Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I shall come to my hon. Friend’s important point in a moment. It is fair to say that Hezbollah itself laughs at that distinction—it mocks it. It does not understand why some countries continue to make this artificial distinction. My hon. Friend has raised an important point.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on this decision. Does he agree with me that it is one thing to engage with terrorists in an attempt to get them to renounce violence and pursue entirely political aims, and quite another to engage with them to show solidarity with them and support for them? Does he agree that, on occasions such as this, hon. Members who have done that in the past should take every opportunity they can to apologise, not hide?

[Sajid Javid]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for his support for the order and his passionate words. He is absolutely right: if there are hon. Members—perhaps there are—who in the past have thought of Hezbollah in a positive light, today is a fresh opportunity for them to demonstrate that they stand against terrorism in all its forms, whether Hezbollah or any of the other organisations that I will be proscribing today.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on membership of EFTA and the EEA, and I will come on to that later in my speech.

It has fallen to this generation of politicians to make one of the most profound decisions outside of war that this country has ever had to make. The referendum result exposed a deeply divided country, with many voters wanting to send a strong message to elites, whether political or business, that government and the economy, whether national or European, are not delivering for them, with wage stagnation and rapid migration fuelling alienation and resentment.

The Prime Minister is fond of talking about the national interest, but the whole Brexit shambles is a consequence of the eternal European fault line in the Conservative party. This shambles of a negotiation, which has left our country a laughing stock, has been caused by red lines that may as well have been written in invisible ink and by the dogma of some hard Brexiteers who prefer a scorched earth Brexit. They can afford years of poor growth, unlike my constituents, whose jobs and living standards are on the line.

The problem with our negotiating position from the beginning has been that the starting point was not the national interest but an ill-fated attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable factions in the Cabinet and the parliamentary Conservative party, and we have ended up with a worst-of-all-worlds deal. The deal has united the Leader of the Opposition and the Democratic Unionist party—that takes some doing—and united leavers and remainers in opposition to it.

I want to turn to the notion of a people’s vote, about which I am extremely sceptical. I recall that many who now advocate a people’s vote were the biggest critics of David Cameron for holding the first referendum. In the internal debate that took place in the Labour party, good and hon. Friends now supporting a second vote were the most vociferous persuaders in ensuring that an EU referendum was not in our election manifesto. If determining our future in the EU by referendum was wrong in principle in 2015, 2016 and 2017, why is it right now?

Of course I deplore the untruths promoted by the leave campaign, including false promises, but if that is a justification for a second vote, I suggest that many general election results through history would be null and void. The only certainty about the result of a second referendum is that it would once again expose the fact that we remain deeply divided as a nation. Worse than that, even if it resulted in a decision to remain, it would fuel support for nationalism and hard-right politics and politicians like never before. It would be the elite telling the people they got it wrong and we know best. Have we learned nothing from political earthquakes erupting around the world?

I say to my Labour friends that even if a second vote results in a victory for remain, it may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory. We were in the EU when, for 18 years, Thatcherism destroyed the fabric of communities in our society. We have been in the EU since 2010, while we have seen the poorest suffering the most as a consequence of austerity. There is nothing more likely to perpetuate right-wing Governments than a backlash against a second vote supported and promoted by progressives. Of course it is right to ask whether we will be worse off if we leave the EU, but it is also right to ask who will suffer the most if, through apparent contempt for half the population, we consign our country to long-term right-wing Governments.

It is incumbent on all of us not simply to oppose this bad deal and to oppose no deal, but to present an alternative, as the hon. Member for Carlisle did. I have come to the conclusion that the best, if far from perfect, option—crucially, it could secure a majority in this place—is so-called Norway plus. I accept that will become possible only when hon. Members’ first preferences are defeated, but I believe a significant majority in this House will act in the way envisaged in the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which we passed last night, and unite around that option as the best and only viable alternative to no deal. It is not perfect, but it respects the referendum result while providing the stability to ensure a relatively smooth economic transition.

Since the referendum, the Government have let the people of this country down very badly. They failed to seek cross-party consensus when that was possible and indeed was required by such a close result. Instead, they have allowed the dysfunctional Tory family on Europe to create a dysfunctional country that is much diminished in the world. The Prime Minister has not listened, and in the case of Northern Ireland has clearly breached trust. That is a question of substance, and not just for the politicians representing Northern Ireland in this House; it is about a sense of being told untruths.

That is why Members of good will on both sides must make the best use of yesterday’s amendment, assert the authority of Parliament and show what acting in the national interest truly means. Only then will we put the country on a path to a better future, and maybe even regain some public confidence and respect. Hon. Members need to reflect on the public’s contempt: they asked this group of politicians to make the decision on Brexit in the national interest, yet all they see is a disastrous situation where the Government have negotiated a shoddy deal and Parliament seems absolutely incapable of coming together and working together in the national interest. If, as we suspect, the amendments and the substantive motion are defeated next week, it is incumbent on all of us in this House to unite not around the ideal, but around a solution that is pragmatic and actually represents the best interests of this country. I urge people to give serious consideration to Norway plus in that context.

