Points of Order

Debate between Ivan Lewis and John Bercow

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am not responsible for Select Committees or quite what the architecture is of individual Committees and how they might interact with each other—whether they are combined or whether there are separate. That is a matter for others, but what I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that, if memory serves me correctly from perusal of the intended speaking list, he is intending to favour the House further with his dulcet tones in the course of the afternoon, and therefore he can draw attention to these matters. As to whether there is an incompatibility between what is said in the House by a Minister and what is lodged before a court, I know not, and that may be so, but even if it is so, it does not necessarily follow that anyone has been misled; it rather depends on what was said at the time. There may have been a guesstimate of numbers and that might have changed, but I do not know, so I reserve judgment on that. But what I would say is that the hon. Gentleman has ventilated his concern and if he aspires further to ventilate his concerns on these matters this afternoon, there is a reasonable prospect that he will have the chance to do so.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a debate last week on High Speed 2, the Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), was asked very directly whether any non-disclosure clauses had been included in redundancy agreements with former staff at HS2. She said on several occasions that no such non-disclosure clauses were included in those redundancy arrangements. A subsequent parliamentary answer to that debate confirms that, in fact, there were a number of such non-disclosure clauses in agreements with staff who were made redundant. Is there anything at this stage I can do, Mr Speaker, in terms of making the Minister accountable for the answers she gave during that debate?

[Mr Speaker]

Every Member is responsible for the veracity of what he or she says in this House. In the event that a Member discovers he or she has inadvertently misled the House, it is incumbent upon that Member to correct the record. That obligation applies across the House, and of course it applies to Ministers as well as to those who are not part of the Executive branch. I rather imagine that the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) will have her attention drawn erelong to what the hon. Gentleman has said; if she judges it necessary to act, she will do so. If she does not, it is something that he will have to pursue by other means. I know that he would not expect me to be the arbiter of right or wrong, but I have tried to guide him procedurally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and John Bercow

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

The Prime Minister has an admirable sense of duty, so will she be honest about Brexit? There is now only one viable option in the short term that can reconcile the referendum result with the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom, with the genuine concerns of many Members on both sides of the House about the impact of a flawed deal or no deal, with our communities and with Labour’s tests. We should join the European Free Trade Association and the European economic area and seek EU agreement to remain in the customs union for a specified period from the date we leave. We should make it clear that, on joining the EEA, we will exercise our right to put an emergency brake on the free movement of labour. It may not be the perfect option, but our only consideration now should be the national interest.

[Mr Speaker]

We have got the drift, and we are grateful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sammy Wilson. No? Mr Wilson had signalled an interest, but never mind—we will hear from him another day.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that following the local and European elections and the conclusion of the judge-led inquiry into on-the-runs at the end of May, all Northern Ireland parties should see it as their top priority to reach a speedy agreement on the issues covered by the Haass talks? Three years of elections in Northern Ireland cannot lead to permanent political logjam.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that a way forward on the past must put victims at its heart. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I remain very supportive of efforts through the Haass process to find a way forward. I can confirm that 38 cases were dealt with by the current Government under the OTR administrative scheme. That was reviewed by the current Government, who decided that it was better for any future cases to be referred to the devolved authorities, in line with the devolution of policing and justice, but we did process a number of cases supplied prior to the general election. I also believe that it is absolutely vital that the PSNI investigates thoroughly why things went so badly wrong in relation to this case and that all of us in this House convey our deep and grave sympathy to the victims of the terrible atrocity that took place in Hyde park.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, there are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. Secondly, I very politely ask the Secretary of State please to speak up a little. Mr Lewis, I am sure that the second question will be much shorter than the first.

[Mr Lewis]

At a time when the Haass talks are seeking to focus on truth and justice for victims and their families, will the Secretary of State give a commitment today that the Government will stop buck-passing between Departments and prevent the Survivors for Peace programme going to the wall? At the invitation of Labour’s excellent parliamentary candidate in Warrington, Nick Bent, I had the privilege of visiting the Warrington peace centre last week. The Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace, under the inspirational leadership of Colin and Wendy Parry, does a tremendous job and deserves support from this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The Secretary of State has made great play of the fact that her accountancy background will help her deliver better value for money and greater transparency than her predecessor, so why will she not publish the findings of her Department’s review of the vast amounts of DFID money being paid to private consultants? How many consultants are there? How much are they being paid? Do they have to compete in fair and open tendering processes? What assessment is made of the results they deliver? Publish the findings, Secretary of State.

