G20
Paul Flynn Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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(10 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
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(10 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Flynn Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and to anyone wondering about the relevance of Somalia to us here in the UK, we must remember that that country has been the author of huge problems with terrorism, piracy and mass migration. Even to the most hardened sceptic of our aid budget I would say that Somalia is a really good case where engagement, aid and diplomacy can help that country to mend itself for the future. I hope that the diaspora will give full support to the new President, who is demonstrating a huge grip in his country on mending the problems that have bedevilled it for so long.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s career probably peaked when he was a Back-Bench member of the Home Affairs Committee in 2005. Will he revive his progressive courage of that time when he looks at the report from the all-party parliamentary group on drug misuse on the awful problems of new drugs that are on the market but not controlled in any way?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s view of my career trajectory. I will not ask him about his—perhaps we can agree about it afterwards. I learned some important lessons from the Home Affairs Committee report I worked on, including on the priority we give in tackling drugs to education and treatment. Those are the two key arms of what needs to be done. However, I do not believe we should be legalising drugs that are currently illegal. On current legal highs and problems relating to substances such as khat, which was mentioned in a previous question, we need to look carefully at the evidence on what will work best.
Succession to the Crown Bill
Paul Flynn Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend misses the point. It is a question of the succession. It may be that somebody has been brought up as a Catholic who is relatively remote from succeeding to the Crown, but in a “Kind Hearts and Coronets” way suddenly becomes much closer. That person would be excluded, but more importantly, the best efforts issue means that there is a lack of clarity as to whether or not such a child has been excluded.
Are we saying that a Catholic can marry into the Crown but must then immediately say, on the birth of any child, that this child has not been anywhere near a Catholic church? How are we classifying this connection with Rome that in the Act of Settlement is a very broad connection for a very good reason: at that point people were worried about the Old Pretender. They thought that his Catholic upbringing made him a threat from the moment of his birth. That is why it is all-encompassing, and we are now amending the law to allow a Catholic to marry into the throne, without dealing with the technicalities that follow from that.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most important role of the Head of State is to act in the interests of the country when a Prime Minister acts in her or his own interest? Looking back at monarchs, the Queen has behaved immaculately throughout her reign. There have been grave doubts about some of her predecessors and doubts about her possible successors. Is it not much more important that we choose the character of the monarch, rather than the religion?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I think the monarchy should be an hereditary monarchy and should go through the nearest line that is available. I do not think there should be a character test for the monarch. The great and weighty responsibilities of monarchs turn people into serious-minded individuals capable of that great honour who sometimes in their youth were not capable of it. One thinks immediately of Henry V and also of Edward VII, both men who, in their youth, were relatively irresponsible, but when that great honour of being King of England fell upon their shoulders, they rose to it magnificently—gloriously, regardless of their religion.
All I am trying to do is make sure that in future we know that the monarchy is safe and secure and to whom it has passed—that we do not open it up for the courts to say, “Well, this person once went to a Catholic church. This person had a Catholic baptism. Therefore let us go to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), who is 190th or some such in line to the throne, and who, having been perfectly Protestant all his life, might be very suitable.”
We need to be clear because so many functions of this nation would be thrown into doubt if there were no Crown. If we are risking people being ineligible for the Crown because of shoddy legislation, we then face the prospect of being unable to use the prerogative powers, which might make it quite difficult to open Parliament.
John McDonnell
That may well have been the case in the past, but I think we have moved on. When the issue was debated in a different form—I think it was on a private Member’s Bill promoted by Evan Harris—Lord Falconer did the maths, calculated the large number of descendants that could have a claim to the throne and argued that we did not have parliamentary time and that the issue was irrelevant anyway. If we change the proposal on marriage, however, it may soon become very relevant, because we would not want to bar a future monarch from marrying a Catholic, a Jew or a Muslim. I think that that will come on to the agenda very quickly, whereas in the past parliamentary time was not found for it because it was not seen to be relevant.
Paul Flynn
Does my hon. Friend agree, having been present at previous debates, that the objection to breaking the taboo about the royal succession comes from those who say that once we get rid of this particular indefensible idiocy, the other foolishness involved in the royal succession will be exposed and people will come up with suggestions to reform the whole system so that we can have a monarchy or Head or State who are electable?
John McDonnell
I assure the House that supporting the amendment is not my cunning plan to get rid of the monarchy overnight. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there will be a debate as we move through this century about all our institutions, including the monarchy. That is why I was disappointed that his amendments were not selected, because I think we should have had a debate about alternative forms of Heads of State and the ways in which we can select them, rather than let the position be gained as a result of hereditary entitlement.
