Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

The Leader of the House was asked—

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

2. What progress he has made on the implementation of the Wright proposals on House of Commons reform in the last 12 months.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

This Government have successfully implemented recommendations to introduce elections to Select Committee membership, established a Backbench Business Committee and, within the last 12 months, introduced an e-petition system to achieve a greater degree of public participation. The majority of the remaining recommendations of the Wright Committee are a matter for the House rather than the Government.

[Paul Flynn]

Can we improve the choreography of the parliamentary week by doing what the Wright proposals suggested—moving Prime Minister’s Question Time to Thursdays, allowing Wednesdays to be used for the increasingly important Back-Bench business debates?

[Mr Heath]

As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Procedure Committee is now completing and in the very late stages of production of a report on the parliamentary calendar. We would prefer to wait and see what suggestions the Procedure Committee makes rather than taking a unilateral view on what is best for the House.

Business of the House

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course the Government want to support small and medium-sized enterprises. As she will know, a range of measures has been introduced to promote apprenticeships and encourage bank lending. I would welcome a debate on the matter, but cannot promise one in the immediate future. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill is currently in Committee. I am not sure whether she is a member of that Committee, but that would be an opportunity to take the matter further.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Public Administration Committee, with its Conservative majority, decided unanimously that Sir Alex Allan was not a fit person to be the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. His collaboration yesterday with a political stunt robbed him of any claim to be independent. When can the House look at why the previous holder of the office resigned, and how the office—a very good reform—has been degraded and politicised by Sir Alex Allan?

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lucas]

I, too, was a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I have no recollection or knowledge of a special adviser behaving in that way. I suggest that the special adviser was appointed because the Secretary of State had an agenda to take forward the bid and ensure it went through. The right hon. Gentleman’s conduct after he was given the quasi-judicial role—when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills had it taken away from him—was designed to present himself as acting fairly, but everyone knows that his agenda was to get the bid through. It is in his texts and actions. All has been revealed.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport is not seen as independent and did not act impartially in the process. He will not be trusted in future to act impartially in any decisions he makes. He therefore should not be in office. He has no credibility. If he goes away from the Chamber and thinks about what has happened in the past hour, he will recognise that. If he has any dignity, when he looks at himself in his shaving mirror he will accept that he should not be in post.

As the Leader of the Opposition said today, it is not the Secretary of State who is on trial, but the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has undermined the independent adviser on ministerial interests by his conduct. We heard a classic example of that today. Purely for partisan political purposes, the Prime Minister wrote to Sir Alex Allan, and received a response the same day— [Interruption.] It was orchestrated—no doubt there was communication between the independent adviser’s office and the Prime Minister’s office.

The Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that the letter exonerated the Secretary of State, which is not true. The letter says that an investigation would take the matter no further so far as the facts were concerned, but that is not the job of the independent adviser. His job is to make a judgment based on the facts presented to him, which, the letter goes on to say, he is willing to do.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Public Administration Committee unanimously decided that Sir Alex Allan was not fit for the job after merely a pre-appointment hearing? We asked him what he would do if the Prime Minister behaved in this way, and he said he would relinquish his post. Has he not proved that he is a poodle, and not the rottweiler that should be doing that job?

[Ian Lucas]

I was aware of that—indeed, I was coming to the Committee’s report, which questions the independence of Sir Alex Allan. I have had no previous dealings with him, but the partisan use of his office by the Prime Minister—this morning and at the Dispatch Box as a shield at Question Time—undermines him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Whittingdale]

I shall be disappointed if our coalition partners do not support the Government on this occasion. I hope that having heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State they might still do so later.

I want to make one or two comments about possible lessons from this affair that we should perhaps consider in the future, the first of which concerns the role of special advisers. I, too, was once a special adviser in the Department of Trade and Industry at a time of Conservative government in the late ’80s. I was a political adviser and I did not participate in discussions about competition policy as it was felt that political advisers were there to provide political input and it could not be clear what political input would be legitimate in a competition case. The role of special advisers has changed over the past 10 or 15 years and I must say to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that it was the previous Labour Government who changed the role of special advisers and gave them far more influence and power than they previously had. We need to reconsider that.

[Paul Flynn]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that three former special advisers to this Government gave evidence to a Select Committee of this House yesterday. They were asked whether it would have been possible for them to communicate with lobbyists in a Minister’s office. They all treated with derision the suggestion that a special adviser could communicate 500 times with an outside body without the knowledge of the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is not just one Minister who is being accused here, and not just the Government. The whole of politics is on trial. When the Prime Minister came to office, he came in with fine words about how the Government intended to be

“Transparent about what we do and how we do it. Determined to act in the national interest, above improper influence. Mindful of our duty. Above all, grateful for our chance to change our country.”

