A view from Rural Wales

Is this the end of Parliamentary Democracy in Mid Wales ?

2012-01-28T22:52:00.004+01:00

Tonight I held a meeting of local public representatives to discuss the proposed new parliamentary boundaries as they effect Montgomeryshire - and at very short notice. For me the proposals are heart breaking. Montgomeryshire has always been my physical and spiritual home. Never lived or had an ancester born anywhere else. I love the place. Around 80 or so people turned up, and it seems they love it as well. With notice and advertising it would have been hundreds. Whats proposed is that Mongomeryshire should be smashed up, and the bits cast randomly on the winds, bringing parliamentary democracy as we know it to an end in Mid Wales. What seems to have happened is that the Boundary Commission did its work in North and South Wales, and then just carved up Mid Wales to make the numbers up everywhere else. When I answered a question, explaining that our area's future MPs may live and have their offices in the Swansea Valley or near the North Wales Coast, with nothing in between, they were 100% horrified. Mid Wales may well have no MP living in the entire area at all. So angry were my audience that they insisted on a vote (unanimous) to ensure I understood just what they were telling me. I promised that I would make public my response to the meeting, and that I would present my constituent's opinion to the Boundary Commission at one of its future public meetings.

One important and worthwhile point emerging from the floor was the damage this will do to the development of Wales as a nation. Since devolution I have been keen on actions which unify the different parts of Wales - e.g. improvements to the A470. Suddenly we see a position where North Wales and South Wales will be represented, but with a great chasm in between in terms of parliamentary representation. The entire room could see just how disastrous the proposals are. And the great worry is that Mid Wales is so often unthinkingly ignored, that no-one outside our area will notice the dangers. I don't suppose this occurred to the Boundary Commissioners.

And it didn't end there. My audience wanted to know what this meant for National Assembly elections. I explained that there was no immediate proposal for change, but that consideration of linking the Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies may happen before the next election. The balloon went up. The almost disbelieving message from the floor was "Having totally screwed up the Parliamentary boundaries, you want to totally screw up the Assembly boundaries in the interests of coterminous convenience". And they demanded a vote on that too. 100% again. Russell George AM, who was skulking in the back, left with his arm stuck up his back as far as my arm was stuck up mine. Its wind farms all over again - Mid Wales being sacrificed. And some people still think a politician's life is a doddle.

Is being an MP a proper job?

2012-01-22T20:41:00.003+01:00

Dr Phillip Lee has been a Conservative MP for almost 2 years - as have I. He's written an interesting article for today's Mail on Sunday. The gist of it is that as a GP he feels that he takes important decisions at his workplace, but does not feel he does so at Westminster, and is discouraged from being proactive in his work as an MP. After my first year as an MP, I might have agreed with Phillip, but I don't agree now. Its not possible as an MP to directly save lives as a GP does, or say deliver calves and lambs as I used to do as a livestock farmer, but I've learned that MPs can make a real difference - not so much as an individual but as part of a team.

I can think of several areas where through working with others I think I'm making a difference. Not necessarily going to always win, but could well limit serious damage to the nation. First up is what I consider the madness of onshore wind farms. I feel part of a growing outrage amongst MPs over the damage this policy is inflicting - on fuel poverty, business competitiveness and rural landscapes. Already we are seeing more under grounding of grid lines, and I still hope we can defeat the utterly outrageous Mid Wales Connection Project. I know I'm out of line with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change about this - but the whips have never raised this issue with me. I really feel that I am defending the UK for future generations. On its own, this war makes my job as an MP worthwhile.

And there are an increasing number of other issues where I can play a leading role. There's the need to prevent the adoption of 'presumed consent' in respect of organ donation. The assumption and assertion that this will increase availability of organs for donation is unproven. And I can play a positive role in promoting changes which will bring about a real increase in organ donation levels - which is what will actually help those on the waiting list.

And then there is the developing campaign to legalise 'assisted suicide'. We are just about to be faced with the appalling prospect of an orchestrated campaign to change the law - a sensitive and complex issue. But legalisation is a terrible threat to vulnerable people and must be resisted. As Parliamentarians, we are charged with basing legislative change on evidence rather than intuitive responses. I find these battles every bit as challenging as anything else I've ever done. Will have to have a word with Phillip. There is a massive job facing him as an MP.

Let not Dementia be treated with 'Shackles'.

2012-01-21T18:20:00.004+01:00

Shouldn't get angry when reading a newspaper article. Its just one journalist's interpretation after all. But I did feel hackles rising when reading of an attempt by Cardiff Council to stop an elderly couple taking a cruise holiday together. The Council went so far as to use the courts to frustrate the couple's wishes - eventually applying to the Court of Protection to declare a lack of capacity to make decisions.

Norman Davies and Peggy Ross have been together for 20 years, and have enjoyed many cruise holidays before. Last July Mrs Ross had to be admitted to a care home because she was suffering from dementia, and Mr Davies, who was caring for her, had to go into hospital himself. Cardiff Council decided she could not go on the cruise in October because "she might wander off or fall overboard". It seems that Cardiff Council believes that once someone is diagnosed with dementia, they should no longer enjoy a cruise. Such warped logic probably dictates that dementia sufferers should be deprived of most other activities as well. I suppose they should just be locked up for their own safety. This is the way bureaucracy thinks.

Actually, I'm not particularly critical of the Council - but of the over protective attitude which seems to infect modern life, and smother common sense. Dementia has a cruel impact, which greatly increases risk of accidents. Its a risk that sufferers should be allowed to take. Preventing sufferers from living as normal a life as possible is cruel. Personally, should I ever be afflicted by dementia, let me state clearly now that I would want total freedom to go and do as I want, and would much prefer to die in an accident than be wrapped up in cotton wool, and kept going to suffer the traumatic death that so often faces dementia sufferers. Thank goodness that Judge Crispin Masterman had the sense and compassion to overrule the Council. The report tells us that Norman Davies and Peggy Ross "thoroughly enjoyed their cruise" - and that she was far more mentally active than she would have been has she just stayed in her care home. By the time I reached the end of the article, the happy ending had calmed me down.

The Scottish Question

2012-01-15T18:48:00.002+01:00

Lots of discussion about the future of the United Kingdom. Mr Alex Salmond tells us he believes that after 300 years, the UK should cease to exist. This is a very big issue for all the people of the UK, and its reassuring to me that we are now engaging with it seriously - and have decided to settle the question by asking the Scottish people whether they want to break from the UK. While I believe this is a matter of legitimate concern to all UK citizens, I accept that it will be decided by Scottish voters alone. Cannot see a practical way around that.

Personally, I do not mind much about the date of the referendum. My contrarian view of the world tells me that if its held in association with the 700th anniversary of Banockburn, it will look cynical, and backfire against those who played the 'cynicism' card. I also feel it should be held on the current voting register, and not extended to 16-18 year olds. Again, such a move would look cynical. But I do care about the question. Or rather that there should be just one question, involving two options. I do not believe in 'preferendums', which are usually advocated by those who are afraid to trust the people. "Do you want Scotland to withdraw from the United Kingdom, and become an independent state - Yes or No" ? That'll do. And the referendum should be binding. If the Scottish people do say Yes, immediate steps should be taken to give effect to the result. No idea what will be agreed, so at present, this is just my personal best guess.

Appeared on Sunday Supplement for a 10 minute chat about it with Paul Murphy this morning. Bethan seemed to want us to talk about the position of Wales, post a Yes vote. Since I do not believe there will be one, it was all a bit hypothetical. Must admit I find it difficult to consider seriously something that's not going to happen. Never been much good at 'What ifs'. Life's too short! But Paul did say he was in favour of an English Parliament - and regional assemblies. The only plus of this huge increase in the number of politicians is that they would be great job creation schemes! Actually, I don't support either of these developments. I simply do not believe its possible to have a workable 'federal UK' with one partner as dominant as would be England. Even if we were to have English MPs dealing with 'England only' issues on a Friday, I don't think it would work. (E.g. my constituents health issues are dealt with by the NHS in England). And regional assemblies would do nothing worthwhile - and both cost and confuse. But I see that the BBC has given Paul's comments a lot of coverage.

The Scottish Question is not new. What is new is that Scotland has a First Minister who wants to withdraw his country from the UK for the first time. And he's a charismatic politician, with an attractive way with words, who slides away from serious discussion like a tickled trout. But in England this 'cheekie chappie' image is beginning to look like smugness, and arrogance. The English are beginning to ask whether they really should be putting up with this - and that they might be better off without the Scots. The English are wrong about this. Alex Salmond will over-reach (he may have done already), and he will not be there for ever. I fully expect him to be replaced by someone who wants to work within the UK, so that together, the nations that make up the UK can continue to achieve more than if we travel down the path of separation.

New Parliamentary Boundaries for Mid Wales.

2012-01-13T19:36:00.003+01:00

Several people been asking about the Boundary Commission's recommendations for new Welsh Parliamentary constituencies. Here's my first crack at explaining what its all about.

The main 'driver' behind change was the 2009 'expenses' scandal, when it was revealed that several MPs had been abusing the allowances system. The public were disgusted, and there was a widespread opinion that the number of MPs should be reduced, and the cost of 'government' should be reduced as well. Political parties usually try to respond to what the people want. The Conservative Party included a commitment to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 585 in its 2010 manifesto. The Liberal Democrats included a commitment to reduce to 500. All Conservative and Lib Dem candidates were elected on this basis.

Soon after the Coalition Gov't was formed a bill was presented to reduce the number of MP's to 600, Minister's salaries were reduced by 10%, MP's salaries were frozen for 5 years, and a new independently controlled system of allowances introduced. It was hugely controversial as it proceeded through its Parliamentary stages, but was eventually passed into law. I voted in support of change, as all of us had promised to do before being elected. Generally, politicians keeping promises is a good principle. The new Act also included 'equalisation' of constituency sizes, which had a bigger impact in Wales because of a longstanding 'over-representation' of Welsh MPs. Difficult to argue for 'special treatment' for Wales, especially since the National Assembly has now been given law making powers. The entirely 'independent' Boundary Commission was given responsibility to decide on the new constituency boundaries. It's recommedations for Wales were announced on Wed. of this week.

Must admit I've never been happy with any of this, but its what we promised. I guessed that it might have an unwelcome effect on my constituency, Montgomeryshire. Its turned out to be worse than I expected and from a personal standpoint, I am hugely disappointed. Our Montgomeryshire 'campaign team' put in so much work transforming my home area from one the safest Lib Dem seats in Britain into a reasonably solid Conservative seat. But I cannot, with integrity, challenge the principle of boundary change. Does not stop me challenging the detail though. And I'm going to.

I have today discussed the issue with my Association. We have agreed on certain actions. Firstly we are going that we are going to seek a comprehensive reconsideration of the proposals, because of the destruction of the historic constituency of Montgomeryshire. Secondly, because we realise that our first objective may not succeed, we will seek reconsideration of the detail - particularly between the proposed South Powys constituency, and the Glyndwr and North Powys constituency. It makes no sense to us at all. If Welshpool and Newtown must be in separate constituencies, we think that the villages in between should be included with the towns to which they naturally orientate. School catchments seem to us to be a good guide. Next week we will contact the relevant community councils to seek their views, and when received will forward them to the Boundary Commission, with our support. We will also suggest a change of name to Gyndwr and North Montgomeryshire, and to Brecon and Radnor and South Montgomeryshire.

Inevitably, I was asked what my personal hopes/intentions would be if the proposals went through, roughly as proposed. Very difficult for me to be definitive, because until 2015 I will represent the whole of Montgomeryshire to the best of my ability. And we won't know where the precise boundary will be for many months. But when I was pushed, I said that since my, and my family's personal and business lives had been based on Welshpool, I would probably seek my party's nomination to contest the 'Northern' seat. It will be a heartbreaking choice for me, and I feel unhappy writing these words. There's still a bit of me that hopes I will never have to make the choice.

The final matter we discussed was the possible realignment of the National Assembly for Wales' electoral arrangements with these new Parliamentary boundaries. As a PPS, I do not think I should express an opinion on this issue, but our Association Chair made an interesting point today. Perhaps the National Assembly has a closer link with Local Government than it does with the Westminster Gov't, and that it shouldn't be assumed that co-terminosity is the most effective arrangement. Anyway, this is a matter for my colleague, Russell George AM, and his colleagues in Cardiff Bay. Could be a lively discussion. This is perhaps the saddest post I've written during the 9 years I've been blogging. So we're going out to dinner to 'smother' my sorrows.

The Language of the Welsh Assembly

2012-01-08T23:54:00.003+01:00

Wales on Sunday covered infamous Welsh political 'gaffes' today - but missed out the funniest one that I remember. And it also missed out the best bit of Lib Dem AM, Mick Bates giving the Presiding Officer 'the finger'. There wasn't much doubt in our minds but that Mick was expressing a negative view on one of the PO's judgements - but his official response was that he was explaining to Rhodri Glyn Thomas how to press his voting button !

But back to my old colleague AM, Peter Rogers, who featured in the gaffes list as a supporting actor in Rhodri Morgan's gaffe. Peter was reaching the sort of crescendo only he could when he overheard Rhodri saying "He is talking ball***s". Unfortunately the official record scribes overheard - even if Rhodri challenged the accuracy, claiming he'd said it was "talking ball***s time". Even more unfortunately Peter overheard and roared across the chamber "I am not talking ball***s First Minister."

But a week or so later Peter did even better. Again he was at full throttle, and laying into the environment movement in general, when he dismissed them as "The Green Willy Brigade". Took some of the ladies in the chamber a good while to recover. And then there was Dr Dai Lloyd telling the chamber that the drug, Viagra should not be dispensed 'willy-nilly'. Plenty more where they came from. I'm sure nothing like this happens now that the National Assembly has law making powers!

Defending the Welsh Language.

2012-01-07T18:36:00.002+01:00

The single special characteristic that makes Wales unique is her own Welsh Language. It is economically, socially and culturally valuable (priceless even). It should unite the people who live in Wales. But it doesn't, though it is a far less contentious issue than it has been in the past. There have been bitter arguments over the last 100 years as Yr Iaith Cymraeg followed gradually the path to oblivion trodden by probably thousands of other minority languages across the world - and then as it 'stabilised' and achieved a limited recovery more recently. This was largely a result of actions taken by Conservative Governments at Westminster, while they were being shouted at, and given no credit by the language 'protest movement' in Wales.

Debate about the protection and promotion of 'minority' languages has always taken place inside and outside statutory authorities. In Wales, the noisiest voice of protest for 50 years has been Cymdeithas yr Iaith (Welsh Language Society). The catalyst for the formation of Cymdeithas was a speech by a right wing Nationalist named Saunders Lewis, and ever since, Cymdeithas have protested and thrown the crockery around a bit, and very importantly been noticed. Must admit this sort of behaviour has never been my scene (until 'government' decided that Mid Wales was to sacrificed at the altar of wind farm madness), but I always had a sneaking support for Cymdeithas (better add for safety sake "when conducted within the law"). Actually, family members of mine have been involved. During the last 50 years, there has also been development of 'mainstream' opinion in support of the Welsh Language. Its difficult to know what influence any protest movement has when there is a much wider support for its objectives. Often its difficult for 'authority' to act as it wants to, when a violent protest movement is calling for action.

I thought a lot about this issue as MPs debated new funding and governance arrangements for S4C through 2011. I felt the changes was a real threat to an independent future for S4C, and resolved to become closely involved in the debate (considered by colleagues to be a 'brave' decision) - which involved being a member of committee which examined the Public Bodies Bill. What I found was that a huge number of people wanted to instuct me about what I should do(had over 1000 emails) but almost no-one wanted to actually discuss the most effective way forward. I met Cymdeithas representatives, but never really got around to any discussion about a realistic way forward. It was almost as if I was expected to become the political wing of Cymdeithas - which would have reduced my influence to nil. I acted always in the interests of the Language (S4C) as I saw it, and in the end a pretty satisfactory outcome was achieved. There were others who were great (notably Elan Clos Stephens) and my Conservative Welsh MP colleagues. And there were some who were bl***** awful (notably the S4C Board). When reflecting afterwards, I concluded that despite all the huffing and puffing, Cymdeithas yr Iaith had no discernible impact whatsoever on the outcome.

Reason I comment on this issue now is that I've been reading about the thoughts of Cardiff academic, Dr Simon Brooks, and reported comments of Prof Laura McAllister about the need for a non-statutory 'Welsh Language body which can act as a think tank about the future, and engage with politicians in Cardiff Bay and Westminster - a sort of IWA for the Language I suppose. This is an interesting thought. Personally, I do not believe that a body which is built on 'protest' can do that - and that's not meant to be negative about Cymdeithas at all. I think I need to talk to Dr Simon Brooks, because if the progress we have made over recent years is to continue, there must be constant vigilance. Luckily I don't think huge numbers read my blog these days, or I could have a few more emails winging my way.

Assisted Suicide ? Was that it.

2012-01-05T22:33:00.002+01:00

I'd been expecting totally one-sided wall-to-wall coverage of Lord Falconer's report on legalising assisted suicide today. With others I'd been preparing for this 'launch' for weeks - and was concerned that the coverage would be skewed in favour of the report, without much reference to the opposing arguments. That is why I, and others tried to generate some balance into the debate prior to its publication. That's why I've been posting blogs about the issue and using Twitter and Facebook to direct readers towards them.

Must admit the coverage has mostly been fair. Inevitably, the headlines have been about claims made by the Lord Falconer's report, but almost every article has carried rebuttal material as well. The whole thing seems to me to have fallen a bit flat - which is exactly what it deserved. The blatant attempt to present a campaigning tactic as a 'Commission of Independent Experts' did not fool many in the end.

Though I'd prepared myself to play a part in the 'rebuttal' exercise, I finished up not doing much at all. Just an 'appearance' on Radio Cymru at 7.10 this morning. I was invited to appear on Sky News to debate the issue with Dr Evan Harris, but I was on the top of a Cambrian Mountain above Pantperthog when I got the call to be in a studio two hours later. But I did hear some excellent work from others in my 'team'.

Apropos my Post Cynta slot this morning, I was not that happy with it. And its not just that my Welsh is not quite up to coping with a complex sensitive issue, where nuance matters, but the way the producers set it up. They did the same to me on Post Prynhawn when I agreed an interview on 'presumed consent' a month ago. What happens is that there's a package based on a very difficult emotive case, which attracts every listener's sympathy - and then they turn to me as the big bad Conservative MP who has to explain how I could possibly be so cruel. I always try to accommodate Radio Cymru if I can (because I've heard others refuse to appear and they have a programme to make) and I'm also nvery keen to develop my Welsh Language competence. But I'm not sure I'm getting a fair crack at the moment.

Anyway, its not a time for grousing. I feel I've been part of an exercise in saving future generations of vulnerable people from the obscenity of a law legalising doctors to prescribe them drugs which would kill them. Its the sort of feeling that makes politics very satisfying.

The 'not independent' commission on assisted suicide

2012-01-03T20:57:00.003+01:00

I have already challenged the idea that Lord Falconer's 'commission' on assisted dying (note my refusal to use capital letters) should be referred to as a commission or that it should be considered to be in any way 'independent'. I'm told that this 'commission' was suggested by the pressure group, Dignity in Dying which used to be known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. I just thought it would be helpful to readers of this blog if I ran through just who these 'independent' and 'open-minded' 'commissioners' are.

1) Lord Falconer - Chair and longstanding campaigner for the legalisation of assisted suicide, who attempted to legislate during the last Parliament.

2) Baroness Murphy of Aldgate - who supported the attempts by Lord Falconer to change the law in the last Parliament.

3)Baroness Young of Old Stone - who also supported the attempts by Lord Falconer to change the law in the last Parliament.

4)Penny Mordaunt MP - a colleague of mine who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on 'Choice at the End of Life'. I believe Dignity in Dying acts as secretariat to this APPG.

5)Stephen Duckworth - Chair of Disability Matters Limited, which I'm told is a private business which ceased trading in 2010. Despite all the major disability rights organisations being opposed to a change in the law, Stephen Duckworth is a rare supporter from the disability movement.

6)Prof. Sam Almedzai - a palliative medicine specialist, who supports legalisation of assisted suicide, even though I'm told that 95% of such specialists are opposed to a change in the law.

7)Dr Carole Dacombe - another palliative medicine specialist. Another of the 5%.

8)Lord Blair of Boughton - another firm public supporter of legalisation of assisted suicide.

9)Sir Graeme Catto - a retired renal specialist who has spoken publicly about his support for assisted suicide.

10)Dame Denise Platt - views not known.

11)Rev. Dr. James Woodward - views not known.

12)Celia Grandison-Markey - views not known.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the opinions that the above hold. We are considering a highly sensitive and complex issue. Dignity in Dying is an effective and genuine campaigning group. Several of my friends are supporters of it. Individuals hold strong opinions on all sides. But there is no way that the above group of people can be regarded as 'independent'.

Introduction to The Falconer Report

2012-01-02T22:01:00.002+01:00

Another three days until we see the 'Falconer Report' prepared by the Commission on Assisted Dying, which Lord Falconer chairs. His Lordship has written an introductory piece in today's Telegraph, which was rather more balanced than I'd expected. Impression I get from reading it is that the issue does not seem quite as straightforward to the advocates of legalising Assisted Suicide as they expected it to be.

Members of the Commission have travelled to Switzerland where the Report will state that a total of 160 UK residents have gone to commit suicide. They did not like what they saw. Lord Falconer also refers to the experience of Holland, which I know little about yet. And Oregon where we know that since assisted suicide was legalised the number of cases has quadrupled, and is now between 1000-1200 per year. It seems that the assisted suicide in Oregon involves the taking of around 90 tablets.

The issue that the Commission is supposed to have looked at is whether the current law works - imperfect as it is. The Director of Public Prosecutions thinks it works. Since Keir Starmer 'clarified' where he would sanction prosecution two years ago, there have been 31 cases of assisted suicide (where the law has been broken) but not one prosecution where the 'assister' was thought to have acted with compassion. The DPP's 'guidelines' indicate that where a prospective defendant was motivated wholly by compassion, it is unlikely that a prosecution should be brought. The current system outlaws an action yet frequently allows it to take place unpunished - rather an odd interpretation I agree. But it works. Its highly unlikely that I could be persuaded to the legalisation of assisting suicide but I'm looking forwards to reading Lord Falconers Report on Thursday.

What makes a 'Commission'.