[Mr Speaker]

There were four questions there, which was rather unkind of the hon. Gentleman, but it certainly will not be beyond the wit and sagacity of the right hon. Lady pithily to reply.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I wish to declare an interest: I have just returned from a visit to Burma with the Burma Campaign UK, where I had the privilege of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi, whose courageous leadership is a source of inspiration and hope for a better future, and I saw for myself the challenges that ethnic communities continue to face. Will DFID Ministers work with the Foreign Secretary to apply maximum pressure to the Burmese Government to protect the Rohingya community from violence, create an urgent and transparent process to establish their citizenship rights, and begin a serious political dialogue with all ethnic communities? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just remind the House that we are discussing extremely serious matters? This question is about Burma, and it would be a courtesy if Members would listen to the question and to the Minister’s answer.

BSkyB

Debate between Ivan Lewis and John Bercow

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

The Secretary of State could have made different choices. He could have chosen to appear before the House today and make an oral statement rather than be dragged kicking and screaming to the House. He could have chosen to refer this acquisition to the Competition Commission for an independent inquiry to remove any doubts about the objectivity and transparency of the process. Will he answer the following questions? In view of the fact that this process has now taken six months, why did he not follow Ofcom’s original advice and refer this deal to the Competition Commission? How can he say that he has delivered greater independence for Sky News when it will be almost entirely dependent on News Corp for both distribution and funding? Will he publish in full the independent legal advice he has received on all aspects of this acquisition?

In relation to media issues, the Secretary of State has responsibility for media policy in this country, and it is therefore very disappointing to say the least that he has had so little to say about the phone-hacking scandal. The current police investigation must, this time, lead to full disclosure of all evidence, with those responsible brought to justice. Does the Secretary of State agree that once that investigation has been concluded there should be an independent inquiry into the conduct of the British press? The issues go further than one newspaper group. We have made it clear that we support self-regulation, but self-regulation must be accompanied by responsibility and accountability. It is surely time for lessons to be learned and reforms to be put in place so that such unlawful practices can never happen again.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the shadow Secretary of State that we are on the subject specifically of the proposed acquisition, so I feel sure that the references that the hon. Gentleman has made to another issue are now at an end. I think that we are clear about that. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to complete his remarks?

[Mr Lewis]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Does the Secretary of State agree that such an inquiry is now necessary?

Points of Order

Debate between Ivan Lewis and John Bercow

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has today made an announcement of grave importance for the future of media in this country. Despite a clear recommendation from Ofcom and the Secretary of State’s admission that he has been unable to reach agreement with News Corp on adequate remedies, he has failed to do the right thing and refer the bid to the Competition Commission. This follows the shambles of the Business Secretary’s prejudicial conduct and doubts about the impartiality of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. Surely the Secretary of State should come to the House and justify his actions.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving me notice of his intention to raise a point of order. As he knows, there is a written ministerial statement today on this subject. I have not received any notice of an oral statement at this stage. What he has said will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and I trust that when the Minister has anything more to say, he will do so to the House at the first opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ivan Lewis and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I do not regard deciding to attack Pakistan when in India as a great foreign policy triumph, particularly on the part of a Prime Minister of this country.

When we were in government, we took every opportunity to highlight and campaign against the horrendous human rights abuses perpetrated by the Burmese regime, to demand the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and more than 2,000 political prisoners, and to apply maximum pressure on the international community to challenge that regime. May I ask the Minister what his Government are doing to put pressure on the Burmese regime? Does he accept that the November elections were entirely illegitimate, and that there is a flawed constitution? Can he tell us what progress is being made on an arms embargo against the Burmese regime, and will he guarantee no dilution of the BBC’s World Service output in Burma?

[Mr Speaker]

That was three questions, but I know the Minister will be able to provide a single pithy reply.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Debate between Ivan Lewis and John Bercow

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Members for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), the hon. Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) on their excellent maiden speeches.

This is a Budget that will define not only the new Government but the kind of country that Britain is to become for a decade, perhaps even a generation. The choices made in this Budget will have an impact on every middle and low-income family, every community and every workplace. They will determine not only our economic destiny, but the very nature of our society. Those choices, presented as economic imperatives, are in reality driven by an ideology which yet again fails to understand that if a state retreats too far, the result is not a big society but a broken society.