He has changed the country, but not for the better.

The ministerial code was introduced in its current form in 2007. There was one case serious enough to demand investigation, involving Shahid Malik, and that investigation took place. I remember no call for an investigation into the case that has been cited involving a number of e-mails that were certainly improper. There was no investigation into the case of the former Defence Secretary. That matter was of enormous seriousness, because he had a man who was paid by groups in other countries and he was not investigated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is an Opposition day and it is not up to the hon. Gentleman or the House to decide the subject of the debate. It is up to the Opposition and the debate is on the Secretary of State.

[Paul Flynn]

A person who thought that the former Defence Secretary should have been referred to the independent adviser was Sir Philip Mawer, the independent adviser himself. He resigned because of that.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have just made the point that the motion is about the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to be referring to a completely different subject.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will decide what is in order and what is not. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advice and I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is developing his points in order to come on to that subject.

[Paul Flynn]

The point is the ministerial code and how it has been degraded by this Government and this Prime Minister. In the last Parliament and in this Parliament, the Public Administration Committee has thought that there should be an independent adviser who has the right to decide what he wants to investigate. If the Prime Minister is alleged to have broken the ministerial code, who will advise the independent adviser to investigate him? That advice is a function of the Public Administration Committee. There was no investigation of a far less serious complaint about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who failed to register an interest when he had a meal provided by a lobbyist on the excuse that that day he was eating with his private stomach, not his ministerial stomach. That was a matter for the ministerial code as it was a clear breach. The matter before us is the third breach that has taken place.

We should consider our position. We have just escaped from the screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal. Our standing in the country is no higher than it was two years ago and if the Prime Minister continues to ignore a major reform—which the ministerial code was—and use it to defend his own political position, we will sink further into the perception of sleaze as seen by the country.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The noxious stink of hypocrisy holds sway in this debate. It is unbelievable that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can compare an honest, genuine lapse of judgment by the special adviser to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the systematic, malicious and vindictive character assassination by Damian McBride on the family of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), for which the former Prime Minister was never called on to resign.

[Paul Flynn]

I challenge anyone on the Government Benches to cite any example of anyone claiming that that incident should have been referred under the ministerial code. I have been interested in these matters for a good decade and there was no such claim. There was a case, and it was investigated. The ministerial code was used by the previous Labour Government. It has been abused three times by this Government when strong cases have come up.

We have another reform that has not been implemented by the Government. The Prime Minister made an impassioned plea on lobbying, saying that he was going to have a new lobbying code—because, as a former lobbyist, he understood it. We do not yet have a code. The one that has been put forward is lame and weak, and it would actually weaken the system. The Government have failed in their prime task—and the prime task of all us—which is to escape from the shame of the last two years, for which all of us were responsible. Many Members left the House, with their careers in ruins, and some suffered greatly, including many who were not guilty—collateral damage. I have just concluded a biography of one former Member who lost his life because of the effect of that scandal on his health.

The shame still lies on this House. The perception outside is that politics is debased and that we do not tell the truth or obey a moral code. I appeal to all Members not to see this as one of the usual tribal votes when we go into the Lobbies—[Interruption.] I cite the contributions that I made on the Public Administration Committee in this Parliament and the last, when I was as severe a critic of my own Government as I am of the excesses of this Government. This is a matter of honour for hon. Members here today.

I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their position. This is not a question of winning a vote tonight—that does not matter. But it matters whether we stand up for the House of Commons reforms and whether we respect the reforms that have taken place. The ministerial code has been abused. Sir Alex Allan was put in place. The Committee examined him and questioned him, and unanimously—with a Conservative majority on the Committee—said that this man is not fit for this office. We communicated that to the Government and nothing was done. Elizabeth Filkin was regarded as a strong Rottweiler, and she was replaced by Sir Philip Mawer, who was regarded as not so strong, but he resigned because he was not called in to investigate what took place with Adam Werritty, which was a matter of great importance. Adam Werritty called himself an adviser, but he was paid by people outside and attended a ministerial meeting. What happened was absolution by resignation. He was allowed to resign before the country knew the full facts of what went on. What possibly happened was that his advice—his seat at the table—might have brought us closer to a war with Iran. I appeal to all hon. Members to treat this matter seriously—[Interruption.] If Members are not aware of this, it is because the investigation was carried out by Gus O’Donnell to get it over in a few days rather than having a full, legitimate investigation. That investigation was itself a breach of the ministerial code.

