Paul Flynn - Read My Day

Who pays the IEA piper?

Who pays the IEA piper? 

(A blog I wrote back in May 2015)

What sensitive irrational characters lobbyists are.

The word has become so toxic that they hide behind euphemisms such as ‘public policy advisers’. W e all know what that means and the fear of stigmatization is understood and accepted. Less defensible are those who seek respect as objective observers and describe themselves as ‘Think Tanks’ when they are hired guns for usually bad causes.

My original tweet said

“So-called THINK TANK IEA publishes pro-alcohol industry report. Who paid for it? IEA refused to name funders in past. THINK TANK or LOBBYISTS?”

Fairly clear that the point I was making is whether the Institute of Economic Affairs is a think tank or paid lobbying firm. There were immediate squeals of irrational abuse from the IEA and other lobbyists. Someone who is described as IEA’s Head of Public Policy tweeted

“Ryan Bourne ‏‪@MrRBourne Hypocrite ‪@paulflynnmp voted at every stage in favour of Licensing Act - now accuses ‪@iealondon of being lobbyists for defending it.”

No sign of rational thought there. I made no judgment on the success or otherwise on the reforms that I long supported. Ryan Bourne evades the serious issue of IEA’s status and indulges in a probably libellous ad hominem attack.  He invents a non-issue and then attacks the absurdity of his own creation, other IEA groupies followed the feeding frenzy into irrelevance. Persistent requests by me made again today and in the past remain unanswered.

 

According to its website, the IEA does “not place a list of our donors in the public domain. It is a matter for individual donors whether they wish their donation to be public or private — we leave that entirely to their discretion.” But in 2014 The Guardian disclosed that the IEA took substantial sums of cash from large tobacco firms, and – coincidentally – published reports strongly defending the tobacco industry against tighter regulation.

  

Which begs the question: who pays the IEA piper?

 

 

 

In November 2012 the PASC Committee focused on political campaigning by charities and questioned Christopher Snowdon, Research Fellow of the Institute for Economic Affairs.

 

 

Paul Flynn: You say there have been no examples of political bias from the IEA.  I have just read this remarkable document and I would suggest it is not a balanced document, but we will come back to that.  The Atlantic Bridge: what lessons do you draw from the fact that the Atlantic Bridge was advised by the Charity Commission to end their activities?

Christopher Snowdon: I don’t know enough about the case, I am afraid.

Paul Flynn: Would you describe the Atlantic Bridge as having a “militant agenda”?

Christopher Snowdon: I don’t know anything about them.

Paul Flynn: I can fill you in on it.  The Atlantic Bridge was an organisation dominated by prominent members of the Conservative Party and prominent members of the Tea Party tendency in America.  They existed to promote things like the Iraq war, the Afghan war and other American agendas in Britain.  They also imported brainwashed young people as researchers in this place, who were distributed to Conservative MPs and bored us all stiff on the Terrace with their extreme views.  You are not aware of it.  

Christopher Snowdon: Not really, no.  Sorry.

Paul Flynn: Just on the question of “militant”: you describe certain organisations as having a “militant agenda” in the non‑political view of the IEA, and the militant groups are the Child Poverty Action Group, War on Want and Pesticide Action Network.  Can you enlarge on why these people are militants?  

Christopher Snowdon: Militant?  Both War on Want and the Child Poverty Action Group are on the far left politically.

Paul Flynn: That is militant, is it?  

Christopher Snowdon: I think that is a reasonable viewpoint.

Paul Flynn: You have a fixation about smoking and the smoking ban.  You claim in your document, you pray in aid evidence, that taxes on alcohol are intrinsically unpopular with the population, and you would say the same about tobacco—that it was unpopular to ban tobacco.  The evidence you offer is a report from the World Health Organisation in 2004.  Are you happy that that is a rational basis on which to found an argument: the popularity of the smoking ban?

Christopher Snowdon: The World Health Organisation in that particular paper said that a tax on alcohol is intrinsically unpopular, as indeed taxes on most things tend to be unpopular with the people who purchase them.  With the smoking issue, ASH themselves—Action on Smoking and Health—said in their financial accounts from some years back, which I quote in there, that it is very difficult to raise funds for the anti‑smoking cause, because it does not seem to be particularly popular.  

Paul Flynn: The theme running through this book is that popularity should determine causes.  If it is a popular cause, is should be enacted, and if it is an unpopular cause, it should not be supported.  Could I just say that, if you had got figures more up to date than 2004, you would find that there was 56% support for the smoking ban in 2003 and 81% support in 2011?  I can give you each individual year.  Clearly this has been an example of a ban being imposed—obviously smokers objected—that then became very popular and very successful, which is absent from your document.

Christopher Snowdon: That is not relevant to my point, which is that, at the time the campaign was ongoing for the smoking ban, most people were against it.  This is the argument I am making.

Paul Flynn: Do you think Government should just do those things that are popular, not the things that are necessarily right?  

Christopher Snowdon: No; I am suggesting that Government should not fund lobby groups to campaign for causes that may be dearer to their hearts than they are to the public’s.  

Paul Flynn: Does not Government have a duty to do good things in their simplest form?  There are already hugely well founded organisations like Forest and others that are in the pay of the tobacco industry and are encouraging young people into this addiction that will lead to their early deaths.  Does the Government not have a responsibility to ensure that another point of view is put forward and that is funded as well?

Christopher Snowdon: No, I don’t think so.  What you are making there is basically what the European Commission’s argument is for funding all these environmental groups and, indeed, think tanks: to act as a counterweight to all the industrial lobbying that they receive.  I do not think it is the place of Government to deliberately create front groups.

Paul Flynn: Would you agree there should be a balance between those who are lobbying for their own greed, their own profit, and those who are advocating the public good with health?  If you are a lobbyist with a bottomless pocket, you can pay £250,000 and have a dinner with the Prime Minister to lobby him personally.  Is that reasonable?  In those circumstances, should the causes that are lobbying for the public good have some assistance?

Christopher Snowdon: No, because it is dishonest.

Paul Flynn: Is it not dishonest to buy an MP, and for countries like Azerbaijan and Israel to invite lots of MPs to their country, butter them up, pay for their hotels, pay their expenses and then bring them back and expect them to deliver?  Is that dishonest?

Christopher Snowdon: I don’t know if it is dishonest.  It is an attempt at persuasion.  Even if it were dishonest, two wrongs would not make a right.  If the Department of Health wishes to bring in a smoking ban, plain packaging for cigarettes or a ban on display, which it clearly does, then it should just get on and do it, rather than go through this charade of creating numerous front groups, using public money to finance campaigns that, on the face of it, do not look like Government‑funded campaigns.  They look like civil society campaigns to try to persuade the public on a policy that has already been decided within the bureaucracy and has not been decided democratically or through reasoned debate.  It has been decided on high, and then these policies are pushed to the people using what we would describe, if industry was involved, as front groups.

Chair: It is passing off organisations that purport to be independent but actually are agents of government.

Christopher Snowdon: Of the state, yes.

Paul Flynn: You make no apologies for the fact that the piece of research you quote is eight years old and you did not check the subsequent research.

Christopher Snowdon: No, because it is completely irrelevant that it is eight years old.  The point being made there is that, at the time the Government was funding groups to campaign on their behalf, the policy was unpopular.  My argument throughout this report is that many of the things that the Government did create groups to campaign for are unpopular.  There would be no need to go through this charade if they were popular policies.  If you have popular policies, you simply put them in your manifesto and then you bring them about.  

Paul Flynn: In your ideal world, Mr Snowdon, because there was not a majority among smokers for a smoking ban, we should not have had a smoking ban.  The great benefits that have resulted from that would not come about.  

Christopher Snowdon: I personally hate the smoking ban and I wish it had never come in, so it does not have any great benefits for me.  The fact that 80% of the people may approve of it still means that 20% of the people disapprove of it.  Incidentally, 20% of the population are smokers, so we probably disagree on how beneficial the smoking ban has been.

Paul Flynn: Do we judge all Government policies on the effects they have on Mr Snowdon?  Is this a rational argument? 

Christopher Snowdon: No, we do not, but nor do we judge them on Mr Flynn.  Whether the smoking ban is a good or bad thing is by the by.  I am using it as an example to show a tendency that has been in government for the last 15 years.

 

What sensitive irrational characters lobbyists are.

The word has become so toxic that they hide behind euphemisms such as ‘public policy advisers’. W e all know what that means and the fear of stigmatization is understood and accepted. Less defensible are those who seek respect as objective observers and describe themselves as ‘Think Tanks’ when they are hired guns for usually bad causes.

My original tweet said

“So-called THINK TANK IEA publishes pro-alcohol industry report. Who paid for it? IEA refused to name funders in past. THINK TANK or LOBBYISTS?”

Fairly clear that the point I was making is whether the Institute of Economic Affairs is a think tank or paid lobbying firm. There were immediate squeals of irrational abuse from the IEA and other lobbyists. Someone who is described as IEA’s Head of Public Policy tweeted

“Ryan Bourne ‏‪@MrRBourne Hypocrite ‪@paulflynnmp voted at every stage in favour of Licensing Act - now accuses ‪@iealondon of being lobbyists for defending it.”

No sign of rational thought there. I made no judgment on the success or otherwise on the reforms that I long supported. Ryan Bourne evades the serious issue of IEA’s status and indulges in a probably libellous ad hominem attack.  He invents a non-issue and then attacks the absurdity of his own creation, other IEA groupies followed the feeding frenzy into irrelevance. Persistent requests by me made again today and in the past remain unanswered.

 

According to its website, the IEA does “not place a list of our donors in the public domain. It is a matter for individual donors whether they wish their donation to be public or private — we leave that entirely to their discretion.” But in 2014 The Guardian disclosed that the IEA took substantial sums of cash from large tobacco firms, and – coincidentally – published reports strongly defending the tobacco industry against tighter regulation.

  

Which begs the question: who pays the IEA piper?

 

 

 

In November 2012 the PASC Committee focused on political campaigning by charities and questioned Christopher Snowdon, Research Fellow of the Institute for Economic Affairs.

 

 

Paul Flynn: You say there have been no examples of political bias from the IEA.  I have just read this remarkable document and I would suggest it is not a balanced document, but we will come back to that.  The Atlantic Bridge: what lessons do you draw from the fact that the Atlantic Bridge was advised by the Charity Commission to end their activities?

Christopher Snowdon: I don’t know enough about the case, I am afraid.

Paul Flynn: Would you describe the Atlantic Bridge as having a “militant agenda”?

Christopher Snowdon: I don’t know anything about them.

Paul Flynn: I can fill you in on it.  The Atlantic Bridge was an organisation dominated by prominent members of the Conservative Party and prominent members of the Tea Party tendency in America.  They existed to promote things like the Iraq war, the Afghan war and other American agendas in Britain.  They also imported brainwashed young people as researchers in this place, who were distributed to Conservative MPs and bored us all stiff on the Terrace with their extreme views.  You are not aware of it.  

Christopher Snowdon: Not really, no.  Sorry.

Paul Flynn: Just on the question of “militant”: you describe certain organisations as having a “militant agenda” in the non‑political view of the IEA, and the militant groups are the Child Poverty Action Group, War on Want and Pesticide Action Network.  Can you enlarge on why these people are militants?  

Christopher Snowdon: Militant?  Both War on Want and the Child Poverty Action Group are on the far left politically.

Paul Flynn: That is militant, is it?  

Christopher Snowdon: I think that is a reasonable viewpoint.

Paul Flynn: You have a fixation about smoking and the smoking ban.  You claim in your document, you pray in aid evidence, that taxes on alcohol are intrinsically unpopular with the population, and you would say the same about tobacco—that it was unpopular to ban tobacco.  The evidence you offer is a report from the World Health Organisation in 2004.  Are you happy that that is a rational basis on which to found an argument: the popularity of the smoking ban?

Christopher Snowdon: The World Health Organisation in that particular paper said that a tax on alcohol is intrinsically unpopular, as indeed taxes on most things tend to be unpopular with the people who purchase them.  With the smoking issue, ASH themselves—Action on Smoking and Health—said in their financial accounts from some years back, which I quote in there, that it is very difficult to raise funds for the anti‑smoking cause, because it does not seem to be particularly popular.  

Paul Flynn: The theme running through this book is that popularity should determine causes.  If it is a popular cause, is should be enacted, and if it is an unpopular cause, it should not be supported.  Could I just say that, if you had got figures more up to date than 2004, you would find that there was 56% support for the smoking ban in 2003 and 81% support in 2011?  I can give you each individual year.  Clearly this has been an example of a ban being imposed—obviously smokers objected—that then became very popular and very successful, which is absent from your document.

Christopher Snowdon: That is not relevant to my point, which is that, at the time the campaign was ongoing for the smoking ban, most people were against it.  This is the argument I am making.

Paul Flynn: Do you think Government should just do those things that are popular, not the things that are necessarily right?  

Christopher Snowdon: No; I am suggesting that Government should not fund lobby groups to campaign for causes that may be dearer to their hearts than they are to the public’s.  

Paul Flynn: Does not Government have a duty to do good things in their simplest form?  There are already hugely well founded organisations like Forest and others that are in the pay of the tobacco industry and are encouraging young people into this addiction that will lead to their early deaths.  Does the Government not have a responsibility to ensure that another point of view is put forward and that is funded as well?

Christopher Snowdon: No, I don’t think so.  What you are making there is basically what the European Commission’s argument is for funding all these environmental groups and, indeed, think tanks: to act as a counterweight to all the industrial lobbying that they receive.  I do not think it is the place of Government to deliberately create front groups.

Paul Flynn: Would you agree there should be a balance between those who are lobbying for their own greed, their own profit, and those who are advocating the public good with health?  If you are a lobbyist with a bottomless pocket, you can pay £250,000 and have a dinner with the Prime Minister to lobby him personally.  Is that reasonable?  In those circumstances, should the causes that are lobbying for the public good have some assistance?

Christopher Snowdon: No, because it is dishonest.

Paul Flynn: Is it not dishonest to buy an MP, and for countries like Azerbaijan and Israel to invite lots of MPs to their country, butter them up, pay for their hotels, pay their expenses and then bring them back and expect them to deliver?  Is that dishonest?

Christopher Snowdon: I don’t know if it is dishonest.  It is an attempt at persuasion.  Even if it were dishonest, two wrongs would not make a right.  If the Department of Health wishes to bring in a smoking ban, plain packaging for cigarettes or a ban on display, which it clearly does, then it should just get on and do it, rather than go through this charade of creating numerous front groups, using public money to finance campaigns that, on the face of it, do not look like Government‑funded campaigns.  They look like civil society campaigns to try to persuade the public on a policy that has already been decided within the bureaucracy and has not been decided democratically or through reasoned debate.  It has been decided on high, and then these policies are pushed to the people using what we would describe, if industry was involved, as front groups.

Chair: It is passing off organisations that purport to be independent but actually are agents of government.

Christopher Snowdon: Of the state, yes.

Paul Flynn: You make no apologies for the fact that the piece of research you quote is eight years old and you did not check the subsequent research.

Christopher Snowdon: No, because it is completely irrelevant that it is eight years old.  The point being made there is that, at the time the Government was funding groups to campaign on their behalf, the policy was unpopular.  My argument throughout this report is that many of the things that the Government did create groups to campaign for are unpopular.  There would be no need to go through this charade if they were popular policies.  If you have popular policies, you simply put them in your manifesto and then you bring them about.  

Paul Flynn: In your ideal world, Mr Snowdon, because there was not a majority among smokers for a smoking ban, we should not have had a smoking ban.  The great benefits that have resulted from that would not come about.  

Christopher Snowdon: I personally hate the smoking ban and I wish it had never come in, so it does not have any great benefits for me.  The fact that 80% of the people may approve of it still means that 20% of the people disapprove of it.  Incidentally, 20% of the population are smokers, so we probably disagree on how beneficial the smoking ban has been.

Paul Flynn: Do we judge all Government policies on the effects they have on Mr Snowdon?  Is this a rational argument? 

Christopher Snowdon: No, we do not, but nor do we judge them on Mr Flynn.  Whether the smoking ban is a good or bad thing is by the by.  I am using it as an example to show a tendency that has been in government for the last 15 years.

 

The Grudged gift

Its deeply satisfying to see a campaign successfully home.

For 25 years MPs have been trying to establish a simple truth. CANNABIS HAS THERAPEUTIC QUALITIES. Governments have denied this simple fact. -Prejudice rich Evidence free.

Cannabis in its natural forms has been used for 5,000 year in all continents of the planet. The news has just reached the Government - one day into the parliamentary recess when the decisions cannot be probed.Twice this year the Government has stubbornly blocked  my parliamentray bill that corrects the false basis of the prohibition on medicinal cannabis. Now they have given in, doing the right deed for the wrong reason.

 

Paul Flynn MP reacts to medical cannabis reforms

Nicholas ThomasReporter

Labour MP Paul Flynn speaks at a cannabis tea party outside London's Houses of Parliament in October 201 

   

 

THE MP for Newport West, Paul Flynn, has said the UK government’s decision to legalise cannabis-derived medicines is “progress” but should have come sooner.

The home secretary, Sajid Javid, announced on Thursday (July 26) that specialist doctors would be able to prescribe the products to patients with exceptional medical needs by autumn this year.

Mr Flynn has long campaigned for cannabis – a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 – to be legalised for medical use.

 

Reacting to the home secretary’s decision, Mr Flynn said: “For the first time in 45 years a British government has admitted that cannabis is a medicine.

“This is progress, even though the government were shamed into acting by the obscenity of films of children having their seizure-controlling medicine confiscated.”

Mr Flynn is referring to the case of Billy Caldwell, a 13-year-old boy with severe epilepsy whose cannabis oil was confiscated by customs officials at Heathrow airport when his mother attempted to bring it into the country from Canada.

Billy’s condition had shown marked improvement during periods of treatment with the oil.

 

 

Mr Flynn now hopes the UK will explore cannabis-derived medicines as a potential treatment for other conditions, in line with other countries around the world.

“There is a bigger problem in the denial of cannabis medicine to many thousands who suffer from multiple sclerosis and epilepsy”, he said.

“Dozens of other countries have done the research and doctors should be allowed to prescribe [cannabis-derived medicines] for a whole range of other illnesses.”

While many people celebrate the news, including families who will now be able to legally access cannabis oil treatment, a leading children’s doctor has reminded people of the potential dangers of using such medicines without correct medical supervision.

 

Dr Mike Linney, registrar and chair of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health ethics committee, said: “Cannabis-derived medicinal products have been shown to improve the quality of life for some children suffering with conditions such as severe epilepsy.

“This decision will come as a relief for these families, as it grants hope for other potential life enhancing treatment options.

“In addition, this ruling will potentially allow further much needed research into the benefits and side effects of cannabis-derived medicinal products.

“Now that a decision has been made, we look forward to hearing more from the Department for Health and Social Care and the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency, who will now develop a clear definition of what constitutes a cannabis-derived medicinal product.

 

“However, in the meantime, I must stress the importance of parents not giving children unlicensed cannabinoid oil products.

“There is currently no clear evidence to suggest that they are safe or effective in treating medical conditions, and there is a serious risk that they will interfere with prescribed medications that the child is taking.

 

 

Hands off our history!

 

 

Oh, No, you don’t.

 
Tory Monmouth MP claims that Tories helped create the NHS. No, they did not. I was politically active in 1946 when the Tories voted 21 times, against the NHS Act including the First and Second readings.

They denounced a free health service as Hitlerian and “the first step to turn Britain into a Nazi economy” As it’s been a roaring success all Tory MPs wore a badge celebrating 70 years of the NHS.

Hands off our history. The NHS is Labour’s and Gwent’s finest achievement.

 

·    When will the whole world suss out Trump?

His recent tour left a trail of insulted friends and comforted enemies. His ploy is absurd, obvious and repeated. First he exaggerates the hopelessness of crisis, then miraculously he solves it in a few days through the alchemy of his self-confessed genius. The truth is that he has inflamed every frozen conflict he has addressed.

 

It’s hilarious but no joke. This petulant child president has his impulsive finger on the nuclear button.

 

 

*  One scam fades: another appears in shades of shameless greed.  Mobile telephone companies slip unfair conditions into their bills. We should all read them thoroughly. Some are almost impossible to leave-without coughing up vast cancellation penalties. Others charge excessive amounts for unwanted changes in service.  Facilities are added to the phones that are never used. One company went on charging a customer after a service was unused and even cancelled. These companies are difficult to deal with. Their contacts stick to a rigid script devoid of helpful dialogue.

 They must be challenged or they will get away with robbery.

 

·    The Commons is in chaos. All normal rules have collapsed as MPs break long traditions of pairing votes. Trust has gone. Last month I voted alongside a sick colleague on a morphine drip. Decisions that could wreck or restore our economy with a Brexit or Wreckit, are won on a handful of votes.  Time for politicians to step aside and allow the public their second thoughts. They are always better than first thoughts.

 

*Sad to read of the death of Councillor Marian Morley. She served the city of Newport well in the 70s/80s as an intelligent and dedicated advocate for Alway and the city. Previously as Marian Westacott she had a distinguished career as a swimmer who represented Wales and she was an inspired teacher in Newport and Caldicot. May she rest in peace. 

End this cruelty and allow the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes

It’s time to show some compassion to thousands of patients who could benefit from medical cannabis.

Outrage at the barbaric obscenity of a customs officer seizing the life-saving medicine of a child will propel a major reform. Legal relief from pain and seizures will be available for the first time in 50 years to tens of thousands of British patients. It offers the best protection against a British epidemic of opioid deaths which could be avoided. British law could at last be science and evidence-based, free from the crippling prejudice of the recent past.

Alfie Dingley was the first high profile case in which cannabis was requested to treat a child’s epileptic seizures. Alfie had up to 3,000 seizures and 48 hospital visits in just one year. After a public outcry, Hannah Deacon, Alfie’s mother received personal assurances from The Prime Minister that Alfie would receive his medicine. Three months later after surmounting numerous hurdles, Alfie can have his medicine of choice, but for a mere 20 days.

The television pictures of Billy Caldwell pierced all our hearts. In disbelief, we heard Billy Caldwell’s mum say doctors told her to inject the boy with morphine and let him slip away.

Charlotte Caldwell says she was given repeated chances to euthanize her son – and take comfort from the fact his brain could be used for medical research. She alleges one doctor approached her with a syringe driver to pump morphine into little Billy and told her it “would all be over in a moment”. Charlotte feared leaving her baby alone during a 16-week stay in Hospital.

The explosion of parliamentary anger forced Sajid Javid’s announcement of a government review of the scheduling of cannabis medicines. The commission would first have experts look at the evidence for the medical benefits of cannabis. Then government advisors will recommend what products might be rescheduled. There is impressive evidence of the value of cannabis relieving the symptoms of epilepsy and multiple sclerosis.

The Home Secretary said: “I’ve now come to the conclusion that it is time to review the scheduling of cannabis.”

There’s an additional reason why my Bill will be of great value. US States that have approved medical cannabis laws saw a dramatic reduction in opioid use, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Georgia. The Journal of the American Medical Association, found in states with medical cannabis dispensaries there was a 14.4% reduction in use of prescription opioids and a 7% reduction in opiate prescriptions filled in states with home-cultivation medical cannabis laws. More than forty thousand annual deaths from opioids, mostly prescribed, have alarmed even President Trump. There is evidence that the same pattern of opioid overuse and increasing deaths could be repeated here. Using the ancient safer mild alternative would avoid future British tragedies.

The UK’s international status on drugs is irrational and old-fashioned. Dozens of countries in Europe and the Americas are benefiting from science-based reforms. Canada is the first G7 nation to permit a nationwide marijuana market. In the USA 30 states allow for medical use.

