Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

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 John Bercow and Paul Flynn

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 John Bercow and Paul Flynn

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 John Bercow and Paul Flynn

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 John Bercow and Paul Flynn

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 27th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Ian Mearns. Not here.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to ensure protection of the Welsh sheep meat trade in negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 27th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the hon. Lady will understand if I feel that almost everything that could properly be said on that matter today has just been said by the hon. Lady. In so far as she requires any indication from me on what might usefully be done in the days or weeks ahead, my counsel to her would be similar to that which I proffered to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield)—namely, that casework continues. The hon. Lady should feel free and emboldened to make representations in pursuit of justice and closure for the family concerned. I thank her for raising this matter and putting it on the record, and I am sure she will want to share it with those on whose behalf she has spoken.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that strikes right at the heart of the integrity of our democratic system. It is based on the final report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as well as two articles in The House magazine, one by a Conservative Member and one by a Labour Member, all of which sound notes of alarm that our electoral system is the most vulnerable it has been since 1880. There is powerful evidence of foreign Governments interfering in the elections in America and possibly here. There is also overwhelming evidence of money being paid in huge amounts, entirely invisible to the system, by the use of methods including algorithms, botnets and artificial intelligence in a manner understood by nobody except those who participate in it. We should be vigilant in this election, because the Electoral Commission does not have the tools to deal with interference of this kind, and we are trying to run a modern election with the tools of the 19th century.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am saving up the hon. Gentleman.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You and I are familiar with the syndrome of pre-election tension that afflicts this place. You are concerned for the wellbeing of Members, particularly the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), but I believe that what we have seen today is a sudden outbreak of parliamentary Tourette’s. The rumour is that something known as a “Crosby chip” has been implanted in the brains of Conservative Members that compels them to say “strong and stable” every 18 seconds and “coalition of chaos” every 38 seconds. Can we inquire into whether the affliction is permanent or one that can be cured?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am not sure it is a matter for the Chair. I can only say, I think without fear of contradiction, that in my time in this place I have never been pre-programmed, or otherwise, by anyone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

This institution has spent four centuries disrespecting the Welsh language, which existed and was a sophisticated literary language for 1,000 years before English existed, so we pay tribute to the late Wyn Roberts and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for this step forward now: “O bydded i’r hen iaith barhau.”

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the deployment of another language should in all courtesy be immediately followed by a translation for those who would benefit from it—but the hon. Gentleman can save that delight up for us for another occasion.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that there is anything to add, but I shall take it and then come back to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh).

[Paul Flynn]

You may recall, Mr Speaker, that in business questions last week I raised the inability of ordinary Members of this House to express an opinion, through a vote, on what was an unprecedentedly quick invitation to a Head of State. We owe you a debt of gratitude for deciding that, in this case, such an invitation should not be supported by Members of this House. We know why this happened—it was done rapidly to avoid political embarrassment for the Prime Minister—but any invitation to this House should not be extended to such a person as Donald Trump.

[Mr Speaker]

First, in respect of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), I thank him for what he said and add merely that I responded to a substantive point of order on this matter yesterday. I think it only fair to say that there is no need for me to provide a running commentary today.

In respect of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, I also thank him for what he said. He does not mince his words. He says what he thinks, and always has done, and he is respected for that across the House. Sometimes he agrees with me and sometimes he does not, but his respect for and loyalty to the institutions of the country, including those within Parliament, is universally acknowledged. I thank him for that, and I think that others will, too.

New Member

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will come to points of order later, but in the usual way. I am very happy to attend to a point of order at a later time.

Point of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a point of order that I raise with the greatest reluctance, but it is a matter for you, and a matter of some urgency. You will recall that, in November 2015, the Conservative delegates to the Council of Europe were queried and there was a debate on the matter in this House. A report was produced about the selection of delegates. At the time, you rightly said that it was not your job to interfere with the decisions of parties on which delegates they sent to the Council of Europe. I believe that a decision that was made a few hours ago was not only improper but possibly illegal. I have sent you an email and a letter about what has happened. It might well have been a misunderstanding, and it might have been resolved, but in the meantime, can I ask you to repeat what you did in regard to the Conservative delegates, and to decline to send the delegates chosen by the Labour party to the Council of Europe until the matter has been resolved?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He did sidle up to the Chair earlier to indicate that he had written to me about this matter, and I do not dispute that for one moment, but I have to say to him that I have not yet seen his email. It would be prudent for me to study it and to reflect carefully upon the matter and take advice before pronouncing on it. Of course I well remember the sequence of events to which he has referred. If memory serves me, it principally concerned Members from the governing party. In this instance, I think he is concerned about his own party’s delegation. I do not interfere in the choice of members of the delegation. That is not a matter for me. If memory serves me, however, I do have a responsibility to notify the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of the decision made here, and of course I would not wish to do anything that was procedurally improper. I will have to satisfy myself that what I am being asked or instructed to do is procedurally proper. I will not be sending any letter until I have so satisfied myself. I hope that that is helpful. Of course, in the pursuit of that duty, I will study the letter from the hon. Gentleman.

Wales Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

Constitutional change in Wales moves at a measured pace. It is 800 years since Wales last had the power to raise taxes. The Bill gives new dignity to our Parliament. For the first time in centuries, we have our own Parliament on the soil of our own country.

I would like to associate myself with the thanks offered by the Secretary of State for Wales. I thank my friends on the Opposition Benches from all parties, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who have been my constant companions. I find it something of an astonishment that I am here on the Bill; a lot has happened since First Reading. In spite of the little difficulties we may have had, the opposition presented by my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches has been robust and clear.

The Bill is, of course, a stage; it is not an ending or a full stop. We would like to go full speed ahead with the development of a separate Welsh Government with at least the powers of Scotland. That is not possible because there is a drag anchor coming from the Conservative party. I wish they would pull their anchor up and let the good ship Welsh Assembly sail free into clear waters. I am sure there are many on the Government Benches who think that the development of tax-raising powers in 800 years is a little too rushed, but we are going ahead now with the Parliament for Wales. It is not a means in itself and it is not there to build and institution or create politicians; it is there as the means to the end of creating laws that benefit the Welsh people and have that Welsh personality.

We do not claim to be superior to anyone else or any nation, but we do have a tradition of a compassion in society, of a kindness, of a subtlety, of a cleverness that is unique to the Welsh nation. It is there in its clearest forms in our arts and poetry. I was delighted, coming in today, to witness its continued flowering. A young woman I had never heard of before, Kizzy Crawford from Merthyr Tydfil, sang beautifully on the radio this morning. She does not just sing in English. She said, “It is much better when I do it in Welsh. I can say things in Welsh that I can’t say in English.”

The great Hungarian littérateur István Széchenyi asked: where is the nation? If we are looking for the personality of the nation, where is it? He said, “A nation lives in her language”—Mae cenedl yn byw yn ei haith. That is of great importance. What is so precious to us is the wisdom of our 1,000-year language: the subtlety and the humour that has come to us echoing down the centuries. It is our most precious gift, one that is treasured and practised in the Welsh Assembly.

If I can pray your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words in the language of heaven. It is a poem that celebrates the permanence of Wales, its language and spirit:

“Aros mae’r mynyddau mawr,

Rhuo trostynt mae y gwynt;

Clywir eto gyda’r wawr

G?n bugeiliaid megys cynt.

Eto tyf y llygad dydd

O gylch traed y graig a’r bryn…

Mae cenhedlaeth wedi mynd

A chenhedlaeith wedi dod.

Wedi oes dymhestiog hir

Alun Mabon mwy nid yw,

Ond mae’r heniaith yn y tir

A’r alawon hen yn fyw”.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will do the Hansard writers the great courtesy of providing them the text of that which he has just so eloquently read to the House.

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 30th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business.

You may be a tad surprised to see me in this position, Mr Speaker, because for the past 26 years I have been a Back Bencher by choice—not just my choice, but the choice of the past five leaders of my party. Today, however, I am here for very positive reasons, as part of a diversity project in my party at which we have done splendidly. There are now far more women on the Front Bench and in Parliament than ever before—although not enough—and far more ethnic minorities, but there is currently a total absence of octogenarians. I believe that my appointment to this post will be a trailblazer which will lead to an all-octogenarian shortlist in the party, and will make the wealth of experience and wisdom among my fellow octogenarians available to the House. It is important for us to have people here who can remember life before there was a health service.

I note that the Wales Bill will be back in the House on Tuesday, and I hope that the Leader of the House has abandoned his curmudgeonly attitude to it. He has dismissed the idea of allowing both the beautiful languages of the House to be spoken here. Speaking Welsh has the same status as spitting on the carpet: it constitutes disorderly behaviour. However, Welsh has been used in Committees of the House when they have been held in Wales, and, at nugatory cost, it could be used here. There is no reason to obstruct the will of most Welsh Labour Members, and Conservative Members as well. A number of Conservative and Labour Front Benchers are now Welsh-speaking. It is a sign of the great health of the language. It is marvellous to recall that Welsh was an ancient sophisticated language centuries before English existed. In fact it was spoken, as was Gaelic, at the time when the ancestors of those who created English were pagan barbarians who painted themselves blue with woad and howled at the moon from the top of mountains. This really must be taken seriously.

There are also lessons from the football field about leaving Europe that the Government would do well to heed. The English team Brexited swiftly and ignominiously; Wales remain, with honour. I appeal to the Leader of the House for his party not to dismiss the very sensible idea of having a second referendum, which is supported by one of the candidates in his party’s leadership election. There are good precedents for this in the EU, which has a splendid tradition of keeping voting until you reach the right decision. It happened in Denmark and two other countries where they held a referendum and a year later reversed the decision. The reason is that people voted on false agendas. Where is the £365 million for the health service? Where is the emergency Budget?

The public are rightly outraged by the mistruths they were told by the propagandists on both sides. It is not a surprise that we have a petition of historic dimensions—as big as the petitions of the Chartists and suffragettes—put before this House. There are 4 million signatures and counting, of people who say they were deceived by the vote—by the propaganda—and which was largely determined by the proprietors of the daily newspapers, rather than by a sensible realisation of the horrors to come. So it is quite reasonable that, after the issue has settled down and when a new alternative comes along—we have been told it will take five years—the public should have the right to have their views considered.

It is timely now to look at the role of the independent adviser on ministerial interests. This man is virtually unemployed. He has looked at only one case in the past five years, and that involved a baroness who confessed to a minor misdemeanour. There have been six other cases since that have not been reported to the adviser because the only person who can report them is the Prime Minister. Two of them occurred a year ago and involved the Cabinet Office Ministers who gave £3 million to Kids Company in spite of the published advice of civil servants not to do it. Kids Company went bankrupt three days later. That is surely a matter to be considered by the adviser.

Another far more serious matter is of current concern. Some five years ago a Secretary of State for Defence stood down and the then adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Philip Mawer, recommended that the case should be heard by him. The Prime Minister decided it should not be, and the Minister involved achieved absolution by resignation. He left the job and nobody knows what he did—what was so serious that he had to leave office. The problem is that that person is now offering himself not only as leader of the Conservative party, but as Prime Minister, and it is a matter of concern to all of us that we know what happened and why he left that job. The first question one would ask anyone applying for a new job, particularly one as Prime Minister, is “Why did you leave your last job?” and we do not know.

Next week is going to be dominated by one event: the publication of the Chilcot report. The Prime Minister gave no information about that yesterday in his answer to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). We must remember, as the report comes out, that Parliament is on trial. It was not just one man; it was hundreds of MPs, three Select Committees of this House, the military and the press who were in favour of joining a war in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Those who saw the very moving programme on BBC2 featuring Reg Keys will understand the true cost of war. For the last seven years, he has not been able to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an immensely experienced parliamentarian, and I know that he is just beginning his apprenticeship in this role. I always enjoy listening to him because he speaks with great experience and huge passion, but let me gently say to him that he has exceeded his time. It is his first time at the Box, and I do not wish to cut him off, but he must now bring his remarks to a conclusion, maybe with a couple of pithy questions. Then we will have had our dose for today.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker.

My question is: what is the programme that will allow the loved ones of the 179 soldiers who died to have an opportunity to present their case? We know that those who are likely to be accused by the Chilcot report have already employed lawyers to go over their defences. We want to ensure that Parliament takes responsibility for a decision taken in this place in 2003 that resulted in the deaths of 179 of our brave soldiers, probably in vain, and the deaths of an uncounted number of other people. Chilcot must be debated fairly. What are the arrangements for doing that?

Trade Union Bill (Discussions)

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) who asked this urgent question speaks passionately on behalf of his own union, which is the general and municipal union of Brexit bigots. [Hon. Members: “Order!”] It is extraordinary that he asked for the adviser on ministerial interests to be woken from his slumber—that adviser has been virtually unemployed since he was appointed, after the previous holder of the office, Sir Philip Mawer, resigned because he believed that he should have been called in to investigate the conduct of the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who gained absolution through resignation. As Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, why on earth is the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex not demanding an inquiry into the two Ministers who gave £3 million to Kids Company in the face of advice from civil servants, three days before it collapsed? It is because the office of the adviser has been degraded and politicised. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Calm down. Calm. The benefit of yoga, even for Ministers, should not be underestimated. Let me intercede briefly because there were calls of “Order” when the hon. Gentleman used a word about Members on the Government Back Benches. I did not intervene because I judge that to be a matter of taste. There is no imputation of dishonour and—I mean this in no unkind spirit—the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and other likeminded souls, are perfectly capable of looking after themselves. Their honour has not been impugned in any way, and that is why I did not intervene. The remark stands, and the Minister must reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister is entitled to his view, but I hope the House will not take offence if I say that I will judge whether a remark needs to be withdrawn. With great force and eloquence the Minister has offered his view, and I respect him for that, but we will leave it there.

[Paul Flynn]

But he hasn’t answered the question.

[Mr Speaker]

If I were to intervene on grounds of order every time a question is not answered, nothing else would ever happen in the Chamber.

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

A former Minister, who spoke from the Dispatch Box less than a year ago, is now employed by industry in China—presumably using his insider knowledge—whose firms are in competition with British firms. Some 70% of former senior civil servants who worked on income tax are now working in the tax avoidance industry. When can we debate the need to euthanise the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which should be a fierce Rottweiler watchdog, but which is nothing but a poodle without teeth or claws, bark or bite, and is totally and utterly useless?

[Mr Speaker]

I do wish the hon. Gentleman would learn to tell us what he really thinks.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 8 March my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) made a powerful speech in the Chamber which you described as “moving”. The most striking part of that speech was when she read out a list of the names of women who have died in the past year as a result of domestic violence. In 2009, after lists of those who had fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan had been read in this Chamber, a prohibition was introduced from the Chair so that Members would no longer be allowed to read out lists of the fallen. We are now in the strange position where it is permissible to read out the names of those who have died as a result of domestic violence, but it is prohibited to read out the names of those who have fallen in the service of this country. Will you reflect on this and perhaps introduce a rule that would allow Members to make the speeches that they desire to make, rather than those limited by conditions laid down from the Chair?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and, indeed, for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. I appreciate that he feels that there is inconsistency between the latitude allowed by the Chair to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) in the debate to mark International Women’s Day on 8 March and earlier rulings from the Chair on his own attempts to read out the names of members of the armed forces who had died in operations overseas. These are matters of judgment for the Chair, and my immediate response to him—I am happy to reflect upon it further—is that they are best approached on a case-by-case basis. My concern is that there should be reasonableness and balance in these matters. I do not think the House would receive it well if list reading became a very regular phenomenon or, indeed, if I may say so, a repetitive campaign tool. However, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that it is open to Members to seek my thoughts in advance on these matters if they have such an intention in mind. I will, if I may, leave it there for today. I appreciate his sincerity, and I hope he appreciates mine.

Vauxhall Bus Station

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to call in aid members of the royal family? I understood that it was forbidden under our house rules.

[Mr Speaker]

Ministers should certainly tread with great care in such territory. I think that the Minister was referring to a known public statement of the Prince of Wales, but I am sure that he was not seeking to invoke his support with reference to the future of the Vauxhall bus station. I am sure that he will disavow any such intention immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Catherine West. Not here.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The committee on the medical effects of air pollution estimates that 60,000 deaths a year occur in Britain because of the effects of air pollution. That is 20 times the number killed in all road traffic accidents. The Government state that they will not achieve their legal limit on nitrogen oxide pollutants until 2030. Is this not a disgraceful situation? What will the Government do to take on Volkswagen, which has been accused of causing 12,000 avoidable deaths in Britain alone by gross deception in relation to its vehicles? What is the Minister doing to accelerate the clean-up of NOx air pollution in this country?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As people will have noted, the hon. Gentleman is the source of his own salvation. He asks how he can set the record straight. With his usual pertinacity, he has just done that. Beyond that, his point of order reveals three things. First, he cares massively about prisons in Wellingborough. Secondly, he is a notable authority on the Victorian era. Thirdly, he does not like to miss an opportunity to put the boot into the BBC.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I raise a point of order that affects the rights of Back Benchers? On Friday, there were debates on two Bills. The first debate occupied three and a half hours. While every syllable in those speeches was, of course, in order, otherwise they would not have been allowed, some of the comments were peripheral to the subject and all the speeches would have been improved by abbreviation. It was an entirely non-controversial, unopposed Bill.

Sadly, the second Bill had only just over an hour allocated to it. It offered great advantages to patients and the health service, and was approved of by Members of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) moved the motion and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) gave a fine expert opinion on the benefits of the Bill. The only objection came from those on the Government Benches, who spoke on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. Sadly, three attempts at a closure motion were turned down. Although I understand that the Chair does not give reasons for such decisions, one observer suggested that they were turned down because of time. What we have here is the power of Back Benchers coming up against the fact that big pharma and big sugar have a throat hold on this Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but nobody has a throat hold on the Chair. I know that he would not suggest that for a moment. I would never be remotely apprehensive about a big pharmaceutical company, other big institutions, big people or people who think that they are big. They are not bigger than the authority that resides in the Chair, whether I am in the Chair or one of my illustrious deputies is performing the duties.

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. As new Members should know—if they do not know, they will come to discover it—he is the author of a well-thumbed tome entitled “How to be a Backbencher”. I am simply reminded that the Chair must always be zealously conscious of its duty to ensure the rights of Back Benchers as a whole. We will keep a beady eye on the length and relevance of speeches on such occasions, whether the hon. Gentleman is present or not.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

rose—

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will save the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute till last. I call Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, you ruled that you would seek consultation on the Prime Minister’s decision to take three long-serving, active and effective Conservative members off our delegation to the Council of Europe. Those members have now been removed—against their will, as I understand it—from the delegation. You said that you would consult on this and on their suggestion that Members of this House should consider the membership of the delegation. I have examined the proposed new membership of the delegation, and I am surprised to see that among the nominations is a Member of the other House who has twice appeared before its Standards Committee and been asked to make an apology to that House because of his links with lobbyists. Many of us would like to question the membership of the delegation on that basis. This could be a further reason why this should not simply be a matter for prime ministerial diktat. These people are representing Britain in Europe, and the membership of the delegation should be a matter that we can bring to this House so that MPs can debate it and vote on it.

