Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice

Debate between Helen Hayes and Matt Western

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I will address two issues in my response to the King’s Speech, both of which relate to violence.

In my constituency, we have lost far too many young lives to serious violence, including, since the start of September, Ronaldo Scott and Keelen Morris Wong. Both were brutally murdered in broad daylight with huge knives of the kind known as “Rambo knives” or “zombie knives.” They both leave a community of family, friends and neighbours utterly devastated.

Our communities are playing their part, with support from our local councils and the Mayor of London, in tackling the complex problem of serious violence, but the Government have not been playing their part. A ban on Rambo and zombie knives was promised in 2016, but in response to my recent written question, the Minister said that it would be done “when parliamentary time allows.” The King’s Speech is the moment in our calendar when the Government set out how they will allocate parliamentary time, so I am dismayed that it contains no specific mention of a ban on the largest and most brutal of knives. No one has a legitimate need for a hunting knife in London. By failing to bring forward the ban, the Government are signalling that they simply do not care about the violence being perpetrated in constituencies such as mine.

The second issue I will address is the horror that we are witnessing in Israel and Gaza. The terror attack perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October was an unspeakable violation, the largest slaughter of Jewish people since the holocaust, and the largest terror attack since 9/11. We stand in solidarity with all those affected: the injured, the hostages and the families who are bereaved or desperately worried about loved ones held captive in Gaza. Israel has the right to defend itself—as would any country in the face of such an horrific attack—but that right is not without limit. It is constrained by international law, which protects civilians, critical infrastructure such as hospitals, and critical supplies such as food, water, medicines and energy.

We have witnessed a month of unrelenting bombardment of Gaza. More than 11,000 people have been killed, homes and whole neighbourhoods have been destroyed, hospitals have been left unable to function, and a whole population is being denied access to food, water, energy and medicines. We cannot look at the horror and suffering on our TV screens and conclude that the scale of destruction we are witnessing is proportionate, or that denying aid from entering Gaza is within international law. Again, we must stand in solidarity with all those affected: the injured, the families who are bereaved and those desperately worried about their loved ones in Gaza.

I have heard from thousands of my constituents who have been in contact with me over the past month to share their views. They, too, are completely horrified by what they are seeing, and they want every possible effort to be made to stop the conflict. They understand that that is what is signalled by the word “ceasefire.”

In calling for a ceasefire, no one is suggesting that the cessation should be unilateral or without conditions: Hamas must release the hostages. In war, ceasefires do not always hold, and we must all be realistic about the intensity of this conflict, but a bilateral humanitarian cessation of the violence—a ceasefire—is surely the minimum we should be demanding in the face of such horrific suffering. This is not a minority view, but the view of Oxfam, Medical Aid for Palestinians, Islamic Relief, the Red Crescent, Christian Aid, and all of the major aid agencies with a presence in the region. It is the view of the United Nations and all of its aid agencies. It is the view of our former colleague in this place, David Miliband, as well as of President Macron, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope.

On this issue, the overwhelming, prevailing view of my constituents is that where we have an opportunity to call for an end to the horrific suffering in Gaza, we must do so. “Ceasefire” is the word that they understand to mean an end to that horrific suffering.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech, and I am sure my constituents feel very similarly to hers. I think we all want to see a ceasefire—a cessation of hostilities—and we need to have the steps to bring that about. However, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see not only the release of hostages, but an agreement between these two warring factions and the release of prisoners from the other side?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is right. This process is not easy—nobody is saying that it is—but my conscience tells me that calling for a ceasefire is the right thing to do. That is not a unilateral laying-down of arms, but a bilateral humanitarian ceasefire predicated on the release of hostages and leading to an internationally brokered peace process and a two-state solution, with a secure Israel living alongside a sovereign, viable Palestine.

I fully understand that colleagues will have different views from those of their constituents, and there is no easy response to this appalling conflict. We must all treat each other with respect at this time, but we must all be able to stand in front of our own constituents with integrity, and at peace with our own consciences on the issues that matter most to them. My conscience tells me that I must call for a ceasefire today—a halt to this dreadful destruction and conflict. Far too many have already died on both sides, and more will continue to die if the violence does not cease. We must call for a ceasefire.

Windrush Day 2020

Debate between Helen Hayes and Matt Western

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes the important point, which I will come to later, that as we celebrate Windrush Day we must also be mindful of the justice that so many of the Windrush generation are still waiting for. Two years on from that first Windrush Day, only 60 Windrush citizens, as he says, have received compensation from a Government scheme, which is complex and hard to access and far too slow to deliver.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to allow me to amplify that point. My understanding is that the compensation claims of people who applied in November-December time are still outstanding, and that is inexcusable, six months on. Perhaps I might join with her and put my name to her remarks about just how extraordinary that generation were, coming over here in the immediate aftermath of war, when we had lost so many men from the population. They contributed so greatly to rebuilding this nation.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That mismatch between the contribution that Windrush citizens made to this country, and their appalling treatment at the hands of the British Government and the wait that so many still have for compensation is something to which we must urgently turn our attention.

The Windrush generation are still living with the pain and devastation of the Windrush scandal. Stephen S. Thompson’s powerful drama “Sitting in Limbo”—based on the experience of his brother, Anthony Bryan, who lost his job, home and mental wellbeing as a consequence of the Home Office’s refusing to accept his status as a British citizen, despite his having been in the country since the age of eight—was devastating to watch. Even more excruciating was the news that Anthony Bryan still had not received compensation from the Windrush compensation scheme and was only contacted by the Home Office days before the drama was due to be screened.

Anthony Bryan’s experience mirrors that of so many of my constituents. The common experience of the victims of the Windrush scandal is that the Government’s compensation scheme does not function effectively or deliver the redress that they are due. I and other Opposition Members have voiced concerns about the scheme many times, and those have all too often been dismissed out of hand by Ministers.