Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 1st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

I accept entirely the logic behind the Bill and its arithmetic—I am not arguing about that. I am saying only that a massive programme of reform is urgent and essential. I was making a point about the two Ministers who threw away £3 million by giving it to a dodgy charity that went broke three days later. They were never called to account by the Prime Minister, but that should have happened. We must reform that system. We must get reform in the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments as well. We have a system whereby Ministers, former generals and others can—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is very good of the hon. Gentleman to sit down when I rise to my feet. He is an extremely experienced and dextrous parliamentarian, and I was going to say to him, politely, that he has started his speech “broadly”—let me put it like that—and he cannot be accused of having attended too closely to the specifics of the measure before us. I feel sure that he will now apply his scholarly cranium with laser-like intensity to the matter before us, rather than to the matter that he might wish were before us.

[Paul Flynn]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I greatly appreciate that advice, and I shall try to focus my laser-like cranium on the effect that these measures will have in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has PR, but it now has the problem that it does not have enough Members for its increasing workload. If the number of Welsh MPs is to be reduced—it is almost certain that that will happen sometime in the future—there must be a compensatory increase in numbers in the Welsh Assembly. That would make the proposals logical and fair, but at the moment they are a piece of special pleading by the Tory party cynically to increase the number of MPs that they have in Westminster. That has nothing to do with reform of our constitution, which is in a very bad state.

Business of the House

Debate between Paul Flynn and John Bercow

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee on yesterday revealing a financial calamity of giant proportions. The Committee has calculated that instead of the anticipated £6 billion, the subsidy for Hinkley Point will be £30 billion, and the costs will fall on the poorest consumers. The EPR reactor has not produced a single watt of electricity, and every other example is years late and billions over budget. Is it not essential that we debate this, before we create more sinkholes into which we dump billions of pounds of public money?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has generated plenty of electricity and other energy of his own.

Points of Order

Debate between Paul Flynn and John Bercow

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday’s Order Paper said that the debate on drugs could continue until 7 o’clock. The final speaker sat down four minutes early. The normal practice in this House is then to use that time for other speakers to contribute. It was particularly interesting that the final speaker, the Minister, had denied interventions on the grounds that she did not have enough time to finish. The Standing Orders are not clear on this point. Is it not right that we get some definition of past practice in relation to cases where speakers do not have anything else left to say and other Members can contribute to what would then be a full debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice somewhat earlier of his intention to raise it. I am loth to quibble with the hon. Gentleman, who is a considerable authority on matters parliamentary, as evidence by the well-thumbed tome on how to be a Back Bencher of which he is the distinguished author. That said, I am inclined slightly to quibble with him on his proposition that it is normal or commonplace, if a ministerial wind-up concludes early, for other Members to be invited to contribute. In my experience, that is not commonplace. I would not say that it never happens, because you can almost always find an example of something if you try hard enough, but certainly when I am in the Chair I tend to work on the assumption that the ministerial wind-up is indeed the conclusion of the debate.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the conclusion of this debate taking place earlier than listed on the Order Paper, although I am sure that he will readily accept that the Official Report—that is to say, the verbatim account of what was said; there is no question of misleading anybody—will show that the debate concluded a little early. The Chair does not normally allow a further Back-Bench speech, and—this is not directed at the hon. Gentleman; it is just a wider point—certainly not from a Member who had already made a substantial speech in the debate.

As for interventions, the hon. Gentleman, as the author of “How To Be An MP”—available in all good bookshops, and of which I am myself a noted admirer, as he knows—he will appreciate that a Member is free to take interventions or not. I note what he tells me—that the Minister said, “No, I can’t take interventions because I haven’t time”—but that is not something on which the Chair can rule. Sometimes Ministers can be a tad neurotic in these circumstances, it is true, as can sometimes, perhaps, shadow Ministers, but that is not a matter for the Chair. Whether the Member seeking to intervene likes it or not, the situation is as I have described.

Let me take this opportunity, in a positive spirit, to encourage all new Members—I am not sure the Whips would agree about this—to read the hon. Gentleman’s books on being a good parliamentarian. [Interruption.] “No!” says a Government Whip, chuntering from a sedentary position, in evident horror at what bad habits new members of the flock might pick up. I think that they are fine tomes. The hon. Gentleman has used his position as a Back-Bench Member to stand up for his constituents and to fight for the principles in which he believes. That has sometimes pleased his party and sometimes not, but that is what we are supposed to get here—Members of Parliament who speak to their principles and their consciences. That is a good thing, and, as he knows, I like to encourage it. In fact, when I was a Back Bencher, I had a relationship with my Whips characterised by trust and understanding—I didn’t trust them and they didn’t understand me.