[Mr Speaker]

I did indeed say yesterday, in response to a point of order on this matter, that I would reflect upon it. I have reflected upon it and I continue to do so. I also said to the House that it was my responsibility to be assured of the propriety of the process involved, but that it was not for the Chair to assess the merits or demerits of the individual prospective candidates for membership of the delegation. There may well be an opportunity for this matter to be considered by the House relatively shortly. I do not know that that will be the case, but it could be. In the meantime, I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that I have not sent the list of new proposed members of the delegation to the secretariat and that, pending possible consideration of the matter by the House, it seems prudent at this stage for me not to do so. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I simply wish to assure my right hon. Friend that I have seen absolutely no evidence of a desire in Government to stall this matter. Indeed, the Prime Minister has been as keen as anyone in this House, including the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), to see the report published, so there is no desire in the Government to slow it up. It has been a matter of frustration that it has taken so long, but it is outwith our control. I will certainly take back with me the point about an early statement.

[Paul Flynn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Committee that set up the Chilcot inquiry was the old Public Administration Committee under Tony Wright. At that time, there were misgivings about the form of the inquiry, and the suggestion was made that the inquiry should be run by Parliament directly, which would have been an entirely new form of inquiry. Would it not have been better if parliamentarians had had control of it? Furthermore, as we have had no explanation for the terrible loss of 179 lives in Iraq and for the Helmand incursion that resulted in 454 lives being lost when we believed that we would be going there without a shot being fired, can we have an assurance from Government that we will have no more talk about military interventions in the four-sided war in Syria before all those matters are reported on?

[Mr Speaker]

May I say to the hon. Gentleman who has taken advantage of this opportunity to make his point, which he has done with his usual alacrity, that a statement by Government to the House on this matter would afford a real opportunity for him to make his point not by point of order to me but by question to the Leader of the House? It would perhaps be an uncontroversial observation that, had there been a parliamentary Committee looking at this matter, it would not have been possible for it to do its work more slowly even if it had made a Herculean effort to do so. I say on behalf of the House, whether or not it concerns or perturbs Sir John, that he should be aware that there is a very real sense of anger and frustration across the whole House at what seems to be a substantial disservice that has been done. Perhaps we can leave it there for now, but I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) for first raising that matter and to other hon. and right hon. Members for underlining the strength of feeling across the House.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it. That said, I fear that my reply will be disappointing, although it has the advantage of being accurate. The timing of a consultation and the information that the Government provide to inform that consultation or in response to freedom of information requests are ultimately a matter for Ministers and not a matter on which the Chair can rule. That said, the hon. Gentleman has made his concern forcefully known and it is on the record. I feel sure that Ministers and the Patronage Secretary will have heard what he has to say. In answer to his inquiry on what more can be done, he is dexterous in the use of parliamentary devices and he knows that there are means by which matters can be brought to the attention of the House, particularly if he thinks that they are urgent or topical, if his continued pursuit of information is unavailing. I hope that that is helpful, and we will leave it there for now.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, we had the refreshing change of a Prime Minister’s Question Time that involved an exchange of opinions carried out in a respectful and quiet manner between two politicians. It was a wonderful antidote to the infantile bedlam we suffered for many years, which has done so much damage to the reputation of Members and this House. You have a responsibility in your role for the conduct of Prime Minister’s questions, so may we have an assurance that you will, as you did yesterday, allow generous time to that part of Prime Minister’s Question Time so that we do not go back to the chaos and damaging exchanges of the past?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and happen rather strongly to agree with him. For what it is worth, if colleagues are interested, I know from my pretty extensive visits around the country that it is clear that there is a divide at the Beltway, particularly between those who observe our proceedings and would be more than happy for there to be a fistfight as it would lead to a headline but are not remotely interested in the detail of scrutiny, and those who make up the mass of the public, who are interested in robust but respectful exchange of opinion between elected public servants. I am with the hon. Gentleman and I think the bulk of the public are, too, and those who took part in Prime Minister’s questions in that way yesterday. It is important that Back-Bench participation should be maximised, so we have to try to ensure that there is plenty of time for Back Benchers to put their questions and get their answers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is encouraged by what he witnessed yesterday and by what he has heard from me today.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This concerns the deteriorating character of Prime Minister’s Question Time, which is doing so much damage to the reputation of the House and the reputation of politics.

Last week the Prime Minister asked the acting Leader of the Opposition four questions, almost more than she asked him. Just before the end of the last Parliament, he answered a question by raising nine issues none of which was the subject of the question asked. Prime Minister’s Question Time is becoming an exchange of crude insults and non-answers. As you know, Mr Speaker, I have written to the Prime Minister suggesting that he depoliticise the situation by convening all the party leaders with the aim of reinventing Question Time by giving it a format that would be dignified, still robust, but acceptable outside.

Might it not be a good idea to change the name of Prime Minister’s questions to Prime Minister’s answers, so that at least the Prime Minister would get the point? When he last answered a question from me, he handed the conduct of this matter over to you, suggesting that you take action.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As the House will be aware, my responsibility is to try to keep or, as necessary, restore order. I have no responsibility for the content of either questions or answers.

I do not mind saying to the hon. Gentleman what he may know in any case: that I have, on a previous occasion, written to the party leaders to make the case for a cultural change in the manner in which Prime Minister’s questions are conducted, and I received positive replies from them. The start of a Parliament might seem an auspicious time to try to bring about meaningful change, and I think it would be to the advantage of the House if Members were to take account of, and accord weight to, the very widespread public disapproval of the way in which the proceedings are conducted.

One method of dealing with the matter would be the convening of all-party talks, but that is not for me to do. I would smile on it, but it is not for me to lead. An alternative method might be to ask the Procedure Committee of the House, under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), to consider the way in which matters are handled, and to suggest either a continuation of the status quo or reform options. I think that is all that I can reasonably be expected to say on the matter today.

Undercover Policing

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In response to the hon. Gentleman, I do not feel there is anything more I can add. There is a sense in which his point of order contains a rhetorical question. He has aired his concern, which is widely shared. I am not in a position to allay that concern today, but it is very clear that it is a concern that I share 100% from the Chair on behalf of the House. This matter will not go away.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are pressing reasons why this point of order has to be taken now; it is one I raise with great reluctance. I overheard, as did several others, an hon. Member saying that he had been instructed by a Deputy Speaker on speaking in the later procedure debate, including on what kind of speech to make. May we ask that whoever is due to chair that debate is asked whether there is any truth in the claim made by the hon. Member, in order to ensure that the impartiality of the Chair is preserved?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am not aware of those matters beyond what he has just said. Suffice it to say that I am in the Chair, and I am intending to remain in the Chair [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—today and, I hope, subsequently. I hope the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly esteem, will not doubt my competence or fairness in chairing such proceedings of the House as take place today. I am not going anywhere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note that a Lancastrian Whip blurted out what might be described as a competitive chant when the right hon. Gentleman was hailing the merits of Yorkshire, but I will not draw any further attention to the matter.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

17. What support his Department plans to provide to the development of the proposed tidal lagoon project near Newport.

Point of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suggest that to enhance the reputation of this House, we should send the Prime Minister and his Ministers on a seminar to teach them the precise meanings of the words “question” and “answer” and the need for a link between the two. Today’s spectacle was the worst ever, as the answers from the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition had no connection whatever with the questions. If we cannot improve Prime Minister’s questions, would it not be better to abolish them in the next Parliament, because they bring this House into further disrepute by providing a demeaning spectacle?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He has made his point with his usual force and alacrity, and it will be reported in Hansard tomorrow. As he will appreciate, I will have to leave it there. We will come to the ten-minute rule motion when Mr Pound has toddled out of the way; we are grateful to him for doing so. Other Members who are engaging in earnest discussions will, I am sure, wish to give the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) whose ten-minute rule Bill it is the chance to speak to it.

Members’ Paid Directorships and Consultancies

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that the declaration should be made where it does not impede the progress of debate, and it should certainly not impair the decorum of the debate. [Interruption.] Order. Members can study the matter, which is treated of in some detail in “Erskine May”. The House would be the first to complain, and rightly so, if I were to read out what is in “Erskine May”. I do not do that. I do not need to do that. Members should apprise themselves of what is said in “Erskine May” on the matter and judge their actions accordingly, which I know the hon. Gentleman, in particular, is extremely adept at doing. I suggest that others could usefully follow his example.

[Paul Flynn]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Very briefly, would it not solve the problem, and be in the spirit of “Erskine May”, if Members gave us not a long catalogue of interests, but an approximate total of the money they receive from them every year?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of this House. He has made his point, and I think that he has done so with a puckish grin. He knows that I do not need to rule upon it.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A distinguished former British ambassador to Afghanistan said yesterday of our conduct of that war that it was

“a massive act of collective self-deception”

by politicians and generals. We must recall that 453 brave British soldiers lost their lives in that war. A major inquiry was promised by the Leader of the House into the war and into why we went into Helmand in the belief that not a shot would be fired. Is it not essential that we should hold that inquiry before we contemplate sending more British soldiers to risk their lives in foreign lands?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a wily operator if ever there was one. I think he knows that his question was directed not at me but at the Secretary of State for Defence and at tomorrow’s Official Report. In that respect, he has achieved his objective. He has made his point and it will be recorded; it has also been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

Point of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. To ensure that the House was not inadvertently misled, may I put it on the record that the BBC, The Telegraph and The Times have reported that on a visit to Camp Bastion, on 16 December 2013, the Prime Minister, talking about the Afghan war, described it as “mission accomplished”?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, through a point of order, has put the facts, as he understands them, on the record.

Ukraine (Flight MH17) and Gaza

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As we are fortunate to have the Prime Minister with us, and as the summer recess is approaching, which means this might be the last occasion upon which he is with us before the House rises, I am keen to accommodate the interest of colleagues, but if I am to have any serious chance of doing so, I will require brevity. Perhaps the textbook example can be provided by the author of “How to be a Backbencher”, Mr Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister use the Newport NATO summit to galvanise the new-found unity of NATO states to act strongly against the belligerence of Putin?

