very carefully at this issue and to work out a way in which the law can be updated to require collisions with cats to be reported. There is a gap between public sentiment and the current legislation. Where that occurs, the Government have a duty to work to fill it.
As a London MP, my hon. Friend is describing the experience of my constituents as well. When I go to Royal Mail to try to interrogate its poor performance, it is required only to give performance data on the basis of the first part of the postcode, so poor performance in SE24 is disguised by average figures for the SE postcode area. Does she agree that it would be a step forward in Royal Mail’s accountability if it had to report performance on the delivery office area, rather than the whole district postcode area?
The decision on Jackdaw has been taken in the context of communities across the country meeting to watch <span id="1141" class="column-number" data-column-number="1141"></span>screenings of the “National Emergency Briefing” on climate change. The briefing has been prepared by scientists, and I have not heard any credible dissent on the science in the film. It would be very difficult to watch the film and conclude, for example, that drilling in the Rosebank oilfield should be allowed to go ahead. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is a comprehensive and effective approach to public education on climate change so that everyone across our country has an accurate, science-based understanding of the peril that it brings?
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I thank Sir David Bell for his work on this important review. I pay tribute to him for the thoughtful approach that he has taken, and thank him for taking the time to meet me during the review, which gave us the opportunity to discuss a disgraceful antisemitic attack on a child in my constituency that occurred in recent months—an abhorrent and devastating incident, the like of which should simply never happen. The review highlights the important role of schools and colleges in tackling antisemitism, and in helping children and young people to navigate difficult, complex and challenging issues. This is ever more important in the age of social media, and in the context of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. How will the Secretary of State ensure that teachers have the capacity and skills to rise to the scale of this challenge, and to meet their obligations on political impartiality, while helping our children and young people to navigate the serious and complex challenges in our society? We must ensure that education plays the fullest possible role in stamping out antisemitism, fostering community cohesion and creating the engaged, thoughtful and responsible citizens we all want to see.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. In 2016, my constituency was among the most pro-remain voting constituencies in the country. The result of the referendum was devastating for the vast majority of my constituents, most of whom continue to feel exactly the same way a decade on. I hear from businesses in my constituency about the harm that they have suffered. Perhaps when it is not just one deli in one constituency, but every deli in every constituency, and every manufacturing company across the country, we need to listen to what small businesses are saying. I hear from parents of my generation who regret that their children find it so much harder to access the opportunities that we had to travel, make friends and build community across the English channel with our friends in Europe. For 10 years, we have been acutely aware of the ways in which the Brexit referendum and its aftermath have continued to divide our country. We disagreed democratically, but did so quite narrowly and with profound consequences. Because of the depth of division caused by the Brexit referendum, many people felt that it was important not to do anything that might reopen the wounds. No one likes to be told that they were wrong, whichever way they voted in 2016. No one likes the person who says, “I told you so.” But 10 years on, there is a growing number of electors who were too young to vote in 2016, alongside a growing number of people who voted to leave but can see that the vote did not allow the country to take back control and has in reality made trade with our European partners more difficult and held back our economic growth at a time when we needed the opposite. There is clear evidence of a shift in public opinion and of foreign interference in the referendum. For many years, there has been a focus on what improvements and changes can be made to our relationships with our European partners without consideration of a more ambitious rethink or any suggestion of going back in. The time for that is over, and I am glad that our new Prime Minister recognises it. Brexit has been genuinely devastating for our country. It has harmed our economy. The promised money for the NHS has not materialised. The opportunities for our young people are diminished. It has deepened the divisions in our country on immigration, because the absence of agreements with our European neighbours has made it harder to tackle perilous channel crossings. At a time when we face the threat of Putin on Europe’s edge in Ukraine and an increasingly erratic and unreliable ally in the US, it has also made us less secure. Most people across our country want to see it prosper and thrive. They want to see our economy growing, opportunities for our young people and investment in our public services. They want to feel secure and to know that our Government can work in the most effective ways to keep them safe, and they want to be friends with their neighbours, local and international. Now is the time to put aside the awkwardness of having picked a side in 2016, forget what we felt was right or wrong in that debate and look objectively and clear-sightedly at what our country needs right now.<span id="27WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="27WH"></span> Our country needs to be able to co-operate with our European neighbours on trade and security. That is the way we can prosper. I support our Prime Minister in exploring every possible option for achieving that, including the potential for us to rejoin the European Union. I also support our Prime Minister’s agenda of increased devolution. It is important to consider these two things together. Devolution offers people the opportunity to have more agency and more control over the decisions that affect their lives at a local level, closer to where they live. That is the opposite of giving away power and control. We can only benefit from a stronger UK, bolstered by devolution, more confident in our local, regional and national identities, and fully engaged in building closer ties with our nearest neighbours and friends. I look forward to our Prime Minister setting out how it will be achieved in due course.
I thank my hon. Friend for her Committee’s excellent work on the important issue of student loans and for the good communication that she maintained with my Select Committee during her inquiry. The Education Committee concluded earlier this year that there is a genuine crisis in the financial sustainability of our universities as a result of many different pressures bearing down on them. Does she agree that if the Government do not bring forward additional measures to improve the long-term affordability of student loans, as she recommends, the risk is that more and more young people will decide not to pursue a university education? That would not only mean that they miss out on the potentially transformative impacts of such an education, but serve further to undermine the financial viability of our universities.
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement and for the work of the Public Accounts Committee on this important issue. I have seen at first hand how unbelievably difficult it has been for my constituents who were victims of the Windrush scandal to get compensation from that scheme. The Windrush compensation scheme was not co-designed with victims, and it forced victims to apply to the very Department that had done them wrong through processes that were unwieldy and Kafkaesque in their bureaucracy. I therefore welcome the Public Accounts Committee’s recommendation that an independent body should oversee the design of compensation schemes. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong that victims of the Windrush scandal were not afforded access to independent legal representation in making their applications? Does she agree that the Government still have the opportunity to correct that, and should do so forthwith?
Held . Recorded result: Lab Hold. Majority 18,789. 45,378 votes cast from an electorate of 79,894. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Helen Hayes | Labour | 27,356 | 60.3% |
| Pete Elliott | Green Party | 8,567 | 18.9% |
| Leon Cook | Conservative | 3,873 | 8.5% |
| Donna Harris | Liberal Democrat | 3,485 | 7.7% |
| Gary Stevens | Reform UK | 1,801 | 4.0% |
| Mike Spenser | Independent | 296 | 0.7% |
| Seat | Dates |
|---|---|
| Dulwich and West NorwoodElected 1 time | – present |
| Dulwich and West NorwoodElected 3 times | – |
| Post | Dates |
|---|---|
| Shadow Minister (Education)Department for Education | – |
| Shadow Minister (Cabinet Office)Cabinet Office | – |
| Opposition Whip (Commons)Whips Office (Commons) | – |
| Committee | Dates |
|---|---|
| Liaison Committee (Commons) | – present |
| Education CommitteeChair | – present |
| Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill | – |
| Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL] | – |
| Environmental Audit Committee | – |
| Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee | – |
| Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee | – |
Website
X (formerly Twitter)
Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site
Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .