paulflynnunrevised

[paulflynnunrevised]

Who pays the IEA piper?

Who pays the IEA piper? 

(A blog I wrote back in May 2015)

What sensitive irrational characters lobbyists are. The word has become so toxic that they hide behind euphemisms such as ‘public policy advisers’. W e all know what that means and the fear of stigmatization is understood and accepted. Less defensible are those who seek respect as objective observers and describe themselves as ‘Think Tanks’ when they are hired guns for usually bad causes. My original tweet said “So-called THINK TANK IEA publishes pro-alcohol industry report. Who paid for it? IEA refused to name funders in past. THINK TANK or LOBBYISTS?” Fairly clear that the point I was making is whether the Institute of Economic Affairs is a think tank or paid lobbying firm. There were immediate squeals of irrational abuse from the IEA and other lobbyists. Someone who is described as IEA’s Head of Public Policy tweeted “Ryan Bourne ‏‪@MrRBourne Hypocrite ‪@paulflynnmp voted at every stage in favour of Licensing Act - now accuses ‪@iealondon of being lobbyists for defending it.” No sign of rational thought there. I made no judgment on the success or otherwise on the reforms that I long supported. Ryan Bourne evades the serious issue of IEA’s status and indulges in a probably libellous ad hominem attack.  He invents a non-issue and then attacks the absurdity of his own creation, other IEA groupies followed the feeding frenzy into irrelevance. Persistent requests by me made again today and in the past remain unanswered.

  According to its website, the IEA does “not place a list of our donors in the public domain. It is a matter for individual donors whether they wish their donation to be public or private — we leave that entirely to their discretion.” But in 2014 The Guardian disclosed that the IEA took substantial sums of cash from large tobacco firms, and – coincidentally – published reports strongly defending the tobacco industry against tighter regulation.

   Which begs the question: who pays the IEA piper?

      In November 2012 the PASC Committee focused on political campaigning by charities and questioned Christopher Snowdon, Research Fellow of the Institute for Economic Affairs.

    Paul Flynn: You say there have been no examples of political bias from the IEA.  I have just read this remarkable document and I would suggest it is not a balanced document, but we will come back to that.  The Atlantic Bridge: what lessons do you draw from the fact that the Atlantic Bridge was advised by the Charity Commission to end their activities?

Christopher Snowdon: I don’t know enough about the case, I am afraid.

Paul Flynn: Would you describe the Atlantic Bridge as having a “militant agenda”?

Christopher Snowdon: I don’t know anything about them.

Paul Flynn: I can fill you in on it.  The Atlantic Bridge was an organisation dominated by prominent members of the Conservative Party and prominent members of the Tea Party tendency in America.  They existed to promote things like the Iraq war, the Afghan war and other American agendas in Britain.  They also imported brainwashed young people as researchers in this place, who were distributed to Conservative MPs and bored us all stiff on the Terrace with their extreme views.  You are not aware of it.  

Christopher Snowdon: Not really, no.  Sorry.

Paul Flynn: Just on the question of “militant”: you describe certain organisations as having a “militant agenda” in the non‑political view of the IEA, and the militant groups are the Child Poverty Action Group, War on Want and Pesticide Action Network.  Can you enlarge on why these people are militants?  

Christopher Snowdon: Militant?  Both War on Want and the Child Poverty Action Group are on the far left politically.

Paul Flynn: That is militant, is it?  

Christopher Snowdon: I think that is a reasonable viewpoint.

Paul Flynn: You have a fixation about smoking and the smoking ban.  You claim in your document, you pray in aid evidence, that taxes on alcohol are intrinsically unpopular with the population, and you would say the same about tobacco—that it was unpopular to ban tobacco.  The evidence you offer is a report from the World Health Organisation in 2004.  Are you happy that that is a rational basis on which to found an argument: the popularity of the smoking ban?

Christopher Snowdon: The World Health Organisation in that particular paper said that a tax on alcohol is intrinsically unpopular, as indeed taxes on most things tend to be unpopular with the people who purchase them.  With the smoking issue, ASH themselves—Action on Smoking and Health—said in their financial accounts from some years back, which I quote in there, that it is very difficult to raise funds for the anti‑smoking cause, because it does not seem to be particularly popular.  

Paul Flynn: The theme running through this book is that popularity should determine causes.  If it is a popular cause, is should be enacted, and if it is an unpopular cause, it should not be supported.  Could I just say that, if you had got figures more up to date than 2004, you would find that there was 56% support for the smoking ban in 2003 and 81% support in 2011?  I can give you each individual year.  Clearly this has been an example of a ban being imposed—obviously smokers objected—that then became very popular and very successful, which is absent from your document.

Christopher Snowdon: That is not relevant to my point, which is that, at the time the campaign was ongoing for the smoking ban, most people were against it.  This is the argument I am making.

Paul Flynn: Do you think Government should just do those things that are popular, not the things that are necessarily right?  

Christopher Snowdon: No; I am suggesting that Government should not fund lobby groups to campaign for causes that may be dearer to their hearts than they are to the public’s.  

Paul Flynn: Does not Government have a duty to do good things in their simplest form?  There are already hugely well founded organisations like Forest and others that are in the pay of the tobacco industry and are encouraging young people into this addiction that will lead to their early deaths.  Does the Government not have a responsibility to ensure that another point of view is put forward and that is funded as well?

Christopher Snowdon: No, I don’t think so.  What you are making there is basically what the European Commission’s argument is for funding all these environmental groups and, indeed, think tanks: to act as a counterweight to all the industrial lobbying that they receive.  I do not think it is the place of Government to deliberately create front groups.

Paul Flynn: Would you agree there should be a balance between those who are lobbying for their own greed, their own profit, and those who are advocating the public good with health?  If you are a lobbyist with a bottomless pocket, you can pay £250,000 and have a dinner with the Prime Minister to lobby him personally.  Is that reasonable?  In those circumstances, should the causes that are lobbying for the public good have some assistance?

Christopher Snowdon: No, because it is dishonest.

Paul Flynn: Is it not dishonest to buy an MP, and for countries like Azerbaijan and Israel to invite lots of MPs to their country, butter them up, pay for their hotels, pay their expenses and then bring them back and expect them to deliver?  Is that dishonest?

Christopher Snowdon: I don’t know if it is dishonest.  It is an attempt at persuasion.  Even if it were dishonest, two wrongs would not make a right.  If the Department of Health wishes to bring in a smoking ban, plain packaging for cigarettes or a ban on display, which it clearly does, then it should just get on and do it, rather than go through this charade of creating numerous front groups, using public money to finance campaigns that, on the face of it, do not look like Government‑funded campaigns.  They look like civil society campaigns to try to persuade the public on a policy that has already been decided within the bureaucracy and has not been decided democratically or through reasoned debate.  It has been decided on high, and then these policies are pushed to the people using what we would describe, if industry was involved, as front groups.

Chair: It is passing off organisations that purport to be independent but actually are agents of government.

Christopher Snowdon: Of the state, yes.

Paul Flynn: You make no apologies for the fact that the piece of research you quote is eight years old and you did not check the subsequent research.

Christopher Snowdon: No, because it is completely irrelevant that it is eight years old.  The point being made there is that, at the time the Government was funding groups to campaign on their behalf, the policy was unpopular.  My argument throughout this report is that many of the things that the Government did create groups to campaign for are unpopular.  There would be no need to go through this charade if they were popular policies.  If you have popular policies, you simply put them in your manifesto and then you bring them about.  

Paul Flynn: In your ideal world, Mr Snowdon, because there was not a majority among smokers for a smoking ban, we should not have had a smoking ban.  The great benefits that have resulted from that would not come about.  

Christopher Snowdon: I personally hate the smoking ban and I wish it had never come in, so it does not have any great benefits for me.  The fact that 80% of the people may approve of it still means that 20% of the people disapprove of it.  Incidentally, 20% of the population are smokers, so we probably disagree on how beneficial the smoking ban has been.

Paul Flynn: Do we judge all Government policies on the effects they have on Mr Snowdon?  Is this a rational argument? 

Christopher Snowdon: No, we do not, but nor do we judge them on Mr Flynn.  Whether the smoking ban is a good or bad thing is by the by.  I am using it as an example to show a tendency that has been in government for the last 15 years.

  automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day https://ift.tt/2OwcBJK (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

The Grudged gift

Its deeply satisfying to see a campaign successfully home.

For 25 years MPs have been trying to establish a simple truth. CANNABIS HAS THERAPEUTIC QUALITIES. Governments have denied this simple fact. -Prejudice rich Evidence free.

Cannabis in its natural forms has been used for 5,000 year in all continents of the planet. The news has just reached the Government - one day into the parliamentary recess when the decisions cannot be probed.Twice this year the Government has stubbornly blocked  my parliamentray bill that corrects the false basis of the prohibition on medicinal cannabis. Now they have given in, doing the right deed for the wrong reason.

  Paul Flynn MP reacts to medical cannabis reforms

Nicholas ThomasReporter

Labour MP Paul Flynn speaks at a cannabis tea party outside London's Houses of Parliament in October 201 

      THE MP for Newport West, Paul Flynn, has said the UK government’s decision to legalise cannabis-derived medicines is “progress” but should have come sooner.

The home secretary, Sajid Javid, announced on Thursday (July 26) that specialist doctors would be able to prescribe the products to patients with exceptional medical needs by autumn this year.

Mr Flynn has long campaigned for cannabis – a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 – to be legalised for medical use.

  Reacting to the home secretary’s decision, Mr Flynn said: “For the first time in 45 years a British government has admitted that cannabis is a medicine.

“This is progress, even though the government were shamed into acting by the obscenity of films of children having their seizure-controlling medicine confiscated.”

Mr Flynn is referring to the case of Billy Caldwell, a 13-year-old boy with severe epilepsy whose cannabis oil was confiscated by customs officials at Heathrow airport when his mother attempted to bring it into the country from Canada.

Billy’s condition had shown marked improvement during periods of treatment with the oil.

    Mr Flynn now hopes the UK will explore cannabis-derived medicines as a potential treatment for other conditions, in line with other countries around the world.

“There is a bigger problem in the denial of cannabis medicine to many thousands who suffer from multiple sclerosis and epilepsy”, he said.

“Dozens of other countries have done the research and doctors should be allowed to prescribe [cannabis-derived medicines] for a whole range of other illnesses.”

While many people celebrate the news, including families who will now be able to legally access cannabis oil treatment, a leading children’s doctor has reminded people of the potential dangers of using such medicines without correct medical supervision.

  Dr Mike Linney, registrar and chair of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health ethics committee, said: “Cannabis-derived medicinal products have been shown to improve the quality of life for some children suffering with conditions such as severe epilepsy.

“This decision will come as a relief for these families, as it grants hope for other potential life enhancing treatment options.

“In addition, this ruling will potentially allow further much needed research into the benefits and side effects of cannabis-derived medicinal products.

“Now that a decision has been made, we look forward to hearing more from the Department for Health and Social Care and the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency, who will now develop a clear definition of what constitutes a cannabis-derived medicinal product.

  “However, in the meantime, I must stress the importance of parents not giving children unlicensed cannabinoid oil products.

“There is currently no clear evidence to suggest that they are safe or effective in treating medical conditions, and there is a serious risk that they will interfere with prescribed medications that the child is taking.

    automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day //paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2018/07/the-grudged-gift.html (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Hands off our history!

    Oh, No, you don’t.

 Tory Monmouth MP claims that Tories helped create the NHS. No, they did not. I was politically active in 1946 when the Tories voted 21 times, against the NHS Act including the First and Second readings.

They denounced a free health service as Hitlerian and “the first step to turn Britain into a Nazi economy” As it’s been a roaring success all Tory MPs wore a badge celebrating 70 years of the NHS.

Hands off our history. The NHS is Labour’s and Gwent’s finest achievement.

  ·    When will the whole world suss out Trump?

His recent tour left a trail of insulted friends and comforted enemies. His ploy is absurd, obvious and repeated. First he exaggerates the hopelessness of crisis, then miraculously he solves it in a few days through the alchemy of his self-confessed genius. The truth is that he has inflamed every frozen conflict he has addressed.

  It’s hilarious but no joke. This petulant child president has his impulsive finger on the nuclear button.

    *  One scam fades: another appears in shades of shameless greed.  Mobile telephone companies slip unfair conditions into their bills. We should all read them thoroughly. Some are almost impossible to leave-without coughing up vast cancellation penalties. Others charge excessive amounts for unwanted changes in service.  Facilities are added to the phones that are never used. One company went on charging a customer after a service was unused and even cancelled. These companies are difficult to deal with. Their contacts stick to a rigid script devoid of helpful dialogue.

 They must be challenged or they will get away with robbery.

  ·    The Commons is in chaos. All normal rules have collapsed as MPs break long traditions of pairing votes. Trust has gone. Last month I voted alongside a sick colleague on a morphine drip. Decisions that could wreck or restore our economy with a Brexit or Wreckit, are won on a handful of votes.  Time for politicians to step aside and allow the public their second thoughts. They are always better than first thoughts.

  *Sad to read of the death of Councillor Marian Morley. She served the city of Newport well in the 70s/80s as an intelligent and dedicated advocate for Alway and the city. Previously as Marian Westacott she had a distinguished career as a swimmer who represented Wales and she was an inspired teacher in Newport and Caldicot. May she rest in peace. 

automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day //paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2018/07/hands-off-our-history.html (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

The Grudged gift

Its deeply satisfying to see a campaign successfully home.

For 25 years MPs have been trying to establish a simple truth. CANNABIS HAS THERAPEUTIC QUALITIES. Governments have denied this simple fact. -Prejudice rich Evidence free.

Cannabis in its natural forms has been used for 5,000 year in all continents of the planet. The news has just reached the Government - one day into the parliamentary recess when the decisions cannot be probed.Twice this year the Government has stubbornly blocked  my parliamentray bill that corrects the false basis of the prohibition on medicinal cannabis. Now they have given in, doing the right deed for the wrong reason.

  Paul Flynn MP reacts to medical cannabis reforms

Nicholas ThomasReporter

Labour MP Paul Flynn speaks at a cannabis tea party outside London's Houses of Parliament in October 201 

      THE MP for Newport West, Paul Flynn, has said the UK government’s decision to legalise cannabis-derived medicines is “progress” but should have come sooner.

The home secretary, Sajid Javid, announced on Thursday (July 26) that specialist doctors would be able to prescribe the products to patients with exceptional medical needs by autumn this year.

Mr Flynn has long campaigned for cannabis – a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 – to be legalised for medical use.

  Reacting to the home secretary’s decision, Mr Flynn said: “For the first time in 45 years a British government has admitted that cannabis is a medicine.

“This is progress, even though the government were shamed into acting by the obscenity of films of children having their seizure-controlling medicine confiscated.”

Mr Flynn is referring to the case of Billy Caldwell, a 13-year-old boy with severe epilepsy whose cannabis oil was confiscated by customs officials at Heathrow airport when his mother attempted to bring it into the country from Canada.

Billy’s condition had shown marked improvement during periods of treatment with the oil.

    Mr Flynn now hopes the UK will explore cannabis-derived medicines as a potential treatment for other conditions, in line with other countries around the world.

“There is a bigger problem in the denial of cannabis medicine to many thousands who suffer from multiple sclerosis and epilepsy”, he said.

“Dozens of other countries have done the research and doctors should be allowed to prescribe [cannabis-derived medicines] for a whole range of other illnesses.”

While many people celebrate the news, including families who will now be able to legally access cannabis oil treatment, a leading children’s doctor has reminded people of the potential dangers of using such medicines without correct medical supervision.

  Dr Mike Linney, registrar and chair of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health ethics committee, said: “Cannabis-derived medicinal products have been shown to improve the quality of life for some children suffering with conditions such as severe epilepsy.

“This decision will come as a relief for these families, as it grants hope for other potential life enhancing treatment options.

“In addition, this ruling will potentially allow further much needed research into the benefits and side effects of cannabis-derived medicinal products.

“Now that a decision has been made, we look forward to hearing more from the Department for Health and Social Care and the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency, who will now develop a clear definition of what constitutes a cannabis-derived medicinal product.

  “However, in the meantime, I must stress the importance of parents not giving children unlicensed cannabinoid oil products.

“There is currently no clear evidence to suggest that they are safe or effective in treating medical conditions, and there is a serious risk that they will interfere with prescribed medications that the child is taking.

    automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day https://ift.tt/2mQ0afn (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Hands off our history!

    Oh, No, you don’t.

 Tory Monmouth MP claims that Tories helped create the NHS. No, they did not. I was politically active in 1946 when the Tories voted 21 times, against the NHS Act including the First and Second readings.

They denounced a free health service as Hitlerian and “the first step to turn Britain into a Nazi economy” As it’s been a roaring success all Tory MPs wore a badge celebrating 70 years of the NHS.

Hands off our history. The NHS is Labour’s and Gwent’s finest achievement.

  ·    When will the whole world suss out Trump?

His recent tour left a trail of insulted friends and comforted enemies. His ploy is absurd, obvious and repeated. First he exaggerates the hopelessness of crisis, then miraculously he solves it in a few days through the alchemy of his self-confessed genius. The truth is that he has inflamed every frozen conflict he has addressed.

  It’s hilarious but no joke. This petulant child president has his impulsive finger on the nuclear button.

    *  One scam fades: another appears in shades of shameless greed.  Mobile telephone companies slip unfair conditions into their bills. We should all read them thoroughly. Some are almost impossible to leave-without coughing up vast cancellation penalties. Others charge excessive amounts for unwanted changes in service.  Facilities are added to the phones that are never used. One company went on charging a customer after a service was unused and even cancelled. These companies are difficult to deal with. Their contacts stick to a rigid script devoid of helpful dialogue.

