Natasha Irons MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q2. Unlike the Conservatives, this Government have not dragged their feet in banning zombie knives and ninja-style swords in their effort to tackle knife crime. In Croydon, where youth violence has cast a devastating shadow across our communities, our local police are running a surrender scheme this month to take those dangerous weapons off our streets. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending the tireless work of Croydon’s police officers, and will he outline what his Government are doing to ensure that the Met police have the resources they need both to protect neighbourhood policing and to deal with the unique challenges they face?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. Successive Conservative Governments stripped our councils of funding for youth services, pitting them against services that were under statutory protections. That has led to one in eight councils no longer having a youth centre. Croydon, which is London’s youngest borough, is about to lose its youth engagement team and its last crumb of council-run universal youth provision. Can the Deputy Prime Minister outline what this Labour Government are doing to support our young people? Does she agree that it is time to look again at statutory protections for youth services, so that all young people, no matter where they live, can get the services they deserve?

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about transparency and providing answers for the families of patients when the very worst happens. Independence has allowed investigations into deaths in places of custody to improve significantly. As outlined by the independent advisory panel on deaths in custody, patients detained under the Mental Health Act now have the highest mortality rate across all places of custody. Indeed, the rate is three times higher than in prisons, when taking into account estimates of time in custody and the number of people in each setting. Behind each of these tragedies are families who have unanswered questions and who have had to fight to find out what happened to their loved ones, and vulnerable people who should have received better care. In my constituency, there is the story of Catherine Horton, who died in 2017 while in the care of the South London and Maudsley NHS trust. The inquest into her death found that the risk assessment was not properly updated, with no formal risk assessment conducted, and no care plan on her arrival or while at the facility. There is also the story of Tia Wilson, who died in 2021 in the care of the same trust. The inquest into her death found that there were multiple failures in managing her risk, which contributed to her death. Then there is the story of the brother of one of my constituents, who absconded from his care, went missing, and was later found dead in a wooded area a stone’s throw from her home. For each of those cases, we know that internal reviews will have taken place and assurances of improvements will have been made, and yet issues with risk assessments remain and families are left pushing for answers. This is not unique to south London; the internal review process is failing to deliver the necessary improvements across the country. Without embedding independence into the process, we risk undoing a lot of the good work that the Bill seeks to achieve. Adding independence into the investigation of these incidents where the very worst things happen gives trusts a genuine space to learn the lessons. It would improve patient safety and provide families with the transparency they need. Although we must all acknowledge the incredible work that trusts do across our country to provide care for people at their most vulnerable, we must also provide a proper framework for challenge and improvement. The new clause is an opportunity to treat the deaths of people detained under the Mental Health Act with the same seriousness and care as deaths in other custody settings, to embed transparency, and to make the meaningful improvements that all patients deserve.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments. The cluttered and chaotic way in which we investigate these things is part of the problem, so I am glad to hear that there is a wider review of how we streamline the process better for patients, because we are seeing mistakes repeated over and over again. I am content to withdraw the new clause, but I would be grateful if the Minister would meet me to discuss the wider plans in this area and how I can support that work and take it forward.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 26 Use of restraint and restrictive intervention “(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows. (2) In Part II (Compulsory Admission to Hospital and Guardianship), after section 7, insert— ‘ 7A Use of force in connection with admission for assessment or treatment (1) A relevant organisation that operates a hospital must appoint a responsible person for the purposes of this section. (2) The responsible person must— (a) be employed by the relevant health organisation, and (b) be of an appropriate level of seniority. (3) The responsible person must keep a record of any use of force by staff who work in that hospital against a person (“P”) who— (a) has been admitted for assessment or treatment under sections 2 to 5 of this Act; or (b) is on the hospital premises and is at risk of detention under this Act. (4) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the risk factors to be considered under subsection (3)(b). (5) A record kept under this section must include— (a) the reason for the use of force (b) the place, date and duration of the use of force (c) whether the type or types of force used on the patient formed part of the patient's care plan; (d) the name of the patient on whom force was used; (e) a description of how force was used; (f) the patient's consistent identifier; (g) the name and job title of any member of staff who used force on the patient; (h) the reason any person who was not a member of staff in the hospital was involved in the use of force on the patient; (i) the patient's mental disorder (if known); (j) the relevant characteristics of the patient (if known); (k) whether the patient has a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorders; (l) a description of the outcome of the use of force; (m) whether the patient died or suffered any serious injury as a result of the use of force; (n) any efforts made to avoid the need to use force on the patient; and (o) whether a notification regarding the use of force was sent to the person or persons (if any) to be notified under the patient's care plan. (6) The responsible person must keep the record for three years from the date on which it was made. (7) The Secretary of State must ensure that, at the end of each year, statistics are published regarding the use of force by staff who work in hospitals under the conditions set out in this section.’”— (Jen Craft.) This new clause would require hospitals to record information on all incidents in which force is used against patients with mental disorders, in line with the reporting currently required in mental health units, including force against those at risk of detention for assessment or treatment. It would also require the Government to publish annual figures on the same topic. