President Trump: State Visit

Debate between Paul Flynn and Nigel Evans

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

It is extraordinary that Trump, from the cavernous depths of his scientific ignorance, is prepared to challenge the conclusions of 97% of the world experts on this matter. He makes a bad science conspiracy theory conclusion when, apart from the nuclear issue, climate change is the most important issue of our time.

On the nuclear issue, Trump is almost unique in that he believes in nuclear proliferation. He is trying to persuade countries such as South Korea and Japan to acquire their own nuclear weapons. We know that the danger of nuclear war exists not because of the malice of nations but because of the likelihood that it will come by accident—by human error, or by a technical failure similar to the one that happened when one of our missiles headed in the wrong direction towards the United States in a recent test. The more nations that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that that problem will emerge and we could be plunged into a nuclear war.

The question that the petitioners put as a main point is the situation as far as Her Majesty is concerned. A former permanent secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Ricketts, reacted to the invitation by arguing:

“There is no precedent for a US president paying a state visit to this country in their first year”

of office. He is quite right. He said:

“It would have been far wiser to wait to see what sort of president he would turn out to be before advising the Queen to invite him.”

The Queen has been put in a very difficult position, and for that reason alone we should consider this petition, and the Government should consider it, with a bit of humility, to decide what action should take place. They should change the invitation to one for a visit rather than one for a state visit.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Queen has been put in a difficult position. I know what a great fan of the monarch he is—indeed, he probably has weekly chats with her. What did she actually say to him to lead him to believe that she found the situation difficult?

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. We are not dragging the monarch into this debate. All right, colleagues?

Cannabis

Debate between Paul Flynn and Nigel Evans

Monday 12th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

Mr Speaker has agreed that, for this debate, members of the public can use handheld electronic devices in the Public Gallery, provided that such devices are silent. I am sure, however, that people will be so gripped by the debate that they will not be distracted at all by their handheld devices. Photos must not be taken.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered an e-petition relating to making the production, sale and use of cannabis legal.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, because you have played a distinguished part in debates on this issue—indeed, I might well quote some of the things you have said. One time, you complained that cannabis contained several hundred compounds, and the New Scientist wondered whether you knew how many compounds were in the cabbage you had had for your supper that night.

Before we start, I would like to illustrate how this Government—like all Governments—have handled this issue. It is typified by the response we had to this thunderously eloquent petition, which has been signed by 220,000 people. The response was trite: it could have been written 20 years ago. It does not reflect our current knowledge and experience, the great work that has been done, particularly in the last 20 years, or the serious case that has been made for decriminalising cannabis.

Let me start with a recent revelation about how the Government’s mind works. I put down a parliamentary question that could have been answered with one word. I asked how many prisons were free of illegal drug use; the answer that came back was that, for a month last year, 81 were. That was not the answer I was expecting, so I put down another question, asking how many prisons were free of illegal drug use for a year. The answer that came back was that one prison, Blantyre House, reported no drug use for a year. My next question was how many prisoners there were in Blantyre House, and the answer was none, because it had been closed down. The Government, in their secretive, defensive way, which denies the information, discovered that the answer to the drugs problem in prisons was to get rid not of the drugs, but of the prisoners—it is simple, really.

I am afraid that, since the decisions taken in the 1970s, Governments have been denying the truth that is before them: the attempt to reduce drugs in prisons has been a continuing, abject failure. They will not face up to that; they are in denial. The case I want to put today is that that failure has been going on for about 45 years. In the 1960s, the United Nations decided it would eliminate all illegal drug use throughout the planet in a decade. Many countries introduced laws. We introduced the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which was supported by all parties and by two Governments—there was a change of Government. The Act was going to be the answer; it was going to eliminate all drug use.

We have introduced the harshest punishments in all Europe, with the result that, although there were fewer than 1,000 heroin and cocaine addicts in 1971, there are now 320,000, and cannabis use has increased exponentially. It is amazing that, throughout that period—this argument has been going on for a long time—Governments have said, “We have tried a tough policy, but it has not worked, so we will try a tougher policy.” When that does not work, we get a different tough policy. No Government have had the sense to introduce a policy that could be described as intelligent. We urge the Government to consider that today.

The Government response begins with the statement that “cannabis is…harmful”. We want to legalise it because it is harmful—of course it is; we do not want to legalise it because it is safe. We need to replace the current system in Britain, where we have the worst of all worlds, spending billions each year trying to restrict the use of drugs. We jail more people as a proportion of the population than anywhere else on the planet, except the United States. We end up with all the problems that emanate from the abuse of drugs, but we gain none of the medical advantages that we would have if we liberated people so that they could use their medicine of choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

Similar concerns were expressed about the Netherlands and other countries when the laws were changed. It was said that there would be drug tourism and that people would flock across, and there have been examples of that, but one hopes that the world will gradually come to its senses, through a gradual process—it is happening now—and that laws can be synchronous and work in that way, as happens in many other areas. My trip to the Oireachtas happened because I was writing a report for the Council of Europe at the time. I was representing the United Kingdom, rather than my own opinions on the matter. What we saw in Dublin with regard to criminality was horrendous. It was very much a replay of what happened in the ’20s in America, and we have yet to learn that lesson.

