Sugary Drinks Tax

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the two marvellous opening speeches. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has now gone after intervening so often—I think he intervened seven times—and then complaining that there was no debate. Now he has deserted us to spend more time with his prejudices.

This is a debate of great importance. I will not go into detail about what generation I was part of, but there were certainly no sugary drinks when I was a child. There was a lot of water—we had that in abundance—but, being a child of the war, I had the benefit of a system of rationing whereby the amount of food was carefully controlled. We were probably the healthiest generation there has ever been, because we were quite rightly denied the damaging drinks that children often have now.

I want to make just one point, which is about who comes first in the Government’s thinking. Where does public opinion come? Where does the health of children come? We all know the misery that is felt by overweight children, and how they suffer mockery at school. It is extremely damaging for them. There is no question but that we have to do all we can to avoid obesity as far as possible. We can do something about it, but a number of decisions taken by the Government have been extremely worrying, and one of them is this—turning down the idea of a sugar tax.

Recently we had a debate in the House on a sensible Bill, which was supported by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), a Scottish National party Member. She is a breast cancer surgeon, and she made a splendid, well-informed speech in support of the Off-patent Drugs Bill, which would have been greatly beneficial to people in need of drugs, as it would have made them cheaper, and also to the health service. Members of all parties spoke in the debate, but the only voice for the party of Government was the Minister’s, and we know that the pharmaceutical industry—big pharma—has the Government in a throat hold. It is big pharma that decides what happens.

I believe it is the same with “big sugar”—that the Government are excessively influenced by the commercial interests of the sugar industry. They are also influenced by other industries—the alcohol industry is very powerful. We recall that at the time of the 2010 election there was an impassioned plea by the future Prime Minister. He said he knew what the next scandal in Britain was going to be: it was going to be a lobbying scandal. He knew about lobbying, of course, because he was a lobbyist himself. He knew about the influence of lobbyists—the odd word here, the invitation to a reception there, getting someone on side by inviting them to a seminar in the Alps, or in Bermuda. That is the way they work. Are the Government listening to the financial concerns of the greedy lobbyists, or to the pleas for a more rational, healthy policy?

[John Glen]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on the comment made earlier, about the record of his party in government in Wales? If the sugar tax is such a priority, why has there not been more progress in Wales?

[Paul Flynn]

We have had a—[Interruption.] Exactly, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for saying so. I respect my hon. Friend. We had a little exchange in Welsh about who made the remark in question. I find the story most unlikely, and I would like to check on it.

The Conservative Government have abused their position repeatedly to attack the achievements of the health service in Wales. In one week, the Daily Mail had the Welsh health service as its No. 1 story for four days running. There is no way, by news standards or by the value of the stories, that that was justified. I am proud of the achievements of the health service in Wales, and I am glad that today is the day when the presumed organ consent system begins. Wales is leading Britain on that matter, and there is much other pioneering work being done by the Labour party and the Labour Government in Wales.

Unfortunately, the Tory Government like to use the Welsh health service as a stick with which to beat the Labour party. That is irresponsible and dangerous, because one of the most important things is that people should have faith in their own health service. It is an important part of therapy and confidence: when people go into hospital, they are of course nervous and concerned, and when they read these lying stories about political—

[Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject of the debate is a tax on sugar and sugary drinks?

[Paul Flynn]

Yes, Sir. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I was unfortunately—inadvertently—diverted from the point involved, but I shall return to it.

[Geraint Davies]

Is my hon. Friend aware that last night on Welsh television the Welsh Minister for Health and Social Services, Mark Drakeford, said that there should be much greater control over the advertising of sugary drinks to children until after 9 pm? The Minister would, I am sure, welcome the devolved power that is implicitly being called for to be able to tax sugar in Wales and do the other things we are talking about.

[Paul Flynn]

I did see the programme; it was the Welsh segment of the “Politics Show”. That is why I find the account-giving of the view in Wales to be not plausible—Mark Drakeford is a splendid Health Minister.

Last year, a Daily Mail investigation revealed that the food industry lobby had been given unprecedented access to the Government. The Prime Minister hosted Coca-Cola, Mars, Nestlé, McDonald’s, Pepsi, Nando’s and Tesco. They were all welcomed to No. 10 Downing Street, and given big hugs no doubt—they are great pals. Those are the ones the Government are listening to, not the needs and the health of young children.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Flynn]

I will, but I am taking rather a long time.

[Julian Knight]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he recognise that all the companies he just mentioned are major employers in this country and that it is perfectly right for Ministers, the Prime Minister and other Members of Parliament to meet with those companies so that they can put forward their views?

[Paul Flynn]

I am sure that there was a great outcry from the municipal and general torturers union in the South American countries when those countries were taken over by democratic states and the crafts of back-breaking and the pulling-out of fingernails were no longer in demand and people lost their jobs. But there was a benefit involved, and we cannot give this excuse about people being in employment.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Flynn]

I will not give way again; I am taking up other people’s time.

We cannot use the excuse of jobs at all costs. Of course jobs are important, but keeping them is not justified when we see the result of such action on the health of the nation.

It is fascinating to look at Government bodies because we recently found that the World Health Organisation is in trouble because so many members of its committees are in the pay of pharmaceutical companies—you might declare me out of order, Mr Hamilton, but I hope I am not going too far off topic. The flu pandemic that never was in 2009 was because the organisation sold a huge amount of pharmaceutical products—a billion in this country—while in Poland, where antivirals cost 7 zloty, they had no antivirals and they had half the number of flu deaths that we had.

[Steve Double]

rose—

[Paul Flynn]

I will give way, but for the last time.

[Steve Double]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am reflecting on his comments about the Government and his proposition that they are in bed with big business in the sugar industry. Would he say, then, that the previous Labour Government did not introduce a sugar tax in 13 years for the very same reason?

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Gentleman has not been here long. I have been here for 28 years, and I think he will find that the previous Labour Government would not say that they enjoyed my entire approval for the entire time. I can assure him that I am critical of all Governments. They all have their imperfections, but none quite as many as the present one.

If we look at the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, five of its eight members receive funding from large confectionary companies. I am sure they are not influenced in any way by that, but it is interesting that Professor Ian Macdonald receives money from Unilever—the world’s biggest ice cream maker—Coca-Cola and Mars. Also, Professor Sanders, a Government scientist working on diet, sugar and heart disease, was given £4.5 million towards his research by Tate and Lyle. I am sure that does not affect his scientific judgment and impartiality in any way, but I question whether such behaviour is wise, because unkind people might conclude that the one who pays the piper calls the tune. We see these revelations and then find that the working group recommends that people slash their daily sugar intake, but not by a large amount.

In conclusion, we are in a dangerous position in Parliament because many of us, I think, felt upset when the Off-patent Drugs Bill did not progress. There is a universal view coming both from the public—we see the numbers of concerned people who signed the petition—and from every party that spoke in the House during that debate. We are here today thanks to the Petitions Committee, but who is speaking against the sugar business? Big sugar has its hand on the throat of the Government and it is big sugar that determines policy.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Maggie Throup]

I completely agree. I always enjoyed my competitive sports at school. I was a sprinter, and I played netball and rounders.

[Paul Flynn]

Wrestling?

[Maggie Throup]

Not wrestling, no.

The issue is partly about exercise, but it is also about food. There is more reliance on ready meals, takeaway meals and meals consumed in restaurants than ever there was in the past 30 years. However delicious the food is, as consumers we do not have control over what goes into it. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) talked about her domestic science lessons. I had a term and a half of those lessons, and I still use my pastry recipe to make my mince pies at Christmas. I know they have sugar in them, but at least I know what is going into them. The recipe book that I created in my domestic science lessons is well thumbed indeed.

We need to tackle every cause of obesity: price promotions; the deep discounting we have heard about; reformulations; the locations of takeaways, which seem to crop up near schools; marketing and advertising; and celebrity endorsements. We need to have clear and understandable labelling. I commend the idea of having the number of spoons of sugar on packaging. It is straightforward, simple and anyone can understand it. We also need more information from takeaway outlets and restaurants as to what we are eating. The list goes on and on.

Obesity is a problem that is not going away. As politicians, we can no longer ignore it. As the Health Committee’s report states, we need to take brave and bold action.

NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc.) Bill

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on successfully securing this private Member’s Bill and bringing it to the Floor of the House. Her office is next door to mine, so I know for a fact how hard she and her staff have worked on the Bill. I am pleased to be here to support it.

Throughout the country, amazing people are working and volunteering in the charitable sector. In my constituency, local people recognise the invaluable work of our charities, such as St Ann’s Hospice, which has provided care for people with life-limiting illnesses for more than 40 years, and Millie’s Trust, a newer charity that has not only raised awareness of paediatric first aid, but campaigned to change legislation on first aid in children’s nurseries.