 They must be challenged or they will get away with robbery.

  ·    The Commons is in chaos. All normal rules have collapsed as MPs break long traditions of pairing votes. Trust has gone. Last month I voted alongside a sick colleague on a morphine drip. Decisions that could wreck or restore our economy with a Brexit or Wreckit, are won on a handful of votes.  Time for politicians to step aside and allow the public their second thoughts. They are always better than first thoughts.

  *Sad to read of the death of Councillor Marian Morley. She served the city of Newport well in the 70s/80s as an intelligent and dedicated advocate for Alway and the city. Previously as Marian Westacott she had a distinguished career as a swimmer who represented Wales and she was an inspired teacher in Newport and Caldicot. May she rest in peace. 

automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day https://ift.tt/2Ag4he1 (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

End this cruelty and allow the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes

It’s time to show some compassion to thousands of patients who could benefit from medical cannabis.

Outrage at the barbaric obscenity of a customs officer seizing the life-saving medicine of a child will propel a major reform. Legal relief from pain and seizures will be available for the first time in 50 years to tens of thousands of British patients. It offers the best protection against a British epidemic of opioid deaths which could be avoided. British law could at last be science and evidence-based, free from the crippling prejudice of the recent past.

Alfie Dingley was the first high profile case in which cannabis was requested to treat a child’s epileptic seizures. Alfie had up to 3,000 seizures and 48 hospital visits in just one year. After a public outcry, Hannah Deacon, Alfie’s mother received personal assurances from The Prime Minister that Alfie would receive his medicine. Three months later after surmounting numerous hurdles, Alfie can have his medicine of choice, but for a mere 20 days.

The television pictures of Billy Caldwell pierced all our hearts. In disbelief, we heard Billy Caldwell’s mum say doctors told her to inject the boy with morphine and let him slip away.

Charlotte Caldwell says she was given repeated chances to euthanize her son – and take comfort from the fact his brain could be used for medical research. She alleges one doctor approached her with a syringe driver to pump morphine into little Billy and told her it “would all be over in a moment”. Charlotte feared leaving her baby alone during a 16-week stay in Hospital.

The explosion of parliamentary anger forced Sajid Javid’s announcement of a government review of the scheduling of cannabis medicines. The commission would first have experts look at the evidence for the medical benefits of cannabis. Then government advisors will recommend what products might be rescheduled. There is impressive evidence of the value of cannabis relieving the symptoms of epilepsy and multiple sclerosis.

The Home Secretary said: “I’ve now come to the conclusion that it is time to review the scheduling of cannabis.”

There’s an additional reason why my Bill will be of great value. US States that have approved medical cannabis laws saw a dramatic reduction in opioid use, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Georgia. The Journal of the American Medical Association, found in states with medical cannabis dispensaries there was a 14.4% reduction in use of prescription opioids and a 7% reduction in opiate prescriptions filled in states with home-cultivation medical cannabis laws. More than forty thousand annual deaths from opioids, mostly prescribed, have alarmed even President Trump. There is evidence that the same pattern of opioid overuse and increasing deaths could be repeated here. Using the ancient safer mild alternative would avoid future British tragedies.

The UK’s international status on drugs is irrational and old-fashioned. Dozens of countries in Europe and the Americas are benefiting from science-based reforms. Canada is the first G7 nation to permit a nationwide marijuana market. In the USA 30 states allow for medical use.

The UK is in the embarrassing position of producing 44% of the world’s medicinal cannabis yet forbids its use here.

Diane Abbott MP, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, announced a significant change. For the first time since 1971 one of the two major parties has supported the legal prescription of cannabis oil for medical purposes. She said: “A number of recent heart-breaking cases have highlighted a failure of Government policy. Children have been put at risk and experienced extraordinary suffering because this Government drags its heels and refuses to grant cannabis oil licences. This must not continue. Labour in government will allow the legal prescription of cannabis oil for medical purposes. We will also review drugs policy to address all issues of public health. The Government should stop being so heavy-handed and bureaucratic and put the welfare of children first.”

Two mass acts of civil disobedience outside Parliament have proved that medicinal cannabis prohibition is unenforceable. On July 6th Parliament can trigger a rational, compassionate and practical reform. 

The second reading of the Legalisation of Cannabis (Medicinal Purposes) Bill is on Friday 6 July.

    automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day https://ift.tt/2IOOcek (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Case for medicinal cannabis overwhelming/

  Prejudice rich: evidence empty.

  The UK’s 50 year drugs prohibition catastrophe of increasing drugs use, deaths plus vast costs staggers on.  The Netherland's intelligent drugs policy of decriminalization delivered a prison crisis that we envy in a chronic shortage of prisoners and closure of 19 prisons.

  Here both main parties retreat from drug debate. They repeat counterproductive ‘tough’ policies gratifying to politicians; lethal to drug users.

  Happily, the tide of world opinion has turned.

  29 out of the 50 US states are supplying legal medicinal cannabis. It’s available in Canada and most EU states. I have called for MS sufferers and others denied their safe medicine of choice to break the law. Impatience is justified. That law is an ass. Civil disobedience against a bad, cruel law accelerates reforms.

  The absurdity of denying patents the world’s most ancient medicine was exposed by the young boy, Alfie Dingley, who suffers frequent seizures when he was denied the use of a cannabis-based medicine he used in Holland. Although the issue is one of health, the Government put up a ‘law and order minister’ to justify this outrage. Do they fear that a cannabis medicine used by a young boy would kick off a crime wave?

    Only Government action can help. Make it soon Prime Minister.

automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day https://ift.tt/2Ix1d0U (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Shameful Mrs May? And this is what?

    The PM attacked the Welsh Government as shameful. What is her view on the unnecessary anxiety and suffering inflicted on my seriously ill constuenet and many thousands of others in similar positions.?

  The story of Steven Evans has once again cast a stark light upon the cruel welfare system. Steven from Newport lives with cerebral palsy so severe that he could not open the letters sent to him by the DWP, he also struggled to communicate with them over the telephone. 

  last year he was sent notice of an assessment for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) three times by post. Steven unable to open the letters missed his assessment and his payments were stopped. In order to not miss any subsequent information, he asked for his correspondence to be sent via a local charity, the wonderful Disability Advice Project. 

  Unfortunately for Steven, he came up against the incredible rigidity of the DWP system as it refused to accept that he could have an address that he lived in and an address to which he would want correspondence sent. The computer system now realising that Steven had two addresses on file then stopped his payments for his Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). During the period between his payments stopping and being re-instated, Steven racked up debts into the thousands.

    Fortunately for Steven, he had support and the advice of experts at the Disability Advice Project. Many others are not so fortunate. Figures from the charity Scope reveal that 75% of all PIP appeals in Wales and the South West are granted, you can only imagine how high the figure could be if more applicants were aware of their rights. The Government must take urgent action to rectify their flawed Welfare procedures, with outsourced companies rewarding staff for the number of assessments that can be done in a day, not for the quality of those assessments. 

  It is a system designed to force you to appeal, to jump through hoops. Designed to wear down claimants until they no longer have the strength to fight.  Designed to cut costs to the detriment of the weakest in our society. It is a system in dire need of reassessment. 

    automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day https://ift.tt/2LambAi (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Top UK SEcurity view of Extraordinary Rendition 2014

  The Government''s welcome volte face on Abdel Hakim Belhadj is an improvement on their view to Home Affairs Committee 2014.

  Professor Sir David Omand: On the face of the Act, the analyst does actually have to be able to demonstrate that what they are doing in trying to pull out a needle of some wanted piece of information, say from a computer that has been associated with a terrorist, is necessary as well as proportionate. It would clearly fail the "necessary" test if the information could readily be obtained, for example, by a Security Service operation directly with the individual. For a lot of this, it is the only way you will find it, if it is on the internet.

Chair: Thank you. I think we have spent quite enough time now on looking for needles in haystacks.

Q631 Paul Flynn: In 2004, Mr Abdel Hakim Belhadj, with his pregnant wife, was abducted from Bangkok Airport, flown to Gaddafi’s Libya and tortured. In 2005, Jack Straw denied that the British Government had any involvement in renditions. In 2011, Human Rights Watch discovered documents and published them which named the British MI6 agent who they claim had boasted about this abduction, and Jack Straw has subsequently said that he was advised by MI6 on this. No one would have the knowledge of this and the truth on this without Human Rights Watch. Many other matters we would not have the truth of if it was not for whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. Do you not agree that we do need the whistleblowers, and they do convey to the public the truth of what is going on, rather than listen gullibly as we are told-as I have been and as the Chairman has been-that there was no involvement with extraordinary rendition. We were lied to. Do we not need whistleblowers?

Professor Sir David Omand: Let me say that a true whistleblower, in accepted international convention, has to exhaust his remedies. For example, Mr Snowden could have gone to his employers-I understand why he would not do that; I would not press that point. He could have gone to the inspector general, the independent figure of his organisation. I would not press that point either. He could have gone to Congress. Just imagine if Mr Snowden-flanked perhaps by the editor of The Guardian and the editor of The New York Times-had walked into the Congressional Oversight Committee and said, "The White House has kept from you and the Executive have kept from you knowledge of a massive programme of collecting data on American citizens." There would have been a huge political stink. I am quite sure President Obama would have been forced to issue the sort of statement that he issued a few weeks ago.

