Procedure of the House
Debate between Paul Flynn and David Winnick(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I believe that the Leader of the House has a choice in front him: withdrawal of this motion or humiliation in the Division Lobbies. It is clear from all those hon. Members who have spoken from all corners of the House that what is happening is entirely unacceptable to us.
When hon. Members left in 2010, we did so at the worst time for Parliament. We were being pilloried in the press—sometimes fairly, sometimes grossly unfairly, and I wrote a book about an hon. Member who I believe died prematurely because he was unfairly accused in the expenses scandal. This was the then hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire, David Taylor. Much of what happened then—the great screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal—was unjustified, but sadly a lot of it was justified and our reputation was in the gutter. Our main task in this Parliament was to restore confidence in this House and in democracy. The person who has done most to achieve that is Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker has stood up to the Government in a better way than any of the previous Speakers over the last 30 years. To the best of my knowledge, all were bullied at some time by the Government. Mr Speaker never has been. He has liberated Back Benchers and given us the time to name our debates at peak time when maximum attendance by Members is evident and the attention of the country is focused on us. He is the great success of this Parliament.
If we are looking to reform our Parliament—we remain greatly unreformed—there are at least a dozen other issues to take into account. If some Members have this latter-day devotion to democracy, why can we not do something about the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments when Members retire? This is a shameful institution—not the rottweiler it should be in controlling Members and stopping them using their insider knowledge to sell to the highest bidder. It should be stopping the corruption of Members in office, Ministers, civil servants, generals and so forth; it should prevent them from being tempted in their deliberations as they look for retirement jobs. We have done nothing about the scandal of the buying of peerages, and nothing about the buying of access to Ministers. All those scandals should have been addressed, but we have addressed none of them.
I believe that the Government will stand demeaned and shamed by this final act. They will be exposed as the nasty party, devoted not to the honour of the House—which has served us well down the centuries—but to spite and malice.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has listened to the views of the House, and I believe that he has a pretty good understanding of the feelings of the House. Would it not be appropriate for him to stand up now and withdraw the motion? [Hon. Members: “Withdraw!”]
Assisted Suicide
Debate between Paul Flynn and David Winnick
Mr Winnick
It is a point that the hon. Lady, a medical doctor herself, has made with great sincerity. The British Medical Association makes the same point, but presumably there are other doctors who take a different view from her. I do not know how many of them there are, but, as we know, there must obviously be certain doctors whose view is that, out of compassion, the law should not prevent them from doing what they consider to be appropriate. Of course, that would all be debated at length and in detail if any measure were to change the law as such.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Many of us have had the experience, as have many people in other countries, of doctors saying to them when their loved ones are suffering greatly that they will make sure that she or he “will not suffer”. What does my hon. Friend think doctors mean by that?
Mr Winnick
I think that we could all come to the same conclusion. Are we to take it that doctors in Oregon, Belgium or the Netherlands are not concerned about their patients, that they are potential Shipmans and that they could not care less whether or not their patients die? Although I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), I must, as my hon. Friend has indicated, accept that some doctors, however much they may be in a minority, take a different view.
I simply say to the House that whether or not we agree to any change in the law, this issue will not go away. The hon. Member for Croydon South said that more than 180 British citizens have gone to Switzerland in these circumstances. Perhaps there are others who would like to go, for they do not want to face an unbearable death, but do not have the financial means to do so. I hope that the House will not only agree to the guidelines, but be willing to explore the dilemma faced by these people. This could happen to any of us, as nobody is exempt from the possibility of having a severe illness of the sort that Anne Turner was facing and was determined to avoid at all costs, and which resulted in her going to the clinic in Switzerland. I hope that we will have a very good debate. The issues are very important and I hope that at the end of it the guidelines which the Law Lords instructed the DPP to produce will be fully supported on all sides and by all the opinions in this House.
Royal Assent
Points of Order
Debate between Paul Flynn and David Winnick(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Things have certainly moved on since last Monday, when the then Defence Secretary made a statement to the House. There has been a great deal of comment, and reports in the press, about various individuals and United States-based companies that were apparently involved with the individual who described himself at the time as the adviser to the Defence Secretary.
In view of the undoubtedly serious matters and allegations involving the Ministry of Defence, will the House have an opportunity to hear a statement? We heard a statement last Monday, but we have not heard one since, and these are very serious allegations.
Ninetieth Birthday of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh
Debate between Paul Flynn and David Winnick(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The supreme achievement of the Duke of Edinburgh is that he is working at the age of 90. This is a magnificent example and one that has been followed by a constituent of mine, Mr Harry Polloway, who is working as a toastmaster at the age of 97. I last saw him in the Jewish cemetery in my constituency, where we were commemorating the death of May Mendleson, who died last year at the age of 108. Continuing work into that period of life is a wonderful example to set, and one that we can look at with some embarrassment and shame in the House, where I believe the oldest Member—a distinguished Member—is just 80 years of age, and we have only five Members over the age of 76.
This group of people are disgracefully under-represented in the House. If we are to have a proper reflection of senior citizens, we must look to have all-80-year-old shortlists at the next general election. In the light of the heroic examples set by Prince Philip, Harry Polloway and May Mendleson, that fault needs to be corrected.
However, my purpose in speaking today is to make another point. As someone who is not a royalist and is happy to say that I am a republican and always have been, I want to ask why on earth, in this age, the address is to be “humble”. Are members of the royal family superior beings to the rest of us? Are we inferior beings to them? Is Prince Philip superior to Harry Polloway and May Mendleson? That was the feeling of the House seven centuries ago, when we accepted the rules under which we speak now.
We live in an egalitarian time when we recognise the universality of the human condition, in which royals and commoners share the same strengths and frailty. In the House, when we speak of the royals—not just the monarch, but all the family, without any limit—we are denied the chance of making any derogatory comment. That might extend to first cousins who are a long way distant from the monarch. There is no question but that the monarch—the Head of State—should remain above the political fray. We have been well served by this, particularly recently.
However, if these occasions are to be greatly valued, it should be possible for Members to utter the odd syllable that might be critical. I do not have anything to say in this case, but the sycophancy described by the Prime Minister when he referred to someone asking Prince Philip a fairly obvious question when he came off a plane must sicken the royal family. When they have an excess of praise of this kind, it is devalued.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
No one would accuse me of being an ardent royalist, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the most terrifying dictatorships—terrorist dictatorships—of the last century, including Germany, Russia and China, have been republics?
Paul Flynn
I was coming to the final sentence of my speech, but I would be happy to discuss that at some length. If my hon. Friend is asking whether the Queen has been a monarch of whom we should be proud, a monarch who has served this country in a way that is probably unparalleled, and whether she has maintained political neutrality throughout those years, I would say yes. We particularly appreciated her work in Ireland recently, where she has done much to restore the link. That is not the point of what I am saying today.
I am saying that the House has allowed itself to be infantilised by our own history into a position in which we are not allowed to make any criticism—not just of the person whom we are talking about today, but of other members of the royal family as well. It stretches to all of them. By accepting today that the address is a humble one, we demean the honour of our elected office. We were elected by the first-past-the-post system, but those with hereditary offices are in their place as a result of what Tony Benn once called the first-past-the-bedpost system. We should be free in this House to tell the whole truth as citizens, not gagged as subservient subjects.