Our communities and, it is fair to say, our lives, would be poorer without the tremendous work of our charities. To carry on doing that work, they rely on the selfless efforts of volunteers and the tireless ingenuity of fundraisers, and bequests from caring people, whose legacies provide a lifeline. The bequests made over the years to Great Ormond Street hospital have undoubtedly enabled many children’s lives to be saved. Its groundbreaking research continues to give parents new hope in the treatment of their desperately ill children. We have heard today about a child whose cure from childhood leukaemia was described as a miracle. Wonderful work continues to be done. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the vital work of the staff, fundraisers and patrons, who do so much to ensure that Great Ormond Street and its associated charity continue to provide the very best care to children and young people.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills noted, Great Ormond Street and its charity are in the unique and fortunate position of having the rights to the royalties from performances or publications of the play “Peter Pan”, an extremely valuable benefit bestowed by the author, J. M. Barrie. The royalties that the charity receives and that, as my hon. Friend noted, Lord Callaghan successfully legislated in perpetuity, enable it to keep up its wonderful work and surely reflect the wishes of J. M. Barrie. I fully support the ambition to ensure that the charity continues to receive that generous settlement, and to give Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity the independence it needs to grow and better support its beneficiaries.

I am pleased that the Bill addresses a number of constraints that the charity has encountered, not least the duplication of governance arrangements that currently complicates the charity’s position. Historically, charitable involvement in the health service has always been welcomed. The Bill will not affect independent charities, but it is important to recognise their continued importance in the sector.

The Department of Health conducted a review of NHS charities in 2011. The response was the announcement of the intention to move towards greater independence and a commitment to a new model. That is what the debate is about. The rationale for the reform reflected concerns raised by the NHS charities and their representative bodies that the NHS legislative framework and its application limited their freedom to grow and raise charitable funds effectively. We must do everything we can to support the valuable work our charities do, and often that means removing red tape and bureaucracy and allowing them to choose their own legal frameworks.

That goes to the heart of the Bill. It is something that charities have asked for, and we should support them, but the complexities of the royalties arrangements for Great Ormond Street hospital require Parliament’s involvement to effect the transfers. I support these measures and the removal of the Secretary of State’s power to appoint trustees. Great Ormond Street hospital for children is well loved and well used by families from right across the country, as has been said, and it is surely in our interests to make it as easy as possible for the charity to operate effectively so that it can concentrate on providing care for children. The Bill does just that, by allowing the transfer of royalties while consolidating the new Great Ormond Street hospital charity as an independent charity, free from Government and ministerial involvement.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady has twice mentioned the need for charities to be free from regulation and Government involvement. Will she study the recent history of Kids Company, which has been accused of many abuses, and certainly a great waste of public money, as a result of lax regulation and the permissive attitude of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister?

[Mary Robinson]

It is absolutely right that the governance arrangements for charities, and any other body responsible for donated moneys, be adequate and robust, and I know that that will be the case here.

Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill, which I wish a swift and easy passage. I am confident that with so much support it will be driven into law and will not drift into Neverland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the role of trustees. As a trustee of a charity myself, I shall ensure that my copies of the Racing Post— well thumbed as they are—are not brought into any more trustee meetings. It is also important to point out that the Charity Commission will continue to have oversight. I think that that addresses the rather waspish comment made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson).

[Paul Flynn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

With enormous, enormous pleasure, to waspishness I will give way.

[Paul Flynn]

There are 5,000 leading charities in Britain, and there is great concern about the activities of some of them. The majority do a great deal of good, but we know of the abuses carried out by “chuggers”—which constitute robbery as far as donors are concerned—and the use of call centres to plague elderly, vulnerable people. There is a need not for wholesale deregulation, but for new regulations to control those charities.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman has invited me to stray from the immediate purport of the Bill. Let me avail myself briefly of that invitation, and agree with him wholeheartedly. The people who wander up and down our streets waylaying busy shoppers, business men and women and commuters trying to elicit bank details and donations, and those who worry and harass people in their homes with telephone calls seeking charitable donations, are a curse and a menace. I believe that the authorities and Her Majesty’s Government are alert to that, and I rather hope that during the course of this Parliament we shall see some redress in respect of an issue that blights the lives of many of our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills may wish to clarify the position, but I am not aware that Great Ormond Street raises funds in that way, although I do not think that the issue is crucial to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely brilliant and crucial point. We want to get away from jobbery wherever it happens, and it is most likely to happen in areas where one party is in government for a very long time.

