Assembly Electoral Boundaries.

The Secretary of State for Wales has today published a Green Paper on 'Future Electoral Arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales'. Its a 12 weeks 'consultation paper'. There are several proposals up for consultation.

1) That the National Assembly should continue to have 60 members.

2) That the Assembly electoral boundaries should be changed to allow for 30 rather than 40 Assembly constituencies, coterminous with the new constituencies being introduced for the House of Commons.  Its also proposed that if the decision is to retain the current 40 constituencies, the boundaries should be adjusted to equalise the number of voters within each constituency. (to a tolerance of 5%).  The Government has a preference for the 30/30 split, though retains an open mind. Personally, I'm not expressing an opinion about this until the consultation period is over.

3)That the ban on candidates standing for a constituency and also taking a place on the 'regional list' should be removed. Now I am very much in favour of this, and considered the ban when introduced by Peter Hain and Rhodri Morgan to be a spiteful, opportunistic exercise in gerrymandering. Needless to say it didn't work.  Gerrymandering rarely does.

4)That Westminster politicians should not be permitted to stand for election to the National Assembly - an end to what's known as 'double jobbing'. Have to be an arrangement for individuals wishing to 'transfer'.  Wonder what Lord Elis Thomas thinks of this!

Not been much immediate reaction that I've seen.  The Welsh Government seem to be suggesting that this issue is a matter for the Assembly. And First Minister has said that the Prime Minister reassured him that there would be no change in opposition to the will of the Welsh Assembly. We will find out in due course whether this is in fact the case. Not sure whether Labour are still advocating the ridiculous suggestion of Peter Hain that there should be 60 elected by FPTP, two from each consituency. 

Its also interesting that the Assembly Conservative Group is in favour of the status quo. At least that's what one of the leading members of the Group made clear on yesterday's Politics Show. Another one to watch.

I wonder how much interest this matter will generate amongst the public!

Melding's Mission

Now I've had the greatest respect for Conservative Assembly Member, David Melding. He's always been a lateral thinker, and is currently preforming splendidly as Deputy Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales. I've often heard people say that "Of course, he's not really a Conservative at all". Oh yes he is.  There are times when I think he's rather more Conservative than the Conservative Party.

Anyway, it seems he's launching a centre/right think tank, and hoping to attract supporters of Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to sign up.  I like the idea, but am not convinced its a bird which will fly - at this early stage anyway.  I hope it does. Might be a better plan to try to 'infiltrate' the centre/left Institute of Welsh Affairs !

I'm looking forward to learning who the individuals involved in this new think tank are going to be.  It will be no use if its just populated by ex-politicians, and a few quagocrats. It needs some quality names like Brian Griffiths and Patrick Minford (or their youthful equivalents) and a strong base in universities. I'm sure David's got some good ideas. I wish it well.

New Powys Council Cabinet

I'm told that new Leader of Powys County Council has chosen his Cabinet.  Geographically balanced across the County. Must admit to one or two surprises though. But then I'm but an outsider. I wish them all well, and I'll do all I can to support them. Its going to be a seriously tough job.

Cabinet Leader - Cllr. David Jones
Property and Assets - Cllr. Garry Banks - Radnorshire
Planning - Cllr. Graham Brown - Montgomeryshire
Finance - Cllr. Dai Davies - Montgmeryshire
Children's Social Services - Cllr. Melanie Davies - Breconshire.
Adult Social Services - Cllr. Rosemarie Harris - Breconshire
Corporate Governance - Cllr.Gary Price - Radnorshire.
Human Resources - Cllr. Gareth Ratcliffe - Breconshire.
Highways - Cllr. Barry Thomas - Montgmeryshire.
Education - Cllr. Michael Williams - Montgomeryshire.

Goings on in Powys Council

My local weekly, the Montgomeryshire County Times has an irreverent 'Nelson's Column'.  This week 'Nelson' has given us an insight into the problems faced by new councillors in trying to agree a Cabinet to run Powys County Council.

"There are several problems with forming an actual working majority to run the Council. The 48 Independents split into two groups, the 'Shires' Independents and the Powys Independents. The actual policy differences between them isn't clear, and to be frank its difficult to find anyone who can tell you otherwise. There are numerous councillors in both groups who are well known to have an allegiance to a mainstream political party but bizarrely refuse to stand on that platform. The upshot is that we now have two 'independent' groups who refuse to work with each other. The Lib Dems who refuse to work with anyone (they've probably had enough public flogging for one decade) and Labour and the Tories (like children not trusted by their parents) who are not allowed to work together".

