New Nuclear Power

Debate between Peter Bone and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

The Question is that this House has—

[Paul Flynn]

Mr Bone, there is some time left. It is normal to allow the proposer to use that time—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman sit down? He may not know the new procedure, but the Question is put. If we reach 11.30, the Question cannot be put. If he wants to have what I would call a Division on this, we have to do it before 11.30, and the Minister quite correctly sat down in time to do that.

[Paul Flynn]

There is time left. This is the normal practice. I just want to say that it was a very disappointing response from the Minister, who stuck to a civil service script that had been carefully manicured and presented by her, with a series of platitudes that we all know about. She is not facing up to the crisis that exists in nuclear power at the moment—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Before hon. Members go, I point out that the new procedure asks for the Question to be put. The Minister kindly sat down at the right time, but the hon. Gentleman in charge has talked himself out of that.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Public Administration Committee Report (Charity Commission)

Debate between Peter Bone and Paul Flynn

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Committee on producing such an excellent report—

[Paul Flynn]

You haven’t read it.

[Mr Bone]

There it is, Paul. I’ve read it—okay?

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Paul Flynn

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

In imposing this archaic rule and virtually choosing partners for people, which we would denounce in every other field, and in putting the emphasis on religion, when we know that half the population has no religion—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I know that clauses 2 and 3 are closely linked, but we are shifting quickly into clause 3. The sooner we finish with the clause 2 stand part debate, the sooner we will get to clause 3.

Israel

Debate between Peter Bone and Paul Flynn

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

The political editor of The Daily Telegraph has alleged that a meeting that took place in February this year between the previous Defence Secretary, Adam Werritty and others was attended by Mossad. As the report that we have on the matter decided that that was a private meeting, is it not time that we looked at the policy followed by Mr Adam Werritty as possibly something that would lead to a conflict with Iran and had a legitimate report into the Adam Werritty-former Defence Secretary affair, because the only enforcer of the ministerial code is Philip Mawer—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that that is far too long for an intervention.

Bill of Rights

Debate between Peter Bone and Paul Flynn

Thursday 17th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, Mr Bone. I was about to say that your career has peaked by your elevation to your present job. However, that would not be true, because your career peaked when you were running a business in my constituency. Any move from being a businessman in Newport to a Conservative MP is a descent rather an ascent. However, we wish you well.

The case being presented today is one with which I am familiar. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on securing the debate. We all listened in fascination to the surprising facts he detailed. I hope that there will be a positive outcome. The Backbench Business Committee has allowed me to have this micro-debate within a debate on a subject of parallel interest, although that might not be obvious. They are, however, connected by the rights and duties of Members of Parliament.

I want to talk about the conduct of our trade representative, Prince Andrew. There are difficulties. I was told on Monday that it might be unfair to say anything that might be derogatory of a member of the royal family, on the grounds that they cannot answer back. Indeed, the person involved has been defended very adequately by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, and he has the 24-hour support of the generously taxpayer-funded royal spin machine working on his behalf. If he is not defending himself, he is being more than adequately defended by others. I believe that he can without any problem defend himself if he so wishes, if he thinks he is being criticised unfairly.

The question of parliamentary convention has been discussed; whether there is a convention that nothing disrespectful or derogatory is said about members of the royal family. There is nothing, as far as I can see, in “Erskine May” on the matter. If there is some spectral convention that we are not allowed to speak on the matter, I believe it should have a stake driven through its heart, and should be buried today. These issues have been debated at great length in the media, in blogs and everywhere else. Why on earth should the only people to have their mouths bandaged into silence on the issue be elected Members? Why on earth should we not be free to talk about this matter, which is of considerable interest and importance? I will be very selective in what I say today. I will certainly not quote the salacious tittle-tattle that has been in the press and I will not quote from sources that appear to be ill-founded rumours. What I want to speak about are the comments made by serious people making serious criticism.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I am determined that this debate will be as wide as possible, but it does have to be within the framework of the motion before us. It is entirely right for the hon. Member to talk about the convention and whether it should apply, and whether there even is a convention, but we cannot have a long debate on the substance. As I said to Mr Hemming, it is right to mention an individual case in illustration, but we cannot have a debate purely on that subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

I previously had difficulty when I wished to have a debate on the subject of the misrepresentation of the swine flu pandemic by Governments throughout Europe. I was told that I could bring the subject up in a debate on the general issue of health. There is a real problem of order, Mr Bone, because of the view taken by the Backbench Business Committee. I communicated my problems with the previous debate to the Committee, where the previous Chair and the Minister involved did not think that the swine flu issue should be considered in such detail, although that was what was in the mind of the Backbench Business Committee. We are in the area of new procedures in the House and it was the suggestion of the Backbench Business Committee, including the hon. Member who secured this debate, that the debate should be allowed. If it is not going to be allowed, well so be it, but I wish to—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I have the slight advantage of chairing the debate and also being a member of the Backbench Business Committee. In granting the debate, it was thought appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to speak, but not that there would be a substantive debate in relation to what the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about. He can talk about the principle, but he would have to apply elsewhere if he wanted a substantive debate on what I think he was leading to. I would also say that there is something in “Erskine May” on that.

[Paul Flynn]

Well, I have looked at “Erskine May”. Perhaps we could have a ruling. I believe these are points of order, Mr Bone, between you and me. There is clearly no point in continuing if I cannot have the debate that I applied for. That was the understanding of the Backbench Business Committee. I was clear at the Backbench Business Committee that I wished to raise the conduct of Prince Andrew and the harm that many people believe it is doing. If I am to be denied the chance of doing that, I will end my speech now and apply in different circumstances.

[Paul Flynn]

I do not know if I can proceed on those lines, because the subject is one of—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

That may well be a point of order. [Interruption.] It was. Right. Just to help the House, “Erskine May” states on page 384:

“Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the Royal Family.”

Therefore, while it is possible to talk about the principle and the convention, the hon. Gentleman cannot talk about the substantive issue, because it is not a substantive motion on that point. That is my ruling.

[Paul Flynn]

In those circumstances, there really is no point in continuing. We are clearly in a position where there is censorship on hon. Members discussing an issue of great importance, where our country’s interests and business may be damaged. The view of the House, however, seems to be that MPs have a rule of omertà and we cannot discuss it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. What the hon. Gentleman is saying now is absolutely in order, because he is referring to the principle of whether we should be debating it or not. What we cannot do is actually have the debate.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful to you, Mr Bone. I shall apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a full debate entirely on that subject so that we can test whether the House is under censorship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I say again that the way the hon. Member for Newport West was speaking just now, when he was talking about the principle and the convention, is absolutely what this debate is about. What we cannot go into, because of that convention, is the detail of what he wants to do. By all means, the hon. Gentleman should carry on and talk about the principle and whether he thinks it is right or wrong, but we cannot actually go into the substance because we are not allowed to.

[Paul Flynn]

I can only describe what the position is, as far as I understood it. I understood that these were new procedures under the Backbench Business Committee. I had an e-mail from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chair of that Committee, saying—because I anticipated this difficulty—that she had communicated with you, Mr Bone, and the Minister responsible. I understood that under the new procedures, micro-debates of this kind, which are not entirely within the boundaries of the motion before us, would be allowed. If that is not so, I must seek a further opportunity to debate the matter elsewhere.