Home Department

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. If we are really to reduce the risk to our people, we need to invest in prevention. Although some people have issues with the Prevent scheme, we published the second lot of figures yesterday showing yet again that more than 200 people have been diverted away from following a path of violent extremism, and schools play one part of that role.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

Will he agree to meet the people leading the review on radicalisation policy in Greater Manchester, the leaders of Oldham Council and of Bury Council, to learn lessons about whether the Prevent programme is in fact working? There are massive differences of opinion on that. Will the Government agree to learn from the review that Greater Manchester is undertaking on radicalisation policy?

[Mr Wallace]

I am very happy to meet the people undertaking that review, but I must point out that the figures published yesterday and those published earlier in the month show that Prevent is working in many areas.

[Official Report, 28 March 2018, Vol. 638, c. 770.]

Letter of correction from Mr Wallace:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis).

Kerslake Arena Attack Review

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Nothing in this report is about a failure of the services that were deployed that night. There were failures relating to some individual decisions, including on interpretations. There was a failure of technology in respect of the Vodafone response. To some extent, as we have discussed earlier, there was a failure of interpretation—whether or not it was too rigid—but this was not about the failure of the fire service and the police to do their job, about their ability to do their job or about the people who make up both services.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

May I echo the congratulations given to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) on ensuring that we can have this discussion? As the Minister is aware, we remain immensely proud of the response of the people of Manchester, the political leadership of Greater Manchester and frontline emergency service workers, the vast majority of whom did an excellent job. We are also proud of the fact that we came together as a community and said that there would be zero tolerance of Islamophobia in the aftermath of this incident. Will he agree to meet the people leading the review on radicalisation policy in Greater Manchester, the leaders of Oldham Council and of Bury Council, to learn lessons about whether the Prevent programme is in fact working? There are massive differences of opinion on that. Will the Government agree to learn from the review that Greater Manchester is undertaking on radicalisation policy?

[Mr Wallace]

I am very happy to meet the people undertaking that review, but I must point out that the figures published yesterday and those published earlier in the month show that Prevent is working in many areas.[Official Report, 19 April 2018, Vol. 639, c. 4MC.] Prevent is not perfect. I listened carefully to the discussion on the BBC’s “Question Time” not long after the event, when Andy Burnham and the representative from the Crown Prosecution Service in the north-west gave their views on Prevent at the time. Prevent could be better applied sometimes; but ultimately, if we are saying that it is about safeguarding and delivering a space so that people are not radicalised, the people who are against Prevent have to come up with an alternative. Every alternative I have heard articulated is Prevent with a different name. I do not think that when dealing with really important issues about young people being groomed and exploited we should be too hung up on the semantics of the name—we should be looking at the results and the processes. Again, I say to Members that I am happy to take them to meet Prevent providers, to understand communities. I met a family whose children were diverted from going off to fight in Syria, and if we were to look that lady in the eye and say, “Sorry, Prevent is not working,” she will give us a rather robust answer about whether it is or not.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I am all in favour of evidence-based policy, but I think that rather than its merely being asserted that there is a problem, such a problem, if it exists, must be properly presented and, of course, backed up with data.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) suggested that the Bill should include a sunset clause. The Government disagree. A sunset clause would create further uncertainty, which is exactly what the police do not want. We do not want it either. This is a straightforward piece of legislation that restores the previous position. We also believe that the retrospective action that is being taken is necessary, because if it were not taken, hundreds of thousands of people would potentially have a claim for false imprisonment at any time over the past six years, which is the limitation period. Liberty has said:

“We do not believe that the proposals are retrospective in their nature as they do not seek retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden.”

This is a sensible piece of legislation which was designed to correct an unusual judgment and restore 25 years of legal practice, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Members will be aware, News Corporation’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB is now a matter of great public importance and interest. Rumours are circulating, and briefings are coming from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the Secretary of State intends to delay his decision for a minimum of three months. On an issue of such importance, and on the day when we hear that the phones of the families of brave men and women who died fighting for this country in Iraq and Afghanistan were hacked, the least the Secretary of State should do is come to the House as a matter of urgency this afternoon and make a statement.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As you know, Mr Lewis, it is not up to the Chair to demand that Ministers come to the House to make statements. It is very much up to Ministers to make that decision for themselves. Mr Speaker allowed an emergency debate yesterday on the phone hacking issue. I agree that it is a fast-moving and significant issue, but I have not been notified that any Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement today. If that changes however, the House will be told immediately in the usual way.