[Paul Flynn]

There is a current example of grotesque jobbery in the appointment by the Prime Minister of the Conservative Members of the Council of Europe, and three splendid Members, including the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), have been—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I really have tried to give as much leeway as I can this morning to this debate, but I cannot reconcile Great Ormond Street hospital with the Council of Europe. I am quite sure that, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring some kind of analogy from “Peter Pan”, Never Land and the Council of Europe, he can do so, but I must warn him that it will have to be really quite narrow.

Off-patent Drugs Bill

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The issue about licensing could apply to any off-label prescribing. What we are talking about for some would, in theory, have to apply to all, because there is a risk to everything. That suggests a provision of licensing for all, which is not where we are going. This matter is not closed—let us be quite clear about that. If this measure does not go through today, the matter is not closed.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

rose—

[Alistair Burt]

I will deal with these two interventions, and then, if colleagues do not mind, I will have to make progress.

[Paul Flynn]

I have long known the right hon. Gentleman and greatly respect him, but today the House has spoken on this with one voice, from both sides, with expert opinion and personal opinion. Only one voice has been silent in this debate, and that is the voice of the industry, the ABPI, which has an interest in its profits. Is its plea to keep its profits intact the only reason he is making this piffling objection to the Bill?

[Alistair Burt]

I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time, and that last bit was rather unworthy of him. I have not seen anything from the ABPI, but having picked up this measure from my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences, dealt with the evidence, as I have seen it, and had conversations with officials, I am perfectly convinced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I withdraw the remark immediately and apologise to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan).

I am seeking to find a bit of space to explain, in the face of a House that plainly does not accept it, why the Government hold their position. I am very anxious to convey it, because I believe there is a risk that people outside will take the view that something is preventing people from getting access to drugs that they may want. I think that that position is wrong, and that is why I want to make clear the Government’s position.

Since last year, the Government have had a series of meetings with the people involved. We have received input from the MS Society and the General Medical Council. It is clear from the conversations the Government have had that this is a very complex area with a number of factors at play, including easy access to robust evidence for prescribers; information about licensing status and what it means; and clear and more accessible information for researchers and charities on how to get research findings into the system and through to licensing, if that is the approach they wish to follow. What is also clear is the genuine commitment to work together to make those things happen and to investigate whether there are other non-legislative improvements that can be made to support appropriate medicines use and benefit NHS patients.

We know that there are issues with access to medicines, but they are in no way unique to unlicensed or off-label medicines use. There are areas where there is far too much variation in the use of licensed, NICE-appraised medicines, and we are working hard with the NHS to address that, but there is no single magic bullet. The measures before us today are more likely to impede access than to facilitate it. What is more, they would be of benefit to only one medicine, one condition and one group of patients at a time.

We are committed to working with NHS England, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, NICE, the GMC, the all-party group on off-patent drugs, and patient and professional groups, to address the issues that the round-table group identified. MHRA, NICE and the GMC are committed to working together to improve the understanding of the differences in licence status and how clinicians can practically work with that. The GMC is preparing a topic for its website to dispel myths and confusion about off-label prescribing and to explain how its guidance applies. NICE and the GMC are also considering further joint work to support clinicians in discussing and sharing knowledge.

As doctors may prescribe unlicensed medicines where it is necessary to do so to meet the specific needs of individual patients, and given that patients need sufficient information to allow them to make an informed decision along with their doctor, NICE is looking at making more use of patient decision aids further to support implementation of its clinical guidelines, to help individuals work through the pros and cons of different treatment options.

We are looking at how we might provide better information to help researchers and other stakeholders know how they can propose subject matter for NICE’s clinical evidence summaries and for updates to NICE guidance. NICE will be working with the “British National Formulary” to ensure that off-label uses are included where there is robust evidence to support them and that they are presented in a standard way to help clinicians to use them.

We are committed to working with the research community to set out the pathways and options for bringing research evidence to the attention of clinicians more systematically. This will involve working with a number of bodies in the research community, including the Association of Medical Research Charities, and I know there is a commitment to do so. The outcomes of the accelerated access review will also feed into that.