Nelson was very well briefed on what's been happening behind the scenes. In the end what happened was that the Leader of the smaller 'Independent' group, David Jones was elected Leader of the Council by 36 votes to 34. He was backed by the Tories, Labour and his own group. The Powys Independent Leader, Michael Jones, was backed by the Lib Dems (who had previously made clear they were going to sit on their hands) and his own group (best guess - secret ballot). I'm told that the Powys Independents were shocked after ruling the roost for so long that several of thier members broke down in tears at such seismic change. To the outside word Powys is still run by an Independent named 'Jones' - but inside the Council we've just witnessed a revolution.

It seems that the new Leader intends to choose his entire Cabinet form his own group (or cllrs ship-jumping from other groups)- which has led cllr, Gareth Ratcliffe to jump the Tory ship just a week after being elected as a Tory - which should lead to some blue disgruntlement down in the South of Powys. Updates as and when.

A Good Two weeks for the Government.

I've concluded that I must be an 'out of touch' Tory MP. Not been in the least bit concerned by all the negative media coverage of the Coalition Gov't over the last two weeks - because I think its mostly b******ks. OK, so I'm a serial contrarian, but I've thought it rather a good two weeks for the Gov't. Was almost ashamed to say so, until Simon Jenkins wrote about the excellent two weeks for the Gov't in the Guardian (of all places). I accept that Simon is feeling rather chippa about the Gov't because of a welcome rethink about planning policy, but still... Lets have a quick run through all these supposed 'Gov't gaffes/failures'.

Firstly there was the appalling donor issue - and it was appalling. That was not the way the Conservative Party does business. The Prime Minister sacked the person responsible in short order. Bad things happen. Whats important is that they are sorted quickly. That's what happened. Rightly, the story was short-lived. I just hope its not used as an excuse to force the taxpayer to fund political parties - which is what would have happened if the PM had not acted quickly.

Secondly there was the 'Granny Tax'. Like many other Conservatives, I was very uneasy at first. But before I made any knee-jerk comment, I thought it through. And you know what. Much as I didn't like it, I concluded that it was the right step to take. Its not just the Lib Dems who want to lift people out of the tax system altogether. Most Conservatives I talk to would like to see the personal tax allowance rising to the same level as the age-related allowance as soon as poss.. My constituents who are suffering most are young people on low wages with families. They should not be paying tax.

Thirdly there's the 50p tax rate. I was not in favour of raising the top rate from 40p. Nor was the previous Labour Gov't until Gordon Brown thought it was a clever political wheeze to undermine the Conservative Gov't he expected to win in 2010. After all the fuss Labour made (feeding the media's insatiable appetite) they did not oppose its reduction to 45p. All the talk is about it being a 'political' error - not an economic error. Spin rules. But not for all of us.

Fourthly there was 'Pasty-gate'. I actually agree with this VAT change. In fact I had raised this issue a year ago myself. Why on earth should we be discriminating against fish and chip shops - in favour of supermarkets for goodness sake. Now I don't know much about Greggs (in fact I'd never heard of them) and I don't like pasties anyway (unless Mrs D cooks them), but I did note that they made over £50 million profit last year. The fish and chip shops in Montgomeryshire make a lot less than that. And I might add that no-one has ever accused this son of the soil of being 'posh'. The sight of Miliband/Balls/Reeves stuffing 8 Greggs sausage rolls down for the benefit of a prepared media circus reduced the body politic to playgroup level. They should hang heads in shame.

Fifthly, there was the utterly ridiculous row about gerry cans. It seems to me that the Gov't was absolutely right to advise motorists to fill their tanks, and while I'm sure the word gerrycans (which is somehow amusing) would have been better not used, the overreaction of the public was just that - an over reaction. Unite were contemplating a tanker driver's strike, and its the responsibility of Gov't to prepare for it. Just imagine the media response if there had been a strike, and Gov't had just sat back like a rabbit in headlights - afraid to move in case...

