Definition of Islamophobia

Debate between Wes Streeting and Mike Gapes

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree; that is exactly what we are trying to achieve. The story that is not written or told is about the faith leaders in my community who do not just know the challenge posed by hate preachers; they have physically wrestled them out of their mosques. Those are the same people who, when an act of terrorism is carried out in the name of one of the world’s great faiths, not only deplore the attack but know that they will be on the receiving end of the backlash, even though they believe their faith and the teaching of their religious text to be about peace and harmony.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Change UK)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wes Streeting]

I will give way one final time, and then I must draw my remarks to a conclusion.

[Mike Gapes]

I only intervene because he mentioned our Redbridge community and I want to pay tribute to the Redbridge Faith Forum and all the inter-faith work in Redbridge. The Muslims who are involved in that have done a fantastic job. Does he agree that inter-faith dialogue is the essence of dealing with these problems?

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree. As shown by the discussion on “Newsnight” last night between myself and a respected imam from Leicester, we can reconcile our way through some of these challenges, difficulties and tensions with mutual respect, proper public discourse and dialogue. Those of us who are on the receiving end of prejudice of one kind or another know exactly what it feels like, and we have a particular responsibility to stand alongside others who experience prejudice. That is why I am proud to lead the APPG on British Muslims as a non-Muslim and the APPG on British Jews as a non-Jew. It is not just the responsibility of Muslims to tackle Islamophobia; it is a challenge for us all.

Let me conclude with some personal observations. I have watched, with some amazement and even greater despair, the Conservative party making exactly the same mistakes over Islamophobia as my party has with antisemitism—the same miserable, inexcusable pattern of dismissal, denial and delegitimisation of serious concerns raised by prominent Muslims about racism within their ranks. My friend Baroness Warsi has stood as a brave lone voice, challenging discrimination in her party. As we recoil in horror at the deafening silence of decent people in the Conservative party about racism within their ranks, I respectfully say to some quarters of my own party: that is the same silence you demand of me on antisemitism, and it is one you will never receive.

The Prime Minister could have followed the lead of the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, in backing this definition and left a powerful legacy to detoxify her party and improve the lives of Muslims across the country. Instead, with a remarkable lack of self-awareness and humility, the party that has so spectacularly failed British Muslims now intends to produce its own description. The party’s abject failure to understand and tackle Islamophobia within its own ranks means that it has neither the wisdom nor the credibility to do so.

Given that, just over a year ago, Ministers denied that there was a need for any definition at all, I suppose we might consider this latest development some sign of progress. But it is too slow; it is insufficient; and it will not be tolerated. British Muslims deserve better than this. As the Runnymede Trust said last year, Islamophobia remains, shamefully, a challenge for us all. It is one that we must now meet.

Police Employer Pension Contributions

Debate between Wes Streeting and Mike Gapes

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

rose—

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so that the voice of Ilford can be heard.

[Mike Gapes]

I agree with every word.

[Wes Streeting]

I am almost certain that this is what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) would have said, given the opportunity. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the challenge facing the Government after 2008 was the result of a global banking crisis. If it is true, as the Minister is suggesting, that the last Labour Government were profligate, perhaps he would like to explain why the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition at the time, up to the crash, were backing Labour spending pound for pound.

TOEIC Visa Cancellations

Debate between Wes Streeting and Mike Gapes

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered TOEIC visa cancellations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I place on record my enormous thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who has put in a huge amount of hard work, not least in helping us to secure the debate. If he were not attending the Offensive Weapons Bill Committee, which unfortunately clashes, he would have been with us for the duration.

We are here to discuss Britain’s forgotten immigration scandal, which has seen thousands of international students wrongly deported and tens of thousands more left in limbo. Their lives have been plunged into chaos by a Government who have effectively branded them all cheats, defied the principles of natural justice and created a hostile environment for international students. In 2014, BBC’s “Panorama” uncovered evidence of widespread cheating at testing centres delivering the test of English for international communication—the TOEIC—on behalf of the Home Office for non-European economic area students as part of the tier 4 visa. It discovered that, in some colleges, exam invigilators read the correct answers to students or supplied proxies to sit sections of the test. The provider administering the tests, Educational Testing Service, claimed that 33,725 people who took the test used a proxy, and it suspected a further 22,694 instances of fraud.

That abuse on such a scale was allowed to take place at a Home Office-approved provider was clearly a source of political embarrassment for the Government and the Home Secretary of the day, who is now our Prime Minister. When immigration system abuse goes unchecked and unchallenged, it undermines public confidence in the system and the Government responsible for it. When individuals are found to be cheating the system, it is right that their visas are cancelled and they are asked to leave the country. When providers are found to be failing in their responsibility to ensure that tests are fairly and properly delivered, it is right that they are removed from the list of approved providers.

