Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Is the National Citizen Service not heading for that same graveyard of three-word prime ministerial gimmicks like back to basics, the third way, the citizens charter, the cones hotline and the big society?

[Mr Hurd]

Not for the first time, I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman. NSC is proving its value across communities. Many Opposition Members visited the programme over the summer and Opposition Front Benchers have nice words to say about it. We are determined to embed it in the youth sector and for it to be part of the landscape of programmes that try to help young people achieve their full potential. We are extremely proud of it. [Interruption.]

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

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

It is important that we are having the Committee stage of this Bill on the Floor of the House because we can, I hope, bring consensus to the matter. Lobbying affects Members on both sides of the House and affects all of us as constituency Members of Parliament, so it is important that we get the Bill right or there will have been little purpose to having it.

I rise to speak to my new clause 5. I have a deal of sympathy with amendments 9 and 48, which seek to capture some of the concerns that many of us have about making sure that the field of lobbying is fair and transparent and that the definition of “lobbying” captures all the activities that most people would recognise as such. The new clause refers to activities that any “reasonable person would assume” to be activities

“intended to have the effect”

of lobbying. That is important, because lobbying is a very subtle, even devious, art. Pressure can be brought to bear with a view to setting off a favourable reaction or having a desired effect. We have often heard the aphorism, “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings set off a tornado elsewhere?” A lobbyist would certainly hope that it does. We have heard about the subtle art of making sure that people are in the right place at the right time to catch somebody’s eye to have that casual conversation. As the Bill stands, none of this is captured, and I am very concerned about that. The public are rightly sceptical about why, despite campaigns and efforts by ordinary people, so many decisions seem to go the way of the big developer, the big money or the big organisation, while the little’s person’s voice gets lost. Many of us would believe that the answer is powerful, behind-the-scenes lobbying.

I hope that we can find a way forward through this morass of amendments, many of which seek to achieve the same thing. I do not hold mine so dear that I would not support somebody’s else’s if it brought greater clarity to the Bill, because that is what this Committee stage is about. I want to make sure that up-front lobbying by charities and organisations that are captured by the Bill and, indeed, logged on departmental websites, is seen as fine. We need to address the informal, behind-the-scenes lobbying over the cup of coffee, the glass of wine or the lunch. That is the lobbyist’s art. These connections may be made by people whose role is a lobbyist and who use personal and private connections to call in favours, gain access or put their point of view. Surely that is what people would hope a Bill such as this should be about, and I hope that it is what it will be about.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady, who is fair minded and independent, is making powerful points. Could she prevail on her Front-Bench colleagues, who have been garlanded with this albatross, to follow the advice of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, withdraw the Bill and introduce a sensible one? Otherwise this legislative atrocity may well go through the House and the Government will find this to be the signature Bill of the Tory “ineptocracy” that they are creating.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman makes partisan comments about a Tory Government rather than the coalition Government under whom I find myself serving, but his powerful point has been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.

The way in which things are hidden from public gaze —our gaze—is an issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

rose—

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

[Mr Allen]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend from the Select Committee.

[Paul Flynn]

I also sat on the Public Administration Committee in the previous Parliament, and evidence was given that the information required would not be some bureaucratic burden but information on the computers of the companies involved. It is a simple matter of cut, paste and e-mail. The costs will be minute. Does my hon. Friend not think that the most impressive evidence we heard in Committee came from organisations that have been campaigning passionately for the past 20 years for a lobbying Bill? They said unanimously that this Bill is worse than nothing at all.

[Mr Allen]

Indeed, and for Labour colleagues who unkindly say that the Government are not seeking consensus, I say that they have been brilliant in trying to build consensus. I have never seen the embrace that has taken place between Spinwatch, whose very existence is to expose problems in the lobbying industry, and trade associations of the lobbying industry. If pulling those two groups together is not consensus building, I do not know what is.