Let me say a little on the detail of why I do not think the Bill is the right way forward and about what is the best way forward. The Government do not support the Bill, just as the then Government did not support the virtually identical measure introduced by Jonathan Evans last year. I want to be absolutely clear about why that is the case: when it comes to the primary objective, which is to make sure that our NHS can treat everyone according to the most up-to-date and robust evidence, the hon. Member for Torfaen and I are in complete agreement. However, legislating in this way is not the way to achieve that goal.

There are clear benefits in using licensed drugs based on evidence about their safety profile, side effects, efficacy and so on. The guidance from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the General Medical Council is clear that a licensed medicine being used within its licence indications should be the first choice for patient care, and that is exactly as it should be. However, the guidance also makes it clear that clinicians are free to use their clinical judgment to treat their patients with a licensed medicine used outside its licensed indication—off-label prescribing—or, indeed, an unlicensed medicine where such a medicine is the best clinical choice for the patient or there is no licensed medicine to meet the particular need. In fact, the guidance from the MHRA and the GMC sets out a hierarchy of medicine use.

[Paul Flynn]

The right hon. Gentleman prays in aid the MHRA, which is entirely funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Why does he not confess that he has taken this cruel and unfair stand of following what the industry has told him to maximise its profits and put patients last?

[Alistair Burt]

That is not the case.

NHS (Contracts and Conditions)

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I will speak briefly, because unfortunately I cannot stay until the end of the debate. First, I thank those who signed the petition. It is a genuine vox pop, not something that any party brought to the House. A large number of people signed the petition because there was genuinely an explosion of anger. It is absolutely right that we listen to those voices and ensure that they are heard in the House, and that this debate should take place. It is the first debate of its kind—the first debate from the Petitions Committee. There is another one in a fortnight’s time, on a subject that terrifies MPs. We hide our heads under the pillow to avoid talking about it, but the public are very happy to talk about it in great numbers. That subject is the idea of legalising cannabis so that people here can enjoy the benefits enjoyed in many other countries that do not have a neurotic policy that is self-defeating and actually increases cannabis harm. But that is the second debate, which is coming up. This is a great innovation by the House.

The two previous speakers in this debate made very illuminating speeches. I agree with almost every word that has been said. Of course, we genuflect before the expertise and good sense of the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). She is someone else who has come to the House as a candidate elected not so much by a party as by a popular vote. Let us hope that politics is changing.

The issue that I worry about greatly is how we behave as political parties. We seem to be indifferent to, or unconscious of, the effect of our words. The use of soundbites, scares and fearmongering is extremely damaging, and it happens so often with the health service. The Daily Mail, about a year ago, had three page 1 headlines all about the health service in Wales. There was no way in which news values, or the problems that arose, which were hugely exaggerated, justified those headlines, but they were there for a political purpose: to denigrate the health service in Wales, under Labour, and to boost the chances of the Conservative party getting votes in the election.

I believe that there is an element of that in this case. Many speeches by the Secretary of State contain valuable, intelligent thoughts about how to improve the health service. If there is some statistical blip that shows there is a problem somewhere—something that is unexpected— of course it should be followed up, but not by an hysterical headline that has one effect, which is to add greatly to the anxiety of patients who are about to go into hospital. As the hon. Lady said, that is a terrifying experience, and people suffer greatly from anxiety beforehand. If they are told that there is a 16% greater chance of dying at the weekend, that anxiety and fear is greatly multiplied.

The Government should not be out to win favour and get votes in—to win popularity—by the sensationalist way in which they introduce this subject. It has rebounded on them with this petition and the reaction from those involved. It is right that we in this House should be aware of what is written in tweets and blogs. The reaction was there, and it is right that this should be brought to the House. One doctor put his payslip online. Karan Kapoor posted a letter alongside the payslip on Facebook, and it has now received hundreds of comments of support and thousands of shares on the social network. He wrote:

“My on calls per month add approximately 120 hours of work in addition to my normal working week. This is made up of being on call one day per week and one weekend in 5—5pm on Friday to 8am on Monday. Simple maths says that works out as £2.61 per hour—significantly less than the minimum wage let alone the living wage.”

The evidence was there—and came out in great abundance—of anger at what the Secretary of State was saying, and the misguided and inaccurate picture that he was giving of life in the health service at weekends.

Another tabloid story suggested that we MPs get privileged treatment when we go to hospital. I was rather astonished by that, so I searched the story to find out which hospital gives us privileged treatment, and I discovered that it is St Thomas’s. Well, the only hospital that I have ever been in during the 80 years of my life is St Thomas’s, and I went there as an MP and there was certainly no privileged treatment. I was, quite rightly, treated the same as anyone else. I was stuck in a cubicle and waited there for hours and then stayed overnight in a ward, and rightly so. But the press will believe only negative stories about MPs. That goes on.