Paul Flynn: He has.

Professor Sir David Omand: Mr Snowden would have achieved his objective and he would not have had to steal 58,000 British top-secret documents or 1.7 million-

Paul Flynn: There is very little time, so can I just make two points?

Professor Sir David Omand-he did not do that, so in my book he is not a whistleblower.

Q632 Paul Flynn: Monsieur Dick Marty, who is a very distinguished Swiss MP, who was described by a Foreign Secretary here to me as being a madman-he was not; I know him very well. He was the person who very bravely took up this issue in Europe. Successive British politicians denied what was going on. The question is: do we not have to rely on the whistleblowers, on the Dick Martys, on the Human Rights Watch, to get the truth? Otherwise we live in ignorance, as politicians and the public. Of course they supply this service to us, surely.

Professor Sir David Omand: I believe in a free press. Under no circumstances will I want to muzzle the press. If they can perform a public service in exposing wrongdoing, let them do that. In a well-regulated democracy, you don’t have to rely on the media.

C

automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day https://ift.tt/2G1SRZ6 (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Cliff Richard: BBC outrage.

The HomeAffairs Committee considered the behaviour of the BBC in filming a raid on Cliff Richard's home. It seemed to be an outage to me then and it still is.  

There is no full transcript of the Lord Hall evidence session from September 2014.

The main conclusions of the Committee are:

  It is clear that South Yorkshire Police’s exchanges with the BBC went far beyond confirming the date of the search of Sir Cliff’s home. The Force played an active part in providing the BBC with detailed information which would allow it to secure exclusive coverage of the search. 

  Detailed knowledge of the investigation, beyond the name of the suspect clearly points to a leak from within Operation Yewtree and it is therefore surprising that Chief Constable Crompton did not seek to contact the Metropolitan Police soon after the approach from Mr Johnson to alert them to the possible leak and invite them to investigate. 

  It would have been open to South Yorkshire Police to decide to publicise the name of the subject of this investigation had they chosen to do so for operational reasons. However, the naming of suspects (or the confirming of a name when it is put to a force) when there is no operational need to do so is wrong. 

  South Yorkshire Police have told us that they did not want to publicise their investigation, but offered the BBC information about the search warrant as part of a compromise in which the BBC did not broadcast prematurely the information its reporter had. Senior BBC executives told us that the Chief Constable had only to pick up the phone and they would not have broadcast the story, a sensible editorial policy which should reduce the scope for conflict between legitimate journalistic activity and law enforcement, and which we are happy to endorse and publicise here. 

  We are disappointed by South Yorkshire Police’s inept handling of this situation. Whereas it is clear that the Force felt from the outset that it had to cooperate with the BBC in order to avoid jeopardising the investigation, its cooperation went far beyond notifying the BBC of the date, the Force failed to go to senior managers at the BBC to explain the risks inherent in premature broadcasting of the story, and it failed to alert the Metropolitan Police to the possibility of a leak from within Operation Yewtree. 

It is clear that Sir Cliff Richard has personally suffered enormous, irreparable damage to his reputation, though he has been neither arrested nor charged with any offence. No citizen should have to watch on live television their home being raided in this way. 

  automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day https://ift.tt/2HiQK7H (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Cairns Severn Bridge PR Catastrophe

    Genesis of the Cairns Tax

  Will the saga of the Severn Bridges toll ever be put on the stage?

It happened with a PACAC select committee meeting and it was a fine

entertaining musical.

The Severn Tolls farce might be judged too far-fetched to be plausible.

This year we have witnessed a series of nonsensical statements by the Tory

snake-oil hucksters that were designed to deceived. They all produced hoops of

grateful joy from a media with the concentration span of an earthworm. The

charlatan politicians plan to rob us again next January but demand our

gratitude for their fake news. The 'cut' is a con.

PIC: SOUTH WALES ARGUS. Left to Right, TORY MP David Davies , TORY Welsh

Secretary Alun Cairns, TORY Minister Chris Graying united in mission to sell

Tolls snake-oil.

  £3.70

On the 12th

December 2016 the hapless Alun Cairns hilariously

set his position to the Welsh Select Committee:

    Q90 Chair: This cut that has been promised at 50%—50% on the tolls as they are in

2018 but still 50%—is absolutely guaranteed, isn’t it?

Alun Cairns: That is the Government proposal but there is a consultation going on

to how that can be achieved.

Q91 Chair: So it is not quite guaranteed?

Alun Cairns: The announcement has been made in Budget 2015, I think it was, or

2014, and it is something that is Government policy.

Q93 Paul Flynn: Severn Bridge tolls started four years before you were born,

Secretary of State. Do you expect them to continue when you reach retirement

age?

Alun Cairns: Clearly I would hope, Mr Flynn, that you would accept that the 50%

reduction that is proposed, subject to a consultation and so on, is a welcome step.

Q94 Paul Flynn: There was a fascinating poll finding that said that 50% of the

population didn’t understand what 50% means. You have been quoted as saying

that the toll should be £3.70. How is that 50% of £6.70?

Alun Cairns: I was talking about of that order and I talked about it by the time the

bridge comes into public ownership for which there will be an inflationary fee.

Q95 Paul Flynn: In my view, the people of Wales are being ripped off by having one

of the few stretches of motorway, which the Severn Bridges are, tolled and this

has gone on for all these years now and because of the deals done a long time ago

by a previous generation. There seems to be absolutely no reason why this

shouldn’t become a national responsibility and the psychological barrier to south

Wales, which is very damaging, could be removed.

Alun Cairns: I am governed by the Act of Parliament and the Act of Parliament will

have struck a deal with the Severn Bridge company. We have an obligation in order

to deliver that but I would hope that reducing the tolls by half is seen as a very

positive step, although there will be a debt that remains outstanding. It

demonstrates the scale of the project.

Q96 Paul Flynn: You stand by the figure of £3.70?

Alun Cairns: I would say wait until the consultation goes out.

  £3.00

January 17th

2017

That posture did not last long. After checking their maths, they reduced the

planned toll to less than 50%

The Trinity of Snake Oil Salesmen consisted of Chris Grayling, David Davies and

Alan Cairns posed at the Severn Bridge and announced the 'Good News' that Severn

Bridges toll would be set at the bargain rate of £3.00! Hurrah! But that was for the

long term future.

But it was no bargain because next year the tolls should be nil. It was an attempt

to con us. The snap General Election forced a re-think on the Tory Trinity. Today

they will announced that they have seen the Labour Light and will resist

temptation to continue milking the cash cow of tolls double taxation. It will be

announced with a blast of Tory self-satisfaction in Newport today. (no. I have not

been invited.)

Will anyone ask if election opportunism played a part in their volte-face?

Tory Toll junkies are hooked on the Highway Robbery that forces local people

into paying double taxation. While the Severn Bridges were in private hands

the deal to pay tolls was resented but tolerated. In early 2018, the bridges will

become public property like the rest of the motorway system. They should be

maintained and financed in the same way as all other public roads.

For 52 years, we have paid twice. First through our taxes for the roads system.

Secondly through the toll payments. The Government want to continue to milk the

cash cow of tolls. There is an overwhelming case for abolishing the tolls

altogether. At a stroke an injustice would end and the expense and psychological

barrier to accessing Wales would be gone.

£billions of our taxes are paid to build, run and maintains the UK's road system.

The Severn Bridges costs and debts are national responsibilities when they become

public property. Wales has a history of attacking unjust tolls by the Hosts of

Rebecca. It's time the spirit of the 1839 was aroused again.

  16th

May 2017

£00.00

  The Tories 2017 election bribe was an unconditional promise to end the tolls.

As a bribe it failed. Their ambition was to gain 7 Labour seats. They lost three

of their own to Labour and every sitting Labour MP increased their majorities.

They cannot mange a simple election bribe efficiently.

The Severn Bridges Act 1992 set out framework to award private contract to

build a much needed second Severn crossing. Severn River Crossings built the

bridge with the power to charge tolls until revenue of £1.029 billion is raised or

for a maximum of 35 years. Wales has paid extortionate annually increasing

tolls since.

The debt is almost paid, the concession contract is coming to An end. In the next

year the crossings will return to public ownership. Legal power to levy charges

ends with the contact.

The Act is clear and tolls must cease. The Crossings have an estimated annual

running cost of £15m. As with any other road belonging to the Department for

Transport maintenance costs are unavoidable. Road users already cover these

maintenance costs with road tax. Further tolls amount to unreasonable and

duplicate charges

  12th

September 2017

£5.60

The Cairns Huckster team are back. Tolls are to be ‘CUT’ to £2.60 MORE than

Cairns promised on January 17

th

. Not to reduce it to that level would be illegal.