There is another tremendous example of consensus building. One would never have thought that the antagonism and bile that has been exchanged between, for example, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Countryside Alliance, could ever be put aside, but those two bodies now stroll hand in hand towards the sunset because they believe that the Bill is inadequate and that it does not help them. We will come to that when we debate part 2 tomorrow. Let no one churlishly say that the Government have been unable to build a good consensus on the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on her speech. I like the fact that she takes no hostages from among her own colleagues who betray their ignorance and all. I entirely agree with her: there is no point in introducing a Bill that destroys the whole premise of decent, open, transparent lobbying in this country, because it is one of the fundamental precepts that inform the way we do our democratic business.

Our legislation would be consistently weaker if people had no opportunity to lobby us. Let us face it: most of the time we are dealing not with issues on which we are the experts but those that are way beyond our normal ken, so it is important that people come here to inform our decisions.

I would say, just as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, that it is very rare for a lobbyist to devote their energy to the permanent secretary, who will nearly always be entirely irrelevant to the process in hand. Normally, the Minister would be the person of last resort to whom a lobbyist would go because they would want to persuade members of a Select Committee, people sitting on the Bill Committee and all sorts of other people that need to be persuaded long before thinking of engaging with the Minister. Special advisers are essential to that process.

[Paul Flynn]

Before my hon. Friend goes into orbit in praising the saintly activities of the lobbying world, will he agree that the worst activities of lobbyists can be found among the corporate lobbyists, who buy advantage for the already advantaged? The purpose is to give extra access and extra influence to those who are already rich, privileged and wealthy. Is that not what we need transparency about?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not suggesting that all lobbyists are saints, but most of the world is somewhere between saints and sinners. Of course we want a level playing field. I do not want a corporation, by virtue of having deep pockets, to have a special advantage over those who do not have deep pockets, but I do not want to say that a corporation should not be able to put its case, simply because it is a corporation.

I mentioned on Second Reading that when the mental health legislation was going through Parliament I would not have been a valuable, I hope, member of the Public Bill Committee if it had not been for Mind and other mental health charities, the British Medical Association and other organisations coming to lobby us. I have to say, too, that the pharmaceutical companies, which others may want to paint as the devil incarnate, had an informed voice to bring to the debate. In the end, I had to make a judgment—that is what I am paid to do—about where the right public interest lay. I think it right and proper, when it comes to this Bill, to ensure that everybody knows about all that activity, not just a tiny proportion of it.

The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) is slightly wrong in what he suggests. It is true that we are debating clause 1, but many of the amendments in this group refer to clause 2, schedule 1 and other provisions. Those are the elements of the Bill that profoundly limit the effects that this so-called lobbying Bill would have. There are 15 Government amendments in the group, one of which is one of the most bizarre amendments I have come across. Amendment 84, which can found on page 667 of the amendment paper and was tabled by the Leader of the House, reads:

“Clause 25, page 11, line 31, leave out from ‘lobbying’ to end of line 32.”

If the amendment were accepted, clause 25 would simply read:

“‘consultant lobbyist’” means a person who carries on the business of consultant lobbying”.

If that is not a circular provision, I do not know what is. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said earlier that a very small net was being employed. This is not a net; it is fly-fishing. I can think of only one person who might be caught by it, and that is the Prince of Wales.

[Paul Flynn]

Hear, hear.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not believe that that is the aim of the Government’s legislation, although it may have suddenly got my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, I have obviously not made it clear: I love the hon. Lady. Well, I will not do so when it comes to the general election, but I love her new clause, because it deals with many of the points that need to be addressed. Our constituents want a clear, open, transparent system without any dodgy handing out of passes to staff who are not really working for a Member but for a third party and so on.

[Paul Flynn]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the case of Lord Blencathra, who was reported to the parliamentary authorities as a representative and lobbyist for the Cayman Islands? The House of Lords authorities decided that there was a prima facie case against him, but then decided not to act, although action is still possible in future. However, what he was doing was certainly against the rules in this House. Should not the Bill address the scandal of allowing permissive rules in the House of Lords because, it is said, its members are not paid? However, lobbying is going on there in a dangerous way, which is grossly unfair to the population as a whole.

[Chris Bryant]

What about electing the House of Lords? That is quite a good idea. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have always thought that it is wrong of the House of Commons simply to say that the rules of the other House should be written by the other House. To be honest, the House of Lords is part of the legislature—as much as we are—and if it is to retain that power, it is important that that is done within strict limits.