[The Prime Minister]

It is good that the NATO summit will be held in Newport. I think that the opportunity to demonstrate the unity of NATO, and indeed its original purpose, which was to provide collective security, could not have come at a better time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is quite a lot of noise. Let us have a bit of courteous attention to a Member of 27 years standing, Mr Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T3. The Newport NATO summit is likely to be an event of great political significance. What work is the Secretary of State doing in her Department to ensure that the important issues of international development are prominent on the agenda?

Energy Prices

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius. I know that I do not have to translate those words for your benefit, Mr Speaker, nor for the beneficiaries of comprehensive education in good Catholic authorities or the papal knights on the Opposition Benches, but perhaps I should explain for the victims of the public school system on the Government Benches that those words, which came into my mind while the Secretary of State was speaking, of course mean: “Those whom the gods intend to destroy, they first make mad.”

The Secretary of State went to great lengths to shut me up. I tried with great difficulty to intervene on him, but he chose seven others and left me speechless. What terrible things can I have been saying that have alarmed him so much? I should perhaps warn my friends on the Opposition Front Bench that what I say might cause a little trauma to them. It might be a good idea, if they want one, to go out and have a cup of tea.

I wish to make a very simple point about the future cost of electricity. Incredibly, and almost without public controversy, we have done an extraordinary deal with money from China that will not do much for our energy security. We have done another deal with a corporation from France. Those are the countries that we will depend on for our energy security in future. That was the process for deciding on the Hinkley Point C power station.

The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is now the Secretary of State, explained to his constituents in 2009 that he was against any nuclear power stations because they would cost taxpayers and consumers billions of pounds. I wonder if that is what he was afraid I would say. I am sure that his constituents would love to know, when they voted for him thinking that they would get a nuclear-free future, why they now find—possibly because of the lure of the red box—that he has changed his mind. I would like to know why, and perhaps he can explain that. The Liberal Democrat party is in a sorry state, and the gods are certainly sending a message, in the European elections and elsewhere, about its imminent extinction in the political fold. It is about time he forgot the lure of high office and returned to his anti-nuclear roots.

The European Commission is looking at Hinkley Point, and I hope that the Commission will do the right thing and say that the £17.6 billion subsidy that the power station receives puts it wildly in conflict with competition rules. For those of us with long memories—one can forget about things after four years—the Liberal Democrats agreed in 2010 that there would be no subsidies on nuclear power. I suppose that £17.6 billion is a trivial matter that is not worth considering.

We have got into an extraordinary deal whereby we have agreed to pay EDF £92.50 per MWh, which is three times what it charges its French customers and twice the going rate for electricity. Not only that, but we have guaranteed that price for the next 35 years. It is scarcely believable. We have even paid to insure EDF against any potential reduction in prices. The deal is wonderful for the French, and French newspapers have praised it, saying that it would mean 15,000 new jobs—not in Britain, but in France. No explanation for the situation has ever come forward. The Government are closing their eyes and hoping that they can just carry on.

What is the story of the success of nuclear power in recent years in Europe? Two new power stations have been built. One, in Finland, should have been generating electricity in 2009, so it is five years late and €4 billion over budget. The other, at Flamanville in Northern France, is in a similar state. There is an atrocious record of nuclear power that is never delivered on time or on budget.

We also have the chilling lesson of Fukushima, which is where we come into really serious money. The compensation that is thought to have been paid for Fukushima is £250 billion. In addition, as the Germans and many other European countries have realised, the anxiety that is created by being a neighbour to a nuclear power station is simply not worth it.

I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said about proceeding with the tide as a power source—an immense cliff of water that goes up and down the Severn estuary twice a day—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is sitting in a diagonally opposite position to his usual preferred berth.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T14. It is difficult to hit a moving target, Mr Speaker. There are enormous variations in the numbers registered by electoral registration officers: the best figure is in north Wales, where up to 97% of eligible voters are registered, but it is clear that some areas are not doing the same job. What will the Deputy Prime Minister do to encourage these English laggards to catch up with the splendid example set by Wales?

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I think we will take points of order after the Select Committee statement. That would be seemly, and I am sure that Members will be patient enough to wait for that opportunity.

Commonwealth Meeting and the Philippines

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s call for an inquiry into the terrible events in Sri Lanka would carry a great deal more weight if he had not obstructed the report on the Iraq war. The Chilcot inquiry demanded papers to reach a conclusion on why, 10 years ago, the House made a decision to join Bush’s war in Iraq, with the loss of 179 British lives.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is on a different ski slope altogether today.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Has the right hon. Gentleman finished? He has. I thank him and call Mr Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn]

It is a rare occasion when one feels that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has been disappointingly brief. [Laughter.] I cannot remember any similar occasion.

I rise with a sense of excitement about the Bill because anyone who speaks to it will go down in parliamentary history as partaking in one of the worst Bills that has ever appeared before the House. Students of the future will study this with amazement—to think that a Bill of this kind could ever be introduced. Speaking to the amendments is rather like trying to chromium-plate a pile of horse dung, imagining that we could improve it in any way.

I feel sympathetic, as was said from the Front Bench, towards the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who as the responsible Minister was given the gloomy task of introducing this Bill to our Select Committee in July, on the last day before we went off for the summer recess. She had a torrid time, trying to defend the indefensible. I said that I was sympathetic to her, given that she was sitting there, garlanded with an albatross of nonsense. I am delighted to know that she has given up and gone to spend more time with the truth, having escaped from the Front Bench. I wish her well in her future career; it could not have got worse. I am sure that when she was assailed by this blizzard of e-mails—not from just 10 or 20 charities, but from hundreds—she realised how damaging the Bill was. These amendments would go some way to improving it.

As was said earlier, we should see the wheeze. Of course no hon. Member behaves badly; nothing done in this House or the other place would be dishonourable. The whole purpose behind the Bill and why it was introduced was to address hints of a scandal. It was not yet established, but there was a fear that a scandal had taken place, involving the country of Fiji. The matter has still not been settled, but there was also an equally minor scandal involving a Member of the other place with respect to the Cayman Islands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just as I said for Mr Davies, Mr Flynn should be heard with courtesy.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the Prime Minister study the precise meaning of the word “question” and the precise meaning of the word “answer”, and consider the need for a link between the two following the record number of unanswered questions and pre-prepared party-political jibes last week at Question Time, which was a demeaning spectacle that shamed him and his office? Will he make a start by giving me an answer to this question that is both relevant and courteous?

Arms to Syria

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman was diverted —or allowed himself to be diverted—by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), but I know that he will now return specifically to the subject of a parliamentary vote on Syria.

[Paul Flynn]

The reason we need Parliament to be supreme, and not the Government acting under royal prerogative, is the bitter experience we have had. In 2003, this House was bribed, bullied and bamboozled into voting for the war in Iraq.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I thank him for it. We will leave that there for today.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In spite of your valiant and heroic efforts to improve the conduct in the Chamber and the standing of Parliament outside this place, we hit a new low today. Prime Minister’s Question Time was an unedifying spectacle of distortion, evasion and obfuscation. May I again suggest that you hold a seminar, especially for the Prime Minister, in order to explain the precise meaning of the words “question” and “answer”, and the need for a link between the two?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Today, it will suffice for me to say that I thought it was a very unedifying spectacle. It was as noisy as, if not more noisy than, I have ever known it. I ask right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, as I have done many times over the years, to give some thought to the way in which our proceedings are regarded by the people outside this House whose support we seek and whom we are here to represent. Frankly, the behaviour of a very large number of people was poor, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated. Rather than dwelling on it further today, let us aspire, and take steps at all levels, to ensure that it improves in subsequent weeks. That is a responsibility of every right hon. and hon. Member, from the person most recently arrived to the longest serving Member, and from those who serve in a Back-Bench capacity to those who serve at the highest level, either in government or in opposition.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has just deployed one of the options, which is to air the matter on the Floor of the House in the presence and earshot of the Deputy Leader of the House. He has described a regrettable sequence of events. He and other Members know that, from the Chair, I attach great importance to timely and substantive replies to questions to Ministers. In this case, such a reply has clearly not been forthcoming. I hope that that point will speedily be communicated to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude). He or a member of his team should furnish the hon. Gentleman with the information that is required sooner rather than later.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the third point of order about Members trying to bring the Executive to account. There were stories in this morning’s paper that, contrary to the coalition agreement, large subsidies will be paid to the nuclear industry. There is a motion after the ten-minute rule Bill entitled “Financial Assistance to Industry” on which there can be no debate. On making inquiries, I found out that the matter was discussed upstairs. The information available to me is only that the sum is up to £20 million. I can find no details on whether that money will go to the nuclear industry. Is it appropriate that this matter should come before us if it is not possible for Members to discover what precisely it is about or to air our objection that it is anti-democratic and contrary to the coalition agreement?

[Mr Speaker]

During the next 10 minutes while the ten-minute rule motion is discussed, the hon. Gentleman may wish to avail himself of the opportunity to read the verbatim text of the debate on that matter in Standing Committee. If that does not satisfy him—I am not an optimist in these matters so far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned—he may wish to return to the matter. Whether it was a Standing Committee of which one needed to be a member to contribute, I do not know. If he was not a member of the Committee, I am saddened for him. I cannot offer any compensation for him today, but knowing the hon. Gentleman, he will return to this matter just as predictably as a dog to his bone. We will hear from him on these matters ere long. I know that that is not satisfactory, but that is the best that I can offer him on this, the last day before the Easter recess. If there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule motion. This is the hon. Gentleman’s opportunity to do his reading.

