Trespass

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to contribute to this important debate. It is also a pleasure to highlight the 600 signatures from Hornsey and Wood Green on the petition—clearly my constituents are concerned about their ability to go about in and enjoy the great outdoors.

We are blessed with parks and walks in Hornsey and Wood Green, but none as lovely as being outside London and enjoying a quiet walk. During the pandemic the desire to be outdoors has been heightened because of the impact of the loneliness of coronavirus on mental health. It has been lovely for our friends and families to walk in and explore the countryside. I hope that the Government will have a rethink on the matter, and I note a number of campaigns and newspaper articles calling for that. The Ramblers Association, which is a well established group, is one of those calling for a rethink so that we can fully enjoy the outdoors—particularly in the summer months as we go towards another year, possibly, of holidays at home—without the fear of being told we are trespassing.

The proposals risk putting a stop to some of the walks that we enjoy so much, with landowners closing off swathes of remote countryside. Furthermore, some local authorities do not look after paths and maintain tracks; the measures will be a disincentive to them when it comes to doing that and showing signage. The enjoyment of a walk can be slightly spoiled by getting lost, which can lead to trespass, and that can happen if local authorities do not look after paths well. I hope that the Minister, who, of course, has a background in local government, will take note and perhaps send round a little note to local government leaders asking for paths to be looked after, so that there is not a risk of trespass and so that people can walk with proper signage, and enjoy their ramble.

I emphasise that there are some naturalists who desire to carry out wildlife surveys. Some scientists have warned that the measure we are debating could prevent some of the basic science through which we get our love of science and nature. It cannot be stressed enough how vital it is for people to have access to nature and the open countryside.

Sales of camping equipment have soared, which is great for the economy. British Canoeing has had a 40% jump in membership and our national parks have had huge numbers of visitors. I am not sure whether the Government have yet got round to implementing Labour’s suggestion, from the last manifesto, of bringing in some more national parks; but certainly the experience of camping and visiting a national park should not be underestimated.

I want to highlight concerns about some of the debate on Second Reading. It was disheartening when Member after Member stood up to criticise, in demeaning terms, the Gypsy and Traveller community going about their travelling, and some of the challenges that that community faces. Statistics show us that the Gypsy and Traveller community is probably the one most discriminated against in Europe. It was dispiriting to hear, in this wonderful Parliament, Member after Member having a go at that community on Second Reading. That is not what the House of Commons should be about.

The police have made it clear that they believe that the powers they have are sufficient—75% of police responses to the proposals show that they believe that. Additionally, 84% did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments, and 65% said that lack of site provision was the real problem. In my view, some of the problem with policing is the closure of 50% of police stations since 2010 and the drop in the number of police. Hundreds of police have been taken off the street since 2010 and that is the real problem with much of policing. In particular, some schools say that they miss the friendly bobby on the beat who drops in. A lot of that policing in schools has disappeared from the budget, and that is a real pity. That is the sort of issue that we want to get down to—not high-level mudslinging at minority communities.

I urge the Government to pull back from what is a dangerous, illiberal and unnecessary step. If they really want to protect landowners, Ministers should heed the calls from the police and campaigners to provide access to well-maintained walking paths and sites for Travellers, rather than continuing down this thinly veiled attack on rights and livelihoods, which will deny so many the chance to explore our beautiful countryside.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend speaks the truth. I am very sorry to hear about the circumstances that afflicted the business in his community. I know that he works hard to ensure that his part of the world remains a great place for investment, and I hope that business managed to deal with the problem. The country is littered with businesses that have had to put boulders, huge logs or other barriers over their hardstanding or car parks. That is not a situation we can tolerate into the future.

As my hon. Friend says, the vast majority of Travellers go about their lifestyle in a perfectly legal manner, and we should facilitate and help them to do so, but those who do not and who cross the line into illegality need to be dealt with. We believe that the measures in the Bill will allow the police to do that with much greater efficiency.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

What steps her Department is taking to respond to the findings of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration’s inspection of contingency asylum accommodation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

During the pandemic, the number of accommodated asylum seekers has increased, because we have not been able to move people on from accommodation and continuing claims. That means we have needed to secure contingency accommodation options, including two Ministry of Defence sites. We await the inspector’s full report on contingency accommodation, which will lay in Parliament alongside the Department’s response after his inspection is concluded.

