Welsh Labour Confusion over Constituency Boundaries.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 ?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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'.

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'.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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'.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.