One of the interventions reminded me of our attitude in this place. We have been talking about this for many years, and I prize the memory of one debate in which the Opposition spokesman and the Minister in charge had to leave. They could not stay for the full period because they needed to go outside the Chamber for a fix—they were both tobacco addicts. They did not see any contradiction in denouncing the use of an addictive drug in the Chamber, for young people, while they were themselves addicted to another drug.

I will not mention any names, but I recall another Conservative MP saying to me, “I just can’t understand it. I went to a prison and my constituent told me he wanted to get hold of some paracetamol for his toothache. He was told, ‘You can’t get that until you go and see the doctor tomorrow morning. You might be supplied with it then.’” The MP’s constituent made this point: “I can go out of this cell now and within 10 minutes, I can get heroin, cocaine”—Mr Evans, you might recall this story—“and cannabis as well”, because they were freely available. Can we persuade the Government to face up to the abject failure that has occurred over this long period?

I have spoken for longer than I intended, and I know that there are many other Members here with a long history in this subject who want to speak. I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for the Green party, and the Liberal Democrat Members who—I read in my copy of The Guardian this morning—are going to take up this issue in a more serious way. No party in this House has contributed more to this subject and the cause of reform than the Liberal Democrats. It is sad to see that a number of them lost out in the last election, particularly the former Member for Cambridge and the former Member for Lewes. Those people have perhaps been punished by the press and possibly the public for having been caught in possession of an intelligent idea, but they deserve credit from this House. I look forward to hearing what Members have to say.

I shall conclude my remarks with a story about a person called Elizabeth Brice, who campaigned under the name of Clare Hodges. Sadly, she died in 2011. Elizabeth Brice led protest after protest here, and she single-handedly convinced the Belgian Government in 1998 to change their law on medicinal cannabis. She was an extremely gifted woman; she was a producer for a television company and a classicist. Among her more bizarre achievements, she was translating the Noddy books into Latin, of which I have a prized copy. I mention her story, although I am grateful to all the people who have written to me recently—there is no way that I can do justice to the number of letters and submissions I have received.

Elizabeth wrote:

“Multiple Sclerosis is a cruel disease. You develop it when you’re young and healthy, and slowly but surely you lose all your faculties, abilities and functions. Nowadays you can expect to live your full life span often until you are completely dependent. And of course this is a very depressing prospect…all the future seemed to hold was deteriorating health and no medicines that really helped.

When I did try cannabis, the physical relief was almost immediate. The tension in my spine and bladder was eased, and I slept well. I was comfortable with my body for the first time in years. But, just as important, I felt happy that there was something, after all, that could help me. It was as if a huge weight had been lifted from me.”

She stated:

“Cannabis helps my body relax. I function and move much easier. The physical effects are very clear. It is not just a vague feeling of well-being.”

On one of her visits to the House of Commons, she committed a serious crime. Out on the Terrace, she asked for a cup of hot water, to which she added a green substance—I am sure that the staff were curious about what those green specks were in the cup afterwards. She had taken herbal cannabis in the House of Commons. The law at the moment says that she could be put in prison for five years, for the crime of seeking relief from pain. Does anyone believe that that law is sensible? That law is an ass. For so long, this House has been held back from full-scale reform by the timidity of Members of Parliament, because of a reluctance to reform for fear of being attacked by the media and losing votes. Now is the time for compassion and courage.

[Interruption.]

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

Order. No applause, please.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Debate between Paul Flynn and Nigel Evans

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Division seems to be taking an excessively long time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. Gentleman.

[Paul Flynn]

My point of order was about the length of time the Division is taking given the small number of Members present. Are people playing games?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Flynn, I cannot believe that that could possibly happen. If somebody is playing games, I am not sure who it is. You made your point of order just as I was rising to ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in both Lobbies.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Nigel Evans

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ Interests

Debate between Paul Flynn and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

No, it would not, because, under this Government, in the three serious cases I have mentioned, the code has not been used, when it should have been. The only time it has been called upon was in a case of some triviality, where the person involved admitted her guilt, and that went through. These other serious potential abuses have not even been investigated, and we must question the impartiality of the adviser because of his conduct on the day of the debate in question. All the misgivings we had were justified.

We, as an institution, are in grave danger of deepening public cynicism against us. We have had new cases of allegations, backed up with films showing a lobbyist trying to get access to the Prime Minister or boasting of access—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Time is up. I call Sir Alan Beith.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Nigel Evans

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. I wonder whether you would rule on the correct way of referring to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I think that respect for members of the royal family is warranted and it would therefore be appropriate to show proper respect in referring to them in the House.