G20

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good suggestion with which I have a huge amount of sympathy. Our staff colleges for the Royal Navy, the RAF and the British Army are some of the greatest assets we have in our country. Many other countries want to send young men to train in them, and we should make sure that we put them to best use.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Is the Prime Minister proud to be the first Prime Minister since the Vietnam war to present a wholly independent British foreign policy? Will he, in future, refrain from trying to make our country punch above our weight militarily, which has resulted in Iraq and Helmand and in our spending beyond our interests and dying beyond our responsibilities?

[The Prime Minister]

I just do not share the hon. Gentleman’s world view. I think it is good that Britain, with a brilliant diplomatic network and with fantastic armed forces, is able to punch above our weight in the world. Why? Not for any sort of vanity project or for any particular view of how the world ought to look, but because it is in our national interests. We are a trading nation. We have British people living in countries all over the world. It matters to us whether the middle east is stable and whether markets are open in China. So punching above our weight is exactly what we should aim to do, not, as I say, for some grand role in the world, but because it is in the interests of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

We can debate the Iraq inquiries at another date, and I am sure that we shall do so. I accept my responsibilities fully for what happened in respect of Iraq. I have sought, both before the Iraq inquiry and elsewhere, to explain why I came to my conclusion. I simply make the point, which is widely shared across the House, that one of the consequences of the intelligence failure on Iraq has been to raise the bar that we have to get over when the question of military action arises.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The House was told that there were weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United Kingdom, and we were also told, in 2006, that we were going into Helmand province in the hope that not a shot would be fired. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the result of accepting those decisions has been the deaths of 623 of our brave soldiers? Does he not realise that those are the reasons that the public no longer trust Government assurances about going to war?

[Mr Straw]

With respect to my hon. Friend, the arguments about Afghanistan, then and now, are very different. There will be other occasions to debate that matter.

Even if there is compelling evidence on culpability, the bigger question arises of the strategic objective of any military action and its likely consequences. The Prime Minister has accepted that such strikes would not significantly degrade the chemical weapons capability of the Assad regime. We need to be clear about that. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) spoke about trying to take that capability down. However, if the first set of strikes failed to do that—the Prime Minister seemed to accept that they would be more by way of punishment and deterrence, rather than a degrading of the capability—what would happen after that? We all know—I bear the scars of this—how easy it is to get into military action, but how difficult it is to get out of it.

There is also the issue of precisely what the objective of the action is. The case seems to veer between the alleviation of human suffering and some sort of warning for or punishment of the Assad regime. If the Prime Minister comes back to the House to recommend military action, he must be clear about precisely what the purposes are.

This morning, we woke up to hear the President of the United States, Barack Obama, saying that by acting in

“a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across”

Assad’s bow. Let us pause and consider the metaphor that was chosen by the President, because it is revealing. A shot across the bow is a warning that causes no damage and no casualties—shells fired over the bridge of a naval vessel. In this case, it might be a Tomahawk missile that is targeted to fly over Damascus and land in the unoccupied deserts beyond. That cannot be what the President has in mind. We need to know what he really has in mind and what the consequences of that will be. There will be casualties from any military action—some military and almost certainly many civilian.

I have one last point to put to the Prime Minister. He sought to draw a distinction in his speech between our response to war crimes and taking sides in the conflict. However much he struggles to make that distinction, let us be clear that if we take an active part in military action, which I do not rule out, we shall be taking sides. There is no escape from that. We shall be joining with the rebels, with all the consequences that arise from that, and not maintaining a position of neutrality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Well, possibly, although there is a question, if there is a new doctrine, about how far it extends. Why was it not used with Mugabe? Why was it not used with Pol Pot earlier? That is why I question the Attorney-General’s advice, with temerity and diffidence, as I say.

What are the objectives of any military strike? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the objective was to deter and degrade future chemical weapons use. As I understand it, a country that can make a non-stick frying pan can make chemical weapons. Personally, I have found it very difficult to find any country that can make a non-stick frying pan. Nevertheless, if Syria could simply recreate any weapons that we destroy, where would we have got by attacking the chemical weapons? What is the risk of collateral damage? What is the risk of hitting the chemical weapons that we are trying to prevent from being deployed? We need further information on that.

