Paul Flynn - Read My Day

Victory against lies

George Galloway's victory is against the lies and cowardice of all three main parties.

All have disregarded the well-founded wish of the great majority of the electorate who want our troops home from a mission impossible in Afghanistan. The Netherlands and Canada did it without detriment. So should we.

The right to die has been a taboo subject for 30 years. Last week's debate powerfully spoke for the great mass of people who want to have autonomy about the manner and timing of their final moments. In Westminster cowardice rules.

Prohibition of some drugs has been 40 years of abject failure that have destroyed many UK lives. Political cowardice has bandaged the mouths of MPs of all parties.

Bradford is a powerful message of a collapse of trust between people and politicians. It should galvanise reforms.

 

 

Not again, Beeb

 

BBC News are suckers for nuclear drivel. The pullout of two major companies from the Wylfa B and Oldbury plans is the death knell for UK New Nuclear. Instead of proclaiming it from the rooftops BBC News again hauled the most biased 'independent' expert on the circuit. Malcolm Grimson is back again. 

After Fukushima - all 24 hour channels were spinning a nightmare. The BBC, Sky and CNN were all fooled as the disaster enfolded. A constant commentator who oozed words of comfort was Malcolm Grimson. He was omnipresent during the first three weeks. He was presented as an independent unbiased expert linked with Chatham House. 

He preached reassurance. I believe he one day said the terrifying hydrogen explosions were probably a good thing! It was never explained that Malcolm Grimson spent decades of his working life as a PR spokesman for the nuclear industry. The truth was concealed from us. That is why polls show that Britons are less worried about nuclear power than other European countries.

The media in Germany, Belgium, Italy and Switzerland have reported truthfully on Fukushima. The British media has allowed itself to be used by the nuclear lobby. Ten months after the disaster radiation is still leaking. Yet that news is presented today as positive! 

Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) had the effrontery to claim that their leaked radiation that carpets surrounding land is now the property of the landowners. Possession is nine tenths of the law. The most disturbing contamination was baby powdered milk. One feeding gave infants 8% of the annual dose of radiation permitted. After a few days the babies passed their annual safe limits. 

My persistent theme in Parliament has been cost. Speaker Bercow kindly gave me an urgent question when Fukushima happened. On every conceivable occasion since then, I have plagued Ministers in the Commons and Professor Michael Weightman in seminars demanding to know what consideration has been given to the cost implication of Fukushima on Britain's plan. Weightman not only confessed that he had not considered cost but he was not qualified to consider cost.

His task, given to him from above, was to reassure. To explain that Britain was unlikely to have the tsunamis and earthquakes that Japan has. We all knew that. Behind the scenes there was anxiety. The nuclear industry knew that truth and transparency on cost would collapse the UK's unattainable plans. A New Nuclear power station generating by 2018?  Pure moonshine.

Watch the nuclear dream crumble. Let's put serious money into renewables.

 

A bright nuclear-free future!

 

There will be universal sympathy today for the people of Ynys Mon whose future jobs hopes have been damaged by the withdrawal of investment in Wylfa B. There is an alternative in the already well-advanced local plans for marine based renewables. They are carbon-lite, British, clean, sustainable and eternal.

Nuclear is unpopular, feared, unaffordable without massive subsidies and fragile - especially in the event of another Fukushima.

Anglesey has sumptuous assets, in its rural and seaside beauty, mountain views, and its encirclement with energy rich waters. That is where the island's bright future lies.

Ymlaen, Ynys Mon!

STOP PRESS: I HEAR THAT EDF ARE LOSING THEIR ENTHUSIASM. THAT WOULD PUT AN END TO UK NEW NUCLEAR.

 

 

How to die

 

It’s nearly 40 years since the Commons debated assisted suicide. The debate was a churning grief-filled trial and joy. Some accounts of personal losses were deeply moving. There was wisdom, compassion cant and stupidity in overwhelming indigestible quantities.

In my new book How to be an MP, I concluded in the section How to Die:

“Cultivating inner serenity amid a maelstrom of anxiety is the surest way to delay the arrival of the Grim Reaper. Privately most MPs wish to have some autonomy in the choice of the time and circumstances of their own demise. Political caution has dominated.  That beneficial reform is still awaited. Only a minority has pressed for the most elusive of human rights - the right to die.”  