[Catherine West]

Many constituents have been in touch about the unhygienic conditions at Napier barracks, which risk spreading covid. I understand that the Home Secretary told the Select Committee that she had been following guidance, yet that seems to be the opposite of what Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group said. It stated that there were

“too many people housed in each block to allow adequate social distancing and to prevent the risk of spread of infection”.

Will the Minister once and for all decide that barracks are simply super-spreader venues that should not be used for anyone, let alone vulnerable asylum seekers?

[Kevin Foster]

We expect the highest standards from our providers and have instructed them to make improvements following the interim report from the independent chief inspector. In future, a core part of avoiding the pressures that result in the need for contingency accommodation will be fixing our broken asylum system, so that decisions are fair, prompt and firmer, and those whose claims are not genuine can be removed more easily.

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. and learned Lady makes important points about violence that takes place at home and the need to safeguard women. This is exactly what this Government have been doing—particularly over the now soon to be 12 months under coronavirus and this pandemic—through the money that we have been putting in place for refuges and providing support, but also by giving awareness and places where people can go to demonstrate, express themselves or let the police know that they have been a victim of abuse. This work will continue. It is so important, and I should conclude by saying that as we unlock through the road map on coronavirus, we should be prepared for more people to raise some unpleasant experiences that they have had, and they will be supported through policing and by this Government.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]]

Homicide rates among women have shot up under this Government. The impact of Sarah Everard’s murder is devastating in Hornsey and Wood Green, where hundreds of women, men and teenagers from all corners of my constituency have written in to express their grief and anger. What urgent action will the Home Secretary take to convince us that they take violence against women and girls seriously? Until there is a credible response, I am putting the Home Secretary on notice that women in Hornsey and Wood Green will not be patronised and silenced.

[Priti Patel]

No one should be patronised or silenced, which is why we have reopened the VAWG consultation, and 78,000 people have responded since 6 pm on Friday evening. I urge others to come forward as well. Perhaps the hon. Lady would also like to encourage her constituents to do so. There is much more work that we can do collectively to drive better outcomes to stop violence against women and girls.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Catherine West Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I will confine my remarks to Government new clause 20, which concerns the rough sex defence. Those on the Front Bench should feel proud of the new clause. The first question that any Government have to answer when they bring new legislation before the House is why the legislation is needed. It has been said, “If the common law already says that someone cannot consent to serious injury or death, does Parliament need to legislate?” The answer is emphatically yes, and here is why. R v. Brown, the authority for this issue, which is nearly 30 years old, does not cover consent in all forms of sexual harm. There are other cases—contradictory cases—that can be applied, and we saw that pretty starkly in the case of Natalie Connolly, where R v. Brown was applied, but only in part. When it came to her internal injuries—the ones that were the most savagely inflicted, the most serious and the most proximate cause of death—the court applied a completely different case and concluded that the violence in that context was lawful. That could not happen under new clause 20, because it rules out the possibility of consenting to any serious harm for sexual gratification, and the inconsistency goes.

The second problem with Brown is that it answered one specific question: whether the defence of consent should apply to the infliction of bodily harm in the course of sadomasochistic encounters. I have heard it described as a case about consensual torture. That has always created the risk of conflating violent sex in a domestic abuse context with BDSM, as we saw in Natalie Connolly’s case and those of others. Sadomasochism becomes a prism through which the violence on the night is interpreted, because Brown invites that.

Not only does that traduce the reputation of the victim, but it offends one of the most fundamental principles of justice, that he who asserts must prove. In those serious cases, it was not proven in a way that a member of the public would understand. All we know is that it was violent and it was sexual and that she is dead. New clause 20 reduces the risk of the courts being drawn into such considerations by drawing a line through consent in the first place.