Next is the evidence. I am certainly in a minority in this country and probably in a minority in the House in saying that I personally believed Tony Blair when he said that he believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I am certainly in a minority in the country when I say that I still believe that he was telling the truth as he believed it to be, but I think that he exaggerated the influence of—[Interruption.] I know, I am naive and a silly young thing, but I still believe that he exaggerated the influence and importance of intelligence. I do not think that we have yet got to the bottom of the precise limitations of what intelligence can tell us.

[Paul Flynn]

During my time in this House, chemical weapons have been used against the Kurds; they were used in the Iran-Iraq war; and they were used against the people in Gaza, in the form of phosphorous bombs—certainly a chemical bomb. Is not the real reason we are here today not the horror at these weapons—if that horror exists—but as a result of the American President having foolishly drawn a red line, so that he is now in the position of either having to attack or face humiliation? Is that not why we are being drawn into war?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

No, I do not think so. I think the real reason is that unless we do something—it must not be something stupid—Assad will use more chemical weapons time and again. I believe that in order to stop the use of chemical weapons becoming the norm, the world needs to act. The world, however, does not equal the United Kingdom. If the world wants us to act as the international policeman, let the world say so, because when we have done so in the past, the world has not tended to thank us.

It could be argued that it is only we who have the capability to act, but there is a paradox here. We are a country with the fourth largest defence budget in the world, yet attacks could still be made on this country using weapons against which we have no defence. Actually, that is true of every country in the world. We should take that concern into account when we decide how to vote. I believe that it would probably be helpful to support the Government tonight, but next week—or whenever the decision comes up—we will need to take that issue very clearly into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

These debates are carried on in a spirit that is not real. What we should be asking ourselves is not why now, but why us? This is not about weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons. During my time in the House we have witnessed terrible atrocities involving chemical weapons, from Saddam Hussein internally in his war with Iran to the Israeli use of phosphorus bombs. We stood by then—we did not do anything.

We know why we are here tonight: it is due to the fact that the President of the United States made a foolish threat that there was a red line that should not be crossed. He now finds that it has been crossed and if he does not do something it will be an act of humiliation.

Why us? The same question was not answered during the Iraq war. We debated then the feeling that, if we did not go to Iraq, Saddam Hussein would continue to rule. Our contribution to Iraq was great in terms of the heroism, professionalism and sacrifice of our soldiers—there were 179 victims—but Tony Blair was told by Bush that he was not needed. Tony Blair was invited to pull out. When we get the long-awaited report of the Chilcot inquiry we will know that it was as a result of Tony Blair’s refusal to pull us out of that war and to stop deceiving the House that 179 British lives were lost. That is a terrible price to pay for the vanity of one man. He has appeared again in this controversy and I think it would be very helpful for him and the nation if he had a prolonged period of invisibility and silence.

We are not involved in this, but we are here tonight. We are the fourth highest spenders in the world on weapons and on defence. Why should we be there? We are a small, northern European nation. Yes, we should do the things we are very good at, which are human rights and peacekeeping. We did a splendid job in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, but the investment we made in blood and treasure in Afghanistan and Iraq was dreadful. We went into Helmand with the hope that not a single bullet would be fired and that we would be there for three years and then leave having solved the drug problem. Two British soldiers had died up to that point; now, 444 have lost their lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Clearly, the power to dismiss a chief constable is one of the statutory powers given to that officer. However, when it is exercised, the police and crime commissioner must be extremely careful to ensure that the proper procedures are adopted and, furthermore, must understand that he will be accountable to Parliament.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The evidence we heard yesterday from the chief constable was that she was called in and, out of the blue, the police and crime commissioner said that he would dismiss and humiliate her. That is an extraordinary, menacing and bullying attitude. Are police and crime commissioners the Government’s stupidest policy?