The reduction is because the bridges after next January will not be liable to

VAT. There is no choice. But Alun Cairns still has no date for delivering on his

election bribe of £00.00 tolls.

  No charge is necessary after January 2018. We have discharged our debt.

It is no longer a toll, it’s a CAIRNS TAX.

Mr Cairns said he was not surprised at the reaction but claimed the "wider, silent

majority is absolutely with us". He urged "republicans" to "respect" the Prince

because of his work in the community.

  The decision to re-name the Bridge after Prince Charles is a PR disaster. A petition of 20,000 appeared overnight. A poll in the Argus showed that only a tiny 11% supported Cairns. 89% wanted no change, another name or could not care. Who is advising you on PR Alun? ....a Republican?

  automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day https://ift.tt/2GD54Zg (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Cambridge Analytica cover up

Here is an article I wrote for the House Magazine in April 2017:

Snap election leaves no chance to address concerns about voter manipulation

The EU referendum proved that the Electoral Commission’s obsolete tools for monitoring cyber manipulation will ensure a free ride to those wishing to exploit it at the election, writes Labour MP Paul Flynn.

Not since the 1880 reforms have our systems for election and referendums been in greater peril. The single thunderous lesson from the EU Referendum is that new technology trumps long-established democratic safeguards. Clandestine artificial intelligence, algorithms, and invisible money sources can overwhelm surface democratic rules.

PACAC’s report Lessons learned from the EU referendum gained considerable attention for highlighting the possibility that foreign governments interfered with the referendum.

The voter registration website crashed last June threatening disenfranchisement of thousands, forcing the government to extend the registration deadline. The committee reported that the crash had indications of a botnet attack on the voter registration website.

The crash may well have been the result of an attack designed to influence political outcome. Worryingly there is no chance to address these concerns before Theresa May’s opportunistic snap election.

As we enter this election campaign period an alarming narrative is emerging of online voter targeting, calculated to cause mass interference and influence. An elite group is shaping world politics to suit their private beliefs, their behaviour having untold and unquantifiable effects. Whilst the plot reads like that of a comic book this cyber manipulation is no fiction and played a role in both the EU referendum and President Trump’s election.

Exceptional investigation work by journalist Carole Cadwalladr has exposed the wide reaching implications of the issue including the probity of June's General Election.

Billionaire Robert Mercer is Donald Trump’s biggest donor. He is also reported to be an owner of Cambridge Analytica, a company specialising in election strategies and involved in both the Trump and Brexit campaigns.

The company proved to be instrumental to Leave.EU and taught the campaign how to build profiles, target people and gain data from Facebook profiles.

When interviewed by Cadwalladr, Leave.EU’s communications director, admitted, “Facebook was the key to the entire campaign. A Facebook ‘like’ was their most “potent weapon”. Using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring.”

So worrying is Cambridge Analytica’s actions that the Information Commissioners Office has launched an investigation into their reported use of personal data.

There is contempt for the electoral process they are manipulating. Leave.EU have not declared Cambridge Analytica’s work as services in kind to the electoral commission. Arron Banks of Leave.EU has since declared “I don’t give a monkey’s about the Electoral Commission.”

In June the Electoral Commission is expected to deal with tomorrow’s problems. The referendum proved their outdated tools will ensure a free ride to those wishing to exploit it.

Broadcast advertising is subject to controls. Recent shifts have proved unfair advantages are now to be gained from online activity which lacks regulation.

Sir Tim Berners Lee has condemned the disgusting practice of selling private citizens online data. He summed up the problem best: “We’ve lost control of our personal data…it’s too easy for misinformation to spread on the web” and “Political advertising online needs transparency and understanding.”

Lobbyists and Billionaires are manipulating media and public opinion in defiance of transparency regulations.

We are in the disturbing era where lobbyists can weaponise fake news for the highest bidder. They can track voters’ personal data and manipulate public opinion. All of this they can do under cover of anonymity and without regulation or oversight.

The EU Referendum was a battle of dishonesty. It was won by the side with the means to distribute the most plausible lies.

automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day http://ift.tt/2IFgYz5 (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Fore-warned - but not fore-armed.

  Thanks to the great work of Carole Cadwaladr, the Guardian and Channel Four News , we have confirmation that out elections and referendum may have been rigged. They were told. This is the final point of Order of the Last Parliament. Since then I have constantly raised the undermining of our democracy. To their shame the PACAC Select refused to do their job in pursuing an inquiry they had started and is their responsibility. Congratulations to the Culture Committee for taking up the challenge

  Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

26th April 2017

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that strikes right at the heart of the integrity of our democratic system. It is based on the final report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as well as two articles in The House magazine, one by a Conservative Member and one by a Labour Member, all of which sound notes of alarm that our electoral system is the most vulnerable it has been since 1880. There is powerful evidence of foreign Governments interfering in the elections in America and possibly here. There is also overwhelming evidence of money being paid in huge amounts, entirely invisible to the system, by the use of methods including algorithms, botnets and artificial intelligence in a manner understood by nobody except those who participate in it. We should be vigilant in this election, because the Electoral Commission does not have the tools to deal with interference of this kind, and we are trying to run a modern election with the tools of the 19th century.

automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day http://ift.tt/2u1IkMH (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Anti-Gwent bias among some AMs

Paul Flynn MP Newpoirt West said:=

  There is a worrying anti-Gwent, antiNewport bias among some MPs that threaten our future traffic relief on the M4 bias.

  Some have swallowed the myth that there is a practical cheap alternative. Those of us who used te SDR road know that Newport would suffered more gridlock if an attempt is made to dump excess motorway traffic on an already jammed road. A second myth is that money saved on a gimcrack alternative to the black route would be distributed throughout Wales. It will not be. The bypass money was allocate to eliminate an intense UK national block to traffic for all of South Wales and Mid Wales.

  We must ensure that our case is fully understood and the long awaited by-pass relieves traffic and pollution pressure on us.

    automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day http://ift.tt/2Dl2UHq (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Watchdog piddles on wrong tree.

Watchdog piddles on wrong tree.

Newsnight and its brilliant reporter Chris Cook have exposed a very credible list of parliamentary scandals-including Kids Company. They are entitled to the odd lapse. Attacking the relationship between MPs and Clerks they are off-target and piddling against the wrong tree.

That relationship is one of the great abiding strengths of Parliament.  Having served on, suffered on, despaired on, triumphed on Select Committees for 31 years, I abase myself before great parliamentary force for good. Among the vast Commons Community, things must occasionally go awry. I have no knowledge or comment on the allegations made. But I have an encyclopaedic knowledge of splendid working relationships with the intellectual strengths, impartiality and fairness of generations of clerks.

Select Committees have their problems and I have sounded off about them for decades. Some became politicised by their majorities or their chairpersons. Some deliver verdicts contrary to the evidence heard. Others go native descend into pressure groups such as farmers. The best remain anchored to the evidence and produce valuable challenges to the conventional (un)wisdom of parliament. For my money, the best reports of my time were A Health Committee report in 2005 about the self-serving deceptions of pharmaceutical companies and the Transport Committee report of 1993 that prophesied the calamities of Rail Privatisation.

Brexit has brought out the worst of Select Committees. Passionately committed chairs have distorted evidence and produced reports that are so laughingly biased, they have been ignored as serious contributions to the debate,

With so many problems, why attack the trust that exists between MPs and Clerks? Having experienced many conflicts with Committee Chairs and fellow members in the past, I can vouch for 31 years of respectful work with clerks. I have never experienced any animosity between them and MPs. They are an exemplary group to whom parliament owes its homage and gratitude.

Try again, Newsnight. They are many other targets worthy of your ire.

automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day http://ift.tt/2oXpKQZ (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Hopes for Re-legalising medical cannabis high.

In spite of the sabotage of the Bill to Re-legalise Medicinal Cannabis, the prospects for reform have never been better. The tide of public opinion is moving our way here and worldwide.

The solid cliff of prejudice-rich, evidence-free prohibition is crumbling.  The best recent evidence is the decline in opioid use in the 29 US states that have legalized medical cannabis.  The retreat from argument and reason by the Commons on the 23rd February was a depressing example of parliamentary cowardice by brains trapped in the permafrost of un-reason.

The House Lords had an intelligent debate led by the splendid science-based argument of Molly Meacher and her All-Party Reform Group. Contrast the dialogue in the two Houses below.

Tory Health Minister in the Lords was well-informed and offered a practical compassionate solution. Absurdly a Home Office Minister answered in the Commons to avoid the possibility that a minute cannabis dose ingested by a 6 year old child might incite him to kick off a drug crime wave.

The Tories have an embarrassing problem with their own Commons health minister that has yet to be fully aired.

The public mood has changed as every opinion poll on my Bill has attested. Impressively a motion by a Conservative Members of the Welsh Assembly seeking legalization was passed by 31 votes to 2 with 12 abstentions. I am convinced that a free vote in the Commons would have similar results. It is depressing that the forces in my own party are in a confused state with passionate supporters of both reform and prohibition plotting in secret. Ever thus.