2012-01-01T23:14:00.002+01:00

Just read today's Guardian report about the publication on Thursday, 5th Jan. of the 'Commission on Assisted Dying'. The Guardian describes this as "a major independent report". I really don't think that's a very accurate description. Even using the word, 'Commission' is questionable, because that normally implies something commissioned by a statutory authority. This report has been been arranged by interests which support a change in the law. The group which has produced it has been chaired by Lord Falconer, whom the Guardian describes as "a former lord chancellor". Accurate - but makes no mention that he's been a longstanding campaigner to legalise assisted suicide. Lord Falconer is a clever and jovial fellow, but 'independent' he is not.

Also worth noting that this 'independent' commission is being funded by Sir Terry Pratchett, who is also a very good man. But Sir Terry Pratchett has been a declared supporter of legalising assisted suicide in a very public way for years. The Guardian quoted Baroness Warnock at length, who is another very public longstanding supporter of changing the law - and it makes no mention that the the Director of Public Prosecutions told the commission that the law currently works well. I also believe that the BMA and the medical royal colleges refused to give evidence, except in writing to express opposition to a law change. I guess all this tells us just how 'independent' the Guardian is going to be.

I'm rather looking forward to reading this report. Its an issue of great interest to me. But I do not pretend to be 'independent'. I do not support a change in the law to legalise assisted suicide. I am not impartial, and on Thursday, after reading the report, I will say why. If anyone asks me that is.

New Year's Eve on the Terrace.

2012-01-01T22:38:00.003+01:00

Last night's fireworks display on and around the London Eye was an amazing experience. Never been before, and never seen anything like it before. Reported to have been 500,000 people there. First shock was walking over Westminster Bridge from our flat to the House of Commons or more accurately trying to. We set off just after 9.00. It took about 25 minutes to cover the 300 yds over the bridge, where we encountered a 20' high wall and a police controlled no-go zone 20 yds wide. Showed my identification to a police officer and he just laughed. No way through. Another 25 minutes to retreat the 300 yds to where we had started - and to walk down to Lambeth Bridge and cross there instead. Never seen so much human flesh crammed in together. Accidentally stood on one woman and kicked two others who had decided to sit down. Saw only one fight. Reminded me of one of those penguin nesting sites that David Attenbrough films. Anyway, we finally made it to Black Rod's Entrance, and the Terrace in time for the display.

And what a display it was. Loudspeaker's all over two bridges and the Embankment. Hundreds of boats of all shapes and sizes parked on the Thames. Could see a barbecue in full glory on one of them. And then the fireworks started. Our little faces were beaming in wonderment. Inevitable, my Welsh hill sheep farmer gene was asking me how much such an extravaganza would have cost (at least a million for 11 minutes I reckoned). But another told me that the world was watching. If you're going to put on a show, it should be a good one. And it was just brilliant. Jeremy Hunt was right in yesterday's Telegraph when he said that we must really go for it and put on an Olympic Show to dazzle the world.

Last night was a great perk of my job as an MP. We payed £25 per ticket (which I think went to charities chosen by the Speaker). A fellow MP did tell me that next year, the Terrace may be hired out to corporate sponsors, paying £200 per head. Probably pack 500 on - which makes a cool £100,000. The question to be asked though is whether we want to demean our Parliament by renting it out to the corporate market. I suppose the Queen lets people walk around Buck House for a fee, so why not I suppose. Whatever a great night enjoyed by all.

New Years Honours List

2011-12-31T12:52:00.003+01:00

Always enjoy scanning the New Year's Honour's list for people I know. Good crop this year. Pleased to see Lord Carlile of Berriew being awarded a CBE. He was my MP and our next door neighbour for the 14 years he served as Montgomeryshire's MP. Its quite a coincidence that his former Cil Road neighbour has followed him into Parliament, and another coincidence that we find ourselves working together on issues that matter to both of us. We are both strongly opposed to the wind farm lunacy proposed for Mid Wales, and both equally strongly opposed to decriminalising the law on 'assisted suicide'. Over the last few years he's done some great work on national security, and though a leading Liberal Democrat, is much admired in the Conservative Party.

Another ex-politician with Montgomeryshire connections honoured this year is Dr Carl Clowes, who once stood as Plaid Cymru candidate. I recall attending one of his local meetings (we did that in those days) and thought he was OK. I was going through a phase of growing awareness of my own 'Welshness'. I've met him from time to time ever since, and we always get on well. He's done some wonderful work raising the profile of the importance of the Welsh Language. Yr Iaith Cymraeg features strongly this year, because as well as Carl (though his OBE was for services to Anglesey) there was an OBE for Prof Robert Owen Jones for his services to to the Language of Heaven in Patagonia.

Another recipient of an OBE with strong Montgomeryshire connections is Grenville Jackson, who was Marketing Director of the Development Board for Rural Wales when I was Chair in the early 90's. Gren was one of a really talented team of officers who made a great impact on Mid Wales, a time when the area surged forward economically. We did some terrific work, and Gren was a key player. Another OBE winner I got to know well during my Quango years was Jonathon Jones, who ran the marketing side if the Wales Tourist Board. After Rhodri Morgan's 'Bonfire of Welsh Quangoes, both Gren and Jonathon became civil servants and worked for the Welsh Government.

Also want to offer congrats on Malcolm Thomas' OBE. Throughout the 8 years I served as an Assembly Member, Malcolm was a constant source of support and advice in his role with the NFU in Wales. Met him a few weeks ago in his new role as Chair of RABI - which looks after farmers who fall on hard times. He was speaking at the now traditional Xmas Carol Concert at Welshpool Livestock Sales, which raises money for RABI. He was his usual ebullient self. and fully deserves his OBE for services to agriculture in Wales.

And finally, a word about Martyn Williams. He's brought huge pleasure to Welsh people for such a long time. I had expected the Welsh rugby player to be recognised this year would be Shane, but on reflection, Martyn's the man. Shane next year perhaps. I may blog again tomorrow on those names I didn't spot.

Public turned off by 'The Party Line'

2011-12-29T23:41:00.003+01:00

Had coffee with a well-informed and politically aware lady this morning. She told me that some years ago she had decided that politicians were so disreputable that she had decided never to vote for one ever again. I have other friends who behave in the same way. Personally, I cannot understand why anyone should think all participants in any lawful activity are corrupt and dishonest. Or good and honest either. She added that anyone who wants to be a politician must be so egotistical and flawed that they don't deserve a vote. Someone famous once said something like that. Anyway, she wanted some assistance, and I agreed to help - with enthusiasm.

Reason I comment on the above is its relevance to a rather good article by Peter Oborne in today's Telegraph about 'modernism, rather than 'morality being the dirty word of politics. . He is a very thoughtful columnist. There is style of modern politics that leaves its practitioners looking shifty and untruthful. Its 'The Party Line'. Its the agreed form of words that each party's spin department prepares for constant repetition. For many people, when an answer looks to have been prepared before the question is asked, it does not convince. It becomes a language that only other politicians relate to.

Perhaps its aversion to the 'Party Line' that draws me to issues that have a genuinely ethical dimension and to the free vote - which ironically, as a PPS, convention dictates I take no part in. Anyway it leads me into debates where I oppose 'presumed consent' for organ donation, and decriminalising 'assisted suicide' - though the ethical dimension is so contemptuously cast aside today that I always try to frame arguments around practical aspects of the debate. This aversion to the 'Party Line' makes me a 'contrarian' as well. Whenever I've listened to half a dozen speeches saying much the same thing, just cannot resist the temptation to take a different line. Now, where is my blackberry.

Alternatives to Onshore Wind

2011-12-28T22:13:00.002+01:00

For 7 years I have opposed the desecration of mid Wales by wind turbines, and the horrible infrastructure needed to support them. The appalling threat remains, though I do think some in Government are beginning to understand just what madness it is. But opposition, no matter how ferocious is not enough to win on its own. The Coalition Gov't is (rightly in my opinion) committed to reducing carbon emissions, and (wrongly in my opinion) see onshore wind turbines as the way to achieve it.. Opponents of onshore wind have a responsibility to encourage alternatives.

The main argument has been about nuclear energy. This debate is over. There is widespread agreement that a new generation of nuclear power stations is inevitable. Government has given them the green light. It may be that there will be an energy gap as we approach 2020, but I suspect this is much exaggerated, particularly since the economy is unlikely to return to significant growth for a while yet. Whatever, the debate about nuclear is over. Its going to happen.

But what else. Not enough to look at solar, biomass, aerobic digestion or micro generation etc. They must all be supported, but they are not going to make a huge difference. The 'Green Deal' is a great idea, which I greatly support - but there's a bit to go until we can be confident it will be a game changer.

Which brings me to 'tidal' and 'shale gas'. There seems to be renewed interest in a Severn Barrage, which would produce about 5% of the UK's needs. Its early days, but we should be giving every support to Corlan Hafren which is 'rumoured' to be working on a scheme. Such a scheme will not be popular because of the inevitable disruption and dislocation it will cause. Many years ago I was opposed (as I was to nuclear power) but its not possible to support carbon reduction as a principle without accepting there are consequences. There has also been disappointing progress on the development of lagoons. Gov'ts have been content to stick up a few wind mills so that it looks as if they are doing something, while spinning us into an energy disaster.

And so little urgency is being invested in shale gas, which has so transformed the energy market in the US, that there is prospects of it being exported. Of course we have to establish that 'fracking' does not lead to damaging subsidence - but there is just no urgency. If as much effort had gone into developing energy alternatives, as has gone into forcing destruction on rural Britain with wind farms, we would not have a Secretary of State at DECC wanting to destroy the mid Wales that we know and love.

Pantomime Season for Wind Farm Giants

2011-12-27T22:09:00.003+01:00

Can there ever have been a better drafted, dafter scheme to transfer money from poor people to rich people than by subsidising wind farms to switch their turbines off. Today's Telegraph reports on just how utterly bonkers it all is. If it wasn't so unfair to the poorest, it would be quite funny.

The massively wealthy and powerful energy companies which have built wind farms in the UK will have been given about £10 million pounds in 2011 as compensation for not supplying electricity to the National Grid. This money will be paid by consumers, about 6 million of whom are in fuel poverty, having to choose whether they 'eat or heat'. Incredibly some of these 'constraint payments' amount to more than would have been paid for the electricity if it had been sold to the Grid.

I know. You think I'm joking again. You think that because I do not approve of Mid Wales, my home and the land I love being desecrated by hundreds of pylons and turbines, I am exaggerating. If only. This madness is for real - and as soon as I return to Westminster, I will be tabling Written Questions just to establish the facts in a way that everyone can see.

2012

2011-12-26T22:48:00.004+01:00

As one year draws to a close, our thoughts turn to the next. While its impossible to predict events, some we know are coming down the track. I'll list a few which are likely to feature in my life as a Welsh MP. I will update this as Dec 31st approaches. Any suggestions welcome.

1) We expect an announcement from the Boundary Commission in Jan. outlining the 30 new Welsh Parliamentary constituencies. (actually I know the exact date but am told not to make it public - despite hundreds knowing). That's when I'll know if there is anything remotely resembling Montgomeryshire left. There will inevitably follow a 'discussion' about what arrangements should be legislated for in respect of Assembly electoral boundaries and arrangements - which could produce a mighty row.

2)We also know there's going to be an ongoing 'discussion' about the UK's relationship with the EU. In 2011, we had a very silly debate in the House of Commons about a pointless EU 'preferendum' , and a UK veto that created a lot of (again pointless) angst, because in my opinion, the Prime Minister had no real choice. I predict next chapter will be in February - unless the Euro part-collapses in the meantime, and the EU row takes place elsewhere. David Cameron has made clear that no further power will be transferred to the EU. The EU will not like that.

3)I expect there to be an issue of personal importance to me in early January. Lord Faulkner is publishing a supposedly 'Independent' report calling for the legalisation of 'assisted suicide'. I believe this to be wrong and will want to do what I can to oppose any change in the law.

4)Perhaps the biggest issue will be the UK economy. Prediction is impossible. If the OBR cannot predict, how can anyone else. No point in pretending I feel anything other than gloomy. The only way to create the jobs we need is to set business free, and lower business taxation - but I just cannot see the Coalition agreeing on the sort of radicalism that would make a difference. If the Euro collapses, 2012 could well turn out to be a very bad place.

5)Inevitably, the issue of onshore wind will feature in my year. We are expecting National Grid to announce where it intends to inflict its monstrous scars on mid-Wales in Feb. Governments will continue to put pressure (in my opinion highly dubiously) on the Powys Planning Authority to approve planning applications, which should be refused. Any other applicant would be laughed out of court, but these are backed by huge energy companies which have some unfathomable grip on the gonads of Government.

6)I'll probably take more interest in the Powys County Council elections than I will in the Boris v Ken battle - which I expect Boris to win fairly comfortably. Will do what I can to increase the number of Conservatives on the Council - even if I will be limited by the whips at Westminster how much I can actually do. We had a phenomenal result in Montgomeryshire in 2008, and I hope we can advance further.

7)Expect to become quite engrossed in the Olympics. We have tickets for showjumping, which is of more interest to Mrs D, but will probably spend some time in London while they are on to feel the atmosphere.

8)Toward the end of 2012, the Silk Commission will tell us what form of 'financial accountability' should be granted to the National Assembly for Wales. We have reached the bizarre position where the party most favouring this seems to be the Conservatives, while Labour seem to be implacably opposed. This should be straightforward, but I find it difficult to predict how it will go.

9)There will probably be a reshuffle sometime during the year - unless a resignation or two force a lot of changes beforehand. "Events, dear boy. Events". Because we are in a Coalition, there will not be many opportunities for 2010 intake of MPs to move up the ladder - so there will be a lot of very hard working Conservative MPs in 2012. (Not that its anything unusual!) Several of us would like to get a feel of the despatch box.

10) Wales will win the Championship, but will just lose out on the Grand Slam. Elin Jones will win Plaid leadership contest. Man Utd will win premier league. Nadal will win Wimbledon. Luke Donald will win British Open. I will break 100 in a round somewhere in August.

Should list some of the things that won't happen. The Coalition will not fall apart. Vince Cable will not resign. There will not be a General Election. There will not be an EU referendum. There will not be a repetition of the summer riots. The UK will not become involved in another war. An unknown Ethiopian or Kenyan will push Mo Faragh into the silver medal position. Cardiff City will not be promoted.

Tackling Poverty, Injustice and Oppression.

2011-12-24T21:06:00.003+01:00

Since I found myself on the same side as the Archbishop of Wales in the debate about organ donation, I've been taking a bit of interest in what he says. Today it seems he thinks the Church should change society in order to overturn poverty, injustice and oppression. Certainly not short on ambition. And that it should 'get its hands dirty' in achieving this objective. Amen to that. Its what I think politicians should be doing as well. The problem we both have to face is that fewer and fewer people want to listen to what we're saying any more.

The questions facing the Archbishop are not about this objective, which most of us sign up to, but how to actually achieve them - how to manage the contradictions involved in multiple aims. The Rev Barry Morgan has spoken much about the 'Occupy' movement, as if it has some deep meaning for us - as Jesus laid into the moneychangers. Must admit I still have no handle on what the 'Occupy' movement is actually in favour of - except that it does not like 'bankers'. Well I too think the 'bonus' culture, and 'city' salaries measured in millions is based on unpleasant greed and irresponsibility. But I also know that the city has a trade surplus with the EU of £35billion, employs 2 million jobs and provides £54 billion to the Treasury each year. Bit of a balance twixt tackling both injustice and poverty there. That's just one small example.

And then there's oppression. Most of the free world welcomed the Arab Spring, and the removal of dictators such as Hussein, Mubarak and Gadaffi. They were not good men - all guilty of oppression. But there's always been that lingering nagging concern about what comes next. Anyone who read the powerful article by Fraser Nelson in yesterday's Telegraph, describing the persecution of Christians that is growing at a frightening rate in these countries will be thinking deeply at Xmas services tonight and tomorrow. I wonder how dirty the Archbishop things his hands should be.

Do have a lovely Xmas and think about how we can reduce poverty, injustice and oppression at the same time. 2012 promises to be a challenging year.

Solar PV. What Happens Now?

2011-12-22T23:30:00.003+01:00

Hope someone can clarify what's now happening with Solar PV feed-in tariffs. A few weeks ago the Coalition Gov't announced that the tariff was to be cut from 43p per unit to 21p. Just as important important was the decision to only approve an installation on a property which had already been made energy efficient. The most controversial element was that the changes would apply to installations registered after Dec 12th - even though the consultation period on the changes would not end until Dec 23rd. Unsurprisingly there has been uproar - and a legal challenge.

I was much concerned when I first learned about what was proposed. The solar industry has been such a success. So I listened carefully to the Statement in the House of Commons by the DECC Minister. Admit I was left scratching my head about why the decision had not been taken months before, so avoiding the suddenness of the cut-off, and about the logic behind a consultation finishing two weeks after the matter being consulted on was implemented. But I felt able to support the Government's position (and did so in the chamber and in interviews) - simply because I could see no alternative. The solar PV element of the feed-in tariff scheme had been so incredibly successful, that almost the entire 4 year budget for all renewables had already been used up. The 43p rate was totally unsustainable. But it was not the easiest case to defend - especially in Welsh!

Anyway, the High Court has declared the changes to be "legally flawed" - and a DECC Minister has said it will be appealed. Has anyone got any idea what is going to happen now. Seems to me that if the changed tariff cannot be introduced as planned, there will very soon be no budget left, and all feed-in tariffs for new applications will come to an end fairly quickly. Really frustrating that I've been too busy to find out today what the position is. It could be that the judgement is still being absorbed. Would welcome comments from anyone who knows what's happening. I will try to update the position as I dig out information.

Wind Farms and Democracy in Mid Wales

2011-12-21T19:46:00.003+01:00

More time to blog, now that we're in recess - until we return to Westminster on 9th Jan 2012. Though we're back to celebrate New Year's Eve on the Terrace (with hopefully a good view of the fireworks display and cost of tickets going to charity). May also be in London between 5th - 9th to discuss legalising assisted suicide if the much trumpeted Faulkener Report is published as expected. I've offered to speak publicly in opposition to a change in the law.

Another speech on wind farms in the House of Commons yesterday. Again cut short at the last minute. Had expected 10 minutes - only to be limited to six at short notice. Had wanted my speech to be titled 'Wind Farms and Democracy in Mid Wales' - but the Table Office refused to include the word 'democracy' deeming it to be too contentious. Promise I'm not making this up. Anyway, let me make the point here.

In response to a speech of mine on May 10th, Minister for Climate Change at DECC, made a serious of commitments about the importance of local support before going ahead with the Mid Wales Connection. At about the same time, First Minister of the Welsh Government also made commitments about opposing a 400 kV line, huge steel pylons and treating TAN8 guidance figures as the 'upper limit' of what should be allowed. This was all good news. We were being listened to. But that was then.

The big energy companies went to work - like the 'dark forces' in science fiction, issuing ever more hysterical threats to Governments and pouring money into 'community benefit' which most local people see as a form of bribery. These massive companies, fattened on public subsidy, just sunk their teeth into the hands of those that had fed them, demanding ever more of the public's money to feed their insatiable appetites. The result - two weeks ago I was shocked to read a BBC online report quoting the same Minister as stating there would have to be wind farms in Mid Wales, despite local people's opinion "in the national interest". And this from a Government committed to 'Localism. And lets see what the Welsh First Minister does in the New Year. Lets see if he has any spine to stand up to these bullies.

Perhaps the worst aspect of this is the pressure on the Powys Planning Authority - which has been given a deadline to approve the 6 applications that are large enough to be decided by DECC. I'm told that the applicants have not supplied sufficient ecological or environmental information. They have made no evidence available in respect of cumulative impact. There is no transport management plan. And there is no information about how the power is to be exported to the grid. Any other application would be dismissed. But not the terrifyingly powerful wind farm companies. They believe they are above normal planning rules. Like the banks, they think they are too big to fail.

And there's another point here. Powys Cllr. Bob Mills was banned from voting on any planning application for turbines because he had expressed his general antipathy in public. Yet the final judge in all the large wind farm applications will be Chris Huhne, who declares his messianic support for onshore wind whenever he's asked. Never was there an example of an individual with a more pre-determined opinion. The whole process is about as far from 'democracy' as can be imagined. But then "its in the national interest" - the rallying cry for the suspension of democracy throughout history. To adopt a Xmas theme, its total crackers - increasing fuel poverty, exporting jobs and destroying a beautiful part of the British Isles for miniscule purpose. Its so bad that the Welsh Government and DECC put the blame for what's happening on each other. Walk through the uplands of Mid Wales next summer. Enjoy its beauty, before its desecrated for ever.

"No". What it means.

2011-12-10T17:53:00.003+01:00

What are we to make of the Prime Minister's 'NO'. Small word. Big impact.

Since the vote to remain in the EEC in 1975, (I voted to withdraw) I have accepted membership of what is now the EU - and wanted 'the club' to function as successfully as possible. However, I was implacably opposed to the UK adopting the Euro in place of Sterling. Always reckoned that the Euro was a huge mistake, which at some stage will collapse in acrimony - though hopefully not in a disorderly way. In the meantime, I have and will continue to support the Prime Minister's efforts to support the Eurozone - short of paying for the irresponsible and incompetent financial management of its members.

I had hoped there would have been a treaty which the Prime Minister could have signed in Brussels. There would have been a right rumpus, but I would have supported him. But there wasn't, and he didn't, and Coalition MPs accept that he was right. There was no way that David Cameron could sign up to what was on offer - a blatant attempt to blame the UK for the mess that the Eurozone has become. And a blatant attempt to force the City of London to pay for its mistakes. The Prime Minister said NO. He did what he had to do. He accepted the burden of responsibility dropped on his shoulders. He did what no other British PM has ever done before. David Cameron refused to be bullied by EU leaders, who were absolutely astonished to hear the word NO.

So where are we now. In some ways nothing much has changed, and yet everything has changed. The Eurozone countries will carry on Canute-like to keep the Eurozone intact. The de-democratisation of Europe will gather speed, as elected politicians are cast aside, and sovereign governments hand over control of economies to EU institutions. It may even be that EU countries will try to push through financial regulations which will undermine the wealth-creating, tax-paying City of London. But the EU now knows that for the first time ever, the UK has a Prime Minister who will say No in defence of British interests. As with all forms of human activity, the second time is a lot easier than the first. If our Prime Minister continues to show cool resolution, supporting the Eurozone efforts to manage their economies as they wish, backed up by a willingness to say NO, he will have the full support of most of his party and most of our Lib Dem colleagues as well.