Above all, codifying the defence sends a powerful message about what we as a society say about sexual violence and degrading behaviour in a way that the common law never could. In fact, new clause 20 is not didactic—it does not try to tell people how to live their private lives—but it sends a powerful message to the perpetrator that they will be responsible for all the consequences of their actions, which is a game changer when rape convictions are at an all-time low.

The most affecting feature of the last two weeks has been other countries’ reactions to the Government’s decision. In New Zealand, where they were as appalled by the Grace Millane case as we were, Ireland, Hungary, Germany, France and Canada, people are writing about what the British Government are doing in the context of similar cases that have been before their courts and with reference to Members of their own Parliaments who are working to achieve the same thing. The Ministers involved should feel proud of the leadership that they have shown.

Finally, the most powerful message of new clause 20 is a tacit one about the dignity of the women who have been killed in this way. It is not the perpetrator in the dock who gets to define her, or the judge in his sentencing remarks, but we in Parliament who draw a line in the sand and say, in effect, what the victims and their families never could: that she could not consent to that.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a delight to have heard the excellent points of the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). I put on record three fantastic women who have worked in this area in my constituency: Denise Marshall, who was the chief executive of Eaves, the wonderful Mary Mason, who was the chief executive of Solace Women’s Aid, and Harriet Wistrich, who is the director of the Centre for Women’s Justice and who worked hard on the Sally Challen case. That case is not dissimilar to those that the hon. Lady mentioned, although, of course, Sally Challen was acquitted after many years in prison and was subject to some awful coercive behaviour from her partner who she actually killed. My constituent Harriet Wistrich worked hard on that case, which is now a precedent. We need those important test cases to prove how we can improve the law and women’s experience.

I welcome three other elements of the Bill: first, the robust framework for the new domestic abuse commissioner; secondly, the two new civil protection orders, which will strengthen the everyday practice on domestic abuse; and thirdly, the secure lifetime tenancy in England housing authorities. I mention briefly the work of Hearthstone, which is Haringey Council’s excellent housing provision for women facing domestic violence. The fact that it is embedded in the local authority allows much better quality allocations for women who face uncertain housing situations.

The test of the Bill is not just how well written it is or what fantastic speeches we may give tonight, but the quality of the legal aid that women and victims of domestic violence can get day in, day out in our courts. I am sorry to say that legal aid still does not match the desperate need of so many women victims. I hope that the Government will look at the provision of legal aid in future, although not necessarily specifically in this legislation. In terms of the practice and the everyday experience, we need excellent legal representation for those women. I also put on record my support for amendment 35 looking at misogyny as a hate crime, which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has spoken eloquently about as part of the ratification of the Istanbul convention.

I want to put on record my support for new clause 22 for women who have insecure immigration status and a fear of deportation. Looking through my casework of this month, I had the case of a woman who had no recourse to public funds and was not able to gain access to important financial provisions in that she did not have access to housing benefit and all the other provisions. Fortunately, having written to the Home Office, my caseworker had an amazing success—a huge thank you to my team—but this cannot be down to individual cases on a case-by-case basis such as this; we need a much more holistic look at “no recourse to public funds”.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister announce this evening that there will be a pilot scheme worth £1.5 million, but I fear that pilot schemes peter out, are introduced very late on in the financial year and tend to be very piecemeal. In my view, we desperately need to pass new clause 22 so that we can take in the most vulnerable women, including those with no recourse to public funds, whom we see in our surgeries. We cannot rely on the fact that they may pop into our surgeries and we can write to the Home Office. We need a much more inclusive provision, so hon. Members should please vote for new clause 22.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

I would like to start by saying this is a good Bill. I would particularly like to add my support to new clause 20, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Laura Farris) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for their work on this. I would also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for her work on new clause 15, which I think achieves a great deal of good.

I will briefly touch on new clauses 22, 25 and 26. I welcome the Government’s long-standing commitment to support all domestic abuse survivors, including migrants, and they should always be treated as victims, regardless of their immigration status. The introduction of the destitution domestic violence concession and the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain scheme in 2012 were important steps in supporting migrant women who are victims of domestic abuse. It is important to note that obtaining these visas means that those affected have set up their lives in the UK with the expectation of obtaining indefinite leave to remain here. Already, this concession permits them to receive welfare payments, support and safe accommodation, and the scheme enables them to apply for the indefinite leave to remain that they would have had had they not been victims of domestic abuse.

The concession and the scheme are not available to people who enter the country on other visas, such as visitor, student or work visas, or to those here illegally. As we have heard, this is because, to obtain such visas, they will have already confirmed that they are financially independent and therefore require no recourse to public funds and, as such, their stay will be for a defined time. They do not therefore have a legitimate expectation of securing indefinite leave to remain.

I welcome the fact that the Government have pledged £1.5 million towards a pilot later this year, which will be used to assess the level of need for migrant victims of domestic abuse and to inform decisions. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in hoping that this will identify the gaps in the current support available.

At this point, I was going to talk about amendments 40 to 43, but, as I understand from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) that they will not be brought forward, I will not labour that point as time is short. None the less, I would like to put on the record how welcome are the appointment of Nicole Jacobs as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the establishment of her independent office, which rightly holds the Government to account to ensure that all areas are working better to protect victims. I have the utmost confidence that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will listen to her sage advice.

Abuse can come in myriad forms—not just physical control or coercion, but financial and mental. Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), it is clear that we also have to consider the new forms that abuse can take as technology and society develop. I welcome the fact that the commissioner will be required to have specific focus on victims from minority groups, and I hope that she will include the LGBT+ community, who experience disproportionately high levels of domestic abuse and distinct barriers in accessing support.

Finally, I would like to thank the Ministers and Members from both sides of the House for all their work on this truly historic Bill, which puts the determination to protect victims and their families at the very heart of our law.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Catherine West Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I was pleased to contribute on Second Reading of this Bill, and I am pleased to be able to speak now, notwithstanding a sore throat.

In recent weeks, people have told me that the Bill is contentious, but it should be regarded as what it is, not as what others fear it to be. For a start, it allows our country to evolve in the post-Brexit era as we wish it to evolve, and allows us to decide who comes in. For too long, we have seen uncontrolled immigration and a failure to remove those who have accepted our hospitality but sought to do us harm. We have indeed seen lower rates of deportation. Inasmuch as we should be more in control of who arrives on our shores, we should equally be more robust about who leaves. If the process takes more than 28 days, then so be it. I am not therefore convinced by new clauses 3 to 11.

For those who come to the UK and are proud to live here, the opportunities are plentiful. Contrary to what many of our political opponents might think, this is the land of milk and honey for those who are prepared to work hard. Let us look at what is on offer. We will give everyone the same opportunities wherever they come from. Our points-based system will allow us to identify the skills we require. We will protect the rights of EU citizens, and we will protect the long-held rights of Irish citizens to live and work in the UK, so I am mindful of new clause 12.

People have told me that this Bill flies in the face of what has been achieved by so many during the pandemic, particularly in the NHS. Nobody here should need any reminder of the admiration and the awe with which the British people regard these heroes. The Government have rightly agreed to extend the visas of frontline NHS workers, so I am mindful of new clause 35. They have rightly introduced a new NHS visa, offering fast-track entry to the UK for qualified overseas doctors and nurses under more generous terms. The contribution of all public sector employees, public servants and low-paid staff is the stuff of legend, and we will always be grateful.

For the avoidance of doubt, immigration is a good thing, and we have built a proud nation on the back of our history, shared values and unrivalled diaspora. I have been honoured to serve alongside so many brilliant foreign and Commonwealth soldiers, but there is a problem here, too. Although this is not directly relevant to this Bill, I urge the Minister to take note. We have recruited many to join our armed services, but the House will know that a small number have slipped through the net by not applying for indefinite leave to remain when they would otherwise have been entitled to do so. Given that some now face particular difficulties in not being British citizens, including crippling NHS bills, I believe it is now time to offer an amnesty to the entitled few who have proudly worn the uniform and borne arms but not become naturalised. Once we have done this, we should then review the crippling visa fees, which remain beyond the reach of most servicemen and women and their young families.