I want to concentrate on public services and welfare. Let us be clear: this is a Budget of choice, rather than a Budget in which there is only one choice. The deficit could have been reduced over a longer period, as happened in the aftermath of the IMF loan in the 1970s and that of Black Wednesday in the 1990s. The balance between taxation, spending cuts and growth could have been different, and the overall package of measures could have been progressive rather than regressive.

Much has rightly been made of Liberal Democrat duplicity. I watched closely on Budget day as the Deputy Prime Minister anxiously passed the Red Book to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), frantically seeking to draw his attention to the tables on pages 66 and 67. The right hon. Gentleman dutifully made a trenchant speech, claiming that this was a progressive Budget and citing the tables as evidence. Within 24 hours, the Institute for Fiscal Studies had made it clear that such claims were as misleading as a typical Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflet. It confirmed that the overall impact of the Budget measures was regressive and that the poorest would be 2.6% worse off, while the richest would be worse off by only 0.6%. That did not include cuts in benefits and public services, which would widen the gap considerably. I do not see how Liberal Democrats can claim to be progressive when they are willing to vote for this Budget, let alone for VAT increases.

In legitimacy and credibility terms, the Tories have matched the Liberal Democrats in their contempt for the electorate. It seems to have been forgotten that the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), claimed to have modernised his party. It was no longer the nasty party, no longer indifferent to social and economic inequality. The right hon. Gentleman would govern from the centre ground, and would face down the right-wing ideologues in his party.

This Budget proves that that was all a charade. Instead we have the same old Tories, driven by a “leave it to the market” dogma, cavalier about social disintegration and contemptuous of the public sector. As throughout history, they seek to divide and rule, reversing new Labour’s economic prosperity and social justice paradigm and disregarding the link between public sector investment and private sector growth. They stigmatise the public sector and its work force as the primary cause of our economic problems, while irresponsible bankers and markets without ethics hardly get a mention. This narrative emanates from politicians and commentators who mainly use private education and health care, whose personal wealth guarantees their quality of life, and who are out of touch with the daily realities of most people in this country.

Let us consider the public servants who make a difference on a typical day in my constituency and those of every other Member: children’s centre staff and nursery nurses; teachers, classroom assistants and support staff; head teachers; police officers and police community support officers; prison and probation officers; doctors, nurses and ancillary staff; district nurses, home carers and mobile wardens; social workers, youth workers and Connexions staff; area co-ordinators and leisure staff. I could go on and on. Yes, and managers and administrators too; after all, effective organisations in the public as well as the private sector need good management and sound administration. There are also the construction companies, contractors and suppliers, providing a range of goods and services to public agencies. The public sector civilises our society, helps people to fulfil their potential, and protects those who are sick and vulnerable.

I do not deny the need for reform and cuts. In government, we should have devolved more to local government and local communities. The remuneration of public service executives should be transparent, and some roles can no longer be justified when tested against other priorities. However, cutting 25% to 30% of the public sector in only five years will both destroy our social fabric and slow the pace of economic growth. This coalition believes that as the state retreats, enterprise will flourish and the “big society” will fill the gap left by public services. That is fantasy politics and fantasy economics. The private sector will struggle to expand while the economy is fragile, which is why these cuts are too fast and too deep. Also, 1.2 million private sector jobs are dependent on the public sector, and 40% of public expenditure is spent in the private sector. The agents of the so-called big society—voluntary groups and community networks—will have their grants cut by local councils reduced to fulfilling only statutory duties.

The Secretary of State claims to champion the family, but he now wants people to break up their families and give up their homes in the pursuit of work. I thought his party was committed to a balanced, not a “get on your bike”, economy. He was at pains to say, however, that people would not have to go up north; heaven forbid!

Our opponents can attempt to rewrite history but they cannot change history. We are proud of the decisions we took to save Northern Rock, recapitalise the banks and boost the economy with a significant fiscal stimulus. We protected savers and home owners and intervened to save jobs and businesses. Our approach, in conjunction with that of our global partners, ensured recession did not lead to depression. Prior to the credit crunch, we delivered an unprecedented 11 years of economic growth, with people on low and middle incomes seeing major advances in their standard of living. We lifted hundreds of thousands of children and pensioners out of poverty, and public services were fixed and then transformed.

This Budget fails the tests of fairness and economic recovery. The Lib Dems have made their choice. It is Labour that is now left with the duty to fight for the interests of the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Time is up.