If we are to increase respect for ourselves in society, we have to subject every Minister to examination by someone who is genuinely independent. If the Prime Minister breaks the ministerial code, we need an independent investigator to decide, of his own volition, whether to investigate. Now we have a poodle who has been instructed by the Prime Minister—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are discussing the Secretary of State, but we are in danger of concentrating on former or present Prime Ministers. I know that the hon. Gentleman is—rightly—constructing an argument, but we need to get to the Secretary of State.

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is calling a right hon. Member a poodle parliamentary language?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It was not a named Member, but we should be careful with language because we are in danger of reheating the Chamber, and that is what we do not wish to do—because we all want to hear each other’s speeches.

[Paul Flynn]

I apologise to the harmless and beautiful dogs to which I referred for any offence caused by their association with the people involved.

Yesterday, three former special advisers to Conservative Ministers were asked whether it would have been possible, in their posts as special advisers, to communicate 500 times with anybody without their Minister knowing. They laughed. The Secretary of State’s excuse is implausible and no one can believe that what went on happened without the Minister’s consent or knowledge. This is where he falls. The Conservatives have forgotten the lesson of the Mellor scandal: a resignation delayed is a disgrace multiplied. The Minister will regret the fact that he did not resign and that he did not submit his own case to the independent adviser for examination. Hanging on in this way will not help his career. He has erred and he should go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I will come to that point. It is ironic that the hon. Member for Newport West describes Sir Alex Allan as a poodle. That is not what we said in our report, incidentally. We were concerned about the manner of his appointment, and about whether it was appropriate for a recently retired civil servant to take that role, because he would not be seen as independent. We did not say that he was not fit to fulfil the role.

[Paul Flynn]

May I recommend that the hon. Gentleman re-read the report, and especially the minority report that I wrote, which I commend to him for its literary qualities alone? The report that was agreed by the majority of the Committee stated that Sir Alex Allan

“was unsuited to this role because he did not convince us that he would be able to demonstrate the independence the post requires.”

In more vigorous language, that means that he is not a rottweiler but a poodle.

[Mr Jenkin]

Those are the hon. Gentleman’s words, but the Committee went on to say:

“In fairness, it is unlikely that many retiring civil servants will have had the opportunity to demonstrate the necessary independence from Government in their career to date.”

I think that that places the right emphasis on the matter. If the role is to be seen to be independent, the manner of the appointment needs to be different and it would help to have someone who had demonstrated independence in their career to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

We have already heard from the hon. Gentleman and from his hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham selective misquotations of the Public Administration Committee’s report, but, whatever Opposition Members say, time and again we can point to Sir Alex Allan’s letter, in which he states that

“I do not believe that I could usefully add to the facts in this case”.

Sir Alex is fully aware of what has been said at the Leveson inquiry, what has been said here in the Chamber and what has been said at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, so Opposition Members are calling for—

[Paul Flynn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alun Cairns]

I am sorry, but because of the limit I do not have time to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has shown a strong interest in the matter.

Opposition Members are calling for the matter to be referred to someone, but if they do not like the outcome they will come out with the same judgment and call for the Secretary of State to go.

The key question is, was the issue handled properly? I say, absolutely yes and the Secretary of State has demonstrated the highest integrity, because at each and every stage he followed independent advice, which often went against the Murdoch interest. We have also heard that, because the Secretary of State followed that independent advice, James Murdoch was absolutely furious, so if there was a conspiracy it was pretty poorly planned.

Much has also been made of the letter from the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister, but, in view of the lobbying from the anti-Murdoch campaign leading up to that letter, and in view of the communications that I as a mere new Back Bencher had, I would be surprised if there was any Member who did not have a personal view on the issue. It would be almost impossible to pick out any Member, and certainly any Minister, who did not have an initial view on the matter. That is why the Secretary of State acted with the utmost integrity by taking advice and following it at each and every stage, and he did so because, as the letter shows, he was aware of the risk of a judicial review from the Murdochs and from the other side. He had no option other than to follow independent advice at every stage, and I am very glad he did.

I am extremely disappointed by the dismal litany that we heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham. She and other Labour Members should be judged by their own standards, and I would point to their former Prime Ministers and their special advisers.

Business of the House

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

This is potentially quite a complicated legal matter, and I will raise it with my ministerial colleagues at BIS and the Ministry of Justice. If it is simply a matter of trespass, the freehold can be recovered by court action—the MOJ may be able to give more detail. I have a lot of sympathy with the farmer who is confronted with this problem and I will raise it with the appropriate colleagues.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

When can we have a debate on this country following the examples of Canada, the Netherlands and now Australia, and taking an independent decision on withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan? The extraordinary result of the Bradford West by-election shows that there is a great dislocation between opinion in this country and opinion in this House. Should we not debate the fact that our soldiers should not be in Afghanistan for a day longer than is necessary?