Let us disincentivise those who come here via illegal means, remove those who commit serious crime and place the ruthless people traffickers behind bars, but the quid pro quo is to provide those whom we willingly invite to serve in our armed forces with the security they deserve. It is time that we did the right thing for all of our Commonwealth veterans and fully recognise the sacrifices that they too have made for our great nation.

As for the future of this Bill, I expect it to become law, but inasmuch as it promises a points-based immigration system that mirrors those of other countries in the free world, we need to be careful that it does not become a blunt instrument. The legislation must therefore be flexible and agile enough to respond to the employment market at any given time, particularly in terms of the skills being offered. There will be a need for seasonal labour, and we must be able to attract all those that we need when we need them.

To conclude, as contentious as the Bill might be to some, it is what many have requested for the past four decades, and it is what the Conservative Government have promised. We must also do more to reunite children under the vulnerable children’s scheme, and we therefore need an enduring scheme to be in place by 1 January next year. I am therefore sympathetic towards new clause 29. To be worthy of its pre-eminence, the UK must take back control of its borders.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I concur with the point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) about armed servicemen and women from the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when the next immigration Bill is introduced, because there are some egregious cases that desperately need to be looked at fairly.

We will not vote for the Bill tonight, mainly because it seems to have been written before the covid crisis. It seems to ignore the fact that we need a new approach to immigration based on solidarity, decent jobs, employment protections and quality public services for all, with all EU citizens guaranteed the right to remain in the UK. Anybody who has been watching “Sitting in Limbo” and following the fantastic work done by the journalist Amelia Gentleman on Windrush will know that it is these sorts of debates that sometimes end up creating systems that cause huge problems for hard-working families.

I wish to speak briefly to some of the amendments and new clauses. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has tabled a proposal that emphasises the need for a plan for and provision in the crucial area of social care. We are nowhere near through this pandemic and we desperately need to encourage those working day in, day out in the care sector. Those watching this, perhaps in the course of their duties today, may well feel a bit down and depressed that we are not backing them a little more with this Bill.

Secondly, I wish to talk briefly to the question of care leavers, as addressed by new clause 2. Care leavers face numerous levels of disadvantage. Anyone who has worked in a local authority context will be aware of just how many placements the average child in care goes through. Many children go from home to home, from foster carer to foster carer, into residential care and out again, and into their own flat. Throughout that journey they often lose documents and the phone numbers of their legal advisers. Changes to legal aid mean that they can no longer access legal aid. We then have a very disadvantaged and needy 17-year-old who desperately needs immigration advice when they are about to turn 18. Such are the realities of children’s lives in care. We are talking about a tiny number of individuals. It is the sort of clause that we should all be voting for so that a very small number of people are not left out of the system.

Thirdly, I call new clause 29 the Dubs clause. So many Members from all parties have spoken in favour of it, particularly the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who has Yarl’s Wood detention centre in his constituency. Many children are desperate to join family members here in the UK. Many other immigration systems in developed countries have positive family reunion programmes that are quick, that include a system in which people do not have to go in and out of the rules and write to MPs and everything, and that are clear and provide for children who have been torn from their families, mainly by conflict, so that they can get that reunification.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the big challenges for local authorities in making offers has been that in so many cases young people brought to the UK for family reunion find that the family member simply cannot take care of them? Does she welcome the fact that the Government have, at long last, announced a very substantial increase in the funding rate for local authorities that are caring for those young people as they go in adulthood? That will go some way to assisting the issue, about which many Members have talked today, of ensuring adequate provision for care leavers who have arrived in this country as unaccompanied minors or through family reunion, which can rapidly make them unaccompanied because their family member cannot care for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

Indeed. The hon. Member and I may, I think, previously have been on joint, cross-party delegations to Ministers in respect of several subjects in the course of our local government work. It is important that the Government recognise the important specialist work that local authorities do, and the costs involved in having extra social workers, foster carers and so on, so that young people are properly supported in that process. I welcome any additional funding for local authorities to discharge that important duty.