The UK is in the embarrassing position of producing 44% of the world’s medicinal cannabis yet forbids its use here.

Diane Abbott MP, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, announced a significant change. For the first time since 1971 one of the two major parties has supported the legal prescription of cannabis oil for medical purposes. She said: “A number of recent heart-breaking cases have highlighted a failure of Government policy. Children have been put at risk and experienced extraordinary suffering because this Government drags its heels and refuses to grant cannabis oil licences. This must not continue. Labour in government will allow the legal prescription of cannabis oil for medical purposes. We will also review drugs policy to address all issues of public health. The Government should stop being so heavy-handed and bureaucratic and put the welfare of children first.”

Two mass acts of civil disobedience outside Parliament have proved that medicinal cannabis prohibition is unenforceable. On July 6th Parliament can trigger a rational, compassionate and practical reform. 

The second reading of the Legalisation of Cannabis (Medicinal Purposes) Bill is on Friday 6 July.

 

 

Case for medicinal cannabis overwhelming/

 

Prejudice rich: evidence empty.

 

The UK’s 50 year drugs prohibition catastrophe of increasing drugs use, deaths plus vast costs staggers on.  The Netherland's intelligent drugs policy of decriminalization delivered a prison crisis that we envy in a chronic shortage of prisoners and closure of 19 prisons.

 

Here both main parties retreat from drug debate. They repeat counterproductive ‘tough’ policies gratifying to politicians; lethal to drug users.

 

Happily, the tide of world opinion has turned.

 

29 out of the 50 US states are supplying legal medicinal cannabis. It’s available in Canada and most EU states. I have called for MS sufferers and others denied their safe medicine of choice to break the law. Impatience is justified. That law is an ass. Civil disobedience against a bad, cruel law accelerates reforms.

 

The absurdity of denying patents the world’s most ancient medicine was exposed by the young boy, Alfie Dingley, who suffers frequent seizures when he was denied the use of a cannabis-based medicine he used in Holland. Although the issue is one of health, the Government put up a ‘law and order minister’ to justify this outrage. Do they fear that a cannabis medicine used by a young boy would kick off a crime wave?

 

 

Only Government action can help. Make it soon Prime Minister.

Shameful Mrs May? And this is what?

 

 

The PM attacked the Welsh Government as shameful. What is her view on the unnecessary anxiety she has imposed on my constituent  and many thousands of others in similar positions. 

 

The story of Steven Evans has once again cast a stark light upon the cruel welfare system. Steven from Newport lives with cerebral palsy so severe that he could not open the letters sent to him by the DWP, he also struggled to communicate with them over the telephone. 

 

last year he was sent notice of an assessment for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) three times by post. Steven unable to open the letters missed his assessment and his payments were stopped. In order to not miss any subsequent information, he asked for his correspondence to be sent via a local charity, the wonderful Disability Advice Project. 

 

Unfortunately for Steven, he came up against the incredible rigidity of the DWP system as it refused to accept that he could have an address that he lived in and an address to which he would want correspondence sent. The computer system now realising that Steven had two addresses on file then stopped his payments for his Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). During the period between his payments stopping and being re-instated, Steven racked up debts into the thousands.

 

 

Fortunately for Steven, he had support and the advice of experts at the Disability Advice Project. Many others are not so fortunate. Figures from the charity Scope reveal that 75% of all PIP appeals in Wales and the South West are granted, you can only imagine how high the figure could be if more applicants were aware of their rights. The Government must take urgent action to rectify their flawed Welfare procedures, with outsourced companies rewarding staff for the number of assessments that can be done in a day, not for the quality of those assessments. 

 

It is a system designed to force you to appeal, to jump through hoops. Designed to wear down claimants until they no longer have the strength to fight.  Designed to cut costs to the detriment of the weakest in our society. It is a system in dire need of reassessment. 

 

 

Top UK SEcurity view of Extraordinary Rendition 2014

 

The Government''s welcome volte face on Abdel Hakim Belhadj is an improvement on their view to Home Affairs Committee 2014.

 

Professor Sir David Omand: On the face of the Act, the analyst does actually have to be able to demonstrate that what they are doing in trying to pull out a needle of some wanted piece of information, say from a computer that has been associated with a terrorist, is necessary as well as proportionate. It would clearly fail the "necessary" test if the information could readily be obtained, for example, by a Security Service operation directly with the individual. For a lot of this, it is the only way you will find it, if it is on the internet.

Chair: Thank you. I think we have spent quite enough time now on looking for needles in haystacks.

Q631 Paul Flynn: In 2004, Mr Abdel Hakim Belhadj, with his pregnant wife, was abducted from Bangkok Airport, flown to Gaddafi’s Libya and tortured. In 2005, Jack Straw denied that the British Government had any involvement in renditions. In 2011, Human Rights Watch discovered documents and published them which named the British MI6 agent who they claim had boasted about this abduction, and Jack Straw has subsequently said that he was advised by MI6 on this. No one would have the knowledge of this and the truth on this without Human Rights Watch. Many other matters we would not have the truth of if it was not for whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. Do you not agree that we do need the whistleblowers, and they do convey to the public the truth of what is going on, rather than listen gullibly as we are told-as I have been and as the Chairman has been-that there was no involvement with extraordinary rendition. We were lied to. Do we not need whistleblowers?

Professor Sir David Omand: Let me say that a true whistleblower, in accepted international convention, has to exhaust his remedies. For example, Mr Snowden could have gone to his employers-I understand why he would not do that; I would not press that point. He could have gone to the inspector general, the independent figure of his organisation. I would not press that point either. He could have gone to Congress. Just imagine if Mr Snowden-flanked perhaps by the editor of The Guardian and the editor of The New York Times-had walked into the Congressional Oversight Committee and said, "The White House has kept from you and the Executive have kept from you knowledge of a massive programme of collecting data on American citizens." There would have been a huge political stink. I am quite sure President Obama would have been forced to issue the sort of statement that he issued a few weeks ago.

Paul Flynn: He has.

Professor Sir David Omand: Mr Snowden would have achieved his objective and he would not have had to steal 58,000 British top-secret documents or 1.7 million-

Paul Flynn: There is very little time, so can I just make two points?

Professor Sir David Omand-he did not do that, so in my book he is not a whistleblower.

Q632 Paul Flynn: Monsieur Dick Marty, who is a very distinguished Swiss MP, who was described by a Foreign Secretary here to me as being a madman-he was not; I know him very well. He was the person who very bravely took up this issue in Europe. Successive British politicians denied what was going on. The question is: do we not have to rely on the whistleblowers, on the Dick Martys, on the Human Rights Watch, to get the truth? Otherwise we live in ignorance, as politicians and the public. Of course they supply this service to us, surely.

Professor Sir David Omand: I believe in a free press. Under no circumstances will I want to muzzle the press. If they can perform a public service in exposing wrongdoing, let them do that. In a well-regulated democracy, you don’t have to rely on the media.

C

Cliff Richard: BBC outrage.

The HomeAffairs Committee considered the behaviour of the BBC in filming a raid on Cliff Richard's home. It seemed to be an outage to me then and it still is.  

There is no full transcript of the Lord Hall evidence session from September 2014.

The main conclusions of the Committee are:

 

It is clear that South Yorkshire Police’s exchanges with the BBC went far beyond confirming the date of the search of Sir Cliff’s home. The Force played an active part in providing the BBC with detailed information which would allow it to secure exclusive coverage of the search. 

 

Detailed knowledge of the investigation, beyond the name of the suspect clearly points to a leak from within Operation Yewtree and it is therefore surprising that Chief Constable Crompton did not seek to contact the Metropolitan Police soon after the approach from Mr Johnson to alert them to the possible leak and invite them to investigate. 

 

It would have been open to South Yorkshire Police to decide to publicise the name of the subject of this investigation had they chosen to do so for operational reasons. However, the naming of suspects (or the confirming of a name when it is put to a force) when there is no operational need to do so is wrong. 

 

South Yorkshire Police have told us that they did not want to publicise their investigation, but offered the BBC information about the search warrant as part of a compromise in which the BBC did not broadcast prematurely the information its reporter had. Senior BBC executives told us that the Chief Constable had only to pick up the phone and they would not have broadcast the story, a sensible editorial policy which should reduce the scope for conflict between legitimate journalistic activity and law enforcement, and which we are happy to endorse and publicise here. 

 

We are disappointed by South Yorkshire Police’s inept handling of this situation. Whereas it is clear that the Force felt from the outset that it had to cooperate with the BBC in order to avoid jeopardising the investigation, its cooperation went far beyond notifying the BBC of the date, the Force failed to go to senior managers at the BBC to explain the risks inherent in premature broadcasting of the story, and it failed to alert the Metropolitan Police to the possibility of a leak from within Operation Yewtree. 

It is clear that Sir Cliff Richard has personally suffered enormous, irreparable damage to his reputation, though he has been neither arrested nor charged with any offence. No citizen should have to watch on live television their home being raided in this way. 

 

Cairns Severn Bridge PR Catastrophe

 

• 

  
  

   

  Genesis of the Cairns Tax

   

  Will the saga of the Severn Bridges toll ever be put on the stage?

  It happened with a PACAC select committee meeting and it was a fine

  entertaining musical.

  The Severn Tolls farce might be judged too far-fetched to be plausible.

  This year we have witnessed a series of nonsensical statements by the Tory

  snake-oil hucksters that were designed to deceived. They all produced hoops of

  grateful joy from a media with the concentration span of an earthworm. The

  charlatan politicians plan to rob us again next January but demand our

  gratitude for their fake news. The 'cut' is a con.

  PIC: SOUTH WALES ARGUS. Left to Right, TORY MP David Davies , TORY Welsh

  Secretary Alun Cairns, TORY Minister Chris Graying united in mission to sell

  Tolls snake-oil.

   

  £3.70

  On the 12th

  December 2016 the hapless Alun Cairns hilariously

  set his position to the Welsh Select Committee:

   

   
• Q90 Chair: This cut that has been promised at 50%—50% on the tolls as they are in

  2018 but still 50%—is absolutely guaranteed, isn’t it?

  Alun Cairns: That is the Government proposal but there is a consultation going on

  to how that can be achieved.

  Q91 Chair: So it is not quite guaranteed?

  Alun Cairns: The announcement has been made in Budget 2015, I think it was, or

  2014, and it is something that is Government policy.

  Q93 Paul Flynn: Severn Bridge tolls started four years before you were born,

  Secretary of State. Do you expect them to continue when you reach retirement

  age?

  Alun Cairns: Clearly I would hope, Mr Flynn, that you would accept that the 50%

  reduction that is proposed, subject to a consultation and so on, is a welcome step.

  Q94 Paul Flynn: There was a fascinating poll finding that said that 50% of the

  population didn’t understand what 50% means. You have been quoted as saying

  that the toll should be £3.70. How is that 50% of £6.70?

  Alun Cairns: I was talking about of that order and I talked about it by the time the

  bridge comes into public ownership for which there will be an inflationary fee.

  Q95 Paul Flynn: In my view, the people of Wales are being ripped off by having one

  of the few stretches of motorway, which the Severn Bridges are, tolled and this

  has gone on for all these years now and because of the deals done a long time ago

  by a previous generation. There seems to be absolutely no reason why this

  shouldn’t become a national responsibility and the psychological barrier to south

  Wales, which is very damaging, could be removed.

  Alun Cairns: I am governed by the Act of Parliament and the Act of Parliament will

  have struck a deal with the Severn Bridge company. We have an obligation in order

  to deliver that but I would hope that reducing the tolls by half is seen as a very

  positive step, although there will be a debt that remains outstanding. It

  demonstrates the scale of the project.

  Q96 Paul Flynn: You stand by the figure of £3.70?

  Alun Cairns: I would say wait until the consultation goes out.

   

  £3.00

  January 17th

  2017

  That posture did not last long. After checking their maths, they reduced the

  planned toll to less than 50%

  The Trinity of Snake Oil Salesmen consisted of Chris Grayling, David Davies and

  Alan Cairns posed at the Severn Bridge and announced the 'Good News' that Severn

  Bridges toll would be set at the bargain rate of £3.00! Hurrah! But that was for the

  long term future.
• But it was no bargain because next year the tolls should be nil. It was an attempt

  to con us. The snap General Election forced a re-think on the Tory Trinity. Today

  they will announced that they have seen the Labour Light and will resist

  temptation to continue milking the cash cow of tolls double taxation. It will be

  announced with a blast of Tory self-satisfaction in Newport today. (no. I have not

  been invited.)

  Will anyone ask if election opportunism played a part in their volte-face?

  Tory Toll junkies are hooked on the Highway Robbery that forces local people

  into paying double taxation. While the Severn Bridges were in private hands

  the deal to pay tolls was resented but tolerated. In early 2018, the bridges will

  become public property like the rest of the motorway system. They should be

  maintained and financed in the same way as all other public roads.

  For 52 years, we have paid twice. First through our taxes for the roads system.

  Secondly through the toll payments. The Government want to continue to milk the

  cash cow of tolls. There is an overwhelming case for abolishing the tolls

  altogether. At a stroke an injustice would end and the expense and psychological

  barrier to accessing Wales would be gone.

  £billions of our taxes are paid to build, run and maintains the UK's road system.

  The Severn Bridges costs and debts are national responsibilities when they become

  public property. Wales has a history of attacking unjust tolls by the Hosts of

  Rebecca. It's time the spirit of the 1839 was aroused again.

   

  16th

  May 2017

  £00.00

   

  The Tories 2017 election bribe was an unconditional promise to end the tolls.

  As a bribe it failed. Their ambition was to gain 7 Labour seats. They lost three

  of their own to Labour and every sitting Labour MP increased their majorities.

  They cannot mange a simple election bribe efficiently.

  The Severn Bridges Act 1992 set out framework to award private contract to

  build a much needed second Severn crossing. Severn River Crossings built the

  bridge with the power to charge tolls until revenue of £1.029 billion is raised or

  for a maximum of 35 years. Wales has paid extortionate annually increasing

  tolls since.

  The debt is almost paid, the concession contract is coming to An end. In the next

  year the crossings will return to public ownership. Legal power to levy charges

  ends with the contact.

  The Act is clear and tolls must cease. The Crossings have an estimated annual

  running cost of £15m. As with any other road belonging to the Department for

  Transport maintenance costs are unavoidable. Road users already cover these

  maintenance costs with road tax. Further tolls amount to unreasonable and

  duplicate charges
•  

  12th

  September 2017

  £5.60

  The Cairns Huckster team are back. Tolls are to be ‘CUT’ to £2.60 MORE than

  Cairns promised on January 17

  th

  . Not to reduce it to that level would be illegal.

  The reduction is because the bridges after next January will not be liable to

  VAT. There is no choice. But Alun Cairns still has no date for delivering on his

  election bribe of £00.00 tolls.

   

  No charge is necessary after January 2018. We have discharged our debt.

  It is no longer a toll, it’s a CAIRNS TAX.
• 

  Mr Cairns said he was not surprised at the reaction but claimed the "wider, silent

  majority is absolutely with us". He urged "republicans" to "respect" the Prince

  because of his work in the community.

   

  The decision to re-name the Bridge after Prince Charles is a PR disaster. A petition of 20,000 appeared overnight. A poll in the Argus showed that only a tiny 11% supported Cairns. 89% wanted no change, another name or could not care. Who is advising you on PR Alun? ....a Republican?

 

Cambridge Analytica cover up

Here is an article I wrote for the House Magazine in April 2017:

Snap election leaves no chance to address concerns about voter manipulation

The EU referendum proved that the Electoral Commission’s obsolete tools for monitoring cyber manipulation will ensure a free ride to those wishing to exploit it at the election, writes Labour MP Paul Flynn.

Not since the 1880 reforms have our systems for election and referendums been in greater peril. The single thunderous lesson from the EU Referendum is that new technology trumps long-established democratic safeguards. Clandestine artificial intelligence, algorithms, and invisible money sources can overwhelm surface democratic rules.

PACAC’s report Lessons learned from the EU referendum gained considerable attention for highlighting the possibility that foreign governments interfered with the referendum.

The voter registration website crashed last June threatening disenfranchisement of thousands, forcing the government to extend the registration deadline. The committee reported that the crash had indications of a botnet attack on the voter registration website.

The crash may well have been the result of an attack designed to influence political outcome. Worryingly there is no chance to address these concerns before Theresa May’s opportunistic snap election.

As we enter this election campaign period an alarming narrative is emerging of online voter targeting, calculated to cause mass interference and influence. An elite group is shaping world politics to suit their private beliefs, their behaviour having untold and unquantifiable effects. Whilst the plot reads like that of a comic book this cyber manipulation is no fiction and played a role in both the EU referendum and President Trump’s election.

Exceptional investigation work by journalist Carole Cadwalladr has exposed the wide reaching implications of the issue including the probity of June's General Election.

Billionaire Robert Mercer is Donald Trump’s biggest donor. He is also reported to be an owner of Cambridge Analytica, a company specialising in election strategies and involved in both the Trump and Brexit campaigns.

The company proved to be instrumental to Leave.EU and taught the campaign how to build profiles, target people and gain data from Facebook profiles.

When interviewed by Cadwalladr, Leave.EU’s communications director, admitted, “Facebook was the key to the entire campaign. A Facebook ‘like’ was their most “potent weapon”. Using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring.”

So worrying is Cambridge Analytica’s actions that the Information Commissioners Office has launched an investigation into their reported use of personal data.

There is contempt for the electoral process they are manipulating. Leave.EU have not declared Cambridge Analytica’s work as services in kind to the electoral commission. Arron Banks of Leave.EU has since declared “I don’t give a monkey’s about the Electoral Commission.”

In June the Electoral Commission is expected to deal with tomorrow’s problems. The referendum proved their outdated tools will ensure a free ride to those wishing to exploit it.

Broadcast advertising is subject to controls. Recent shifts have proved unfair advantages are now to be gained from online activity which lacks regulation.

Sir Tim Berners Lee has condemned the disgusting practice of selling private citizens online data. He summed up the problem best: “We’ve lost control of our personal data…it’s too easy for misinformation to spread on the web” and “Political advertising online needs transparency and understanding.”

Lobbyists and Billionaires are manipulating media and public opinion in defiance of transparency regulations.

We are in the disturbing era where lobbyists can weaponise fake news for the highest bidder. They can track voters’ personal data and manipulate public opinion. All of this they can do under cover of anonymity and without regulation or oversight.

The EU Referendum was a battle of dishonesty. It was won by the side with the means to distribute the most plausible lies.

Fore-warned - but not fore-armed.

 

Thanks to the great work of Carole Cadwaladr, the Guardian and Channel Four News , we have confirmation that out elections and referendum may have been rigged. They were told. This is the final point of Order of the Last Parliament. Since then I have constantly raised the undermining of our democracy. To their shame the PACAC Select refused to do their job in pursuing an inquiry they had started and is their responsibility. Congratulations to the Culture Committee for taking up the challenge

 

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

26th April 2017

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that strikes right at the heart of the integrity of our democratic system. It is based on the final report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as well as two articles in The House magazine, one by a Conservative Member and one by a Labour Member, all of which sound notes of alarm that our electoral system is the most vulnerable it has been since 1880. There is powerful evidence of foreign Governments interfering in the elections in America and possibly here. There is also overwhelming evidence of money being paid in huge amounts, entirely invisible to the system, by the use of methods including algorithms, botnets and artificial intelligence in a manner understood by nobody except those who participate in it. We should be vigilant in this election, because the Electoral Commission does not have the tools to deal with interference of this kind, and we are trying to run a modern election with the tools of the 19th century.

Anti-Gwent bias among some AMs

Paul Flynn MP Newport West said:-

 

There is a worrying anti-Gwent, anti-Newport bias among some AMs that threatens our future traffic relief on the M4.

 

Some have swallowed the myth that there is a practical cheap alternative. Those of us who use the SDR road know that Newport will suffer more gridlock if an attempt is made to dump excess motorway traffic on an already jammed road. A second myth is that the money saved on a gimcrack alternative to the black route would be distributed throughout Wales. It will not be. The by-pass money was allocated to eliminate an intense UK national block to traffic for all of South Wales and Mid Wales.

 

We must ensure that our case is fully understood and the long awaited by-pass relieves traffic and pollution pressure on all of us.

 

 

Watchdog piddles on wrong tree.

Watchdog piddles on wrong tree.

Newsnight and its brilliant reporter Chris Cook have exposed a very credible list of parliamentary scandals-including Kids Company. They are entitled to the odd lapse. Attacking the relationship between MPs and Clerks they are off-target and piddling against the wrong tree. The anti-Bercow statement contrasts with his well established reputation based on the evidence of almost everyone else. The other claims are not new.  One has been investigated and judgements made. 

That relationships between MPs and Clerks are one of the great abiding strengths of Parliament.  Having served on, suffered on, despaired on, triumphed on Select Committees for 31 years, I abase myself before great parliamentary force for good. Among the vast Commons Community, things must occasionally go awry. I have no knowledge or comment on the allegations made. But I have an encyclopaedic knowledge of splendid working relationships with the intellectual strengths, impartiality and fairness of generations of clerks.

Select Committees have their problems and I have sounded off about them for decades. Some became politicised by their majorities or their chairpersons. Some deliver verdicts contrary to the evidence heard. Others go native descend into pressure groups such as farmers. The best remain anchored to the evidence and produce valuable challenges to the conventional (un)wisdom of parliament. For my money, the best reports of my time were A Health Committee report in 2005 about the self-serving deceptions of pharmaceutical companies and the Transport Committee report of 1993 that prophesied the calamities of Rail Privatisation.

Brexit has brought out the worst of Select Committees. Passionately committed chairs have distorted evidence and produced reports that are so laughingly biased, they have been ignored as serious contributions to the debate,

With so many problems, why attack the trust that exists between MPs and Clerks? Having experienced many conflicts with Committee Chairs and fellow members in the past, I can vouch for 31 years of respectful work with clerks. I have never experienced any animosity between them and MPs. They are an exemplary group to whom parliament owes its homage and gratitude.

Try again, Newsnight. They are many other targets worthy of your ire.

Hopes for Re-legalising medical cannabis high.

In spite of the sabotage of the Bill to Re-legalise Medicinal Cannabis, the prospects for reform have never been better. The tide of public opinion is moving our way here and worldwide.

The solid cliff of prejudice-rich, evidence-free prohibition is crumbling.  The best recent evidence is the decline in opioid use in the 29 US states that have legalized medical cannabis.  The retreat from argument and reason by the Commons on the 23^rd February was a depressing example of parliamentary cowardice by brains trapped in the permafrost of un-reason.

The House Lords had an intelligent debate led by the splendid science-based argument of Molly Meacher and her All-Party Reform Group. Contrast the dialogue in the two Houses below.

Tory Health Minister in the Lords was well-informed and offered a practical compassionate solution. Absurdly a Home Office Minister answered in the Commons to avoid the possibility that a minute cannabis dose ingested by a 6 year old child might incite him to kick off a drug crime wave.

The Tories have an embarrassing problem with their own Commons health minister that has yet to be fully aired.

The public mood has changed as every opinion poll on my Bill has attested. Impressively a motion by a Conservative Members of the Welsh Assembly seeking legalization was passed by 31 votes to 2 with 12 abstentions. I am convinced that a free vote in the Commons would have similar results. It is depressing that the forces in my own party are in a confused state with passionate supporters of both reform and prohibition plotting in secret. Ever thus.

The campaign continues led by the example of world experience.

• Question


 3.30 pm 

Asked by


• Baroness Meacher 

 


To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will issue a special license under Section 30 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to enable the family of Alfie Dingley to import cannabis-based medication to treat his epilepsy.