The Death Pathway.

2011-12-02T23:38:00.002+01:00

Terrifying article on front page of today's Telegraph. It reports that tens of thousands of patients with terminal illnesses are being put on a 'death pathway' without their families being told. The Liverpool Care Pathway requires doctors who feel that a patient is reaching the final days of life, to withdraw food and drink after consultation with next of kin. This is an area of the greatest possible sensitivity, and it does not bear thinking about that this should ever happen without discussion with the patient's family. In my opinion, there should always be the added safeguard of a second opinion - completely disconnected with the patient's doctor. The Report claims that 2500 families were not informed when the 'death pathway' was activated. If true, this would be a shocking scandal - warranting a full scale inquiry.

Palliative care is an increasingly important area, as our medical knowledge extends life. More and more people will be reaching a stage of frailty when they might already have died in the past. I perfectly accept that deciding not to force feed suffering terminally ill patients, and helping them cope with the final days with sedation is humane and proper. But safeguards are absolutely crucial. No patient, should ever be put on the Liverpool Care Pathway, without both an independent second opinion and consultation with next of kin. We really should get to a position where any doctor who does not act according the proper rules should be suspended.

I believe it is time that Parliament discussed the issue of the proper way to help people at the end of life. While 'assisted suicide' must remain illegal, there must be a 100% safe approach to proper palliative care. A civilised society requires nothing less.

The Varied Job of a Politician.

2011-11-20T21:52:00.003+01:00

Yesterday's Telegraph reported on the death of Mrs Margaret Herbert of Folkestone in Kent - or more precisely the burial of Mrs Herbert. She had loved her garden so much that her daughter has decided that her mother should be buried in it - nearer to the neighbours than they want. There is no law against being buried in your garden. I've expressed that wish myself, but Mrs D is not having it - and I'll not be in a position to argue, assuming I die first.

At least Mrs Herbert did own the garden concerned. Reason this story caught my eye is that I was once approached by a constituent, who had been involved in a dispute about ownership of part of a garden. The dispute had continued throughout their lives, and led to the neighbours and their families speaking only through solicitors for 30 years. Anyway when one of the protagonists died, his family buried him in the disputed plot - just 3 ft from the neighbour's sitting room window. The neighbour approached me, hoping I'd be able to do something about it. The local authority concerned would not become involved and I didn't fancy resorting to a spade myself - so I ended up not being able to do anything. As far as I know the body is still buried there. I should add that this was when I was representing Mid and West Wales as an Assembly Member. Being a politician is a varied job.

The West Lothian Question

2011-11-19T11:35:00.003+01:00

The Government is to consider the 'West Lothian Question', or the English Question'. In the 19th century it was probably referred to as the 'Dublin Question'. It refers to MPs representing Welsh constituencies (or Scottish or N Irish constituencies) voting on legislation which applies to English constituencies, while they (together with 'English' MPs) may not vote on the same issue as it applies in Wales. A current example which demonstrates relevance today - I can vote on any legislation relating to organ donation in England, but will not have any say on the same issue in my own constituency. This is a constitutional anomaly. This blog post asks whether any constitutional change can be introduced which reduces the degree of anomaly. At present, I'm not convinced that it can.

The answers to the West Lothian Question, are many and varied, but fall under three general headings ;

1) A federal UK, involving an English Parliament;
2) Two categories of MP ensuring only English MPs are able to vote for English laws:
3) Fewer MPs in parts of the UK with devolved Parliaments, reflecting the lesser responsibilities.

Lets consider these options in turn.

1) Federal UK. There is a certain logic to this. There is much support for an English Parliament - in England. But it would not be like any other federal state that has ever been successful. 84% of the population would live in one of the four 'federal partners'. Inevitable England would so dominate that it would soon cease to be federal in any meaningful sense. And there has been no work done on the balance of power between the UK and English Parliaments, or how they would relate to each other. Constitutional lawyers tell me that such a one-sided federalism has never succeeded anywhere in the world in history.

2) English votes for English laws. To many, including me, this seems the best answer if change there must be. The problem is the complexity, and near-impossibility of deciding what policy areas Welsh MPs should be barred from voting on. For example, English health policy matters impact hugely on my constituency, because the DGHs that serve Montgomeryshire are in Shropshire. And increased specialist care means that perhaps only one or two hospitals in the UK will be able to provide certain treatments. The same cross-border difficulties would apply in every policy area. At least unemployment would fall as civil servants were recruited to manage the system!

3) Fewer MPs representing devolved nations. Much the easiest answer to deliver - but not favoured by me. The voice of Wales should not be lessened when dealing with those issues that remain with the UK Parliament - for example, the decision to go to war. Traditionally, the Welsh 'voice' at Westminster has been more reluctant to intervene militarily on the international plane. The same principle would apply across all policy areas. This is just not acceptable.

So where are we by now. The West Lothian Question is a constitutional anomaly - to which the only obvious answers are the creation of other constitutional anomalies. Its a case of which is the least bad option - not much of a basis for such a major constitutional change. Seems to me that we should think long and hard about whether the West Lothian Question should be asked.

My Organ Donation Article in 'The Times'

2011-11-14T10:12:00.005+01:00

The proposals by the Welsh Government to change the system of organ donation in Wales is interesting from a 'policy', an ethical, and a 'constitutional' perspective. During the discussions so far, I have steered clear of all except the policy issues, and whether a change to 'presumed consent' would be effective. Tomorrow I'm meeting a constitutional lawyer so that I can understand properly the dangers of legal challenge to the Welsh Government proposals. The debate about opt-out will inevitably feature on this blog from time to time over the next two years. In the meantime, I'll share with you the article I wrote for the Times last Friday. It's 500 words long.

This week the Welsh Government launched a consultation paper on proposals for legislation on organ donation. The effect of the legislation, if passed, would be to change fundamentally the system of organ donation in Wales. Rather than an opt-in system, Wales would have an opt-out system. An absence of objection would be taken as considered approval, an assumption that seems ethically improper to many of us. There seems to be compelling evidence that more organs would become available for transplant before moving forward with such a drastic step.

There is a desperate need for more organs to be donated. However, there is no firm evidence that a change to presumed consent would make any difference- and some evidence that it may do harm. There are several organisations that support the Welsh Government's proposals, which is surprising because of the weakness of supporting evidence.

During the past decade I have taken an interest in this issue, knowing of people needing transplants and through campaigning for renal dialysis provision. Throughout that period, supporters of presumed consent have championed Spain as an exemplar.

It is true that organ donation has improved significantly in Spain over the past 30 years, but closer examination tells a different story. Presumed consent legislation was enacted in 1979, on the assumption that it would increase organ donation. However, in 1980 a royal decree stated that objection could be stated in any way, without formal procedures. In practice, Spanish law is only theoretical presumed consent. There is no opt-out register. A donor's wishes are established by discussion with next of kin.

The level of organ donation in Spain did not change for ten years until, in 1989, the Government made several key policy changes that led to a gradual increase to the outstandingly good performance of today. Nothing to do with presumed consent. Now the favoured exemplar has changed to Belgium.

During the final year of the past Labour Government, Gordon Brown began advocating presumed consent, and he established an organ donation task force. I can do no better than quote from its conclusions: "The more the task force examined the evidence, the less obvious the benefit, and more multifaceted and multidimensional the issue of donor numbers was revealed to be.

"The task force reached a clear consensus in their recommendations that an opt-out system should not be introduced." A similar conclusion was arrived at by a cross-party Welsh Assembly committee.

There is a desperate need to increase the availability of organ donors. We need to learn from international experience where great success has been achieved, such as the United States and Spain. People are suffering and people are dying. The UK needs a comprehensive transplant coordination strategy. It does not need an ill-though-through change in the law that appears superficially attractive but remains unproven.

Bale, Ramsey, and Team GB.

2011-11-13T20:09:00.003+01:00

Two of Welsh Football's big-wigs live in Welshpool. So it was inevitable that the names, Gareth Bale and Aaron Ramsey came up in our conversation after the Remembrance Service today. Phil Pritchard is the current Chairman of the FAW, and Tegwyn Evans has been involved for several decades. First thing to be said is that Gareth and Aaron are two of the most gifted young players in the world, and would walk into any team representing GB. And next year may be the only chance they ever have of playing at an Olympic Games. I agree with Wales manager, Gary Speed that its a matter for the two footballers whether they play for Team GB next summer. Phil and tegwyn are not convinced.

There's a real issue behind the row that's broken out after Gareth and Aaron appeared in our press wearing Team GB shirts - even though it was as part of their sponsorship agreement with Adidas. Its about the future participation of Wales in international tournaments. Some very large countries (Germany, France, Spain, Italy etc) compete as one country, and several FIFA members see no reason why GB should, in effect, enter 4 teams. Phil and Tegwyn tell me that there is pressure to change the position - and they fear that allowing one Team GB to compete in the Olympics will set a dangerous precedent. It seems that there is unlikely to be a problem while Sepp Blatter remains in post - but perhaps afterwards.

No time at all for the mindless so-called Wales fans who barracked the two Welsh stars after yesterdays fabulous 4-1 victory over Norway. They might have thought it clever to take the headlines away from the game and from the victory. All they will achieve is to drive away the two key players who delivered the win. Is it a typical Welsh thing to be happier losing gallantly, rather than winning gloriously - and attracting the best Welsh players to turn out for the national team. Ask yourself how often Giggs has played for Wales over his amazing career.

But there is an issue - and its no good just ignoring it. Its too late for the 2012 Olympics, but we should launch a campaign to have Wales included in future Olympics. Its an issue I will raise in Parliament. It will be the subject of my entry into the ballot for PMQs this week. Be a good chance to bring the names of two great Welshmen, Gareth Bale and Aaron Ramsey to the attention of the non-footballing public of GB.

Welsh Labour Confusion over Constituency Boundaries.

2011-11-12T17:46:00.004+01:00

Constitutional arrangements should, in general, be decided on what is right for the people - rather than on what carries electoral advantage for any particular party. Its against this background that the Welsh Labour Party's decisions, taken this morning, about Welsh constituency boundaries should be judged. To be fair, I think Labour is the first party to decide a clear position. But it does look more like political positioning than a genuine attempt to add constructive comment to the debate.

Let's consider the background to this. The Westminster Coalition Government has acted on the manifesto pledge by both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems to reduce the number of MPs (by rather less than promised). This inevitably means redrawing constituency boundaries, and reducing the number of MPs from Wales. For the 2015 General Election, there will be 30 Welsh constituencies rather than the current 40. Until today, we thought that all parties supported changing National Assembly electoral arrangements to being based on 30 coterminous constituencies as well. But this morning, Welsh Labour changed its position.

Welsh Labour will oppose any change in the way AMs are elected - if proposed by the UK Government, which does seem a bit childish. Welsh Labour will fight coterminocity if proposed by the UK Government. This means that its highly likely that there will not be a majority in the National Assembly to agree with any proposal to introduce coterminocity - which is a very significant development. For anyone who wants there to be a good working relationship between the Governments in Westminster and Cardiff Bay, this is deeply disappointing - especially as it just looks like Welsh Labour playing political games.

There is also the rather silly agreement, which had been much trumpeted beforehand by Peter Hain, that there should be no Proportional Representation element. Bearing in mind what Peter has been saying over decades about electoral systems, this is just about as shameless a U-turn as can be imagined. Not much point in taking it seriously really - and I'm not going to.

I note from the BBC's report that the UK Government's position has been put forward by a 'spokesman'. If I'd been invited to comment this is what I'd have said;

"In the interests of clarity and good governance, the same boundaries should be used for Westminster and Welsh Assembly elections. I hope that Welsh Labour will support this principle, which will be helpful to Welsh voters at future elections. It was very surprising to learn that Welsh Labour intends to 'fight' what I've heard Welsh Labour MPs publicly describe as sensible over recent weeks. Welsh Labour does seem to be very confused about what it does actually think. I do understand that there will be different opinions about the balance between 'constituency' AMs and 'regional' AMs - but not about the boundaries being the same. I remain hopeful though, that cross-party agreement can be reached despite today's confused decisions. We owe it to the future voters of Wales to put their interests before narrow party advantage, as Welsh Labour seems to have done today."

Two 'Incredible' Excuses

2011-11-11T19:57:00.004+01:00

Sorry but I cannot resist it. Two completely mad stories in today's Telegraph. Firstly we have Mr Graham Gibbons who secretly filmed himself having sex with his girlfriend. When this covert filming was discovered by his partner, he claimed that it was in order to help him improve his performance. He told the judge that his only purpose was to evaluate his technique, from a 'time and motion' perspective. He wanted to strike the most effective balance between the various parts of their activities. He wanted to maximise the satisfaction that he provided. He was only thinking of her. Since the Court case continues in Cardiff Crown Court, it suggests that Mr Gibbons could well be a Welshman. We don't know whether the judge accepted his version of events.

And then we have the story of a couple who were seen throwing a dog into the ocean - 4 times. Now this is not funny at all, but their excuse is almost as incredible as that of Mr Gibbons. They insisted to the magistrates that they were cooling the dog down because it was hot. Unfortunately one of the couple was named Jones - so could again have Welsh connections. This excuse, while being admirably inventive, did not impress and they were found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering. Perhaps they should have thrown Mr Gibbons into the sea to cool him down.

Its not the Lib Dem's fault.

2011-11-06T20:08:00.003+01:00

I have had a basinful of people blaming the Lib Dems for the failure of government policy. Don't they understand that we didn't win the election, and that we are in a Coalition Government. Cannot they see that the Lib Dems have had to make more and bigger compromises, and sacrifices than we have. Both parties have members and activists which have to allowed for. Its how coalitions work. Today we had William Langley in the Telegraph blaming the Lib Dems for there being no vote on repeal of the ban on hunting with dogs. Its got nothing whatsoever to do with the Lib Dems. The only MPs who have surprised me by their opposition to repeal are Conservative MPs. Its just that its not the right time to use parliamentary time on this issue.

This blog has touched on this before. It was the ban, (as illiberal and grotesque a piece of legislation as can be imagined), which the Prime Minister responsible for bringing it in is ashamed of which fired my public support for hunting. It led me to become an enthusiastic supporter of local hunts, and the Tanatside now meets every season on my farm. I fully understand the frustrations of Alice Barnard, Chief Exec of the Countryside Alliance who is widely quoted in the article. It is badly drafted, has probably increased cruelty in the dispatch of foxes, and has led to no more than 6 prosecutions which would not have been illegal before the ban was introduced. This Act should be repealed, but there is no point whatsoever having a vote on the issue while MPs are so engrossed in other matters that it will probably not be approved. And this has got nothing to do with my coalition colleagues, the Lib Dems. Rant over.

A Presumtive Approach to Organ Donation

2011-11-05T21:37:00.007+01:00

Seems that not many people are prepared to publicly oppose the introduction of 'presumed consent' for organ donation. I am. The Archbishop of Wales did too, and he was roundly condemned for it - by people who had held him up as the great oracle on other issues. I was appalled by the tone of those who criticised the Rev Barry Morgan - so much so that I am seeking a Westminster Hall debate in Parliament for MPs to consider his words. In the event that I'm drawn in the ballot, I need to begin preparing my case. This is my first brief stab at it. Feel free to challenge.

Lets get one thing clear. The great majority of us want to see more organs being made available for transplant. It will not be possible to ever reach 'enough' but the UK's performance is abysmal. To this end the Welsh Government has decided that rather than donors declaring that they want to opt-in by joining a register, it should be assumed that all of us want to donate unless we join a register to say we want to opt-out. And most people I know believe this would greatly increase the availability of donated organs. I do not - and can find no evidence to contradict.

The main reason I object to a change in the law is ethical. Seems to me ridiculous to equate absence of specific objection with considered approval. The Archbishop's objections were also based on ethics. However, we live in a world where ethical considerations are given little value, so I intend to argue my case on efficacy grounds. Changing the laqw would make no diference. It just would not work. It might even make the position worse.

We're talking about a 'soft' opt out (much is made of this) - which means that next of kin have to be asked. Actually, there is no other practical form of opt-out in civilised coutries. I think it was Brazil that tried an opt-out without next of kin approval a few decades ago, and number of organs available for donation crashed. Trust in doctors also crashed. The law was soon abandoned. So next of kin need to approve donation whichever the system. Since the donor needs to be in an ITU for donation to take place, the only difference between the systems is knowledge of the donor's intention - assuming the register is up to date. All we actually need is an accepted custom that we all tell our next of kin what we want in the event of our death. In Spain, where the levels of donation are more than twice as high as the UK, very few carry a donor card, and there is no national register. Its just that the potential donor will have discussed the issue with next of kin.

So let's look at Spain, which until recently was being held up as the the exemplar by those who want to change the law. In 1979, the law was changed to 'presumed consent'. In 1980, protections for donors had to be approved by Parliament. The levels of donation hardly changed until 1989, when a comprehensive transplant coordination system was introduced. From then on the levels of donation began to improve to today's impressive levels. The law of 'presumed consent' remains on the statute book, but is in effect defunct. We need to learn from Spain's example.

But UK Governments have a tendency to impose its will on the people. In 2008, the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, decided to go down the opt-out road. He established a Dep't of Health Commission to consider the issue. Shock horror, the Commission recommended against. It also recommended that a comprehensive transplant coordination system be introduced. Now this costs a bit of money, but there would be no need for the bureaucracy involved in retaining registers. It would just involve everyone making sure their next of kin knew their wishes. Actually, its as simple as that.

And there's more. In the US, a 'presumptive approach' has been adopted - and again great success has been achieved. It would need checks to ensure a 'presumptive approach' does not become any sort of coercion - but its an approach worth looking at in the UK. There is a whole lot more to this debate. Too much for a blog post. But its a start. Any comment, including challenge will be welcome. I've given my debate, if I secure it, the title of "A Presumptive Approach to Organ Donation."

Leftover impact of EU Referendum Debate

2011-10-29T14:14:00.005+01:00

Its being claimed by some that the 81 Conservatives who voted for the motion to hold a three way preferendum on the UKs relationship with the EU have succeeded in changing Government policy - and that a more Euro sceptic Government will result. This is an ruse to justify last Monday's bungled attempt to pressurise the Government into an In/Out referendum. What a lot more than 81 Conservatives agree about is that we want priority on changing Government's approach to the EU. I voted against the motion because it was so badly drafted that it divided Euro sceptic opinion, and prevented the House of Commons approving a motion demanding the return of powers to the UK Parliament. I much approved of the holding of a debate, the very holding of which did make a difference. But it should not have included a commitment to a withdrawal option. This ensured that party managers could not, and very properly did not, allow a 'free vote'. Withdrawal from the EU is not the policy of any mainstream party. I decided to vote against immediately I saw the motion, and would have voted against if it had been a 'free vote'. Its not the 81 Conservatives that 'rebelled', but them and the rest of us together who have made it clear we need to see a genuine drive to repatriate powers from the EU back to British parliaments.

But Monday's debate has done less harm than I thought it would. Despite the motion being overwhelmingly defeated, its clear to Government that a majority on MPs want a change of approach to our relationship with the EU. Next time there's a motion on the issue, the wording will be thought through more carefully, and we will probably end up with a majority calling for a cultural shift in the relationship. We want the EU to stop taking responsibility for matters that do not need to be taken at a European level,

Of course, the matter could be taken out of the hands of the current Government by the financial crisis that still faces the Eurozone. There may well be a proposal of significance in how the EU is governed which inevitably triggers a referendum in the UK. And if its on any question which does not involve actual withdrawal, I believe the voters will vote No. Whatever, I certainly do not think that we have seen the last of parliamentary debate involving the EU in this Parliament.

Fantastic S4C/BBC deal announced.

2011-10-25T23:29:00.003+01:00

So frustrated not to be able to speak in today's chamber discussions on the Public Bodies Bill. I wanted to speak about S4C. I wanted to welcome today's announcement that a deal had been struck between the BBC, S4C and DCMS which answered the concerns which I have had since it was announced that the statutory funding link by which S4C had been previously funded was to be broken, and most of future funds were to come from the BBC licence fee. I had asked for assurances from the Minister during the Committee stage of the Bill - which have been delivered in spades. Here's the highlights.

1) - The current level of S4C funding (around £100 million if programme production is counted) is to continue until the end of the current BBC Charter period in 2017. Not possible to be longer.

2) - Only the BBC's National Trustee for Wales, currently Elan Clos Stephens, is to serve on the S4C Authority. She has been instrumental in delivering this better deal than any of us could have reasonably expected. Wonderful woman.

3) - No BBC representatives are to be included in the Management Board of S4C - giving S4C a level of independence that I had hoped for, but not expected.

4) - The Wales Government is given an involvement in the appointment of members of the S4C Authority, which I had not expected, and which I welcome.

5) - The deal has been welcomed by the Chairs of S4C and the BBC.

I hope we can put the huge problems of the S4C Authority over recent years behind us, and move forward to a successful future for the channel which has done so much since it was set up in 1981.

For months I've defended the Government position over this issue, and taken some serious stick. Comes the day for knocking this stick back, and lavishing praise on those those who have delivered this fantastic result, the chance evaporated as long speeches and interventions squeezed it out. Is it any wonder I was frustrated.

The In/Out EU Referendum.

2011-10-20T22:38:00.005+01:00

When stomping around the rugby fields of the North and Midlands, I developed a reputation for diving in front of the feet of a forwards rush to secure the ball. Led to my nickname, the 'Mad Welshman'. Could easily have stood back from the flailing boots, but couldn't resist the point of dangerous conflict. Which is why I'm keen to get involved in Monday's debate in the House of Commons about our relationship with the EU.taking a clear position on the motion before the House of Commons on Monday to put the option of the UK withdrawing from the EU to a referendum of the British people. Much the safest bet would be stand off and not be noticed, but I'm going in and making my position absolutely clear - and I'm hoping to be called to speak in the debate.

I have been a Euro-sceptic ever since Ted Heath took us in to the EEC in 1974. Became involved in the No campaign in the Wilson referendum in 1975 - first venture into public debate. I was also in favour of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and much frustrated when Gordon Brown signed that opportunity away in early 2010. Also believe there will be a referendum at some stage - perhaps as a consequence of the problems in the Euro-zone. But not now - absolutely not now.