Finally, I want to talk briefly about my experience a couple of years ago of visiting Brook House detention centre—in the constituency, I believe, of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith)—on the back of the report in 2014 that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned. He and other Members visited and did an extensive piece of work on indefinite detention and concluded on a cross-party basis that future legislation, such as this Bill, which is a wonderful opportunity, should introduce a 28-day limit, like every other European country has, on detention in immigration facilities.

We are not talking about the 300,000-plus people who arrive in the UK every year. We are talking about a tiny proportion of total immigration—very small numbers each year. I visited with the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group, a volunteer group that visits facilities to provide friendship, second-hand clothing, mobile phones, and so on, to very vulnerable prisoners. These detainees are the only detainees in the whole country who go into detention and count up. Most prisoners count down from, say, one year—364, 363, 362, and so on. These individuals in immigration detention go in and potentially get lost in the system.

If any Member has ever had a case with the Home Office, they will know that the Home Office can make mistakes—[Interruption.] I see smiles. We could do something practical tonight and vote for this amendment, which has lots of cross-party support, and ensure a just outcome for this tiny number of people in immigration detention.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I rise to speak to new clauses 7 through 10, tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I am proud, as I said earlier, to have put my name on those amendments with him, and I pay tribute to the superb speech he made earlier. I have heard him make many compelling speeches, but I would say to the Front Bench that his speech earlier was probably his most compelling yet and I agreed with all of it.

I signed the amendments because I want a humane and just immigration system, and of course one of the principles of justice is that we treat people equally. I am very happy to say that as we leave the EU my right hon. and hon. Friends are working towards an immigration system that treats people much more equally, and I am delighted because of course it is the sort of pledge I have been making to my very diverse community in Wycombe. I am delighted and wish Ministers well as they deliver it.

I want to turn to a particular point though. In talking about foreign national offenders, my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said that constituents would not want these people loose in the UK. I am quite certain that the constituents of Wycombe do not want these people in the UK, but I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends and the whole House that we do not in the United Kingdom imprison people indefinitely on suspicion that they might reoffend.

Indeed, in 2003, Labour introduced a system of imprisonment for public protection, very much along those lines, and a Conservative Government repealed that system of IPP. I hope that my hon. Friends will not mind my saying that I feel a bit long in the tooth for remembering that we repealed that system. We did that because it was right to do so. I want to treat persons from outside the United Kingdom as morally, legally and politically equally as we properly treat people in the United Kingdom, and that means it is not right to detain people indefinitely on suspicion.

Of course, I do not think it is right either that we should be keeping serious offenders in the UK and paying for their upkeep. We should certainly be reforming the system so that such people are promptly deported, which the Home Office insists requires indefinite detention. I agree again with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden that were the new clauses to pass it would put pressure on the Department to ensure that people are promptly removed.

I want to put on the record exactly what the Home Affairs Select Committee said about indefinite detention:

“lengthy detention is unnecessary, inhumane and causes harm”.

It also recommended bringing

“an end to indefinite immigration detention and implementing a maximum 28-day time limit.”

I am absolutely in favour of doing that in combination with seeing to it that we can remove foreign national offenders.

I possibly have not got time, but I want to cover a couple of other points.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and he is right to ask about the cross-Government work that we do, and the support that we give to organisations, in the Home Office, but also with MHCLG. It is clear, in particular, that we see a lot of this activity taking place online. We are absolutely making sure that we can tackle that. We have robust legislation in place to deal with cyber-attacks, internet trolls, harassment, and perpetrators of grossly offensive, menacing and obscene behaviour, and we will continue to do so. Of course, through other means, such as places of worship funds and other activities across Government, we will absolutely continue to make sure that such organisations are resourced in the right way and, importantly, that we continue such community engagement and dialogue.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of levels of financial support for people in the asylum system during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I have been making an assessment of this matter in recent weeks, and following publication of the most recent Office for National Statistics data, I can announce to the House today that, with effect from 15 June, the asylum support rate will be increased by 5%, from £37.75 a week up to £39.60 a week. That is about five times higher than the prevailing rate of inflation, which is currently 0.8%.