I would like to ask the Minister this. A long time ago there was, I recall, another gimmick that a Health Secretary used: he force-fed a beefburger to his young child, when we were all terrified of catching Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from eating beef. That seemed a very unwise thing to do. It is not new for people to use fearmongering and gimmicks to advance political causes. The one question is a simple one. If we are to increase the services at weekends, where will the staff come from? Are we suddenly going to magic up special weekend surgeons? If we improve the service at weekends, we have to reduce the service in the week. Perhaps the Minister can explain that to us.

Barts Health NHS Trust

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

The CQC’s inspection report does identify some issues of concern to do with staff morale and bullying. As I said to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) a moment ago, the issues need to be addressed. We want a culture in which all staff can speak out about poor patient care and feel supported in doing so. That is exactly what we have put in place over recent years.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It has been very disappointing that the Minister, for whom I have a very high regard, has dealt with this disgrace with a crudely political response. Does she not agree that an important element in the recovery of all patients is for them to have faith in their doctors and in the health service? No Government have done more than this one to undermine confidence in the health service throughout the nation. Does she not feel that great damage is being done by making the greatest political achievement of the past 100 years—the national health service—a political football to be knocked about by parties and by undermining that faith in the health service? That is something that the public will not forget and will never forgive.

[Jane Ellison]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s basic premise—not at all. In fact, recently, people’s satisfaction with the NHS has gone up. What he says is a slur on our hard-working clinicians, who respond so magnificently to the pressures in our system. This Government have backed them with money and support. I just do not recognise the picture the hon. Gentleman paints.

Jimmy Savile (NHS Investigations)

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend speaks wisely. There were four separate disclosures of sexually inappropriate behaviour by Savile in separate incidents, not with patients, but with other people, including a young child. My hon. Friend is right: it is not just about mandatory reporting; it is also about making sure that when that reporting is done by a member of staff, something actually happens. That is part of the reason we need to do this consultation properly, because it is about making sure that the right actions are taken by people who are able to take those actions. That clearly did not happen in this case.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On 11 different occasions, Savile attended new year’s eve parties at 10 Downing street. He was honoured, knighted and lionised by the establishment. They might not have known, but the unanswered question is: why did the intelligence and security services not warn? Why did they constantly give him clearance, allowing him not only to mix with Prime Ministers and royalty, but to prey on these defenceless innocents?

[Mr Hunt]

The reason, I think, is that the security services would not have known about this. What the report makes clear is that where people did speak out about concerns, nothing was done. That is what is so unacceptable and what we have to change. Savile was a national celebrity, who was treated as such by the establishment at the time, the establishment not having any idea of this evil abuse that was happening.

Tobacco Products (Standardised Packaging)

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend is exactly right and I believe that all Members want to see fewer children taking up smoking. I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that the places where children take up smoking are very unevenly distributed. On maintaining the Government’s duty on health inequality, which we have put in statute, measures to prevent young people and children from taking up smoking directly address some key health inequality issues.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Of course, this is not a Conservative statement, because it is evidence-based, prejudice-free and intelligent. Will the Minister add further lustre to her reputation by starting an investigation into the potential danger of electronic cigarettes normalising smoking?

[Jane Ellison]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Sir Cyril’s report makes a brief reference to the normalisation issue and I think the hon. Gentleman will be interested to read that. Of course, the Government have moved to ban the selling of e-cigarettes to under-18s—a move that was supported by the e-cigarette industry for the most part.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I know that NHS England is totally committed to transparency and when I make my final decision on the Safe and Sustainable review, we will publish a lot of information. But all the things that he refers to are subject to normal freedom of information processes, and I am sure that he will pursue those.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

4. What his policy is on the introduction of standardised tobacco packaging; and if he will make a statement.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. When the Government plan to respond to their consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)]

The Government have yet to make a decision. We are still considering the lengthy consultation, and in due course we will publish a report on that.

[Paul Flynn]

We heard on the radio this morning about the poor state of the country on levels of cancer. The Government have an opportunity to reduce those levels by the Bill and by the minimum price for alcohol, but when it comes to the Queen’s Speech, have they again been persuaded by the blandishments of lobbyists, and instead of putting the health of the nation first, have put the needs of big business first?