Afghanistan

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Foreign Secretary is as courteous a member of the Cabinet and as fine a parliamentarian as it is possible to find. He cannot be accused of excluding from his answers any matter that could conceivably be of material relevance to any hon. or right hon. Member. I am hoping, however, that we can wrap up this debate by midday, as 37 Members wish to speak in the Budget debate.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I thank and congratulate the Government and the staff at Brize Norton on the very sensitively conceived new facility for receiving the fallen from Afghanistan and on providing some consolation to their loved ones.

Frederick and Kimberly Kagan were at the right hand of General Petraeus during his time in Afghanistan, and they had access to all the secret documents and secret meetings. They were employed not by the Government, the military or Petraeus, but by the defence contractors, who were thought to be hugely influential. As our policy is tied to American policy, should we not look at the influence of defence contractors in prolonging existing wars and fomenting new ones?

Point of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the advice you gave on Monday about the nature of oral questions and oral answers, and the need for us to rebuild public confidence in politicians, will you do what the Leader of the House has refused to do, and arrange a seminar to explain to Ministers the precise meaning of the word “question”, the precise meaning of the word “answer”, and the need for a link between the two?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman makes an ingenious suggestion, but it is not one to be taken forward by the Chair. However, it might constitute an additional paragraph in the next edition of the well-thumbed tome, which he penned, “How to be an MP”, with specific reference to the discharge of Back-Bench duties. I look forward to acquiring in due course my copy of that volume.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for notice of it. The content of answers is not a matter of order for the Chair, and neither is inconsistency in the way Ministers reply to similar questions. If the hon. Lady is dissatisfied with the answers she has received, she should draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee. Moreover, I add in passing that without regard to the particulars of the case, with which I cannot be expected to be familiar, I have considerable sympathy for the hon. Lady in so far as she is aggrieved by the tendency of some Departments simply to refer right hon. or hon. Members to a website. That is often unavailing, and the intention of Ministers should be to help Members in pursuit of their parliamentary duties. In the best cases, that is what happens, but it ought to be the norm.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a great shock this morning to hear for the first time that the cost of maintaining nuclear waste in this country is an astonishing £67.5 billion. Last Thursday, I asked a question about another possible subsidy of £30 billion, but the Minister mysteriously concentrated on my attitude to the monarchy in his reply and did not mention the cost. Have you had any approach, Mr Speaker, from that Minister or any other Minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, to explain how in a time of austerity we can spend tens of billions of pounds on one energy source?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I have received no such indication that a Minister is planning to come to the House to speak on those matters. The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue his interests further in subsequent questions, in so far as he thinks he has not already done so to his satisfaction, and that of others, through the ruse of an attempted point of order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T5. In 1976, the Flowers commission said that it would be irresponsible to proceed with generating electricity from nuclear power without a policy on the disposal of waste. The policy then was to dig a hole and bury the waste in it. The policy now is to do the same thing, but we no longer have a hole since Cumbria county council turned down the planning permission yesterday. Will this preposterous buffoon of a Minister of State try to answer one question and say whether it is still irresponsible to proceed without a solution to deal with the waste?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman should withdraw the expression “preposterous buffoon”—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman has a very wide vocabulary and should use an alternative expression.

[Paul Flynn]

I will pull those words and refer instead to this Minister who has failed to answer any question today and has demonstrated his incompetence.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I think I can offer the hon. Gentleman the comfort and assurance he seeks. I am grateful for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. I listened carefully to the exchanges in Prime Minister’s questions and I did not think that they offended against our rule against the use of the sovereign’s name to influence debate. I took the question to be primarily a factual one which, as “Erskine May” notes on page 441, is perfectly orderly.

When the House comes to debate the Succession to the Crown Bill, the Chair will be alert to ensure that the guidance on using the name of the Queen or the names of other members of the royal family to influence debate, which is indeed set out on page 440 of “Erskine May”, is borne carefully in mind. The question of Queen’s consent is a separate matter. Page 2430 of the Order Paper on the House’s future business notes that consent is to be signified before the House embarks on the Second Reading debate. That is a technical issue when the Queen’s prerogative or interest may be thought to be engaged in a proposed measure. It simply confirms that the House has the freedom to legislate as it sees fit; it does not in any way convey the personal view of the sovereign.

I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that on two occasions, the names of the fallen in Afghanistan were not announced at Prime Minister’s Question Time, but were announced publicly on a Wednesday and a Tuesday. After protests from the House, the practice of announcing the names at Prime Minister’s Question Time was restored. You may have noticed today that the name of the soldier who was tragically killed recently in Afghanistan was not announced at Prime Minister’s Question Time. There may be a good reason for that, but the press states that the family have been informed. Will you ensure that this practice is resumed, so that we can be reminded of the true cost of war?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I did not have notice of his point of order, although I make no complaint about that. I do not claim to be entirely sighted on the subject. To my knowledge, the name has not been publicly disclosed. That is one possible explanation. His wider point, to which he and others attach great importance, was made forcefully and I hope that it will be noted in the appropriate quarters.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think my response to the hon. Gentleman is substantively the same as my response to the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright). It is a review document—I do not wish to disappoint the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), but I have not yet read it and I have no immediate plans to do so—but if there are substantive new policy announcements flowing from it, of course Ministers must make them to the House. We will leave it there for the time being. The hon. Gentleman has that cheeky grin on his face which suggests to me that he knows that he was slightly pushing his luck.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Only about once every two or three centuries does this House consider the supremely important matter of the succession of the Head of State. The Government propose to rush the Bill through both Houses in a single day, so it will not be possible to have a proper debate on the new clauses and amendments. The anxiety about this matter is not confined to commoners.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman tells me, but I know that he will appreciate that the programme motion for such matters is not a matter for me. He may be very genuinely concerned about the length of time available for debate on these issues and his concerns will have been heard, but, to put it bluntly, there is nothing I can do about it now and I am not sure that there is anything I can do about it at any stage. However, he has vented his displeasure and I hope that that at least gives him some satisfaction.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week’s elections for police and crime commissioners had two remarkable characteristics that should concern the House. On the one hand, they had the lowest participation in any national election ever, and on the other hand, they had the highest number of rejected, spoilt ballot papers ever, when 120,000 people who thought themselves disfranchised wrote powerful, vigorous and emphatic messages on their ballot papers. Should not those messages be sampled and reported to this House?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that neither turnout nor the number of spoiled ballot papers is in any way a matter for the Chair. It does not constitute a matter of order, and I would not want the hon. Gentleman, who is an extremely dextrous and experienced parliamentarian, to get those who are about to become new Members into bad habits at an excessively early stage. He has made his own point in his own way and will find ways to persevere with this matter if he so wishes.

Afghanistan (NATO Strategy)

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The role of our brave soldiers at the moment is to act as human shields for Ministers’ reputations. The danger to our soldiers has been prolonged by those on the Front Bench who have the power to stop it. Other countries have removed their soldiers from this dangerous area, and they are not doing what we are doing, which is arming and training our future enemy. Is this not similar to the end of the first world war, when it was said that politicians lied and soldiers died, and the reality was, as it is now, that our brave soldier lions were being led by ministerial donkeys?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I noted what the hon. Gentleman said, but may I ask him to make it clear that he is not suggesting that any Minister is lying to the House of Commons? It would be helpful if he made that clear.

[Paul Flynn]

That is precisely what I am saying. I believe that we have had lies from the Minister, and I believe that our soldiers have been let down, and they—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry. I asked the question because I wanted clarification, but I am afraid that it is not acceptable for any hon. or right hon. Member to accuse another Member of lying to the House. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, but I insist on retaining my accusation of lying. That is far more important than allowing a group of people to send our soldiers to die in vain in a war from which we should withdraw and from which the country wants us to withdraw. I accept the consequences of what I am saying.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the ruling of the Chair, and in so doing he is behaving, whatever his motives, in a grossly disorderly manner. In those circumstances, I am obliged to name Mr Paul Flynn, the hon. Member for Newport West. Under the power given to me, I name him, and I ask that the appropriate course is now taken by the Deputy Leader of the House.

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), was named by the Speaker for grossly disorderly conduct (Standing Order No. 43).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44), That Paul Flynn be suspended from the service of the House.—(Tom Brake.)

Question agreed to.

The Speaker directed Paul Flynn to withdraw from the House, and the Member withdrew accordingly.

Exam Reform

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Was the hon. Gentleman present at the start of the statement?

[Paul Flynn]

I was sitting elsewhere.

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on learning his Welsh lesson, even if he has proved himself a rather slow learner? My constituents can enjoy the benefits of the Welsh baccalaureate now, rather than wait until 2017. Will the Secretary of State learn another lesson from Wales by studying what happened with Leighton Andrews’s decision to award fair results to those who were cheated by the mismarking in the English exams?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, but it is not one immediately for the Chair. I advise him to contact either the Administration Committee or the Finance and Services Committee, and if he is unsure and genuinely hesitating about which of the two should be his preference, he could always be bold and write to both.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the exchanges earlier about Afghanistan, reference was made to the three soldiers who have died since last Thursday. I believe it appropriate that the House also remembers the others who have died in the past few years. They are: Guardsman Jamie Shadrake, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 20, from Wrexham; Lance Corporal Matthew David Smith, Corps of Royal Engineers, aged 26, from Aldershot; Lieutenant Andrew Robert Chesterman, 3rd Battalion the Rifles, aged 26, from Guildford; Warrant Officer Class 2 Leonard Perran Thomas, Royal Corps of Signals, from Cardiff; Craig Andrew Roderick, 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards, aged 22; Guardsman Apete Saunikalou Ratumaiyale Tuisovurua—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is with some reluctance that I interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he will understand that I cannot know how long is the list that he plans to read out. I want to say politely to him—because he deserves this response—that I have not forgotten the exchange that he and I had on, I think, the first or second day back in September, when he raised with me his view that there should be a formal oral recording, periodically, of lives lost, and asked me to look into the matter. I said that I would, and I am doing so, and I think it wise to proceed on the basis of consultation. I intend to speak very soon to the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and various others about the matter, and then to revert to the hon. Gentleman. I intend him absolutely no discourtesy, and naturally I intend no discourtesy to the deceased whose names he was planning to read out, and I hope that in return he will do me the courtesy of allowing me briefly but properly to reflect on how to take this matter forward. If he would be good enough to leave it there for the day, his generosity of spirit would once again have got the better of him.