• The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con) 

 My Lords, the Government have a huge amount of sympathy for the rare and difficult situation that Alfie and his family are faced with. My right honourable friend the Policing Minister has undertaken to meet Alfie Dingley’s family as quickly as possible. Both he and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary want to explore every option within the current regulatory framework, including issuing a license.





• Baroness Meacher (CB) 

 
I express my sincere thanks to the Minister for that very positive reply. I understand from it that Ministers are now united in wanting to find a legal way to support Alfie Dingley so he can receive medical cannabis in order to lead some sort of life.

I want to set out the main reasons why Ministers have to succeed in this case. The Minister knows that Alfie Dingley was suffering from a very unusual epilepsy mutation. This was causing 3,000 epileptic fits a year, 250 a month, under UK-prescribed medication which will probably lead to psychosis, damage to his internal organs and early death. Alfie Dingley and his family spent five months in the Netherlands, where Alfie was treated by a neuro-paediatrician with cannabis drugs. During that period, Alfie Dingley suffered one or possibly two seizures per month, down from 250 per month in this country.

On the legal question, the Minister knows that under Section 30 of the 1971 Act, licences can be provided.




• 
I express my profound thanks to the Minister and her colleagues in the other place for their absolute commitment to find a way under the law to enable this poor six year-old child to continue his life.





• Baroness Williams of Trafford 

 
I thank the noble Baroness for her positive words acknowledging the way forward that I and other Ministers want to find for this little boy. As she said, this little boy has a very rare form of epilepsy. I am very pleased to hear that his seizures have reduced and very much look forward to a positive way forward being found.




• Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab) 

 
My Lords, we know that the Government successfully licensed heroin-assisted treatment, or diamorphine-assisted treatment, which is prescribed in a synthetic form to people who do not benefit from or cannot tolerate substances such as methadone. We know that the success rates for that group of patients in terms of health, social care, incarceration and money saved show that there is real benefit from heroin-assisted treatment. Why cannot that simply be put in place for cannabis-based treatment as well?





• Baroness Williams of Trafford 

 
With respect, I point out to the noble Lord that the Question is specifically about the medicinal use of cannabis for a very specific case. The noble Lord is probably straying on to the legalisation of drugs in a controlled way. I am not going there today because I have not been asked a question about it, but I have had many debates about it and the Government remain of the review that such drugs remain illegal.




• Baroness Walmsley (LD) 

 
I am grateful to the Minister for her commitment to explore every option. Is she aware of the legal opinion from Landmark Chambers making it clear that there is an exception under Section 30 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which allows that a licence for possession of a controlled drug can be permitted for medical purposes? Will she make use of that exception to save this little boy’s life?

• 




• Baroness Williams of Trafford 

 
Well, I hope that I made it absolutely clear that we would explore every legal avenue that we could, and that both the Policing Minister and the Home Secretary would look at all legal avenues within the regulatory framework, so I hope that she takes comfort from that.




• Baroness Browning (Con) 

 
Could my noble friend take a look at the history of how controlled drugs have been used for medical purposes? I am not somebody who would support deregulation of drugs but, as a small girl, I was offered the option when a school dentist extracted a tooth of having either gas or cocaine.




• Noble Lords 
Oh!




• 


• Baroness Browning 

 
That was many years ago, but that was the choice. Of course, up and down the country today, hospitals will be dispensing opioid drugs to patients, many of which are derivatives of opium, and I really do not see why, if the legal framework is there to do it, we cannot get on and do it rather quickly.




• Baroness Williams of Trafford 

 
My noble friend makes precisely the point that I perhaps did not make as well, which is that within the legal framework we have to explore the art of the possible to bring such drugs forward that will help people in situations similar to Alfie’s. Before I became a politician, I worked extensively with people who had multiple sclerosis, and I know that Sativex has been produced in aid of alleviating spasticity in suffers of that illness.





• Lord Dear (CB) 

 My Lords, can I move away from the sad case that we have heard about and those particular circumstances and move to a more general point on that issue? Does the Minister agree that the time has now come for a complete and urgent look at the situation? As many of us know, cannabis is currently included in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Act as a drug with no medicinal value, yet that view has been roundly rebuffed by a number of countries in the world. I cite, for example, 12 EU countries—shortly that number will grow to 15—29 states in the USA, Canada, Israel and so on, all of which use cannabis under medical supervision. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will look at this issue and at the licensed medicinal use of cannabis in these circumstances?




• Baroness Williams of Trafford 

 
The noble Lord has nicely segued through the general use of it back to the medicinal use, but I concur with him in saying that we must keep laws like this under review. Certainly, the WHO is currently reviewing cannabis as a whole, and the constituent parts of cannabis. The noble Lord is right that a number of states in the USA have actually legalised its use. We are keeping a very close eye on the outcome of that review and will take a view on it in due course.





Medical Cannabis

20 February 2018

• Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) 

 
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the case of Alfie Dingley, whose parents and doctors are seeking access to medical cannabis to treat his epilepsy.




• The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd) 

 
I, personally, and the Government sympathise deeply with the situation faced by Alfie Dingley and his family. I think that everyone on both sides of the House and outside it will understand and respect the desire of the family to try to alleviate his suffering in any way possible. I assure my hon. Friend that we want to help to find a solution within the existing regulations.

As my hon. Friend will know, the current situation is that cannabis, in its raw form, is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefits. It is therefore listed as a schedule 1 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. This means that it is unlawful to produce, supply or possess raw cannabis unless it is for the purposes of research. Products must be thoroughly tested in the UK to provide the necessary assurances of their efficacy, quality and safety.

We have a clear regime in place that is administered by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to enable medicines, including those containing controlled drugs such as cannabis, to be developed, licensed and made available for medicinal use to patients in the UK, as happened in the case of Sativex, as my hon. Friend knows. The Home Office will consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, providing that it complies with appropriate ethical approvals. Cannabis-based products should be treated in the same way as all other drugs, meaning that they should go through the normal testing procedures applied to any other medicines.

The current situation is that outside of research we would not issue licences for the personal consumption of cannabis because it is listed as a schedule 1 drug. However, we are aware of differing approaches in other countries and continue to monitor the World Health Organisation’s expert committee on drug dependence, which has committed to reviewing the use of medicinal cannabis. We will wait until the outcome of the review before considering any next steps. [Interruption.] I am also aware—before the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) starts chuntering—that the private Member’s Bill on the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal purposes introduced by the hon. Gentleman will give the House a further opportunity to debate the wider policy.

The whole House will understand that it is a natural desire for parents to do everything they can to make sure that their children do not suffer unnecessarily, but we also need to make sure that cannabis is subjected to the same regulatory framework that applies to all medicines in the UK. We must ensure that only medicines that have been tested for their safety to the correct standard are prescribed for UK children.




• Crispin Blunt 

 
I thank my right hon. Friend for saying at the beginning of his response that he is determined to find a solution to this. That will also be welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Attorney General, Alfie Dingley’s MP, who has been working hard, if necessarily privately, on his behalf.

I hope that the Home Office is going to find a way to cease standing behind a 1961 UN scheduling of cannabis as having no medicinal benefit whatsoever. My right hon. Friend mentioned Sativex. However, there are now 12, soon to be 15, states of the European Union and 29 states of the United States of America, and the District of Columbia, that have all found a way to license the medicinal use of cannabis. Is he aware of the position of the Republic of Ireland, which, with a legal framework very similar to ours, gave its Health Minister the explicit power to license use of the medicine in cases such as Alfie’s?

My right hon. Friend’s position, and that of the Government, currently flies in the face of the popular view in the United Kingdom, where 78% of people think that we should find a way of using cannabis-based medicine. Out there, most people instinctively understand the pain and symptom relief that is available from cannabis-based medicines. Here, we know from the Barnes review of 2016, commissioned by the all-party parliamentary group on drug policy reform, that there is good, peer-reviewed medical evidence of the effectiveness of cannabis-based medicines for conditions associated with multiple sclerosis, the side-effects of chemotherapy, and epilepsy.

Failure by the Government to move from their current position will sentence Alfie to the steroid-based treatment he was receiving before he went to the Netherlands, which is likely to give him early psychosis and a premature death. Their position also means that British citizens are being denied all the potential medical and symptomatic benefits that could come from a properly licensed, regulated and researched access programme to cannabis-based medicines. If we do not give people the licences to do the medical research, we will not get the products. Granting the licences would mean that we would not have to rely on the wisdom of crowds and illegally sourced and unreliable products, and would have peer-reviewed, evidence based treatments produced to pharmaceutical standards.

I urge my right hon. Friend, who is very far from being cruel and heartless—as indeed are the rest of his colleagues in the Home Office—to help either the manufacturers of the drug that will save Alfie’s life, or his doctors or the family to find a way through to get a licence to treat him, and to instruct his officials to assist. It is an indication of just how messed up our management of this issue is that my right hon. Friend from the Home Office is answering this urgent question and not a Health Minister. On health grounds, this is an open-and-shut case.




• Mr Hurd 

 
I thank my hon. Friend. I totally respect his position. I should place it on record that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), is sitting next to me, very much in listening mode.

I reassure my hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Attorney General, who has made many representations to me on behalf of Alfie Dingley and his family, that there are clearly some special circumstances in this case that need to be respected. I have undertaken to meet the family, and I will do that as quickly as possible. I also undertake to explore every option within the current regulatory framework. I give that undertaking with sincerity.

I know my hon. Friend well enough to know that he will understand the importance of proceeding on the basis of evidence, particularly when it concerns the safety of drugs and of children. We have our position—he is right that it has been established for a long time—and it is supported by expert opinion. However, we are aware that the position is shifting in other countries, and we monitor that closely.

We are also aware that cannabis is an extremely complex substance, and the WHO quite rightly is looking at it from every angle to get an up-to-date view on its therapeutic use. We are monitoring all that closely. Our current regulatory position is what it is. However, I have undertaken to explore every option within the regulatory framework to see whether we can find a solution to this extremely emotive case.




• Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) 


There has been a call to allow a licence for administering medical cannabis to Alfie Dingley, but the Government must thoroughly examine the evidence in this area—both the stated benefits and the supposed risks of medical cannabis. Our policies must always be based on evidence and not frightened of scary headlines or chasing favourable ones. Only in that way can the House come to an informed decision on the wider issues.

Alfie Dingley is a six-year-old boy whose life is blighted by epileptic fits, and it is understandable that his family want him to have whatever medication they feel will help him. They look to us as politicians to facilitate that, but we are constrained by laws. Members supportive of drug policy reform would like the Home Secretary to issue a licence so that Alfie can continue taking the medication, but the Home Office has responded that the drug

“cannot be practically prescribed, administered or supplied to the public”.

Cannabis use is illegal in this country—we do not dispute that. However, we need assurances from the Minister that all the evidence relating to Alfie’s case has been looked at and that all avenues of treatment are being considered. We need confidence that the Minister and his colleagues are doing everything in their power to ensure that Alfie has the best possible quality of life.

This case is the latest in a long line of prominent examples that have led to more calls for legislation to permit the medical use of cannabis. Is it now time for a review of the law, to look at how we can better support those living in chronic pain, those with long-term degenerative conditions and those in the final stages of life?




• Mr Hurd 

 
I agree with the hon. Lady that policy should be evidence-led, and I support entirely her point that we need to think very carefully about the implications and consequences of everything we do.

As I said in my statement, outside of research, we would not issue licences for the personal consumption of cannabis because it is listed as a schedule 1 drug. However, as in the case of Sativex, the Home Office will consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, providing it complies with appropriate ethical approvals. I repeat that I personally undertake to explore every option within the existing regulations to see if we can find a solution.





• Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con) 

 
I support the medical use of cannabis and think the Government should be more fleet of foot on this issue. A sensible proposed amendment to the law in a free vote in this House would, I think, be carried.




  • Mr Hurd 

 I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. I dispute the allegation that the Government are not fleet of foot on this. As I said in my statement, we are aware that things are changing in other countries and that the WHO is reviewing the evidence, and we will follow that very closely indeed.




• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab) 
We would have to have a heart of stone if any of our children or grandchildren were in this position and we were told by a stubborn bureaucracy that they had to turn blue up to 30 times a day and have seizures because our law says that that is the situation. Twenty-nine American states have legalised cannabis for medicinal purposes, and in every one of them, the use of deadly, dangerous opioids has gone down. Every alternative to natural cannabis is worse. It is not just one case; thousands of people have the choice of suffering terrible pain and seizures every day or criminalising themselves by breaking the law. I urge them to break the law, because the law in this case is an ass, and it is cruel and lacks compassion.





• Mr Hurd 

 
I do not have a heart of stone, and I say that not just as a parent of six children. Anyone with or without children could not fail to be moved by this case, but, as the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) said, we have to look at this through the lens of its implications across the system. We have to look at this through the lens of the existing law, which is set on the basis of expert advice, not least from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. It is very clear that

“the use of cannabis is a significant public health issue”,

and, in its words, can

“unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society.”

We cannot ignore that advice. However, as I have said, we are monitoring closely the work done by the WHO and other countries, and precedents elsewhere, and, as I have undertaken to do in this particular case, we will explore every option within the existing regulations.




• Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) 


As the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said, it is not just Alfie; thousands of people have such conditions. I have a constituent, Vicky Clarke—now just 5 stone in weight—in St Giles hospice in my constituency, suffering from the very final stages of multiple sclerosis. Her husband has found that the only drug that alleviated her pain was cannabis, and he has twice been investigated by the police. We are not talking about the general administration of cannabis; we are talking about the medical prescription of cannabis. If a doctor says that cannabis is the only cure or a medical professional says that it is the only way to alleviate pain, surely they should be legally allowed to prescribe that drug?




• 


• Mr Hurd 

 
Well, they still have to operate within the law. The law does permit the development, licensing and marketing of medicines, including those containing controlled drugs, such as cannabis. I have used the example of Sativex, which I believe provides relief to patients with MS. My hon. Friend talks about lots of other cases like this one. It is worth noting, however, that in the case of Alfie Dingley, I think only nine other children in the world suffer from the same type of epilepsy as he does. That is why I have undertaken to explore every option on his behalf. I make it quite clear that the Home Office and the Government are keeping this area under review, because this is fast moving. The House will of course have the chance to debate it along with the private Member’s Bill.




• Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) 


The Scottish National party is in favour of the decriminalisation of cannabis for medicinal use, given the evidence of the benefit it has in alleviating the symptoms of many serious conditions, such as that suffered by young Alfie Dingley. In 2016, our party conference heard evidence from a multiple sclerosis sufferer, Laura Brennan-Whitefield, who called for “compassion and common sense” on this issue. She said:

“I’m not advocating the smoking of cannabis, what I’m advocating is a progressive and reasonable, compassionate society where you can access pain relief”.

We urge the UK Government to look again very seriously at decriminalising the use of cannabis for medicinal use. If they are not prepared to do so, we ask them to devolve the power to Scotland, so that the Scottish Government can take appropriate steps. However, we would like to see this for everybody in the United Kingdom.





• Mr Hurd 

 
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her contribution, and this issue will be debated with the private Member’s Bill on Friday. Again, I come back to the point that we have the existing regulatory framework, and we will not issue licences for the personal consumption of cannabis because it is listed as a schedule 1 drug. However, it is possible to consider issuing licences to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, and there is precedent for doing so.




• Bob Stewart 

 
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly was here, just silent. I support the medical use of cannabis, particularly in this case. If the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) passes with a sufficient majority on Friday, might the Government fast-track it through the House?





• Mr Hurd 

 We look forward to the debate on Friday. We will see what the will of the House is.




• 


• Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) 

The Minister has heard support from those of us on these Benches, but does he not support the views of his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, where the health spokesman Miles Briggs said:

“it is time for a comprehensive, UK wide review…and for Parliament to look to reform access to cannabis for medical and scientific purposes”?

Does he recognise that there is widespread support in all parties?




• Mr Hurd 

 There are good reasons for the Government’s current position. As I made clear in my statement, we are looking very closely at the approaches being taken by other countries. We have a keen eye on what the global experts, the WHO’s expert committee on drug dependence, conclude in relation to the therapeutic and medicinal benefits of cannabis.




• Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) 


It is Bill number three on Friday. There is not going to be a debate, is there?





• Mr Hurd That depends on what happens to the first two Bills.




• Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) 

 
I have had a number of constituents in the past eight years who have suffered from different illnesses, such as epilepsy and multiple sclerosis. They told me that conventional drugs have not worked for them. Often, they have had to travel abroad, especially Holland, to obtain and use cannabis, which has helped them significantly. I therefore urge the Minister and the Government to please consider allowing the medicinal use of cannabis.





• Mr Hurd 

   
I totally understand the hon. Lady’s point, which underlines why the WHO is undertaking its work. I am sure she will agree, however, that cannabis products must be treated in the same way as all other drugs. That means going through the normal testing procedures that apply to any other medicine.




• Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab) 


May I help the Minister and suggest that he speak with his colleague the Secretary of State for Health and ask about the extensive trial, known as delta-9, which took place in the Royal Marsden hospital 40 years ago? Cannabis was found to be an excellent prophylactic against nausea caused by ontological medicine. The data is there. The empirical evidence is there. Why does he not save time and trouble by having a word with the Secretary of State and drawing this information to the attention of the House? Let us resolve this matter once and for all.




• Mr Hurd 

 
The hon. Gentleman will understand why I approach any offer of help from him with caution, but in this case I will certainly discuss the evidence he mentions with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. We need to proceed on the basis of evidence, because of the need for safety.




• Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) 


The Government have heard several times that cannabis for medicinal use is available in many countries. It is clear that the evidence is there. It is allowed in other EU countries. One of the benefits of being in the EU, while we are still there, is collaboration. We are able to review research that is available elsewhere and come to a quick decision. Will the Minister confirm that there are no barriers at the top of level of the Government preventing that?





• Mr Hurd 

 
I am not aware of any barriers. What I am aware of is the current regulatory framework, underpinned by expert advice, which continues to be that cannabis in its raw form is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefit. The situation is evolving in other countries and the WHO is looking at it. It is right that we keep an open mind and that we continue to look at the evidence and the precedence from other countries.




• Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab) 

 
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group on epilepsy and as the daughter of an epilepsy sufferer. In addition to the cost in human misery, can the Minister advise on whether any attempt has been made to estimate the net cost of continuous ineffective treatment for epilepsy sufferers who are denied access to cannabis for medicinal purposes?





• Mr Hurd 

 
I think that question is best answered by the Department of Health. What I am keen to register with the House is our determination to try to explore every option within the boundaries of the existing regulations to see whether we can support this case.




• Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) 


The whole House will welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to meet the family of Alfie Dingley. Will he also agree to meet the campaign group, End Our Pain, which is campaigning to allow doctors to prescribe cannabis when it would help their patients? End Our Pain wants to present to the Minister the evidence that honourable colleagues have talked about and discuss the fact that the Multiple Sclerosis Society has changed its position on the use of medicinal cannabis, based on the evidence.





• Mr Hurd 

 
I am certainly happy to meet that group, or a more appropriate Minister could, so the answer is yes.




• Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) 


I wonder whether the Minister knows the book, “The Boy in 7 Billion”, by Callie Blackwell, the mum of Deryn Blackwell who, at the age of 10, was diagnosed with a very rare cancer and then, through the use of cannabis oil, made a miraculous recovery. If he likes, I can lend him my copy. I got one over recess at THTC, a company in my constituency that makes hemp t-shirts—sorry, it does not make them; it supplies them. It is not allowed to make them in this country. It also pointed out that in Mexico, where the medicinal use of cannabis has been legalised, violent crime has dramatically dropped. Does the Minister not think that those things are more than a coincidence, and will he not investigate?





• Mr Hurd 

 
The hon. Lady is taking us broader than a UK scope. I do not know the book and I am grateful to her for her offer, but I come back to what I said at the start. The Government have a position based on the listing as a schedule 1 drug and the view of experts, but we review, and keep under review, what is happening in other countries and, most importantly, the WHO’s position.




• 


• Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) 


We seem to be in some kind of Alice in Wonderland world where words mean the opposite of what we imagine. The Minister said that he is being fleet of foot, yet we have established that we are dragging our feet behind 15 EU member states and 29 US states. I have lost count of the number of times that he has talked about the importance of evidence, yet will he not accept the overwhelming evidence that there are no downsides to the kind of policy change that we are talking about, no matter how hard he looks for them? Why will he not commit at the very least to trials of the regulation of medical-based cannabis? That could, for example, answer questions about how best to differentiate between different types of use and facilitate research that might otherwise be hindered.




• Mr Hurd 

 
We are fleet of foot in the sense that we keep abreast of the evidence as it develops. I made it very clear in my statement that the Home Office will consider issuing licences to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, providing that it complies with the appropriate ethical approvals.





• Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) 

 
Alfie’s mother said that any one of the 30 seizures that he has a day could be life-threatening, so there is incredible urgency. I have heard the Minister say that he is very sympathetic and I do not doubt that for a minute, but I have not heard him say when he will make a decision to help Alfie because of that urgency.




• Mr Hurd 

 
I totally accept the point about urgency, and I totally accept the point made by others that we cannot look at policy entirely through the lens of one case. However, I have undertaken to meet the family as quickly as possible, and we are exploring every option inside the existing regulatory envelope.





• Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) 

 
I have heard the Minister say that he is going to monitor the situation and that he is looking for evidence, but we have had that situation for decades. This place created the problem with poor legislation as far as back as the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are in a situation where we know that medicinal cannabis is available that will particularly help Alfie. He has been taking it in the Netherlands. It is not beyond the wit of man to facilitate the continuation of that supply, if the will is there.




• Mr Hurd 

 
As I said in my statement, the UK has a view, which is that cannabis in its raw form is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefits. As I also said, I recognise that there may be special circumstances in this case, which is why I am absolutely determined to look at every option inside the existing regulatory envelope.





• Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) 

 
As a Welsh MP, I am very proud of the Welsh Assembly, which recognises the need to legalise cannabis for medicinal use. Sativex is a very unpleasant, alcohol-based medicine that is unsuitable for many patients, and I hope that the Government will recognise that. However, we as a country are light years behind other countries, so the excuses today are just not valid. Why does the word “cannabis” scare the Government so much? We need to stop hiding and stop making excuses. Can the Minister tell the parents of children such as Alfie and all the other people who need access to medicinal cannabis legally across the UK when that is going to happen?




• Mr Hurd 

 What the Government do is listen to the independent, statutory Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which has been very clear that

“the use of cannabis is a significant public health issue. Cannabis can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society.”

We cannot just ignore that expert advice. As I said in my statement, there is a precedent for medicines, including controlled drugs such as cannabis and Sativex, to be issued with a licence to enable trials.





• Mr Seely 

 
Looking around the world, it seems to me that the case for medical cannabis is somewhat overwhelming, although I understand that the Minister is in a difficult position at the moment. Does he think that there will ever be a time when medical cannabis is legal in this country, so that its benefits can be felt by those who need it?




• Mr Hurd 

 
Of course, policy must be evidence-led, so Governments of all colours must keep the evidence under review. I think that the next critical milestone will be the output of the WHO review. Cannabis is a highly complex substance, and the review is looking at it from every angle to try to give us the most definitive, up-to-date view on its medicinal and therapeutic benefits.





• Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op) 

 
The Minister says that public health concerns are a key driver of policy making, but, as we have seen with the case just for piloting safe drug consumption rooms, the Government stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that shows that public health would benefit. Is this not just another example of the Government putting the inertia of the criminal justice system ahead of an urgent public health issue, with drug-related deaths at epidemic levels? Will the Government not change the emphasis in policy making to matters of public health, rather than the inertia of the criminal justice system, which for 40 years has had an obsolete and arbitrary method of regulating drugs in this country?