[Anna Soubry]

I certainly do not agree with the latter part of that. Just because something was not in the Queen’s Speech does not preclude us from introducing legislation should we take that decision. The hon. Gentleman makes some important points when he talks about the link between mortality and choices about how much alcohol one drinks or whether one chooses to smoke, but we await a decision from the Government.

Business of the House

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I think that all Members and people outside the House will, almost without exception, have been the recipients of such nuisance calls, which can be very distressing, particularly for older and vulnerable people. He will know that this is exactly the sort of issue that it is helpful to raise, for example, in the pre-recess Adjournment debate, not least because that will focus the mind of the Information Commissioner. In any case, I will make sure that the issue, which touches on the responsibilities of Ofcom and the ICO, is raised with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

When can we debate the apparent ambition of the Prime Minister to rival the work of King James I and David Lloyd George in degrading the honours system? A Select Committee has already criticised the Prime Minister for setting up in March this year, without the knowledge or consent of Parliament, a new Committee dominated by the Whips, which exists to give honours to MPs. The distribution of consolation prizes to sacked Ministers is likely to bring the honours system into further disrepute and ridicule.

[Mr Lansley]

I do not welcome what the hon. Gentleman says. In this House as elsewhere, we should honour public service. This is a mechanism for honouring public service, and I see absolutely no reason why this Members of this House should be debarred from having access to that kind of honour.

Veterans (Mental Health)

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate. Sadly, we do not give anything like the attention we should to the consequences of our decisions to go to war. There are even instances where attempts seem to have been made to suppress knowledge of those consequences. In the past, it was possible for me as a Back Bencher to read out the names of all those who had fallen in the Iraq war and later in the Afghan war. Such practice is now expressly forbidden by the rules of the House. If I attempted to read out those names and their ranks today—I think that they would make a greater impression than any speech that I could make—it would take about 25 minutes to complete the list. The House has decided that it does not want to hear that, so it will never happen again.

There was an attempt to change the system of announcing the names of the fallen at Prime Minister’s Question Time. The names were announced on a Monday and a Tuesday, but MPs protested, saying that they wanted to hear those names announced at a time when hon. Members and the press could give them their maximum attention, so we have now gone back to the original time. I believe that the country wishes to understand the consequences of war.

I want to mention the case of a constituent of the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). If I have the hon. Gentleman’s permission to mention the details, I will be happy to relay the story. The case of Sergeant Dan Collins has moved everyone. He went to war at the age of 29. He was optimistic and courageous and had a brilliant record of service. He was shot on two occasions and on two other occasions, he was damaged by improvised explosive devices, but the incidents that tormented him the most were the deaths of two of his friends, one of whom died in the most dreadful circumstances, having lost a number of limbs. The sergeant was holding him as he died. It was that incident that tormented him. He had fine treatment from his family, a loving girlfriend and help from the local charity, Healing the Wounds. Tragically, he took his own life earlier this year—he had attempted to do so before.

If today’s tragedies are confirmed, the number who have fallen is 404. Sergeant Dan Collins will not be numbered among those and neither will many others. The results of the Afghan war will be seen not just in the numbers of the dead and the civilian dead, who are uncounted, but in the 2,000 soldiers who are now broken in body or mind. It is right that we should do all that we can to treat them with the greatest care.

We should say a word of thanks to the Welsh Government, who have taken this matter very seriously. Recently, the Welsh Minister for Health, Lesley Griffiths, announced that she was setting up a £500,000 fund to ensure that every health authority in Wales has a specialised doctor with experience in dealing with veterans to deal with those who come back from the war. It is absolutely right that we do not disguise or shy away from the consequences of our actions.

In my time in Parliament, we went to war in Iraq on the basis of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. We stayed in Afghanistan mainly on the pretext of a terrorist threat to the United Kingdom from the Taliban. That threat did not exist; there were threats from al-Qaeda, but not from the Taliban. We are now being told that we should contemplate war against Iran on the basis that it has missiles carrying nuclear weapons with a range of 6,000 miles, which do not exist.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about the mental health of veterans? The scope is getting a bit too wide.

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful for your patience, Mr Dobbin. Finally, when we establish a code of conduct and a covenant between us and the soldiers, our main duty should be to put as the first line a pledge that we will never go into a war that is unnecessary. That is our duty in this House. If we are to avoid fatalities and more people being mentally damaged, our main task is to resist those who cry for war.