Tag: Paul Flynn

  • Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2014-04-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what discussions he has had with the Royal College of Pathologists on the effects on human and animal safety of reductions in the number of national pathology laboratories from 14 to 7; and if he will publish the impact assessment produced by his Department on such a plan.

    George Eustice

    Animal Health Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) and Defra have met with the Royal College of Pathologists, to discuss the new Surveillance model, on four separate occasions between September 2012 and the introduction of changes to the Surveillance model on 1 April 2014.

    A formal impact assessment was not required for this work because it does not involve a change in regulation. Submission into the scanning surveillance system is a voluntary activity that has no regulatory aspect. However the ‘Changes to the delivery of Veterinary Scanning Surveillance in England and Wales, December 2013′ document published on the AHVLA website does consider the impact of the changes, recognises that there are negative impacts (e.g. some farms will be further from an AHVLA Post Mortem facility) but concludes that these are outweighed by the benefit of having stronger national centres of excellence and a better coordinated network of support from private practices.

  • Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral Answer of 30 April 2014, Official Report, column 824, what the evidential basis is for the statement that nuclear power is carbon-free.

    Mr David Cameron

    There is a strong consensus in the global scientific community that nuclear energy represents one of the lowest carbon forms of baseload electricity generation.

    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the life cycle emissions associated with the generation of electricity from nuclear power groups are 16g CO2 per kWh electricity produced. This is very low compared to the equivalent figure for electricity produced by natural gas turbines, which is in excess of 400g CO2/kWh, and similar to the IPCC’s estimate for widespread non-baseload form of electricity generation, such as wind.

    The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report ‘Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation’ states that the operation of the nuclear power station accounts for less than 1% of the total life cycle emissions of nuclear electricity generation.

  • Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Paul Flynn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Flynn on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how much has been paid in overtime and other costs incurred in the last three weeks due to changes in HM Passport Office.

    James Brokenshire

    The precise information requested by the Hon Member is not available. Overtime
    payments to staff are recorded by the month in which payment is made. In May
    2014, Her Majesty’s Passport Office incurred overtime costs of £964,742.

  • 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.