Its right to have the debate. I would have expected it to reflect MP's concerns about the excessive interference in matters that should be for a British Government. Such a debate would have been useful. But we have to vote on a motion which offers the people an option to withdraw from the EU altogether, which I do not believe the Coalition Gov't would or should consider at present. The debate will now be about the wisdom of this proposal to hold an In/Out referendum, which will not come to pass. Opening discussions with the EU about withdrawal would be the most enormous distraction from the Government's work to reduce the deficit, and retain international credibility in financial markets, and cause even more problems within the Euro-zone, any collapse of which would have a massive impact on the UK. Holding an In/Out referendum is far more dangerous than diving into the feet of rushing rugby forwards.

The Silk Commission is Important for Wales.

2011-10-16T17:32:00.005+01:00

Have been very surprised by the 'unenthusiastic' welcome for the 'Silk Commission' by some. That's the commission set up by the Secretary of State for Wales, with cross party support, to consider 1) How financial accountability can be vested in the Welsh Assembly, and 2) to consider the range of devolved powers. Matt Withers takes a very dismissive approach in today's Wales on Sunday. Wonder whether this reflects the editorial view of the Western Mail. Matt seems to treat it as just another commission to follow the Richard Commission, the Holtham Commission (and you can throw in the Jones-Parry Commission) - none of which achieved very much. Personally I never thought these commissions would deliver much, mainly because they were rooted into places where the power to deliver did not lie. Richard was set up by Rhodri Morgan, while Holtham and Jones-Parry by a Plaid/Labour Assembly Government. The commissioners of these reports did not have the power to implement their recommendations.

The Silk Commission is completely different. It has been set up by the Westminster Coalition Government, with the support of the main political parties in Wales. It is due to report to the Secretary of State for Wales on 'financial accountability' in 2012, and on the constitutional settlement by 2013 - all in time for action before the next General Election in 2015. Again personally, I think this is a far more significant commission than any of the others, because of its direct link to the ability to implement. This time it's not an exercise in constitutional theory - not if I can have anything to do with it anyway

Of course, there is always a chance that one of the parties could walk out - perhaps more so because it's for real. It would be a great shame if this were to be the case. Again personally, I would support driving on whatever. We established a National Assembly for Wales in 1999, against the wishes of almost half of those who voted in a referendum. I oppose it as not worthwhile because it was 'neither fish nor fowl'. It should be transformed into a grown-up law making body which is financially accountable to the people. There will be some who do not want this change - but its what the Silk Commission has been established to deliver. Its very comfortable just spending public money without any responsibility for raising it, and just complaining incessantly that there is not enough. Problem is that when the media do not take it seriously, the people do not become engaged. Selling job needed.

New Pylons - ok but won't stop Mid-Wales uprising.

2011-10-14T21:02:00.002+01:00

I think the new pylons design that has won the RIBA competition is an improvement. Its been designed by Bystrop, a Danish company and takes the form of a T. The T-Pylon was judged the winner against criteria which included design, functionality and technical viability. The prise is £5000.

But it will make no difference to the uprising of local opinion against the Mid Wales Connection, which plans to build a 4OOKv cable on 150' high pylons from Mid Shropshire to mid-Wales, together with a 20 acre substation and 600 more wind turbines. The scheme is an abomination, and the people of mid-Wales are determined to stop it. A UK Government would have to simply disregard an entire region for it to happen, forcing through the desecration of mid Wales against the will of the resident population.

And the BBC are at it again - just churning out National Grid propaganda, without checking the truth. The online report of T-Pylon's win includes a line about undergrounding costing 10 times as much as overhead cables. We know, because National Grid gave us the actual costings fot the Mid Wales Connection, that the figure is 3 times. But then why let the facts get in the way of a good story which backs up your already prejudiced opinion. Perhaps the only way to stop it is for the licence fee to be reduced every time a deliberate untruth is reported.

The 'Silk' Commission.

2011-10-13T23:01:00.002+01:00

Biggest event of the week for me was on Tuesday when it was announced that Paul Silk is to chair the commission that takes forward the Calman-like process in Wales. Bit disappointed that I didn't have any invites to do interviews on the issue on Tuesday, especially in Welsh, but there you go. You win some and you lose some. Put a lot of effort into preparation - actually not that much because the devolution process is a bit of an obsession.

Paul Silk is a good man, with great experience of the Welsh Assembly and the UK Parliament. Luckily I know him quite well - and almost all of the other Commission members as well. Seen some silly comments from commentators who really should know better - trying to 'leak' things early, and appear informed without getting their facts right. Lets summarise what the Commission has been set up to do, briefly,

First task will be to consider how the Welsh Assembly could become 'financially accountable'. At present its just a spending body, with no responsibility for raising any of its own money. Seems to me that we must be talking some form of tax raising powers - which would involve part of what is currently a UK tax product becoming the responsibility of the Assembly. Again, seems to me that there would be commensurate reduction in the 'block grant' to balance it. Its not a way of just increasing the Assembly's budget - as some would perhaps like. It may be that changes to the formula which decides the size of the block grant will also be considered, but not by the Silk Commission. Every effort will be made to report on this part of its work by next year.

Once this 'first stage' work has been completed, the Commission will move on to consideration of Assembly powers. The people of Wales decided on the current powers in a referendum in March, but devolution is a process, and it seems right to me that there should be an independent assessment of how its going by 2013 - which is the Silk Commission's target date.

There is quite a bit of other constitutional stuff going on as well - outside the Commission. There's the discussion on the Barnett Formula. There will need to be some discussion on Assembly constituencies and method of election, following changes for Westminster elections.. There is talk of doing something about the West Lothian Question as well. Its a damn good job I'm interested in these constitutional issues. Life as a Welsh MP would be quite dull if I wasn't.

The Checkers in Montgomery - Michelin Star.

2011-10-08T20:22:00.003+01:00

Mrs D and I like eating at good restaurants. Over the years we've been around most of the noted ones in and near to Wales. So its a real bonus that we have a new Michelin star retaurant just 3 miles from our home - the Checkers in Montgomery. Its only been open a few months, and is the only Welsh addition to the Michelin Guide for 2012 - and there are but 4 Welsh restaurants so honoured.

Until less than two years ago the Checkers was a good place for a pint and a sandwich, That was about it. But when Eric Whittingham died it closed and 'The Frenchman and the Farmer's Daughters' who had been running the excellent Herbert Arms in nearby Chirbury (in England though) bought it, revamped it, and opened it as top quality restaurant. Have been there three times and it really is top class. Not sure what Eric would think of it though.

The other three Michelin star restaurants in Wales are the Walnut Tree near Abergavenny, Tyddyn Llan near Denbigh and the Crown at Whitebrook in Monmouthshire. Over the years we have eaten at all of them, and they are good. I reckon the Checkers is as good as any of them. The chef (the Frenchman) at the Checkers is Stephane Borie, who learned his trade with Michel Roux at the Wateside Inn at Bray. We ate and stayed there a few weeks ago, but could only have afforded it because our issue ganged up to pay, as a birthday present for Mrs D. My part was paying for the room! The waterside really is seriously expensive. Anyway Stephane moved to Les Manoir Aux Quat Saisons, which we have never felt able to afford. Then it was the Herbert Arms - and now its the Checkers. Our good fortune in mid Wales.

Having a Michelin star restaurant in Montgomery is wonderful news for the town, and for Montgomeryshire. The area will now be featuring in promotional literature across the world. Mrs D and I have always been into good restaurants, and appreciate the value they add. Of course, we will have no chance of booking supper at the last minute now - and I'd be surprised if the price didn't sneak up over time - but you can't have everything. Congratulations to the Checkers.

Goodbye Dragon's Eye

2011-10-06T23:56:00.003+01:00

Must admit I felt a bit sad appearing on Dragon's Eye tonight. The BBC had just announced that the 'Eye' is to be closed for good. Bit like a few years ago when my vet announced there was nothing to be done with my much loved Charolais bull after some illness befell him but to 'put him out of his misery'. Never managed to find another one as handsome.

Unsatisfactory discussion though - but pretty much what I expected. No criticism intended, but the attempt to link two important issues did not work (in my opinion). The first issue was the Welsh Government's recently announced draft 'spending plans' (I prefer not to refer to it as the draft budget). Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is what happens to the £40 million 'windfall' that arrives in Cardiff Bay as a result of the Chancellors announcement that Council Tax is to be frozen for the second year running in England. Carwyn Jones made very clear that its not going to ease the pain for Council Tax payers in Wales. I wasn't interested in contributing to this issue (though I do have an opinion). I was carrying the burden of PPS on my shoulders - its a matter for the Welsh Government.

I was interested in the second issue the programme sought to cover - constitutional changes that are on the horizon in Wales. And dramatic changes they are. Truth is we didn't get even the smallest grip on this. It justifies a programme on its own. To summarise, we are expecting the Secretary of State for Wales to announce to the House of Commons soon after MPs return on Monday, who will be taking forward the 'Calman-like process'. This involves a Commission to consider how to grant 'fiscal accountability' to the Welsh Assembly (by 2012) and a new constitutional settlement for the Assembly (by 2013). This is hugely important and complex transformational stuff. It doesn't lend itself to partisan knockabout. Its serious.

Reason I drove 230 miles to do it was that I want to one of the go-to MPs when the announcements are made. I know I'm in danger of being dismissed as a 'geek' but I'm interested. Two general points I picked up tonight. Firstly, Betsan and Felicity have been genuinely taken aback by the Conservative Party's commitment to make the Welsh Assembly into a meaningful governing body. And secondly, it seems that Welsh Labour's idea of 'financial accountability' it simply to grant the right to levy additional taxes in Wales - not a 'constitutional' issue at all. Just a way of increasing the Welsh Government's budget - without accountability. Well, we'll see what the Commission has to say about that. Anyway, it was much nicer to be there tonight than it was to watch my dear old bull being shot.

Coming of age of Cabinet Government in Powys.

2011-10-03T21:59:00.004+01:00

Really interesting session in the Council Chamber of Powys County Council today. Question under debate was who takes the decisions about reorganisation of secondary education in Powys, which includes the six secondary schools in Montgomeryshire, and the Newtown base of Coleg Powys. The proposition was that this decision was of such importance that it should be taken by all of the councillors, rather than just the Cabinet. It was proposed by the Conservatives, and supported by others, principally the Montgomeryshire Independents and Labour - plus a few others. The proposal lost 31-28. Several councillors did not attend - there being 73 of them.

From my constituency's perspective this is very interesting - in that the great majority of Montgomeryshire-based councillors voted for the proposal, while the great majority of Brecon and Radnorshire based councillors (with honourable exceptions) voted against - a real split in the county. This is going to cause much resentment if there is a public backlash against the decisions, (expected in November) which will now be taken by just the Cabinet members. I anticipate that the names of those who voted which way will be well featured in the media. Already I have heard two people tell me that they are so angry about what has happened that they are going to stand against cllrs who voted with the Cabinet in elections next May. It will be particularly difficult for cllrs with threatened schools in or adjacent to their wards who effectively voted to extinguish their right to involvement in the decision-making process.

Today's debate will have brought home to many cllrs what a Cabinet system means. They are realising that the power to decide now lies with the few who make up the Cabinet, and that the role of those who are not signed up to the 'administration' is to 'oppose' and 'scrutinise'. Since the Cabinet system was forced through by the Liberal Democrats and Powys Independents last year, I've not thought the 'opposition' to be remotely aggressive enough. Its only opposition councillors who are in a position to challenge the Cabinet, and if that's ineffective, we would have a dictatorship. Today was an important day - the coming of age of Cabinet government in Powys. Some will not like what they voted for last year.

Cheryl Gillan speaks to Conference

2011-10-02T19:19:00.002+01:00

Welsh Secretary of State, Cheryl Gillan spoke at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester today. Good speech. Even made a reference to her "popular PPS". Popular with some I thought. Anyway I think its appropriate to share the messages.

Opening line was important - a commitment to the union and our work in Wales, Scotland and N Ireland.

Rightly, since it was her annual speech to what are often referred to as the party faithful, she outlined some of the Coalition Government's commitments to Wales since last year - £1 billion investment in rail electrification, £60 million in superfast broadband, 52,000 lower-paid out of income tax altogether already, and lower Corporation Tax as part of a package of help for business. She also spoke of her delivery of a referendum on law making powers last March, something for which I believe Cheryl deserves the highest praise. I just do not think that Peter Hain would have delivered it - or even wanted to deliver it.

Inevitably there was a bit of mild opposition-baiting - but very limited. Essentially she was telling Labour in Wales that now they have the powers, they should get on with it, not drag their feet, blaming others, complaining about what they have not got.

There was quite a bit about the Welsh economy, which is not in great shape. The Welsh Government are too timid in this area, upon which so much else depends. We would like to see a more dynamic approach to Enterprise Zones. A focus on job creation must underpin all we do, both as MPs and AMs.

The Sec. of State said she will soon be announcing a commission to look at how the Welsh Government gets its money, and how to make Welsh ministers more accountable for the money they spend - an end to power without accountability. This was perhaps the most significant part of her speech. Again, there is no way Labour would deliver on anything like this.

Another important line (in my opinion) was "We will make every effort to work with Ministers in Cardiff to achieve what is best for Wales". Her PPS takes exactly the same view, and thinks this a good line to finish on.

Tax cuts ?

2011-10-01T23:00:00.003+01:00

Andrew Tyrie is a well respected Conservative MP. He is also Chair of the Treasury Select Committee. From what I have heard him say in the past I was not surprised by some of the comments attributed to him in today's media. Seems he thinks there should be tax cuts for business to promote growth - and reductions in international aid (despite the manifesto promises) - and less spending on promoting voluntary involvement in society (despite manifesto commitments) - and questions our recent involvement in Libya (or at least the cost of it). Now, I'm sure there are other Conservative MPs who share some of these opinions. Most will have some sympathy with the desire to see lower taxes as part of a growth package. But there are a couple of problems with all this.

Firstly its the timing of Andrew's intervention - on the eve of our conference. At the very least it looks unhelpful to his own team, as they kick off in their most important game of the season. And secondly there's the issue of the deficit. We would all like to see tax cuts, but they have to be paid for. And our absolute priority is to maintain international financial market credibility in the Chancellor's deficit reduction strategy. Coincidentally, the Chancellor has written a powerful article for today's Telegraph emphasising leadership and sticking to his much respected strategy. There could well be a few discussions about this intervention at Manchester next week.

More on S4C - unfortunately

2011-10-01T19:41:00.003+01:00

Would be great if there were to be no reason to comment on what's happening at S4C - but its not to be. But the future of the channel is an important issue for me, and a constant source of concern. Don't want to be unkind but the management of S4C over the last couple of years has been chaotic. Any private business which performed in the same way would probably have gone under. I had hoped we were turning the corner with a new Chair, a newly appointed Chief Executive, and a comprehensive review of S4C by the responsible department over the next year or two.

But No. we read in today's Western Mail that Ian Jones has still not been confirmed in the job as Chief Exec. What the hell is going on. It seems that there are discussions about the terms on which he can leave his current employment. Well excuse me, but even a football club usually sorts this sort on thing out before a decision is taken. We have to face up to the possibility that Ian Jones will not be able to take the job. Its not so much that there are not other candidates, as that we have an ongoing impression of chaos.

In passing, I see that in the same article, Cymdeithas yr Iaith have taken some encouragement from my BLOG comment (a personal opinion) that I would like to see a return to a statutory link between inflation and funding sometime in the future - perhaps when prospects for the UK economy are more stable. I'm pleased that they are encouraged. In general, I rather approve of their activities. But the comment made by the Chair of Cymdeithas as a response is plain daft. She reckons that "Welsh Language broadcasting is on its last legs and even the Tories now recognise that if nothing changes, our unique national language will suffer". Welsh Language broadcasting is not on its last legs. And the Welsh Language is going strong, as a consequence of Conservative-inspired legislation - principally the 1993 Education Act. I also note her almost contemptuous reference to 'Tories'. Does she not realise that all the changes that have reversed the fortunes of the language have been by Conservative Governments. And even in respect of the Public Bodies Bill, which has generated such angst, the Minister responding on S4C issues is a Liberal Democrat - and a very good one, David Heath. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Anyway, lets hope the S4C management can sort out the latest chaos as soon as.

Charging for plastic bags.

2011-09-30T19:34:00.002+01:00

Retailers in Wales will be obliged to charge customers 5p for single use plastic bags in many circumstances as from midnight tonight. Must admit that I'm rather in favour of this, though personally I feel it would have been more effective if they had been banned altogether. Don't suppose many agree with this view.

Wales has taken this decision before England, Scotland and N. Ireland (I think) - though I anticipate that these other home nations will travel down the same route in due course. Ireland introduced a charge for single use plastic bags 9 years ago and the average annual use by individuals is 26 rather than the 328 before the charge was introduced. As one might expect, the FSB and CBI are expressing concerns - which may well be justified. The main charge against the Welsh Government is that the introduction process has been poorly handled. Local retailers are telling me that they have no idea what's happening. Still, there are not likely to be any prosecutions over the first 3 months. There are bound to be a few teething problems, but that's inevitable with a radical change - which this is.

Returning to my personal opinion, I really cannot see why single use plastic bags are not banned altogether. Everyone would know where they were. Be a bit awkward for a week or two, but everyone would soon learn, and always remember a container of some sort when going out buying. Even if there's an emergency and a last minute shop is needed, supermarkets could sell multi-use plastic bags that would serve as long term shopping bags. Admittedly they would cost a bit, but this sort of emergency shouldn't happen often. So there we are. A provisional tick in the approve box for the Wales Government.

Agreeing with The Archbishop

2011-09-26T21:53:00.003+01:00

Good article in today's Western Mail by the Most Rev. Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales about organ donation. He's got it spot on. I am at one with the Archbishop on this.

Let me outline the current legal position, and why I object to changing it. At present, if any individual wants their organs to be made available to others in need after a pronouncement of death, he or she carries a donor card which makes this clear. I carry such a card, have done for decades, as does the Archbishop. The Welsh Government want to change the law so that it will be deemed by the state that all wish to donate organs unless they specify that they do not - that they have to 'opt-out' rather than have to 'opt-in'. In passing I must note that this issue was used in the run-up to the 'powers referendum' last March in what I thought was a deeply immoral way. And there is uncertainty (in my mind if no-one else's) about whether the Welsh Government has the power to do this. Nevertheless we are told to expect a 'white paper' before Xmas.

The reason I have long carried a card in my wallet at all times is that I believe it would be a Christian and noble gesture to allow my organs to be used if they would be of help. I often suggest to others that they might do the same. After careful consideration I have accepted that the state should in some circumstances force individuals to consider this issue by decaring whether they wish to donate or not - driving licence, census etc. But I do not accept that the state should be allowed to make assumptions about the will of individual citizens in respect of their own body parts.

The Archbishop makes the point that 'presumed consent' means in effect that our body parts belong to the state, unless we specify otherwise. Neither he nor I believe this is 'right' in any moral sense. Even worse it means that the state will be able to take body parts from people who did not wish it to do so - simply because they had not got around to registering their objection, as currently many do not register their approval (unless it is assumed that everyone would wish to donate). Further, at present the state has an interest in encouraging people to think about this matter. Under 'presumed consent' the state's interest will be for there to be no publicity and no knowledge of the system. And I simple do not accept that the undoubted good intentions of those proposing the change of law will last even a generation. Its wise always to 'follow the money' - follow the interest. And for me its also that I know its wrong - like euthanasia, assisted suicide, casual abortion etc. Its just wrong - and the convenience of the state will never make it right.

Our Law Making Assembly

2011-09-23T18:06:00.004+01:00

My parents bought me my first bicycle for doing well at school. I was not able to ride a bike at the time, and I contented myself with cleaning it and lavishing love and pride upon it. It was a long, long time until I stopped being afraid to ride it. You may ask why this random thought has flitted across my mind today. I think I know why. Its because of Sir Emyr Jones Parry and Sir George Reid.

In a recent most undiplomatic speech, Sir Emyr, the usually urbane ex-diplomat spoke most uncharacteristic about how Wales is governed. You could see written between the lines, in huge bold lettering, the words "WAS IT WORTH IT". He was reflecting on how the Assembly Government is using the law making powers that the voters of Wales decided should be granted to it last March. He asks whether the needs of Wales, which he sees as about skills, the economy and education "are going to be strengthened by an obligation to have cycle lanes in a joined up network across Wales". He also points out that when seeking suggestions from all four parties in the Assembly about how law making powers would be used as taking evidence for the report which carries his name, he says at the time of the referendum, "I asked all 4 parties (what they wanted to do with the new powers) and got half an answer from one". I've always regarded Sir Emyr as a wise and patient man. He must be very frustrated to offer an opinion so undiplomatic. As an aside, what bothers me is that one significant law that the current Assembly Government does want to pass (introducing presumed consent for organ donation) is in my opinion deeply flawed, and unlikely to reach the statute book.

And now we have Sir George Reid (Second Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament) questioning whether the current Assembly Members are up to the job of exercising law making powers. I'm not with him on this. Individuals who have been elected deserve a bit more respect than that. But his point should not be ignored. Being an AM is a changed job. Its no longer just being a good constituency AM. Sir George is suggesting that staff allowancs shouls only be available non-constituency work. Just as I've found it difficult to adjust to accepting that my main role must be as a legislator in the House of Commons, AMs will have to accept the same. These outside voices (of great wisdom) are only pointing out what they think the people of Wales deserve

S4C issues for Welsh MPs to ponder.

2011-09-18T18:11:00.006+01:00

Been involved in much discussion about S4C, the Welsh Language TV channel lately. Its going to carry on. This post reflects on some of the issues, and outlines some of my thinking - which seems not to be universally popular. The more I've had to confront the issues, the more comfortable I've been with my opinions. Just don't think my critics are realistic - and I don't live in the world of make believe.

A recurring question is whether broadcasting in Wales should be devolved to the National Assembly. Have to concede that personally, I have no real objection to this, but its not going to happen - any time soon anyway. A referendum of Welsh voters was held in March which delivered a new devolutionary settlement, and its not going to be revisited while the signatures are still not dry. The reality is that S4C is accountable to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport at Westminster - and that's how its going to stay. The long-term future is another matter.

A second issue is the level of funding for S4C. Roughly speaking, the budget has been reduced from around £120 million to around £100 million - totals derived from the BBC licence fee, the Treasury and BBC programming costs. This budget figure has steadily grown over the decades by guaranteed annual inflation-proofed increases(written in legislation). In my opinion, it is totally unsustainable that while the budgets of defence, policing, education, welfare, and every other part of the DCMS budget is being cut by large percentages, S4C alone should not be. The link in legislation which guaranteed annual increases has to be broken - which is why its included in the Public Bodies Bill.

A third issue of contention is 'accountability' - and here I share some of the concerns of my critics. Since most of S4C's future budget is to come from the BBC licence fee, I accept that the BBC must be involved in governance arrangements - but it must not be in a position of dominance. We have not yet seen the agreement between DCMS, S4C and BBC. But to listen to the critics, the idea of being 'accountable' at all is unacceptable. While public money is funding S4C, it must be accountable. It cannot be allowed to do just what it wants. No body receiving public money can be. The issue revolves around the right balance between 'accountability' and 'independence'. And there is still work to be done on this before concerns, including mine are met.

Another issue that has not received much public attention is the intention of DCMS to undertake a review of S4C over the next year or so. It seems that Jeremy Hunt intends to take his responsibilities seriously. Important that this establishes the role and objectives of S4C, beyond the reach of BBC. Its also interesting that funding for S4C (currently settled until 2015) will from 2015 to 2017 be decided on by the BBC. Its crucial that there are effective levers over the BBC to deliver budgets acceptable to the DCMS. I need to be reassured that the 'review' process for S4C and licence fee negotiations running up to charter renewal in 2017 are strong enough.

There remain uncertainties, and potential for disagreement and debate - which is why I anticipate an important role for Welsh MPs in ensuring a strong Welsh Language TV channel continues into the future.

The welsh Voice being heard.

2011-09-15T18:56:00.003+01:00

I think non-Welsh members of the Public Bodies Bill Committee were beginning to look slightly bemused this afternoon. We Welsh MPs on the Committee took over as we considered the future funding and governance of S4C. Began with one of the Government side (Mark Williams) decided to vote with the opposition, and ended when a protester in the public seats began shouting when the vote was announced, and was carted off by officials to spend some time in the nearest thing we have to a cell. I hope she wasn't kept there long, because all she was guilty of was livening things up a bit.

Its a complex issue, and I'd spent a fair bit of time thinking it through and rationalising my position. Still have lots of concerns but in my opinion it would have been very damaging in the longer run to S4C if it had been removed from the Public Bodies Bill. How can it be sustainable that when the Police, the Armed Forces, education, social security etc. are all taking big funding hits that S4C should be exempt (and guarenteed an annual inflation increase). And I just do not accept that its sustainable that any public body receiving taxpayers money should not be accountable to MP (or AMs if broadcasting were to be devolved). Discussion on this issue is not over yet, and there will be ongoing discussion over the funding of S4C - which I happen to think is as it should be. There remain concerns though. The 'governance' deal between S4C and BBC and the Dep't of Culture, Media, and Sport has not been signed off yet. This is key to the 'independence' of S4C.

Have to admit that when I was asked to serve on the Public Bodies Bill Committee, I thought twice about it. Knew I'd be criticised because of my view that public bodies that spend public money should be accountable. I've always thought that, even when I was a 'Quango king' myself - a view reinforced when I watched the embarrassing chaotic goings-on at S4C over the last year or so. Decided I would because (rather arrogantly perhaps) I thought I could present the case as well as any other Coalition MP. Sure enough I'm getting some stick. Blog comments are calling me a 'bradwr' (Welsh for traitor) though only by anonymous persons - and told by some that they will never vote for me again (again anonymous). Painful and inevitable. This debate is going to run. If nothing else it forces Wales into the conscienceless of the UK Parliament.

I don't do 'Wobbling'.

2011-09-13T23:14:00.004+01:00

I was horrified tonight when it was suggested to me that I might be 'wobbling' about the way I intend to vote on an amendment to the Public Bodies Bill next Thursday morning. I've been considering carefully, but I do not do 'wobbling'. I'm still having serious trouble with my spine, but I've always prided myself on 'backbone'. I was offended to hear it suggested. If I ever decide to vote against my Government, the first to know will be the whips and the relevant ministers.

At issue is whether S4C should remain a part of Schedule 3 of the Public Bodies Bill. To some of you this will be double dutch - but what it amounts to is whether the UK Government (while S4C remains non devolved) should have any overall influence over the governance arrangements of the Welsh Language TV channel, S4C. Since I do believe that as far as possible, S4C should be operationally and editorially 'independent', I have had to think carefully about this issue - particularly since one of the Government MPs on the Committee examining the Bill has made clear that he is voting with the opposition. This means that the Government majority is reduced from 3 to just 1 - and because its known that the Welsh Language is hugely important to me, I have become something of a campaigner's target. In general, I believe in politicians being accountable, and in the end, I really cannot accept that even S4C should be totally without democratic accountability. I also think (and this is a touch provocative perhaps) that some of the poor governance we've seen over the last few years has been because there was so little external 'governance'.

I have received a huge amount of correspondence over this issue. Its been a good well organised campaign. Forced me to think through my position on it very thoroughly. But having decided where I stand on the issue, I'm feeling relaxed and certain in my stance - which is not to say that I will not be asking Ministers for some firm assurances on Thursday morning. Quite looking forwards to standing up without a 'wobble' in sight.

Lib Dem 'Huffing and Puffing'.

2011-09-11T23:10:00.002+01:00

There seems to be a lot of threatening noises coming from my Liberal Democrat colleagues at the moment. We're told that Vince Cable may resign unless some sort of Glass-Seagall regulating arrangemnet put in place following the Vickers Report on banking reform to be published tomorrow. And then we hear that Chris Huhne might resign if the 50% income tax rate is abolished. This is not good for team spirit. Perhaps it will all calm down again after the party conferences are over.

I'm no economist and take an entirely pragmatic approach to these issues. Like most people, I've been nauseated by the greed and selfishness of our leading bankers, but would not want to introduce changes which damaged the UK just to spite them. I sense that there should be a division between 'normal' banking activity and the more risky 'investment' banking - but also worry that the UK will lose business if we introduce these changes without international agreement. No point in cutting off our noses for a favourable headline.

And the 50% tax rate is the same. If it transpires that it raises very little for the Treasury, and damages our economy, I'd want to scrap it. But if it does raise a decent slug of tax, it should not be scrapped until we can afford it and at the same time as a tax cut for the less well off. Its difficult to hold a rational discussion with any of my friends about bankers and the 50% tax rate - but I suspect that there are not that many investment bankers or 50% taxpayers in Montgomeryshire.

Next round of battle over onshore wind on Monday.

2011-09-10T22:28:00.003+01:00

Its odd to read about what I've always thought of as 'conservative' institutions (Telegraph, National Trust, CPRE and CPRW etc.) laying into the Coalition Government over its policy towards rural England (and to some extent rural Wales). In fact it seems more to be laying into the Conservative Party. There are two bones of contention, one of which I gnaw with relish, and one of which I need to know more about. The first is the horror of onshore wind farms and associated infrastructure, and the second is the proposed planning reforms.

There is a meeting in the Commons on Monday, between 2.30 and 4.00 for a discussion amongst concerned parliamentarians. The Telegraph reckons there will be over 80 of us. Lets see. I'll tell you how many on Mon. night. I'm a bit concerned that the meeting is being trailed as 'a first shot across the Government's bows'. I fired my first shot years ago, and several more shots since. Its the people of rural Britain that has been firing the shots, and its only now that parliamentarians are catching up.

I'm not so sure about the planning reforms - though I've commented on this blog about the intemperate language that seems to have infected this important and needed debate. My views remain unsettled, and are influenced by past experiences - Chair of a planning authority for 7 years, Chair of a development agency for 5 years, president of CPRW for 3 years prior to being elected, and a critic of the slowness of deciding planning applications where I live all my life. In particular, I don't understand the outrage about 'a presumption in favour of sustainable development'. I thought that was the current position. Certainly was throughout my 7 years, leading a planning authority. The underlying principle should be that a planning application should be approved - unless there is a proper planning reason to refuse it.

Anyway roll on Monday. I hope the war against the horrid onshore wind sector gathers strength over the next few months.

Scottish Conservatives no more?

2011-09-04T12:11:00.002+01:00

Lot of publicity for the suggestion by Murdo Fraser that the Scottish Conservative Party should be 'disbanded' and replaced by a new centre/right party in Scotland. This suggestion must be taken seriously because Murdo is in with a good chance of becoming the leader of the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament. The idea (and attendant publicity) is great for Murdo, whom I know, and who has always been a great enthusiast for developing a distinctive 'Scottish' Conservative presence North of the border, in the same way Nick Bourne did in Wales during his period as leader. In passing, I should opine that I believe Andrew Davies will follow the same furrow as Nick. Murdo's suggestion is also good in that it will lead to debate amongst Scots about the Conservative Party, which hasn't happened in any positive way for a while.

I do remember there being some discussion about a change of name for the Conservative Party in Wales amongst Assembly Members a few years ago. I think it was my colleague, David Melding, who is now Deputy Presiding Officer who made the suggestion. I never knew how serious David was about the idea, but he certainly wanted us to consider ways of connecting better with the Welsh electorate. The name change was never taken seriously as I recall - but a change of image and attitude was. Even though I was not in favour of setting up the National Assembly, I've always felt that the referendum result of 1997 was a moment of great change for Welsh governance. Since the result was announced on that fateful Sept 19th morning, I've been supportive of a distinctive 'Conservative' part in Wales committed to a successful Assembly, growing in power and stature - but remaining part of the United Kingdom. It underpinned my politics during my 8 years as an AM, and it has not changed since I became an MP. But in the end, a change of name is not enough. What really matters are positive attitudes and policies towards Scotland and Wales.

Trudy

2011-09-03T21:54:00.002+01:00

Trudy Baynes Hill had become a good friend over the last few years. She died on Thursday morning. Don't know how old she was, but a lot younger than I am. Trudy was a special person, who overcame huge setbacks to her health, and carried on with a incredible mixture of determination and cheerfulness. I first knew her when we were both working for the Development Board for Rural Wales in the late 80s, but got to know her well through working together campaigning for a renal dialysis unit in Montgomeryshire (Welshpool Hospital). When we established the Powys Branch of Kidney Foundation Wales, Trudy became chair and I became secretary.

Trudy suffered much ill health. She was one of the early heart and lung transplants carried out at Papworth Hospital. She also suffered from breast cancer, and renal failure meant that she was a three times a week' dialyser. I recall her telling how she once 'died' for several minutes, and had several ribs broken as she was resuscitated. Despite all of this, she was always chatty and cheerful, no matter how ill she must have felt.

Sympathies go to her family, who I'm sure will be feeling a great sense of loss. I too will miss the morning coffees we had at the Exchange in Newtown (where she worked part-time as much as she could) and the Old Station in Welshpool (on her way through to Shrewsbury for dialysis). We used to discuss 'renal' matters, and put the world to rights (Trudy was not short of opinions). Montgomeryshire has lost an inspirational woman, and those who knew her have lost a good friend.

Lembit loses out on Mayoral bid.

2011-09-02T22:35:00.002+01:00

Inevitably, the activities of my predecessor as Montgomeryshire MP, are reported to me by friends. Today was another big day for him in that the result of the contest to be the Lib Dem candidate for Mayor of London was being announced. I could see it didn't look good when Lembit was quoted this morning as saying "I have been in politics long enough to be able to read writing when its on the wall". And tonight the anticipated bad news was confirmed. The Lib Dems have chosen Brian Paddick to take on Boris and Ken Livingstone - with that household name, Mike Tuffrey in second place.

Must admit I would quite like Lembit to have won the nomination. I always got along quite well with him, and he would certainly have put Montgomeryshire on the map. Even tonight's BBC announcement of the result is all about Lembit, with Brian Paddick's victory a mere afterthought. It was a bit like that when I won Montgomeryshire at the last General Election. It was a very big deal for me, and a stunning win for my local Conservative activists, but the media coverage was mostly about Lembit losing! I fully expect Boris to win next May, but I would have preferred Lembit to Livingstone!

But even by Lembit's standards, his comments in response to defeat were a bit breath-taking. He compared his predicament as akin to that of Nelson Mandela (seriously I think) - in that both of them have been forced to spend time in 'the wilderness'. Must admit that comment did made me laugh. I hear his next aim is to become the Lib Dem candidate to be Police Commissioner for Dyfed Powys. I wonder how that will go.

Why 'Assisted Suicide' is wrong.

2011-08-29T17:19:00.003+01:00

Dominating article on front page of today's Telegraph reading "Call to legalise assisted suicide". Interesting in the sense of why was it there today. Nothing significant has happened. The Telegraph has allowed today's edition to be used as a part of a 'softening up' exercise - preparing the ground for a carefully planned 'offensive' later in the year to change the law which criminalises assisted suicide. I look on it as the opening salvo of a battle to come, lurking just over the horizon.

The issue is very sensitive and complex. The Suicide Act 1961 decriminalised suicide. The same act created the offence of assisting suicide. This is a bit odd in that since 1961 it has been a criminal offence to help someone do something which is not an offence! Its also unusual in that any prosecution requires the specific consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The purpose of the Suicide Act was to prevent legal action against extremely vulnerable people, who had attempted suicide, without undermining the sanctity of human life. Its a typically British approach to the law - based on common sense, compromise and precedent. The law has not been invoked since 1961 where reasonableness suggests it shouldn't have been. There have been few, if any, cases where the DPP's consent has been given to a prosecution which was obviously undesirable.

Yet, despite the above, there has been an ongoing campaign to change the law, and make assisting suicide legal. The campaign is usually conducted with reference to the sort of cases which precedent indicates that prosecution would not take place. The argument for change is based on a human right (within the EU Convention) to end one's life at a time, and in a place, and in circumstances of one's own choosing. Article 8 reads 'Everyone has a right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence' - but it is qualified by what follows. There have been some slight non-fundamental changes as a consequence of legal cases involving Dianne Pretty and Debbie Purdy.

Now to today's Telegraph article. Lord Falconer, former Labour lord chancellor and long term advocate of changing the law is heading an inquiry by the think tank, Demos, entitled 'Commission on Assisted Dying'. Its a title that makes it seem in some way 'independent' which it is very definitely not. Lord Falconer's intention is to publish a report that looks 'weighty' as a base for a change in the law that he has long wanted to see. A social care 'expert' named Martin Green has been giving evidence to Lord Falconer's Committee, and the Telegraph has been persuaded to give great prominence to what he's had to say. His arguments are those that have been used, and rejected, in the past.

Now to why I oppose a change in the law. A secondary reason is that, as Martin Green concedes, it is not possible to eliminate the risk that people will change their minds, particularly people with dementia who go through major personality changes as the disease progresses. Another secondary reason is that the unscrupulous will use the law to remove inconvenient elderly and disabled through pressure on vulnerable people. But for me much the strongest argument is the pressure which will be generated by self-generated pressure and society norms on the elderly and disabled to remove the burden that they represent by suicide. I am a Board Member of 'Living and Dying Well' a public policy research organisation committed to evidence-based consideration of the facts surrounding the issue of the assisted dying debate in the UK. Our Chairman is Lord Carlile of Berriew - two former next door neighbours uniting in the UK Parliament on a social issue of great importance to both of us. Without strong evidence to demonstrate that my concerns will be assuaged, I will do what I can to resist a change in the law to legalise assisted suicide.

Andrew R. T.

2011-08-28T22:44:00.003+01:00

In Today's Wales on Sunday, Matt Withers asks some searching questions about the new leader of the Conservative group in the National Assembly for Wales. Matt seems to think that because Andrew had to face a competent opponent in order to win the position of leader, it automatically follows that there are "two distinct trains of thought" running through the group in the Assembly. Well, I did not see anything suggesting such division, (beyond what would be normally expected in a leadership contest), and seen nothing of note since. Truth is there has been, since the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales, differing opinions within the Conservative Party towards devolution. It seems to be less so today than its been since the referendum in 1997. Personally, I saw not much difference between what Andrew and Nick Ramsey were saying in the run up to the leadership vote. It seems that Nick is more in favour of 'Welshifying' the Party, whatever that means. I have heard this same proposition put forward by other commentators as well. If that's supposed to mean developing a strong and distinctive Welsh dimension to the Assembly Conservative group's policies, then I think Andrew will deliver just that. For what its worth I think Andrew R T Davies will lead a very united Assembly Conservative group into the next Assembly Election in 2016, will develop a good working relationship with his Westminster colleagues, and will also develop a good relationship with other opposition parties in Wales.

Beauty in the eye of the beholder!

2011-08-26T19:34:00.002+01:00

Letter from Peter Fineman in today's telegraph. - Winston Churchill once sat next to an air marshal's wife, who wore an aeroplane brooch on her ample bosom. Noticing him looking at it she asked "Are you admiring my aeroplane?" to which Churchill responded "No Madam, the aerodrome." He would probably be hounded out of office by the Daily Mail today. I wouldn't dare say such a thing. It would without doubt be reported on the BBC in Wales.

Planning Gain for Community Benefit

2011-08-26T17:19:00.002+01:00

Powys County Council copied me into a press release today concerning a proposed development at Hay-on-Wye. I so approve of the principle involved that its worth a blog post. The proposal involves a development company, Powys County Council itself and the local community. The public-private partnership principle is that enough profit should be generated by private sector delivery of profitable retail and social care space to finance a new 240 pupil school and community centre (at no cost to the Council). Don't know the details of the proposals, but I do like the underpinning principle. Lets have more of it. And lets look at the sorts of other things that might work.

Here's me thinking aloud. Yesterday, I visited the HQ of the Powys Local Health Board at Bronllys. It looks just as I imagine an east European prison block might have looked on being left derelict for 20 years. How on earth can staff morale survive entry through the door laughably marked 'RECEPTION'. OK inside, and Bronllys is a nice place. I wonder if there's any potential for housing development profit to finance investment in the LHB HQ?

Or this. Castle Caereinion is a small village near our home, where numbers in the school are just above OK. With enough new housing permission, the school's future could be assured (and the local shop) and a 200 yd bypass of the village centre could be built which would greatly enhance the village centre. Cannot advocate this though without the local council's support.

Or on a bigger scale. If £30 billion worth of permissions of varying sorts could be identified in S E Wales, a new Severn Barrage could be built by the private sector, saving the Welsh Uplands from crazy desecration by onshore wind farms.

Or even the Montgomery Canal. I always thought that it could have been fully restored to its former glory, if enough development opportunity had been identified alongside it. And on and on we could go.

Unfortunately the reality is different. For example a developer has been seeking permission to build a Marstons Pub in Welshpool for over 30 weeks now. I'm told that another application for a Marston's Pub submitted in London on the same day was approved in 7 weeks. I hear stacks of similar complaints about attitude towards development in Powys. Seems to me unforgivable that potential job creating work should be left sitting in planning department in trays at present. But let me not be churlish. This post is about my County Council actually showing initiative.

Protecting Our Countryside

2011-08-25T22:57:00.007+01:00

I do not like the ongoing undignified row between Government and organisations concerned with protecting the countryside - suffering 'split loyalties'. Am a longstanding member of the National Trust and until elected MP for Montgomeryshire was President of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales. Was also Chair of a Local Planning Authority for 7 years in the 1980s. This row concerns disagreement over plans to redesign and simplify national planning policy (in England)- which is undoubtedly needed. But there should be constructive debate. Inevitably there will be disagreement, but there's no need for a shouting match.

Friends, who share my love for the countryside are telling me (as Clive Aslet is doing in today's Telegraph) that the Government's proposal is to "let development rip through those parts of Britain that aren't formally protected as National Parks or part of the Green Belt". They tell me that "we are throwing out of the window the directing of development towards brown field sites". This is unjustified over-the-top language. But Government Ministers have responded by dismissing these concerns as 'selfish nihilism' and my friends as 'left-wingers within the national HQs of pressure groups'. They are no such thing. They are people who care about the countryside, and do not want to see it sacrificed to accommodate rapidly expanding population levels, driven by immigration and family breakdown. Their concerns should be taken seriously.

At root, the problem is too many people. If the population of Britain is allowed to continue to grow as it has been doing, and is doing, some of our cherished countryside is going to disappear under concrete. And its no good forcing our rapidly expanding population into ever more densely populated urban pockets. Recent rioting on the streets has shown us where that leads. Today, we learn that in the last year, net immigration was around a quarter of a million people. This is unsustainable, and will destroy the Britain we know. There is something depressingly pathetic about reducing such an important issue to an exchange of insults. I'm going to have to take more interest in the proposals to change planning regulations, even if they do not apply in Wales.

Power of the 'Blue Foxes'.

2011-08-22T22:03:00.003+01:00

The 'Blue Foxes' have put the issue of 'hunting with dogs' back on the political agenda. They are a group of Conservative lady MPs who do not believe the Hunting with Dogs Act should be repealed. In today's Western Mail, and reported on the BBC in Wales, much is made of an intervention in the debate by Andrew R T Davies, leader of the Conservative Group in the National Assembly for Wales. Andrew takes the view that the Coalition Government should hold a vote in Parliament on the issue, and comes out firmly on the 'repeal' side.

This is interesting from several perspectives, the first being whether the Assembly group leader should be telling the Coalition Government what it should and shouldn't be doing. Must declare that I'm entirely comfortable with this myself. No reason why he shouldn't tell us what he thinks, as long as he realises that its not going to make any difference. So happens, I agree with much that he has said, though not in any hurry to hold the vote. There's too much else in the Government's in-tray at the moment.

The Hunting with Dogs Act is a very bad law, which has already become discredited. Much hunting is continuing, within the law, simply by changing certain practises, making a a mockery of the Act. It really ought to be repealed. But its not so simple. Firstly we do not know that there is a majority in the House of Commons in favour of Appeal. Not enough 'repealers' were elected, and a few have turned out not to be 'repealers' after all. There may not be a very big coven (or is it pack) of 'Blue Foxes' but they do make a difference. And there's absolutely no point in holding a vote that is going to be lost!

Personally, I would vote for repeal if there were to be a vote - just as I was ferociously opposed to the legislation as it was being passed in the first place. For someone who has never hunted, or taken pleasure in any form of country sport, including fishing, for over 40 years, my outrage was and remains intense. Libertarian instincts flow strongly through this rural breast. In fact I was so outraged that I've allowed the Tanatside Hunt to meet on my farm ever since the ban was introduced, and they will be free to do so for evermore.

Our Court System working well.

2011-08-21T21:37:00.003+01:00

See that my good friend, Lord Carlile of Berriew has been telling the BBC that he thinks the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are going to 'fall-out' over the sentencing of rioters. I do not think this will be the case - at least not to any meaningful extent. I do agree there may be differences in rhetoric, but I would expect the MPs of both parties to accept that politicians should not interfere with the courts.

Despite this non-interference approach, there is absolutely no reason why politicians should not have an opinion. It would be very odd if politicians did not have an opinion on a matter of such importance. I also believe that all MPs accept, as Lord Carlile seems to that "There is absolutely no doubt that the riot situation calls for severer sentences". There is a difference between stealing something, and 'looting' as part of a riot, even when the act, in isolation, is the same. Our magistrates and judges know this, and will sentence accordingly - which is why we've been seeing some harsh punishments handed down. No doubt some of these will be reduced on appeal. Nothing wrong with that, because the appeal system is part of the judicial process. Must add that I have been hugely impressed by how the court system has risen to the challenge of dealing with so many criminals at the same time.

Children's Hospital Services in Shropshire (and Mid wales)

2011-08-19T22:33:00.005+01:00

Met with Adam Cairns and John Davies, Chief Executive and Chair of the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Hospitals Trust today. Subject under discussion was the reconfiguration of hospital services in Shropshire. Matters to Montgomeryshire because we don't have a DGH, and most people see the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals as their 'local' hospital for emergency and elective treatment. And Telford is another 20/30 minutes further away from us.

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of the proposals is the bringing together of paediatric services (currently on both sites) into a £28 million spanking new purpose-built children's unit at Telford. Not surprisingly this move has angered the people of Montgomeryshire (including me). About 800 of us turned out at 3 public meetings earlier this year to tell the Trust that we were strongly opposed to their plan. The Trust took not one blind bit of notice and went ahead with their proposal anyway. It currently awaits formal approval. At the public meetings, Adam Cairns said that he would consider a 24 hour Paediatric Assessment Unit (PAU) at Shrewsbury (as a sort of concession) but it has now been made clear that this is not to be. The PAU will be closing at 10.00pm. Most of our meeting today was about this issue. Let me tell you what was said.

The Chief Exec conceded that he had said he would look at the 24 hour proposal at the public meetings in Montgomeryshire. However, the idea was roundly condemned by all his advisors - the official Assessment Panel, the Trust's paediatricians, and even those who were opposed to the principle of the move to Telford. It seems that there would be very little practical point. In most cases, children will be taken direct to Telford by ambulance (if its obviously serious) or to the nearest A & E Dep't - where they would either be assessed as able to go home or again taken direct to the new unit in Telford. In any case, on average there are only a total of 3 cases per night after 10.00 in both hospitals. All a PAU would achieve is to tie up paediatric consultants in a unit without patients. Don't blame the messenger. This is what I was told today.

So that's the official line. However, the trust has agreed to hold another round of meetings to update the public about what stage their proposals have reached - in Llanidloes, Newtown and Welshpool this autumn. I hope these meetings are on days when I am not tied to Westminster. More importantly I hope those who attend these meetings will challenge the Trust on their proposals and the reasons they give to justify them. Montgomeryshire parents are going to take some convincing.

No sex please we're All Blacks.

2011-08-18T22:09:00.005+01:00

When I played rugby around the North of England and Midlands, we took preparation seriously. No drinking for at least 12 hours before the match. At least 10 minutes heavy bonding in the changing room, with much noisy foot stamping and shouting. And another five minutes hate-generation on the field before kick off (I was always excused this part, because by this stage my fuse was already alight). Must admit I was never convinced about this stuff, and was greatly relieved when I returned home to play in mid Wales, where all we had to do was be on the field by kick-off. Occasionally the odd player was still having a pee behind the big tree at Feggy Leasowe when the whistle went - bad form but nothing like as unacceptable as that French actor who took a pee in the aisle on a Cityjet aircraft yesterday.

Anyway back to rugby preparation - and the fearsome All Blacks. They have always been a bit unusual with the bulgy-eyed, Michael Jackson routine they call the Haka. But in today's press I read of an amazing new development which demands that the entire New Zealand population gives up sex until after next month's Rugby world Cup. All the nation's passion should be directed into supporting the national team. Now I might not have taken much notice of this, except that the media 'messenger' is Sean Fitzpatrick, one of the most inspirational captains ever in world rugby. If I was a New Zealander, that would be it until the world cup was safely in the cupboard. Sean's message is asking all New Zealanders to "selflessly step into the bedchambers of this fine country, throw aside your natural instincts, and your lacy underwear (especially the men), stand proudly in your flannelette's and whisper "I love you New Zealand".

Another idea the newspapers are reporting today which was considered by the All Blacks was to have near naked models on Harley Davidsons driving 1000 sheep through the streets of Auckland. Don't ask me why. But the Head of New Zealand's RSPCA was outraged that the rest of the world would see images of these sheep panting, scared and possibly injured as they clattered down the streets of Auckland. Now if he'd said this about the male pedestrians I could have understood what he was trying to say. Nice idea, but I can think of several reasons why I don't think this tactic would have worked - making sheep pant would not be one of them.

Now you may laugh at these ideas, but Clive Woodward taught us 8 years ago that attention to the most minor detail made the difference. With the support of panting sheep, naked female bikers, and an entire sex starved nation behind them, my money is on the All Blacks.

Oh No. Not more 'phone hacking' moral outrage.

2011-08-16T21:07:00.005+01:00

Oh how our media must have been spitting when rioting, looting and other forms of criminal activity forced them to lift up their eyes from their navels, and the phone hacking infection that nestles there. Anyway, enough of this coverage of civil disorder and criminality - enough of this distraction of jobs, economy and deficits. So what if the Home Secretary made an important speech today. Its time to get back to 'Hackgate', and some serious navel inspection.

It seems that MPs on the 'culture' committee have today released a letter written by Clive Goodman, a former NoW journalist who was jailed for 4 months in 2007 for phone hacking. The supposed 'smoking gun' in this letter is Mr Goodman's assertion that he was promised his job back after serving his sentence if he didn't implicate the NoW in court. Now I think this is interesting, and there will have to be some effort to discover whether Mr Goodman was telling the truth or just trying to get his job back. And we need to know why the NoW made such an offer - if it actually did. Now I can understand why the BBC are going big on this, because its a wonderful opportunity to discredit their main rival. And the Guardian because its 'their' story. But I really do hope that tomorrow's newspapers (that I buy) are not going to give us more wall-to-wall of it. I know its an important issue, but I'm bored. And I also know that not a single Montgomeryshire constituent has raised the issue with me for weeks. I used to have lots of letters, emails and cards, almost all of which had been prepared by lobbying groups which had it in for the Murdochs - but hardly a single unprompted approach from a constituent ever. Almost every constituent has a view on the riots, even in Montgomeryshire. My worst nightmare is that we have another six hours of moral outrage in the Commons when we go back in early September.

The Siren Voice of Inaction.

2011-08-15T22:33:00.003+01:00

Sometimes I find politics a bit depressing. Today was such a day. The response to the Prime Minister's speech about how to respond to the riots of last week was as unconstuctive as it was dispiriting. David Cameron had no option but to discuss various steps that the Government could take. Just imagine what the reaction would be if all he said was that we are going to do is hold an 'inquiry' that will report in 3 years time. Don't suppose every proposal mentioned will go forward, certainly without amendment, but I believe bringing a moral dimension into the debate is essential. Criminal behavior is not neutral. It is wrong, and criminals should not be allowed to get away with it. As I've listened to the media over the last few days, I've realised that there is a bigger gap between the media and the people than between politicians and the people. The one thing our Prime Minister should not do is listen to the media, who use bloodhound-like skills to track down people who will rubbish every word he speaks. Its the sterile game that they play.

"Lets consider some conditions on benefits, in that those who riot should suffer some loss". Can't possibly do that because with less money, those on benefit will have more incentive to rob. "Lets consider a 'war on gangs'". Oh dear, can't possibly use a word like 'war'. "Lets make both parents take responsibility for their children". Can't possibly do that because it may stigmatise single parents, even though it does no such thing. Almost every comment on the Prime Minister's speech demanded the spending of more public money which we do not have. "Lets reform the police force so that its more responsive to the public and more than 12% of police are out on the street at any one time". How dare politicians do or say anything that has not been approved of by every Chief Constable in the land. And on and on it goes. What David Cameron has to do is follow his instincts, and not be diverted from taking on those who will always find reasons for doing nothing.

The respective roles of the Police and Politicians.

2011-08-14T21:48:00.003+01:00

Over the last week, the regard in which the police are held by the British people has increased significantly. So has public understanding about the main role of the police - retaining public order, and by whatever force is needed. We all hope the police can defend us and our property without using excessive force, but if needs be force must be used. Because we have not felt for many years that our way of life has been threatened by the sort of thuggish criminal behaviour we saw last week, we have become complacent. We are not complacent now, and have a much clearer idea of what the police are for. They are what stands between us and Hobbsian anarchy.

But none of this means that the police are beyond questioning. And while operational matters are entirely for the police, there is a role for politicians in questioning, in taking an opinion on performance, and in developing overall strategic direction. After all, we pass the laws. The police cannot be a law unto themselves. Its the politicians responsible for the police that have to stand before public scrutiny. Not sure that every senior policeman gets this. Reading today's press has strengthened my support for the introduction of elected police commissioners. Accountability matters.

Two other issues bother me as well. Firstly all this conjecture about Bill Bratton - and I've no idea whether he would want to run the Met or whether anyone would want him to. But it seems illogical to me to limit the application list to just British police personnel. I cannot think of a single reason why this should be. We want the best person available to take on what is one of the most difficult jobs in the country. And in my opinion, it doesn't matter where they come from.

And finally, there's the matter of police funding. I do not like reducing police funding, just as I do not like reducing defence spending, or education funding, or charity support, or S4C spending etc., etc.. (Maybe I'd support transferring the massive subsidies for onshore wind farms though) We have a huge deficit and threatening debts, and we have a credible deficit reduction plan, which has made the UK a 'safe haven' and kept our borrowing costs very low. Any backsliding under pressure will cause huge damage to our credibility with the international markets. Its just not going to happen. The price would be too high. I know that this is not a popular view at the moment, but as it was last week, and it is for everyone else, it comes down to a question of operational priorities for the police. And they must have the support of politicians to deliver on their priorities. Which is why I think MPs should be making a point of emphasising how much they value the police at the moment. Its a tough time for them.

The Voice of an Angry Woman.

2011-08-12T22:41:00.003+01:00

Spoke at length to a constituent today who left me speechless - in the sense that I had no answers - at least none that I felt it appropriate to offer. She just brought home to me the scale of punishment that is being handed out to people who have worked hard to raise a family without relying on the state.

My constituent is a successful schoolteacher earning just about enough to take her into the higher rate tax band. Her husband has taken on the role of caring for their three children. So they are going to lose all of their child allowance, knowing that other couples earning almost twice as much will be keeping theirs. She also pointed out that she will have to pay a lot more of her wages to fund her pension, and that she will have to work for longer before she receives it.

Now to that which, entirely reasonably, made her so angry that she decided for the first time in her life to raise her feelings with her MP. She knows people that live ever so comfortably on the state, spending the money she pays in taxes, and never giving a thought to working to earn their own money. And she's had to watch while bankers, with shameless greed, have pocketed billions in bonuses, after her taxes were used to bail them out following their spectacular incompetence. Like her and many before me, I do find these millionaire bankers to be like sewers - nauseating but necessary.

As I listened, I felt rather helpless. The issues she raised are way 'beyond my pay grade' to change. I could have pointed out that the previous Government so screwed up the economy that we have little choice but to take tough decisions to repair the mess - but I didn't. I do not think it would have helped. But when I listen to really hard working and responsible people telling me how it is, I feel sickened by the likes of Gordon Brown and Ed Balls and their economic 'clever dick' illiteracy refusing to accept any shard of blame for the appalling damage they inflicted on the British economy. Pray they never get the chance to do it again.

Extracts - Prime Minister's Speech today

2011-08-11T23:48:00.002+01:00

"Keeping people safe is the first duty of Government"

"It is criminality pure and simple".

"We will do whatever it takes to restore law and order and rebuild our communities".

"People stealing flat screen televisions was not about politics or protest, it was about theft">

"No phony human rights concerns about publishing photographs will get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice".

"The Acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said he would be the last man in Scotland Yard, with all of his management team out on the streets before he asked for the army".

"Whenever the Police face a new threat - they must have the freedom and the confidence to change tactics. This Government will make sure they always have that".

"I can confirm that any individual, homeowner or business that has suffered damage to or loss oftheir buildings or property as a result of rioting, can seek compensation under the Riot Damages Act, even if uninsured".

"Normally claims must be received within 14 days. We will extend the period to 42 days".

"We will weed out unnecessary planning regulations to ensure that businesses can get back on their feet and feel secure as quickly as possible".

"The Government will also meet the immediate costs of emergency accommodation for families made homeless".

"There is a moral problem in our society with children growing up not knowing the difference between right and wrong".

"And to the lawless minority, the criminals who have taken what they can get, I say; We will track you down, we will find, we will charge you, and we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done".

Reclaiming our streets

2011-08-09T22:47:00.003+01:00

Biggest question for our Government for a long time is how to deal with the current criminal activity that is disfiguring our society. I'm hugely pleased that Parliament has been recalled. There is no option but to reclaim the streets, and we must do whatever it takes. It seems that there are huge numbers rioting, but in truth its probably a minority, with massively more young people hiding behind their doors frightened of the thugs who have taken over their street.

Lots of people are advocating putting the military on the street, and using water cannon, plastic bullets etc. This would be a seriously big deal. Don't think we have ever used plastic bullets to control riots in the UK. Far better that if its going to happen, it should be done with the approval of Parliament. I've taken a fair bit of stick on my Facebook site for this opinion. Most commenters want to go in with the army now.

I do find the justification that some commentators are giving for the violence to be unacceptaable. What we have seen is the actions of criminals and theives. The police must throw the kitchen sink at this and everyone found guilty of contributing to what's happened should be shown little sympathy by the courts. This has been a bad day for the image of the UK across the world, but I do think its a time for cool heads, not rash actions. Whenever the country faces a situation in which there may be a need to take some dramatic steps to take control, its as well for a Prime Minister to keep options open. There may be a variety of complex reasons behind where we are, but at present there is one dominating objective - and that is to reclaim control of the street. I desperately hope that our unarmed (generally) police can recover control the situation.

And finally, I've just watched Harriet Harmon on Newsnight delivering a very disappointing performance, about which I do not think it wise to comment. I do hope Ed Miliband takes a more responsible and statesmanlike approach on Thursday. Michael Gove really let fly - and she deserved it (in my opinion).

One-way to Hell in Welshpool

2011-08-02T22:09:00.004+01:00

Things of which I approve are happening at Powys County Council. The cosy consensus which has stultified debate and ostracised the voice of the people for 20 years has been smashed. A ruling coalition has been formed (currently Powys Independents and Lib Dems) something which I always approved of, though preferring the Conservatives to be involved. Next year perhaps. As a consequence of this, an 'opposition' has also emerged - to 'oppose'. Initially, it seemed to me that the new governing coalition successfully smothered any potential for genuine opposition by taking control of the 'scrutiny' committees - a dastardly plan. But the Chief executive has stepped in. It seems that we are now to have 'committees' established to conduct reviews of issues, taking evidence, making recommendations - in effect holding the ruling coalition to account. Well done, Mr Paterson. Democracy is not dead in Powys after all.

Now to the interesting first issue under discussion, the new traffic gyratory system at Welshpool - otherwise known as the one-way system. A committee, under the Chairmanship of Cllr. David Jones has been established to look at how it's working, or not! Perhaps they might even ask why it was introduced in the first place. I can see this putting one or two noses out of joint. Good. Great stuff. At long last we will have Councillors asking the questions that the people they represent want asked.

Personally, I hate one way systems. They usually cause more problems than they solve. They work fine when traffic is light, but cannot cope with heavy traffic - especially when delivery vehicles are allowed to completely stuff up the system by parking on Berriew St. and Severn St. during the daytime. Dozens of people have approached me with their concerns. Firstly by town centre businesses suffering a loss of trade, and secondly by people concerned about the greater danger in crossing Broad St., especially for the elderly and less mobile. Only thing positive you can say is that it's nothing like as bad as Newtown. So don't hold back Councillor Jones. Lets have a hard-hitting report. And when you've done with this issue, I've a few other ideas for your committee to look into.

What Price Solar Power

2011-07-31T23:00:00.003+01:00

As the threat of destruction of my home area becomes ever more real, I become an increasingly implacable opponent of onshore wind power. Inevitably this stimulates interest in other forms of energy. The biggest change for me personally was to accept that new nuclear generating capacity should be built. I now support Horizon Wylfa 'B' proposals on Ynys Mon - onshore wind or not. I also feel less antagonistic towards offshore wind, because the turbines are less intrusive. The two most significant undeveloped 'ideas' floating around are shale/other forms of gas which exist under our ground, and a Severn Barrage. the latter depends on the private sector working up a scheme that will not require Government money - so it will have to be an absolutely massive scheme to generate enough money from associated development to pay for it.

But we shouldn't forget the smaller contributors. Quite a bit of solar has come on board this last year or so. Unfortunately commercial solar development ended today. The level of Government subsidy which had been so generous that so many solar farms were planned that the cost to Government promised to become unacceptable. I did read somewhere that 100 Mw of solar power was created in the UK in 2010 - that's about 40 turbines-worth. And about 8000 Mw of solar was developed in Germany in the same year. That's about 3,000 turbines-worth. Can this possibly be true I ask myself. with luck some knowledgeable person will visit this post and enlighten us. And then theere's the 'Green Deal' to reduce demand - but that's for another day.

Raising money to defend our homes from National Grid.

2011-07-30T22:53:00.003+01:00

Mathrafal lies half way between Pontrobert and Meifod in the heart of one of Montgomeryshire's lovely valleys. My Nain and Taid used to live nearby (at N01 Tanyffridd Cottages). He used to be the local roadman. My first road accident was near Mathrafal when I fell off Taid's bike. Today Mathrafal was the site of the Sustainable Life Festival, where thousands of people turned up to to raise money to save this beautiful area from the destructive ravages of National Grid and wind farm mega-businesses - and to have a bit of fun at the same time.

Mathrafal used to be the seat of kings and princes of Powis from the 9th century to 1212, when the Castle was destroyed by Llewelyn ap Iorwerth, and the seat of power moved to Powis Castle near Welshpool. Historically, Mathrafal has been a place where the people of this part of Wales have fought for their existence. The people of the area know that we are in for a similar fight today, and over the next few years. This time the enemy is National Grid and the onshore wind industry, whose power is derived from central governments and made fat by massive subsidies paid out of our taxes. (Its a cruel irony that we are being forced to pay for our own desecration!)

Stuck me in conversations today that people are afraid of National Grid, in the way that people might have feared Darth Vadar and other dark forces. Many local people believe these dark forces are so powerful that they cannot be resisted - a resignation that those leading the Mid Wales Connection Project have been keen to encourage. Luckily there are thousands of other people who are made of sterner stuff, and are going to fight these onshore wind leviathans to the last ditch. Llewelyn ap Iorwerth might never have won if he had been up against today's 'People Power'.

Lies about wind farms at Llanerfyl

2011-07-28T22:25:00.005+01:00

Its always a good sign that you are scoring well when others start telling 'porkies' about you. Since I began notching up a few runs over the wind turbines/pylons in mid Wales issue, a few people have raised with me a 'suggestion' that I once wanted turbines on my own land. This is simply not true. And when this untruth is deliberate, its reasonable to refer to it as a lie, and the perpetrator as a liar. While this should be my own 'private' business, I've decided to expose the porkie-tellers. This is what actually happened.

In 2006, a Spanish wind farm company named Gamesa approached 5 landowners in the Llanerfyl area, (my family being one of them) informing us that they were hoping to build a wind farm on our land, and offering each of us a generous sum of money annually if we would sign a contract granting 'exclusivity' to Gamesa for 5 years. Now I didn't want to offend my neighbours (or my family who quite liked the idea) so I exercised my right to make no reply, believing (correctly) that the proposal would eventually go away. However I declined to sign any contract, and informed Gamesa that I did not want any of their money. I have no idea what my neighbour's responses were. I should add that even though Gamesa knew of my anti-onshore wind stance, they showed me around their various wind farms when I was in Spain (at nil cost to Gamesa before you suspicious types ask). They were not the first (or last)to think I would change my mind. It was also the case that wind measuring equipment was stationed on land which I had once owned, but had sold long before anyone thought of wind farms in the area. In addition, because I was an Assembly Member at the time, opposed to the Welsh Government's TAN 8 policy, I made all this public. I still remember taking the poor BBC reporter and cameraman (who turned up wearing smart shoes) up the dirtiest roughest track possible to the site in pouring rain for an interview for Wales today. Laughed for days about that.

Doesn't worry me a damn when lies are told about me by my political opponents. But I do mind when my efforts to resist the Mid wales connection Project are being undermined. So the next time you hear someone repeating these lies, perhaps you would be so kind as to correct them.

Shedding some light on Lake Vyrnwy sale

2011-07-25T23:26:00.003+01:00

Severn Trent announced today that it has selected United Utilities/RSPB as its 'preferred bidder' for the Lake Vyrnwy Estate in Montgomeryshire. One privatised utility company selling the bulk of the village of Llanwddyn to another. Severn Trent also announced today that no 'preferred bidder' has been chosen for the rented housing it owns in the village or the sporting rights on the Lake as yet. This is the biggest land sale in Wales for many years and the decision has outraged local opinion - for two reasons.

Firstly, another bidder, Mr Rhys Jones, a businessman with strong local connections had engaged enthusiastically with local people and had satisfied them that he wanted to make major investment in the Estate, something that has been lacking under Severn Trent's ownership for many years. Inevitably, local people are disappointed because 'their' man did not win. Second reason for outrage is the cloak of secrecy surrounding the deal. Its not like its one farm - its almost their entire community. And the only reason Severn Trent made their intentions public today was that local Cllr., Simon Baynes and I did it for them last week.

I cannot criticise the actual United Utilities/RSPB bid because I know nothing about it. Its all a big secret. But local people have been desperately unhappy with the way Severn Trent and RSPB have managed things in the past. The best hope of blowing all this secrecy out of the water is Lord Elis Thomas, Chair of the National Assembly's Environment and Sustainability Committee, who is considering establishing some sort on inquiry into the sale. Now that would be fun - forcing the two privatised utility companies and RSPB to answer questions in public on the background to what looks a cosy deal. Perhaps they'll refuse to show. Perhaps Dafydd El will have them summonsed! Watch this space.