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause seeks to ensure that if a patient dies while in detention under the Mental Health Act, an independent inquiry into their death will be required. Unlike deaths in prison or police-related deaths, deaths while a person is detained under the Mental Health Act are not automatically investigated independently. Currently, if a person dies while detained under the Act, the trust responsible for their care should carry out an internal investigation into their death to find out what happened and whether lessons can be learned. Those investigations, known as serious incident investigations or root cause analysis, do not have any independent oversight and can vary a lot from trust to trust. Inquest, the only charity in England and Wales providing expertise on state-related deaths and their investigation, has found that the current system for investigating such deaths is not fit for purpose. In its statement to the Lampard inquiry, it outlined an anonymised case from 2010 in which there was a stark contrast between the findings of the NHS trust that investigated the death of a patient detained under its care and the inquest that took place two years later. The trust found very few failings in care, whereas the jury at the later inquest were critical of the patient’s treatment, which directly led to their death. The question we must ask ourselves is why we would allow deaths while in detention under the Mental Health Act to be investigated by those in charge of custody, when deaths in any other setting would not be. We do not allow the police to judge their own actions if a death occurs in custody, so why should it be any different for those detained under the Mental Health Act?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentioned the complex network of ways in which patients can give their feedback; perhaps the aim of the clause is to try to simplify that and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned, make it a bit more direct and immediate after treatment. Are there any plans to simplify the process in another way? The complex cobweb that the Minister described is perhaps the reason why the patient voice is not always captured and utilised in a way that we would want if the services that people rely on are to be improved.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak in support of clauses 30 to 33. I echo many of the remarks of the gallant and learned hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, but I will try not to go over too much of the same ground. These clauses seek to provide clarity and improvement in access to the tribunal process, both for patients detained under the Mental Health Act and for those on conditional discharge, and seek to implement key recommendations from the independent review. Section 66 of the Act is amended to extend the period in which a patient detained under section 2 can apply to the tribunal from 14 days to 21 days. Clause 30 also allows for auto-enrolment in a hearing, reducing that time from six months to three months. It clarifies that conditional discharge patients are included in this package, so they also have the right to have their treatment reviewed at a tribunal. Providing for auto-enrolment simplifies the system for people who, as the hon. Member mentioned, are perhaps not in the best position to make administrative decisions and fill in the paperwork to apply to a tribunal. Although this framework and these changes are necessary to bring clarity and autonomy back into people’s healthcare, it would be good to hear from the Minister about how we will support patients throughout these processes as we learn about the different timelines. How will we ensure people can access this change in the system and understand what they are entitled to under this new provision?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I will speak briefly in support of clause 20 and comment on some of the issues surrounding new clause 5. Clause 20 aims to update wording in the Mental Health Act 1983 in regard to a patient’s capacity and competence to consent to treatment. That is in line with terms that clinicians use in practice across the piece. It provides consistency with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Although the clause is not expected to create practical change in clinical care, it does something vital that I would like to draw out. These changes bring forward the recognised and well-established ways that we give people the power to inform their future care and treatment if they get ill in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock so eloquently put it earlier, the ability to plan ahead for one’s care speaks to the heart of what we are trying to do with the Bill, namely to put people at the centre of it, but allow dignity in treatment and authority over one’s own healthcare. That is an important point to draw out in this clause. Let me turn to new clause 5. The shadow Minister teased out a lot of detail around the Gillick competence test, which is used not just in one setting, but across multiple settings. I completely understand the need to ensure that our young people are empowered to make decisions, but the new clause may have the unintended consequence of making it harder for young people to be involved in their own treatment and have control over what they want to do with their health. We are not quite in the place where we need that statutory test. It would be helpful to tease out from the Minister a little more about the plans to review the code of practice, which he mentioned in his opening remarks. What does he hope to see when we consult with clinicians on this? How can we be confident that clinicians will feel empowered to allow young people to take some control in their healthcare?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about training in the round for NHS staff, or any staff dealing with someone in crisis, might it be about taking a more contextual safeguarding approach that relates to not just the one setting? I agree with the point about looking at the 10-year plan, and making sure that mental health training is provided for all staff, because we know that people can present in very different ways, in many different contexts across the health system.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Local Authority Funding · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps her Department is taking to help ensure that councils are financially stable.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Local Authority Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Despite an increase in council tax of 27% since 2022, £136 million in exceptional financial support this year and brutal cuts to services, Croydon council’s finances remain broken. As an outer-London borough with inner-London problems, Croydon has historically not received the funding it needs to cover the costs for demand-led services like temporary accommodation, so even if Croydon’s debt was wiped out, it would still need exceptional financial support. Will the Minister outline how councils like Croydon will get the resources they need to meet the complex challenges they face and provide the frontline services that our communities deserve?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this Government’s funded commitment to making every community across this country better off after the failed promises of the previous Government. I represent an outer London constituency with the oldest trams in the country and pockets of deprivation. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give me and my constituents in Croydon East that next week’s spending review will recognise the contribution that London makes to our national economy, and will provide investment in communities like mine, which were failed by the previous Government?

• 15 May 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that MSP colleagues are considering bringing in a youth Act in Scotland, which is quite innovative, and perhaps we should try to emulate some of its provisions. With the closure of over 1,000 youth centres, one in eight local councils now has no youth centres in its area. The workforce crisis has seen youth workers often stuck in low-paid and insecure work. The voluntary sector, which now delivers 80% of youth work, faces its own funding crisis, with 25% of voluntary youth organisations having less than six months of cash reserves. Despite those challenges, organisations across our communities are stepping up to rebuild the village around our young people. Nowhere is that more evident than in Croydon, the town I have the privilege of representing in this place. In Croydon, organisations are working tirelessly to provide the support that young people need: Redthread, which is working in Croydon university hospital to offer young people caught up in youth violence a way out; Reaching Higher, which aims to support and champion young people across school, community and home; Croydon Drop In, which offers free confidential advice and mental health support to young people and families; and Croydon Youth Consortium, which is driving collaboration across local youth charities, so they avoid competing against each other for the same limited pots of funding. Croydon is leading the way in giving our young people a stake in their community. However, due to impending budget cuts and reorganisation, Croydon, which is London’s youngest borough, is on the verge of losing its council-run youth engagement team. The team provides a critical link between the council, the voluntary sector and vulnerable young people across the borough. It provides outreach, runs youth hubs in hard-to-reach areas, and oversees Croydon’s youth assembly. To put it simply, Croydon’s youth engagement team has saved lives. The limited statutory protections in place for council-led youth services mean that Croydon council can shut the service down without running a proper consultation; without asking key partners, such as the police or the NHS, how much they rely on the frontline knowledge the team offers them; and even without consulting the borough’s young people properly, having approached only 31 of them in the process of drawing up its plans. The council claims that some of the services will be retained by inviting the voluntary sector to put in bids to run them, but they cannot replace the consistency, institutional knowledge and co-ordinating role that the youth engagement team provides. As one mother, whose son attends the New Addington youth hub in my constituency, put it: “The staff do such a good job at making everything seem conversational and natural... We’ve had pop up services through charities. But with the youth club, they’ve been able to spend time with a consistent staff team and build relationships with a professional and diverse staff.” I welcome the Government’s commitment to the wellbeing of our young people: their work on a national youth strategy that puts the voice of young people at its heart, and their plans for the young future hubs to tackle the complex causes of youth violence. But I urge them to back up that investment with proper statutory protections for youth services. It is time to stop the erosion of youth work. It is time to introduce statutory sufficiency benchmarks to ensure that no matter where they are, no matter the community they grow up in, all young people have the right to youth work, with measurable minimum expectations. As outlined by the National Youth Agency, that would not only give youth services the priority they deserve, but provide stability to the youth work sector, giving it the long-term structure needed to invest in proper pay, training and support for its workforce. It is not just a moral mission to provide these services for our young people; it is also a practical one. As the Government’s own data shows, young people who receive youth work support as teenagers are happier, healthier and wealthier. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates, for every £1 invested in youth services, we save between £3.20 and £6.40 in wider costs to society. For many, youth work provides a trusted adult; a guiding hand on to the next step when the next step feels impossible. I would like to end by sharing the story of Rania. She is a young woman who, like many across our country, left education full of potential but was paralysed by fear. She battled deep mental health struggles, loneliness, isolation and a crushing sense that she was “not enough” for the working world. Rania got in touch with the King’s Trust. She began to work with Charlie, a youth delivery lead who did not just help her with her CV and job applications; she listened, she believed and she walked her through every moment of doubt. Rania went on to apply for three NHS roles and was offered all of them. She is now proudly working as a band 2 healthcare assistant. As she puts it: “With the support provided, I hardly recognise myself. I still can hardly grasp how much Charlie’s support has impacted me and motivated me to achieve my goals.” That is the power of youth work. At a time when hundreds of thousands of young people are struggling to find a future, it is youth workers like Charlie who are quietly pulling lives back from the brink. If we are serious about ending the youth unemployment crisis, if we are serious about the future of our young people, and if we are serious about breaking down barriers to opportunity, then we must get serious about the long-term funding of our youth services.

• 15 May 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right: there has been a 73% decline in funding for youth services. I congratulate the organisation in his constituency on its centenary.

• 15 May 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the long-term funding of youth services. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate, Members for supporting it, and all the organisations that have provided material for today’s contributions. This Government have stated that they are on a mission to break down barriers to opportunity, to ensure that every young person in every part of our country gets the best start in life and has access to the tools they need to thrive. As has always been the case, a young person is shaped not just by what they do in a classroom or what they hear in the playground, but by the community they grow up in and the stake they have in it. That is what youth services are. They are a safe space outside school, and the place to broaden horizons and build meaningful connections with the outside world. As an elder millennial with baby-boomer parents, I know that every generation believes that theirs has had it the hardest, but in our day we at least had the luxury of living our most awkward and vulnerable years without the glare of social media. At least we had the opportunity to fail, to be odd and to learn who we were before we presented ourselves to the world. Whether it is the impact of covid, the cost of living crisis or trying to prepare for a world of work that is constantly changing, our young people are facing unprecedented challenges in a country that, for too long, has not invested enough in their wellbeing. As a result, in England one in five children and young people now have a probable mental health disorder. The number of emergency hospital admissions for children aged five to 18 due to a mental health crisis increased by 65% between 2012 and 2022. Incidents of youth violence remain at high levels, with 3,000 knife crime offences last year involving a child. The Office for National Statistics reports that 16 to 24-year-olds are now the loneliest group in our society, and the Good Childhood report states that the UK’s children and young people are the “unhappiest in Europe”. This damning picture of what it is like to grow up in this country should shame us all, because, as they say, it takes a village to raise a child. What has happened since the 2010 spending review, which saw funding for youth services pitted against services with greater statutory protections, is the systematic dismantling of the network of support that used to keep our young people safe. The village has been replaced by a patchwork of voluntary organisations, with fewer and fewer council-run youth services bidding endlessly for one-off pots of funding that will inevitably come to an end.

• 15 May 2025 · Youth Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response. It is amazing to hear about the extra funding going in, and the Government’s approach to ensuring a long-term sustainable future for our youth services. It is a different approach from that taken by the previous Government, who ripped apart that network. Given the themes of today’s debate, and the piecemeal, patchwork approach taken by the previous Government, it is great for us all that this Government are taking such a different approach. I pay tribute to Members from across the House—although obviously not those on the Conservative Benches, because they could not be bothered to turn up. I will not name everybody individually, because I think we had over 26 contributions, but I would like to highlight some of the key themes that came up, including the need for a long-term strategy, which the Minister spoke about, and the need for statutory back-up. None of us wants a repeat of previous years and the mistakes of the previous Government, who took away support and the cover that youth services provide. We need to give them statutory back-up. The Minister is putting extra investment into this space; I urge her to really back up these services with the statutory protections that they deserve. I will end with an African proverb: “If a child is not embraced by the village, it will burn it down to feel its warmth.” If we do not learn the lessons of the past, we will continue to see the mental health of our young people decline, and their experience will continue to be the unhappiest in Europe. No one who attended today’s debate wants that to continue, so let us learn the lessons and have long-term sustainable funding for our youth services.

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I think we all appreciate the amendment, because we want to protect vulnerable women, children and anybody who is at risk of this sort of harm. Could we not look at doing something similar to the amendment, and the carve-out we have created with it, for our creative industries? If we can protect our vulnerable people, can we not also protect our creative industries from copyright infringement by having territorial exemptions similar to what we have with deepfakes?

• 6 May 2025 · Health and Social Care Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the Centre for Young Lives published a report on the state of mental health support for children and young people across England. It outlines that despite an ongoing crisis in mental health among young people, “There remains a 55% treatment gap” between adult and children’s mental health, and that “fewer than 10%...of ICBs have a dedicated strategy” for supporting children’s mental health. Will the Secretary of State consider strengthening statutory guidance for ICBs to ensure they assess the local need of children and young people, publish treatment gap data on an ongoing basis, and create joined-up, community-based mental health support for our young people?