• Mr Hurd 

 
I do not recognise that description of “inertia”. I have tried to give a flavour of the fact that this is a highly complex area that we keep under constant review.







Let us have our cake, eat it, then get a second cake.

The EFRA Committee called for a fund to prepare British farming for Brexit. This is a bit of overkilll as farming is the ONLY industry to be guaranteed continuation of full subsides for the future. Already farming gets 40% of the Euro cheque but contribute less than 1% to the economy.

Savings can be made by ending the income support for millionaires/billionaires in England who are only landowners - producing no food. Plenty of savings to be made there to keep small farmers sustainable.

  

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is today launching its report, Brexit; Trade in Food. 

There are many crises ahead for forming. 

• That the EU is the UK’s most significant trading partner and there is no guarantee that a free trade agreement will be reached.
• WTO tariffs could possibly lead to higher costs for consumers but could lead to beneficial import displacement. A liberalisation of barriers could possibly lead to cheaper imports, produced to lower welfare standards, and damage British producers.
• The agricultural industry needs clarity on the Government’s long-term vision, as reverting to WTO tariffs will have a significant impact on agriculture, given that tariffs are higher for agricultural products than for other goods and services.
• Perishable agricultural products are more at risk from lengthy customs procedures and poor IT systems.
• When setting UK tariffs at the WTO, Government should understand that removing tariffs ‘could put many UK farmers out of business and render the UK dependent on imported food.’

 

The Committee has recommended that the Government:

 

• Should consider creating a fund to support the UK’s agricultural sector as it adapts to the post-Brexit environment.
• Must set out how it will make sure that IT systems and infrastructure are in place for the import and export of agricultural produce so that businesses can continue to trade smoothly with Europe and the rest of the world.
• Should begin to develop relationships at a political level with potential new trading partners.
• Should publish a sector-by-sector analysis of the impact of Brexit before the publication of the Agriculture Bill, and publish the Bill as soon as possible.
• Should ensure that any new agreements are not to the detriment of the UK’s high animal welfare, environmental, or food standards.
• Should make clear how it will deal with potential regulatory divergence with the EU, and ensure that protected geographical indicators are retained in a similar form after the UK leaves the EU.

 

“60% of the UK’s agricultural exports and 70% of its imports are from the EU. In order to safeguard the livelihoods of UK farmers and guarantee domestic food security post-Brexit, it is vital that the Government articulates its vision for protecting both. The first step in this process is creating an analysis of each farming sector before bringing the Agriculture Bill before Parliament.

 

“UK agriculture will need to adapt to the changed trading circumstances following Brexit, so the Government should consider putting funding in place to enable farmers to do so.

 

Parliamnent's shame and 'GIVE WAR A CHANCE' Brigade

Some questions raised in the House today:

 

 

 

Prison Hope?

 

Rory Stewart is the welcome new broom at the Justice Department. He is NOT the average minister because he is burdened with high intelligence and an extraordinary hinterland. It's rare event for me to praises a new Tory Minister but this is exceptional. Will he face up to the truth of half a century of populist prison policies that, at great costs, have delivered no lasting reforms?  Recidivism has not been reduced by one iota since the 1960s.

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

When can we take advantage of the pragmatic and progressive views of the new prisons Minister, who has acknowledged that the crises of overcrowding and self-harm in our prisons are the result of 50 years of error by all parties? May we compare the crisis here with the situation in the Netherlands, where there is a shortage of prisoners and 19 prisons have had to be closed? Is that not the kind of problem we would like to have here?

• Andrea Leadsom (Leader of the House of Commons)

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the kind of problem that we want to have. He is right to mention the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry for Justice, to clean and safe prisons that are places of discipline and rehabilitation, not harm and violence. This Government gave greater powers last year to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons through the urgent notification system, by which specific issues in prisons can be raised immediately. We have also invested £100 million in recruiting 2,500 new prison officers, and we should be at full complement by the end of 2018. There is more to do, but progress has been made.

 

Cyber fearmongering

There was widespread world indifference to the Russian Cyber attack on Estonia ten years ago. We should have been worried then. The Tories denied the effects of Russian cyber manipulation in the Brexit and General Election 2017 votes in spite of evidence and their policy of dividing Europe. Now it's convenient to up the scaremongering in a budget grab for more money on 'defence'. It was ever thus in the cold war to try to frighten us with the Russian bear.

·         Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

Is not the wild and petulant infantilism of the statements by our world leaders a great threat to the security of the world, and does not history tell us that the greatest accelerant to war is an expectation of war, which we are fuelling at the moment? Would it not be far better for us to look to the great work we could do now in peacekeeping on the border in Bangladesh, rather than be thinking of war making?

·         Gavin Williamson (Secretary of State for Defence)

We are one of the most active nations in making sure we bring peace right across the globe. We have a great history and we should take great pride in everything we have achieved in the past, and I have no doubt we will achieve in the future. But we have to understand that people who are threatening Britain do not respect weakness; if we were to disarm, or get rid of our nuclear deterrent, or diminish or get rid of our conventional forces, that would make them no less likely to attack us. We have to have an effective deterrent, and that is not just a nuclear deterrent; it is a conventional deterrent as well.

Revolving door at heart of politicians' corruption.

There is still no recognition by the political class, civil servants and retired military of the potentially deeply corrupting character of a revolving door spinning freely. Parliament has disgraced itself again in the conduct of the past PM and Chancellor.

 

·         Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

The Government’s conduct in responding to the report reinforces the public’s view that we here are acting in our own private interests, not in the public interest. Is it not significant that a Prime Minister who did not lift a finger during his period in office in answer to pleas for reforms to jam the revolving door has now taken advantage of that period of office to take a job in China, with which he worked when in Government? Will the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee explain to us why George Osborne did not come to the Committee to explain why he had five meetings with BlackRock, why he altered the law in its favour and why, after losing office, he took a job with them on £650,000 a year for one day’s work a week? If that is not an egregious example of the abuse of the revolving door, it is hard to see what is. We have a shameful record, and perhaps the Chair will agree that the public will rightly regard us with contempt and as unfit to police our own affairs.

·         Mr Jenkin (Chair – Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee)

Sadly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a member of my Committee, he has been instrumental in drawing the Committee’s attention to these issues. I would almost describe him as the conscience of the Committee on the issue, and long may he continue to encourage us in this work. As he knows, it is not the practice of the Committee to prosecute individual cases, and we should resist that because it would divert attention from the substance of the work that we need to undertake. I am actually quite pleased about how obviously carefully drafted the Government’s response is to our report because the points we are making in our report are having a telling effect. We have a long way to go, however, and that is why the hon. Gentleman has been one of those encouraging the Committee to continue pursuing the subject with a further inquiry. I thank him for his work for the Committee

 

Biscuit-gate crumbles. Current "House' Magazine

‘Biscuit-gate’ galvanised EFRA Select Committee members into consternation post-Christmas. Half the committee members received a £100 hamper loaded with biscuits and other goodies. The source was the head of a company whose conduct is being probed by the Committee.

Should the favoured recipients be flattered or insulted? Can their integrity be corrupted with hampers? We self-righteous members congratulated ourselves that we were denied our biscuits because we had done our duty and sharply probed the donor. We were judged incorruptible and hamper deprived. There was scramble from the hamper recipients to explain how they had not nibbled a single biscuit but passed them on to foodbanks or the homeless. Of course. The Select Committee is sending a stern rebuke to the donor. Biscuits will never buy us.

It was two fingers twice up from Government.

Two very late Government responses to Public Administration Select Committee (PACAC) reports arrived on the 21^st December. No-one noticed that the Government had rejected Chilcot and the call to jam the revolving door.  The press hacks, obsessed with anticipation of Christmas mince pies and wine, could not be provoked into noticing.

For three parliaments PACAC has hammered the corruption of former politicians, civil servants and military heads prostituting their insider knowledge to the highest bidder to provide rich pickings in retirement jobs.

Taking a new job with the Chinese interests by David Cameron exposes parliamentarians to accusations of promoting our own financial interests in office in order to benefit later. PM David Cameron resisted all pleas to reform the abuses of revolving door. Chaucer foretold, ‘If gold rusts, what will iron do?

Rose Gentle, the mother of Gordon Gentle, the first soldier killed in the 2003 Iraq War, is angry. The Government rejected the modest PACAC proposals to avoid a further war in which Parliament could be again misled. The war decisions was not just one man’s.  Most MPs of the major parties and three major Select Committees were gung-ho to join Bush’s War.  Parliament will fail if we allow Chilcot conclusions to be suffocated with a blanket of self-serving spin.

No wonder there is a crisis in recruiting if parliament does not reform procedures that lead us into avoidable war. The loved ones of the 179 brave soldiers who were killed in Iraq deserved a hearing. They suffer wounds of grief that will never heal.

It sounds odd but I am both for and against drug use. As chair of the APPG group on opioid use, I want UK patients to avoid the plague of opioid over-use, addictions and deaths that have cut life expectancy in the USA, with deaths currently standing at 42,000 a year – and predicted to rise to 72,000 by 2025. The increase has been for non-life threatening problems of pain and depression. We are following the trend.

But we should follow the example of the 29 US states who have re-legalised medicinal cannabis. Each of these states has benefited from a drop in drug crime- up to 41%. Also as a direct consequence the states where medicinal cannabis is available have avoided the increase in opioid deaths.

It’s a no-brainer that we should follow these examples. Public opinion is prepared for reforms. Our chance will come on February 23^rd when seriously ill people will ask parliament to allow them to legally use their medicine of choice.

Newport County soccer team have rocketed from screaming nightmare to paradise. A year ago they were firmly bottom the league nine points adrift. A new manager arrived and the club escaped relegation with a goal in the last minute of the last game of the season. Last week we beat Leeds in the FA cup.

There is collateral benefit to one of the local MPs. The new manager is gloriously named Michael Flynn. The Flynn tribe always deliver for Newport.

Bad law genesis. Grove's political bid on sentience.

•  
  Environment Food and Rural Affairs
  Committee
  Oral evidence: Draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing
  and Recognition of Sentience) Bill 2017, HC 709
  Wednesday 17 January 2018 Sir Stephen Laws KCB,
  QC, former First Parliamentary Counsel
•  
  The EFRA Select Committee is taking evidence on Michael Gove's panic bill to hug 'sentience' as a concept. it follow a Nasty Party Tory vote on the Euro Bill. This will be a classic example of how not to legislate. 

 

• Paul Flynn: I feel a sense of excitement about this Bill, because having been through the genesis of the Dangerous Dogs Act a long time ago, I think this will be a classic piece of bad legislation, in that it is prejudice‑rich, politically charged and evidence‑free. There does not seem to be any evidence that the areas to be addressed are the most severe forms or the most widespread forms of animal abuse.  Neither does there seem to be any evidence that increasing sentences and fines necessarily alters behaviour.  Those cases have to be made if this Bill is gone through.

We touched on the reason behind this.  This Bill is not about improving the welfare of animals.  It is a political stunt, because “sentience” is a highly charged word at the moment for the reasons Alan gave earlier.  It is an attempt to paint one political party in a pleasant light rather than a nasty light, and in doing this it is an abuse of Parliament’s time.  The effort and time that will go into this will not be worthwhile unless we can open it up and ask people to come in and say, “What are the areas of animal abuse that need to be addressed?”  One would suggest getting rid of hunting altogether, and the mass rearing of animals to be shot by guns.  These are the main areas, though maybe people will have others.  The genesis of this Bill seems to be entirely party‑political.  What are you views on that?

Chair: I do not know how much you want to get into party politics, but I will pass it over to you, Sir Stephen.

Sir Stephen Laws: It is clear that it is an attempt to reproduce an obligation that exists via European law in our law at the moment.  To that extent it is about the law, but is it an efficient use of the law?  You cannot actually change people’s minds by making a law that says they have to change their minds.  You can change people’s behaviour, and perhaps if you change their behaviour you can change their minds as a result.

This is not something that is directed at the most efficient use of the law.  The most efficient use of the law is to change people’s behaviour, which you do with specific provisions.  If you create general provisions that then potentially fight with specific provisions, what you do to the law is make it unclear and make the specific provisions less valuable than they would be if they stood on their own.

Questions to the Government 18/01/2018

Contributions made to the House yesterday (18th of January) on the Rohingya crisis and the re-legalisation of medicinal cannabis. 

 

Select Committee Statement on International Development

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

All of us who visited the Kutupalong site had an experience that was overwhelming and heartbreaking. We heard at first hand the terror of the refugees at the possibility of repatriation, and the only possible practical way to achieve that is with support from the United Nations or the British Army. We have a wonderful record of peacekeeping in these impossible circumstances. Is that not the best way, although a very difficult way, to go forward and to ensure there can be a long-term solution?

• Stephen Twigg

I thank my hon. Friend. In a sense, that question takes us back to the question from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) at the beginning. I absolutely agree. One of the dangers with these crises is that they hit the headlines for a time, and then the attention of the media and the political world moves on. It is vital that we do not allow that to happen. This is about addressing the crisis now but also being there to support long-term solutions, and a potential role for UK peacekeepers is part of that.

 

Business Questions

 

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

In the Welsh Assembly yesterday, Mark Isherwood, a Conservative Member, won by 31 to two a vote on a motion asking this House to re-legalise medicinal cannabis. Will the Government follow suit and give a fair wind to my private Member’s Bill, which would liberate seriously ill people from the threat of prosecution for using their medicine of choice?

• Andrea Leadsom

 

The hon. Gentleman has championed this issue in the House. As he knows, the Government keep the matter under review, but it is not our policy to legalise the use of cannabis.

No remorse or apology for Parliament's greatest mistake.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee 10 months ago published a report outlining lessons the Government could learn from the Chilcot Inquiry.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubadm/708/708.pdf

The Government published a wholly inadequate response to the report a few days before Christmas.. Regrettably the response contains no remorse and Ministers disagree with most recommendations. 

Today I raised the issue with a Minister standing in at Business Questions for Leader of the House Andrea Leadson..

·       Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

Yesterday, Rose Gentle, the mother of Gordon Gentle, one of the first soldiers to die in the Iraq war, expressed her regret at the Government statement that seems to absolve Parliament from the conclusions of the Chilcot report. We need, as she called for, an act of apology from this House and this Parliament. It was not one man; it was the Opposition and three Select Committees, who were cheerleaders for that worst mistake we have made this century. Would not a suitable act of apology be followed by the reading of the names of the 179 soldiers whom we sent to their deaths

·       Paul Maynard

The hon. Gentleman has been a consistent campaigner on this issue over many years and has earned the House’s respect for his consistency. I will ensure that I pass his comments on to the Leader of the House, who I am sure will do her best to get him a suitable response to his point

Lessons Learned from the Chilcot Report

Last year the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee held an investigation on lessons learned from the Chilcot Inquiry. Following an evaluation of the evidence the Committee published recommendations for Government. 

Government responded to the advice this week, extracts from the paper are below. In bold type are Committee's suggested reforms.

Parliament should in future have a full debate and vote on an amendable motion, setting out the precise terms of reference, an estimated timeframe and a proposed budget for the Inquiry.

Government does not accept this recommendation.

Public inquiries take many forms…will often need to be established quickly to respond to issues of urgent public concern. Government believes that the current approach to establishing inquiries provides the appropriate balance of responsiveness and flexibility.

It is no longer acceptable that the present arrangements should continue without stronger means to prevent key ministers, or even the whole Cabinet from being sidelined. Beyond making representations to Ministers and to the PM, the Cabinet Secretary does not have any formal recourse to object to a PM.

The Government does not agree with the Committee’s finding that there is an absence of safeguards on decision-making within Government.

When decisions on military intervention have been taken, the NSC and its sub-committees and officials groups have prepared decisions fully and there has been a full discussion of the issue in Cabinet before decisions were taken.

We agree with the Iraq Inquiry that the Intelligence and Security Committee should play a key role in strengthening the checks and assessments on intelligence information when it is used to make the case for Government policies.

The Intelligence and Security Committee already has substantial powers to access and scrutinise sensitive information.

We acknowledge the seriousness of Dr Rangwala’s conclusions (that Blair deliberately misled the House) and recognise that his report supports the view held by many members of the House. We note Chilcot believes there was no decision by the then Prime Minister to deceive.

This Committee is not in a position to take up and investigate further Dr Rangwala’s conclusions. Should further evidence come to light the House may wish to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee.

The Government notes the Committee’s conclusion.

Government and Parliament should take the necessary steps to ensure that future Inquiries do not experience such unacceptable delays.

It will be rare that an Inquiry will have the scope and scale of the Iraq Inquiry. The time it took to report was in large part due to the complexity and scope of the issues it was examining.

We reiterate the recommendations of PASC, across its three reports on strategic thinking in government, that the NSC requires far greater capability in strategic thinking and analysis and would greatly benefit from having its own capacity to synthesise assessment and analysis.

The Government does not accept the Committee’s finding.

Lessons Learned from the Chilcot Report

 

Last year the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee held an investigation on lessons learned from the Chilcot Inquiry. Following an evaluation of the evidence the Committee published recommendations for Government. 

Government responded to the advice this week, extracts from the paper are below.

 

 

Parliament should in future have a full debate and vote on an amendable motion, setting out the precise terms of reference, an estimated timeframe and a proposed budget for the Inquiry.

 

Government does not accept this recommendation.

Public inquiries take many forms…will often need to be established quickly to respond to issues of urgent public concern. Government believes that the current approach to establishing inquiries provides the appropriate balance of responsiveness and flexibility.

 

 

It is no longer acceptable that the present arrangements should continue without stronger means to prevent key ministers, or even the whole Cabinet from being sidelined. Beyond making representations to Ministers and to the PM, the Cabinet Secretary does not have any formal recourse to object to a PM.

 

The Government does not agree with the Committee’s finding that there is an absence of safeguards on decision-making within Government.

When decisions on military intervention have been taken, the NSC and its sub-committees and officials groups have prepared decisions fully and there has been a full discussion of the issue in Cabinet before decisions were taken.

 

 

We agree with the Iraq Inquiry that the Intelligence and Security Committee should play a key role in strengthening the checks and assessments on intelligence information when it is used to make the case for Government policies.

 

The Intelligence and Security Committee already has substantial powers to access and scrutinise sensitive information.

 

 

We acknowledge the seriousness of Dr Rangwala’s conclusions (that Blair deliberately misled the House) and recognise that his report supports the view held by many members of the House. We note Chilcot believes there was no decision by the then Prime Minister to deceive.

This Committee is not in a position to take up and investigate further Dr Rangwala’s conclusions. Should further evidence come to light the House may wish to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee.

 

The Government notes the Committee’s conclusion.

 

 

Government and Parliament should take the necessary steps to ensure that future Inquiries do not experience such unacceptable delays.

 

It will be rare that an Inquiry will have the scope and scale of the Iraq Inquiry. The time it took to report was in large part due to the complexity and scope of the issues it was examining.

 

 

We reiterate the recommendations of PASC, across its three reports on strategic thinking in government, that the NSC requires far greater capability in strategic thinking and analysis and would greatly benefit from having its own capacity to synthesise assessment and analysis.

 

The Government does not accept the Committee’s finding.

 

 

Return of the Tory Snake-oil Salesmen!

Tories will repeat their snake-oil salesman Severn Bridges tolls stunt of January 13th 2017.

 

 

 

David T C Davies Monmouth MP, SOS Alun Cairns, Transport SOS Chris Grayling January 13th 2016.

 

Confused on tolls? ............Understandable.

It's sorry saga of confidence tricks and an election bribe. As a bribe it failed to win any extra seats for the Tories but it has forced them into honouring the Severn Bridges Toll Act 1992 that says the tolls should be zero this month. The £5.60 charge is an imposed ALUN CAIRNS TAX, that is unnecessary. From January 2018 the Bridges will be in public ownership and should be treated in the same way as the rest of the national road system that is toll-free. 

 

Tolls will be £3.70 they said (Dec 2016), then £3.00 (above 13th Jan 2017), then Election Bribe £0.00 (May 2017, Now £5.60! For another year.

An extract from a recent evidence session of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee December 2017: 

Paul Flynn: Do you think the political cartwheels that you performed on the Severn bridges toll are likely to bring cheap political opportunism into disrepute. Could you explain why you changed your policy from a £3.70 toll in the middle of the election campaign?

Alun Cairns: I always recognised that there was a symbolic and economic issue surrounding tolls.

Q63 Paul Flynn: Could you answer that? I have got a few questions but why did you do it at that particular time?

Alun Cairns: We have to work across Government.

Q64 Paul Flynn: It was sheer coincidence that it was at election time, was it?

Alun Cairns: It became a manifesto commitment.

Q65 Paul Flynn: Why? It was a cheap attempt to gain seats, which failed spectacularly, because you actually lost three seats. As a party, just think on terms of political morality, your Government is there on the basis of mercenary MPs from Northern Ireland who have been bribed with £1 billion. The situation with the Severn bridges toll—

Chair: I am not sure that I can allow references to mercenary MPs and bribery to pass unchecked, Mr Flynn.

Paul Flynn: I think they are entirely accurate statements. A mercenary is someone who can be bought and does a job for money. I believe that the Northern Ireland Members would generally acknowledge that they wouldn’t have taken up their new-found loyalty to the Tory Government without the £1 billion that was paid to them. I think that is an accepted fact.

Chair: I enjoy robust questioning, but we should all be careful, because I might get advised that those terms are out of order. Do continue, because I am enjoying this.

Q66 Paul Flynn: I have opposed the Severn bridges tolls since before you were born, Secretary of State. It is welcome that they are ending. The Severn Bridges Act 1992 set out an agreement—a deal—which comes to an end on 8 January, when the Severn bridges tolls end. The Severn bridges are exactly the same as any other part of the motorway system: they are owned by the public. Isn’t continuing paying the tolls for another year accurately called a Cairns tax?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful for the recognition that the tolls are being cut. When I was a member of this Committee, the impact of the Severn tolls was the first issue we considered. Ever since then, I have been convinced that something needs to be done about it. Going back to the question of why it was to be halved, and then why we came forward with a commitment

Paul Flynn: Why don’t you confess—it would feel a lot better—that this was a crude attempt to buy votes during an election? It is the sort of thing that voters rightly spurn. They recognised it to be a cheap election bribe.

Alun Cairns: Well, no. It was something I made a priority when I became Secretary of State. At the time I was here last year, I had not quite convinced all my colleagues—

Paul Flynn: You changed your mind in six months.

Alun Cairns: I had not quite convinced all my colleagues that abolishing them was the best way, and I managed to get halfway by halving the tolls. I am pleased that my colleagues responded to my request. I am supported by the Committee and by business in Wales. The outcome is positive. When we talk about the Welsh economy, I hope we can talk about the south Wales economy and the south-west of England in an optimistic way. There is one haulier very close to your constituency, Mr Flynn, that has said that it has saved it £500,000.

Paul Flynn: We know about the advantages. Can I go on to something else?

Alun Cairns: I can give countless examples of businesses that welcome it. We need to focus on it to help attract further investment into Wales.

Q68 Paul Flynn: We all agree on the advantages. What we are discussing is the political morality of your party in the election campaign, the reasons why you did this and whether it brings politics into disrepute. You told us last year that the tolls were going to be £3.70. You appeared on the Severn bridge—I have a charming photograph on my website of the Chairman and you—announcing, “Hallelujah! It is going to be a £3 toll.” Strangely enough, a surprise election comes along, and suddenly they are going to go altogether. Is that what you are trying to tell us happened?