 

I am grateful to the Daily Telegraph for their sensitive reporting of my five minutes:

 

‘Several MPs read letters from constituents who had personal experience of the terminal illness of a loved-one.

Among them Paul Flynn, the Labour MP, read the account of an elderly man who sat with his wife as she starved herself to death for three weeks, overwhelmed by a sense of powerlessness at not being able to help her as she asked.

“Every day of her life she prayed for other people but when she prayed ‘please God help me die’ there was no-one to hear her,” the man wrote.

He went on to describe how she had become increasingly emaciated and had reached the stage where “the shame and humiliation were no longer an embarrassment”.

“I held her close on the days when I could no longer understand her mumbled words, I could only reply hoping she would hear," he wrote.

“When I said ‘I love you darling, I understand’ I knew she could hear my words when a tear dropped in the corner of her eye.

“I watched her beautiful face become a skeleton and held her when her life finally ended.

“I hope she knew I was there and was doing it.

“For the rest of my life I will remember her poor wrecked body and once so beautiful face become a hollow mask.”

If we British MPs had acted sooner, my constituent’s wife and Paul Bloomfield’s father could have died with dignity with the support of their loved ones. We have allowed ourselves to be bullied by religious zealots who constantly mangle the truth on the situations in Oregon, the Netherlands and Switzerland. All those who have introduced regulated euthanasia have avoided anticipated problems. Public support has increased with practical experience in all three states. 

We must find our courage to legislate to die with dignity.

 

 

 

 

 

Further NOTE from How to Die:

 

Under Thatcher the death rate of MPs was twice as high as under Tony Blair. The main cause is stress-related heart attacks which disproportionally affects Northern MPs. The average age of death of male Labour MPs is 67 and Conservatives 71. For females the roles are reversed. For Tory women it is 64 while Labour ones continue to 79. 

 

Forecasts that the conflicts of coalition Government would add to stress and increase the death rate have been unfounded. But the news is still bleak. The traumas and excesses of parliamentary life take their toll with an average MP life expectancy of 69 compared with the national average of 75 for men and 80 for women.

 

 

Beauty becomes a hollow mask

Today in Parliament.

4.49 pm

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab):

I will devote my time to reading a message that I received from a constituent who was unknown to me until he wrote. I will not mention his name, but he might well decide to identify himself. The most powerful speech that I have heard today was the courageous speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who talked about his personal experience. My constituent has asked me to pass on his experience, because he wants to challenge this House. He is of a great age and regards the policy that he lives under, and his understanding of it, to be the responsibility of a younger generation. He asks many questions. He asks whether we have the experience, as he does.

My constituent states: “I have had to watch my dear wife, very old, very much in pain, very weak and desperately wanting peace, but she continued to suffer because I couldn’t do the one thing she really wanted. I was helpless to assist her to die. Her words were, ‘I don’t want to leave you, my love, but I’m very tired and I want to go now. I know you understand. Please help me to die.’

Every day of her life she said prayers for other people, but when she pleaded, ‘Please God, take me now’; for once in that long life, she prayed for herself, but there was no one to answer. Such a simple, humanitarian act is just not permitted, so I watched my dear wife starve herself to death for three weeks—the only way she could help herself to die. I watched a lovely lady struggle without food until she grew so weak that she was unable to lift her arms, to even squeeze my fingers.

She had strangers to change her, but she grew to the state where the shame and the humiliation were no longer an embarrassment. But she remembered the humiliation of those last weeks. I held her close in the days when I could no longer understand her mumbled words. I could only reply, hoping she would hear when I said, ‘I love you darling. I understand.’ I hope she knew that I was there with her. I held her when her eyes no longer opened, when she could no longer see. I knew she could hear my words when a tear dropped from the corner of her eye.

I held her until she had no touch, no sight, possibly no hearing, but I still said, ‘I know darling. I love you. I understand.’ I watched her beautiful face become a skeleton. I held her when this poor love finally died. I hope she knew that I was there, but I doubt it. And now for the rest of my life, I will remember the poor wracked body and the once so beautiful face, which became a hollow mask.”