• 6 May 2025 · Health and Social Care Reform · Hansard source

  More

  6. What plans he has to reform NHS health and social care services.

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The 80th anniversary of VE Day and VJ Day is a time for us to remember and honour those who fought to defend our freedoms, our values and our people. It is also a time to recognise the contribution that veterans from across our country continue to make to their communities. For many of our veterans, their service to this country and their commitment to fighting for our values do not end when they leave the military. I will take this opportunity to tell the House about one such veteran from my community, Mike Lyons. I did not know Mike for very long, but one of the privileges that we have in this place is that we get to meet people who we instinctively know are the best of us, which is what Mike was. He served in the military for seven years, and was a member of the Royal British Legion’s New Addington branch for more than 30 years. For many years, Mike ran the Final Roll Call campaign to ensure that world war one soldiers who returned from fighting, and who were institutionalised due to what we now know as post-traumatic stress disorder, were properly honoured and given their rightful place in history. His campaign led to 26 servicemen who were buried in unmarked graves, without a military burial, finally being given the dignified memorials they deserved. Mike wanted to ensure that their memories lived on and, just before Christmas, asked me to light a candle for them in Parliament. Our candle of remembrance in Parliament quickly turned into a full-on candle-lighting ceremony at the tomb of the Unknown Warrior in Westminster Abbey. At one point, someone questioned whether we needed insurance for the bugler. Sadly, Mike passed away before our ceremony could take place, but with the support of his family and friends, we held our ceremony as planned. In March, it was a privilege to welcome Mike’s family, his friends, his local councillors, community leaders from the family centre and New Addington Pathfinders, members of the Royal British Legion, Army cadets, members of Croydon’s veteran community, the Minister for Veterans and People, flagbearers and a bugler to Westminster Abbey for our candle ceremony. I hope that we did Mike proud. As we look ahead to the 80th anniversary of VE Day and VJ Day, we must commit ourselves to ensuring that our armed forces community is looked after now and in the future, so I welcome the Government’s announcement of a UK-wide support system for our veterans. In Croydon, we have launched the Croydon Cares for Veterans campaign to raise funds for SSAFA Croydon and the New Addington branch of the Royal British Legion. As it was for the second world war generation and for Mike, it is our actions that demonstrate our commitment to the people who serve this country. It is our actions that will protect our values, and it our actions that will honour what our armed forces community continue to fight for today.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Black Maternal Health Awareness Week · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Given the complexities and interchangeable disparities that affect maternal health for black women, does she agree that without a national target or framework we are doomed to make the same mistakes again and again? This travesty needs to end, because no mother or child’s health outcome should be determined by the colour of their skin.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this important debate. I should declare that my husband is a voiceover artist. As with every technological leap forward, whether from theatre to cinema or television to streaming, protecting the rights and income of our creators does not create a barrier to innovation or growth. As we move into an AI-powered future, it is even more crucial to protect creators with transparency, consent and compensation for the content used to train AI models. Our creative industries are a great British success story, worth more than £125 billion to the UK economy and supporting more than 2.4 million jobs. What underpins that success is the principle that those who create content are paid for it, and copyright protections have been the bedrock of that principle for decades. The case for updating UK copyright law for training AI is that the current framework is unclear, but there is no such ambiguity. If someone plays music in a club without a licence or sells counterfeit DVDs, they are breaking the law. If AI companies wish to train their models on copyrighted content, they have to get consent to do so. AI companies may be harder to hold to account because their models are opaque, but that makes this a transparency and enforcement issue, not a legal one. Our content, our books, our journalism and our music are the oil needed to fuel generative AI systems. I do not think anyone would argue that oil should be mined and used for free by any other industry, so why should it be any different for the precious resource that is creative content? Creating generative AI systems with no accountability and no remuneration is not innovation; it is simply exploitation. I welcome this Government’s commitment to our creative industries and to finding a solution fit for the future, but the current proposal of an opt-out system is unworkable and unfair. The Government even acknowledge that the technology to implement an opt-out system does not exist. We must uphold the rights of our content creators by upholding copyright protections and giving creators the transparency, consent and compensation they deserve.

• 2 Apr 2025 · School-based Nursery Capital Grants · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this Government’s continued commitment to breaking down barriers to opportunity, and I welcome the investment in the nurseries at Monks Orchard primary school and Fairchildes primary school in my constituency—I visited Fairchildes earlier in the year, and I know that that money will go to very good use. Does the Secretary of State agree that accessible childcare is essential support for all families, and can she outline how today’s announcement will help to boost household incomes?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  A constituent has contacted me about the difficulty he is facing in trying to get what he is entitled to via the Windrush compensation scheme. Given that victims of the Windrush scandal are not entitled to legal aid, a large proportion are assessed as eligible for compensation but cannot meet the high threshold of evidence necessary to prove that they are entitled to it. Will the Home Secretary look again at what legal support can be provided to the victims of this scandal, so that they can finally get the justice that they deserve?