I will leave my argument there. I needed to put on the record why I put my name to the proposed new clause and why I tabled a similar amendment. It is about ending discrimination. On Saturday, I attended the annual dinner for pensioners organised by Botwell Catholic church St Vincent de Paul Society. When I told them about the two things that we were legislating on this week, the women cheered for ending gender discrimination, but everyone cheered for ending discrimination against Catholics. I say to hon. Members that this is not an historic thing—it is relevant. If someone in this country is born Catholic or into any other religion, or if they have no faith, and they are still discriminated against, that is unacceptable, as successive Governments and Members of this House have said. Now is the opportunity to legislate on it.
Mr Leigh
Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you will rule me out of order if I get into the intricacies of baptism, and which baptism is recognised by which church. In fact, the Catholic Church does recognise Russian Orthodox baptisms and considers itself in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church. The problem lies not with the Catholic Church, but with the Russian Orthodox Church, which does not want Catholics to take communion in its churches.
We are in danger of becoming enmeshed in the kind of arguments that enveloped us at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century. All my hon. Friend is trying to say in these very simple amendments is that, even if one supports the legislation as it is currently drafted, surely one should have the right to be judged on one’s faith at the time that one becomes Head of State or wants to become Head of State, and not be judged on what baptism one has received, what churches one attended in the past or what communion one has taken. Amendment 1, therefore, is even more important and apposite than new clause 1.
I will end on this point. As unlikely as it is in the near future that anybody will be banned from the throne of England because of their faith, I hope that we in this House do not accept the current situation when we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the law. We have been told so often that this is so complex and difficult to do that it may be the only chance in a generation. Is today not our chance in our time to stand up for religious freedom once and for all, and to say that all the disputes and hatreds of the past are now finished and that no office, however great, will be barred to someone because of their faith?
Paul Flynn
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, and wonderful to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who does his job so well as the Member of Parliament for the middle ages. It feels as though he is not just making history, but part of history.
It is extraordinary that a Bill presented as a reform or great change would actually put into law the concept of arranged marriages. We are very sniffy about them when we consider other religions and other parts of the world where one member of a family has absolute power in arranging the marriages of relatives, but that is what we are doing in this great reforming Bill. I do not know where the idea comes from that one person should be allowed to dictate the marital choices of six of her—later his—relatives. Is this a Liberal Democrat Bill? Is this the cutting edge of the future reforming zeal of the Liberal Democrat party: to espouse the concept of arranged marriages? This is the modern world.
In another part of the Bill acting as a reform, we are denying the opportunity to 87% of our population of ever achieving the job of Head of State. We are excluding and discriminating against atheists, non-conformists, Catholics, Jews and Muslims, who can never be Head of State: that is what we are being asked to approve today. It is perhaps not the reform we were looking forward to.
The traditions of the Church have been referred to. I find little difference between the high Church of England and Roman Catholicism, particularly now that Roman Catholicism has, lamentably, dropped the Latin language, which was a great joy to my youth:
“Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.”
When I was in my “juventutem”, it was a matter of some pleasure—a joy, an education and a great richness—but it has gone now. What on earth is the difference that we are talking about?
I hope to speak briefly, because I think there may be some puzzlement among my constituents—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Gentleman says that he will speak briefly. Will he, for the rest of his speech, speak in English so that we can all understand it? Clearly, we have not all been educated to the high level of Paul Flynn.
Paul Flynn
I am very happy to speak in Middle English:
“Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote”.
Middle English would be appropriate for the age in which some of the Government Members—
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is giving away his age. If he could please keep to common English. Thank you.
Paul Flynn
It is interesting that we have got on to linguistic discrimination. I could stay within the rules of the House and speak in Middle English, which very few, if any, people in the House speak, but I am denied the opportunity to speak in the language of Wales, which has the same authority and respect in this House as spitting on the carpet, where it is ruled as “unruly behaviour”. However, I will move on.
What is important in a Head of State? It is character, not religion. I am not allowed to be offensive to members of the royal family, because we are bound by rules that were created in the 13th century. I can do it outside this place, but not in Parliament—part of the infantilism of Parliament.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is completely wrong. In the 13th century, 14th century, 15th century, 16th century and 17th century, Members of the House of Commons were regularly very rude about members of the royal family. The idea that we cannot be rude about members of the royal family comes from the 19th century.
Paul Flynn
I am informed otherwise by those who perhaps have an even greater knowledge of this place than others—it goes back a long way.
