Today, the House of Commons is debating draft legislation to introduce assisted dying for people who are terminally ill with less than six months to live, who have mental capacity.  Many constituents have got in touch about this Bill, expressing strong views – in relatively even numbers, both for and against.

This is an issue which I have thought long and hard about and which arouses very strong emotions.  I recognise that there are very strong arguments on both sides of the assisted dying debate, and I have carefully read every letter and email that I have received on this issue.  These include extremely harrowing accounts from people who have witnessed their relatives die in agonising pain, as well as heartrending letters from constituents who fear that if assisted dying is made legal, they would feel under obligation to make that choice themselves.

I have decided that I will vote against the Bill today.  This is not a decision that I have reached lightly, and it is not a clear cut choice, but I have tried to explain my reasons below.

Thank you to the hundreds of constituents who have written to me about the refugee crisis in Europe over the past few weeks.  The compassion and willingness of residents in Dulwich and West Norwood to help is very moving.  I am clear that the UK government must do more to help those fleeing conflict and persecution.  I helped to secure the debate which will take place this afternoon in the House of Commons, adding my name to the list of back bench MPs calling for the issue to be discussed in the Chamber.  This morning I took part in a moving vigil, attended by MPs of all parties, to remember the plight of refugees, and I have also signed an Early Day Motion which will be published tomorrow morning. 

I am unfortunately unable to take part in this afternoon's debate myself due to an important session of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee which I have to attend at the same time.  I have instead written to the Prime Minister, setting out what I would have said, had I been able to speak this afternoon.  Please find the text of my letter below:

Dear Prime Minister,

I have been contacted by hundreds of my constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood regarding the refugee crisis unfolding in Europe and as I write the emails are still pouring in. They share my concern that the UK has so far not done more to support people in perilous conditions fleeing conflict and persecution, despite the fact that the scale of the crisis in Europe has been evident now for some months. 

The small number of refugees who have been resettled here under the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme is in stark contrast to the clear leadership shown by Germany on this issue. The UK can be rightly proud of the role that we have played in supporting previous refugee crises and I would urge you to rekindle the spirit of the Kindertransport and help to demonstrate once again our leadership on the world stage.

The reaction of my constituents to the refugee crisis has been overwhelming and very moving. Many are offering space in their homes to refugees so that when they arrive in Britain they have somewhere safe to go. Local groups are organising collections of essential items to be taken to refugee settlements throughout Europe.

I welcome your change of heart on this issue in the context of intense public campaigning, and I am pleased that the UK will be accepting more refugees.  I also welcome your commitment to the provision of aid for the hundreds of thousands of refugees overseas who, although less visible in the media, must also remain a priority for us all. The images of the body of Aylan Kurdi are heartbreaking, but thousands of refugees have been in situations of comparable personal devastation and loss over many months, and it is deeply regrettable that you are only now taking action in the face of intense public pressure.  It is also regrettable that the language you have used to describe this crisis has sought to mask the individual, personal tragedies like those of Ayan Kurdi’s family, labelling refugees a ‘swarm’.

One of the proudest achievements of the last Labour government was the progress we made in reducing child poverty.  600,000 children were brought out of poverty through a combination of the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, increased employment, tax credits to support families on low incomes, an expansion of childcare and the creation of Sure Start.  You can only reduce child poverty if you measure it in the first place.  That is why I am deeply opposed to the government’s proposed abolition of child poverty targets in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.  It is also entirely wrong that the government is proposing to reduce the support available to sick and disabled people who are not fit for work, by reducing the level of the Employment and Support Allowance.  I am also opposed to a reduction in the benefit cap in London, when insufficient account is taken of the significantly higher housing costs which residents in London face.  These measures will make life worse for many people in my constituency and I am vehemently opposed to them. 

The Welfare Reform and Work Bill also proposes some measures which I agree with.  The Bill proposes to introduce 3 million apprenticeships and to create a statutory duty to report on their delivery.  There are young people in Dulwich and West Norwood who would dearly love the opportunity afforded by apprenticeships which are currently scarcer than they should be.  The Bill also proposes to provide additional support for troubled families.  I have seen many families in my constituency who need compassionate and intensive support to address issues and challenges which have devastating consequences for them.  And the Bill proposes to cut rents for Council tenants, many of whom have been hit by the rising cost of living under the last government.  While I believe that urgent action is also needed to address rents in the private sector and to change the definition of ‘affordable’ housing, I won’t argue with a proposal which provides a little additional help to Council tenants.  It is, however, imperative that the government provide full financial support to fill the funding gap left by the reduction in rent, otherwise this will merely translate into an unsustainable cut to the funding available to maintain existing Council homes and build new Council homes.

Several residents have contacted me to ask about my views on fracking in relation to a campaign being led by Greenpeace asking candidates to sign the 'Frack Free Promise'.  I am pleased to confirm that I have signed the Frack Free Promise and I have set out below my views in detail below. 

