Lord Carlile demolishes House of Lords Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew is the best mind on the Liberal Democrat benches - in both Houses of Parliament. He was MP for Montgomeryshire from 1983 to 1997. He was also my next door neighbour throughout that period. I have grown to know him well. But its a coincidence that Alex and I have found ourselves in much agreement since I was elected Montgomeryshire MP two years ago. We work closely together in our opposition to the desecration of mid Wales with wind farms and in opposition to the legalisation of assisted suicide. He is a man of great wisdom who should be listened to.

In today's Mail on Sunday, Lord Carlile has written a thunderous denunciation of the Gov'ts proposals to reform the House of Lords. He argues as always with logic.  I know that Liberal Democrats throughout Britain will be stunned by the forcefulness of his intervention. Some quotes from his article should be repeated over and over again. And listened to. Its the voice of reason, experience and a brilliant mind.

Lord Carlile says "I cannot support....a shambolic, ill-conceived and politically naive venture. It will diminish Parliament, produce poorer laws and deprive the country of a remarkable and expert House.."  He goes on .."We should be proud of something that works well for us. Under the abolition proposals, all of it is to be trashed in the name of a false view of what is democratic......the public would barely have a say in the choice of the elected members of the new House of Lords. The selection of regional list candidates would be subject only to internal party procedures, potentially decided in the tribal atmosphere of party committees, a recipe for forms of demagoguery, corruption and false influence...." And then he says of the new Lords.."They would challenge the authority of the Commons at every stage - and why not, if they were elected. This is a recipe for constitutional chaos." This is a total demolition job.

I also watched Lord Strathclyde outlining his support for the proposals to Andrew Neil at lunchtime.  Couldn't make up my mind whether his enthusiasm for how well the current House of Lords works was greater or lesser than his enthusiasm for its abolition and replacement by the new proposals.

To hold an EU Referendum - and what Question.

Much discussion about an EU referendum flying around at present. In my opinion, this is all going to end in Eurosceptic tears. I recall the last such referendum in 1975. Biggest losers were those antis who made most noise demanding it. I was one of them. In general, I have a policy of learning the lessons of history. Be warned Eurosceptics. An EU referendum will lead to a green light for greater integration.

Anything but an In/Out referendum will not be good enough to satisfy the baying voices clamouring for a vote. Now, I should admit that I have no great fear of life outside the EU - and could see the sense of a referendum if I thought a potential UK Government would actually be prepared to open negotiations to withdraw from the EU if there were to be a Yes vote. No mainsteam party (and I still include the Lib Dems) has ever said that. References to an In/Out vote usually assume that the public would vote to stay in, or that the public's opinion would be ignored if it backed withdrawal. This is the unspoken truth - which is why I, a Eurosceptic, am deeply suspicious of the current debate. Even worse for me, a vote to stay in would be a massive boost to EU integration - as it was in 1975.

So all that's realistic is a referendum on some sort of 'renegotiation'. And it would have to involve quite significant changes to the relationship between the UK and the EU. We are already committed to a referendum if there's any further transfer of powers from the UK - so it has to be more than that. And I really don't think it would wash to go into an election promising to seek a renogotiation followed by a referendum. It would carry no traction with sceptical public unless a significant renegotiation had already taken place - so that there was something solid to take a view on.

Having written the above, I can see a momentum when it's in front of my nose. There are so many 'nods and winks' that we're approaching a position when it could become difficult to draw back from a referendum. No doubt it would inject some life into UK politics. Certainly needs it with the prospect of Lords Reform threatening to mire UK politics in glutinous treacle for months. Its just that I think it will end in tears, particularly for Eurosceptics.

Reforming the House of Lords.

Not a single constituent has ever raised with me the need to reform the House of Lords. Not a single one. Two have called on me to oppose continued presence of the bishops if reform does go ahead. I rather approve of bishops. But not a single person has suggested to me that we MPs should turn our attention to pushing through this massive change in how the people of Britain are governed.

Now I personally support reform. But what sort of reform. I suspect there are 100 versions of the type of reform individual Parliamentarians would support. I can see a case for capping the numbers at around 500. I can see the case for 'kicking out' miscreants. I can see the case for stronger 'independent' vetting and approval of new ermine-wearers. Most of all, I can see a case for reviewing the role of the Lords in scrutinising and amending new legislation emanating from the devolved Gov'ts.  But this is not what we are about to consider. Even though I've not seen the Bill yet, I understand that we are talking about a 'root and branch' change in how Britain is governed.

In today's Telegraph, Boris Johnson wrote "Clegg's scheme needs to be liquidated, vaporised and generally terminated". Lots of MPs have told me today that they agree with this. It seems that there will be a crunch vote in a few days time.  The public will not fully grasp what it means. It will be a vote on a 'programme motion'.  Essentially this guillotines debate on the Bill. Many clauses are likely not to be debated at all. And we are told that asking the people to express their views in a referendum will not be allowed either. We are told that the 'promoters'of this legislation want to ensure a timetable that effectively removes the current House of Lords from the decision making process by using the Parliament Act. That why there's such a hurry. Its accepted that their Lordships will defeat this Bill when it goes there, before returning it to the Commons - where the Government will be able to re-introduce the Bill in the next Parliamentary session, and after the period of one year, ram it through the Lords using the Parliament Act. And nothing, dear friends could be done by anyone to stop it.

I have to admit that when I was elected a Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire in 2010, I did not envisage facing such a situation. I've always been inherently loyal to 'my team'. I have been ferociously loyal to the Gov't - not ever having voted against the whip. Friends and colleagues, I am deeply troubled.

Machynlleth for the Pasty Tax. Lol

One of the hottest topics in Machynlleth, Montgomeryshire over the last few years has been the 'Pasty Tax'. Today I called in at where it started for me - at 'Hennigan's Top Shop', a very fine fish and chippie on Maengwyn St.. The family who own it were celebrating 30 yrs supplying it's top quality produce. To celebrate the occasion, fish and chips were on offer at £1 for today only. Same from my local in Welshpool, the very excellent 'Andrews' on High St. last Thurs cost me £4.95. Unsurprisingly, there was a long queue down the street all day.

Now my first encounter with Hennigan's was when daughter Anna contacted me almost two yrs ago about the appalling unfairness of having to charge VAT on hot pies, when the nearby supermarket did not charge VAT on pasties. After much investigation and discussion, I called for equalisation of tax on pies and pasties. At the time I was thinking more of exempting hot pies from VAT, but I decided to be supportive when Chancellor introduced VAT on pasties in the recent budget. On BBC News Channel, I was credited with single-handedly inspiring the budget decision to act on this gross unfairness. Well we know what happened to that little campaign. I was left stranded by a U-turn!

Ironically, my main critic over this issue is also from Machynlleth. He's actually started a web site specifically to campaign against me - for all sorts of other reasons as well. I'm sure you'll agree this is quite a coincidence. But I should add that I am looked on with great favour by fish and chip shops in my constituency. Win some and lose some!

Anyway, I went along to join the Hennigan family at their celebration today. I even got to serve myself the fish and chips, for which I paid the princely sum of £1. Mr Hennigan is David and Mrs Hennigan is Eleanor, but she's known locally as Lol. Its a good job she contacted me over the VAT issue, and not the Prime Minister. He could have been a tad confused if she had signed off her letter  'Lol'.

Bit of Turbulence at Powys Council

I take an interest in the politics of Powys County Council - partly because I know quite a few of the Cllrs. We need to consider some background. For many years Powys CC was made up of mostly 'Independent' cllrs, led by Cllr Michael Jones from Radnorshire. Then a few years ago, the Council split into 'political groups' which effectively ended the concept of the 'Independent' cllrs in any meaningful sense. A Conservative Group came into being, to join the Labour and Lib Dem Groups -  and the 'Independents' split into 2 groups, the 'Montgomeryshire Independents' and the 'Powys Independents' - (more to do with 'personality' than 'policy'!) The Council was 'managed' by a 'Board' of 15 - chosen in proportion to the size of the various groups. Then just over a year ago, the 'Powys Independents' and the Lib Dems voted through the adoption of a 'Cabinet' system - and formed a coalition to run the Council. Perhaps they assumed this arrangement would carry on for ever. And through all this Cllr Michael Jones stood proudly at the helm. Then we had May's Council election. Big change.

Labour gained seats, Conservatives gained a seat, and the Lib Dems/Powys Ind. lost ground. Leader of the Montgomeryshire Independents (now called the 'Shires Independents), Cllr. David Jones from Guilsfield was elected Leader. He won the votes of everyone except the Lib Dems and Powys Independents'. It was enough. This was 'seismic' - and has led to a total change. Great for me because I've known David for 40 yrs. He was Cllr. for Guilsfield when I was Montgomeryshire Council Chairman 1985-1988. In my opinion, he's made a terrific start.

Unsurprisingly there's been a bit of turbulence in the Powys Independents - coming to terms with 'opposition'. From here on I'm depending on hearsay. Please correct me where I'm awry. It seems there's been a bit of pressure to have a leadership election, which came to a head this week. After decision to hold an election, I'm told that Michael decided , with some drama, to leave the group to become an 'unaligned' cllr.. I'm also told he left blasting on two particular cllrs. for behaving in a way which had led to the Group's defeat. No names, but both are from Montgomeryshire. Where it goes from here, I have no idea. I'm told that favourites to replace Michael Jones as leader of the Powys Independents are Cllrs Geraint Hopkins and Evan Morgan. Whether anyone else will desert the group we do not yet know. This is an ongoing situation. I also suspect I'm the only citizen of Powys who finds this interesting.

Cutting onshore wind subsidies.

Ben Brogan has written a hugely encouraging article in today's Telegraph. The subject is the amount of subsidy that's being fed to satisfy the voracious appetites of international energy leviathans to visit a general ugliness on the most beautiful parts of Britain by building huge numbers of wind farms. This wanton desecration will be nowhere greater than that proposed for Mid Wales.

For some time its been accepted that the level of subsidies is absurdly high, enabling the leviathans to warp the debate by lavishing 'community benefit' on lovely rural Britain, as ugly billionaires buy the affection of beautiful young women with diamonds. For some time its been accepted that a 10% reduction will allow the advance of turbines to continue unabated. To have any genuine impact, and ensure that costs are driven down, a 25% cut in subsidies is vital. Ben Brogan reports that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering such a cut. If true, this will make George Osborne mindblowingly popular across Mid Wales. He will immediately become even more popular with me than he already is.

We are also told that First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones has repeated his view that the targets for onshore wind in Mid Wales (as proposed in his infamous TAN8 policy)  does not need National Grid's 20acre substation and 100 miles of cabling, including a 400 kV line on massive steel towers all the way from mid Wales to mid Shropshire - a truly terrifyingly hideous prospect. In any other policy area, one might think this opinion would carry weight - but we're not dealing with normality. We are dealing with an industry that respects no-one, and tramples the opinion and lives of human beings underfoot, as wholly expendable in pursuit of their 'religion'.  Let us hope, for the sake of the beauty of Britain that Ben Brogan is accurately informed.

Welsh Gov't and Organ Donation.

Today the Welsh Government published it's draft Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill for consultation. The aim of this bill has been said to be to introduce a system of organ donation in Wales based on 'presumed consent' - where anyone who does not sign a register specifically stating that they do not want their organs removed will be deemed to have given consent for this to happen. I have consistently argued that this is a wrong, both ethically and because it will not work. There is no evidence to support the notion that 'presumed consent' will increase availability of organs. Today's headline on BBC Wales today which states "Law will increase organ donation" is untrue and is sloppy journalism on the part of the BBC. It is based on assertions (made by the Minister which the small print makes clear) without any evidence that stands up to examination. But putting this aside,  lets look at what is being proposed. I'm always willing to approach things with an open mind.

There is one very important and interesting line in this Written Statement. "Not opting out will be treated as a wish of the deceased to be a donor and a decision which families will be sensitively encouraged to accept." Well, as long as this procedure is written clearly into any future Assembly measure, I could well find myself in the position of  thinking the proposals should go further. My view has been that the next of kin of everyone who could be a donor should be 'sensitively encouraged'  to agree. All of our efforts should be put into ensuring people's wishes are known by their next of kin. My speech in the House of Commons last year was titled "A Presumptive Approach to Organ Donation." Evidence shows that such a high percentage of people are content for their organs to be used that discussion with next of kin in the inevitably traumatic situations should start from the basis of presuming agreement. My principal position has always been that no organ should be removed without express permission of next of kin. This should be written into any Act

So I'm left wondering what all the fuss has been about. Why on earth do we need an opt out list at all if everyone is to be treated as a potential donor. Best performing country, Spain, does not have a list. Would it not be a better use of resources for the money needed to draw up and maintain an opt out list be spent promoting a campaign based on "Let your next of kin know your wishes". Its increasingly beginning to look as if the exercise has been based on a desire to be different for its own sake.

This post is a very preliminary assessment of what I've read.  I need to discuss the issue with lawyers and transplantation experts before making definitive judgements. At this stage I'm rather less alarmed by what's proposed than I feared I would be. Wasting money is one thing.  Taking an organ where next of kin had not given approval is another thing entirely.

Force Feeding - Thoughts in Hindsight.

I was well taken aback when a casual tweet about a High Court Judge deciding in favour of force feeding an anorexic sufferer from Wales became front page news. Had not expected anyone to take the slightest notice. While I had no wish to take the matter further, I did  agree to join a phone-in discussion on Radio 5 last night. Also spent part of yesterday just reflecting on what I'd said. I usually find that my considered thoughts are similar to my first instinct.  I still think the judge made the wrong decision - even though most of those who have engaged with me in discussion don't seem to agree. Don't suppose you're interested but just in case, lets consider the way my thought processes have gone.

The Judge tells us he considered the 32 yr old Welsh woman to be intelligent, articulate and above all else did not want to eat food or be force fed. This was not in doubt. However, along with much expert opinion, he considers anorexia a mental illness, and as such the patient should be regarded as not competent to decide. So he did not accept her wishes.

The Judge tells us that those closest to the woman (presumably family) supported her wishes. She was in hospital and we are told that those caring for her also support her wishes. We are not told whether this included doctors, but we do know the case was taken to the High Court by the local authority, rather than the local health board. The Judge decided not to accept any of this - perhaps because the terrible pressures on all of these people may have influenced their judgement.

The Judge also tells us that the woman was gravely ill, and only has a small chance of survival.  He put it at 20%. His reasoning suggests that even at 1% he would have made the same decision. That 1% could be 100% for the woman if she were to recover.

I simply cannot see any other way to interpret this judgement except that force feeding should be available as a form of treatment in all cases of anorexia. This must also the logical conclusion of those who have disagreed with my opinion on this particular case.

Two other points I'd like to make. Firstly the Judge has presented his judgement in a very high profile way, which will inevitably lead to it being seen as a 'precedent' which will influence managers and other decision makers in the health care system. Its not unreasonable to suppose this was the Judge's intention.

And finally, most people with whom I've spoken tell me of the shockingly patchy service that anorexia sufferers can expect - particularly across Wales. There is clearly need for much improvement. But what will be now be the response of decision makers. I fear it will now be to see force feeding as the 'standard' procedure. I have a fair idea how the minds of officials work. This decision may well lead to a poorer service for anorexia sufferers.

I am not opposed to 'force feeding' where there is a reasonable expectation that it will help a sufferer. In this case, the background to the case suggested to me that if ever there was a situation where the views of the patient should have been respected, and she should have been allowed to die with dignity this was it. That's why I disagreed with the Judge.

When is it OK to force feed anorexic patient.

A High Court judge has ruled that a 32yr old Welsh woman suffering from severe anorexia should be force fed. It is reported that the woman is intelligent, articulate, wishes to make her own decisions, and that her carers and family oppose force feeding. They also believe she should be allowed to die with respect. Its also reported that she has been on a course of palliative treatment for a long time, not having eaten for many months. What is one to make of this decision. Must admit that I find it quite shocking.

I accept that force feeding of anorexic sufferers is not always wrong. Its an awful condition, and if a judgement is made that the patient is not competent to make a decision, and there is a good chance of recovery if force feeding takes place, it may be reasonable to force feed. But we' re told that this woman is 'intelligent and articulate" and "wants to make her own decisions". We're also told of the long term nature of her condition and the conclusion of her carers, and those who know her best believe she should be allowed to die with dignity.

My first instinct was that this is a quite awful decision, where the 'state' has decided to take ownership of a 'competent' person's body, and to take an unreasonable action to extend life. I accept that its easier to take a view not knowing who the patient is. Even after thinking about it, I still consider it to be a bad decision. But I do want to discuss it with those to whom I look for discussion about the ethics of these sort of issues - Lord Carlile of Berriew, Lady Finley of Llandaff and Robert Preston of LDW. Already I am a strong opponent of 'assisted suicide' and of 'presumed consent'. Is this to be another cause to persue?

Third Heathrow Runway and MP's duty to constituents.

I like Zac Goldsmith. Don't always agree with him, but he seems an MP who stands by his beliefs. Great respect for that.  Don't like opportunists. Nothing offends me more than when I've been accused of opportunism myself - like about my opposition to the Mid Wales Connection Project (something Zac and I might disagree about!). I was opposed from 2005, when the full horror was first put forward. Most people were in favour of it, and I was thought a bit 'cranky'. And no-one was much bothered because I was in such a small minority. All changed now.

But what are we to make of Zac's declaration today that if the Coalition Gov't performs a U-turn in favour of  3rd runway at Heathrow, he would not stand as a Conservative at the next election, and might force a by-election if it becomes Gov't policy before then (at least that's what I think he said). And I reckon he means it.  This is big talk indeed. I cannot criticise anyone who refuses to support a U-turn as controversial as this one, after a cast iron promise to constituents. Personally I don't have a firm opinion about a 3rd runway, and it never came up in Montgomeryshire - even if I've never been able to understand why extra business and investment is not directed to Birmingham, which is probably nearer to Heathrow than Boris Island in time and convenience terms.

Anyway, Zac has will have made a few of us think about whether there is a vote that would be too far for us to swallow. Not sure it would be wise to go public if there were. The only policy where I know my constituents would expect me to die in the ditch would be the appalling proposals to destroy Montgomeryshire with multiple wind farms and pylons. I would be in trouble if it were to come to a vote - which at this stage I cannot see happening any time soon. But I don't suppose Zac Goldsmith thought there would ever be a vote on a 3rd Heathrow runway (which there may never be of course). Definitely an issue to watch.

The Euro and UKIP

I was always implacably opposed to UK membership of the Eurozone. Nothing to do with a desire to retain the Queen's head on coinage, which Euro-enthusiasts liked to accuse us of.  It was entirely because I do not believe a single currency can succeed if its not part of a single political union as well.  I still recall sitting on panels locally (alongside other Welsh politicians all Euro enthusiasts) being dismissed as an 'extremist' because of my views. I've never had the slightest doubt that at some stage the Euro will collapse - or at least be reformed to include only those countries which actually want to to be part of a political union. Despite today's 'resolution' of the Spanish banks problem, nothing has happened to change my mind. Its but sticking plaster.

Charles Moore has written an excellent article for today's Telegraph which wraps this simple proposition in the more elegant language that makes him my favourite writer. I feel that there are many other MPs (particularly Conservative MPs) who share this opinion.

This issue has often been the basis of discussions I have enjoyed with my Ukip friends in mid Wales. The Euro is an issue we generally agree about. But where I disagree is that I'm not in favour of withdrawing from the European Union - at this stage anyway.  Though I do think the consequences of the fight to save the Euro in its present form could seriously threaten the long term existence of the EU altogether. Its impossible to know where its all going - not helped by debate about an In/Out referendum which seems to me to be a massive distraction, and an excuse to avoid facing the real issue, which is the Euro. I've always thought there's a more honest philosophy underpinning Ukip. They support a referendum as a stepping stone to leaving the EU. Now that's a straight forward 'easy to understand' policy.

Is Winsor best man for Inspector of Constabulary?

Police Minister, Nick Herbert tells us that he considers Tom Winsor is much the best person to take over as Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. Home Sec, Theresa May agrees with him. I spent an hour with Mr Winsor a few days ago and there is no doubt that he is a confident and competent man.  I didn't agree with every answer he gave but it was clear that he had thought everything through, and was not willing to back down or be bullied by MPs - especially Conservative MPs.

But the Police Federation do not accept that anyone who has not been out on the streets as a serving officer can possible do this job. Its worth repeating a statement that Chair, Paul McKeever has put out - which seems to be an attempt to 'veto' the Home Sec's prefered candidate, and have one of their own given the job instead.

Statement
The role of HMIC is one of the most important in policing. The HMIC provides advice on policing matters to the Home Sec. and if ever there was a need for sagacious advice from someone with a profound understanding of policing, it is now. We warned the Home Sec there would be riots, crime would rise, and that 20% cuts would have a detrimental effect on the policing front line, putting public safety at risk, and we were called scaremongers. We look forward to hearing from the Home Sec how the appointment of Tom Winsor provides the profound understanding of policing that is so important for public safety."

Must admit I do not remember the warning about riots - but let this pass. Neither do I recall warnings that the previous Gov't was spending so much public money that major reductions would be inevitable -  but let that pass as well. The reality is that the Conservative Party, in its manifesto, and later the Coalition Government promised to reform the police force and make it more 'accountable' to the public. Its true that in general the Police do not like this, but that's democracy. Seems to me that the appointment of Tom Winsor is a statement of intent by the Home Sec. that she will not forced into a U-turn on police reform. There's going to be a bit of a rumpus over this I suspect.