[Catherine West]

That is rather an ungenerous increase, I have to say, given that the rate can be as low as £37 a day for certain people seeking asylum. However, any increase is something I welcome. Could the Minister tell me whether he could live on under £40 a day?

[Chris Philp]

Well, it is per week: the rate is £39.60 per week. It is calculated by a methodology that is approved by the courts, and it is done with reference to ONS data, based on the incomes of people in the bottom 10% of the population. It is done with reference to figures, by a court-approved method, and that is the right way to fix this thing. I say again that a 5% increase is very substantially higher than inflation.

Deportation Flight to Jamaica

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

As I have touched on, they have all been through the criminal justice system. Many have had quite extensive legal provision afterwards, and they have been assessed on everything else. I say yet again that we are complying with the law set in 2007. The hon. Lady can shake her head, but it is the law that her Labour predecessors voted for.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

What reassurance can the Minister give us that those who needed legal aid had access to it, given the background of cuts to legal aid over the last 10 years?

[Kevin Foster]

In the criminal process, there would have been opportunities to access legal aid. We have met our legal duties, and we have met the appropriate assessment around whether any of the individuals meet any of the exemptions. Ultimately, these are serious or persistent criminal offenders who, in some cases, present an ongoing threat to people in this country. We will put our legal duties first and protect the public, despite the calls from the Labour party.

Prevent Programme

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I suspect he is also referring back to some of the difficult situations the police had to deal with not that long ago, but he is right that it is separate. As I have said, Extinction Rebellion is not considered an extremist group under the 2015 definition of extremism, and we are clear on that.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will the Minister show some common sense and assist the police in understanding the difference between young people being involved in Extinction Rebellion or CND and—within the Prevent programme assessment that will take place this year—looking at the real risks with the insufficient numbers of skilled probation officers looking after extremely troubled and dangerous criminals?

[Brandon Lewis]

I suspect the hon. Lady has not had a chance to see the document she is referring to, because it does specifically say:

“The document in question…explicitly states that many of the groups are not of counter-terrorism interest”.

As I have said, however, the police have acknowledged that it was an error of judgment to have that reference in there, and they have withdrawn it. They are reviewing it, and it is something that the Home Secretary and I will be continuing to talk to them about.

Public Services

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris).

Today we are talking about public services. I was an NHS worker for 33 years, so it is a subject that is very close to my heart. Working in the NHS, I saw for myself the improvements that a Labour Government brought about, most notably the introduction of “Agenda for Change” terms and conditions for NHS staff, which ensured that they were adequately remunerated for their work, with recognition of their roles, responsibilities and training.

Following the general election and formation of the coalition Government in 2010, I saw “Agenda for Change” being eroded. The coalition refused to accept the recommendations of the pay review bodies, which were a linchpin of the “Agenda for Change” agreement, and NHS staff began to see their wages stagnate, with pay freezes, or below-inflation pay rises for the lucky ones.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making some excellent points. Does she agree that it is not just NHS workers, but the police who are desperately in need of better pay and conditions so that we can retain the police that we have and train more, particularly in areas where we have more crime on our streets and desperately need those bobbies on the beat?

[Liz McInnes]

My hon. Friend makes the important point that all our public sector workers need to be adequately remunerated for their vital work to keep our communities safe and healthy.

The coalition Government also introduced the disastrous Health and Social Care Act 2012. It was supposed to reduce bureaucracy in our NHS, but instead resulted in the almost complete fragmentation and privatisation of services and myriad boards, commissioning groups and advisory groups, thereby increasing rather than reducing bureaucracy. The coalition Government were warned about those problems at the time, but they chose to carry on regardless.

This Government removed the nursing bursary, which impacts on not only those who wish to train to be nurses, but allied health professionals, including radiotherapists, who provide vital treatment for cancer. Again, despite being warned that this would lead to a reduction in applicants for training, the Government carried on regardless, with the inevitable consequence that numbers applying for nurse training have fallen. Cancer treatment centres are crying out for specialised staff, with 6% of therapeutic radiography posts currently unfilled, a 23% drop in those starting the courses and one out of 10 training centres for therapeutic radiography being forced to close. Nothing in the Queen’s Speech addresses that or puts right those wrongs. It is difficult to see how the NHS long-term plan will be met without addressing the urgent training needs. That training is required to provide the staff who are needed to fulfil the long-term plan. The Queen’s Speech was an ideal opportunity for the Government to announce a reinstatement of the bursary scheme. With 40,000 nurse vacancies, there is no time to waste.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to continuing with the Domestic Abuse Bill, but that in itself places demands on our public services that the Government must adequately resource if the measure is to achieve its desired aim of providing protection for victims and survivors. The Government must put the necessary funding into legal aid, support services such as mental health, and education and housing.

On mental health, recent research has found that women who suffer domestic abuse are three times more likely to develop a mental illness such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The nature of domestic abuse, whereby partners might discourage attendance at mental health appointments, means that it can be extremely problematic for sufferers to access the care they need. Within the Bill, the proposed advisory board to the domestic abuse commission must include a representative from mental health services; this is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The mental health needs of victims and survivors and, indeed, of perpetrators must not be forgotten.

The Home Secretary said that she wanted to see tough sentences and justice for the victims of crime. She said that she wanted to see sentences that fit the severity of the crime, so I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for highlighting the absence from the Queen’s Speech of tougher sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving. She, like me, has had a terrible case in her constituency. She spoke about the tragic death of Bryony Hollands and the derisory sentence given to the driver. In my constituency of Heywood and Middleton, my constituent Joseph Brown-Lartey was killed by an uninsured, unlicensed driver who ran a red light at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone, crashing into Joseph’s car and killing him outright. The impact was so great that it split Joseph’s car in two. The police said that it was the worst crash that they had ever seen on an urban road, yet Joseph’s killer received a sentence of just six years, of which he served just three, while Joseph’s family are serving a life sentence at the loss of their beloved son.

This Government announced two years ago that they would increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life, and that was as a result of a consultation that received more than 9,000 responses. There was a clear vote in favour of it from the public—this would have been a vote winner for the Government—yet two years on the changes to the legislation have not been made despite numerous requests, and the Government have missed the opportunity to include it in the Queen’s Speech. I and many other MPs wrote to the Prime Minister recommending that he did so, but he declined. We are all extremely disappointed not to see it there as this was a golden opportunity.

If the Home Secretary is serious when she says that she wants to see punishments that fit the crime, it is incomprehensible that this measure has not been included in the Queen’s Speech. It lets down the Brown-Larteys in my constituency, it lets down the Hollands family in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead—I nearly said in the Prime Minister’s constituency—and it lets down all the brave bereaved families who have campaigned so hard for so many years to get justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Of course we all join in the celebration of the power of sport as a positive force, be it, for example, tennis, cricket or indeed football. [Interruption.] And lots of other sports to boot—netball, hockey, rounders and athletics. We also celebrate those who teach sport, and those who broadcast it and write about it, one of whom I spy not very far from me at this every moment—the great Richard Evans. [Interruption.] That will do for now.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

21. Reducing school exclusions is key to tackling this problem. Will the Home Secretary join the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary to co-fund high-quality intervention for young men who are falling out of school and being excluded from school between the ages of 13 to 15, which appear to be the key ages when they are at risk of going from pupil referral units to prison?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady raises an important point and it shows precisely why we are planning to introduce the public health duty—to get more Departments and public agencies to work together in providing early intervention through many different types of programme. She is right to highlight alternative provision and some of the issues associated with it, especially how some of those children, sadly, become the target of gangs, and we are doing more work across government.