Cheating cannot be condoned or excused—there is no disagreement about that. The Minister comes to this issue with a fresh pair of eyes, and therein lies an opportunity to reflect on what has gone wrong and put right a terrible injustice. What we have seen in the TOEIC scandal is a Home Office response so appalling that it was described by one immigration tribunal judge as

“so unfair and unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of power.”

The 22,694 students whose test results had been deemed questionable because ETS had “limited confidence” in the tests’ validity due to of administrative irregularity were permitted to sit a new secure English language test. When the Minister responds, I hope she will tell us how many of those students were required to pay for those new tests and, crucially, what the outcomes of those tests were.

For those whose test results were deemed invalid by ETS, the Home Office relied on the assurances of an untrustworthy provider to presume the guilt of tens of thousands of international students without properly considering the merits of individual cases or giving those students an opportunity to defend their innocence. According to figures obtained by the House of Commons Library, by the end of September 2016—the last time the Home Office published any figures related to such cases—more than 35,870 visa holders had had their visas refused or curtailed on the basis of the TOEIC test. More than 3,600 of those had received an enforcement visit and more than 4,600 had been subjected to removal from the country.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Wes Streeting]

I give way to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).

[Mike Gapes]

Like me, my hon. Friend has been contacted by constituents who have been subjected to this outrageous behaviour, so he will know that many people are distraught and have had their whole futures destroyed by these administrative measures. Is it not a fact that this a bigger scandal than Windrush in terms of the number of individuals removed from the country and whose livelihoods are being destroyed by anguish and despair? In many cases, they are labelled as cheats when they are not.

[Wes Streeting]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend could be here before returning to the main Chamber to consider the important matter of Brexit. I strongly agree and he is absolutely correct. The injustice is grave and the numbers affected are huge. This scandal should have been plastered on the front page of every national newspaper. It is bad enough that those students have been denied access to justice through appeal. They should have been given at least some sense of justice through the disinfectant of sunlight.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Wes Streeting and Mike Gapes

Report stage: First Day: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

Actually, I do not agree. The UK has far bigger clout in the world than a small island with a population of just 15,000. My hon. Friend is right that we will be damaged—there is no doubt about it—by self-inflicted harm, but, as President Donald Tusk pointed out today, we can of course change our minds, and if we do so he would be delighted.

The position with regard to Anguilla is potentially one of a country with a problematic border. I have referred already to that closure at 10 o’clock at night. If, once we leave the EU, relations between the UK and France become worse than they are now, how do Ministers and Government Members think that we will be able to speak for the interests of this British overseas territory when we are not able to succeed today in getting everything that it needs? We would have less influence and no seat at the table. We would not be in the room and we would not be able to say anything to help it.

I do not wish to take too long, but there are important points about peoples whose voice has not been heard in this Chamber. Between 2012 and 2014, Anguilla did receive some UK official development assistance, but it was a very small sum, amounting to only £141 per person. Since then, there has not been such support. However, Montserrat received £14,000 per person and St Helena, which is even more remote, received £66,000 per person in ODA.

Anguilla is worried that after the UK has left—if we leave—the European Union, EU initiatives that currently occur within the overseas territories will no longer continue. Anguilla understands that ODA will be vital, but that support has steadily declined and its people are worried about the threat to the European Union funds. As part of the UK Caribbean Infrastructure Fund, a £300 million programme was announced in September 2015, in order to fund infrastructure such as roads, bridges and ports across the Caribbean, via the various banks and the Department for International Development, but Anguilla is very concerned about what will happen in the long term.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of a number of examples? A place such as Anguilla or an industry such as farming has no sense of certainty about how or whether the Government will replace funding that will be lost after—or if—we leave the European Union. Does he think that the Government are not being clear about the future because they have not yet worked it out, or because they fear that if people see what the situation will be after we leave the European Union, they may begin to wake up to the fact that what is on offer is very much inferior to what we have now?

[Mike Gapes]

I actually think, in the case of Anguilla, it is because the Government have never even thought about it. Only now are issues like this coming up to bite them. We could have had an impact assessment on Anguilla. It would be nice to know whether there was such a thing; I suspect not. The Government did not give any consideration to these issues when they triggered article 50, so they probably did not even consider that.

In “Anguilla & Brexit: Britain’s Forgotten EU Border”, which was published last summer, the Government of Anguilla call for four things. First, they want a

“Common travel area between Saint Martin and Anguilla”,

and state that

“protocol 22 of the EU Treaties…provides that the UK and another EU member state…may continue to make arrangements between themselves for the free movement of people within the CTA.”