My constituent rightly says that there is a gulf of misunderstanding between his experience and the law, between his suffering—the way that his memories of his beloved wife have been poisoned by her final days—and our understanding of what is required. We have to recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, that we all fear the possibility of a loss of control and autonomy in our final days. We would want some say over the manner of our dying and, in some circumstances, over the time of our dying.

I believe that we should finally follow the path that has been taken in Oregon, which is very popular and thoroughly accepted, and in the Netherlands. That is the way ahead. We have failed to tackle this problem. The word cowardice has been used. That is a strong word, but there is truth in it. Some 80% of people in this country want us to change things. It is up to us, as their representatives, to bring in reforms that will give people the peace of mind that they can die with dignity.

4.54 pm

Daily Telegraph report. 

Paul Blomfield said that the 87-year-old former RAF pilot, Harry Blomfield, had “lived life to the full right to the end” but had taken a conscious decision to take his own life last July.

There was silence in the Chamber as the Labour MP for Sheffield Central called for a change in the law on assisted suicide which he said would have at least allowed his father to say goodbye.

He was one of a series of MPs who spoke from personal experience as the Commons overwhelmingly backed legal guidelines limiting the chances of loved-ones being prosecuted for assisting someone set on taking their own life.

The motion, tabled by the Tory backbencher Richard Ottaway, was the first time the Commons has debated the issue of assisted suicide for almost 40 years.

An unusually emotional debate heard passionate calls, on one hand, for the Government to launch a consultation on legalizing assisted suicide and, on the other, for legislation to prevent any further steps toward euthanasia.

MPs also backed an amendment calling for greater support for palliative care to reduce the pain suffered by the terminally ill.

Debbie Purdy, the multiple sclerosis sufferer whose landmark legal challenge resulted in the new legal guidelines, was among those watching in the public gallery.

Mr Blomfield said that he was convinced that his father had made up his mind to take his own life after being diagnosed with lung cancer and had often remarked that that would be his intention.

“He wasn't afraid of pain but he couldn't face the indignity of that lingering, degrading death,” he said.

“I am sure that what drove him to end his life when he did was the fear that if he didn't end his life when he could, he would lose the opportunity to act at all.

“If the law had made it possible he could, and I am sure he would, have shared his plans and he would have been able to say goodbye.

“He would have been able to die with his family around him and not alone in a carbon monoxide-filled garage.

“He, and many more like him, deserve better.”

Several MPs read letters from constituents who had personal experience of the terminal illness of a loved-one.

Among them Paul Flynn, the Labour MP, read the account of an elderly man who sat with his wife as she starved herself to death for three weeks, overwhelmed by a sense of powerlessness at not being able to help her as she asked.

“Every day of her life she prayed for other people but when she prayed ‘please God help me die’ there was no-one to hear her,” the man wrote.

He went on to describe how she had become increasingly emaciated and had reached the stage where “the shame and humiliation were no longer an embarrassment”.

“I held her close on the days when I could no longer understand her mumbled words, I could only reply hoping she would hear," he wrote.

“When I said ‘I love you darling, I understand’ I knew she could hear my words when a tear dropped in the corner of her eye.

“I watched her beautiful face become a skeleton and held her when her life finally ended.

“I hope she knew I was there and was doing it.

“For the rest of my life I will remember her poor wrecked body and once so beautiful face become a hallow mask.”

Craig Whittaker, the Tory MP, told how his 17-year-old brother had asked his family to help him end his life during his battle with terminal cancer.

He said that even 20 years on his late father had struggled with guilt at not helping his dying son but nevertheless believed he made the right decision.

“I am absolutely convinced that the only reason my brother asked us to help him take his life was because he perceived he was a burden to his family and no other reason,” he said.

Earlier Ian Paisley junior, the MP for North Antrim made a impassioned plea against any further moves towards euthanasia.

"This House is not God," he said.

"This House does not have the right to determine and should not take upon itself the right to determine what God determines and that is when life begins or when life ends.

"This House would be very foolish to take that role upon itself."