The Pain of the 'Long Goodbye'

2011-07-24T23:11:00.002+01:00

Regular readers will know that I have a soft spot for Plaid Cymru - even though I'm not sure whether it's OK to have soft spots for political opponents! Perhaps its a bit like when I had a soft spot for Warrington Rugby Club, when I played for Shrewsbury. Great club, but nothing I liked more than kicking lumps out of them on the field of play. Anyway, I'm a bit worried about the state of Plaid Cymru - and mainly its down to the lack of a leader. I do not count Ieuan Wyn Jones, because once you've announced that you are standing down, authority just drains away.

Don't suppose my advice would carry much weight, but I thought Ieuan should have announced his resignation the day after the May election - assuming he was not going to fight another election. I reckon that Lord Dafydd El took the same view which is why he threw his hat in the ring immediately. The first timetable that Ieuan gave us was ridiculous. At least its been brought forward to next spring. I don't buy this excuse that its necessary to complete a review of what's gone wrong before electing a new leader. The new leader should should take charge of the review. Whatever, its time to look at the runners and riders.

I just do not think Dafydd El wants to be the leader - what with all that discipline and example setting. Not his thing. I'd make him Ambassador to Buckingham Palace. He will find spoons to stir elsewhere. I can see but two runners, with Elin Jones the firm favorite. And Simon Thomas will make it a contest. I'd love to see my old friend, Rhodri Glyn having a pitch, but just cannot see it. Saw Adam Price last week, and Dafyydd Wigley, and I see Jonathon Edwards every week. Just saying.

Lembit - take it on the chin like a man.

2011-07-23T20:22:00.004+01:00

In the General Election of May 2010 in Montgomeryshire, I managed to inflict defeat upon the wannabe Liberal Democrat candidate for Mayor of London - Mr Lembit Opik. Seems that Lembit does not think that I actually had anything whatsoever to do with it. And neither does Peter Black AM who thinks defeat was due to his self-obsessive and flamboyant behaviour, loss of perspective, free cruises, and his daft response to the expenses scandal - and a whole lot of others I talk to at Westminster take the same sort of line. Personally, I did not see much difference in Lembit's behaviour to that before previous elections. Whatever it seems that I just happened to be in the right place at the right time and be the fortunate beneficiary.

Lembit, in his personal manifesto, seeking nomination as candidate is putting the blame for his defeat on Mick Bates, who served as AM for Montgomeryshire, alongside Lembit for 11 years. I really do find this to be utterly nauseating. OK, so Mick's assault on a paramedic after a night on the booze might have had a marginal impact, but I worked with Mick for many years and he was a hard working AM, who I never heard make a negative comment about Lembit.

One of the things I like least about politics is the failure to take responsibility for what they say and do. The truth is that Lembit Opik went into the 2010 General Election with a lead over the Conservatives of 7000 votes (16,000 against 9,000). He came out of it with defeat by 1,200 votes - the biggest swing from Lib Dem to Conservative in the UK - and at a time when the Lib Dems were going into the Election on a roll. At Westminster it's seen as the biggest shock since Cassius Clay beat Sonny Liston. My advice to Lembit is to act like a man, take it on the chin, and accept responsibility - and send a written apology to Mick Bates. And as for me, I just say "Look at the scores on the doors" and remember Gary Player who said "the harder you try the luckier you get". Think it was Samuel Goldwyn who originally coined the phrase though.

The 'Blue touchpaper' of Welsh constituency boundaries has been lit.

2011-07-09T11:48:00.002+01:00

Since being elected a Conservative MP, I have always voted with the Government. Perhaps this loyalty was most tested when I voted (several times) in favour of what was to become the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill. Despite reservations, I accepted that I was elected on a manifesto which included reducing the number of MPs by 10% - and it would be disingenuous to vote against the means of bringing our commitment into effect. I also supported the decision to reduce the number of Welsh MPs from 40 to 30. Didn't like it, but there can be no intellectual basis on which to argue that Wales should have pro-rata more MPs that the rest of the UK. In fact, the existence of the National Assembly could be (and often is) used to argue the number of Walsh MPs should be even lower.

Soon, we are going to be faced with the consequences of this Act - and its going to be messy, very messy indeed. In September, we're expecting to see the Boundary Commission's first stab at future arrangements. Montgomeryshire, and other well known constituenceis, as we have known them for many decades, will be no more. Fledgling Welsh political careers of promise will hit the buffers - across all parties. The consequences of this change will hang over the remainder of this Parliament, as most MPs will be working in a fog of uncertainty about their careers. More of this when we see the BC proposals.

But there's another potentially controversial aspect to these changes - the impact on the National Assembly for Wales. Just a few weeks ago I heard Labour MPs openly supporting the aligning of Assembly constituencies with the new Westminster constituencies. I knew this could not possibly last, and warned anyone who would listen that Labour would inevitably change its mind about this. (Constitutionally, what would need to happen is that the link between Cardiff Bay and Westminster boundaries which was broken to allow the PVSC Act to be passed would have to be reinstated.) Today Martin Shipton has reported on the first salvo by a leading Labour AM against this re-linking. Expect Labour MPs to follow.

Perhaps I see bigger problems than there will be. But let us consider what could well be happening. The Welsh Government, representing a majority in the National Assembly are likely to be opposing new boundaries for future Assembly elections, forced through by Westminster MPs. Martin tells us that Leighton Andrews, speaking with the full blessing of the First Minister, will oppose this as a tactic by the Coalition Government to change the constitution of the National Assembly to prevent there ever being the possibility of a Labour majority in Cardiff Bay. I see the makings of a major rumpus here. The blue touch paper has been lit.

What sort of Tory am I.

2011-07-03T20:59:00.002+01:00

In today's Mail on Sunday, the great William Rees-Mogg, divides Conservative MPs into four sub-groups: the Old Right, the New Right, the Coalitionists, and the small pro-European group. (Note the Oxford comma!) - and he goes on to describe the New Right as 'Europragmatists. So, since I have so much admiration for the great man, I have to consider where I might place myself - and whether I agree that there are clear demarcation lines between these groups - and whether its possible to claim membership of two groups.

I am not a man of the Old Right, or of the pro-European group. I'm clear about that. So what about the other two. I find it difficult to decide. After much thought, I have to concede that I am first a Coalitionist. I would have preferred that the Conservatives won the General Election, and that we were not in coalition - but we didn't and we are. And the only way to go into a coalition is with 100% commitment. Of course it is restricting sometimes, but in general its worked well, and I'm happy that the two partners are making a decent fist of the teamwork.

The only problem with being grouped in with Coalitionists is that it tells readers not much about where I stand on our relationship with the EU, which is shaping up to be a defining issue of this Parliament. If my commitment to the Coalition was not so dominating, I would see myself very comfortable in the Eurosceptic New Right. Well, that's cleared that up.

Return of Edna Mopbucket to County Hall.

2011-07-01T22:21:00.002+01:00

Fantastic news. Edna Mopbucket has been back on the phone - and up to her old tricks, listening at keyholes. Reckons she was cleaning at Powys County Hall last week when she overheard heated words and oaths emanating from a 'Cabinet' meeting. I had to explain to Edna what this 'Cabinet' is - and that it came about because the Powys Independents and the Liberal Democrats took over all the power for themselves, and kicked out the Montgomeryshire Independents, the Conservatives, Labour and Plaid. "Oh" she said "So that's why they looked so terribly 'puffed up' with importance and exuding the same sort of 'airs' that only come with new found wealth and massively increased salaries. I told her to stop exaggerating. It wasn't that bad.

Anyway, she reported much 'sound and fury' and gnashing of teeth through the keyhole. It seems things are not turning out quite as expected. She reckons one very self-important voice started complaining about these Montgomeryshire Independents getting all the limelight over the wind farms debate at Welshpool. Edna said the PIGS (I've warned her they don't being called PIGS) were furious that some ruse trying to claim all the publicity by issuing a press release to pretend it was all their idea had backfired, and that Councillors David Jones and Graham Brown emerged as stars of the day. Michael Jones, the new Cabinet Leader had to remind one very agitated chap in the back that he leads on the issue now, and he'd better fall into line if he wanted to keep his new salary. Edna reckons there was much tittering around the room at this. Told her she must be making this up.

And then another voice started complaining about formal questions that "these bl***y MIGS and Tories are tabling" - asking embarrassing questions about dismal performance in dealing with planning applications, and the comparative collapse in recycling performance. Edna reckons that there was outrage that all this stuff is public - and not being dealt with quietly, as happened under the old 'Executive Management Board'. She reckons that Mr Patterson, who seemed to be in control, told them "You voted to grab all the power for yourselves, and up your pay so its no good complaining. You took the gain; now take the pain".

I take all this with a pinch of salt because Edna's hearing is probably failing her a bit. And anyway, I approve of this new 'Cabinet' system. Always did. Great to see at Welshpool last Wednesday the 'political groups' competing to support the public, 1500 of whom had turned up to listen. 53 Councillors sticking 106 fingers (coincidentally, the same number as turbines at Llandinam) up to higher authorities. And great to see the planning and recycling performance (or non) being debated in public. As Edna said rather indelicately "Looks like they've stopped all p***ing in the same pot". As usual, I'm not sure whether to believe a word the old girl tells me, but it was nice to be in touch again.

Powys CC wind farm meeting on Wed

2011-06-27T22:28:00.004+01:00

Cannot go to the special meeting of Powys County Council being held at Welshpool Livestock Market on Wed.. Councillors will be debating their approach to policy on wind farms and associated transmission infrastructure. To some extent, the Welsh Government First Minster's statement of 10 days ago has drawn the teeth on this debate, but its still an event I would like to have been able to attend. Let's start by looking at the motion that is currently down to be debated.

'Powys County Council calls on the Welsh Government to carry out an immediate review of TAN 8, and to call a moratorium on all wind farm applications, whether pending or in pre-application stage until the review is completed. In carrying out the review, the Welsh Government is specifically asked to consider environmental, socio-economic, community, ecological, transportation, cultural, and cumulative impacts of the construction of wind farms and the necessary infrastructure in rural Wales. Powys County Council also asks that in carrying out this review, the Welsh Government carries out a cost benefit analysis of wind farm energy production when compared to alternative sources of energy'.

I'm not at all sure that this is now directed at the right target. Since this motion was first being worked on, we have had the Carwyn Jones statement, which has fundamentally changed things. The most important sentence was that the TAN 8 limits should be regarded as the 'upper limits'. To that extent, I rather like TAN 8. And the second most important sentence was that there is no need whatsoever for a 400kV cable/pylons to deliver these 'upper limits'. I rather like this as well. This needs to be reflected in the Council's thinking. These sentences, if translated into policy, would mean about 100 new turbines, no 400kV cable, no sub-station, (and buried 132 cables as well). Not everything protesters wanted - but nothing like as bad as we were fearing.

The real target now is the Westminster Government, which will be debating recently published National Policy Statements on Renewable Energy Generation before the summer recess. Its what I'm building towards. Because energy (over 50 Mv) is not devolved, TAN 8 is referred to in these 'statements' as no more that a 'material consideration'. Not good enough, and the Council should be saying so, loud and clear - and it should be a part of the motion. Energy is not going to be devolved, but we need to raise the bar a bit higher than 'material consideration'. What about something like 'presumption in favour' of the TAN 8 targets. And I would like to see something about refusal by the Council to contemplate a sub-station. That should scupper National Grid's hideous plans. And there should be some serious questions about what the Welsh Government is going to do about all these wind farms that were thought to be heading towards forestry land. Expect to see some changes in the motion. This is all enough to make me wish I was still a councillor.

Its why we Welsh dream

2011-06-26T22:31:00.003+01:00

40 years ago today, the British Lions beat the All Blacks on their own turf. They achieved legendary status by going on to win the test series 2-1, with one test drawn. Rugby was a big part of my life then, and the stars of that tour remain stars in the Glyn Davies 'Hall of Fame' today. Right up there with Trever Hunt, who joined me for a tour of the House of Commons and lunch last week. He was the surgeon who redesigned my lower body 10 years ago, while removing a cancerous tumour from my bowel.

And most of the 1971 Lions were Welsh. Let me list them - in no particular order. Coach Carwyn James, Captain John Dawes, Gareth Edwards, Barry John, JPR Williams, Mervyn Davies, Delme Thomas, Derek Quinnell, John Bevan and John Taylor. There were great players from the other home nations as well. Willie John McBride, Mike Gibson, David Duckham John Pullin, Fergus Slattery, Ian McLaughlan. There was even a second row named Gordon Brown. They were heroes. McBride's forwards never took a step backwards, and Barry John's backs were mesmerising. We all have our favourites. For me, the greatest of them all was Gareth Edwards.

Here's Carwyn's speech before embarking on the mission

- "Look here, I want each one of you to be your own man. Express yourself not as you would in the office for the next three months, but as you would at home. I don't want you Irishmen to pretend to be English, or you English to think you are Celts, or for Scotsmen to be anything but Scottish to the core. You Irish must continue to be ideologists off the field, and on it fighters like Kilkenny cats. Let you English continue to stiffen those upper lips, and simply continue to be superior. And the conservative traditionalism of you Scots - strong, dour, humourless in phony caricature - let it be seen as colourfully fired up these next 90 days by the oil of your country's new-found radicalism. As well, I demand that all of you make sure you let us Welsh continue to be bloody-minded and swaggeringly over-cocky in our triple-crowning arrogance."

Imagine Warren Gatland saying that - or any Welshman being in a position to say that today. 1971 is why we Welsh alway carry a candle of eternal hope. Happy dreams.

The Greek tragedy

2011-06-20T21:01:00.005+01:00

Longstanding and dear friend, David Rowlands called in my office this morning, plonked himself down and handed me another of his letters. David is a full blooded Ukip man. I assumed it would be another of his 'outraged' letters - probably about the idiocy of pouring more billions down a Greek drain. But No, he was supporting me on my mission to prevent the mid Wales uplands from becoming industrialised by wind farm companies. It didn't matter because Boris dealt with the impending Greek tragedy in his Telegraph article today anyway.

Boris says that "We should stop chucking good money after bad". This will have a lot of purchase because so many people who talk to me about Greece agree with Boris. In fact people who talk to me about anything agree with Boris on this. Now, the consequence if no-one chucks more more money at Greece is 'default', exit from the Euro, followed by unpredictable turbulence across Europe and wider. Another way of looking at all this is to see the EU as developing into a single state (fiscally speaking) and these massive transfers as a sort of EU Barnett Formula - an extension of regional policy. This could well be the equivilent of Baldrick's cunning plan. I hope David didn't read the Boris article or he'll be back in my office tomorrow with another envelope.

Where now on wind in mid Wales.

2011-06-19T22:32:00.003+01:00

Just about landed back on earth again following the First Minister's 'Statement' about onshore wind farms in mid Wales last Friday. It astounded me, which is a rare event for this old hand. Keep on looking for the catch, and cannot find it. OK, so there's all this 'side issue stuff' about devolving extra powers to the Assembly, which the media is lapping up (despite it having been on the agenda for at least 10 years). But it cannot conceal the main issue. The Welsh Government will not support a 400kV cable on pylons into mid Wales - and there is no chance that an undergrounded cable can be justified, while Carwyn Jones sticks to a max of 500 Mw of new wind generation in the 3 mid Wales development areas. I'm a cynical old b***** but this looks good however which way I look at it. The overall 'project' looks to be in deep trouble - which is just where I like it.

Am a bit reluctant to commit to 'next steps' for a few days. Need to talk to National Grid, SP Energy Networks and my 'advisers'. But I have already called publicly for National Grid to abandon their plans to run a connection from mid Shropshire to mid Wales. No doubt NG will consult Dep't of Energy and Climate Change for guidance on this. My advice (for what it's worth)is "Listen to me boys" (in a non gender sense). If you and DECC go ahead with this when all of Wales is opposing you, and that's how it looks, you will precipitate a constitutional crisis. Just throw darts at a photograph of Carwyn, and bite the bullet. Smell the coffee. Your plan to industrialise the mid Wales uplands is over.

Of course, there will still be plenty to argue about. There could easily be a wind farm that is economic running a 132Mw cable all the way to the Grid (that's onshore wind farm economics, or fantasy economics to the rest of us). But last Friday's Welsh Government 'Statement' will give the Local Planning Authority more confidence to refuse permission. There will still be a rumpus about the one big outstanding application at Llandinam that awaits decision, and which does have a licence to export electricity. Probably won't say much about this issue for a week or so - when future strategy has been decided. I talk about something else.

The 'Listening' First Minister

2011-06-17T23:15:00.003+01:00

Was driving home from Llandrindod when I heard the news. Almost drove through the hedge. Carwyn Jones, First Minister of the Welsh Government had issued a Statement on Planning for Renewable Energy in Wales - blowing the project to industrialise the uplands of Montgomeryshire right out of the water. He said "My Government could not support the construction of large pylons in mid Wales and my ministers are pressing this case with Nationl Grid Transmission and with Ofgem" - and he made special mention of Montgomeryshire. I promise never to be rude about Carwyn ever in my life again. Well not for a few days anyway.

Of course there were the crudest of smokescreens to cover the huge reversal in policy, but the important point is that he did the right thing - so there will be no churlishness from me. The people of mid Wales have begged and pleaded and persuaded Carwyn Jones to amend Tan 8, and help us save mid Wales from the sentence passed upon it in 2004. Just as David Cameron has done in respect of the NHS, Carwyn has recognised that his renewable energy policy needed changes, and he's had the courage to deliver.

Lets look at the cover, which is itself interesting. First is the tossing of the ball into the Westminster Government's court. For weeks I've been building up my campaign to persuade Charles Hendry, the Minister to publicly reject the National Grid 400kV connection from mid-Shropshire to mid-Montgomeryshire. It had been going well, and I was planning a big speech on July 19th. Now I will have a new message. Its not just the people of Mid Wales who are opposed - its the people of Wales. To approve National Grid's plans when every political party in Wales, the thousands of campaigners and the First Minister would make Tryweryn look like a vicarage tea party. I will be asking National Grid to abandon its plans forthwith.

The second lovely strategy (which I really enjoyed) was to claim that there's a danger of Westminster imposing large wind farms on mid Wales, and that the responsibility should therefor be transferred to the National Assembly - supposedly to save us. Laughed when I read that. The main reason these wind farms were proposed in the first place was Carwyn's TAN 8 policy guidance. But lets be done with this churlishness. Today has been a great day, and I genuinely feel for the first time that the Powys protesters have a great chance of pulling off a spectacular victory.

Welshpool Livestock Market - centre of anti wind protest.

2011-06-15T00:03:00.004+01:00

Interesting developments in Powys. Montgomeryshire Councillors David Jones and Graham Brown have submitted a motion for debate by the Powys County Council on 29th June. It demands that the Welsh Government conducts a full review of its renewable energy policy guidance to planning authorities before any new planning permissions for wind farms are granted - including a proper environmental assessment that (disgracefully) has never been held. This is an excellent proposal which I expect the Conservatives to support.

The meeting was to have been held in the Council Chamber at Llandrindod Wells, but it seems there is a high profile visitor to the town that day. If a decent crowd of protesters turn up, the important visitor could be discomforted. I know it can't be the Queen, because Mrs D and I are going to her Royal Garden Party that afternoon! They shouldn't have moved the meeting because if its a member of the Royal family, he or she may well have wanted to join the protest!

Anyway, Cabinet Business Manager, Steve Boyd has informed us that the meeting has been moved to Welshpool Livestock Market, where a building is being converted into a makeshift debating chamber. An audio system is also being installed so that any people attending will be able to hear what is going on. This is all rather a good idea. I'm only upset that I cannot attend, because of the afore-mentioned Garden Party, and a very important debate over dinner in the House on 'Care' that I'm sponsoring that evening. Let our councillors speak for the people - and expose the First Minister's attitude towards the the people of mid Wales.

In Praise of U-Turns.

2011-06-13T23:53:00.003+01:00

I really have read and heard the most utter tosh about the NHS reforms that the Coalition Government are currently taking through Parliament. Sometimes I really despair at the hopelessness of commentary on our political process. And some of it from our own side!

Now lets start from the proposition that we want our Government to legislate in a way that delivers the best results. The 'best result' is not necessarily the Bill that is first put before the House of Commons (or Lords) - which is why we go through the various stages of debate before the final product goes forward for Royal Assent. Sometimes a lot of change is needed and sometimes no change at all. Sometimes a Government abandons its proposals altogether. What happened with the NHS Reform Bill was that the Health Minister and the Prime Minister decided to 'pause' for three months to reflect, after a fair bit of criticism from health professionals. We need to get any reform of the NHS right. A group of knowledgeable people were asked to advise, which they did today. And now we can move forward with a better bill. Seems to me a sensible way to behave.

What I find particularly childish is the portrayal of this entirely sensible consideration of complex and sensitive policy as some sort of dual between the two Coalition partners. There are still some who do not get it. We have a Coalition Government. The Lib Dems and the Conservatives are colleagues. Whenever I hear Conservatives undermining Lib Dems or vice-versa, I think its like watching footballers trying to kick the ball into their own net. We govern together as a team, and we win together as a team.

Welsh Football Supremo Speaks Out

2011-06-12T22:14:00.004+01:00

I was pleased to read of the opinions of the President of the Football Association of Wales, Phil Pritchard in today's Wales on Sunday. I know Phil. He lives just down the road from me - in Welshpool. We sometimes have a coffee and chat about things. I've not seen him since the Wales supported the uncontested election of Sepp Blatter to continue as FIFA President, in what was widely seen as a farce. Football has become such big international business that it was just not reasonable for the FAW to say nothing. So the interview was a bit of a coup for the WoS.

Seems to me that more than anything else it was a big poke in the eye for the English FA. I quite approve of that. Now I had been ready to criticise the Wales FA stance, but now I'm not so sure. I think I have rather more sympathy with Phil's view. Yes, Blatter has become a comic figure. Yes, his continued presence at the pinnacle of world football brings the game into ridicule. But reading Phil's comments makes it clear that England's representatives treated the other home countries with casual arrogance, simply assuming they would fall into line behind them with minimal discussion. If England had not been quite so full of themselves they might have received a bit more support. Maybe Wales will vote for someone else when Sepp Blatter reaches his mid 90s, and FIFA meetings have to be held in his nursing home - assuming there is an alternative candidate who has not been barred from standing because of corruption charges. Until then, the activities of FIFA will carry on being a carry on. After all, football is in the entertaining business.