[Sir George Young]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the green screen of the annunciator, he will see that there is shortly to be a statement on troop levels in Afghanistan. I very much hope that he will be able to stay in the Chamber for a little longer, as he will get an authoritative reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Again, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. The Government are continuing to explore ways to improve scrutiny, and there remain areas that we need to explore. One issue to bear in mind is whether hon. Members would be willing to serve on such a Committee. If that is the case and if we can make satisfactory arrangements, we will of course bring them to the House.

[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

Paul Flynn Excerpts

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.

Business of the House

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I commend what the schoolchildren in my hon. Friend’s constituency have done to mark Fairtrade fortnight. This issue would be an appropriate subject for a debate in Westminster Hall. Through the Department for International Development, we are a committed Fairtrade partner, and DFID provides support to Fairtrade International—some £12 million over four years—helping to strengthen the Fairtrade certification scheme, broaden its scope and deepen its impact. I commend what is happening in her constituency.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The recent terrible events in Afghanistan have convinced 73% of the public that our troops should be brought home immediately. Similar public opinion in the Netherlands and Canada convinced those countries to bring their troops out of that combat two years ago and one year ago respectively. Should we not reflect public opinion and have a debate and a vote in this House so that we can say what the public are saying—that our brave troops should not be asked to continue a mission impossible and risk their lives for a single day longer than necessary?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman has put this view forward consistently over a period of time and I commend him for his persistence. Such a matter would be for the Backbench Business Committee to find time to debate, but he might have seen in reports from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s visit to America about the timetable for withdrawal that we will have withdrawn from the combat role by the end of 2014. Also, there will be regular statements on a quarterly basis updating Members on the position in Afghanistan; he might want to ask a question in response to one of those statements.

Business of the House

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The concept of having a debate on why there is no debate is a novel one. I know that my hon. Friend is a regular participant in the pre-recess Adjournment debates, but the Government have made the last day before the Easter recess available to the Backbench Business Committee, which weighed the option of using it in the traditional way that my hon. Friend prefers against the alternative of providing time for a debate on assisted dying. The Backbench Business Committee has done what it is perfectly entitled to do, and decided to have a debate not on pre-recess issues, but on assisted dying. That is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee—a consequence of the Government’s giving away powers to it, enfranchising the Back Benchers.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The main justification given yesterday by Ministers for our continuing presence in Afghanistan was that it protected the United Kingdom against Taliban terrorist attacks. May we have a debate in which the Government can present to the House and the nation their evidence of Taliban plans for terrorist attacks on the United Kingdom, so that we can ensure that the country knows that there is some good reason for our continuing presence in Afghanistan rather than its being for the convenience of politicians? Our brave troops should not remain in Afghanistan for a day longer than necessary.

[Sir George Young]

Afghanistan was a failed state in which al-Qaeda was allowed to flourish and launch deadly attacks against citizens of other countries, including this one. We have an interest in ensuring that Afghanistan is no longer a failed state, but one that can police and look after itself. That is why we are there. There are many opportunities to cross-examine Ministers on this subject. As I said a few moments ago, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee as we speak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Pre-legislative scrutiny requires the publication of draft clauses, and that is what we have done. The hon. Lady might have noticed that. Of course, if, as a result of consultation, a very different proposal is put before the House, that too will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, because it is important that we get this right. Again, though, I really cannot take seriously the hon. Lady and her colleagues, who were incapable of doing anything about this problem, now complaining that we are doing something, which we are.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The tentacles of the corrupt and semi-corrupt lobbying system have sunk deep into the body politic. If politics is to be reformed and confidence in the House and politics restored, major reform is essential. Unfortunately, the consultation document shows that instead of listening to what the Prime Minister said when in opposition, the Government have spent their time listening to lobbyists lobbying about lobbying.

[Mr Heath]

That is absolute nonsense.

Business of the House

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand that my right hon. Friend has already done so in the context of the Act, but I will draw the hon. Lady’s remarks to his attention. If he has not done what I think he has done, I am sure he will do it in future.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

As Sir Philip Mawer has resigned his post and said that he believes he should have been the person who inquired into the Adam Werritty affair, should we not look at this again to make sure we have a thorough investigation into that affair because of the real possibility that the former Secretary of State for Defence was conducting his own private foreign policy that could lead us into a war with Iran?

[Sir George Young]

I have seen the evidence that Sir Philip Mawer gave before the Select Committee on Public Administration, and I have seen the exchange with the hon. Gentleman. It would make sense to await the Committee’s report before coming to a view on this issue, but he will know that the Cabinet Secretary produced his report, which led to the resignation of my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence, and we regard the matter as now closed.