Perhaps the least accurate reporting amongst this anti-Coaltion extravaganza has been the assertion that the Coalition is in difficulties. I sat through the budget, and left the Chamber thinking that the Coalition has never been stronger. Of course there are Conservatives and Lib Dems who do not much like the Coalition. They never did. Can't get their heads around the fact that we did not win the General election. So many media reports refer to 'anonymous' MPs briefing. In my experience anonymous briefing should be treated as just that. If you can't stand behind your words, you are not worth listening to. Thankfully we have a Prime Minister who seems level headed enough not to be buffeted by all these noises off. We have a Coalition which has come together to repair the damage the last lot did to our public finances - and as far as I can see that is what it's doing. I hope it carries on doing just that.

The 'Granny' Tax

Because the last Government left us with no money, and we are weighed down by massive deficits and debts, the Chancellor had no scope to reduce taxation on Wed., and no option but to deliver a fiscally 'neutral' budget. This blog outlines what I saw as the significant taxation announcements within this 'neutral' budget - of which there are three biggies. I do not include the reduction in the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% (from 2013), because it has almost no impact on taxation receipts. The 50% tax rate makes no economic sense at all. Gordon Brown set it as a political 'trap' for the incoming Government when he realised he was going to lose in 2010. So its no surprise that Labour are seeking to make a big deal of it. Personally, I do not think this will concern most people - because they are not daft. There are several more important changes.

The three 'biggies' are personal taxation allowances, corporation tax, and the freeze on age-related allowances (so-called Granny Tax). My aim is to be factual rather than partisan in my commentary because I've been surprised by the lack of knowledge that I've encountered. I'll be willing to be more opinionated in any comments.

The decision which dominated the Budget was the raising of the personal tax allowance from £8105 to £9,205. This took another 840,000 people out of the tax system altogether (42,000 in Wales). The allowance was £6475 when the Coalition Gov't came to power. Since then 2 million people have been lifted out of the tax system. This is a dramatic change in how Gov't raises taxes.

The second big change is the reduction of Corporation Tax by an extra 1p. This tax is being reduced from 26% t0 24% this year, adding to previous reductions and with further reductions to come. The aim is to encourage business to locate in the UK, and the decision by GlaxoSmithKline to confirm its £500 million, 1000 job investment on the back of the budget was great news. This change is the Chancellor's main weapon to create jobs

The third big decision is more controversial, and has been much criticised. I've had several protesting emails over the decision to freeze age-related tax allowances. At present the age-related tax-free allowance is £10,200, (while the general personal allowance is being increased to £9205. There is no 'cash' reduction to the tax free threshold - but of course its 'value' will be lessened by inflation. Also, the impact of the decision is ameliorated by an increase of 5% in the state pension. It will remain at £10,200 until the personal allowance catches up. The intention is that personal income tax allowances of everyone should be the same, irrespective of age.

Because this third change is so controversial, I've had to think about it a lot. I don't pretend its easy, or that I like it, or that its popular, or that its not negative for the pensioners it effects. But my experience of talking to constituents is that the people under greatest financial pressure are young people with children. We have to ask ourselves whether we can justify a system of tax allowances which discriminates against them. The underlying issue facing the Chancellor is that he has to produce a 'coalition' budget - and there is simply no money to introduce the required changes in priority. The overall taxation product cannot be reduced. Tough decisions. Certainly not a budget for votes, but a budget that supports our poorest citizens and is right for the nation. Now I am being political, I suppose.

Facts about Equal Civil Marriage

Just thought I'd share parts of the letter I received from the Home Secretary informing me of the consultation on 'equal civil marriage'. This issue is dominating my discussions with party members. I've not read the document yet, and will wait to see how the debate develops before taking a final view on it. But I can say that there are a lot of other issues I'd rather be talking to constituents about. Anyway, I thought it would be useful to make some of the Home Secretary's 'facts' public.

"The consultation looks at removing the bar on same sex couples having a civil marriage......in a register office or approved premises e.g. a hotel"

"We are making no changes to how religious organisations define and solemnize religious marriage. .......I am very clear that a marriage through a religious ceremony and on religious premises will continue to be only legally possible between a man and a woman."

"We are proposing that civil partnerships are maintained for same-sex couples.... enables us to to maintain the current provision of civil partnerships on religious premises, on exactly the same basis as currently.... the bar remains on any religious elements forming part of the civil partnership registration"

"the consultation will allow, for the first time, individuals to change their legal gender without having to end their existing marriage or civil partnership".