 

Big Benn's turn

Early day Motion 2921 appears today. It was helped by recent tweets. It reads:

That this House believes that the great contribution of Chartists, Suffragettes and socialists to building our unique parliamentary system is under-represented in the Palace of Westminster; and further believes that consideration should be given to renaming St Stephen's Tower as Chartist Tower, Suffrage Tower or Big Benn.

The intention to provide an alternative to an EDM which seeks to re-name the tower after the Queen. As there are more than 1,000 statues, portraits, costs of arms of royalty throughout the palace of Westminster and one small plaque in a cupboard dedicated to the suffragettes the balance should be adjusted.

The original EDM, tabled by Tory MP Tobias Ellwood, backed by former foreign secretaries Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, said, "is in recognition of Her Majesty's 60 years of unbroken public service on behalf of her country" - a Commons early day motion has been signed by 23 MPs mostly from the Conservative party, requesting that the east tower of the Palace of Westminster be formally titled the Elizabeth Tower.

Yesterday in parliament

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Does the Minister agree with the failure of one of his Secretaries of State’s to register a meal he had with the lobbyist Bell Pottinger this year on the basis that on the day in question he was digesting with his private stomach and not his ministerial stomach? Is not the distinction a false one? Nobody would give £250,000 for a social, private chat with the Prime Minister, but they would pay it if they were seeking access and influence.

No 'party inquiry' into greedslobs

 

Just 'blurring' with Liam Fox. Now just 'bluster' from Cruddas. They must not get away again with a rigged inquiry. 

Ad nauseum I have railed against the rushed illegitimate week-end probe into the Fox-Werritty scandal. The Public Administration Committee have slammed the cover-up. A proper 'party' inquiry would be another fix. This is the major scandal that Cameron in opposition warned about. A 'party' inquiry will satisfy no-one. Here is hard evidence of a straight offer of access and influence for cash. The inquiry must check all Cameron's guests and investigate links with politic changes.

The Ministerial Code Reform took ten years to introduce. It was used once by Gordon Brown and been trashed by Cameron. The Independent Adviser resigned. New poodle replacement has been rejected by Select Committee. His resignation is overdue. Part of the ministerial code is to register all meals and contact with lobbyists. Eric Pickles explained his unregistered dodgy dinner with Bell Pottinger as 'private' - same excuse that Cruddas uses to sell access to highest bidder. Pickles has two stomachs - one for digesting ministerially and one for digesting privately. Expect more Cruddas flimflam about private dinners and hospitality.

Cameron in opposition voiced New Tory zeal for scandal-free politics. That's disappeared like morning mist revealing ugly view of same nasty Tories, same foul sleaze. Cruddas is tip of New Tory sleaze that explains why Tory passion to reform corrupt lobbying has disappeared in confused weak proposed register?

Today's tweets included this one that was reproduced on the BBC Wales website:

Welsh Tories call to nation: If you're a granny-cheating badger-murdering, Remploy-closing, sleaze hungry greedslob, Tories are for you.

The word 'Greedslob'coined today was defined a few hours later: 

Simon Buckley ‏ @SimonSFBuckley

@PaulTurner36 @KerryMP @Paulflynnmp Greedslob:A person who, through a sense of entitlement, believes easy, excessive self-gain is desirable.

Bet Welsh Tories are impressed by their brilliant strategy-replacing conference with rally today to coincide with Cruddas' interesting revelations

Will Nick Clegg mention this when he explains why he has gone soft on lobbying reform. LibDem -Bell Pottinger love-in. http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1065945/Liberal-Democrats-charge-lobbyists-25k-dinner-Nick-Clegg/

 Answer to question, WHO RUNS COALITION UK? - Those who buy access to 'private' coalition dinners to privatise NHS & handouts to millionaires

Cruddas resignation in start of full transparent probe into all guests at Coalition dinners and links with their political donations.

David Cameron's snout is buried so deeply in the 'PM for hire"trough, all that can be seen of him is the soles of his Gucci shoes.

Listen to Radio Belfast at 8.30 AM when I join discussion on political corruption. Intended to be about Bertie Ahern - now about Cruddas

Cruddas must not escape by doing a Liam Fox by resigning to dodge full investigation. This is Sleaze - not 'blurring' or 'bluster.'