Alun Cairns: My Flynn, I think you are asking me to apologise for abolishing the tolls.

Q69 Paul Flynn: No, I am asking you to apologise for a crudely political way of conning the voters. It didn’t work. To take the next con that is on now, the majority of the people of this country are very alarmed about many of the aspects of Brexit, now that it is coming in. I sit on other Committees, and they take a line, which is that they have great concern about the effect on the Welsh farming industry.

Alun Cairns: If I may, there is a serious issue here. If you are asking me to apologise for a manifesto commitment that we made and are delivering on, I absolutely will not do so. This is a positive announcement. We should all be taking it in the spirit it was meant and using it as an economic measure to boost investment.

Paul Flynn: There is such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reason. My question was not about the advantages of the Severn bridge tolls—they should have gone in ’66, as far as I am concerned—but about the way you did it, what it does to political faith and the way that your party is in power because of the deal they did with the DUP.

 

"Worst civil investment ever' as MPs failed to notice.

Today at 13:36

 

Hinkley C 2018: plus ca change, plus la meme chose.....

 

Parliament, with a very small number of honourable exceptions, has utterly failed to  properly scrutinize- and  halt - this ongoing  secret scandal. Many MPs should look in their mirrors on the first day of the new year, and ask themselves why they  have so abjectly failed in their  role  as scrutineers of policy as well as lawmakers ( what are their  research staff doing ?), with the consequence of a massive  tens of billions of  pounds penalty on current taxpayers and future electricity bill payers.

David

 

Advisers on Hinkley Point C nuclear power station had ‘cosy’ ties to both sides

Apparent conflict of interest on Somerset project

Alex Ralph

January 1 2018,  The Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/advisers-on-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station-had-cosy-ties-to-both-sides-xftxcl9sz

The project has been called the “worst civil investment decision made by any government” by Paul Flynn, a Labour MP who has campaigned against itEDF Energy/PA

 

Consultancy firms working for the government on the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station were advising the project’s Chinese investor and its French builder at the same time, an investigation by The Times has revealed.

KPMG, the professional services group, was paid £4.4 million between 2012 and 2017 as a financial adviser to the energy and business departments, despite telling officials that it was also acting for China General Nuclear Power Corp on the project.

The apparent conflict of interest has been revealed after the Information Commissioner’s Office intervened to press for disclosure from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Previously, officials had redacted the information, claiming that it was commercially sensitive.

In a second potential conflict, Lazard, the financial advisory firm, was paid £2.6 million between 2012 and 2015 to advise the business department on Hinkley Point. Details of its previously redacted tender documents reveal that it was an adviser to EDF, the French developer that is investing in Hinkley Point alongside the Chinese. A source said that Lazard’s advice to EDF was not related to the Somerset project.

MPs expressed concern about the perceived conflicts. The government has struck a 35-year deal under which the energy companies could receive £50 billion above market prices.

 

Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Commons public accounts committee, said that Hinkley Point was crucial public infrastructure and therefore it was “vital that auditors get full sight” of the potential conflicts. It “looks cosy”, she said, adding that it was “not really appropriate” for firms to be advising both sides.

The details have been released more than a year and half after The Times complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which informally advised the business department to reconsider its position. The department previously had handed over heavily redacted documents in response to a Freedom of Information request.

The Information Commissioner’s Office said that there was a “significant and important public interest”, something that had been strengthened by a report from the National Audit Office in June, which found that the government’s deal had “locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits”. The project has been riddled with delays and controversy over its spiralling costs.

The National Audit Office also criticised the business department for insufficiently managing the potential conflict of Leigh Fisher, another government adviser. The Times reported in November 2016 that Leigh Fisher, the management consultant, had been awarded contracts worth a combined £1.2 million despite telling officials that the British division of Jacobs Engineering Group, an American firm that owns Leigh Fisher, was working for EDF on Hinkley Point.

In tendering for a 2015 contract, KPMG told officials that “as DECC [the Department of Energy & Climate Change] is fully aware, a KPMG team is currently acting for [China General Nuclear Power Corp] in relation to their potential investment into [Hinkley Point C]. This work is being carried out by a team, separate to the KPMG team acting for DECC, operating under strict internal conditions.” The auditing firm added that it had “mature policies and procedures . . . to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest”, including “properly segregated resources . . . to handle the projects”.

In Lazard’s 82-page tender document in 2013, which initially was almost entirely redacted, it told officials “that it has no conflict of interest in respect of the work contemplated by the ITT [intention to tender] regarding the development at Hinkley Point C. The Lazard group does have a relationship with Electricité de France [EDF] led out of its Paris office and is assisting it with a current advisory mandate that has no bearing on, and creates no conflict with, the advisory work contemplated by the ITT but this will not prejudice in any manner the qualifications of a Lazard team led out of its London office to provide the high-quality, independent advice contemplated by the ITT.”

Paul Flynn, a Labour MP who has campaigned against Hinkley Point C, said that the project was the “worst civil investment decision made by any government” and that the potential conflicts were “further proof that the contract was agreed for political imperatives . . . To avoid future calamities, a full national inquiry must be held.”

Leigh Fisher said that it “managed the work and resources in accordance with agreed protocols throughout”.

The National Audit Office was not aware of the KPMG and Lazard situations. On Leigh Fisher, it said: “Placing the onus on Leigh Fisher to manage the potential conflict is not in line with good practice”; “by the time Leigh Fisher did confirm it was complying with arrangements stipulated by the department, it had already completed the majority of its work”; “the department did not receive any monthly updates on the arrangements in place, as it had requested”; and that “even when the department did stipulate ethical wall arrangements, they were below the standard we would expect”.

The business department said: “In line with our requirements, both Lazard and KPMG outlined their policy on dealing with any potential conflicts of interest in their tender documents, together with the actions they would take to mitigate these. As a result, we are satisfied that the perceived conflicts had no impact on the work carried out under the contract(s).”

 

HINKLEY POINT C

• Session: 2017-19
• Date tabled: 23.11.2017
• Primary sponsor: Flynn, Paul
• Sponsors:
  • Day, Martyn
  • Stephens, Christopher
  • Linden, David
  • Cunningham, Jim
  • Godsiff, Roger

That this House is shocked by the Public Accounts Committee's conclusion that no one was protecting the interests of energy consumers in the deal to construct Hinkley Point C which the Committee conclude will impose large extra costs on the average annual household electricity bill and disproportionately hit the poorest; condemns the failure to consider better value renewable sources of energy; agrees that the Government locked consumers into an expensive deal despite the case for Hinkley Point C weakening during its negotiations; is appalled that consumers will now pay £30 billion in top-up payments, five times more than the £6 billion promised in 2013; and believes that any future plans for new nuclear power must be assessed by the financial calamity of HinkleyShow:

 

Showing 17 out of 17

Name	Party	Constituency	Date Signed
Bardell, Hannah	Scottish National Party	Livingston	11.12.2017
Blackman, Kirsty	Scottish National Party	Aberdeen North	04.12.2017
Brown, Alan	Scottish National Party	Kilmarnock and Loudoun	04.12.2017
Cunningham, Jim	Labour Party	Coventry South	28.11.2017
Day, Martyn	Scottish National Party	Linlithgow and East Falkirk	27.11.2017
Docherty, Martin	Scottish National Party	West Dunbartonshire	29.11.2017
Flynn, Paul	Labour Party	Newport West	23.11.2017
Godsiff, Roger	Labour Party	Birmingham Hall Green	28.11.2017
Law, Chris	Scottish National Party	Dundee West	29.11.2017
Linden, David	Scottish National Party	Glasgow East	28.11.2017
Lucas, Caroline	Green Party	Brighton Pavilion	28.11.2017
MacNeil, Angus	Scottish National Party	Na h-Eileanan an Iar	04.12.2017
McNally, John	Scottish National Party	Falkirk	28.11.2017
Monaghan, Carol	Scottish National Party	Glasgow North West	29.11.2017
Rimmer, Marie	Labour Party	St Helens South and Whiston	28.11.2017
Skinner, Dennis	Labour Party	Bolsover	29.11.2017
Stephens, Christopher	Scottish National Party	Glasgow South West	27.11.2017

Time for PACAC chair to stand aside?

 

 

In a Commons debate on Thursday the 22nd of December Bernard Jenkin claimed the reason that the PACAC Committee he chairs had not followed up on a probe into Russian interference in the Brexit Referendum was  that would by playing Russia's game. There were justified snorts of derision from all sides. All know that Arch-Brexiteer Jenkin has acted to prevent the truth being revealed. Congratulations to the Commons Culture Committee and the House of Lords Elections Committee who have investigated the subject and done the job that PACAC neglected.

 

PACAC is now politicised. Nearly issues pursued are pro-Brexit. The Electoral Commission has not appeared before parliament but is is investigating the role of the pro Brexit group that Jenkin supported in the referendum. He has been called on to stand down as Chairman to avoid accusations of bias. He has refused to do so. The Commons rules, in my view, demand that he stands down. I have put my views in writing.

 

 

Erskine May on the subject.

 

Chapter 37, Proceedings in Select Committees states:

 

Declaration of interests

 

In any proceeding of a select committee a Member must disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have. Although this obligation is expressed in terms of pecuniary interests, it is taken in practice to include relevant interests of a non-financial nature, such as membership of a trade union or pressure group. Any such declaration is entered in the formal minutes of the committee. It is additional to the requirement to register interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

 

Members of committees are required to send to the clerk of the committee details of any pecuniary, or other relevant, interests for circulation before the committee’s first meeting. All Members are invited to declare any such interests related to the order of reference of the committee or which are likely to be relevant to a substantial part of its work. Where a member of the committee, particularly the chair, has a pecuniary interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry, or he considers that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the committee or its subsequent report, he should stand aside from the committee proceedings relating to it.

 

 

It is my understanding, from the above, that the interest need not be pecuniary in nature warrant declaration and my submission that as a board member of a pressure group, Vote Leave, the Chair should stand aside for related matters and inquiries. 

 

That's just the start of the defenestration of a committee with a creditable record. Other vital investigations have been abandoned because they do not fit the Brexitisation agenda of PACAC and its chair.

 

Before the 2017 election was called PACAC had summoned two former MPs to appear and give evidence as the most egregious examples of the abuse of the Revolving Door. Invitations have not been renewed.

 

PACAC's probe into Kid's Company has been abandoned in spite of questionable evidence of one witness and the her history as the Poster Girl of the Big Society. Tories do not talk about her or the Big Society any more. This task was taken up by Victoria Derbyshire and reported by a few newspapers> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-41678159/camila-batmanghelidjh-kids-company-founder-defends-charity-s-conduct

 

To avoid further difficulties PACAC's chair, without the knowledge or permission of any of its members, abandoned the committee's supervisory role over Charities and the Charity Commission. Kid's Company is off the hook. The two ministers who gave the charity £3million a few days before it collapsed are also exonerated from blame without being judged by the Adviser on Ministerial Interests. This was another another failure ti use the ministerial code for for its intended purpose. Both Liam Fox and Priti Patel have escaped the code's rules by using absolution by resignation is a blatant moves to conceal details of their wrong-doings.

 

The Chair of the United Kingdom Statistics Authority rightly did his job be publicly denouncing Boris's report of £350 per week for NHS untruth.  Chair was summoned before the committee to explain himself and given hard timr by two members of the committee. PACA then decided NOT to invite offender Boris. Blaming the messenger not the offender. Shameless Brexitism.

 

To assemble a safe meaningless agenda and distract from failures to pursue urgent issues, PACAC is repeating its umpteenth inquiry into the Civil Service. None of the previous inquiries into this subject has had any beneficial effect. But it fills up the time that the committee should be using for serious inquiries.

 

This is not a new plea. In a book I wrote in 1997 I urged that Select Committees that had becomes politicised should be abandoned, members should resign and a reformed  new committee be created with a new chair. This is precisely the position of PACAC now. Its reports will be worthless as Brexiteering and not the agreed decisions of a cross-party group .

If gold doth rust, what will iron do?

 

CONDUCT OF DAVID CAMERON

• Session: 2017-19
• Date tabled: 20.12.2017
• Primary sponsor: Flynn, Paul
• Sponsors: 
  • Stephens, Christopher

That this House believes that the acceptance of a new job with Chinese interests by the previous Prime Minister David Cameron exposes parliamentarians to accusations of promoting their own financial interests in office in order to benefit from them later with lucrative jobs; recalls that David Cameron resisted all pleas to reform the abuses of revolving door that allows former hon. Members to prosper on the basis of insider knowledge unhindered by the impotent watchdog of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and further recalls that the former Prime Minister supported the Chinese-British Hinkley Point project that been condemned as a potential financial calamity by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

 

 

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

  Business Questions  21st December 2017

  May we have a debate on early-day motion 722?

   

  [That this House believes that the acceptance of a new job with Chinese interests by the previous Prime Minister David Cameron exposes parliamentarians to accusations of promoting their own financial interests in office in order to benefit from them later with lucrative jobs; recalls that David Cameron resisted all pleas to reform the abuses of revolving door that allows former hon. Members to prosper on the basis of insider knowledge unhindered by the impotent watchdog of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and further recalls that the former Prime Minister supported the Chinese-British Hinkley Point project that been condemned as a potential financial calamity by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.]

   

  That might help to remove the most corrupt element in this Parliament whereby three Governments have failed to reform the committee that is supposed to prevent past Ministers from profiting financially from their time in office. Is there not a danger that the country will look at recent affairs and ask, as Chaucer did, “If gold doth rust, what will iron do?”

   

   

• Andrea Leadsom

   

   Share this contribution

  The hon. Gentleman raises what I am sure is a very important point. If he has an EDM, it will be dealt with in the usual manner.

   

If gold doth rust, what will iron do?

CONDUCT OF DAVID CAMERON

• Session: 2017-19
• Date tabled: 20.12.2017
• Primary sponsor: Flynn, Paul
• Sponsors: 
  • Stephens, Christopher

That this House believes that the acceptance of a new job with Chinese interests by the previous Prime Minister David Cameron exposes parliamentarians to accusations of promoting their own financial interests in office in order to benefit from them later with lucrative jobs; recalls that David Cameron resisted all pleas to reform the abuses of revolving door that allows former hon. Members to prosper on the basis of insider knowledge unhindered by the impotent watchdog of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and further recalls that the former Prime Minister supported the Chinese-British Hinkley Point project that been condemned as a potential financial calamity by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

Brexit collapse

• A newspaper asked eleven brave Tory MPs, ‘Are you proud?’

  They certainly should be. They won back control to parliament and MPs who represent the whole country. We will take the final decision on Brexit.

  It’s electoral dictatorship that gifts all powers to the right wing of the Tory Party plus 10 bought Mercenary DUP MPs to rule unchallenged.

  The referendum was an uninformed choice between Operation Fear and Operation Lies. I said so at the time. No side or voter got the truth eighteen months ago of what Brexit means. There’s been no economic collapse and we can all go whistle for the £350million a week for NHS. But those were the scares on which we voted.

  The awful truth is being revealed horror by horror, day by day. The Welsh lamb trade will collapse. Already Spain and Romania are selling to our customers. Now we sell 90% of out red meat trade to EU. We can go whistle for that.

  Many migrants have gone because of devaluation of the pound. Crops will rot in the fields-replaced by dear imports of foreign junk including chlorinated chicken, irradiated meat saturated with anti-biotics and (would you believe?) pink slime beef!

  The Poles who man the fishing boats off Scotland have gone. There are no replacements for them or others who do backbreaking arduous work of harvesting our crops for poor wages.

  Before we jump into a Brexit sinkhole of economic chaos, it’s time for second thoughts. Every Independent study has said that NO Brexit is better than any Brexit.

  We have had our guess in the dark uninformed Advisory Referendum. We need a second well-informed Confirmation Referendum.

  • Why did the Chancellor pin the blame for low productivity of British workers on the large proportion of the disabled who work?

  An upset charity asked me to raise their bewildered shock. Philip Hammond’s claim is the reverse of truth. Every disabled person who moves from benefits to work improves our productivity.

  Instead of blaming the 6 million employed disabled, we should rejoice that all parties and the EU have raised accessibility standards that give even the seriously disabled the dignity of fulfilling work.

  Time to cheer, not moan Philip!

  • Monmouth’s David Davies believes wind power is more expensive than nuclear. He was slapped down in the Commons by a Tory Minister when he said so this week.

  Wind and sun renewable powers have proved to be of top value.  Catch up David! 

  Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

Visiting the camp was an overwhelming and heartbreaking experience. I believe that, having met the refugees who have suffered the worst experiences life has to offer, all of us have a sense of duty to make sure they do not become invisible. I congratulate the Chairman on a very good report. It is realistic and does not offer any facile solutions. May I suggest that the only long-term answer to their problems—certainly more aid is needed; the situation is pitiful at the moment even though a great deal is being done—is for them to return to their lands in Myanmar? The only way to do that is to give an absolutely cast-iron guarantee of having armed forces with them. The British Army has a fine record in operations of this kind.

• Tom Tugendhat
• Chair Foreign Affairs Select Committee

The hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend; he has been a dear friend for many years—makes some very good points. I certainly welcome his call that we must support the returning refugees. The Committee makes the clear case for humanitarian access being essential before any refugees can return. We were very cautious, for various historical legacy reasons and the misunderstandings that could arise, about recommending that Her Majesty’s Government send British soldiers. However, we raised with the Minister—he was extremely receptive to it—the idea of regional support, whether under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or the United Nations, and some sort of alert force or even support force to be there with the refugees as they return.

 

* Three newspaper polls proved that support for Brexit is collapsing. The MOS, Telegraph and Independent show that the horrific reality of the Brexit sinkhole that will wreck the economy and cost us several fortunes.

Three quarters of all MPs voted remain. The Tory Party is doing its usual self-harm on Europe. Power to the People must mean giving the voters second thoughts to avoid our worst ever economic calamity. Delusional May dreams of doing an "El Alamein". it wil be a 'Dien Bien Phu'.

When Pope met Martin Luther & Money.

 

This is what might have happened when Martin Luther met Pope Francis and together they met Money. Almost all of the words of Martin Luther and Pope Francis are quotes from their writings.

 

Pope : in 1517 the church was not a role model. There was corruption, there was worldliness, there was greed, a lust for power. Martin Luther protested against this. And he was an intelligent man.

Money : with money hat on. We are here to celebrate the power of money to purchase for people access to God

Luther: Oh no we aren’t. Takes Money’s hat off and places it on the ground. The only thing bringing us to God is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Money: takes hat back. In that case we are here, today, 2017, to call economists, financiers, technology experts to celebrate this: unlimited growth is here to stay.

Pope : No: there is not an unlimited supply of the worlds goods. The world is being squeezed dry.

Luther: and God writes the gospel not in the bible alone, but also in the trees, and in the flowers, and clouds and stars.

Money: Enough of that, we are here to celebrate me, the god of extreme profits, so that I may gorge myself on the feast of everything that stands in my way.

Pope: Sadly we might agree. Whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenceless before you, the god of the market. It seems that you are the only rule.

Money: so you admit defeat?

Luther: Defeat? if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. For every green tree is far more glorious than if it were made of gold and silver. Everything that is done in this world is done by hope.

Money: Hope? Money crushes hope. What are you going to do?

Luther: When cardinal Bogoglio became pope, he took the name of St Francis. But this was not just a name, it was a plan.

Pope : Francis, The man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and protects creation. Francis, the man who changed history. How I would like a church that is poor and is for the poor. What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?

Luther: Parents shouldn’t give up choosing what is best for their children, even when they are ungrateful.

Money: And do you, with all your terrible mistakes, think that anyone will listen?

Luther: No great saint lived without errors.

Pope: I also am a sinner but I trust in the infinite mercy and patience of our lord Jesus Christ .And in this day and age, unless Christians are revolutionaries, they are not Christians.

Luther: And though this world with devils filled should threaten to undo us, we will not fear for god has willed His truth to triumph through us.

Pope : We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single family. The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. This is one of the greatest challenges of our time: changing to a form of development which seeks to respect creation.

Money: so what do you want?

Pope and Luther. A radical reformation of the economy.

Money: What do you want?

All:. A radical reformation of the economy.

Pope: the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, so that other parts may experience healthy growth.

Money: This is just asking for...

Pope and Luther: A radical reformation of the economy

Money: You know you can’t have...

All: A radical reformation of the economy.

Pope: I await the surprise of each day.

Luther: God is always a surprise, so you never know where and how you will meet him.

Both: Earth our mother moon our brother, here we stand we can do no other.

Pope: working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labour is not mere philanthropy, it is a moral obligation. For Christians the responsibility is even greater, it is a commandment.

Both: Earth or mother, moon our brother, here we stand we can do no other.

Luther: If you want to change the world, pray and act. And let us sing as we go; may our struggles and our concern for this planet never take away the joy of our hope.

Money: But money always rules.

Pope: takes hat. No it does not. Men and women will not be sacrificed to the idols of profit and consumption. Money has to serve and not rule.

All: Money has to serve and not rule.

Pope and Luther: what do we want?

All: a radical reformation of the economy

Pope and Luther: What do we want?

All: a radical reformation of the economy!

 

Christian Climate Change. London 4th December

Tories only reform is self-interest inspired.

• Friday's (Dec 1st 2017) debate on constituency boundaries chalked up another defeat for Government because theTories declined again to vote against. The boundary changes probably will not happen as it will endanger Tory seats and the Government are hopelessly distracted by Brexit.

   

  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)

   

  Much was made at the start of the debate about trust, but it will not do anything to engender trust in politics, politicians and this place if Labour Members make a party political move by kicking the boundary changes into the long grass, because they are worried about fighting another election on the current boundaries, rather than allowing us to fulfil a commitment made in the last two Conservative manifestos. I say to them that if the answer is 50 more Members of Parliament, they are asking completely the wrong question

   

   

 11.56 am

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

   

  I will try to ask the right question: why is the only measure that the Government are pushing to reform our disfigured electoral system one that will give them a numerical advantage? I should declare a vested interest, in that my constituency will disappear if the changes go through, and I do have a little regret at the fact that that will interrupt my promising parliamentary career just as I am beginning to get the hang of how this place works. However, that is not why I am making a speech.

   

  It is revealing that the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), had to harp back to before 2010, when he became its Chair, to be able to cite an example of a useful reform. I have been on the Committee for three Parliaments, and I know ​that the reputation of Parliament is as it was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). That is the crucial point—it is what this debate is about. The few people who are not looking at the coverage of the royal couple in Nottingham this morning but are watching our soporific exchanges here might be surprised at our self-indulgence, but our reputation fell to rock bottom during the expenses scandal and it is now worse—it is subterranean—and that is what we should address.

   

  We must address the weaknesses in our system. If we want every vote to count, we can do that through a system of proportional representation. We need a system that is fair and through which the views of the people are represented. In two Parliaments during my time in the House, the Conservative party won 20% of the vote in Wales but did not get a single one of the 40 seats for Wales, which is outrageous. If there was a PR system in the United States, we would have been spared a President who behaves like a petulant child, and we would not have had to express our anger in the way we did yesterday. That shows the major weakness in the system.

   

  Other scandals are certain to take place. What happened to the system for disciplining Ministers? Under the system set up by Gordon Brown, two Ministers were called in by the adviser on Ministers’ interests. There was someone in place to do such a job, in accordance with the ministerial code, but since the Conservative Government have taken over, that post has been subsumed into other roles, and people are judged not by the adviser whose job it is, but by civil servants and others.

   

  As has happened in some cases, there is now a process of absolution by resignation. Two Ministers have resigned in order to conceal what they were accused of doing. One was accused of having meetings with Mossad outside his ministerial role, and another was accused of considering giving international aid money to the Israeli army. Those two people lost their jobs, but they were not disgraced in the way that they should have been if the public had been informed. We had the case of two Ministers giving £3 million to a charity that was favoured by the previous Prime Minister.