The campaign continues led by the example of world experience.

Question


 3.30 pm 

Asked by



Baroness Meacher 

 


To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will issue a special license under Section 30 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to enable the family of Alfie Dingley to import cannabis-based medication to treat his epilepsy.





The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con) 

 My Lords, the Government have a huge amount of sympathy for the rare and difficult situation that Alfie and his family are faced with. My right honourable friend the Policing Minister has undertaken to meet Alfie Dingley’s family as quickly as possible. Both he and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary want to explore every option within the current regulatory framework, including issuing a license.





Baroness Meacher (CB) 

 
I express my sincere thanks to the Minister for that very positive reply. I understand from it that Ministers are now united in wanting to find a legal way to support Alfie Dingley so he can receive medical cannabis in order to lead some sort of life.

I want to set out the main reasons why Ministers have to succeed in this case. The Minister knows that Alfie Dingley was suffering from a very unusual epilepsy mutation. This was causing 3,000 epileptic fits a year, 250 a month, under UK-prescribed medication which will probably lead to psychosis, damage to his internal organs and early death. Alfie Dingley and his family spent five months in the Netherlands, where Alfie was treated by a neuro-paediatrician with cannabis drugs. During that period, Alfie Dingley suffered one or possibly two seizures per month, down from 250 per month in this country.

On the legal question, the Minister knows that under Section 30 of the 1971 Act, licences can be provided.






I express my profound thanks to the Minister and her colleagues in the other place for their absolute commitment to find a way under the law to enable this poor six year-old child to continue his life.





Baroness Williams of Trafford 

 
I thank the noble Baroness for her positive words acknowledging the way forward that I and other Ministers want to find for this little boy. As she said, this little boy has a very rare form of epilepsy. I am very pleased to hear that his seizures have reduced and very much look forward to a positive way forward being found.





Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab) 

 
My Lords, we know that the Government successfully licensed heroin-assisted treatment, or diamorphine-assisted treatment, which is prescribed in a synthetic form to people who do not benefit from or cannot tolerate substances such as methadone. We know that the success rates for that group of patients in terms of health, social care, incarceration and money saved show that there is real benefit from heroin-assisted treatment. Why cannot that simply be put in place for cannabis-based treatment as well?





Baroness Williams of Trafford 

 
With respect, I point out to the noble Lord that the Question is specifically about the medicinal use of cannabis for a very specific case. The noble Lord is probably straying on to the legalisation of drugs in a controlled way. I am not going there today because I have not been asked a question about it, but I have had many debates about it and the Government remain of the review that such drugs remain illegal.





Baroness Walmsley (LD) 

 
I am grateful to the Minister for her commitment to explore every option. Is she aware of the legal opinion from Landmark Chambers making it clear that there is an exception under Section 30 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which allows that a licence for possession of a controlled drug can be permitted for medical purposes? Will she make use of that exception to save this little boy’s life?







Baroness Williams of Trafford 

 
Well, I hope that I made it absolutely clear that we would explore every legal avenue that we could, and that both the Policing Minister and the Home Secretary would look at all legal avenues within the regulatory framework, so I hope that she takes comfort from that.





Baroness Browning (Con) 

 
Could my noble friend take a look at the history of how controlled drugs have been used for medical purposes? I am not somebody who would support deregulation of drugs but, as a small girl, I was offered the option when a school dentist extracted a tooth of having either gas or cocaine.





Noble Lords 
Oh!









Baroness Browning 

 
That was many years ago, but that was the choice. Of course, up and down the country today, hospitals will be dispensing opioid drugs to patients, many of which are derivatives of opium, and I really do not see why, if the legal framework is there to do it, we cannot get on and do it rather quickly.





Baroness Williams of Trafford 

 
My noble friend makes precisely the point that I perhaps did not make as well, which is that within the legal framework we have to explore the art of the possible to bring such drugs forward that will help people in situations similar to Alfie’s. Before I became a politician, I worked extensively with people who had multiple sclerosis, and I know that Sativex has been produced in aid of alleviating spasticity in suffers of that illness.





Lord Dear (CB) 

 My Lords, can I move away from the sad case that we have heard about and those particular circumstances and move to a more general point on that issue? Does the Minister agree that the time has now come for a complete and urgent look at the situation? As many of us know, cannabis is currently included in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Act as a drug with no medicinal value, yet that view has been roundly rebuffed by a number of countries in the world. I cite, for example, 12 EU countries—shortly that number will grow to 15—29 states in the USA, Canada, Israel and so on, all of which use cannabis under medical supervision. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will look at this issue and at the licensed medicinal use of cannabis in these circumstances?





Baroness Williams of Trafford 

 
The noble Lord has nicely segued through the general use of it back to the medicinal use, but I concur with him in saying that we must keep laws like this under review. Certainly, the WHO is currently reviewing cannabis as a whole, and the constituent parts of cannabis. The noble Lord is right that a number of states in the USA have actually legalised its use. We are keeping a very close eye on the outcome of that review and will take a view on it in due course.





Medical Cannabis

20 February 2018

Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) 

 
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the case of Alfie Dingley, whose parents and doctors are seeking access to medical cannabis to treat his epilepsy.





The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd) 

 
I, personally, and the Government sympathise deeply with the situation faced by Alfie Dingley and his family. I think that everyone on both sides of the House and outside it will understand and respect the desire of the family to try to alleviate his suffering in any way possible. I assure my hon. Friend that we want to help to find a solution within the existing regulations.

As my hon. Friend will know, the current situation is that cannabis, in its raw form, is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefits. It is therefore listed as a schedule 1 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. This means that it is unlawful to produce, supply or possess raw cannabis unless it is for the purposes of research. Products must be thoroughly tested in the UK to provide the necessary assurances of their efficacy, quality and safety.

We have a clear regime in place that is administered by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to enable medicines, including those containing controlled drugs such as cannabis, to be developed, licensed and made available for medicinal use to patients in the UK, as happened in the case of Sativex, as my hon. Friend knows. The Home Office will consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, providing that it complies with appropriate ethical approvals. Cannabis-based products should be treated in the same way as all other drugs, meaning that they should go through the normal testing procedures applied to any other medicines.

The current situation is that outside of research we would not issue licences for the personal consumption of cannabis because it is listed as a schedule 1 drug. However, we are aware of differing approaches in other countries and continue to monitor the World Health Organisation’s expert committee on drug dependence, which has committed to reviewing the use of medicinal cannabis. We will wait until the outcome of the review before considering any next steps. [Interruption.] I am also aware—before the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) starts chuntering—that the private Member’s Bill on the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal purposes introduced by the hon. Gentleman will give the House a further opportunity to debate the wider policy.

The whole House will understand that it is a natural desire for parents to do everything they can to make sure that their children do not suffer unnecessarily, but we also need to make sure that cannabis is subjected to the same regulatory framework that applies to all medicines in the UK. We must ensure that only medicines that have been tested for their safety to the correct standard are prescribed for UK children.





Crispin Blunt 

 
I thank my right hon. Friend for saying at the beginning of his response that he is determined to find a solution to this. That will also be welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Attorney General, Alfie Dingley’s MP, who has been working hard, if necessarily privately, on his behalf.

I hope that the Home Office is going to find a way to cease standing behind a 1961 UN scheduling of cannabis as having no medicinal benefit whatsoever. My right hon. Friend mentioned Sativex. However, there are now 12, soon to be 15, states of the European Union and 29 states of the United States of America, and the District of Columbia, that have all found a way to license the medicinal use of cannabis. Is he aware of the position of the Republic of Ireland, which, with a legal framework very similar to ours, gave its Health Minister the explicit power to license use of the medicine in cases such as Alfie’s?

My right hon. Friend’s position, and that of the Government, currently flies in the face of the popular view in the United Kingdom, where 78% of people think that we should find a way of using cannabis-based medicine. Out there, most people instinctively understand the pain and symptom relief that is available from cannabis-based medicines. Here, we know from the Barnes review of 2016, commissioned by the all-party parliamentary group on drug policy reform, that there is good, peer-reviewed medical evidence of the effectiveness of cannabis-based medicines for conditions associated with multiple sclerosis, the side-effects of chemotherapy, and epilepsy.

Failure by the Government to move from their current position will sentence Alfie to the steroid-based treatment he was receiving before he went to the Netherlands, which is likely to give him early psychosis and a premature death. Their position also means that British citizens are being denied all the potential medical and symptomatic benefits that could come from a properly licensed, regulated and researched access programme to cannabis-based medicines. If we do not give people the licences to do the medical research, we will not get the products. Granting the licences would mean that we would not have to rely on the wisdom of crowds and illegally sourced and unreliable products, and would have peer-reviewed, evidence based treatments produced to pharmaceutical standards.