Epitaph for Coalition Government: The Kleptocracy that created the Ineptocracy.

Budget cash tax hand-outs to millionaires will allow lots more of them to buy access to the Prime Minister. It's called the Big Society.

The dawn-to-dusk emetic grovelling Canute-style drivel about royals will continue until June. Will the nation be bored to republicanism ?

 

 

 

Will Liam Fox escape judgement?

Liam Fox escaped serious charges by resigning. On Thursday I raised the issue again. I asked, ' If the Public Administration Committee vote unanimously that the new Independent Adviser of the Ministerial Code is not fit to do his job, should Sir Alex Allan resign? ' 

Of course he should. But Government appear to want to tough it out until the inevitably bitter end. The Select Committee has asked for full pre-appointment hearing for this Independent role. We do not have one but after Allan appeared before the committee, there was much head shaking and disbelief.

The Guardian has fairly reported the Select Committee report including my minority call for the Prime Minister's breach of the code to be investigated.

 Six possible breaches of the ministerial code of conduct by the defence secretary

 1.2(f): perception of conflict of interest

What the code says Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests.

Fox's actions Fox's statement on Monday said that he had allowed the perception of a conflict to arise: "My frequent contacts with him [Adam Werritty, right] may have given an impression of wrongdoing, and may also have given third parties the misleading impression that Mr Werritty was an official adviser rather than simply a friend."

 5.2: advice from civil servants

What the code says Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants.

Fox's actions Fox admitted in his statement that "it was wrong to meet with a commercial supplier without the presence of an official". Fox, critics have alleged, cannot "give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants" if he is having meetings without them.

 7.1: perception of conflict of interest

What the code says This part of the code is similar to point 1.2(f) above. It says ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.

Liam Fox's actions: He has admitted that his frequent contacts with Werritty "may have given an impression of wrongdoing, and may also have given third parties the misleading impression that Mr Werritty was an official adviser rather than simply a friend".

Fox's actions Critics claim that Fox appears to have broken the code by admitting that he failed to ensure that no conflict "appears" to have arisen.

 

7.3, 7.4, 7.5: declaration of interests

What the code says

On appointment to each new office, ministers must provide their permanent secretary with a full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict. The list should also cover interests of the minister's spouse or partner and close family that might be thought to give rise to a conflict.

Fox's actions He provided a list of his personal interests but this did not include any reference to Adam Werritty or to Security Futures, the company of which Werritty is a director. If Werritty had been Fox's partner, the failure to declare his defence industry interests would have been a clear breach. The rules do not, however, cover best friends, which some may argue is an anomaly.

 

Big BENN

This tweet had a lively response this morning.

 

If Big Ben is to be renamed it should celebrate the builders of our unique democracy. Chartist Tower? Tolpuddle Tower? Suffragette Tower?

 

We already have the massive Victoria Tower at the Lords end of Parliament named after royalty. British Government is Monarch, Lords and Commons. We had led the world in building and  reforming the democratic quality of government. The crown has been inert in the process at best - a drag anchor to progress at times.

Each new freedom has been gained by struggle. Wat Tyler, the Levellers, Rochdale Pioneers, the Chartists, Tolpu ddle martyrs and the Suffragettes. The Palace of Westminster has many hundreds of royal portraits, statues and coats of arms. The democratic struggle is virtually unrecorded.

 

They were some interesting replies tweeted:

 

Why not celebrate the first women to be UK prime minister? Mrs T tower!

 I'm only down with naming it Pankhurst Tower if it's after Sylvia, not Emmeline

 

Pankhurst Tower has a nice ring.

 

there's a WatTylerLane on Blackheath, where he died 

 

Suffrage tower would cover both Chartists and Suffragists.

 

 Big Benn?

 

Levellers' Tower?

 

Given the impending jubilee, how about Cromwell Tower

 

 

Rip-off did not deter job hope

Lord West is a greatly respected GOAT. He has picked up a number of lucrative jobs after retirement. One of them is with QinetiQ, the firm that was born out of an outrageous rip-off of the taxpayers. I also asked hime about some provocative  comments of war with Iran.

 

 

Q<177> <Paul Flynn:> Did you have any connection with the setting up of  QinetiQ, or work with any of the other firms with which you were subsequently involved, when you were serving in the Royal Navy?

