Covid-19 Response: Defence Support
Debate between Ben Wallace and Lucy Allan(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) [V]
Telford is home to MOD Donnington, a state-of-the-art Army logistics site, so I know first hand that our armed forces excel at logistics. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that this exceptional logistics expertise works with the NHS to scale up our vaccine network and deliver the vaccine programme 24/7 as soon as vaccines supply allows?
Mr Wallace
I visited Donnington at the beginning of this outbreak, where I saw at first hand the Army using their expertise to unload ventilators that had been brought into the country from China or other locations. As I said earlier, it reminds me of how important civil servants and the other workforces are in the armed forces; not just the uniformed personnel are making things happen. MOD Donnington is not currently required as a base for vaccination by Public Health England or the Department of Health and Social Care, but we are always open to suggestions, and of course the logistics requirements of covid will still route through Donnington. On the personnel side, we have all seen Brigadier Prosser at the press conference giving his expertise and knowledge in helping the response.
Prevent Strategy
Debate between Ben Wallace and Lucy Allan(7 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered implementation of the Prevent Strategy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir David. I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important issue. The statutory Prevent duty introduced in 2015 has given rise to increasing levels of concern in different parts of our communities and of the House. There is now a level of disquiet, which it would be wrong to ignore, about how the Prevent duty is working in practice and its impact on community cohesion.
The Prevent duty requires those in a position of trust, such as teachers or doctors, to report people who they perceive might be a risk—
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend so early, but I am afraid that she has repeated the same line she said at the beginning of the debate on her private Member’s Bill on Friday. There is no requirement to report; there is a requirement to put in place safeguards and risk assessment for children. She may look at the guidance, at paragraphs 67 and 68 on page 11. It does not include a requirement to report. I ask her to change that line, because it is part of peddling a myth of what Prevent is about.
Lucy Allan
I thank the Minister for correcting me on that point. I am opening a debate on issues of concern to many people, and I would not want to fall inadvertently into any traps of myth-peddling.
The people referred to Prevent are those perceived to be at risk of being drawn into terrorism and those deemed possibly to be susceptible to extremism, including non-violent extremism. Today I want to highlight the difficulties that the Prevent duty is creating. I want to set out why, despite individual examples of good practice, Prevent as a concept or strategy to draw people away from terrorism is not working. I also want to draw attention to the way such concerns are being dismissed, rather than listened to, and the way those who express them are being depicted as seeking to undermine Prevent or even our security.
All of us come to this place with the objective of giving a voice to those who are not being listened to or heard, and of campaigning on something we have seen to be wrong or not working—we want to put it right and highlight where it is happening. That is what I am seeking to do in this debate.
The greatest difficulty with Prevent is that it is driving a wedge between authority and the community. The problem lies in the way the communities most affected by Prevent experience and perceive the strategy. For all its good intentions, if it is perceived by those it affects as punitive or intrusive, it will not be productive or have the desired effect.