[Paul Flynn]

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that I have in the past read out the names of the 179 men and women who died in the Iraq war and the names of more than 200 of those who have died in the Afghan war. By a deliberate decision, this is now banned in the House, and the only protest that I can make against that attempt to disregard and show a lack of respect for the fallen is to continue reading out this list, until we reach an obvious conclusion—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to take his seat? I note what he has said, but I say to him and the House that I intend no discourtesy to anybody. In all fairness, we cannot make policy on the hoof. I understand his impatience for what he regards as a satisfactory resolution of this matter, and I hope that such a resolution, in whatever form, can be achieved. Meanwhile, however, we have to operate in accordance with some norms and practices, one of which is acceptance of the decisions of the Chair. I was happy to let him proceed for a short period and to read out some names, and he has done that, but it would not be right today to have a long list read out, without regard to what decision the House might reach. I shall reflect and consult on the matter, and I undertake to him, in full view of the House, to return to him and the House very soon. I hope that that is fair for today.

[Paul Flynn]

I accept that ruling.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his forbearance and courtesy.

If there are no further points of order—surely the appetite has now been exhausted—we come now to the main business.

Point of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I raise, with some embarrassment, something that I believe is a genuine point of order? It concerns recording the names and paying tribute to those who have fallen in Afghanistan. You may have noticed, Mr Speaker, that 13 pages of the Notices of Motions paper list the names of those who sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan. Under the recent rules of the House, it is impossible to read out that list in the House. It would now take a long time—about 30 minutes—to record, with decent pauses between the names, the entire list of 425 brave soldiers who have given their lives. Could we consider, on at least one occasion of the year, paying our tribute in that way so that we can see, by hearing each name, the true cost of a war that has become a mission impossible?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a serious point that warrants serious consideration. I hope he will understand that, rather than give a knee-jerk response now, I say to him that I have heard and that I will respond to him in writing.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These matters will be the subject of debate later today. If I did not know the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) as well as I do, I would think that he was trying to use the device of a contrived point of order to continue the debate, but because I know him as well as I do, he can take it from me that I know he would not be guilty of such unworthy conduct.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask you to consider the situation that exists because the Backbench Business Committee has only one slot to allocate and had nine applications? One of those applications was for a motion asking Parliament to follow the example of the decisions in Australia, Canada and the Netherlands to withdraw troops from Afghanistan independently. Is it not a shame that procedure is preventing this Parliament from taking the decision to act independently to withdraw our troops from a conflict that very few people now believe in?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a wily and mature bird of a very distinct pedigree, and he has penned a book, recently updated and republished, on how to be an MP and how to operate as a Back Bencher. It is a much-thumbed tome, and he uses every device to get his concerns across. That is what he has done. I say to him, though, that all sorts of things are a shame, a pity or regrettable, but sadly they are not matters for the Chair. I think he would like them to be, but unfortunately they are not. We will have to leave it there for today.

Party Funding

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the failure of one of his Secretaries of State to register a meal he had with the lobbyist Bell Pottinger this year on the basis that on the day in question he was digesting with his private stomach and not his ministerial stomach? Is not the distinction a false one? Nobody would give £250,000 for a social, private chat with the Prime Minister, but they would pay it if they were seeking access and influence.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Questions about registration are not matters for the Minister as responsibility for those lies elsewhere, but I wanted to hear the hon. Gentleman out. I do not think it is a matter for the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

If there is a new look at early-day motions, will the Deputy Leader of the House ensure that Members will not be deprived of one of the rare opportunities to criticise parliamentary answers? A recent EDM suggested that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), gave a parliamentary answer that reached a new low “in evasiveness and vacuity”, and recommends that in future Ministers should read the question before answering parliamentary questions.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure we are talking about these matters with reference to the scrutiny of legislation.

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As usual, there is a lot of interest. I am keen to accommodate that interest, but we do now require extreme brevity—not preamble, but short, single-sentence questions, please.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

As the person who perpetrated the terrible atrocities in Toulouse claims to be a former al-Qaeda bomber who escaped with 500 others from Kandahar prison with the collusion of Karzai and his army and jailers, may we now debate why we tell our brave soldiers to dismantle bombs? The only reason is so that the perpetrators can be identified and jailed. As that is now a futile occupation, because the perpetrators escape almost at will, should we not debate the issue now and allow our soldiers to destroy bombs at distance?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that sentence contained a lot of commas and semi-colons, but I do not recommend that it be imitated by other colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

An inquest is taking place this morning into the tragic death of 22-month-old Joshua Wakeham, who died after becoming entangled in a looped curtain cord. Sadly, such events are not rare; there were three in one month recently, and 360 in America in a 15-year period. Joshua’s mother has fairly asked why no one warned her of the danger. A campaign has been mounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) and other Members to expose the danger of those cords. Will the Minister agree to meet Joshua’s family, so that we can discuss the dangers and the need for an advertising campaign so that everyone knows about the 250 million such cords in this country?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It sounds as though that matter is strictly sub judice. The hon. Gentleman has been felicitous in the way he has worded his question, but I know that, in response, the Minister will want to focus on the broad issue, and possibly on a meeting, rather than on the details of a sub judice case.

Point of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir Christopher Kelly said at the Public Administration Committee this morning that the Prime Minister had “almost certainly” broken the ministerial code in not having an investigation into the conduct of the previous Secretary of State for Defence and Mr Adam Werritty. Instead, the probe was conducted by a senior civil servant. That view has also been expressed by the only enforcer of the ministerial code, Sir Philip Mawer, who has now resigned.

Do you think, Mr Speaker, that two investigations are now necessary—a legitimate investigation into the conduct of the previous Secretary of State and Mr Adam Werritty and an investigation into the conduct of the Prime Minister? As the Prime Minister is the only person who can authorise an investigation under the ministerial code, is it, perhaps, a matter for you in the Chair to consider whether action is needed on the allegations made by Sir Christopher Kelly?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and he never uses a word accidentally. I noticed in his attempted point of order his use of the word “perhaps”, which I suspect was surrounded on either side by an appropriate comma. My answer is no, it is not a matter for the Chair, and this is not a point of order for the Chair. We are considering a matter of Committee business on the one hand and, as I understand it, the ministerial code on the other. The latter, as he acknowledges, is supervised and overseen by, and the responsibility of, the Prime Minister. Whether that is satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman I cannot say, but it remains a fact. He has very effectively made his point for today, but it is not a point for me to respond to beyond what I have said.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for the content of his point of order, but for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. I remind him that a wise person said that there is no point in arguing about taste. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I am sure Dudley is beautiful to its own Member of Parliament. That the hon. Gentleman is a doughty and articulate exponent of that perceived beauty is no surprise to me, as this year marks 30 years since he and I first made each other’s acquaintance at the university of Essex. I am afraid that on the matter of the beauty or otherwise of Dudley, I have not yet had an opportunity to form my own judgment, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s prospective invitation and I would, of course, be inclined to accept it. I do not think expressions of aesthetic opinion fall within the rules of order unless those expressions of opinion concern another Member of the House.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman. I am saving him up. He is too precious. I do not want to waste him too early. I call Mr Chuka Umunna.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, of the content of which I did not have advance notice. I would certainly expect that if a significant policy announcement is to be made, a statement in one form or another—there are different forms of statement, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware—would first be made to the House. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that more widely than that I would be reluctant to go. I would want to observe how the Government conduct themselves and judge matters accordingly, but both the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House are aware of the premium that I attach not on my account, but on behalf of the House, to the House hearing and, preferably on very important matters, having the opportunity first to question Ministers. It is desirable that the House hears first, rather than audiences outside.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the areas of parliamentary life—the manners of this Chamber—that has improved in recent years is that it is now completely unacceptable for one Member to criticise another Member on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity or disability. The most under-represented group in this Parliament is the septuagenarians. Today we heard what I believe many of us thought was a gratuitous and entirely offensive insult to a greatly respected hon. Member, made entirely because of his age. Is it not right that ageist discriminatory remarks should be outlawed in the same way that other discriminatory remarks are?

Point of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Great progress has been made, principally as a result of your work, in ensuring that exchanges in this House at question times are briefer and pithier than previously, but there is one area of weakness. May I suggest that it might be a good idea if you organised a seminar for Ministers on the existence, purpose and use of the full stop?

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman. Self-knowledge would be a starter, and until such exists, I am not sure that the turnout would be quite what I might wish, but we will reflect on the matter, and I am grateful to him, as always.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 1st December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Denis MacShane. Not here.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State deny the outrageous claims that his own personal consumption of energy is about to be similar to that of a small town? Can he confirm for the House that he believes in leading the energy green crusade by example rather than just by exhortation?

Point of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 1st December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I take this first opportunity to express my regret that in my excitement at being called early in topical questions, I inadvertently referred to the Secretary of State instead of the Minister of State, thereby denying the Minister of State the opportunity to explain how his green crusade is not only one of exhortation but of example? I express my regret to both of them.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that very courteous clarification.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister is both well travelled and, as he has just shown, dextrous in his response to questions.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

May we assume from the Minister’s reply that the Government’s policy now is to encourage contacts with countries with records on human rights as despicable as that of Equatorial Guinea, and that hon. Members should accept private invitations for five-star business class visits paid for by the Governments?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T4. Even though a five-star dinner at the Savoy, which was paid for by the lobbyist Bell Pottinger, had in attendance at least one firm that had an application in with the Secretary of State’s Department, he says that he has no reason to register it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because that day he was eating not as a Minister but as a private person. If we are to have a robust, transparent system of lobbying, does he not think that that loophole needs to be closed, so that we do not have to guess on which days Members are eating privately and on which they are eating ministerially?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wanted to hear the question, but the registration of Members’ interests is undertaken by Members in their capacity as Members, rather than as Ministers. I suspect that there will be a correspondence or exchange subsequently, but that is my understanding of the position.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member with 27 years’ service in the House, so he will know better than most of his parliamentary colleagues that whether Ministers make statements—and if so, when—is a matter for Ministers, not the Chair. However, through making his point of order, he has made his point, which may possibly have been his intention.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I make it clear that the topical question that I asked earlier about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was about the ministerial code, which was altered last year, and which

“obliges ministers to declare all hospitality accepted in a ‘ministerial capacity’ and all meetings with external organisations”?

If that means that a Minister can decide, on an unknown basis, whether he is meeting someone in a ministerial or a personal capacity, it makes a nonsense of that alleged improvement.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and let me level with him: when he asked his question in DCLG questions, it was not clear to me—perhaps it should have been; perhaps the fault was mine—that the question was framed around the Minister acting in his ministerial capacity, with reference to the relevance of the ministerial code. It was because I thought as I did at the time that I ruled as I did. However, since then the hon. Gentleman has come along with, from my point of view, further and better information. I am grateful to him for explaining the point, and I hope he will accept my response in the spirit in which it is intended. It is always a dangerous enterprise to joust with somebody who has written a book about how to be a Back Bencher.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I will take it, and then respond to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

[Paul Flynn]

During business questions last week, the House was reminded of the promise the present Prime Minister made shortly before the election that the most serious threat to the reputation of the House—after MPs’ expenses—was the possibility of abuse of our procedures by big corporate lobbyists. Sadly, the Government have taken no action to ensure that some control is exercised over the affairs of lobbyists, and there is now abundant evidence that that is an urgent priority.

Weightman Report (Fukushima)

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

That was a very bad start. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present at a seminar organised by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in the summer, at which Dr Weightman was asked whether he was allowed to consider costs. He said no, his remit was not to consider costs, so I believe that the Secretary of State is entirely mistaken in what he has said here. We have in the report a statement of the fairly obvious—namely, that this country is not going to have the kind of tsunamis and earthquakes that they have in Japan. It does not contain a word about the reason for the rush from nuclear throughout the world, which is cost. That is the reason that Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Malaysia and Thailand have moved away from it, and the reason that companies such as Siemens have pulled out and that RWE is probably going to do so.

I am afraid that, from the start of the disaster, the Government have decided to cover up and to conceal, but the evidence is there. The Guardian published internal e-mails from Government Departments that showed that the Business and Energy Departments worked closely behind the scenes with the multinational corporations EDF, Areva and Westinghouse to try to ensure that the accident did not derail their plans for a new generation of nuclear stations in Britain. This is a quite disgraceful, scandalous collusion between the Government and those companies, which have a commercial interest in making large sums of money out of nuclear power.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman, lest he forget, that he is asking a question?

[Paul Flynn]

I would like the Secretary of State to comment on the veracity of this claim. The e-mails said that the scandal of the accident had

“the potential to set the nuclear industry back globally.”

They went on to say:

“We need to ensure the anti-nuclear chaps and chapesses do not gain ground on this.”

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a legitimate way for the Government to behave? They have ignored the costs, which is the real reason why nuclear should come to an end.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman of this statement:

“Nuclear is a tried, tested and failed technology and the government must stop putting time, effort and subsidies into this outdated industry.”

That is a quote with the Secretary of State’s fingerprints indelibly on it, and it was still there on his website this morning. He made another statement:

“Nuclear power is too expensive, too costly and we should not go down that road.”

That was before he was bewitched by the pied piper of nuclear power, when he was free to think and to tell the whole truth before his mouth was bandaged by the seals of his ministerial office. The country needs advice on the way forward and it needs consideration of the full implications, principally the cost that is making nuclear power unaffordable and uninsurable throughout the planet. We are not getting that. We should ask the Government to do their full job and present us with a report that is comprehensive and full.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the House and the nation now need an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is not an ordeal to listen to the Secretary of State—indeed, one might almost call it a leisure pursuit—but unfortunately, we have not the time on this occasion to do so uninterrupted.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the Government’s U-turn on shorter sentences, which could have led to a reduction in the prison population, mean that in future under the coalition, any Minister caught in possession of an intelligent idea is likely to be doomed to a brief unhappy ministerial career?

Nuclear Industry Safety

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will make a statement on the implications of the Weightman report. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

The Energy and Climate Change Secretary will answer the urgent question on behalf of the Government. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the Secretary of State the courtesy of a decent hearing.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that Ministers are responsible both for how they provide information, and for what information is, or is not, available to them. However, the hon. Gentleman has registered his point forcefully on the record.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to register my disappointment that the House has been denied the opportunity to thank and congratulate the Prime Minister on his reported decision to seek the withdrawal of 450 British troops from Afghanistan. That decision could be taken this month. It clearly suggests, first, a withdrawal from the Government’s over-optimism and, secondly, a determination to recognise the futility of the present operation and to bring our soldiers home to the safety of our shores.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s guileful if slightly inappropriate use of the point of order procedure to register his political point is further evidence of why he is the acclaimed author of a tome entitled, “How to be a Backbencher”.

Special Representative for International Trade and Investment

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. Interventions are getting longer; they need to get shorter.

[Paul Flynn]

This is the second part of the debate; the first part on 17 March was interrupted when I could not take the line that the hon. Gentleman urges me to take without transgressing the rules of the House. Those rules need to be changed.

Stephen Day, a former ambassador, talked about the ambassador in Doha as an example. His letter said:

“We have an excellent ambassador in Doha and Sheik Hamad is the most accessible of rulers, in person and on the telephone. To use such an intermediary strikes me as crassly inappropriate… Of course the Amirs and Sheikhs engage with trade and finance, but this is generally done privately through agents and associates, not by principals directly. To use”

an envoy

“for such a purpose is seen by Arabs as crude and unworthy of our historic connections. It is quite the wrong way to promote our interests in this important region of the world and the sooner we are seen to have re-learned how to engage with Arabs the better.”

That is what a greatly experienced ambassador says.

There is an argument for saying that the role is of great importance and has great potential to promote our industries and that many thousands of jobs depend on the relationships we have with other countries. Are we doing this the right way? There is powerful evidence from human rights organisations and from the former ambassador that we are not and that we are losing ground because of it.

Natasha Schmidt, assistant editor of the Index on Censorship, said people were angered by links between our trade envoy and President Aliyev of Azerbaijan, whose country is one of the most corrupt in the world. It routinely oppresses its own people and there are allegations involving torture of political opponents and rigged elections by Aliyev’s regime. There are also allegations by some of the employees of the agency of a close relationship with President Aliyev. Natascha Schmidt said:

“It is absolutely appalling that the envoy would have such close links with Aliyev, an authoritarian ruler who has shown himself to be completely intolerant to criticism and is an enemy of free speech”.

We live in an era of openness, transparency and scrutiny of appointments. A major advance is the system of pre-appointment hearings in the House, when someone going for a major job appears before a Select Committee to justify the appointment. That is wholly healthy and beneficial.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As Many Members were inexplicably absent at 4.30 this morning, they will have missed an important debate that drew attention to a great weakness in our role: we are able to heap praise on certain individuals, but we are forbidden the privilege of everyone outside the House to be critical of those individuals. Can you suggest a way in which we can ensure that that rule, which demeans the office of MP, is changed and we can enjoy the freedom of everyone outside the House to be critical of anyone when necessary?

[Mr Speaker]

Criticism of the kind and in the direction that the hon. Gentleman has in mind can always be made on a substantive motion. That is the specific solution to the problem that he has just identified. More widely, if he is concerned, as I know he is, about the current Standing Orders and seeks their reform, it is open to him to seek support for such a proposition across the House. I must leave it there for today.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As far as I am concerned, certainly for today, that concludes that matter.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As confidence in the safety of nuclear power has been shaken worldwide, and as no nuclear power station has ever been built on time or on budget, should not the House have an opportunity of considering the nature of the review, so that we can include costs and timetable in the likelihood of building new nuclear power stations in this country?

[Mr Speaker]

First, the hon. Gentleman may well choose to approach the Backbench Business Committee in pursuit of time to debate the issue. Secondly, I am reminded again by the efforts of the hon. Gentleman why he is the author of that well-thumbed tome, “How to be a Backbencher”. We will leave it there for today.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Lady knows—and as far as I am concerned, this is very fortunate—the content of ministerial statements or answers is not a matter for the Chair. If a Minister has made an incorrect statement, there is a procedure for setting the record straight, and that will be well known to all Members on the Treasury Bench. Meanwhile, the hon. Lady has put her concerns and her interpretation of the facts very clearly on the record, and that statement and interpretation will have been heard by Ministers.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a matter that is causing great concern within the country, but on which the Government are silent in this House: the alleged conduct of certain official representatives of this country who are cultivating friendships with some of the emergent tyrannies in the world, including Azerbaijan. Should we not also be debating in this House whether we choose our trade representatives on the principle of inheritance?

[Mr Speaker]

There is every opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter at business questions tomorrow, and he may well choose to do so. I have got a feeling that he will be hot-footing it to the salon, as the Leader of the House describes it, of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, who chairs the Backbench Business Committee, because I think the hon. Gentleman will probably be pursuing a debate on this matter in that Committee’s time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, I shall try to nudge him. What we want is an answer, not an essay.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Has the insight team considered an independent think tank’s judgment that the Government’s health reforms are like trying to resuscitate a corpse, which has not been done successfully since the time of Lazarus? How will the Government’s reforms help the nation when they are imposing chaos on the health service?