   

   

• Michelle Donelan

   

  I am a little concerned that we are getting off the important topic under discussion—I would like to get back to it. The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to make votes count much more. Does he concede that the equalisation of constituencies would do that

   

• Paul Flynn

   

  I accept entirely the logic behind the Bill and its arithmetic—I am not arguing about that. I am saying only that a massive programme of reform is urgent and essential. I was making a point about the two Ministers who threw away £3 million by giving it to a dodgy charity that went broke three days later. They were never called to account by the Prime Minister, but that should have happened. We must reform that system. We must get reform in the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments as well. We have a system whereby Ministers, former generals and others can—

   

   

• Mr Speaker

   

  Order. It is very good of the hon. Gentleman to sit down when I rise to my feet. He is an extremely experienced and dextrous parliamentarian, and I was going to say to him, politely, that he has ​started his speech “broadly”—let me put it like that—and he cannot be accused of having attended too closely to the specifics of the measure before us. I feel sure that he will now apply his scholarly cranium with laser-like intensity to the matter before us, rather than to the matter that he might wish were before us.

   

   

• Paul Flynn

   

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. I greatly appreciate that advice, and I shall try to focus my laser-like cranium on the effect that these measures will have in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has PR, but it now has the problem that it does not have enough Members for its increasing workload. If the number of Welsh MPs is to be reduced—it is almost certain that that will happen sometime in the future—there must be a compensatory increase in numbers in the Welsh Assembly. That would make the proposals logical and fair, but at the moment they are a piece of special pleading by the Tory party to cynically increase the number of MPs that they have in Westminster. That has nothing to do with reform of our constitution, which is in a very bad state.

   

   

 12.02 pm

Questions to the Government 27/11/2017

Here are some contributions made to the House on Monday, November 27th

 

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

13. What steps he is taking to improve support for the families of deployed servicemen and women. 

• The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)

Personnel deployed on operations must have confidence that their families at home are able to access the support they need. Our welfare support is provided to families before, during and after deployment.

• Paul Flynn

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Newport County football club and Newport Live on recently joining the armed forces covenant? Does he agree that the only adequate way we can deal fairly with those who have been injured in body or mind by their service is to provide them with facilities and benefits that will leave them in a position where they do not have to rely on charities?

• Mr Ellwood

The hon. Gentleman makes reference to the armed forces covenant. It is probably the single biggest change in support and recognises that no member of the armed forces or veteran should be somehow disadvantaged because of their service. He is right to pay tribute to that, and I encourage all hon. Members to visit their local authorities and ask what is being done to ensure that they are living up to the requirements of the armed forces covenant

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

Professor Peter Gill is the most distinguished forensic scientist. He did magnificent work on DNA mass profiling. His authority is unquestioned, and he warned that what happened with privatisation would lead to the present situation because of a lack of trust in results. I have spent my working life in laboratories, so I know how highly prized the integrity of scientific results is. This is a very rare situation, with an accusation having been made, and I am afraid it is the Government who have taken a political stance on this. The Opposition and the scientific community are absolutely right to be deeply concerned.

• Mr Hurd

As I said clearly at the outset, I do think that the situation is extremely serious, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s diagnosis that it may be a rare one. Again, I repeat the view that the regulator has reached about the efficacy of any standards of regulation to prevent

“determined malpractice by skilled but corrupt personnel”.

Again, I place on record the progress that has been made since 2011, when the regulator published the first codes of practice and conduct for forensic science providers. I do think that there is increased stringency in the standards and quality requirements for forensic science, and that matters enormously because of the way this underpins confidence in forensic science within the criminal justice system.

• 
  Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

How many pages of the Secretary of State’s strategy deal with the immense value of tidal power? It is non-carbon, it is green, it is British, it is eternal in its duration and, unlike other renewables, it is entirely predictable. Will he temper his manic enthusiasm and optimism by reading the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee reports on Hinkley Point, which say that it will cost us £30 billion in subsidies that will be paid for by the poorest consumers?

• Greg Clark

I am not going to temper my enthusiasm; quite the opposite, in fact. We have many opportunities in clean energy, with many breakthroughs in prospect. As was pointed out earlier, we have to ensure that the cost to consumers is taken into account, and that is the judgment that we need to make when it comes to projects such as the one the hon. Gentleman has just described.

Rohinga hell must not become invisible

 

"Witnessing the suffering of the Rohinga at first hand was heartbreaking and overwhelming' said Paul Flynn after visiting a massive refugee camp on the border between Bangla Desh and Myanmar. The sight of hundreds of thousands of persecuted people crammed into a tiny area was the foulest example of the abuse of defenceless people I have ever seen said the Newport West MP. From a high viewport the camp of primitive huts and shelters stretches over the hills as far as the eye can see. The equivalent of the entire population of Manchester struggle to survive with scarce food, no sewerage system, contaminated water and no laws or health service. Diseases, disorder and violence are ever-present threats. 

 

There are no easy remedies but the world must not ignore this humanitarian disaster. Already the Bangla Desh Government and the world's Charities are helping with hospitality and aid. But nothing can stem this tsunami of human misery. Ten British Parliamentarians visited the camps during this week's parliamentary recess. Paul Flynn said 'We all returned horrified and angry. We will constantly raise the scale of the tragedies in Parliament over the next few months. I hope we can convince our colleagues of the paramount need for world generosity and intelligent political interventions to ease the suffering of the 600,000 persecuted Rohinga people ethnically cleansed from their homes. This man-made hell on earth cannot be allowed to continue and grow.

 

 

 

 

 

Related articles

Childhoods lost as Rohingya kids take on role of parents

Conduct of Parliament

Submission I made on the Parliamentary code.

 

What should the purpose of the code be? Parliament’s prime task since the expenses scandal is to restore the public’s trust in politicians and politics. We are failing. Parliamentarians are no longer trusted by the public to police our own affairs. This has been demonstrated with harmful headlines exposing sex, drugs, fraud and expenses scandals where the House has apparently made lenient judgements. Standards Committees of both houses frequently adjudicate in favour of those accused. The perpetrators of alleged offences are more often than not found to have committed no breach of the Code of Conduct by the Commons authorities. 25 The Commissioner on Standards has an unenviable role of applying the MP’s code of standards to their actions in the event of a complaint.

Continuing instances of behaviour bringing Parliament into disrepute raise questions on the effectiveness of the standards system and the Commissioner’s role. Recent results suggest either the rules or their interpretation are inadequate. A rule cannot be breached if there is no rule, no matter how untoward the action. On occasions where a breach is deemed to have been committed consequences are ineffective. A breach of conduct is frequently resolved by an apology for a minor breach or a referral to the Committee on Standards for a more serious one. There is now widespread public and press perception that parliamentarians are closing ranks in defence of errant colleagues.

 

Case Studies In July 2012 I made a complaint to the Standards Commissioner about Lord Blencathra’s lucrative contract with the Cayman Islands. Following his appointment as Director of the Cayman Islands UK, in promotion of his services for hire, Lord Blencathra touted his lobbying skills at a press conference. His activities included lobbying George Osborne to lower air passenger transport taxes on the Caymans and facilitating an all-expenses-paid trip to the Caymans for three senior MPs. Following my complaint, the Lords Standards Commissioner decided to hold an investigation to decide if a breach of the Code of Conduct had occurred. Lord Blencathra was found not to have breached the Code of Conduct in his £12,000 a month role. He claimed to have not lobbied Parliament but admitted freely that he was lobbying Ministers and Government. This distinction was surprisingly accepted as permissible at the time. It was also decided that despite being hired for his access to legislators, he had not lobbied in his capacity as a peer but as a private citizen. As such no action was taken. In 2014 The Bureau of Investigative Journalism published an employment contract between The Cayman Islands and Lord Blencathra, exposing clauses expressly setting out how he would work for the tax haven. This contract was not made known to the Privileges and Standards Committee for its 2012 investigation. The contract’s unexplained existence prompted a new investigation at my request. Blencathra agreed to “Promote the Cayman Islands’ interests in the UK and Europe by liaising with and making representations to UK ministers, the FCO, members of Parliament and members of the House of Lords.”

Conveniently the peer’s defence has evolved periodically to suit the accusations laid against him. Initially he denied having a lobbying aspect to his role, before omitting any awareness of 26 an employment contract when under investigation. Eventually he settled on having not had any intention of fulfilling the lobbying clauses within the contract he later remembered signing. The investigators would not take a hard line against one of their fellow peers. The perception of Parliamentarians for hire was legitimised by the Lord’s Standards Commissioner who refused to take a tough stance on the matter. It was accepted that although he received £12,000 a month for services that he was contractually obliged to perform, Lord Blencathra did not intend to carry out those services that would have breached the Lords Code of Conduct. A brief apology from Lord Blencathra sufficed to bring an end to the affair. This judgement I believe was excessively generous and did not match the seriousness of the offence.

Lord Sewel had the leading role in overseeing the conduct of peers. He held the position of Chairman of the Privileges and Conduct Committee that considered Lord Blencathra’s case. Following his own fall from grace Lord Sewell contrived his own exoneration. Absolution by his resignation. Allowing Parliamentarians to escape judgement on their conduct by resignation is not a privilege available to non-parliamentarians. This case demonstrated an unacceptable level of permissiveness by peers for one of their own. There have been no public signs of penitence from the Upper House for these events.

 

Parliament was later brought into disrepute again by Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind. The pair were recorded discussing possible lobbying work with reporters posing as staff of a fake Chinese firm. Sir Malcolm was said to have claimed that he could arrange “useful access” to every British ambassador in the world because of his status, while Mr Straw boasted of operating “under the radar” to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm which paid him £60,000 a year. The admission made by Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind appear to be clear breaches of the code which states: 12. The acceptance by a Member of a bribe to influence his or her conduct as a Member, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, Motion, or other matter submitted, or intended to be submitted to the House, or to any Committee of the House, is contrary to the law of Parliament.[3] 13. Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. They shall always be open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.[4] 14. Information which Members receive in confidence in the course of their parliamentary duties should be used only in connection with those duties. Such information must never be used for the purpose of financial gain. 27 Incredibly Parliament’s standards commissioner said neither had broken Commons rules. Many of us who watched the programmes were surprised at this view.

The two former MPs seemed to have to have made statements in flagrant breaches of the above codes in their pasts and indicated willingness to disregard the rules in future. The commissioner in question Kathryn Hudson conceded there had been “errors of judgement” from Sir Malcolm while Mr Straw had breached the code of conduct “by a minor misuse of parliamentary resources”. Not for the first time the messenger was attacked. The undercover sting, carried out by Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph was criticised. The report complained that if they “had accurately reported what was said by the two members in their interviews, and measured their words against the rules of the House, it would have been possible to avoid the damage that has been done to the lives of two individuals and those around them, and to the reputation of the House.” Both were referred to the Parliamentary Standards Committee. Its chairman stated: “By selection and omission the coverage distorted the truth and misled the public as to what had actually taken place.” The two were treated leniently. A subsequent detailed investigation by the independent Ofcom exonerated Channel Four from accusations that they had unfairly edited and presented the recorded interviews.

 

We see similar leniency in the case of former Conservative MP Tim Yeo. Mr Yeo lost his libel case against The Sunday Times over a “cash for advocacy” claim. In 2013 the newspaper alleged he breached parliamentary codes of conduct by telling undercover reporters he could promote business concerns in return for cash. It suggested Mr Yeo would approach ministers for a daily fee of £7,000 on behalf of a solar energy company with interests in the Far East. Incredibly MPs on the Standards Committee absolved Mr Yeo of any guilt arising from allegations that he abused his position as chairman of the Commons energy committee to further the interests of his business contacts. The Committee stated that following a lengthy investigation Mr Yeo had not breached any rules, and that the only misrepresentation had been committed by reporters of the Sunday Times who had posed as potential clients in the sting operation. They reserved their strongest criticism for the newspaper, saying: “We note the severe damage which is done to public trust by journalism which rests on a basis of subterfuge, misrepresentation and selective quotation.” Again, MPs closed ranks and fired a fusillade at the messengers. Again Parliament looked after its own. A committee of MPs found the actions of a journalistic sting against a colleague deplorable even though facts of great public interest had been unearthed. Another conclusion could be that the media was performing a vital function in exposing potentially corrupt parliamentarians. If these three MPs had not breached the rules, the rules appear to be deficient and in need of being rewritten. However it appears that their conduct did breach the existing code. The problem may be one of both interpretation and implementation.

28 It is clear that both Houses have failed in their duty to self-scrutinise to the satisfaction of public opinion. The committees installed for disciplinary actions appear to act incestuously, influenced by ministers, whips and the pressures of the closed community of Westminster to guard its sorry reputation for probity. Malcolm Rifkind was a member of the board that appointed Kathryn Hudson the commissioner who was later to find in his favour. This may have had no effect of any decisions made, but it does invite suspicions of possible bias. Judgements by independent bodies carry weight and credibility. Internal Commons Committees have sullied their credibility by apparently whitewashing serious charges. They now lack legitimacy. They do not deserve the trust to investigate fairly and reach just conclusions. This is sadly not a reflection of the high moral standards and integrity of the Members of the House who are tainted by perceptions of corruption/

The task of judgement and condemnation passes to public opinion, spurred on by publications such as the Telegraph and the Mail. This is not a fair method of scrutiny. The death of a former MP David Taylor was in my opinion hastened by his brutal treatment from the Telegraph. Many others have been culpable of minor infractions, or worse innocent mistakes. They have suffered the rough justice of journalists and been spuriously hung out to dry by tabloids in the pursuit of circulation delivering scandals.

 

To restore confidence in judgements on parliamentarians conduct, I believe we should move to bodies made up of trusted individuals who are not parliamentarians. Ideally an individual of the calibre of High Court Judge should lead it. That could be a valuable step in restoring trust. Standards in Parliament Outwith the role of the Commissioner for Standards, a web of procedure and committees exists with similar purpose. The system does not work. Procedures are ritualistic at best. Committees wield no power and appointments are rife with conflicts of interest. Lord Bew’s Committee on Standards in Public Life exists to advise the Prime Minister on the ethical standards of public life and make recommendations for improving the present system. Decisions on membership appointment are taken at a Ministerial leve;.

In 2015 a former MP, who was better qualified to adjudicate on standards than any other former MP, applied for membership of the Committee. There was a shortlist of 3. He was rejected by a Ministerial decision. This reinforces the perception of a self-serving incestuous system of patronage and rough justice. Ministers must uphold the standards contained within the Ministerial Code of Conduct. An Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests conducts investigations on perceived breaches. But only at the request of the Prime Minister.

Jeremy Hunt caused a controversy during the BSKYB takeover with allegations that he failed to act impartially as a Minister. Cameron refused to allow an investigation by the Independent Advisor. In 2014 Theresa May was reported to have leaked Ministerial correspondence regarding Islamic extremism in Birmingham schools. Despite the clear breach of the Code of Conduct, no referral was made or investigation sought.

Liam Fox resigned from his post as Defence Secretary. Again absolution by resignation. The public have no knowledge of what breach of the rules he committed, He is re-building his parliamentary career without public knowledge of why he resigned. This is a clear example where the Independent Adviser should have investigated and reported. Transparency of the nature of ministers’ conduct is vital in assessing his suitability for future posts. Calls for review of the Independent Advisor’s role have been ignored. Now we have lurched into the next Ministerial breach. The recent Kids Company fiasco revealed shortcomings from Oliver Letwin and Matthew Hancock who should certainly be referred for investigation for ignoring Civil Service advice and wasting £3 million of taxpayers’ money. Yet the case involves the charity that epitomised the Big Society.

The Prime Minister is politically committed to the Big Society concept that has been discredited by the Kids Company scandal. We haven’t restored public confidence in MPs. We cannot hope to until extensive rules are in place with an independent overseer who can refer alleged Ministerial Mis-conduct to the Adviser. The oath The Rules of Duties of Members states V 4. By virtue of the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance taken by all Members when they are elected to the House, Members have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law. This is a problem for MPs with republican views. Recent attempts to introduce non-royal alternatives have been lost by small majorities 137 to 151 in 1998 and 129 and 148 in 2000. These results suggest that at least a fifth of MPs wish to have an alternative. Many new forms of words have been suggested. Kevin McNamara’s bill of 1998 proposed a choice including: “I do solemnly Declare and Affirm that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the responsibilities required of me by virtue of my membership of the House of Commons and faithfully serve those whom I represent here”. Opinion polls claim that support of Republicanism in the population varies from 25% to 35% of the population. The present rules force MPs into making statements that they do not believe in order to take their seats. There are now precedents for MPs to attaching their own conditions to the official wording. Dennis Skinner in 1992 declared his loyalty to an ‘income tax-paying monarch’. Tony Benn and others prefixed their oaths with the words ‘As a convinced 30 republican ... ’. Other new members have innovated their own conditions. This is not satisfactory in that the first act of new MPs is to tell an untruth or use a form of words that seeks to undermine part of the code of conduct. That does not encourage obedience to other rules. A Republican alternative should be allowed. Acoba The revolving door from high public office to private company sinecure is spinning as freely as ever. At least 25 former ministers from David Cameron's coalition are raking in over £1m between them. Five former members of the prime minister's cabinet are among dozens of ex-coalition ministers earning up to £600 an hour in the sectors they used to regulate. Most have plum parttime roles as directors, advisers or board chairmen. The job of the Commons watchdog, the

 

Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), is to restrict the abuse of former ministers, civil servants and generals by selling their insider knowledge and contacts to the highest bidder. But it is not a watchdog; it’s a fawning pussycat without teeth or claws. Informed born-again lobbyists are placed into influential commercial positions where they are motivated by private greed—not the public's good. The tentacles of this permissive system penetrate deeply and threaten the integrity of public life. The roles of top civil servants, generals or government ministers were traditionally the pinnacles of careers. Now they are often judged as stepping-stones on the climb to retirement riches.

When in office, decisions involving billions may be subtly influenced by a nod or a wink in favour of the prospect of a lucrative job in retirement and a hacienda in Spain. All former ministers are obliged to seek the committee’s advice if they take on any job within two years of leaving office. And cabinet ministers are expected to wait a minimum of three months before taking private work. The work of Acoba is justly mocked. Its previous chair, Lord Lang, was interviewed by the Dispatches sting team that forced transport secretary Stephen Byers, former health secretary Patricia Hewitt and former defence secretary Geoff Hoon into suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party in 2010 for allegedly “bringing it into disrepute”. Lang did not commit himself to working for the bogus job offered but he sent his CV to the Dispatches team for further consideration. New chair, Tory peer Angela Browning was cross-examined by the Public Administration Committee at a ludicrous “retrospective pre-appointment” hearing confirmation of her role. She was a minister in the Home Office until 2011 and is now paid between £300 and £800 a day for occasional work for a political consultancy firm that trains people in the health industry on topics such as “how to influence the political agenda”. 31 Nearly all other members of her committee are drawn from the great and the good that regard £60,000 for a part-time retirement job as normal entitlement for themselves and for their chums. Acoba has never banned a minister from taking a job and its recommendations on restricting lobbying are not binding. They have no powers to enforce them. Under the present regime of permissiveness Acoba performs no useful function. It is a useless ornament on the body politic. Former holders of high office are free to prostitute their contacts and knowledge to the highest bidder. It should be replaced with an independent body with powers to enforce its decisions.

 

Can we trust integrity of UK elections?

Probably not.

The final point of order in the final minutes of the last parliament was a plea from me for vigilance against election theft. At the time i thought it would the last words I would ever utter as an MP. The prospects were dire with opinion polls threatening certain defeat for MPs in Welsh Labour marginal seats. On the 27th April 2017 I said:-

 

• 
  
• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
  
    Share this contribution
  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that strikes right at the heart of the integrity of our democratic system. It is based on the final report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as well as two articles in The House magazine, one by a Conservative Member and one by a Labour Member, all of which sound notes of alarm that our electoral system is the most vulnerable it has been since 1880. There is powerful evidence of foreign Governments interfering in the elections in America and possibly here. There is also overwhelming evidence of money being paid in huge amounts, entirely invisible to the system, by the use of methods including algorithms, botnets and artificial intelligence in a manner understood by nobody except those who participate in it. We should be vigilant in this election, because the Electoral Commission does not have the tools to deal with interference of this kind, and we are trying to run a modern election with the tools of the 19th century.
  
  
• Mr Speaker
  
    Share this contribution
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has registered a strong and deeply felt concern, and it is now on the record. It is not, however, a matter for me, and I do not say that flippantly. Algorithms are certainly not a matter for the Chair, and I am sure that colleagues will be greatly reassured to hear me say that. The wider issues are ones for us all.

 A always the Speaker was kind but the threat to our electoral systems have yet to be fully recognised. Since April the journalist Carol Cadwalladr has produced a mountain of evidence that all my fears were justified. It is now virtually certain from the Mueller inquiry that Russian interference happened in the US election. Here there has been no probe into the problem. The PACAC Select Committee are dodging their duty to attack this scandal. The Electoral Commission confess that they have no mechanisms for detecting Cyber interference even when it's on a massive scale.

In Newport West in this year's election we had a worrying innovation in the employment by the Conservatives of a call centre to canvass voters. Their local campaigns in Newport had virtually collapsed. This is the subject of a continuing police investigation. The law may have been broken. Questions are raised on when alleged market research is party propaganda, can canvassers be legally paid and truthfulness of messages that purport to be from independent sources. Time will tell.

What we do not know and have no way of finding out is how much was spent on invisible propaganda through Facebook, e-mails etc using detailed personal information gleaned through Artificial Intelligence. Votes can now now be bought by those with bottomless pockets. No further General Elections should take place until we know the truth and have mechanisms that expose vote buying. We should also be guarded in our respect for the Brexit Referendum. The campaign gave a choice between Operation Fear and Operation Lies. I said so in the campaign that the result would be determined by which lies the voters found most plausible. When it comes to leaving the EU, that vote will be three years. Its validity will be destroyed. 

 

Second well informed thoughts are always superior to first ill-informed thoughts.

 

Election & Referendum results can be bought

26th Oct 2017

 

I did my genuflexion to democracy by voting to start  article 50 process. we cannot be bound by a snapshot of public opinion on one day in June 2016 if it means the UK economy slithering towards an economic sinkhole. Today I tried to make that point to Brexit Minister David Davis.

 

      
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

Will the Secretary of State ignore the voices of manic optimism that seem to be compulsory among Conservative Members and agree that the choice that will be made on the final deal will be very, very different from the choice made on 23 June 2016? Does he not believe that well-informed second thoughts are always superior to ill-informed first thoughts?

·       Mr Davis

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I respect the views of 17.5 million people, and I intend to uphold them.

 

 

Ben Bradshaw and I have raised this serious point two weeks running at Commons Business Question. Last week the Commons  Leader was dismissive. This week she was more reasonable probably after having some briefing on the subject.

      
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)

I wonder whether the Leader of the House can answer a question the Prime Minister failed to answer when I asked her on Monday, or ensure that I get a written answer: have the Government or their agencies received any requests from Robert Mueller, the special counsel, or the congressional investigators in the United States for help or information in connection with their inquiry into Russian subversion of the American presidential election?

·       Andrea Leadsom

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to write to me on this, I will see whether I can get him an answer.

.

·       Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) has again raised a crucial issue. We now have, almost every week, new proof that Russia and foreign billionaires are interfering with elections and referendums in other countries. May we have an urgent debate on the fact that we have no mechanisms to protect the integrity of our electoral system, given the possibility of sudden general elections or a second Brexit vote?