The same model is adopted for Ireland because of the historical relationships. A common travel area would be a way to prevent an economic and social disaster for Anguilla. In practice, it would mean free movement of nationals of the French and Dutch St Martin and Sint Maarten, and Anguilla, between those islands with a

“frictionless border without the need for passport control.”

It would also allow visitors flying into St Martin from any country in the world to go to Anguilla easily as tourists.

Secondly, the Government of Anguilla call for a customs union in the region

“with European countries, territories and municipalités in the eastern Caribbean.”

There has been a lot of talk about customs unions. I do not wish to repeat the debate that we have already had, as this issue will come back, but a customs union between the European Union territories in the region, the other countries in the region and the overseas territories of the United Kingdom could be really helpful in the Caribbean. Anguilla imports oil and other essential materials that it cannot exist without. It also exports fresh produce, which is predominantly sold to St Martin. There is therefore a real need for some kind of customs relationship that avoids tariffs and barriers.

Thirdly, the Government of Anguilla call for a

“Continued relationship between the UK and EU for the purposes of international development”,

as well as,

“Continued membership of the Overseas Countries and Territories Association of the European Union of Anguilla with full access to European Development Funds and support”.

Now, that may come at a cost. Are the British Government prepared to pay that cost in the negotiations? If they do not there will, as I have already suggested, be a major impact on the Anguillan economy and future development.

Fourthly and finally, the Government of Anguilla are looking to

“Stronger ties between Anguilla and Britain”.

This country has neglected our overseas territories for far too long. We do not give them the status that overseas territories have in France or the Netherlands. There is a wider issue that is not just about Anguilla and on which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs may well comment after we have completed our current inquiry: we need a better ongoing relationship with these small communities of 15,000 people whose association with the United Kingdom goes back to the 17th century—longer, as I pointed out at the beginning, than the association of Gibraltar with the United Kingdom.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Wes Streeting and Mike Gapes

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

For the benefit of viewers who have just tuned in on BBC Parliament, I am happy to give way to the Minister a second time if he would like to state very clearly for the record whether, in his view, on that fundamental point, the jurisdiction of the ECJ will apply during the transition period. It is a very simple question and it only requires a yes or no answer, but he will not respond.

[Mike Gapes]

rose—

[Wes Streeting]

I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mike Gapes]

I suspect that the Minister has been taking lessons from the Foreign Secretary. He says that we should read Hansard, but perhaps we will find a giant lacuna there, and perhaps these issues will come back to haunt him.

King George Hospital, Ilford

Debate between Wes Streeting and Mike Gapes

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

The ongoing social care crisis poses major difficulties. We all know that private care homes are struggling and that there is an issue of quality. It seems to me that one advantage of the King George Hospital site is that it is co-located next door to the facilities of the North East London NHS Foundation Trust’s Goodmayes Hospital and various other facilities that provide support for people with learning difficulties and people with acute, severe and less severe mental health problems. It would seem logical, if we are to have joined-up NHS treatment, to have alongside a hospital facilities for those who need short-term, temporary or longer-term care in transition to or from the NHS facilities next door. The site is big enough to do that and, with imagination, could be a model to be followed.

We also have a third cloud on the horizon, which is the north-east London draft sustainability and transformation plan. The Minister will recall that he and I had a very useful meeting in February, along with his then colleague, Mr David Mowat. We had a useful discussion about the implications of the huge deficit in north-east London—£586 million—the potential huge cuts in the budget over the next four years, and the implications they might have. I raised the issue in detail in a debate on 16 December 2016 and that was why I had the meeting with Ministers.

I am very concerned that the funding gap, even if we have predicted regular savings of about £220 million or £240 million in the NHS, would still be £336 million by 2021. One of the most worrying points about the plan—I understand it is still a draft and has not been signed off—is that I went to a meeting last week when the people involved in the organisation considering the plan were discussing it and senior figures in the London NHS referred to it, saying, “You have to work within the basis of the plan.” It has not been signed off or approved, but the people in the NHS health economy in London are thinking ahead as though it will be.

The plan points out that the population of the north-east London boroughs will increase by 18% over the next 15 years, equivalent to a new city. Normally that level of population increase would require a new hospital, but there is no provision, no funding and no expectation of a new hospital. Instead, the proposal is to downgrade King George Hospital in my constituency and take away its accident and emergency department. That is still in the plan, and it is not a new proposal. In fact, I have been campaigning to save the A&E in my constituency for more than 10 years. But the formal decision was taken by the former Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, only in 2011. That decision, which was linked at the time to a suggestion of closing maternity services at King George Hospital, provided that those two things would happen in around two years. That was in October 2011.