My day job for the past 17 years has been as a town planner, and I spent 18 months working on a major project which helped built environment professions to better address climate change.  It was a really significant project until the Tory Lib Dem government archived it in 2010.  Climate change and our response to it is a top priority issue for me.

Passengers across Dulwich and West Norwood have experienced a completely unacceptable level of rail service since the start of the year.  The problems are particularly acute on the lines into London Bridge following the introduction of a new timetable to accommodate the major works to London Bridge station.

Problems are also being experienced on other routes as passengers seek to avoid London Bridge, resulting in already crowded services becoming unbearable, for example through Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction.  Every week, I hear more stories of passengers stranded, unable to get to work on time or unable to get home in time for their children's bedtime at the end of the day.  The situation is causing misery for everyone, but for passengers who are disabled or frail it has become almost impossible to contemplate a journey on our rail network, particularly at peak times.

Private renters in South London have been hit by huge rent increases in recent years – to the point where many families are now spending around 60% of their income on rent. I have launched a survey to capture the reality facing private tenants in the area as part of a campaign for secure and affordable homes. 

London is facing the biggest housing crisis in a generation and rent in the private sector is rapidly becoming unaffordable for all but those on the highest wages. I speak with many people in Dulwich and West Norwood every week, and increasing numbers tell me they are fed up of rip-off charges from letting agents, huge annual hikes in rent and the insecurity of one year tenancies. 

Bromley Council has recently announced that its exclusivity agreement with the Zhong Rong Group in relation to Crystal Palace Park has elapsed without a deal being reached. The announcement said that Bromley Council will continue to negotiate with Zhong Rong, but will also welcome approaches from other developers who are interested in this site.  In my view, the announcement once again demonstrates that Bromley Council is taking entirely the wrong approach to Crystal Palace Park.

The survey work which my Council colleagues Cllr Andy Simmons and Cllr Jon Hartley undertook of residents' views on the Zhong Rong proposals indicated that most residents were not completely opposed to the idea of a building being developed on the site of the former Crystal Palace, along Crystal Palace Parade.  However, our community is very concerned that any development in this area should be appropriate in its size and scale, complementary to the businesses within the Triangle and most importantly should reflect local needs and aspirations for an important and beautiful historic park.  There is currently no planning policy context for a large commercial building to be developed in an area which is designated Metropolitan Open Land, a very strong planning policy protection, equivalent to Green Belt.

The railway arches in Brixton have long been a place where businesses can set up with reasonably affordable rents and benefit from being in a vibrant town centre.  The Brixton arches are relatively unusual in that along Atlantic Road, Brixton Station Road and Popes Road, the arches face on to busy streets.  Many of the businesses which occupy the arches have become local institutions - it is hard to imagine Brixton without the A & C Continental Deli, Mash's fishmonger, S & S Textiles, M & M Foods, the Catwalk wig shop and many other businesses which are as much a part of Brixton's identity and community as Electric Avenue, Windrush Square, Morleys and the markets.

Network Rail is a public body not a private developer, and in refurbishing the arches it needs to pay better regard to the wider community of Brixton and the role that established businesses play within it.  Network Rail should make a much stronger commitment to existing businesses in the Brixton arches, offering a right to return, a phased approach to the refurbishment, support for businesses while the works are undertaken and a reasonable approach to rent increases - they shouldn't simply be cashing in.

See my interview on the arches with Brixton Blog here:  http://www.brixtonblog.com/save-our-shops-helen-hayes-says-network-rail-has-behaved-in-the-worst-way-possible/27986

NHS England has just announced that the health centre which is to be built on the Dulwich Hospital site is to be a new building, rather than a refurbishment of the old building, and that it will be built at the Melbourne Grove end of the site.  This is good news.  It means that we will get a modern, fit for purpose health centre and it also means that the area of the site which remains for a new secondary school will be maximised.

There is, however, more work to do on this issue.  The next step for the NHS is to prepare the business case for the new health centre, so that the funding can be agreed.  We know from previous experience elsewhere in the constituency, such as at Rosendale Road, that NHS England does not always understand local community needs and can be reluctant to agree funding for new build health centres, so we need to keep up the pressure to make sure that this process happens as quickly as possible.

The NHS also needs to prepare a planning application for the health centre and it will be really important that in doing so, they engage and consult with local residents, so that the new building is sensitively designed with consideration for its neighbours.

Finally, and as important as ever, there is the continuing campaign to ensure that the remainder of the site is developed as a new community secondary school, and only a secondary school - not the 'constrained site' primary and secondary schools as the Tories and Lib Dems would have there.  I am continuing to work with Tessa Jowell, Cllr Vikki Mills, both of the secondary school bidders and all of the Dulwich Labour councillors to lobby the government to drop the proposed primary school, so that we can have the best possible secondary school.