·       Andrea Leadsom

The hon. Gentleman is as concerned as Members from right across the House are about potential interventions in democratic systems. He will be aware that a lot of investigatory work is going on, and he will know very well of appropriate ways to raise this matter through a debate in this House.

Healthier and Alternative Methods of Cannabis Consumption

This interesting article has been sent to me by a Canadian citizen on behalf of MMJ Canada. 

 

What you can do to make your Marijuana a healthier choice!

Oh sweet, sweet Cannabis...

            Have you been curious about the medicinal benefits of cannabis, but have been held back because of the idea that you must smoke it? Well, you might want to read this!

            There are few things so controversial in today’s modern societies other than Marijuana. By far, the most used illicit drug in the world, cannabis has gained quite a reputation for itself over the last few centuries, despite its use over the last few thousand years. For as long as our species can remember, we have probably used marijuana in one way or another. It is only recently that such a negative stigma has been assigned to marijuana, and those who use it. Despite this however, there have been those who have continued to use cannabis not only for recreational purposes as many want to believe, but for medicinal purposes as well.

             Today, as we have done for millennia, marijuana is being used as a legitimate medication. In more and more places around the world, the medicinal value of cannabis is being recognized, and used to help improve the lives of individuals across the world. However, despite the advancements in the interest, research, and even legalization of cannabis, many people still have quite a few concerns about marijuana, and especially when it comes to how it is consumed. Smoking and lung cancer have become so closely linked, and for good reason, that many people are losing out on the benefits of cannabis, not understanding that there are alternative methods. Today, we will be exploring the world of healthier, alternative methods to the smoking of cannabis. You might be surprised at what options are out there, and what might be a perfect fit for you!

The Benefits of Cannabis:

            Now, before we get too far into this section, it is important to know that this is only going to be a brief overview and introduction as to the possible* medical benefits of cannabis consumption. First of all, let’s go over some facts:

• There is no record of anyone over dosing on cannabis, ever; plain and simple.
• Marijuana, in one form or another, has been used by us humans for millennia for spiritual, and medical purposes just like many other herbs were used.
• Today’s marijuana is a great deal stronger than it was, even a few decades ago.
• Preliminary research shows that Marijuana can be extraordinarily beneficial in treating a variety of ailments.
• The medical properties of cannabis are difficult to fully gauge because of the lack of large scale testing. “So far, researchers haven't conducted enough large-scale clinical trials that show that the benefits of the marijuana plant (as opposed to its cannabinoid ingredients) outweigh its risks in patients it's meant to treat.”

            So, what can we make of all of this? Well, there is a reason that we have been using marijuana for so long, and fight so fervently to legalize and normalize its use. Cannabis can help with chronic pain, various mental disorders, sleep problems, appetite problems, and some research has even shown that cannabis can help fight cancer! Epileptics find a great deal of relief in marijuana, and research even shows that it can help stagnate the opioid epidemic. There are so many benefits that result from the consumption of cannabis (differing in some ways, but all generally the same on the method of consumption).

            With all of these benefits, why then is cannabis so controversial? Well, that will depend on who you ask, but in this day and age there really is no reason. Areas with legal cannabis show lower rates of drug, and opiate abuse, as well as crime, and of course the patients who need it can benefit from the medical aspects. Big pharmaceutical companies, along with even the paper, and Tobacco industries want to see anything but cannabis become legal, for that could lead to the decline of their industries. As of 2017, the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, the “Drug Tsar” himself could not answer to the senate why cannabis was still illegal and admitted that more research was required to confirm its medical properties.

            With all of these possible benefits, it is no wonder that so many people are turning to cannabis as an alternate to the myriad of medications that they may be on to help them. Cannabis really might be a legitimate option for many people to turn to. Only time will tell what the future holds for the legality of marijuana, but it seems that the patients who use it seem to already know the answer. Many people are turning to cannabis to help them with their medical problems, however many of them are stopped in their tracks if and when they realize that cannabis involves smoking. Or at least, that is the old stereotype. Many people are turned off of Marijuana consumption because of this, and not without reason. But in truth, there are so many healthier, and alternative ways to consume cannabis, that no one need miss out.

 Alternative Options:

            Since the idea of smoking marijuana, or anything at all really, can be absolutely taboo to some people, and for good reason, just look at the health effects, and thus they rule out cannabis as a medicinal herb all together. Too many people associate cannabis with smoking, that they never even consider what other options are out there. While of course it is understood why many individuals do not want to smoke, or be around it; there are many misconceptions about the cannabis medicinal industry as a whole.

            But guess what! Smoking, while still probably the most common form of cannabis consumption, is by far not the only, and is indeed the least healthy for you! There are many other options out there, so many in fact you will probably surprised! Today, we will be going over some of these alternatives, what they are, who they are for, and basically just what they are! Let’s explore the world of medical cannabis!

 

Alternatives to Smoking:

             Now, finally, we will briefly go over many, if not all the alternative ways to consume cannabis! Some of these you have probably heard of, while others will be wholly new!

• Capsules: Easily one of the most common and popular choices on this list, possibly do either to its ease of use or quick, and strong acting effects.
• Edibles: One of the oldest forms of cannabis consumption aside from actually smoking, strong and fast acting. Often very potent, these are a clear favourite among many users.
• Oils: One of the newer players on the scene, this is a form of concentrate, typically of just the CBD or THC, put into an oily substance that can be used for various purposes, including being consumed.
• Syringes: Definitely one of the more serious options on this list, and only for those who really need it and have no other options, not for the faint of heart for sure. You can bet this will be one of, if not the strongest option here.
• Topicals: Just as you would expect by the name, these specific products are applied to the skin; such as lotions etc. and are for more local issues.
• Vaping: Taking the world by storm as an alternative to cigarette smoking, vaping has also made its way into the cannabis world. Vaping cannabis, which can come in a variety of forms all on its own, gives the effects of smoking, but is much easier on one’s lungs.
• Gummies: Going along with the edibles, these are typically like the childhood vitamins you are more familiar with, and are used in the same ways.
• Concentrates: Again, another umbrella category, concentrates include things like wax and shatter. This is consumed via vaping, or dabbing, and is the purest form of marijuana we have today. Reaching even around 90% THC in some cases.
• Tinctures: Again, another older option for this list, as tinctures have been used for various purposes for centuries, cannabis and non-cannabis related. Placed under the tongue, these are great for the elderly or children suffering from various ailments.
• Drinks: A new option, made out of syrup made from cannabinoids, you can make soda, coffee, tea, and many other drinks. Fast acting, and strong, this is a great option for many.

Of course there are going to be many pros and cons to each method of usage, and often times it will come down to either physical limitations, or personal preference, so it’s up to you!

Conclusions:

            What is now hopefully quite apparent, is that the world of cannabis is so much more than just smoking. While of course that is still the most common, and a large part of the overall marijuana culture, it is by far not the only way to get cannabinoids into your body. If you have been interested in the benefits of cannabinoids, but have been held back by the fear of smoking, well now you have your answers! There is almost something for everyone, and with the sheer variety of choices out there, you are bound to find something that works for you! So get out there, and find it!

Did drug regulators fail us again?

 3.41 pm 19/10/2017

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

   

   Share this contribution

  It was heartbreaking and infuriating to read the news that 68% of the women who are taking valproate today were not aware of the risks. That is a failure for all of us. We debated this issue in March 2013, and we have put down early-day motions. There was a television programme, chaired by Huw Edwards, in which the victims took part. We thought we had cracked it: we thought we had advertised enough so that no one, after 2013, could be in the position of not realising the terrible risks caused by taking valproate in pregnancy.

   

  I am not making any criticism of anyone, except the MHRA, and we must look at our relationship with the regulatory body. The former Minister, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), did all he could. He has a great and honourable record as a compassionate campaigner on many issues. It is a shock to all of us in that we did not expect there to be compensation, but it should now be coming along. It is not compensation in any serious way, but it is some admission that a terrible mistake has been made—not by the mothers, but by the system.

   

  It is helpful to look back at what happened with thalidomide, which I remember vividly. There were 2,000 cases of birth defects in the United Kingdom; there were 20 in the United States. Why? The reason is that we went on prescribing Destobel for a year after the birth defects were suspected, because the drug company was adamant about it. It had tested the drug on animals, including pregnant animals—pregnant rabbits, even—and only when it went back to do another test of a particular strain of the drug on pregnant rabbits were the birth defects reproduced. That shows the limits of animal testing. The real difference was that the regulatory body in the United States would not accept thalidomide in that form, and its use produced a very small number of cases: 20 compared with 2,000.

   

  We have had the effect of a drug called Vioxx for arthritis sufferers. According to the Food and Drug Administration in America, it caused 60,000 deaths; imagine it—60,000 deaths. How many bad reactions did the MHRA have in this country? About six. We would still be using it if the FDA had not discovered that death was one of the side effects of the drug, which was taken by millions.

   

  GlaxoSmithKline in America has been fined—it is hard to believe—$3.5 billion. What was the fine for? It had suppressed the evidence of the trials it had carried out. It did not publish any of the negative results of the trials it carried out, and only the ones that were neutral ​or favourable. Drugs that were killing people were getting on to the market—this is a British company. What did the MHRA do in this country? Nothing! I wrote to them saying, “For goodness’ sake, you have to act against GlaxoSmithKline.” It is no coincidence that the person who chaired the regulatory body for more than a decade was a previous employee of that company. I am not saying that in this instance the body did absolutely nothing; it did produce the tools and provided advice, but that clearly did not work—how could it have done if 68% of the women still taking the drug did not know?

   

  This issue applies to all Governments; it has been raised many times before. What we need is a regulatory body that is not paid for or controlled by the pharmaceutical industry but is independent and controlled nationally. Some years ago in Italy, the system changed. The pharmaceutical industry still pays for running the body, but for the past 20 years each Government have said that they would not have a fully independent body because they did not want to pay for it, although it was fine if the burden was taken by the pharmaceutical industry itself.

   

  I do not want to say that we are all against the pharmaceutical industry, which has produced miraculous results this century. Valproate is a very good drug: everyone I have spoken to who has used it says that it is very effective and that it reduces seizures, epileptic fits and the incidence of bipolar disorders. We do not want to stop its use at all and we want to appreciate its quality, but after these four years, when the evidence from parents who have suffered has been there, clearly nothing has worked. We must look to reform our regulatory system, appreciating the value of the drug but at least setting up a fund that can express the sorrow of the country and the regret that we have not sorted this matter out or given warnings to future parents. We must make sure that the reforms suggested by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk proceed as a matter of great urgency.

An Electoral Commission for the 19th Century

 

Exceptional investigation work by journalist Carole Cadwalladr exposed the wide reaching implications of foreign interference during the EU referendum.

The referendum proved that the Electoral Commission’s tools for monitoring cyber manipulation are obsolete. I outlined these concerns back in April. There is powerful evidence that our electoral system remains more vulnerable than it has been at any time since 1880.

 

In Business Questions today the issue was raised, once again, with the Leader of the House of Commons.

 

·         Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)

Has the Leader of the House seen the very worrying series of openDemocracy reports this week on the role of dark money in the EU referendum, including revelations of illegal donations to the Democratic Unionist party and new questions today over the real wealth of Arron Banks, the main financial backer of Leave.EU? Given the widespread public concern about foreign, particularly Russian, interference in western democracies, will she assure the House that the Government and the Electoral Commission will examine these reports very carefully, and reassure our country that all the resources spent during the referendum were from permissible sources?

 

·         Andrea Leadsom

The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. Of course, any specific information should always be raised with the Electoral Commission to ensure that any wrongdoing is caught. I absolutely share his concern that we need to make sure that all donations are indeed permissible and legal.

 

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

While I am sure the answer was given in good faith, the answer the Leader of the House gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is untrue. The Electoral Commission has confessed that it has no mechanisms to find out whether there has been interference by cyber-techniques from Russia, by botnets and by artificial intelligence. These methods of distorting and buying elections have come in since the rules for the Electoral Commission were laid down. We must look seriously at this issue. I recommend the Leader of the House reads the journalism of Carole Cadwalladr, who has named precisely the organisations that may well have rigged the result of the referendum, because we know it is in Russia’s interests to destabilise Europe.

 

• Andrea Leadsom

Just to be very clear to the hon. Gentleman, I was not suggesting that the Electoral Commission should investigate; I was merely saying that information should be reported to the Electoral Commission, as indeed it has been in all areas of fraud, misuse of voting and so on. The Electoral Commission should then be in a position to bring in the legal and police services, should it decide there is a case to answer. It is very important that as much evidence as possible is brought forward and not just left as rumours and accusations. These things need to be investigated properly to make sure our electoral system remains as free and fair as we all hope it is today.

 

 

Tory Leader of Commons backs Medicinal Cannabis Bill

 Have the Tories changed their minds on drug policies?

 

Yesterday we heard the Government backed safe injecting rooms. Today the Conservative Leader of the House warmly backed my bill to legalised Medicinal cannabis (see below). 10 minutes rule bills have little hope of success until the Government decides to give them a fair wind. It may be that the Government are horrified that 47 years of harsh prohibition has given the UK this year the highest number of heroin deaths ever. The contrast with drugs laws in the Netherlands and here is an overwhelming proof that prohibition does not work.

 

 

 

 EARLY DAY MOTION 372

 

That this House believes it’s the duty of the good citizen to challenge laws that oppress the sick and the powerless and deny them their medicines of their choice, congratulates the Patients United Association for the act of mass civil disobedience in breaking the discredited, cruel, unenforceable law that criminalises thousands of seriously ill patients for using natural cannabis to relieve symptoms of severe pain and spasm: thanks the police for their wise restraint and the Multiple Sclerosis Society, two Police and Crime Commissioners and hon members for their support for a new compassionate practical reform of medicinal cannabis use to replace the present irresponsible black market with a legal one that can be regulated, removing the threat of prosecution from those already suffering disproportionate burdens of life’s misfortunes. 

 

12th October 2017

LONG LARTIN PRISON INCIDENT

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

Will the Minister visit Amsterdam for a relaxing weekend, in order to study the special prison crisis they have in Holland, which is a lack of prisoners to fill their prisons? They have had to close 19 of them down. Will he examine the contrast between the intelligent, pragmatic policies on drugs of the Dutch over the last 50 years and the harsh, unintelligent policies that we have had in this country? The Government there have shown a welcome desire to reflect on the failed drug policies here and introduce new measures that reflect the reality of the situation, in having drug houses that can be used and possibly looking again at imprisoning people for using the medicine of their choice. Is it not time we decided who has got it right over the last fifty years: the Netherlands or us?

• Mr Gyimah

I think the Government Whips would be slightly concerned if I accepted another invitation to go abroad to visit prisons, but the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s point is very interesting when it comes to dealing with people who are on drugs in prison. It is about dealing with the supply side and the demand side, but also getting people off drugs. Holland clearly has a very different approach to its prison system. As I have said in relation to Scotland, I am willing to learn from all different jurisdictions to see how we can improve what we are doing here.

BUSINESS QUESTION 12/10/2017

·       Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

May we have a debate on early-day motion 372 so that I can enjoy the lifetime first experience of congratulating the Government on an intelligent drugs policy of approving safe injecting rooms? I congratulate the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the United Patients Alliance on the act of civil disobedience that was undertaken on Tuesday of this week, when a group of seriously ill patients protested against an unjust and unenforceable law. These are people who have already suffered more than their fair share of life’s misfortunes, and it is wrong that they should live under the threat of prosecution for taking their medicine of choice—the only medicine that will cure them of their symptoms.

·       Andrea Leadsom Leader of the House

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ten-minute rule Bill—I happened to be in the Chamber for its introduction—which seeks to address this very issue. In particular, in raising this issue he will, of course, have proper Government scrutiny over it. I wish him well in achieving his ambition.

 

Text of speech

Previous

Legalisation of Cannabis (Medicinal Purposes)

Next

 

 Share this debate

10 October 2017

Volume 629

 

​

 

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

 

 2.54 pm

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

   

   Share this contribution

  I beg to move,

   

  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the production, supply, possession and use of cannabis and cannabis resin for medicinal purposes; and for connected purposes.

   

  This is the Elizabeth Brice Bill. Elizabeth Brice was a remarkable lady who campaigned for many years in this House to re-legalise medicinal cannabis. She was a brilliant person. She was a television producer. Among her many achievements, she translated the Noddy books into Latin. She came here because, as a highly intelligent woman, she was struck down at the age of 26 with multiple sclerosis, which virtually destroyed her life and affected her young family. After 10 years of using medicinal drugs, she found one that gave her peace and relief from her spasms. She came to this House and had a cup of cannabis tea on the Terrace.

   

  Our law states that Elizabeth Brice could have been sent to prison for five years for doing that. There was a court case in which an elderly man in a wheelchair moved a jury to tears with his account of his use of medicinal cannabis. The jury said, “We don’t want to find this man guilty; we disagree with this law.” They asked the judge whether they could change it and find the man not guilty, but the judge said, “No. You don’t make the law, I as a judge don’t make the law; only Parliament can change this.” So the ball is very much in our court today.

   

  Who supports the Bill? The Multiple Sclerosis Society has given me a statement saying that it wants to see this Bill passed. It says:

   

  “We believe the law on cannabis should be changed (like it’s changing in Ireland, Canada and Germany), so that someone with MS can access cannabis for medicinal use”.

   

  I would also have had the support of Queen Victoria, although I had difficulty contacting her, as she used the substance every month of her life.

   

  Cannabis was used as a medicine in this country until 1973. There is a host of people who are now Elizabeth Brices outside. One of them wrote me a very moving letter in which he said that two people in his family are using medicinal cannabis. A medical professional reported to the police that those people were using medicinal cannabis, albeit in a way that was not harming anyone—it was a completely victimless crime; they were growing it themselves. That man writes that he could easily get a criminal record and his family would be in all kinds of trouble as a result.

   

  Are we really saying that this is a sensible law? The tide of world opinion is moving in the direction of legalising cannabis. Some 29 states in America—the majority—have already legalised medical cannabis without any problems arising. There are six or seven states in Europe where it is possible to use cannabis medicinally. We have forgotten that this is the oldest medicine in the world. It has been used for at least 5,000 years—archaeological evidence supports that—and we know that if there were problems with it, they would have been discovered years ago.​

   

  As with all drugs, people will object that there are malign side effects, but as someone who has been campaigning in this House against drug misuse for many years, I can say that the ones that we have trouble with now, such as valproate, are the opioid drugs and neuroleptic drugs used in residential homes for the elderly. There is massive misuse of these drugs, which have very serious side effects. Cannabis involves side effects, but no problems have arisen in all the states and countries that have taken this on.

   

  If we legalise drugs, we reduce side effects by taking the market out of the hands of the criminals and the scammers, and putting those drugs in a legal market that can be run by doctors using medical priorities. These are the lessons from all the states in America that have taken this step.

   

  A policewoman suffering from multiple sclerosis came to me because she found herself needing to get her cannabis from the criminals she once arrested. That is the situation that people are in now. I am touched that people have made the journey here today to ask this Parliament to decide not on the basis of prejudice, but on the basis of science.

   

  It is time for us to lead public opinion rather than following it. It would be an act of compassion and courage for us to pass this Bill and make the very minor change it proposes: moving cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 2. At the moment, the law says that cannabis has no beneficial effects, but we all know that it does, but if there are problems with it, the former chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has said that we would need to prevent 5,000 people from taking cannabis to stop one possible case of psychosis. I do not know whether anybody will be opposing this Bill today—no one has suggested to me that they will do so—but I would like to deal with that question. Yes, with any drug there are risks, and I certainly would not want to see anyone using cannabis mixed with that deadly, addictive drug, tobacco.

   

  Today people are using the drug outside on the green as a food, a drink, a tincture and an ointment, as well as vaping it. I believe that the public and the police—two police and crime commissioners have written to me in support of the Bill—know that the law is unenforceable. It is time for us to take our courage in our hands and say, “Let us take this step.” Doing so would be a step on the road to intelligent campaigning. We place too much reliance on the prejudices and screeching of the press; it is time for us to take the lead. Doing so would be an act of kindness and compassion that would bring genuine relief to people who are suffering from serious ailments.

   

  Question put and agreed to.

   

  Ordered,

   

  That Paul Flynn, Frank Field, Caroline Lucas, Mary Glindon, Jeff Smith, Kelvin Hopkins, Crispin Blunt, Michael Fabricant, Martyn Day, Ronnie Cowan, Layla Moran and Mr Alistair Carmichael present the Bill.

   

  Paul Flynn accordingly presented the Bill.

   

  Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 108).

 

May's content worse than the optics

Apart from the optics, what did Theresa May' say?

 

it was a foul mix of untruths, plagiarised Corbynism and implausible claims of providing a croak for the voiceless. A lot old, nothing new, much borrowed, little blue.

 

Presenting herself as a an amalgam of Mother Therese and Joan of Arc clashes with her Hard Hearted Hannah role that we recognise so well. My ten commandments includes, NEGLECT THE RICH, THE OBSESSED, THE TABLOIDS AND SEEK OUT THE SILENT VOICES.

 

Hearing similar sentiments from her highlighted her failure to convincingly feign sincerity. Her breathtaking chutzpah persuaded her to claim Tory Credit for the NHS, Hillsborough Justice and the advantages of Presumed Consent for Organ Donations. This is FAKE NEWS on a Trumpian scale. The Welsh Government pioneered bravely Presumed Consent, the Mirror campaigned for it in England and my bill has been taken on Geoffrey Robertson. She should have acknowledged the pioneering work in Wales that has saved 40 lives in Wales last year while England has suffered 400 avoidable deaths.

 

The Tories have four hideous nightmares in prospect.

 

1 Continue with a lame duck Leader,

2 Risk the bloodbath of a divisive Leadership election that could lead to

3 A new General Election and Corbyn as PM

4 A Second Brexit referendum demanded by shifting public opinion in the belief that second thoughts are always better than first.

 

For the past 20 years, politics in Britain has been dominated by internal Tory Party rows. It's time the electorate punished them.

Newport traffic hell gives Blue Route warning

 Closure of the Brynglas Tunnels created gridlock hell in Newport last week. Queues were everywhere. Tailbacks jammed car parks and junctions.

It’s a warning of our future if the gimcrack blue route bypass ever happens. It would cram all the M4 and SDR traffic on two routes. The Black Route will provide traffic relief and pollution reduction with its three routes.

 

Remember the damage done to Gwent for 70 years by the perception that we are a traffic bottleneck. The Black Route is the only choice.

 

 

Confused on the Severn Bridge Tolls?  

 

You are meant to be. That is the Tory Secretary of State’s master plan. Last December Alun Cairns told me he would cut the tolls by 50% to £3.70. I told him that’s not £50% of £6.70. In January this year he changed the promise to £3.00.

It’s still a rip-off because the tolls’ contract says they should end altogether in January 2018. All changed in May. The Tories produced an election bribe promising to cut the tolls to nothing. But they did not say when.

In January next the Bridges will be owned by us like all other roads and bridges. It will then be illegal to charge VAT of £2.00 . Cairns claims that the new charge of £5.60 will be a ‘cut’, It’s not. He has no choice. It’s a forced reduction.

The Tories are behaving like fairground snake-oil huckster salesmen. Cairns’ ‘Cut’ will increase tolls, to £2.60 MORE than his promised £3.00 of January 17th.

No charge is necessary after January 2018. We have discharged our debt. It is no longer a toll, it’s a CAIRNS TAX. Remember that when you cough up £5.60 in January. It’s enough to make you cynical about political promises.

 

·        The most beautiful modern Church in Newport gained an interior Garden of Eden last week. Bethesda Baptist celebrates their 275th anniversary. The Newport Floral Society filled the Church with wonderful flowers enhanced by the group’s creative artistry.