I urge my right hon. Friend, who is very far from being cruel and heartless—as indeed are the rest of his colleagues in the Home Office—to help either the manufacturers of the drug that will save Alfie’s life, or his doctors or the family to find a way through to get a licence to treat him, and to instruct his officials to assist. It is an indication of just how messed up our management of this issue is that my right hon. Friend from the Home Office is answering this urgent question and not a Health Minister. On health grounds, this is an open-and-shut case.





Mr Hurd 

 
I thank my hon. Friend. I totally respect his position. I should place it on record that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), is sitting next to me, very much in listening mode.

I reassure my hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Attorney General, who has made many representations to me on behalf of Alfie Dingley and his family, that there are clearly some special circumstances in this case that need to be respected. I have undertaken to meet the family, and I will do that as quickly as possible. I also undertake to explore every option within the current regulatory framework. I give that undertaking with sincerity.

I know my hon. Friend well enough to know that he will understand the importance of proceeding on the basis of evidence, particularly when it concerns the safety of drugs and of children. We have our position—he is right that it has been established for a long time—and it is supported by expert opinion. However, we are aware that the position is shifting in other countries, and we monitor that closely.

We are also aware that cannabis is an extremely complex substance, and the WHO quite rightly is looking at it from every angle to get an up-to-date view on its therapeutic use. We are monitoring all that closely. Our current regulatory position is what it is. However, I have undertaken to explore every option within the regulatory framework to see whether we can find a solution to this extremely emotive case.





Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) 


There has been a call to allow a licence for administering medical cannabis to Alfie Dingley, but the Government must thoroughly examine the evidence in this area—both the stated benefits and the supposed risks of medical cannabis. Our policies must always be based on evidence and not frightened of scary headlines or chasing favourable ones. Only in that way can the House come to an informed decision on the wider issues.

Alfie Dingley is a six-year-old boy whose life is blighted by epileptic fits, and it is understandable that his family want him to have whatever medication they feel will help him. They look to us as politicians to facilitate that, but we are constrained by laws. Members supportive of drug policy reform would like the Home Secretary to issue a licence so that Alfie can continue taking the medication, but the Home Office has responded that the drug

“cannot be practically prescribed, administered or supplied to the public”.

Cannabis use is illegal in this country—we do not dispute that. However, we need assurances from the Minister that all the evidence relating to Alfie’s case has been looked at and that all avenues of treatment are being considered. We need confidence that the Minister and his colleagues are doing everything in their power to ensure that Alfie has the best possible quality of life.

This case is the latest in a long line of prominent examples that have led to more calls for legislation to permit the medical use of cannabis. Is it now time for a review of the law, to look at how we can better support those living in chronic pain, those with long-term degenerative conditions and those in the final stages of life?





Mr Hurd 

 
I agree with the hon. Lady that policy should be evidence-led, and I support entirely her point that we need to think very carefully about the implications and consequences of everything we do.

As I said in my statement, outside of research, we would not issue licences for the personal consumption of cannabis because it is listed as a schedule 1 drug. However, as in the case of Sativex, the Home Office will consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, providing it complies with appropriate ethical approvals. I repeat that I personally undertake to explore every option within the existing regulations to see if we can find a solution.





Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con) 

 
I support the medical use of cannabis and think the Government should be more fleet of foot on this issue. A sensible proposed amendment to the law in a free vote in this House would, I think, be carried.





Mr Hurd 

 I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. I dispute the allegation that the Government are not fleet of foot on this. As I said in my statement, we are aware that things are changing in other countries and that the WHO is reviewing the evidence, and we will follow that very closely indeed.





Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab) 
We would have to have a heart of stone if any of our children or grandchildren were in this position and we were told by a stubborn bureaucracy that they had to turn blue up to 30 times a day and have seizures because our law says that that is the situation. Twenty-nine American states have legalised cannabis for medicinal purposes, and in every one of them, the use of deadly, dangerous opioids has gone down. Every alternative to natural cannabis is worse. It is not just one case; thousands of people have the choice of suffering terrible pain and seizures every day or criminalising themselves by breaking the law. I urge them to break the law, because the law in this case is an ass, and it is cruel and lacks compassion.





Mr Hurd 

 
I do not have a heart of stone, and I say that not just as a parent of six children. Anyone with or without children could not fail to be moved by this case, but, as the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) said, we have to look at this through the lens of its implications across the system. We have to look at this through the lens of the existing law, which is set on the basis of expert advice, not least from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. It is very clear that

“the use of cannabis is a significant public health issue”,

and, in its words, can

“unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society.”

We cannot ignore that advice. However, as I have said, we are monitoring closely the work done by the WHO and other countries, and precedents elsewhere, and, as I have undertaken to do in this particular case, we will explore every option within the existing regulations.





Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) 


As the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said, it is not just Alfie; thousands of people have such conditions. I have a constituent, Vicky Clarke—now just 5 stone in weight—in St Giles hospice in my constituency, suffering from the very final stages of multiple sclerosis. Her husband has found that the only drug that alleviated her pain was cannabis, and he has twice been investigated by the police. We are not talking about the general administration of cannabis; we are talking about the medical prescription of cannabis. If a doctor says that cannabis is the only cure or a medical professional says that it is the only way to alleviate pain, surely they should be legally allowed to prescribe that drug?









Mr Hurd 

 
Well, they still have to operate within the law. The law does permit the development, licensing and marketing of medicines, including those containing controlled drugs, such as cannabis. I have used the example of Sativex, which I believe provides relief to patients with MS. My hon. Friend talks about lots of other cases like this one. It is worth noting, however, that in the case of Alfie Dingley, I think only nine other children in the world suffer from the same type of epilepsy as he does. That is why I have undertaken to explore every option on his behalf. I make it quite clear that the Home Office and the Government are keeping this area under review, because this is fast moving. The House will of course have the chance to debate it along with the private Member’s Bill.





Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) 


The Scottish National party is in favour of the decriminalisation of cannabis for medicinal use, given the evidence of the benefit it has in alleviating the symptoms of many serious conditions, such as that suffered by young Alfie Dingley. In 2016, our party conference heard evidence from a multiple sclerosis sufferer, Laura Brennan-Whitefield, who called for “compassion and common sense” on this issue. She said:

“I’m not advocating the smoking of cannabis, what I’m advocating is a progressive and reasonable, compassionate society where you can access pain relief”.

We urge the UK Government to look again very seriously at decriminalising the use of cannabis for medicinal use. If they are not prepared to do so, we ask them to devolve the power to Scotland, so that the Scottish Government can take appropriate steps. However, we would like to see this for everybody in the United Kingdom.





Mr Hurd 

 
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her contribution, and this issue will be debated with the private Member’s Bill on Friday. Again, I come back to the point that we have the existing regulatory framework, and we will not issue licences for the personal consumption of cannabis because it is listed as a schedule 1 drug. However, it is possible to consider issuing licences to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, and there is precedent for doing so.





Bob Stewart 

 
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly was here, just silent. I support the medical use of cannabis, particularly in this case. If the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) passes with a sufficient majority on Friday, might the Government fast-track it through the House?





Mr Hurd 

 We look forward to the debate on Friday. We will see what the will of the House is.









Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) 

The Minister has heard support from those of us on these Benches, but does he not support the views of his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, where the health spokesman Miles Briggs said:

“it is time for a comprehensive, UK wide review…and for Parliament to look to reform access to cannabis for medical and scientific purposes”?

Does he recognise that there is widespread support in all parties?





Mr Hurd 

 There are good reasons for the Government’s current position. As I made clear in my statement, we are looking very closely at the approaches being taken by other countries. We have a keen eye on what the global experts, the WHO’s expert committee on drug dependence, conclude in relation to the therapeutic and medicinal benefits of cannabis.





Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) 


It is Bill number three on Friday. There is not going to be a debate, is there?





Mr Hurd That depends on what happens to the first two Bills.





Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) 

 
I have had a number of constituents in the past eight years who have suffered from different illnesses, such as epilepsy and multiple sclerosis. They told me that conventional drugs have not worked for them. Often, they have had to travel abroad, especially Holland, to obtain and use cannabis, which has helped them significantly. I therefore urge the Minister and the Government to please consider allowing the medicinal use of cannabis.





Mr Hurd 

   
I totally understand the hon. Lady’s point, which underlines why the WHO is undertaking its work. I am sure she will agree, however, that cannabis products must be treated in the same way as all other drugs. That means going through the normal testing procedures that apply to any other medicine.





Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab) 


May I help the Minister and suggest that he speak with his colleague the Secretary of State for Health and ask about the extensive trial, known as delta-9, which took place in the Royal Marsden hospital 40 years ago? Cannabis was found to be an excellent prophylactic against nausea caused by ontological medicine. The data is there. The empirical evidence is there. Why does he not save time and trouble by having a word with the Secretary of State and drawing this information to the attention of the House? Let us resolve this matter once and for all.





Mr Hurd 

 
The hon. Gentleman will understand why I approach any offer of help from him with caution, but in this case I will certainly discuss the evidence he mentions with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. We need to proceed on the basis of evidence, because of the need for safety.





Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) 


The Government have heard several times that cannabis for medicinal use is available in many countries. It is clear that the evidence is there. It is allowed in other EU countries. One of the benefits of being in the EU, while we are still there, is collaboration. We are able to review research that is available elsewhere and come to a quick decision. Will the Minister confirm that there are no barriers at the top of level of the Government preventing that?





Mr Hurd 

 
I am not aware of any barriers. What I am aware of is the current regulatory framework, underpinned by expert advice, which continues to be that cannabis in its raw form is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefit. The situation is evolving in other countries and the WHO is looking at it. It is right that we keep an open mind and that we continue to look at the evidence and the precedence from other countries.





Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab) 

 
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group on epilepsy and as the daughter of an epilepsy sufferer. In addition to the cost in human misery, can the Minister advise on whether any attempt has been made to estimate the net cost of continuous ineffective treatment for epilepsy sufferers who are denied access to cannabis for medicinal purposes?





Mr Hurd 

 
I think that question is best answered by the Department of Health. What I am keen to register with the House is our determination to try to explore every option within the boundaries of the existing regulations to see whether we can support this case.





Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) 


The whole House will welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to meet the family of Alfie Dingley. Will he also agree to meet the campaign group, End Our Pain, which is campaigning to allow doctors to prescribe cannabis when it would help their patients? End Our Pain wants to present to the Minister the evidence that honourable colleagues have talked about and discuss the fact that the Multiple Sclerosis Society has changed its position on the use of medicinal cannabis, based on the evidence.





Mr Hurd 

 
I am certainly happy to meet that group, or a more appropriate Minister could, so the answer is yes.





Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) 


I wonder whether the Minister knows the book, “The Boy in 7 Billion”, by Callie Blackwell, the mum of Deryn Blackwell who, at the age of 10, was diagnosed with a very rare cancer and then, through the use of cannabis oil, made a miraculous recovery. If he likes, I can lend him my copy. I got one over recess at THTC, a company in my constituency that makes hemp t-shirts—sorry, it does not make them; it supplies them. It is not allowed to make them in this country. It also pointed out that in Mexico, where the medicinal use of cannabis has been legalised, violent crime has dramatically dropped. Does the Minister not think that those things are more than a coincidence, and will he not investigate?





Mr Hurd 

 
The hon. Lady is taking us broader than a UK scope. I do not know the book and I am grateful to her for her offer, but I come back to what I said at the start. The Government have a position based on the listing as a schedule 1 drug and the view of experts, but we review, and keep under review, what is happening in other countries and, most importantly, the WHO’s position.









Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) 


We seem to be in some kind of Alice in Wonderland world where words mean the opposite of what we imagine. The Minister said that he is being fleet of foot, yet we have established that we are dragging our feet behind 15 EU member states and 29 US states. I have lost count of the number of times that he has talked about the importance of evidence, yet will he not accept the overwhelming evidence that there are no downsides to the kind of policy change that we are talking about, no matter how hard he looks for them? Why will he not commit at the very least to trials of the regulation of medical-based cannabis? That could, for example, answer questions about how best to differentiate between different types of use and facilitate research that might otherwise be hindered.





Mr Hurd 

 
We are fleet of foot in the sense that we keep abreast of the evidence as it develops. I made it very clear in my statement that the Home Office will consider issuing licences to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, providing that it complies with the appropriate ethical approvals.





Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) 

 
Alfie’s mother said that any one of the 30 seizures that he has a day could be life-threatening, so there is incredible urgency. I have heard the Minister say that he is very sympathetic and I do not doubt that for a minute, but I have not heard him say when he will make a decision to help Alfie because of that urgency.





Mr Hurd 

 
I totally accept the point about urgency, and I totally accept the point made by others that we cannot look at policy entirely through the lens of one case. However, I have undertaken to meet the family as quickly as possible, and we are exploring every option inside the existing regulatory envelope.





Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) 

 
I have heard the Minister say that he is going to monitor the situation and that he is looking for evidence, but we have had that situation for decades. This place created the problem with poor legislation as far as back as the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are in a situation where we know that medicinal cannabis is available that will particularly help Alfie. He has been taking it in the Netherlands. It is not beyond the wit of man to facilitate the continuation of that supply, if the will is there.





Mr Hurd 

 
As I said in my statement, the UK has a view, which is that cannabis in its raw form is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefits. As I also said, I recognise that there may be special circumstances in this case, which is why I am absolutely determined to look at every option inside the existing regulatory envelope.





Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) 

 
As a Welsh MP, I am very proud of the Welsh Assembly, which recognises the need to legalise cannabis for medicinal use. Sativex is a very unpleasant, alcohol-based medicine that is unsuitable for many patients, and I hope that the Government will recognise that. However, we as a country are light years behind other countries, so the excuses today are just not valid. Why does the word “cannabis” scare the Government so much? We need to stop hiding and stop making excuses. Can the Minister tell the parents of children such as Alfie and all the other people who need access to medicinal cannabis legally across the UK when that is going to happen?





Mr Hurd 

 What the Government do is listen to the independent, statutory Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which has been very clear that

“the use of cannabis is a significant public health issue. Cannabis can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society.”

We cannot just ignore that expert advice. As I said in my statement, there is a precedent for medicines, including controlled drugs such as cannabis and Sativex, to be issued with a licence to enable trials.





Mr Seely 

 
Looking around the world, it seems to me that the case for medical cannabis is somewhat overwhelming, although I understand that the Minister is in a difficult position at the moment. Does he think that there will ever be a time when medical cannabis is legal in this country, so that its benefits can be felt by those who need it?





Mr Hurd 

 
Of course, policy must be evidence-led, so Governments of all colours must keep the evidence under review. I think that the next critical milestone will be the output of the WHO review. Cannabis is a highly complex substance, and the review is looking at it from every angle to try to give us the most definitive, up-to-date view on its medicinal and therapeutic benefits.





Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op) 

 
The Minister says that public health concerns are a key driver of policy making, but, as we have seen with the case just for piloting safe drug consumption rooms, the Government stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that shows that public health would benefit. Is this not just another example of the Government putting the inertia of the criminal justice system ahead of an urgent public health issue, with drug-related deaths at epidemic levels? Will the Government not change the emphasis in policy making to matters of public health, rather than the inertia of the criminal justice system, which for 40 years has had an obsolete and arbitrary method of regulating drugs in this country?





Mr Hurd 

 
I do not recognise that description of “inertia”. I have tried to give a flavour of the fact that this is a highly complex area that we keep under constant review.







automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day http://ift.tt/2HQP9Un (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).

[paulflynnunrevised]

Let us have our cake, eat it, then get a second cake.

The EFRA Committee called for a fund to prepare British farming for Brexit. This is a bit of overkilll as farming is the ONLY industry to be guaranteed continuation of full subsides for the future. Already farming gets 40% of the Euro cheque but contribute less than 1% to the economy.

Savings can be made by ending the income support for millionaires/billionaires in England who are only landowners - producing no food. Plenty of savings to be made there to keep small farmers sustainable.

   The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is today launching its report, Brexit; Trade in Food. 

There are many crises ahead for forming. 

That the EU is the UK’s most significant trading partner and there is no guarantee that a free trade agreement will be reached.

WTO tariffs could possibly lead to higher costs for consumers but could lead to beneficial import displacement. A liberalisation of barriers could possibly lead to cheaper imports, produced to lower welfare standards, and damage British producers.

The agricultural industry needs clarity on the Government’s long-term vision, as reverting to WTO tariffs will have a significant impact on agriculture, given that tariffs are higher for agricultural products than for other goods and services.

Perishable agricultural products are more at risk from lengthy customs procedures and poor IT systems.

When setting UK tariffs at the WTO, Government should understand that removing tariffs ‘could put many UK farmers out of business and render the UK dependent on imported food.’

  The Committee has recommended that the Government:

  Should consider creating a fund to support the UK’s agricultural sector as it adapts to the post-Brexit environment.

Must set out how it will make sure that IT systems and infrastructure are in place for the import and export of agricultural produce so that businesses can continue to trade smoothly with Europe and the rest of the world.

Should begin to develop relationships at a political level with potential new trading partners.

Should publish a sector-by-sector analysis of the impact of Brexit before the publication of the Agriculture Bill, and publish the Bill as soon as possible.

Should ensure that any new agreements are not to the detriment of the UK’s high animal welfare, environmental, or food standards.

Should make clear how it will deal with potential regulatory divergence with the EU, and ensure that protected geographical indicators are retained in a similar form after the UK leaves the EU.

  “60% of the UK’s agricultural exports and 70% of its imports are from the EU. In order to safeguard the livelihoods of UK farmers and guarantee domestic food security post-Brexit, it is vital that the Government articulates its vision for protecting both. The first step in this process is creating an analysis of each farming sector before bringing the Agriculture Bill before Parliament.

  “UK agriculture will need to adapt to the changed trading circumstances following Brexit, so the Government should consider putting funding in place to enable farmers to do so.

  automatically copied from Paul Flynn - Read My Day http://ift.tt/2Fgy0Tf (hopefully before Mr Flynn has revised it).