Paul Flynn - Read My Day

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