Unfair attacks

Full knowledge

Television coverage has made the Ghanaian Ama Sumani familiar to us all. We are naturally saddened by her death. But much of the angry hostile reaction is based on superficial impressions.

The person I trust is her MP. In my view Alun Michael has been unfairly criticised. I have known Alun for 30 years. For ten years we shared a mortgage. He is Blairite Labour: I am Heritage Labour. So we do not see eye to eye on everything. However I trust him absolutely.

While I have no knowledge of this case other than what I have read in the press, I know the full details of hundreds of other cases on immigrants in my constituency.  MPs are obliged to study all the tribunal papers of cases that we take up. However we cannot use any of the personal details in public debates. It’s frustrating when fair-minded people are outraged by apparently callous decisions when more information would set the decision into its proper context. Of course, it's never possible to pass on confidential information.

Alun Michael writes today

“I can confirm that I am satisfied that the case was fully and genuinely reviewed and I saw considerable detail about the case on which their decision was based.”

Reading between the lines, I sense a situation that I have been on in many occasions. Alun is a thorough conscientious MP who has worked tirelessly to assist refugees and asylum seekers to enter the UK. It’s typical of him that he did everything that was possible to help this lady. He writes,

“I asked about treatment in Ghana and was told that it was available. I understand that finance was made available by the British authorities for her initial treatment and that voluntary donations were made available for her subsequent treatment. That is why I have refused to criticise the authorities, when asked by journalists to comment on the case, since I believe that the authorities did deal with the case sympathetically, humanely and in accordance with the facts of the case.”

These are brave words in the face of a gale of angry denunciations from people, some of who should know better. A quiet word with Alun may enlighten them. I am sure the Welsh media has presented this sad case on the basis on the full information that they had. Inevitably the sad facts are seen as a callous act by unsympathetic officials. This is not my experience after dealing with hundreds of cases. Our country’s welcome and support for asylum seekers, refugees and migrants is fair and generous, matched only by the Scandinavian countries.

The media often mis-leads by sensationalising the limited facts known to them into a faux scandal. When the choice is whether to believe in the version of events as reported by the media or that of the conscientious compassionate local MP of unquestioned integrity, I believe the MP.

Backbench Joy

As a hard-bitten cynical veteran MP, I thought nothing would surprise me. Backbench speeches are of very limited value, I have always said, and my expectation of their influence is very limited.

Last night I had an e-mail that started,

"I took my son and daughter up to London on Thursday and we popped into the Commons.  My daughter is 14 and is interested in politics; she reads The New Statesman and The Spectator and has had a letter published in the former.   However, she has decided whilst she is interested in the ideas behind politics she wouldn't like to become a politician as she wouldn't want all the smoozing and hypocrisy involved in 'fitting in' (I'm afraid she is a natural rebel).  

The bill being debated was on social security and we came in whilst the conservative member was opposing the bill.  It was a bit boring, I'm afraid and my 12 year old son fell asleep.  My daughter however followed the speech and seemed interested.  Then you stood up. What a difference!  You were speaking with passion, with experience, with examples and stories and, it seemed to us, the whole debate 'woke up'.”

Those of us who are interested in social security know that the subject is of interest to few people and rarely reported. What is uniquely gratifying about this e-mail is that the lady and her daughter were interested in the subject. Usually these speeches  are guaranteed to send the press and public stampeding out of the galleries. All the journalists have mortgages (which they report in detail) but none are on Income Support. Their pensions are a long way off, so why bother reporting the subject?  The letter continues.

" €œEverything you said seemed important - from the 59 billion excess in the NI fund, to the poverty facing pensioners (something close to my mother's heart), to (what I thought was crucial) your point that MPs are presented with a bill in a 'take it or leave it' format - symbolising the decline in democracy in this country. My daughter is once more considering whether she might want to become an MP.  In discussion afterwards however, we got talking about the life of a backbench MP.  I said that it was often those with the most intelligence and integrity who became back bench MPs but that it must be very frustrating.  You understand what needs to be done, how best to do it, you feel passionate about your cause - BUT you can't influence the government.  Or if you do, it is occasionally in small doses.  You also get sidelined and dismissed because you are not driven by power and ambition.   We were both wondering how you manage being a backbench MP

I also wondered if there were any pro-democracy organisations in the UK campaigning against the increasing centralisation of power in this country.  This is something I feel passionate about.”

Well is there any such organisation? I have written back giving the writer directions to some of the thousands of words I have written about the role of backbenchers. The e-mail has left me purring with pleasure. Any time in the future when I am tempted to pack it all in, I will take it out the bouquet file and be reinvigorated by it. I hope the young lady maintains her interest in politics and builds her ambitions.

The parliament of tomorrow will need her.

Comments

[Greg]

Any wealthy country with a relatively socialized system of healthcare is going to have to deal with these issues - they are all going to have illegal immigrants and a proportion of those are going to become ill, and some of those illnesses are going to be expensive.

As far as I can remember Canada beat you to the debate on this topic by about a year:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/weinreb011507.htm

I suppose the brutal fact of the matter is that the NHS has finite resources, (isn't that what NICE is all about, if you're a cynic) and if you make an exception for one unentitled person, where do you draw the line? There are an awful lot of people from the third world in need of medical treatment and no means of accessing it in their own countries - which government wants to be seen advertising free treatment for foreigners?

It's tricky decisions like this that make me incredibly glad that someone else needs to make the call!

Happy Easter!

Greg

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks Greg. I had not seen the Canadian story. The UK cannot fund a health service for the world - or even just Africa.

There is a concentration of laudable compassion on one patient. The outcry is understanable but not rational.

In the Congo this month, if it's like the last 36 months, 4,500 people died of the consequences of war. No TV cameras reported any of them to us.