The practical situation is that if we talk about the choice of Head of State, we can make only favourable comments about the people concerned. It is not difficult to say anything favourable about our present Queen, who has had a remarkable reign and has never interfered with politics in any way. However, if we look back at her immediate predecessors—again, without being derogatory —her father had an unhappy time and her uncle was a very unsuitable monarch, and her great grandfather and various others were not suitable.
There are grave doubts about the immediate successor, which are well known. There are many doubts about him and we are not even allowed to know what he wrote in letters to Ministers a few years ago. [Interruption.] “Quite right”, says an hon. Member. Who are we to know? We are only the elected people of this country. We are the representatives of the nation, not someone who happened to be first past the bedpost some time ago. That does not qualify him to make the crucial decisions he would have take, which is common in most countries where they have an elected state and the Head of State is there to keep the Prime Minister in control. That might have been necessary in the dying days of Mrs Thatcher’s rule, the details of which I gave last week—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps we can get back to new clause 1 and amendments 1 and 2.
Paul Flynn
I will speak about new clause 1, as you rightly say, Mr Deputy Speaker, though these remarks are of relevance.
The suggestion is that we have a regent: a piece of ingenious constitutional gibberish that is part of the past rather than the future. We should be legislating for the future. Let us look at what we have got. I am still baffled—I cannot get these things across to the Table Office—as to how these outrageous decisions we are taking are consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. Article 9 of the convention states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”
That is enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998—not 1598 or 1298. It goes on:
“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
What has this got to do with a democratic society? This is about an autocratic society and a monarchy that have contributed nothing to our progress over the years. Rather, they have been an obstacle to democratic reform for centuries.
Michael Ellis
A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said that the monarchy had done nothing in the past 100 years for the advent of democracy in this country. May I suggest that he is wholly and unavowedly in error and that in fact the monarchy has done much in the last 100 years and more to act as a pillar in the protection of democracy?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We are now generalising the debate and not really focusing on new clause 1 and amendments 1 and 2. Mr Flynn, will you please focus on the new clause and amendments?
Paul Flynn
I would be delighted, but let me say—although I probably should not—that the contribution of royalty has been of one head, grudgingly donated.
The Bill appears prima facie to be incompatible with article 1 of protocol 12 of the European convention on human rights, which forbids discrimination on the grounds of birth in any right created by law. Perhaps the Government would like to think about that point. We are creating not only a piece of new discrimination, new unfairness and new gender bias, but something that is in conflict with the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights.
It would be good to know what advice the Government have had on the Bill. I have tried to question the Government about this, but they have been reluctant to answer. The Bill states that it complies with the relevant rights. Nevertheless, this is one of the most atrocious Bills ever to come before the House. So many Bills have unintended consequences, however, and this one opens a Pandora’s box on the royal succession: those who believed that the rules were set immutably in stone now know that they are not, and now that there has been one change, there can be many others.
We must move forward to an adult, 21st-century choice of Head of State, as have most countries in the world—those free nations that elect their Head of State and give their entire population the chance to be elected. Under the Bill, however, only members of the Church of England can become Head of State. The Church in Wales has pedigree. The Celtic Church existed long before the Roman Church—this European import—came along to take over the country, and we have the great saints Illtyd, Dyfrig, Samson and a string of other great saints.
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about the Celtic Church—as I did in an intervention—but I am sure that the Celtic monasteries would have accepted the primacy of Rome. The Synod of Whitby settled some of these matters once and for all, so although there might have been differences, it would have accepted the primacy of Rome.
Paul Flynn
I might address that point later, but the saints—Piran and the rest of them—are celebrated to this day in Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. It is an independent Church and one that has been disestablished since the 1920s. It has none of the problems that we have today because it is disestablished. It has even supplied a brilliant Archbishop of Canterbury.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman must admit that even the Celtic Church was introduced into these isles by the Roman empire, so it kind of counts as a European import.
Paul Flynn
I look back with some fondness to the Roman empire as a time when we had a common currency in Europe. The hon. Gentleman might remember that the great Euro-world of the Roman empire was followed by the dark ages. In my constituency 2,000 years ago, two languages were on the lips of the children—Latin and Welsh. I rejoice that—this says a lot about its sustainability and survival—Welsh is still heard on the lips of our children, whereas we do not get many people speaking Latin these days, except for the hon. Member for the middle ages himself, the hon. Member for North East Somerset. Nevertheless, it is part of our inheritance.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman’s speech might be on a loop. He started with this, and I think he is now coming to an end, is he not? Will he perhaps concentrate on new clause 1 and amendments 1 and 2?
Paul Flynn
I am delighted to support new clause 1 —it is a minute improvement to the Bill—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press it to a Division, so that we can support his cause and stand up for a minor improvement to end the grotesque religious intolerance in the Act of Settlement.