Point of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Twenty questions were called today at oral questions. Last Monday 23 questions were called. It is now commonplace at business questions for all those standing to be called; that was once a rarity. As there has been a huge increase in the past 12 months in the number of urgent questions, topical questions, oral questions and business questions that are dealt with, is it not right that we should ask the Procedure Committee to examine why that has happened and why Back Benchers’ opportunities for holding the Executive to account have been greatly multiplied, so that we can have a report, and so that we can ensure that this process continues and express our gratitude to the persons or person responsible?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is, of course, not a matter for me specifically to request the Procedure Committee to conduct an inquiry. It is entirely open to the hon. Gentleman who, as I have remarked before, is the author of a well-read tome on how to be a Back Bencher, to make that request of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). I note with interest and appreciation the observations that the hon. Gentleman has just made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 16th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

With reference to Harlow, England or both?

[Paul Flynn]

In order to inform myself of the effects of the green deal on Harlow, I researched a website this morning, which states:

“The nuclear industry’s key skill over the past half-century has not been generating electricity, but extracting lashings of taxpayers’ money.”

That was on the website of someone called Chris Huhne. Does this person have any connection with the Secretary of State? Has he sold his principles for a Red Box?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are widespread reports that the Government will adopt the policy, which seems completely anti-intellectual and irrational, of removing the obligation to have scientists advising the Government on drugs policy. The suggestion is that it will be scientists out, and bigots in. Is it not extraordinary that there has not been a statement in the House so that we might question the Government on that policy? Will you use your good offices to ensure that a statement is made tomorrow, when there is nothing of great significance on our agenda?

[Mr Speaker]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman overestimates my influence, although I am grateful to him for doing so. He has registered his concern forcefully and it will have been heard by senior Whips on the Treasury Bench. I have a feeling, knowing the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman, that he will return to this matter, and more than once.

Aviation Security Incident

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have been saving up the hon. Gentleman: I call Mr Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does this event not undermine the British Government’s justification for continuing to demand that our brave British soldiers continue to risk their lives in Afghanistan—that that keeps Afghanistan free of terrorist camps—and ignore the fact that the terrorist threat is not the Taliban but al-Qaeda, which is free to operate in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?

[Mrs May]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that this is not a zero-sum game: it is simply not the case that if we are able to take action against a group of terrorists in one place they just move somewhere else and we then deal with them there. In recent months and years we have seen the sources of terrorist threats become more diverse. Our troops have been doing a remarkable job in Afghanistan with great courage—great bravery—in order to ensure that al-Qaeda is unable to regain a foothold in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda is, however, starting to operate from other parts of the world; that is the diversity of the threat, rather than simply an alternative one. I therefore say to the hon. Gentleman that it is right that we commend the important and vital work our troops have been doing in Afghanistan, but we must also be aware of the al-Qaeda threat growing in other parts of the world.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is proving that he is fastidious to a fault, and what I can say by way of advice and assistance is that I feel sure that a quick visit to the Table Office will yield a benefit to him, not least if he seeks to table further questions, as I suspect perhaps he might.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is time that we investigated the appallingly vacuous answers that we are having to parliamentary questions. They are the worst answers I can remember in 25 years in this House. I will give just one example from last Wednesday, when I asked a question on the number of desertions from the Afghan army and police. That is a matter of great importance for our soldiers in Afghanistan, because our whole exit strategy is based on a strong army. The answer that appeared made no reference whatsoever to the substance of the question asked. This is becoming increasingly common. The Government seem to be systematically leaking on a more incontinent basis than any other previous Government, and they are not answering questions; they are now treating this Parliament with disrespect.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are informed by the media that the Government have been lobbied into spending vast sums on the nuclear industry, which has already dumped a £93 billion bill on taxpayers to clear up its waste, at the expense of developing tidal power, with all its immense potential. It is power that is clean, British and renewable, virtually for eternity. May we call the Minister to the House? We realise that he is embarrassed by his volte-face, but a decision of such magnitude, which will have spending commitments for decades, should be presented to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He is no stranger to getting his point across, if at all possible in prime time, and registering it in the Official Report. He has been successful in that objective. There is, I believe, a written ministerial statement today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I take the remainder of his comments in the spirit in which I think they were intended—as a contribution to the debate and a register for the benefit of his constituents of his trenchant views on the matter.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising what is undoubtedly an important point. Certainly these matters have been widely reported in the media and the House knows of my wish, oft-stated, that statements of Government policy should be made first to the House. At this stage, I do not know whether the briefing that has taken place falls into the category of briefing to the media in advance. However, I confidently expect—and I emphasise that point—that these matters will be before the House in the very near future, and I also underline that last point. That will both inform me and give the right hon. Gentleman and others the opportunity to explore these issues in greater detail. I hope that that is helpful to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a proposal to close the passport office in my constituency, with the possible loss of 300 jobs, which would leave Wales as the only country in the United Kingdom without its own regional passport office. I wrote to the Minister responsible about the matter in September. No word has come from any Minister—neither the Home Secretary nor the responsible Minister—yet a civil servant has presented the case and argued it to the press; indeed, they were actually present in my constituency this morning trying to justify it. As the convention in this House is that we do not attack civil servants, how can we go about ensuring that those Ministers responsible for this irrational and damaging suggestion come before the House to justify themselves?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this matter, and I am struck by it. I am not clear in my mind that it is a point of order, but it is certainly an important matter. He will know that the House has invited the Procedure Committee to consider how Government statements are made to the House. He could draw that example—and I suspect that he will—to the Committee’s attention. In addition, the Table Office will advise him on other opportunities to raise this important matter.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that there is anything disorderly at all at this stage, but if the right hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied by the absence of a reply to his letter, it is perfectly open to him to table questions to inquire when he can expect a reply. I have a feeling that that device, and possibly other parliamentary devices, will spring into the right hon. Gentleman’s fertile mind.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Prime Minister for restoring to its proper place the reading of the names of the fallen in Afghanistan? As you know, that has not happened in the past three weeks, and there was considerable unhappiness because the names were read out at other times. Can we look forward in future to the names of those who, sadly, will fall in the next few weeks being read out at a time of the maximum attendance of MPs and the maximum attention on the House from outside?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that I think that there is great merit in that proposition, which is in no sense a partisan or political one. If there is to be any change on this matter from what has happened this week or that, it is something that should usefully be discussed with the people who make these announcements. Rather than pronouncing upon that here, it would be better for me to talk to other people who are directly involved in these matters, and the upshot of any such discussion will become known to the hon. Gentleman sooner rather than later.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of the great reliance that has been placed on the Afghan army in order to build a stable state in Afghanistan. The Government have given much credence to that strategy. We have heard today the tragic news of the further deaths of, and injuries to, British soldiers, allegedly at the hands of a member of the Afghan police. We have heard further evidence that there is no loyalty in this mercenary force to its own President and country, and certainly not to foreign Governments. Given our exit strategy, should today’s tragic events not be marked by a statement in the House? Have you been approached by a Minister about making such a statement?

[Mr Speaker]

The appropriateness or otherwise of a statement is not a matter for me to decide. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that no Minister has given me any indication of an intention to make a statement. However, by virtue of using the device of a point of order, he has registered very clearly and on the record his views on this important matter, and I have a feeling it will have been heard here—and, indeed, in Newport.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I draw your attention to what appears to be a major defect in our procedures in the House? Our sister Parliaments in Canada and the Netherlands—countries that have made similar sacrifices to our country in blood and treasure in Afghanistan—have debated and voted on the deployment of troops to that country. Of course, our deployment took place in 2001, before the precedent was set, prior to the Iraq war, for a vote in the House before troops are deployed. At this turning point in our involvement in Afghanistan—the welcome announcement of our withdrawal of our soldiers from north Helmand and the announcement of a possible exit date—would it not be appropriate that we debate and actually vote to decide whether we want to continue to send our soldiers to Afghanistan?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is ingenious, but he knows very well that he is seeking to inveigle me into making what is essentially a political pronouncement, and I must not do that. He has made his point very clearly. How such matters are addressed is a matter for the House. In an earlier incarnation, I had views and expressed them on this matter; in my present role, I do not have views, and therefore will not express them. However, he has expressed his views very clearly, and I have a feeling that he might want to apprise his constituents of the fact of what he said.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for advance notice of it. First, I reiterate what I said yesterday—that, of course, statements to this House should be both timely and accurate. Secondly, I think it only fair to point out to him that matters relating to the content of statements are not matters for the Chair. Thirdly, he drew attention to the letter sent by the permanent secretary to the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls). He referred to that letter very specifically in a point of order to me last night. It is possible that he felt that it deserved a larger audience today, but Members can consult yesterday’s Hansard. I do not think it would be proper for me to add anything more, but the hon. Gentleman is certainly an enthusiastic pugilist.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The practice of reading out the names of the fallen is a welcome new tradition in the House, and is greatly appreciated by their loved ones. We know the special intense silence that greets such readings. Last Monday and today, the names of the fallen were read out as part of statements—on the G20 last Monday, and on extraordinary rendition today. I know that there is no Member in the House who would want to seem to downgrade the gratitude, appreciation and respect that we feel for those who have given their lives, but if we move the reading to another time, it could be interpreted as an attempt to bury bad news. Will you consider that, Mr Speaker, and make representations to ensure that the names of the fallen are read at the time of maximum attendance in the House, and at the time when the House receives maximum attention from outside?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I do not think that anyone would want to downgrade the significance of what has taken place, or the importance of informing the House of the details of those who have perished. The Prime Minister, on a number of different occasions and at different times of the week, has given the House such details, and I know that he has done so in all solemnity. I do not think it would be right for me to add anything further at this stage, but I am happy to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I know that others will do so as well.