Points of Order

Debate between Paul Flynn and John Bercow

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that this is something provided for, if memory serves, in the conventions and courtesies of the House. The traditional approach was that a Member—effectively, as was implied by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), a male Member—would be wearing a tie—[Interruption.] There is absolutely no obligation on female Members not to wear ties if they so choose. I think the general expectation is that Members should dress in business-like attire. So far as the Chair is concerned, I must say to the hon. Gentleman, although I fear this will gravely disquiet him, that it seems to me that as long as a Member arrives in the House in what might be thought to be business-like attire, the question of whether that Member is wearing a tie is not absolutely front and centre stage. So am I minded not to call a Member simply because that Member is not wearing a tie? No. I think there has always been some discretion for the Chair to decide what is seemly and proper. Members should not behave in a way that is disrespectful of their colleagues or of the institution, but do I think it is essential that a Member wears a tie? No. Opinions on the hon. Gentleman’s choice of ties do tend to vary, and it has to be said that the same could be said of my own.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we ensure that Standing Order 122A is implemented strictly in the House? The rule refers to chairmanships of Select Committees and states that the maximum term is eight years or two Parliaments. There is a good reason for this Standing Order, because the Committees are greatly benefited, and the House benefits, I believe, from refreshing those who take on these powerful positions. If there are to be any exceptions made, or any claims made for exceptional circumstances, will you ensure that the full Standing Order is respected, and that no changes will take place unless they are approved of through a debate in this House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The Standing Orders are of course our rules, and by those rules we must all abide. I am familiar with the Standing Order to which the hon. Gentleman refers. My recollection of it is that there is a limit of two Parliaments or eight years, whichever is the longer, on the period for which the Chair of the same Select Committee can serve as its Chair. I certainly intend to interpret that rule in the proper way. If a decision comes to me to make in respect of a particular case, I will make it. Subject to any advice I might receive from the Clerk of the House, I have absolutely no objection whatever to making any such statement or clarification in the Chamber. That might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to other Members who are interested in this matter.

Points of Order

Debate between Paul Flynn and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The relevant Minister will, I think, be making a speech to the House. That, of course, does not constitute a statement as such, but it is nevertheless a full treatment of the issues of which the Minister wishes to treat.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s second inquiry—how do Members probe the Minister if they have not put in to make a speech?—the short answer is, by intervention. It is not for me to try to set myself up as an executive coach, and the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to do so, but the idea of Members proceeding collectively with the same line of inquiry is not entirely a novel idea, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to encourage his colleagues to focus on a particular theme or point and to keep repeating that theme or point until they are satisfied, it is perfectly open to him to do so. I feel sure the hon. Gentleman’s followers, or his disciples, will listen to his advice with the very closest interest and respect at all times. We will leave it there for now.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

A separate and unrelated point of order, I feel sure, from Mr Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn]

With your prodigious memory, Mr Speaker, you might recall that the final point of order in the last Parliament was about a worry that the electoral system in this country is more open to corruption than at any time since 1880, and it is possible now to buy an election.

I do not know whether you saw the Channel 4 programme about the activities in Wales of a call centre that was employed by the Conservative party throughout the election to concentrate on my constituency, among others. It was not carrying out any kind of market research; it was being used to give information that was damaging to the Labour party to as many voters as possible. One hundred people were employed to do that, and they were paid to do it. The allegation was also made—I can confirm it from what happened in my constituency—that canvassing was also done from this call centre on polling day, and I had many complaints about people getting repeated calls.

We have an electoral system that is not fit for purpose. We are in an age where neither the Electoral Commission nor the Information Commissioner can handle the election. To restore integrity to our electoral system, we need major reforms, and I am sure you will use your office to ensure that that is accelerated.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I think he invests me with powers or influence that I might not currently possess, but I am very grateful to him for encouraging an increase in the said powers or influence.

As it happens, I do recall the last point of order of the last Parliament, and it is very reasonable of the hon. Gentleman to draw my attention to it. My pithy advice is that if he has ongoing concerns about what might constitute an offence, he should notify both the Electoral Commission and, indeed, the police.

I did not see the Channel 4 documentary to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I have a feeling that he will exhort me to view it sooner rather than later. What I would say is that if there have been egregious activities taking place in his constituency—I do not suggest that this invalidates his concern, because it does not—manifestly those activities have not been successful if they were directed against the hon. Gentleman. That is not altogether surprising, as he has been a consistent presence in this House for three decades—he might not yet have reached the halfway mark in his parliamentary career attained by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), but he is getting a bit nearer to it. We will perhaps leave it there for now.