There's quite a lot more, but I think I've covered the gist of it.

Team of the Six Nations (and four nations)

So little time to post at present. My wife's chosen epitaph for me. "He just didn't have time". But now that the Six Nations is over I thought I'd choose my teams of the Tournament, and tomorrow's Lions team. I wasn't going to bother until I caught up with Paul Ackford's assessment in today's Telegraph. Just screwed the paper up and threw it in the fire. He's either blind or biased. Time for the management to give him something else to write about. How on earth can he leave the 'Player of the Tournament', Dan Lydiate out of either team. Its this sort of reporting that threatens the Union. Definitely makes me feel more Welsh - which may influence my selections.

Full Back; Kearney's good, but Halfpenny's better. (Wales).
Wings; Cuthbert comes close, but for me its Bowe and North. (Ireland and Wales)
Centres; Several contenders, including Barritt, Jamie Roberts. I go with Jonathon Davies and Fofana, replaced by Tuilagi for the Lions. (Wales, France).
Stand off; Sexton just edges out Farrell and Priestland. (Ireland)
Scrum Half; Mike Phillips (Wales)
Props; English props are both good, but its got to be Jenkins and Adam Jones (Wales and Wales)
Hooker; Mathew Rees is good but I'll go for Dylan Hartley (England)
2nd Row; Several contenders incl. Ritchie Gray, Ian Evans, Parling but its Maestri and O'Connell for me with, Ritchie Gray on the Lions tour. (Ireland and France)
Back Row; Such riches to choose from. Dusautoir, Harinordoquy, Parisse, Ferris, Croft and Morgan. There'as a real case for Croft before Warburton because of injuries - but for me its got to be the three Welsh boys, Warburton, Falatau and especially Lydiate (Wales all the way)

So there we have it. 9 Welshmen, 3 Irishmen, 2 Frenchmen, and 1 Englishmen.

Four tackles and a flash of brilliance.

Mrs D has already decided that my epitaph will be 'He didn't have time'. And I don't. Certainly not to blog as I used to. Still time marches on and perhaps the future may deliver time. I'm beginning some active farming again year (to reconnect) and hope there will be a time to sow, a time to reap, and a time to blog. I could not let yesterday's great match pass without committing my thoughts to print.

The first great moment was the ankle tap by Strettle, a brilliant effort which saved England being beaten by 30 points. The second tackle was the physics-defying ankles grab by Warburton on Tuilagi which saved Wales from defeat. The third was the flattening of England's new outstanding young stand-off Farrell by George North. I remember JPR doing the same thing to Mike Gibson in the 70s. I loved the wry look on his dad's face when it happened. And the fourth was Leigh Halfpenny's desperate dive at Strettle's feet at the death. Four brilliant moments. And then there was the flash of brilliance from Scott Williams to win the silverware.

Who were the top performers. I gave the only 9 to Warburton (again). Several 8s. Halfpenny who missed an easy kick (and with it a 9); Farrell who only missed his 9 because he played just 60 minutes, Tuilagi who always looked a threat, Barritt who tackled like a demon, George North for the first 20 awesome minutes and Adam Jones for just doing what Adam Jones always does.

It was a great game of rugby. England played very well, particularly the way they were up so quick in defence, snuffing out the powerful Welsh runners before they could get going. To win away at Twickenham is a rare achievement. There was much silly talk about Wales winning easily, but not in my mind. At the start of the 6 Nations, I thought Twickenham might be too big an ask. But I also thought that if we were to beat England, Wales would win the Grand Slam. The French game is going to be very tasty indeed.

Tribute to Lord Hooson.

Lord Hooson, one of Montgomeryshire's greatest ever citizens has died aged 87. I feel a sense of great sadness, and sympathy for his wife Shirley, Lady Hooson, who along with Emlyn were great personal friends.

Emlyn Hooson was a brilliant man in every field he entered. He was a very successful barrister, who became Britain's youngest ever Q.C., and he was the hugely respected MP for Montgomeryshire from 1962 until 1979. He is still remembered with affection today in the Houses of Parliament, across all parties.

I knew Emlyn for about 40 years, and though he belonged to a different political party, I never found cause to have a cross word with him. He was logical in debate, determined in his opinion, and unfailingly polite and generous of spirit. I will never forget my conversations with him about his own personal memories of his friends, Churchill, Lloyd George, and Aneurin Bevan.