[Paul Flynn]

I shall ask the question again. Is it an example of people with financial limits skimping when the heir to the throne and his wife take a journey that costs £29,000 without any public engagements being involved—the journey was a private one—and send that bill to the taxpayers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you remind me whether it is appropriate for an hon. Member to make remarks that appear to be disparaging about a member of the royal household?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have already had to remind Mr Flynn that when he is referring to the royal family, he should do so with dignity, as their status in this country behoves. I hope that he will refrain from disparaging remarks in the future.

[Paul Flynn]

That is a splendid illustration of the fact that we are infantilised and incapable of the freedom of expression that I would have if I was writing a blog, speaking on the radio or writing in a newspaper. This House and our role is diminished because of that. As an elected representative who has long been regarded by my constituents as a republican, I am denied the opportunity of speaking the truth as I see it.

[Paul Flynn]

I think that many advances have been very beneficial. One of the most important was the decision we took in 2003 to vote on whether we go to war. Some 230 Members voted against. Unlike my hon. Friend, I do not agree with many of the attributes that give us our national status in the world of being “wider still and wider”. Many people praise us for that because it means that we can punch above our weight. It also means that our soldiers have to die beyond our responsibilities. We have taken on an unreasonable share of the dying in Afghanistan and Iraq because of the elevated view we have of our status, which is a damaging view.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are going far wide of what we are here to speak on, which is the Third Reading of the Bill. Other Members wish to speak, so keep to the Bill, Mr Flynn.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) made a point about the Bill and about whether those at Buckingham palace listen to our debates. I assure him that they do. The last time I spoke on these issues, I had a call from Buckingham palace within an hour telling me that the information I had given about the heir to the throne’s income increasing by 50% in a year and his spending of taxpayers’ money increasing by 18% was absolutely accurate but could be misleading. So we are under that surveillance, I am happy to say.

I believe it is a complete myth to think that the Crown Estate is the property of the royal family, and it is a disingenuous view. In the Bill there is an attempt to refresh and replace that idea. I saw an interesting quote in the Financial Times from a Government source, who said:

“There is a major constitutional issue with appearing to say that”

the Queen

“owns all this stuff when she doesn’t”.

It is quite clear that the Crown Estate is the property of the country, and that the revenue should go to health, social security and the other issues before us.

I cannot understand why Members, particularly our own Front Benchers, having seen that the Bill was coming up—we have one every 250 years—are maximising the understandable current popularity of the royal family to ensure that it gets through and that there is a settlement that could be very expensive in future. If the Bill had been presented to the House at the time of Diana’s death, or another time when the royal family were very unpopular, the House would have given a very different view. Clearly this is a honeymoon time in which to introduce it.

I believe that, as has been suggested, a simple mechanism should have been adopted. As is the case for other taxpayers, such as recipients of income support and housing benefit, there could be a mechanism linked to inflation. I suggest again that it should be the same mechanism that decides on pensioners’ increases, which have sadly been reduced because of the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. If that measure were introduced and the funding were divorced from the Crown Estate, it would work and it would seem fair. Would it not be marvellous if we demanded from the royal family the same freedom of information that is demanded of all the rest of us?

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Paul Flynn and Nigel Evans

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

The practice of the Prime Minister reading out the names of those who have fallen in Iraq or Afghanistan started in June 2003 with Tony Blair. It never happened before. Does my hon. Friend think that we should have read out those names in the Kosovo conflict, the first Iraq war or the Falklands conflict?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are going wide of the amendment.

[Paul Flynn]

In the first world war there were pages in newspapers listing the fallen and those missing in action, so it would not have been practical then, but it is practical in this conflict. Sadly, we are still losing soldiers—about one soldier a week dies in Afghanistan—so it is absolutely right to continue reading out their names and making such announcements. The Government should not stop doing that. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend agrees that MPs should be forbidden from reading out the names of the fallen, but I do not think that was a reasonable decision. I have challenged it and been stopped and I am sure that you would stop me now, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I attempted to read out the names of the fallen.

We really must pay tribute to Brian Haw. On nights when we have finished here and gone out, even in the middle of winter and sometimes in the early hours of the morning, he has been there, night after night, with his simple, anti-war message. Whether we agree with him or not he deserves our admiration and we do not need any attempt to sweep him and his companions out of sight to have a cosmetic effect on the square for an event that will be forgotten in a few years’ time.

I agree entirely with those who have said that the right to protest is honourable. It is a matter of pride when visitors come to London from countries in which any sign of protest would be swept away from their well-manicured streets and tourist attractions. The majority of the world’s countries would not allow such protest to take place in such a situation, but we are better and more advanced than them, and we should be proud that we have the right to protest. It is not available in the House, as it might be, but it is in Parliament square.

UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan

Debate between Paul Flynn and Nigel Evans

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a new procedure. It is a special privilege to have Back-Bench business today, and we are rightly confined to speeches of eight minutes. What is the limit on Front-Bench speeches?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Front-Bench speakers have been notified of how many people wish to take part in this debate, and it is clearly up to them if they want to take interventions. The Secretary of State has pointed out that he has taken a number, some of which were rather lengthy.