[Mr Jones]

For the first time, democracy has been introduced into the policing of this country, and that must be desirable. I also heard the evidence, and no doubt the Home Affairs Committee will be reporting in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am a huge fan of and believer in our NHS. At its best, it provides the best care in the world and incredible compassion for families who use it, but we do not serve the NHS if we hide or cover up when there are difficulties in individual hospitals. Clearly there were in Stafford, there were in Morecambe Bay and, we read today, there are in the Tameside hospital, too. That is why the reform of the Care Quality Commission and the chief inspector of hospitals post are so important, and why I think the friends and family test, which will be applied in every part of every hospital over time, will make a real difference. That is in stark contrast to what we had under the last Government, when inspectors were basically told not to surface problems, because it was somehow embarrassing for the Government.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Was it the Prime Minister’s conception when he set up the office of police and crime commissioner that a fine chief constable such as the one in Gwent should have a career cut short by a vindictive bully who told her to resign or he would humiliate her?

[The Prime Minister]

The point of having police and crime commissioners is to make sure there is proper accountability and that police constables have to account to a local person. That is why a number of former Labour Members of Parliament stood for the post. In some cases, such as that of John Prescott, the people of his region saw sense and rejected him.

Afghanistan and EU Council

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which is that there is a yearning in this country to find new ways to recognise what our armed forces do and all they represent. For some years in the past—this is not a political point; I think that the last Prime Minister recognised this—we did not really do enough and we were not quite sure how to show our appreciation. Armed Forces day was a good step forward and the military covenant is a good step forward—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) says it was a Labour achievement, but I think he will find that the military covenant was put into law by this Government. I was attempting not to make a political point, but he made me diverge. I also think these parades are a great way, on a cross-party basis—on a no-party basis—of everyone turning out on to our streets and saying thank you.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister seek to change the rules of this House so that the names of the fallen can be honoured by being read out in this Chamber—the same Chamber that sent them to their deaths? What lasting achievements have there been in Afghanistan that justify £37 billion of taxpayers’ money and 444 deaths?

[The Prime Minister]

We do read out the names of those who have fallen, and we rightly pay tribute to them because they have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country and our security. The hon. Gentleman asked what this has achieved, and the point I make is that before 2001 Afghanistan was a haven for terrorists who were plotting actively to do harm to people in this country and elsewhere, but since 2001—he can ask the security services about this himself if he wants—there have not been major, serious plots hatched in Afghanistan and carried out against us. That is a big and important achievement, but we also have to look at the capacity Afghanistan has today to continue to deliver that. When I first visited Afghanistan in 2006, there were no Afghan security forces in Helmand province; they did not exist. They have been built from scratch. I do not think we honour those who have paid this price by talking down, in any way, the extraordinary achievements that we have seen there. That is not to say that things are perfect—of course they are not—and it is not to say that there is not more that needs to be done, but on the ledger of Britain’s engagement in Afghanistan, we should correctly identify the good points as well as the difficulties that still remain.

G8

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on proving once again the remarkable persuasive powers of parliamentary questions? As recently as 25 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) told me in response to a question on the Crown dependencies that

“the Government currently has no plans to require disclosure of the beneficial ownership of UK property.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2013; Vol. 559, c. 301W.]

Now they do. Will he further prove his flexibility in this area by persuading his right hon. Friend Lord Blencathra to end his work as a lobbyist for the Cayman Islands?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Members of the House who put pressure on the representatives of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. We should also pay tribute to those representatives. They came willingly to London, they sat round the Cabinet table and they committed to a series of steps that some but not all of them had committed to before. We should now stand up for them and say that other jurisdictions that do not have this sort of transparency now need to do what they have done. It is important that we pay tribute to the work they have done. As for the other part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I am not sighted of it so I shall have to have a look at it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Why do the Government move at the speed of a striking cobra in further impoverishing the already poor with the bedroom tax, and why, in the case of reforming the parasitic incubus on the body politic of lobbying, do they move at the speed of an arthritic sloth?

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

On both counts, of course, we at least have moved, unlike the Labour Government, who for 13 years ducked any meaningful reform of the welfare system, which in our view should be guided by the simple principle of making sure that work always pays. We also want to make sure that the details of the provisions that we are going to introduce to govern the influence in the political process of non-political and third parties are properly crafted, and we will publish them very shortly.