<Admiral Lord West:> That was one of the questions I was asked. The answer is that I didn’t really.

 

Q<178> <Chair:> Didn’t really?

<Admiral Lord West:> Well no, because I didn’t set it up, but I—

 

Q<179> <Chair:> What does “really” mean?

<Admiral Lord West:> That is what I was about to explain. I sat on a board that was chaired by the permanent under-secretary,  and I was there as Chief of Defence Intelligence. It was basically the senior civil servants within the MOD, one of whom was the chap who set up QinetiQ from DERA. I was aware that that was being done and had been done, but I was not involved. When they asked me whether I was involved in it, I thought, “Hang on, I did go to meetings where this man was,” but I did not get involved in the mechanics of setting it up at all.

 

Q<180> <Paul Flynn:> I do not know whether you agree, but  when QinetiQ was set up, the people who established it made fortunes by taking assets that belonged to the taxpayer at a bargain rate. Is that a fair assessment, in your view? They became very rich, and the amounts they paid for the public assets were minute, in retrospect.

<Admiral Lord West:> Shall I say “allegedly”? What I do remember is that a number of us were unhappy that a massive amount of Government intellectual property was suddenly being privatised.

 

 

Q<181> <Paul Flynn:> I mean, it was a rip-off.  I know you are reluctant to say it; but I can say it.  If you felt that way about it, why on earth did you go and work for them?

<Admiral Lord West:> Because it was important that it worked and ran properly. That was important. It was running all of the ranges for our military. It had some of our best scientists. The only bit that wasn’t there was the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. So an awful lot of really important stuff was being done by them, and it was important that it was run as efficiently and well as possible.

 

Q<182> <Paul Flynn:> There was no thought in your mind, when you had this slight involvement in the setting up of QinetiQ—or you were there watching it, and involved—of having a job with them later on?

<Admiral Lord West:> No, none at all.

 

Q<183> <Paul Flynn:> Have you any financial interest at the moment in the Type 45 destroyers and the Sea Vipers?

<Admiral Lord West:> No.

 

Q<184> <Paul Flynn:> None whatsoever?

<Admiral Lord West:> No.

<Paul Flynn:> Okay.

<Admiral Lord West:> As I say, I tried very hard; after going into QinetiQ, and being there for that short period, when I then went into government, I thought, “Well, I don’t want to get involved with big defence firms, because I’ve noticed that the senior officers who are, are unable to speak on things”; and I thought it was too important that one was able to speak openly on all these issues, like the Type 45 destroyer and things that I think are wrong or right within defence.

 

Q<185> <Paul Flynn:> You carry great respect and authority, because of your service, in many ways.  Do you think it is reasonable to say things like you wanted to see the Daring class and the Type 45s show their potential in the Gulf region? You said it is highly capable and you were looking forward to that happening in the Gulf.  Isn’t this a comment that should not be made by someone with your reputation, as it would seem to be inciting war against Iran?

<Admiral Lord West:> No; I think I am very clear on the record, within the Lords.  If you look up Hansard—

<Paul Flynn:> I have the quote here.

<Admiral Lord West>—I said that I think the elephant in the room, that we are sleepwalking towards, is a war with Iran; and I think that would be a terrible mistake.  The discussion that people are having is “Isn’t a short attack now on the nuclear sites more valuable than allowing a long thing—

<Chair:> Forgive me for interrupting—

<Admiral Lord West:> Can I just finish? I very clearly said I thought that would be a very bad thing to do; but it is not quite this, is it, this—

 

Q<186> <Paul Flynn:> You said you would like Type 45s to show their potential in the region.

<Admiral Lord West:> Well, I would, because I think what they will do is they will show they can do counter-piracy, they will show they can show British presence; they will show their full capability.  I think that is a good thing to do.

 

Q<187> <Paul Flynn:> And this is not inciting warfare.

<Admiral Lord West:> Absolutely not.

<Chair:> This has got nothing to do with ACoBA.

<Paul Flynn:> It is interesting, though.

<Admiral Lord West:> As I say, I very clearly said that I think an attack on Iran would be a very silly thing.