Emlyn Hooson was also a great supporter of the Welsh Language, it being his first language, and also of the National Eisteddfod. My last conversation with Emlyn, a few weeks ago was wholly in Welsh. Montgomeryshire has lost one of its special people, and I've lost a good friend.

My Letter to Sec of State at DECC about wind farms

Last week 101 Conservative MPs wrote to the Prime Minister expressing their concerns about the scale of subsidy being handed over to giant energy companies (usually foreign) to enable them to build uneconomic wind farms and their concern about the bias in the planning system against local objectors. Although I was an enthusiastic supporter of this letter, I could not sign it myself without resigning my position as a PPS. Following discussion with the Whip's Office, I sent a personal letter to the Sec. of State at the Dep't of Energy and Climate Change. By the time my letter landed on the DECC desk, the recipient in the big chair turned out to be Ed Davey, rather than Chris Huhne. Anyway, my letter was not confidential and it follows;

"Dear Secretary of State,
Over the last few months I have been approached by a large number of constituents who have raised their concern about the level of support there is available for onshore wind energy generation.

In these financially straightened times, my constituents believe it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines.

In the ongoing review of renewable energy subsidies, my constituencies have asked me to ensure that the Coalition Government considers dramatically cutting the subsidy for onshore wind and spreading the savings made between other types of reliable renewable energy production and energy efficiency measures.

Finally, recent planning appeals have approved wind farm developments with inspectors citing renewable energy targets as being more important than planning considerations. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that it is impossible to defeat applications through the planning system. My constituents urge you to ensure that planning inspectors know that the views of local people and long established planning requirements should always be taken into account.

Yours sincerely. Glyn Davies. MP for Montgomeryshire.

I suppose you could look at my letter as No 102 on the list. Intestingly, all Conservative Assembly Members have tonight signed a letter supporting the MP's letter of last week. There is no doubt that there is a real antipathy to onshore wind blowing up in the Conservaive Party.

'101 Tories revolt over wind farms' - Telegraph Today.

Lot of media coverage today of the letter sent to the Prime Minister asking for a reduction in the level of subsidy given to wind farm developers, and a rebalancing of planning rules in favour of those who oppose these monstrosities. 101 Conservatives have signed it, including the 3 Welsh Conservative MPs I share an office with, Guto Bebb, Alun Cairns and Simon Hart. This letter is only the latest step in the growing concern amongst MPs about what is becoming seen as a policy in drastic need of change.

Better give you some background to this letter. About two weeks ago, my colleague, Chris Heaton-Harris, Conservative MP for Daventry arranged an ad hoc meeting of Tory MPs. He and I were the 'top table' but Chris is very much the public face of this. He's extremely effective and respected (despite the fact that he's a soccer referee most weekends !) Mine is a support role. Almost 40 MPs turned up - more than we expected. It was agreed to write a letter to the Prime Minister outlining our concerns. Chris (and a few others) agreed to put the letter together, and last week it was placed before MPs asking for their support. 101 signing up was beyond anyone's wildest dreams. The scale of opposition and concern is even greater than we thought. A small number of Labour and Lib Dem MPs asked to sign up as well, though there has not been any real effort to take it cross party yet. That could well be the next step.

Some people have asked me why my name is not on the list. Problem for me is that I am a PPS, and we cannot vote against the Government, or sign petitions etc. that can be seen to oppose Gov't policy. Well, I can actually, but I would have to resign first. Chris discussed the position of PPSs with the Whip's Office, and it was agreed that I should write a personal letter to the Secretaries of State responsible for wind farms and planning, Chris Huhne and Eric Pickles. My letter was less 'general' and more related to my constituency, which it seems is acceptable. I sent my letters off last Wed, same day as multi signed letter was sent. Its not a secret letter, and I will post it on this blog as soon as I can (I just don't have a copy with me tonight).

The next step will be to build on the publicity attracted by the letter to the Prime Minister. I will not be at Westminster until late Tues, evening, but intend to discuss next steps with Chris H-H as soon as I can. From my perspective, we are making progress in saving our country from punishing the fuel poor, diminishing UK business competitiveness, undermining economic recovery, and ruining our landscapes.