Bethesda has an impressive record of good works from the streets of Newport to Africa where they Cariad Kenya work is a practical success. They campaign with others to protect persecuted Christian communities in Syria and Iraq. Elsewhere the persecuted have now become the persecutors.

The flower arrangements are named ‘Acts of Kindness’. A refreshing change from a world infested with acts of brutality, inhumanity and worse.

 

·      

 

 

 

.

Heartbreaking and infuriating

Only now is there national publicity for a drug that has done more damage than Thalidomide. 

It's heartbreaking and infuriating that 40% of women of chlld bearing age using Valproate have not been informed of the danger of EPILIM> In March 2013 I published the blog below. The blog and EDM below were published in March 2013.

 

New evidence has proved that the drug Epilim affects all babies when their mothers took the drug in pregnancy. In a third of the cases, brain damage occurs. The adverse effects include spina bifida, cleft palate, deformities and autism. A campaign to expose the dangers lost their legal aid in 2010 because of a lack of proof of a causal link. That link has now been established by reports from two universities and legal aid should be restored.

Again the UK has been let down by our ramshackle drugs regulatory body the MHRA. It is funded and run entirely by the Pharmaceutical Industry. It is weak, dominated by Big Pharma influence and slow to identify and condemn adverse reactions. The UK suffered 2,000 tragic birth defects in the Thalidomide scandal. The US had 20. It was the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that discovered that 60,000 deaths had resulted from the use of the anti-arthritis drug Vioxx. The MHRA were unconcerned by their defective system of reporting ill-effects. Glaxo Smith-Kline was fined a massive $3.5 billion by the FDA for, among things, suppressing negative results of their drugs. There was no fine in the UK for the same offences. Beyond reason and blind to the evidence, the MHRA defended the widespread use of the anti-depressant Seroxat.

The UK needs a regulator that is independently working in the public interest and divorced from commercial pressures.

One paper reported, 'The casualties of the Epilim scandal include heartbreaking cases.

When Samantha Scott wanted to have a baby, she consulted her neurologist about whether it was safe. She has epilepsy and was concerned that Epilim could be unsafe in pregnancy.

"The doctors said it was fine," said Scott, 31, from Cumbria. "In fact, they upped my dose."

But Scott's daughter Faith was born with an extra digit, a cleft palate, a hole in the heart, and no muscle tone. Now aged seven, Faith has a mental age of two and weighs only two stone (13kg). She has spent most of her life so far in hospital.

Faith is one of hundreds of children campaigners believe suffered birth defects as a result of drugs such as Epilim, which contain a controversial anti-convulsant called sodium valprorate.

"We have 624 children on our books from these drugs and 351 are from mothers who were taking Epilim," said Janet Williams, secretary of OACS, the organisation for anti-convulsant syndromes. "That is nowhere near the figure for the total number of children out there who are actually affected."

Losing legal aid proves the impossibility of funding cases such as the Epilim action is leaving pharmaceutical companies increasingly unaccountable.

Sanofi denies all liability for the birth defects that the families say are caused by Epilim, but America has a different experience. A similar class action brought against one of its affiliate companies in the US was settled, leading to calls for a review of UK law. More than 70 MPs have signed an early day motion about the case

"Four major drug companies have gone through the litigation and never gone to court," said Janet Stock-Pollard, who has two children that suffered birth defects after she took Epilim during her pregnancies. "The law appears to protect the drug company and not the consumer."

Emma Friedmann, whose son Andy is 12 years old with a mental age of three and is one of the claimants in the UK case, says that the lack of legal aid funding denies vulnerable people access to justice.

"Andy has been damaged for life, and he's not allowed his claim to be heard in court," she said. "Everyone who uses pharmaceutical products is less safe because of this. If you take a product and you or your dependants have a problem with it, you will not be successful in court."'

Session: 2012-13 Date tabled: 05.02.2013 Primary sponsor: Anderson, David Sponsors: Betts, CliveDurkan, MarkHeyes, DavidMcCartney, KarlMeale, Alan

That this House notes with concern the withdrawal of public funding from the Fetal Anti-Convulsant Litigation in November 2010; further notes that the taxpayer is now covering the additional health, education and welfare costs incurred by families affected by fetal valproate syndrome; believes the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency could have avoided the large numbers of people affected, since the drug sodium valproate came onto the market in the late 1970s, by informing patients treated with anti-convulsant medications and women of child-bearing age; and calls for an independent inquiry into why information has been withheld from the public concerning the disastrous way in which sodium valproate has affected pregnant women and their children.

Early day motion 1197

MHRA

• Date tabled: 14.03.2013
• Primary sponsor: Flynn, Paul

That this House calls for reform of the weak Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) that is funded by the pharmaceutical industry and repeatedly fails the public interest; is appalled that the 20,000 victims of birth defects arising from the use of sodium valproate (Epilim) have been denied legal aid while American parents have already received compensation; recalls that there were 2,000 victims of Thalidomide in the UK and only 20 in the US; congratulates the US regulator, the Food and Drug Administration that revealed that 60,000 deaths had resulted from the use of the anti-arthritis drug Vioxx while no alarm was registered here because of the MHRA's defective system of reporting drug side-effects; commends the US' massive fine on Glaxo Smith Kline of $3.5 billion for suppressing negative results of drug trials while no action has been taken here for identical misdemeanours; and believes that the UK should be protected by a fully independent regulatory authority liberated from financial dependence on the pharmaceutical industry.

• That this House notes with concern that the medicine valproate, which is used for the treatment of epilepsy and bipolar disorder, can seriously harm an unborn child when taken during pregnancy, including increased risk of malformations and developmental disorders; welcomes the development of a valproate toolkit to aid communication of the risks of valproate in pregnancy, including a warning on package labelling, a checklist for discussion between prescribers and patients, a reminder card and information booklet for women, and a booklet for healthcare professionals; further notes that the toolkit was disseminated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the valproate manufacturer, Sanofi, in February 2016; expresses concern at reports that many pharmacists and clinicians have not received the toolkit, potentially leaving many women ill-informed of the severe risks of the medicine; and urgently calls on the Government, the MHRA and NHS England to work together to ensure that the toolkit is effectively disseminated and utilised across the country so that all women being prescribed valproate are fully informed of the risks to an unborn child.

When a 'cut' in tolls is a rip-off

Genesis of the Cairns Tax

 

Will the saga of the Severn Bridges toll ever be put on the stage?

It happened with a PACAC select committee meeting and it was a fine entertaining musical.

The Severn Tolls farce might be judged too far-fetched to be plausible.

This year we have witnessed a series of nonsensical statements by the Tory snake-oil hucksters that were designed to deceived. They all produced hoops of grateful joy from a media with the concentration span of an earthworm. The charlatan politicians plan to rob us again next January but demand our gratitude for their fake news.  The 'cut' is a con.

PIC: SOUTH WALES ARGUS.  Left to Right, TORY MP David Davies , TORY Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns, TORY Minister Chris Graying united in mission to sell Tolls snake-oil.

 

£3.70

On the 12^th December 2016  the hapless Alun Cairns hilariously set his position to the Welsh Select Committee:

 

Q90 Chair: This cut that has been promised at 50%—50% on the tolls as they are in 2018 but still 50%—is absolutely guaranteed, isn’t it?

Alun Cairns: That is the Government proposal but there is a consultation going on to how that can be achieved.

Q91 Chair: So it is not quite guaranteed?

Alun Cairns: The announcement has been made in Budget 2015, I think it was, or 2014, and it is something that is Government policy.

Q93 Paul Flynn: Severn Bridge tolls started four years before you were born, Secretary of State. Do you expect them to continue when you reach retirement age?

Alun Cairns: Clearly I would hope, Mr Flynn, that you would accept that the 50% reduction that is proposed, subject to a consultation and so on, is a welcome step.

Q94 Paul Flynn: There was a fascinating poll finding that said that 50% of the population didn’t understand what 50% means. You have been quoted as saying that the toll should be £3.70. How is that 50% of £6.70?

Alun Cairns: I was talking about of that order and I talked about it by the time the bridge comes into public ownership for which there will be an inflationary fee.

Q95 Paul Flynn: In my view, the people of Wales are being ripped off by having one of the few stretches of motorway, which the Severn Bridges are, tolled and this has gone on for all these years now and because of the deals done a long time ago by a previous generation. There seems to be absolutely no reason why this shouldn’t become a national responsibility and the psychological barrier to south Wales, which is very damaging, could be removed.

Alun Cairns: I am governed by the Act of Parliament and the Act of Parliament will have struck a deal with the Severn Bridge company. We have an obligation in order to deliver that but I would hope that reducing the tolls by half is seen as a very positive step, although there will be a debt that remains outstanding. It demonstrates the scale of the project.

Q96 Paul Flynn: You stand by the figure of £3.70?

Alun Cairns: I would say wait until the consultation goes out.

 

£3.00

January 17^th

That posture did not last long. After checking their maths, they reduced the planned toll to less than 50%

The Trinity of Snake Oil Salesmen consisted of Chris Grayling, David Davies and Alan Cairns posed at the Severn Bridge and announced the 'Good News' that Severn Bridges toll would be set at the bargain rate of £3.00! Hurrah! But that was for the long term future. 

But it was no bargain because next year the tolls should be nil. It was an attempt to con us. The snap General Election forced a re-think on the Tory Trinity. Today they will announced that they have seen the Labour Light and will resist temptation to continue milking the cash cow of tolls double taxation. It will be announced with a blast of Tory self-satisfaction in Newport today. (no. I have not been invited.)

Will anyone ask if election opportunism played a part in their volte-face?

Tory Toll junkies are hooked on the Highway Robbery that forces local people into paying double taxation. While the Severn Bridges were in private hands the deal to pay tolls was resented but tolerated. In early 2018, the bridges will become public property like the rest of the motorway system. They should be maintained and financed in the same way as all other public roads.

For 52 years, we have paid twice. First through our taxes for the roads system. Secondly through the toll payments. The Government want to continue to milk the cash cow of tolls.  There is an overwhelming case for abolishing the tolls altogether. At a stroke an injustice would end and the expense and psychological barrier to accessing Wales would be gone.

£billions of our taxes are paid to build, run and maintains the UK's road system. The Severn Bridges costs and debts are national responsibilities when they become public property.  Wales has a history of attacking unjust tolls by the Hosts of Rebecca. It's time the spirit of the 1839 was aroused again.

 

16^th May 2017

£00.00

 

Th Tories 2017 election bribe was an unconditional promise to end the tolls. As a bribe it failed. Their ambition was to gain 7 Labour seats. They lost three of their own to Labour and every sitting Labour MP increased their majorities. They cannot mange a simple election bribe efficiently.

The Severn Bridges Act 1992 set out framework to award private contract to build a much needed second Severn crossing. Severn River Crossings built the bridge with the powerto charge tolls until revenue of £1.029 billion is raised or for a maximum of 35 years. Wales has paid extortionate annually increasing tolls since.

The debt is almost paid, the concession contract is coming to An end. In the next year the crossings will return to public ownership. Legal power to levy charges ends with the contact.

The Act is clear and tolls must cease. The Crossings have an estimated annual running cost of £15m. As with any other road belonging to the Department for Transport maintenance costs are unavoidable. Road users already cover these maintenance costs with road tax. Further tolls amount to unreasonable and duplicate charges

12^th September 2017

£5.60

The Cairns Huckster team are back. Tolls are to be ‘CUT’ to £2.60 MORE than Cairns promised on January 17^th.  Not to reduce it to that level would be illegal. The reduction is because the bridges after next January will not be liable to VAT.  There is no choice. But Alun Cairns still has no date for delivering on his election bribe of £00.00 tolls.

 

No charge is necessary after January 2018. We have discharged our debt. It is no longer a toll, it’s a CAIRNS TAX.

Should probe into George Osborne's BlackRock job be dropped?

• Business Questions 12th September. 

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

   

  When the former Chancellor, Mr George Osborne, left office, he took on a job with BlackRock finance, working four days a month for a remuneration of £650,000 a year. In pursuit of the investigations of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs into possible abuses of the revolving door by which former Ministers might be using their inside knowledge for financial gain, the Committee invited Mr Osborne to come to this House to explain allegations that he had had dealings with BlackRock finance when he was Chancellor, as a result of which the laws were changed in favour of BlackRock. Should we not insist that we debate this issue and renew the invitation to Mr Osborne to explain his position to the House in order to guard our reputation?
   

   

   

​

 

• Andrea Leadsom

  Leader of the House

  There are very tightly enforced, clear rules regarding what ex-Ministers are able to do both when they have left office and while they are still in office. The hon. Gentleman is merely putting forward a hypothesis in which I see no merit. He is taking the opportunity to criticise something when he has no evidence to support his case—that is extremely unfair.

   

  Comment. Andrea Leadsom is hopelessly mis-informed. The body that seeks to end the abuses of the revolving door is a toothless watchdog with zilch powers. George Osborne is known to have had 5 meetings with Blackrock when he was Chancellor.

Stop Foxidation

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

  We are all beneficiaries of decisions taken nearly 100 years ago in this Chamber to impose on broadcasters a statutory duty of political balance. Is that not now threatened by what has been described as the “Foxidation” of news, which is taking news away from journalists of integrity and transferring it to alternative bodies that produce news that is corrupted and prostituted for certain political ends? Is it not the Secretary of State’s prime duty to ensure that we do not Foxidise our news services?

   

   

• Karen Bradley

  That was one of the points made in the representations I received between my statement in June and my statement today, and it is one of the matters I would like the CMA to consider. Broadcasters in the United Kingdom are subject to the United Kingdom broadcasting code. I want to be clear, through the work of the CMA, about the impact that partisan reporting, which may occur in other jurisdictions, might have on the impartiality we expect of our broadcasters here in the UK.

   

Tony Blair & Rhodri Morgan

Tony claims the Past 

Did Tony Blair steamroller devolution on Labour in Wales?
Not quite. To ensure everyone remembered the details I wrote a book about it. The opening words were 'Only the future is certain, the past is always changing.' Now Tony is trying to change the past. As he now sees devolution a success 'because no one wants to change it'. As always, success has many parents, failure is an orphan. 
'
Blair delivered the title of the book 'Dragons led by Poodles.' Rhodri Morgan delivered what Wales and the Labour Party wanted 'Dragons led by Dragons'.

Rhodri's autobiography is a joy. No rancour or recrimination but a richly humorous commentary on a happy satisfying like. He was shafted cruelly by Blair in being cheated out of a minister's job in 1997 and having the First Minister's election fixed against him. If you disagree please read the books. But three tries for a Welshman! He made it to his dream job of First Minister. He retired at a time of his choice and enjoyed a happy retirement with Julie, his children and grandchildren. Lucky man!

Was UK or the Netherlands right?

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

The statement reports that the weaknesses discovered following the Ronan Point collapse have not been fully addressed or remedied. That collapse took place nearly 50 years ago. We also read that 165 existing tower blocks have the same combustibility and dangers that existed at Grenfell. Does not this show a continuing catastrophic failure of building regulations? Do we not need an examination not only of combustibility but of all the other structural problems that are likely to affect those who have the misfortune to live in multi-storey blocks?

 

• Sajid Javid

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this matter. This is precisely why I have asked for an independent review of building regulations. Also, in the light of the discovery at Ledbury Towers in Southwark, I have written to Dame Judith Hackitt and asked her to ensure that she considers those types of structural considerations. As well as building regulations, there are also wider questions. The issue at Ledbury Towers was discovered because of Grenfell Tower, but it is a structural issue. The work should have been done after the Ronan Point disaster, and there are some really big questions for the local authority to answer. The cracks that were discovered were large enough to put a human hand through or to put books in. Those cracks did not appear overnight. They had been there for some time—months, or even years. How can it be that the local authority was seemingly able to act only after the Grenfell tragedy?

 

 

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

The most likely start of a nuclear war will come by accident, by technical failure or by human error. The danger of that is greatly increased as world tension multiplies. Is it not true that, while there is no equivalence in this and we should pay credit to China for keeping the lid on paranoid regimes in North Korea for 60 years, the new element has been  an American President who has managed to inflame every frozen conflict that he has addressed? Should it not be right that we take a British diplomatic, experienced view of this, with cooler heads, rather than follow the example of the apprentice President?

 

• Boris Johnson

The new element is the increasing desire of the North Korean regime illegally to test nuclear weapons and threaten its neighbours and those further afield, and the acquisition of what looks like an intercontinental ballistic missile with what could be a hydrogen bomb capability. That is the new element, which requires international co-ordination to defeat.

 

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

  Drug policies in Holland have delivered a prison crisis in that they do not have enough prisoners to fill their prisons. Drug policies here have created chaos in our prisons and a record number of drug deaths, including psychoactive drug deaths, last year. May we debate which country has got its policies right?

   

• Andrea Leadsom

  In the UK we have always been very clear: we do not believe that permission to use drugs is of any benefit whatsoever, and we will continue to make every effort to reduce drug offending and to encourage people to get clean from drugs

Diana and me

Below is a post I did on August 31, 2007

Diana, Frank Cook and me

Bad-mouthing

Princess Diana's role in my parliamentary life was 13 years ago - beyond the reach of Google's tentacles to delve.

Not that I ever meet her. I kept to my advice of telling MPs how to avoid royalty. But surprisingly she found a debate I had in the Common on the subject of the plight of young people leaving care.   Shocking reports revealed the depth of misery of those who left full time care for full-time neglect at the age of 16.

Vulnerable damaged young people, scarcely more than children, were dumped into lodgings with little support. They were ill-equipped for independent living. Predictably many ended up in lives of crime, exploitation and  poverty.

The debate was well attended and there was a supportive meeting organised by Barnardo's and other childrens' charities. There was not a ripple of interest from press or Government until a letter from Princess Diana arrived on my desk a month later. She said she had read the debate, was sympathetic to the cause and was especially impressed by some comments by my fellow MP Frank Cook. This gave the campaign a great fillip. The subject was then well aired in the media.

Sadly the news was soured by criticism that Diana was interfering in politics by supporting a campaign led by Labour MPs. Her help was welcome and valuable but the pro-Charles papers were more interested in bad mouthing Diana than in highlighting  a scandal that was wreaking the lives of thousands of young people.

To her credit, she tried

Bad-mouthing

Princess Diana's role in my parliamentary life was 13 years ago - beyond the reach of Google's tentacles to delve.

Not that I ever meet her. I kept to my advice of telling MPs how to avoid royalty. But surprisingly she found a debate I had in the Common on the subject of the plight of young people leaving care.   Shocking reports revealed the depth of misery of those who left full time care for full-time neglect at the age of 16.

Vulnerable damaged young people, scarcely more than children, were dumped into lodgings with little support. They were ill-equipped for independent living. Predictably many ended up in lives of crime, exploitation and  poverty.

The debate was well attended and there was a supportive meeting organised by Barnardo's and other childrens' charities. There was not a ripple of interest from press or Government until a letter from Princess Diana arrived on my desk a month later. She said she had read the debate, was sympathetic to the cause and was especially impressed by some comments by my fellow MP Frank Cook. This gave the campaign a great fillip. The subject was then well aired in the media.

Sadly the news was soured by criticism that Diana was interfering in politics by supporting a campaign led by Labour MPs. Her help was welcome and valuable but the pro-Charles papers were more interested in bad mouthing Diana than in highlighting  a scandal that was wreaking the lives of thousands of young people.

To her credit, she tried

Diana, Frank Cook and me

Bad-mouthing

Princess Diana's role in my parliamentary life was 13 years ago - beyond the reach of Google's tentacles to delve.

Not that I ever meet her. I kept to my advice of telling MPs how to avoid royalty. But surprisingly she found a debate I had in the Common on the subject of the plight of young people leaving care.   Shocking reports revealed the depth of misery of those who left full time care for full-time neglect at the age of 16.

Vulnerable damaged young people, scarcely more than children, were dumped into lodgings with little support. They were ill-equipped for independent living. Predictably many ended up in lives of crime, exploitation and  poverty.

The debate was well attended and there was a supportive meeting organised by Barnardo's and other childrens' charities. There was not a ripple of interest from press or Government until a letter from Princess Diana arrived on my desk a month later. She said she had read the debate, was sympathetic to the cause and was especially impressed by some comments by my fellow MP Frank Cook. This gave the campaign a great fillip. The subject was then well aired in the media.

Sadly the news was soured by criticism that Diana was interfering in politics by supporting a campaign led by Labour MPs. Her help was welcome and valuable but the pro-Charles papers were more interested in bad mouthing Diana than in highlighting  a scandal that was wreaking the lives of thousands of young people.

To her credit, she tried

Asset-stripping Newport without consultation

As a the local MP I was not consulted in any way on the decision to asset strip a cultural, educational and business asset in Newport in order to enrich Cardiff.

I was fully consulted on the relatively far less important matter of the  choice of the university's new title. I disagreed with it strongly as demeaning with an old fashioned image. But I was NOT consulted on the decision to merge the universities in the first place. It's only trivial matters that the new university set-up consults on.  But when I protested about the pilfering of Newport's finest education institution I was told the decision had already been made. When I insisted on a meeting to discuss this, I was fobbed off with a minor PR person and denied a chance to speak to management.

They appear to have done it again and denied me a chance of being consulted. When I am, I will explain that the university should declare how much money they will make from selling Newport's family silver. It is likely to be many £millions. This is all about grasping centralising institutional greed not educational expansion. That capital receipt from the sale of land must all be invested in Newport. It's Newport's century-long education tradition that is being destroyed. It's our local jobs generated by students' presence here that will be gifted to Cardiff for their aggrandisement. It's the jobs of our local people that have will disappear. As an elected representative of the people of Caerleon and all of Newport I am angry that the university has denied me a voice on all these damaging decisions. I will do all in my power to challenge this planning application. Although I have been denied a voice by the university, I have other platforms to speak up on behalf of Newport. 

I am informed that they have a legal obligation to consult the local MP. This has not been done. I believe, that the planning application should now be withdrawn.

 

 

 

Related articles

 

Brexit crumbling

At the moment I cannot make head nor tale of the Repeal Bill. 

 

It proposes a border in Northern Ireland that is a No-border. How can that work? Today we hear that the European Court of Justice will have In-direct powers over UK Courts. That was not promised. The time for introducing Brexit has been delayed by 3 years as far as the Custom Union is concerned to avoid the cliff edge. There is no hope of getting £350 million a week for the NHS but we will have to pay tens of £billions into the EU for the divorce settlement. I don't remember anyone voting for that in the referendum. Parliament will consider the bill of its merits.

 

We have respected the result of the referendum by voting for Article 50 to start the process. If it turns up that the country was misled, it will time for second thoughts.

 

The most signifcant figure that came from the County's match with Leeds was the attendance of 17,000. Leeds were generous in allowing the game to rank as a home feature for the county. That should be a good boost for the finances. I have book posh tickets for Saturday's game. It will be a thrill to see the new new turf and to witness the first home game. I hope the campaign for the 5,000 cn be reached. 600 Newport fans travelled to Leeds from Newport. That's a good sign that last season's exciting final games' enthusiasm is still alive.

 

A great deal has been written about the most air polluted stretch of road in the UK outside of London. Blame has been put on the volume and  speed of traffic plus the steep incline at Hafodyrynys. But there are thousands of roads that are worse as far as those three characteristics are concerned. What make this road is so deadly is that it is a canyon with steep enclosing high embankments on both sides of the road. That is what allow the pollution to concentrate and linger. What is needed is better air flow to disperse the pollution. That can only be achieved by changing the canyon enclosure by either removing trees or a few properties. I hope these measures are being considered.