Its 'The Economy' Stupid.

2011-06-11T21:53:00.004+01:00

Regular visitors to this blog over the last few years will know that I am no fan of onshore wind farms. My main opposition to them has been based on the damage they do to landscape and natural beauty for minimal benefit - even if my opposition to the project to cover the uplands of Mid Wales with mass turbines and pylons has been based on the sheer lunacy of the idea. But I've realised that no-one cares about landscape, and that there are many otherwise sensible people who have been conned into believing in this lunacy. So - in a moment of mental clarity today, it dawned on me that if we are to defeat this madness we must fight it on economic and financial grounds. We must help people to see the truth. Future posts on this issue will no longer be about the desecration of our uplands and valleys, awful though that is. Because its about a search for truth, I will write in a way that invites those who disagree to inform me, and my readers where they think I'm mistaken.

In this post, I'll look at the misleading nature of claims made by onshore wind developers - and use a local example to demonstrate. In last week's local press, a developer was lauding, with great pride, a new wind farm application which could produce 80 megawatts of power (and power several million homes! ). OK, so I exaggerated the second bit! Well, lets look at this a bit more closely, assuming that the power would be sold to Scottish Power. We know that the most recent production factor for Welsh onshore wind farms is 19% (despite some ill-informed journalists claiming it to be higher). So this new wind farm is actually going to produce an average of just 16 megawatts, at completely random times - sometimes delivering 80 megawatts and sometimes nil. This means that Scottish Power would need some other form of conventional power source (oil, gas or nuclear?) to provide 80 megawatts of rapid back-up whenever the wind doesn't blow. For the wind farm to provide anything at all needs some other form of power generation to be running at reduced power - and reduced inefficiency. A bit like a car idling.

What was being boasted about as delivering 80 megawatts, actually delivers bu**er all. Probably makes the position worse. And that's why the people of mid Wales, who began by opposing a mad project to desecrate their homeland, have become opponents of the whole onshore wind farm sector now that they know a bit more about it.

Philip Johnson's Must Read in Today's Telegraph.

2011-06-07T17:42:00.002+01:00

I've never met Philip Johnston, who writes for the Daily Telegraph. I have read some of his stuff - but I've not read anything as good as the article he's written today. The headline reads ' Wind farms aren't just a blight, they're a folly'. As a PPS, I have to be conscious that I do not say anything that conflicts with Coalition Government policy of 'onshore wind having a role to play as part of the energy mix, but that proposals should have strong community support and democratic legitimacy". So I'll just tell you what Philip wrote, without embellishing it with my opinion.

"there is one fundamental difference, between the great transformative projects of the 19th century and today's wind turbines: the latter don't work"

"To produce the same amount of electricity as one coal-fired power station, you'd need a wind farm the size of Greater London. And when there is no wind - or too much - the power produced is minuscule or the turbine has to be switched off while fossil fuel stations take up the slack."

"to see remote tracts of countryside that, by and large, survived the industrialisation of the landscape now threatened with defilement for no good reason is scandalous."

"A conspiracy of vested interests is seeking to bludgeon communities into accepting what has become a money-grabbing free-for-all masquerading as an environmental panacea."

"It is the greens and not the opponents of wind farms who are the true heirs of the 19 century Luddites, standing in the way of an energy policy that would benefit us all - and protect the landscape."

Pulling a fast one ?

2011-06-06T12:00:00.003+01:00

Had an interesting email this morning from probably the sharpest legal brain I know, which accuses the Welsh Government of seriously duplicitous behaviour in respect of the timing of its controversial TAN8 decisions. Its a bit complex but I'll try to simplify what he claims happened.

European Directive 2001 requires member states to undertake statutory consultations with other agencies before proceeding with any "plan or programme" concerning "land use" or "energy". This directive was adopted in Wales by Statutory Instrument no 1656(W 170), taking effect on 24.7.04. The Welsh Government rushed through its TAN8 announcement just 11 days before the deadline - before when it would have been statutorily required to consult the Countryside Council for Wales, Environmental Agency and CADW. Environmental scrutiny of a massive land use change, supposedly to benefit the environment. The only people who would have understood what was happening would have been the relevant civil servants and the Minister they were advising.

Probably too late for Judicial Review, but its being looked at. Personally, if this is as reported, I would find it quite shocking to discover our new devolved democracy behaving in such an underhand way. Just one more thing. The First Minister was a barrister, and responsible for energy policy when all this happened.

Caring for the Elderly

2011-06-05T22:15:00.003+01:00

'Appeared' on BBC Radio Wales' Sunday Supplement this morning. The subject was 'care of the elderly'. Fellow guests were Baroness Finley and a new Labour AM named Mark Drayford. Never encountered him before. He seemed very keen to be party political. Started off by talking about Mrs Thatcher for goodness sake, and later on started talking about reductions in public spending as if it was nothing whatsoever to do with the Labour Party. When discussing a really important subject I do find this approach to be so tiresome - so I just ignored him. I think Vaughan found him tiresome as well.

Reason this issue was under discussion today was the publicity there has been through this last week about Southern Cross, an issue that's been on my radar for a year. Southern Cross is the biggest care provider in the UK, and has been an accident waiting to happen. Lets set aside the 'care' aspect of this, and consider the financial structure of this company - put together in great haste, during a property boom about 5/6 years ago, by a private equity company, split into two and sold on (at graet profit). The problem as I see it, is that the property side of the business, and the operational side are completely separate entities. There's nothing wrong with this model if its a group of hotels say, or golf courses. If the property side goes awry (which happens) the casualties can look after themselves. But care home residents can't. When there are unplanned home closures, there is inevitable a great deal of human misery, and accellerated deaths. My view is that there should be financial regulation as well as care regulation to ensure that only sound business models are allowed to operate in the sector.

Truth is we are moving forward into a massive crisis in care delivery. We are living to be older, which brings with it a huge dementia problem which we are not ready for. It must be faced. The Coalition Government did put some 'sticking plaster' money into this sector last year, while we await the publication of a comprehensive report into the future - by the Dilnot Commission, expected later this year. We cannot carry on as we are. We have to find some way of paying for care. We have to find ways of keeping people in their own homes for longer. Failure to do these things will carry a massive price - paid by the most vulnerable people in our society. Its too big an issue to play political games with.

Hello, I'm back - blown in by a wind storm

2011-06-04T20:03:00.004+01:00

Have not blogged for weeks. Truth is that I'd become a bit bored - mainly because there are too many individuals around with so little to do that they spend time reading my musings in search of something to cause me or my party embarrassment. So I've decided to take a different approach. No-one who fails to identify themselves will have comments published. So the trolls can p*** off. Anon will need to be relevant, clever or funny.

Reason for me coming out of retirement is that I want to write about some issues which matter to me, one being the industrialisation of the uplands of mid Wales with wind turbines and cables. This first post is no more than a reflection on where we are. I'm going to tell you what is going on over the next few weeks. To begin, we need to look (briefly) on where we've come from.

In 2005, the Assembly Government decided that mid Wales should become the dumping ground for a 400kv cable's worth of wind turbines (as a starter) - 600+ turbines. The then Assembly Member for Montgomeryshire, Mick Bates thought this to be a splendid idea. I didn't. I stuck with that opinion thereafter. I knew that the local population would agree with me, when they realised what this all meant in terms of infrastructure. But even I did not expect the level of public outrage. When I called a public meeting in Welshpool Livestock Market in April, I was stunned by the numbers that turned up - somewhere between 1500 and 2000. I did get a bit carried away standing on a couple of big bales in front of such a responsive crowd, and asked the assembled throng to come to Cardiff with me to show how much we cared. I thought a bit of a do on the Assembly steps would be a good plan. They all came - and some. It was the best demonstration there has ever been outside the Assembly. At a conference two days later, the Secretary of State for Wales said that the people of mid Wales should not be ignored. Carwyn Jones told the conference that they would be ignored. I wasn't disappointed because I expected him to say exactly that. Within the Welsh Government, the opinion of mid Wales is of no consequence.

The Cardiff event was a stunning success - way beyond the wildest dreams of those of us involved in arranging it. But there is the question of where go now. Ideas are welcome on this blog. But a few of us did meet this morning to develop a strategy, and I was shocked by how things have changed in just a few weeks. Tentative beginnings have been replaced by cast iron resolve. The onshore wind farm sector will rue the day they joined in with the Welsh Government to trample all over the people of Mid Wales. They just picked on the wrong target. I always thought there would be a bit of a rumpus. I was wrong. There's going to be a bl***dy conflagration. I have no idea how its going to end. All I know is that they picked on the wrong people. Next blog will be about strategy - or at least that part of it that we are content for our enemies to know about.

Newtown Male Voice

2011-05-15T23:31:00.002+01:00

Life is returning to normal - post back op.. Planted a 'fancy' oak tree this afternoon, and went out to a concert tonight. The Newtown Male Voice Choir were performing with 'The Three Basses' along as special guests. I've heard Tom Evans (Gwanas) sing several times before, and his voice floats through my mind whenever I travel up past Cadair Idris from Dolgellau, and down the other side past Gwanas. With him were Trebor Lloyd Evans and a new 'voice' to me, Sion Goronwy - a sound of such raw power that children should not be allowed to listen at less than 100 yds. It was just a brilliant night out, and well worth the bit of backache resulting from sitting in the same place for around 3 hours. And there was a message on my mobile to tell me that we have a contest for the vacant position of leader of the Conservative Assembly Group. Its good to have a contest. Pity Sion Goronwy isn't standing for us. At full volume, he'd blow Carwyn Jones out of the debating chamber.

My take on Thursday's results.

2011-05-07T23:21:00.002+01:00

Been busy. Missed Thursday night's sleep - and paid a heavy price in pain and setback in 'operation recovery' for the pleasure of sharing Russell's victory. And fulfilling a promise to speak to Llanidloes 6th form at 9.00 Friday morning. Rested a lot since then, and today there's marked improvement in mobility. Be back on the treadmill in 10 days I reckon - after over a year's break. Anyway what did I think of Thursday's results.

In Scotland, Alex Salmond pulled off a huge success, leaving Labour in turmoil. Very bad day for Ed Miliband in Scotland. Not much to be said about the Conservatives really. What we know for the first time now is that some serious thinking needs to be done, to ensure Scotland remains a part of the Union. The Prime Minister needs to draw more on the well of inspiration that injected fire into the NOtoAV campaign.

In England, it was a good Council elections result for the Conservatives. Twelve months into a programme of repairing the national finances, with all the pain that entails, and we more than hold our position. That was an incredible result. The reality is that the Lib Dems had a disaster, Labour won fewer seats than expected, and the Conservatives won more than expected.

In Wales in was a good night for Labour, but not good as they hoped it would be. I'd felt they might do 31 - but fell just short. I sense that Labour might go it alone in the short term, with some sort of side arrangement for comfort. There is no Alex Salmond in Wales. Plaid and the Lib Dems had a poor night, especially the former. I was really sorry to see the demise of Helen Mary Jones though. Not only did we go to the same school, but she's made of admirably tough stuff, and her sister's a fellow soldier in the war on destruction of mid Wales by turbine. Nice to see another Powys man, William Powell take his place in the Bay (thanks to Russell). IWJ looks a beaten man at present. He needs to look as if he believes in himself, so that his colleagues can. Could the reverend who enjoys a cigar be looking to even up the score - or is that me causing trouble again.

The Conservatives had a better than expected night. I knew Russell George was going to win, and he'll make a really good AM. Because of my own experiences in 2007, I realised that his victory would mean Nick Bourne was likely to lose his seat. Angela Burns and Janet Finch Saunders pulled off cracking results, and at a personal friend level, its great to see Byron make it (by another turn of the quirky wheel). We need a new leader of the Assembly Group, and we chose an ideal man, in Paul Davies, to manage the contest. I'm think I know who's going to win, but I intend to keep secret how I cast that particular vote. I'm really sorry to see Jonathon Morgan lose his seat. He was a real talent. I wonder what Brynle makes of it all. I'd love a chat with the old rascal.

AV Rubbish (more) in the Independent

2011-05-03T21:22:00.003+01:00

The Independent has informed its readers that Montgomeryshire is one of 21 seats which the Conservatives would not have won if the election had been fought under the AV system. It informs its readers that Lembit Opik would not have been beaten by me under AV. Total 'cobblers'. I've never actually bought an Independent, and if this is the sort of tripe it comes up, I'm not going to change the habit of my lifetime, at least that during which the Independent has been limping along. Lets just look at the figures, and you can tell me where you think I might be wrong. The result was as follows;

Glyn Davies - Conservative ----- 13,976
Lembit Opik - Liberal Democrat - 12,792
Heledd Fychan - Plaid Cymru ----- 2,802
Nick Colbourne - Labour --------- 2,407
David Rowlands - Ukip ----------- 1,128
Milton elis - National front ------ 384
Bruce Lawson - Independent -------- 324
50% of the vote would have been -16,907 --- assuming the same number of people voted.

Here's my guess on how preferences would have broken down, though this has to be no more than indicative, because only a proportion of people would have cast preferences. The one party that would have been expected to grasp AV with most enthusiasm, but since their preferences would be unlikely to come into it, we can leave then out. In any case, none of them could have given the Lib Dems a single preference vote! My assumptions are that the preferences would have broken down thus;

Bruce Lawson/Milton Elis would have been shared between Lib Dems and Conservatives
UKIP would have broken 2;1 to the Conservatives.
Labour would have broken 3;1 to the Lib Dems
Plaid would have been shared or been shaded by the Conservatives.

With us being 1,200 ahead (needing just 3,000 preferences) there is no way in the world that the Independent is talking anything but b******* - mathematical fantasy. Let anyone who disagrees let us see their realistic assumptions.

And I should mention that I've done very little canvassing in support of the No to AV campaign. I reckoned that because of the close link between the Conservative Party and opposition to AV, the best thing I could do was my best to support the Conservative candidate, Russell George. I have been proud to do that. I hope we've done enough to ensure he wins on Thursday.

Sir Henry Cooper - 1934-2011

2011-05-01T23:14:00.002+01:00

I used to enjoy a bit of boxing as a teenager, but farm life didn't allow me enough time. Ernie Ray was my coach, though I never fought in an official bout. I was on the card to fight at Denbigh, but a ferocious nose bleed the night before persuaded Ernie that I should not fight without my nose being 'cauterised' - whatever that meant. Anyway, this is just a preamble to a post about Sir Henry Cooper, who died today. The sporting heroes of my early teens were boxers. There were some great Welshmen - Howard Winstone and Dai Dower being two of the best. But we all loved 'Enry. It wasn't just his boxing. He was a thoroughly good all round 'gent'. And hugely popular.

As a fighter he was not the greatest. Bit small for a heavy, and not quite good enough at the very top level. Mind you, he almost the best of them all - the magnificent Cassius Clay, later to be known as Mohammed Ali. I loved him as well, and watched his fights over and over again. When 'Enry fought Clay in 1963, the great man was too cocky, and was caught by 'Enry's 'Ammer close to the end of the fourth round. Many of us thought he'd never have survived if it had been at the beginning of the round. Cooper was a good 'finisher'. Clay's corner managed to delay things a bit, and he came out in the 5th and smashed 'Enry all over the place. The fight was stopped with a cut eye, a weakness that dogged Cooper's career. I remember enjoying all those fights between Henry Cooper, Joe Erskine, Brian London and Dick Richardson - all world class British heavies. Through it all, Sir Henry won three Lonsdale belts. Don't think anyone else managed that - not before all these Micky Mouse titles came along anyway.

He was so much more than just a boxer. I remember him as a captain on Question of Sport - with Cliff Morgan I think, though my memory could be playing tricks. I feel a bit sad that Sir Henry Cooper has died. The thing was, we all felt we knew him.

One benefit of A-V

2011-04-26T22:39:00.003+01:00

I'd never heard of the A-V impulse system until today. I learned about it from leaflets familiarising me with what to expect from my consultant surgeon tomorrow when he goes to work with his knife. The A-V impulse system involves a pair of ImPads that wrap around your feet after surgery. They are attached by two hoses to the A-V impulse system controller. The Impads mimic the natural action of the soles of the feet, improving blood circulation while the patient is lying prostrate. At last I have found some useful purpose to A-V.

Monk Parakeets to the Rescue?

2011-04-25T21:30:00.003+01:00

This may sound ridiculous, but one way of scuppering National Grid's plans to destroy our landscapes with hideous pylons would be to park a car on top of every one of them. I'm sure you can see how this would work - even if you might enquire how we could get a car up there - 150' in the air. Well its not as far-fetched as it sounds. Mother nature often produces the answers. Enter the Monk Parakeet.

About 150 of these colourful raucous and very greedy parrot-like birds are on the rampage in the Home Counties, following escape from captivity in the 1990s. They are reported as being a problem for two reasons. Firstly they devour copious amounts of agricultural crops, and secondly they build nests the size of family cars on top of pylons. In the US, these nests on electricity pylons have caused serious damage. And there's the added bonus that the Monk Parakeet can develop a vocabulary of several hundred words to tell us what they think. They would need only two to convey to National Grid the thoughts and message on the lips of everyone in mid Wales.

Where does the blame for wind farm 'Madness' lie?

2011-04-24T16:26:00.003+01:00

Rather like a wind turbine after several days calm, this blog comes back to life. I suppose Easter Sunday is an appropriate day. And its the mid Wales turbines, pylons etc. that feature in this post - and some of the confusion about responsibility for it all. During the last few weeks, I've spoken at several public meetings, and pinned the blame on the National Assembly Government - and explained why. But not everyone was there,

For many years, there's been a drive to promote renewable energy by governments across the world, including the UK Government. It was, and remains entirely sensible that the Welsh Assembly Government should play it's part, even if the largest projects (nuclear power, Severn Barrage etc) remain a matter for the UK Government. Personally I'd not objected hugely to the odd onshore wind farm in mid Wales, though I'd long thought their inconsistency and huge cost raised questions about viability. (The scales fell from my eyes in 2005). But none of the above justifies the stunning landscape of mid Wales being industrialised. The decision to do this was taken by the Assembly Government in 2005 when it published an updated version of it's planning guidance to Local Planning Authorities, Technical Advice Note 8 (TAN8). The decision was communicated to the public via a 'statement' to the Assembly by then Minister, Andrew Davies AM - and welcomed by all party representatives, except me. I was opposed to the new version of TAN8 for two reasons - firstly because it was all about onshore wind farms rather than renewable energy, and secondly because it meant the destruction of the mid Wales landscape. I knew that TAN8 meant that which has now become much more widely understood. What we are facing (in the next phase of industrialising the mid Wales uplands) is 700/800 new turbines, a 20 acre substation, and about 100 kms of new cables, including a 400kv cable from the Newtown area to mid Shropshire, carried on 150' high steel towers.

Permission for the 400kv cable, and for wind farms over 50mw will ultimately be the responsibility of the Minister for Energy and Climate Change at Westminster. Permission for the substation and wind farms under 50mw will be responsibility of the Local Planning Authority, ultimately the National Assembly for Wales. But all of the decisions will be decided against the planning policy backdrop provided by TAN8. It's only by changing TAN8 that we have any real chance of preventing this madness destroying what many of us hold dear. That's why I think those who object should demonstrate their anger in Cardiff Bay.

Immigration policy. Fuss over not much.

2011-04-14T22:37:00.002+01:00

Call from one of Wales top journalists today asking for my take on the Prime Minister's comments on immigration. Since he went to the trouble of asking me, I shared my thoughts with him. Here's a flavour of what I said.

1) It's no surprise to me that David Cameron makes a speech describing his policy on immigration as being the same as it was before he was elected Prime Minister. He has consistently promised to reduce "net immigration back to the levels of the 1990s - tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands." He also repeated his commitment to an 'annual limit'. I'd have been surprised if he had said anything else.

2) It seems wholly sensible that the Prime Minister should speak of immigration during the weeks before local council elections. During an election campaign is an entirely appropriate time to talk about policy. Its an issue which is of great concern to voters.

3) I'm not in the least surprised that Vince Cable expresses some mild unease with the Prime Minister's approach to immigration. Dr Vince has said the same sort of thing before. And anyway, the idea that every Liberal Democrat and Conservative Minister in the Coalition Government must hold identical thoughts is as daft as it is unrealistic. And Nick Clegg commented today that he is 'proud' of the work that he (and Mr Cable) had done for the Coalition's "sensible immigration policy".

The reality is that immigration has been too high for many years, the previous Labour Government had not much idea about how many people were entering Britain illegally, and that a great many people are extremely worried about it. We live in a world where accusations of antipathy towards immigrants are thrown around too casually. Its a serious issue, and if mainstream parties are not going to talk about it, there are plenty of others who will.

TAN 8 is a monstrosity.

2011-04-09T22:50:00.004+01:00

Been to another National Grid consultation meeting today, on their plans to build the necessary infrastucture to accommodate another 800-ish wind turbines in mid Wales - in the village of Arddleen. Not quite as many people turned up as I expected. Becoming used to 500+ everywhere. Probably about 250 today. Tried to get some grip on how the decision on the 400 kv cable will be made - and how to influence it.

Following their consultation, National Grid will decide on its preferred option, and submit an application to proceed with the Infrastructure Planning Committee (or as seems more likely, a successor body) - which will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change - currently the Liberal Democrat, Chris Huhne. Inevitable, the SoS will take the decision against the backdrop of the Assembly Government's TAN 8 policy statement (TAN 8 is a 'renewable energy technical advice note for Planning Authorities). Now lets imagine my dream scenario - a refusal to allow this desecration of the mid Wales countryside. The outrage that would explode in Cardiff Bay, assuming it's a Labour or Labour-led Government. There would be one hell of a row. Chris Huhne would be holing below the waterline the Assembly Government's policy of dumping another 20+ wind farms on Montgomeryshire. Can you just imagine the rumpus about not 'respecting' the National Assembly. On this issue, I'm all for creating a full scale rumpus.

Another issue on today's agenda was the process that would follow a refusal to answer the question on NG's form about where the sub station should go. My intention is to refuse to answer the question and write "Nowhere. We do not want any of this madness", and attaching a letter explaining why. Seems this will not be a 'void' response form. I accept that it could not influence the choice of site that NG take, but my opinion would be noted - and if thousands of us did the same thing, would have to be reported as part of the overall response. Seems as good a way as any of making Chris Huhne think twice.

Its all so awful. Like throwing a tin of pink paint over a Kyffin Williams oil painting. How can they sleep at night.