Two Big Assembly Stories in Today's WM

Two really significant Assembly stories in today's Western Mail. Both have been written by David Williamson. His first report informs us that the Welsh Government is moving out of its space in Gwydyr House, home to the Wales Office (and opposite Downing St.) to a new location half a mile away along Victoria St. He reports that the annual cost of this move will be £270,000. Find this a bit hard to believe - that the Welsh Government intend to spend so much on a London office when every budget head is under pressure. It seems that Andrew R T Davies and his team of Conservative AMs are none too impressed, so we'll hear more about this over the next few days. I sense this could be a 'hot' topic.

Its worth quoting what the Welsh Gov't has released to David in response. "its to promote international trade and investment opportunities; continue to develop relationships and visibility with the UK Government, embassies and other important organisations and public bodies; and provide a hot desk base for ministers and officials on official business." - all at a price of £270,000 per annum. They must be very prestigious offices. Looking forward to an invitation.

The second significant article by David Williamson today tells us about the submission of the Welsh Liberal Democrats to the Silk Commission. This matters because the Lib Dems are in Coalition at Westminster, and are reported to be Carwyn Jones' preferred coalition partners in Wales. Anyway, the Lib Dems want to see the Assembly taking responsibility for 50% of income tax raised in Wales, with ability to vary the total rate by at least 3p. They also want the Assembly to have complete control over taxes that affect the Assembly's responsibility, the power to vary business rates, and new borrowing powers to spend on infrastructure projects - all this being a steps on the road to a federal UK. This is seriuosly radical stuff. Paul Silk is going to have his work cut out to come up with the first part of his report, advising how fiscal responsibility be vested in the Assembly by the end of the year.

2012 Six Nations - Prediction Time.

Tomorrow, the 2012 Six Nations Tournament kicks off. Its prediction time. Even though Wales were the best team at the World Cup, I just cannot see us winning the championship. And the main reason is Gethin Jenkins. We just do not have enough strength in depth to replace his towering talent. We need both Adam Jones and Jenkins playing for our front row to provide the base to deliver victory against the Irish and the French. Sunday's back row battle has the potential to be something glorious to behold, but Ferris, O'Brien will be on the front foot more often than Warburton and Faletau. Tomorrow is a defining game for us. If we win, my predictions go haywire and anything's possible even the Grand Slam. But tonight, I sense its third place for Wales, with that depending on beating England at Twickenham - which history tells us is never easy, even if it were to be England Ladies..

No-one knows what to expect of England. Despite their wealth of clubs, money and players, England are in a mess. The team is too inexperienced, and it will lose at Murrayfield - but improve as the season progresses. Tomorrow, the Scots will be all over Charlie Hodgson like foxhounds. They will run at him like bullocks. England will finish 4th, Scotland 5th and Italy 6th. Still cannot see Italy making the impact we all want to see.

This weekend its 20-12 to Ireland, (hope I'm wrong) 30-20 to Scotland and 30-12 to France(Italy leading at half-time).

Is this the end of Parliamentary Democracy in Mid Wales ?

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

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

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

Is being an MP a proper job?

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

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

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

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

Let not Dementia be treated with 'Shackles'.

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

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

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

The Scottish Question

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

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

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

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

New Parliamentary Boundaries for Mid Wales.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Language of the Welsh Assembly

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

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

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

Defending the Welsh Language.

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

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

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

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

Assisted Suicide ? Was that it.

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

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

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

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

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

The 'not independent' commission on assisted suicide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10)Dame Denise Platt - views not known.

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

12)Celia Grandison-Markey - views not known.

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

Introduction to The Falconer Report

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

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

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

What makes a 'Commission'.

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

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

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

New Year's Eve on the Terrace.

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

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

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

New Years Honours List

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

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

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

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

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

Public turned off by 'The Party Line'

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

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

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

Alternatives to Onshore Wind

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

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

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

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

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

Pantomime Season for Wind Farm Giants

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

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

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

2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tackling Poverty, Injustice and Oppression.

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

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

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

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

Solar PV. What Happens Now?

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

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

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

Wind Farms and Democracy in Mid Wales

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

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

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

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

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

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

"No". What it means.

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

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

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

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

The Death Pathway.

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

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

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

The Varied Job of a Politician.

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

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

The West Lothian Question

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

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

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

Lets consider these options in turn.

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

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

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

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

My Organ Donation Article in 'The Times'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bale, Ramsey, and Team GB.

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

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

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

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