Tributes to Baroness Thatcher

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Unwisely, I once put down a written question to Prime Minister Thatcher, asking her to list the failures of her premiership. The answer was disappointingly brief. Another MP tabled a question asking her to list the successes of her premiership. The answer cost £4,500 and filled 23 columns of Hansard. Modesty was never her prime virtue, but she had many virtues and I would rank her as one of the two best politicians of the last century. The other one was Clement Attlee. It is significant that, about an hour ago, Matthew Parris tweeted:

“Just come across a small, downpage Guardian piece from Oct 1967: ‘quiet funeral for Lord Attlee’.”

Prime Ministers are not made by the trappings of power, or by expensive funerals.

I should like to share a little story with hon. Members. It involves a cunning plot by the late Tony Banks, who had some power over the decisions about statues in the House as he chaired the Advisory Committee on Works of Art. He commissioned a statue of Mrs Thatcher that was of exactly the right dimensions to fit into one of the empty niches outside the Chamber in the Members’ Lobby. It was made of white marble. Unfortunately, however, it was decapitated. His cunning plan was to put that white marble statue there in the hope of having a bronze statue of another Prime Minister, who is possibly not held in the same respect today.

Margaret Thatcher was not like most politicians. We all pretend that we act on the basis of evidence, sense and reason, but most of us—apart from her and Clement Attlee—act on the basis of pressure, prejudice and perception. Those are the things that move us and determine what laws are passed in the House. She was a woman who knew about evidence, however. She knew about scientific evidence, and that is the reason that she was one of the first to embrace the green agenda.

I also believe, however, that Mrs Thatcher was very wrong in many of the things that she did, and my main reason for speaking today is to tell the House what happened to my constituents at that time. No one would question the need for greater financial discipline in the 1970s and into the 1980s; industries were in a mess. However, the great tragedy for Mrs Thatcher was one that befalls many leaders who stay long in office: she became surrounded by sycophants who praised her extravagantly—[Laughter.] We have heard a great deal of that today, and much of what has been said is entirely true, but there has also been a huge amount of hyperbole. When she was in charge, what followed was hubris, and hubris was followed by nemesis.

The way in which Mrs Thatcher treated heavy industry in this country involved pursuing a mission to discipline the industries and to make them profitable, but she did not know when to stop. I am thinking particularly of the industry that was the backbone of my city of Newport, the steel industry, which is now a pale shadow of its former self. I am afraid that she did not fight for heavy industry in the same way that she fought for the farming industry or for the financial industry, and that had terrible results. Many of the people in my constituency who had devoted their lives to the steel industry had special skills. They defined themselves as steelworkers, but suddenly their skills were redundant. Those people were no longer important; they were robbed of that scrap of dignity around which we all need to build our lives. She went too far, and we all know the result.

There is great respect for Margaret Thatcher as a political personality, and history will judge her as a great Prime Minister. Many of her attributes that have been described today will be seen by most people here as great virtues. Her role was to alter the appearance and persona of England—rather than Wales or Scotland —in the world, but there has been a cost to that. The cost of punching above our weight militarily is that we spend beyond our interests and we die beyond our responsibilities.

There are two deaths that we should be talking about today. Of course we should be talking about Mrs Thatcher, but we should also mention Lance Corporal Jamie Webb of 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment. He was 24, and he died on 25 March. He was repatriated to this country last Thursday. I do not know whether anyone saw any publicity about that, or whether any attention was paid to the event. He was the 441st of our soldiers to die in the Afghan war. I have visited Brize Norton and seen the sensitively conceived arrangements there. I cannot think of any way in which they could bring greater comfort to the bereaved families of those who have fallen in the name of this country, but I am afraid that the way in which the processions now take place has been designed to avoid drawing attention to these tragedies. Today, along with that of Margaret Thatcher, we should remember the names of the 441 who died for their country, one of whom was Jamie Webb. We should remember their sacrifice and reflect on the fact that the spirit that leads us to punch above our weight often has tragic consequences.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Because of the lack of coverage on main-line televisions, many of us had the great joy at the weekend of watching Swansea’s triumph on broadband. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the future triumphs of Newport County, Cardiff City and Wrexham will be available on broadband?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, indeed—particularly as Wrexham is currently top of the Blue Square league.