Sir Alan Beith
I wish to speak to amendments 1 and 2, which raise an important point.
It was a bit much for the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to lambast the Government for introducing a Bill that removes gender discrimination in the royal family—something that the last Labour Government said they wanted to do but never got around to completing—and deals with the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and the limitation on sovereigns being married to a Roman Catholic. Were the Bill to cover the much wider issues of disestablishment or of whether the sovereign should no longer hold the position they currently hold in the Church of England, it would be a different Bill and a much wider consultation would have taken place.
The intention of the Bill might be frustrated, however, if the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is right, because the wording of the Act of Settlement about who is a Catholic is very detailed and picks up on almost any evidence of any connection with the Catholic Church at any time in the person’s life. As we discussed earlier, it is highly likely that the child of a mixed marriage will have experienced both denominations —and perhaps the Church of Scotland as well. Many parents offer their children the opportunity to see what different Churches have to offer.
Paul Flynn
I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 2, leave out
‘born after 28 October 2011’
and insert ‘whenever born’.
I shall be much briefer than I was when we debated the previous amendments. From where I sit in the House, I noticed the conversations that Members were having as they went in to vote and I think that many who opposed the previous measure will be very surprised to see, when they read the papers tomorrow, what exactly they voted against.
Amendment 3 is a brief and helpful proposal to remove the specified date. Lord Armstrong has recently reminded us of how atrocious we, sadly, are in this Parliament at legislating. When we legislate in haste we often legislate in error, and what Lord Armstrong has said, having gone through the Bills passed in the 13 years of the previous Government, is that 75 went through all stages in this House and the other House, received Royal Assent and then were never implemented—they made no difference.
We have now reached the position where this Bill may well be judged as an atrocious piece of legislation, because there is no need to limit us to a date. We are dealing with a situation where the child is likely to be born—this is referred to in the Bill—in the summer, but there is no need to make a decision now. We can give ourselves time to improve the Bill and avoid the unintended consequences it contains.
I cannot see why we should not apply this provision now. If this is such a good idea—there is an almost universal approval in the House for the main proposition of getting rid of discrimination against women—why not do it immediately? Why should it apply in 40 or 60 years’ time? Why should it not apply immediately? The effect of that might be nothing at all, because those in the line of succession in the foreseeable future are predominantly male, barring problems that might occur with premature deaths, accidents and so on. However, it is conceivable, although unlikely, that there could be a female in direct line to the throne. Are we going to wait until the child that is going to be born in July reaches maturity for this beneficial legislation to come into force? If it is worth doing, it is worth doing now.
Miss Chloe Smith
I will be equally as brief as the hon. Gentleman. I, too, understand that the effect of his amendment would be to make the gender of any person in the line of succession irrelevant when determining succession to the throne. I put it to him that the Government did not make an omission; the way we set out the Bill was a deliberate choice. His amendment would change the current line of succession. Specifically—I suspect he has this in mind—their Royal Highnesses Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, and their descendants, would move below Her Royal Highness Princess Anne and her descendants. The Government do not believe it is fair or reasonable to alter the legitimate expectations of those currently in line to the throne. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a retrospective provision and there would need to be good reason for it.
Commonwealth leaders have agreed to remove the male bias in succession to the Crown for the future. For reasons we have already discussed at length, the Government view that agreement as being important to maintain, and it does not envisage the current order of succession being disturbed. Rather, when new members of the royal family are born they will enter the line of succession without there being any preference for males over females, and I know that the hon. Gentleman shares that latter principle with me.
Miss Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I note that the different clauses of this Bill do carry slightly different connotations of retrospectivity. I would be happy to explain that, but we did cover some of those issues in detail in Committee. He is right to say that what is relevant in clause 1 is the legitimate expectations of those currently close to the throne in the line of succession. We do face a question about what is fair and reasonable to them. Clause 1 strikes a fair balance by providing that gender is irrelevant in this regard for persons born after the date of the agreement reached by the Commonwealth realms on 28 October 2011. That element of retrospection is justifiable.
An important practical element and effect of the measure is that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a daughter and then a son, the daughter would precede the son in the line of succession. I believe that all hon. Members know that that is an example of the point behind clause 1. It is also clear that that deals with a future occurrence, as opposed to altering the legitimate expectations of those currently in line to the throne. For that reason, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Paul Flynn
I am disappointed at the limit to the reforming zeal of this Government, who seem to be saying, “God, make me gender neutral—but not yet.” I know that the Minister was disappointed that I did not move my amendment in middle English, but in the spirit of what she said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading