Interview: Catherine West

Catherine West, the 2017 Swarthmore lecturer, talks to Ian Kirk-Smith about her life, values and vision

Could you talk about your background?

I grew up in Sydney. My parents were Anglicans and I attended a Methodist school for girls in Sydney. But I felt that experience did not reflect the whole circle of views and the world I was living in – the culture and society of Sydney. It was a conservative approach to faith and belief.

My parents were both in education and very committed to learning as a route to freedom. I also think this is what education is about. My first love at school was languages; an ability with languages ‘slipped off the tongue’ for me. My degree was in languages and social work. I wanted to speak different languages and live in different communities. I think speaking a language opens a door to a culture.

You came to London when you were thirty?

Yes. My husband was working at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and, with a social work degree and my ability with languages, I was well positioned to work in a local authority with asylum seekers and new communities. I got a job in this area, getting children into schools, finding appropriate housing for families and so on, and that was how I met David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham. I got involved in politics and then Islington Council. Housing became a concern. It is a huge issue.

What are some defining influences on your life?

Loving languages means that you are naturally interested in other people and other cultures. When you learn, or read a book, you want to speak to people from other cultures and find out about their way of doing things.

I was also very affected by visiting northern Australia, Darwin, which is regional Australia. If you live in a city you don’t understand the regions. As a borough leader in London I visited other boroughs – particularly where there were issues to sort out like low achieving schools. Different regions all have different problems or they often deal with the same problems in different ways.

You did a Master’s degree in Chinese Politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies. You’ve worked in teaching, social work and publishing. Why did you enter politics?

I think when you have that training, in areas like social work, you see problems like housing and public health provision and you know, politically, there are solutions to these problems. I am very interested in how new communities manage; in what way government and civil society can help; what role they can play; in community rights and community cohesion.

Once I was doing work with communities around housing this led me to ask: how can your representative help and intervene on your behalf? How can we make this better for everybody? I was keen to get involved. People encouraged me. The question of women’s representation is also very important to me.

Politics – at a local and national level – is a very demanding life. How do you cope with it all? You have a family?

I have a very supportive partner. When you are a London MP, even though it is demanding, you can do constituency work and manage parliamentary work. It is much harder for women MPs who have children and live outside London.

What drew you to Quakerism in the 1990s?

I am a Quaker by convincement. I was a bit disillusioned with Anglicanism in Australia, the lack of leadership roles for women, let alone indigenous people, people from migrant communities, and so on. I felt I did not really want to continue in that tradition – but I couldn’t do without any spirituality in my life.

Why?

I need a time to be quiet, but it was important to me to be in a group. I was very attracted by the Quaker tradition of public service and people like Ada Salter became an inspiration for me. She committed herself entirely to addressing poor housing conditions in London. She and her husband, who was a doctor, could have had quite a comfortable life. They chose another way. The Quaker way does encourage you to chose different ways. It is important to remember the Quaker tradition of speaking out – of ‘speaking truth to power’ – and I like the different way of doing business – of seeking unity. I do miss the music of the Methodist and Anglican churches and sometimes go to the church at the end of our street. I like the sense in Quakerism that there are no strong boundaries. If you do not go to Meeting every week you are not criticised. You are accepted. In my line of work there is often work on Sunday. The broad umbrella of the Quakers is the most comfortable place for me.

In what way did your Quakerism influence you as leader of Islington Council?

Well, the Quaker principle of not voting, of seeking unity, was important. You cannot, of course, avoid voting sometimes – but I did try not to have endless votes and contested votes in the Labour group. I feel the more you divide, and divide again, the more people feel they are in a certain camp.

We often made decisions through dialogue and working things out; when there were vacancies, for example, it meant more time, finding the right roles for people, but it was an important way of trying to make decisions. Obviously, you do need sometimes to vote, but not always.

Some Friends have a view that politics is not for them. It would involve too much compromise. It is, somehow, not ‘Quakerly’.

That is a dilemma in the Quaker way. Jobs have got to be done. It is wrong to shy away from it altogether. Being in a pressure group, or being part of a campaign, means you are never the one to make the decision. While that is a comfortable place to be, I feel we must ask, as Friends, if that is always the right place to be.

I think a lot of politics is about problem solving and a lot of Quakers are good at problem solving. I do feel that it is important to encourage people to see the problem solving part of politics.

When we do this we can address, for example, the testimony to equality. I would like to see more Quakers involved in politics. It does not matter what party. There is so much to be done and Friends can do things.

Is there a tension between being guided by your conscience and being guided by a party whip?

I have not had a situation in which I have had to vote against my conscience. It has either been a free vote or I have voted the way I felt and I have lived with the consequences.

As leader of Islington Council you set up, in June 2010, a pioneering and hugely influential project – the Fairness Commission. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett got involved and you did a fascinating listening exercise in the community. Could you talk about your engagement with equality?

The testimony to equality is very important to me. However, all the testimonies influence the way I see my role. The testimony to simplicity, and the commitment to sustainability, looking after the planet, is so important. But inequality is a real priority. Some say the poor have always been with us. What is new is that very wealthy people live so closely to very poor people, especially in inner city London, and I feel everybody is worse off if that gap between the rich and the poor is not addressed.

I think people are happier; there are less mental health issues and so on, when the gap is reduced.

We have to look at where we have had failures. We must intervene. We must find, for example, affordable housing. We must find solutions.

We have a situation where professionals – doctors, nurses, police officers, teachers – the people who look after others, cannot afford to live in London. How is it going to continue if we do not have a more cohesive approach to housing? People are coming up to the age of forty before they can take out a mortgage. It has got to a tipping point and the student loan situation is adding to this crisis.

You have often taken up concerns over human rights.

The concern over social justice is at the heart of the Quaker tradition. It is important to me. In parliament there are sincere people, from all parties, who feel strongly about human rights such as the persecution of religious minorities, the rule of law in other countries, the inappropriate use of government forces, the imprisonment of political prisoners and so on. This is an important part of our parliamentary tradition.

How do you feel about parliament?

It is a wonderful model, even though an oppositional one. Sitting in the chamber you get to know others and their concerns and I like this.

Sadly, the House of Lords is too big, not nimble enough, and the appointment system, if you described it without mentioning the country it is part of, would shock people.

We need to move to an elected second chamber. There are 900 people in the Lords and 650 in the Commons. This makes me feel uncomfortable.

You sit on the all-party committee for climate change.

If we do not tackle it we face terrible consequences: water and food shortages will be a massive driver for the movement of people and this will lead to conflict. The Quaker concern for peace is linked to climate change. Food scarcity in Africa will drive unhappiness and the journey to Europe and elsewhere. Many stories of migration are positive stories but there are also negative stories. We need to look at the roots of conflict.

The causes of problems seem important to you and, it seems, you have a positive, practical outlook.

Quakers have always been interested in the causes of problems and work for practical solutions. Look at Elizabeth Fry. She was drawn to ask questions. I think Quakers are interested in the more difficult subjects and I think that is the kind of thing I like to raise. There are practical, concrete steps that can be taken. I do not think the housing question, for example, is impossible to tackle.

On the Living Wage, even in Whitehall there are people working who do not get the Living Wage! When I first came, I asked questions about the cleaners and some were not getting the Living Wage. It is changing. There is a lot that can be done.

Even a small Meeting can achieve a lot just by looking at the way it does things. There are so many areas where Quakers can make a positive difference.

I do not think that poverty is inevitable. I do not think there should be such poverty in the fifth richest country in the world. I do not think that bad housing is inevitable. Loneliness, which is affecting elderly people a lot, is not inevitable.

What do you like about being an MP?

It is a challenging and interesting life. I also like the way it unlocks doors. I had, for example, an incredible privilege to visit Columbia with trade unionists, going into a prison in Bogata. It was a mixed group: other trade unionists and NGO representatives.

People open up to you a lot. People who see children are not doing well in school or people who have sub-standard care for their elderly mother.

They are putting their trust in you to do something about it and to talk to you about it. It is a huge privilege to be in that place. I feel I want to empower people to do what they can in their local communities.

Friends should not be afraid of getting involved in politics. We all know things are imperfect. We get things wrong.

The important thing is to aim towards a hopeful vision. You have to be hopeful and forward looking. People are looking to you and you need to be positive. I think if you go around with the weight of the world on your shoulders it sends a negative message.

Leadership is about inspiring people to make things better and to believe that they can do things. Good leadership is about building a team, having a vision, getting the ideas right and moving forward together.

I understand you have brought a subversive aquatic agenda to the House of Commons?

Yes, I am starting the all-party group for swimming. I have always enjoyed swimming. I like swimming outdoors. London has some great outdoor pools. Hampstead Heath and Parliament Hill are excellent. If there are all-party groups for rugby, football and cricket – then there should be one for swimming!

---

Comments

Excellent interview. Thank you.  Looking forward to hearing and reading her lecture.

By Rupert P on 30th July 2017 - 8:15

---

Please login to add a comment