Tag: Paul Flynn

  • Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2014-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many staff from (a) his Department and (b) the Atomic Weapons Establishment are on secondment to an institution in the United States involved in nuclear weapons development or nuclear warhead stockpile, stewardship, stability and safety research.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    There are no Ministry of Defence staff and fifteen Atomic Weapons Establishment staff employed by AWE plc on secondment to these institutions in the United States.

  • Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what information has been provided to his Department by (a) EDF Energy and (b) the Office for Nuclear Regulation on the application by EDF Energy to extend the operating life of the Dungeness B reactor.

    Michael Fallon

    In December 2013, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) received a notification from EDF Energy of the intention to extend the planned operating life of Dungeness B AGR power station (as required under the Nuclear Liabilities Funding Agreement). Information relating to this process was shared with the Department. The decision on whether in practice to extend the life of the plant will be a commercial matter for EDF Energy. This is subject to the relevant safety and security regulations.

  • Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2014-06-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what discussions he had on nuclear power with (a) his Chinese counterpart and (b) other members of the delegation of the Chinese prime minister during their visit to the UK in June; what matters were agreed; and if he will publish texts of any such agreements reached.

    Michael Fallon

    My rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State met with Premier Li and various Chinese companies to discuss areas of on-going cooperation within the nuclear power sector. During these discussions the UK and Chinese Governments signalled a deepening of their partnership on civil nuclear energy through the signing of a joint statement on civil nuclear power.

    Alongside this, HMG have signed a Four Party Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Civil Nuclear Fuel Cycle Supply Chain with the INS, CNNC and CAEA to further cooperation across the civil nuclear backend fuel cycle, creating potential commercial opportunities for UK companies.

    Both countries see the importance of working together on the UK’s nuclear new build programme, China’s own domestic civil nuclear programme and in third country markets, to maximise the billion pound opportunities this presents for both UK and Chinese companies.

    Both the joint statement and Four Party MoU are published on our website at

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/multimillion-boost-to-uk-economy-as-china-and-uk-government-sign-civil-nuclear-agreement-and-sign-agreement-to-deepen-cooperation-on-climate-change.

  • Paul Flynn – 2015 Speech on Syrian Air Strikes

    Below is the text of the speech made by Paul Flynn in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

    We are fighting and losing the wrong war. This is a war of hearts and minds that can never be won with bombs and bullets. The situation is truly terrifying, and we underestimate it if we imagine that it is confined to a couple of countries. People who have been brought up in this country, gone to our schools and absorbed our culture and values find themselves seduced by the message of Daesh. Two such people went to Syria from Cardiff and are now dead. They gave their lives to this mad, murderous cult. We must examine why they did that.

    The reason is that Daesh’s narrative is very cleverly conceived to appeal to adolescents. It offers danger, adventure in foreign parts and martyrdom. It also deepens the sense of victimhood by churning up all the stories from the middle ages about how the wicked Christian crusaders slaughtered without mercy the Muslims. We must challenge that dialogue of hate. We must have a different narrative. There is a good narrative for us to take up, because in the past 200 years we have had great success in places like Cardiff and Newport in building up mixed communities of races and religions.

    We must not imagine that anything will be over as a result of what happens in Syria or Iraq. This has spread throughout the world—throughout Asia and throughout South America. There is hardly a country in the world where Daesh does not want to spread its hatred. It has a worldwide plan to divide the world into Muslim communities and Christian communities that are at war. In other countries there is great suffering in many of the Christian communities that are being persecuted. We are falling into the trap it designed in Sharm el-Sheikh, Tunisia and Paris to pull us on to the punch. It is saying, “This is the way to get a world war going. This is the way to incite the west to send in military people and have a world war.” This is precisely what it wants—it has said so. It wants a world war and we must not fall into the trap.

    We have heard today throughout this House some very good, sincere speeches, but I believe that the combination of two dangerous views, “Something must be done” and “Give war a chance”, leads us to the position that we are now in. Those of us who were in the House when we went to war in Iraq were told, by the same people who are telling us now that there are 70,000 friendly troops, that there were definitely weapons of mass destruction there. There were not. In 2006, we were told that we could go into Helmand with no chance of a shot being fired. We lost 454 of our soldiers there. Little has been achieved. Because of decisions taken in this House in the past 20 years, we have lost the lives of 633 of our soldiers. I believe that if we go in now, nothing much will happen. There will be no improvement—we will rearrange the rubble, perhaps—but we will strengthen the antagonism and deepen the sense of victimhood among Muslims worldwide; they will have another excuse. We must not fall into that trap. We need to have a counter-dialogue, and get it into the media and on to the world wide web, to say that there is a great story to be told of harmony in our country. We must put that forward as a genuine alternative.