The reality is that maternity services went to Queen’s Hospital in early 2013—I do not question that there have been improvements—but the A&E could not close as there was no capacity at other hospitals in the region. In addition, it was quite clear that it required huge capital investment, which was not forthcoming. The decision was made in 2011, but in 2013 there was no action and the issue was deferred. The trust then went into special measures three years ago because of a variety of issues, which I have already mentioned.

As the trust comes out of special measures, the question becomes whether it will go ahead with the plans to close the A&E. Practically, it is impossible for that closure to happen soon, but the sustainability and transformation plan still states that the intention is to close the A&E in 2019. The original suggestion was that it would stop the 24-hour service, getting rid of the overnight A&E from September this year. That plan was dropped in January, and I welcome that, but the reality is that it is still in the plan and is still proposed. That cloud still hangs over the trust and all its excellent staff, who have done so much to bring our hospital out of special measures.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In my capacity as a Labour councillor in the London Borough of Redbridge, I currently chair a cross-party working group on the future of A&E provision in north-east London. One frustrating thing is that all the local health leads in the area are working to a decision made by a previous Secretary of State. That ministerial decision still stands and the leads have to work towards it. They do not believe that is achievable or clinically sound. Yet, they point to the Secretary of State when pressed to abandon the plans. I hope that the Minister might be able to reverse that ministerial decision and remove the sword of Damocles from our A&E department.

[Mike Gapes]

I am grateful for that intervention as it saves me from making the same point. During the election campaign, the Secretary of State went to my hon. Friend’s constituency for a private Conservative party function. He was asked by the local paper, the Ilford Recorder, about the plans to close the A&E at King George Hospital. He said that there were no plans to close it in the “foreseeable future”. Now, I do not know how big the crystal ball is. I do not know what kind of telescope the Secretary of State has and which end he is looking through. The fact is that “foreseeable” does not necessarily mean that the A&E will not close in 2019. If it is not going to close in the near future or even in the medium term, why not lift the cloud of uncertainty over the staff and over the planning process? Then we could have a serious look at the draft sustainability and transformation plan for north-east London, which is partly predicated on the closure of A&E at King George Hospital.

In January, the trust wrote a letter saying:

“It is our intention to make the changes by 2019 but please be assured nothing will happen until we are fully satisfied all the necessary resources are in place, including the additional capacity at the neighbouring hospitals, and we have made sure it is safe for our patients. In the meantime, the existing A&E facilities at King George will continue to operate as now.”

The reality is that there is no additional resource in terms of the capital that would be required to provide the beds for 400 patients at King George overall. We face a very uncertain future. If the A&E closed, where would those patients go? There would be a need for capital investment at Queen’s and for big capital investment at Whipps Cross. That would take time and resources, at a time when NHS budgets are seriously pressed. And we still have that huge deficit in our regional health economy.

Why not take that issue off the agenda? Last month, my hon. Friend and I jointly wrote a letter with the leader of Redbridge Council, Councillor Jas Athwal, to the Secretary of State. We requested that he formally reverse the decision taken by his predecessor, to allow certainty and to allow more sensible planning.

Last week, one of our health campaigners, Andy Walker, who put in various questions and freedom of information requests—he is a very persistent campaigner—received a response from the Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust, commenting on this issue. It used the same formulation:

“We have been very clear that no changes will be made until we have the relevant assurances that it is safe to do so and this remains the case.”

That formulation has been used for several years; it is like a stuck record. It is not safe to make the changes. Why not have a new, imaginative approach that says, “Let’s look at social care. Let’s look at the potential for developing the site. Let’s look at collaboration between the mental health services of the North East London NHS Foundation Trust. Let’s look at providing particular forms of housing and support.” This area could be a model for a new way forward.

I know from discussions I have had that people in various NHS organisations are working on such possibilities, but they cannot go any further than possible explorations while this cloud—the threat to close the A&E—still lies on the table. If the Secretary of State would take it off the table, we could have some serious discussions about improvements to health facilities. We could deal with not just the A&E but other issues.

On the King George site at the moment, we also have an urgent care centre. It recently had a Care Quality Commission inspection and was rated as “requires improvement”. That is an indication, again, of the problems we face. I have a lot of inadequate GP facilities in my constituency; I have lots of problems with people coming to me complaining that they cannot get through. Primary care in north-east London faces a crisis of retention, recruitment and standards of services. If we could make imaginative use of the facilities at the King George Hospital site, we could make a big difference to primary care, as well as to the acute services and the mental health services next door.

My plea to the Minister and the Government is this: take the closure of the A&E off the table, and let us then work collaboratively to improve the NHS in north-east London and in my constituency.