The example that is Tom James

Tom James is a Welsh Olympic champion. He won a gold in the coxless fours in Beijing four years ago. Yesterday he was confirmed as one of three Welsh rowers in this year's GB rowing team. He's also a reigning world champion, so his selection should not be a surprise.  But.....

Tom James suffers from Atrial Fibrilation, a heart condition which causes an irregular heart beat. I am Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on AF, and a sufferer myself - or at least I was. The condition affects sufferers differently. I found myself short of breath sometimes and needed to breath deeply to steady things down. My doctor thought I was suffering a heart attack when he did an ECG. It was eventually fixed by an electric shock to the heart which returned my heartbeat to normal (sinus rhythm). Tony Blair famously underwent the same procedure.

Reason I'm so keen to promote awareness of AF is that it increases the chance of a stroke five fold, and is often very easily treated. People do not realise they have AF.  I didn't. Huge numbers of people have AF without being aware of it. Tom James is an example to us that AF, if treated, is not necessarily going to prevent an ordinary life - or even an extraordinary life in the case of Tom James.  I hope he'll come along to one of our meetings when the Games are over.

An In/Out EU Referendum.

Doesn't happen often, but this morning a constituent engaged me in political discussion. He accusing me of being dominated by the 'whips' and not representing my constituents. Its true that I believe I have a responsibility to support my party in the lobbies. But I do not think this is contrary to the interests of  my constituents. I pointed out that its not possible to represent all of my constituents on all issues all of the time because they hold divided opinions. In any case, its not possible to know what is majority opinion. I then asked for an example of where I had voted contrary to what he (or I)  thought to be the right course as a result of pressure from the whips. It was then that we cut to the chase. It was all about an In/Out EU referendum.  I had not joined the 81 rebels who voted against the Government over such a referendum earlier this year. It rather surprised my constituent when I said I did not support an In/Out referendum because I think, at present, its a thoroughly bad idea. And that I thought the 81 rebels were wrong.

Actually I am thoroughly Eurosceptic. I would be content to support an In/Out referendum if the Government holding it committed to opening negotiations to withdraw if the 'Out' vote won. But I cannot support an In/Out vote if one of the two possible outcomes is likely to be ignored. Such a situation would lead to a massive loss of confidence in our system of democracy. In my discussions with Ukip friends over many years, I have explained that this is one of the two main reasons why I disagree with them.

The second reason I oppose an In/Out referendum has its roots in the 1975 vote on whether to stay in (the EEC in those days). I campaigned for an 'Out' vote then and we were routed.  It was the biggest 'green light' to European integration imaginable. I fear the same would happen again. Despite what many campaigners for a referendum claim, I believe the 'In' side would win - and if it did the inevitable result would be another 'green light' to integration. Another case of the result being the opposite of what's wished for. Anyway, I spent 30 minutes chatting to my constituent. I don't think we managed to persuade each other of much. But I thought it was a better debate than the one in the House of Commons.

U-Turns!

Been so much stuff in the media about U-turns lately that its become rather 'old hat'. I'm featuring in an article in today's Western Mail by the ever-thoughtful David Williamson.  As always I'm very content with what he wrote.  What usually happens is that we talk freely for a good 10 minutes about an issue, and he picks a line or two to suit. Its always risky from my position because he makes me think aloud. Dangerous practise.
Question is how should we look at Gov't U-turns (or changing of minds in response to public reaction).  Since Mrs T made a virtue out of of not U-turning, its generally portrayed as a sign of weakness. But is it?  In passing, I reckon Mrs T would have been better off if she had U-turned on the Community Charge/Poll Tax! Whatever, lets take some of the budget proposals.
Firstly the most important change of policy - the decision not to impose 20% VAT on static caravans. Its no secret to those I discussed this with that I did not think this was a great idea. I understand why it was put forward. Logical that mobile and static caravans should be treated equally - but it would be too disruptive, particularly to manufacturing businesses.  The new proposal for a 5% rate is sensible.  So I'm rather pleased with this U-turn. I still remember the first time I was left up a tree without a paddle - on the proposals to change forestry ownership. I thought that proposal was right too, said so publicly and was well stranded by a U-turn - the day after I wrote to 250 constituents backing it. But it was what the people wanted, and no-one mentioned my embarrassment to me - not one single person.
Secondly the pasty tax. I agreed with this proposal and went on national TV to support it. My constituency has lots of good fish and chip shops! The U-turn left me stranded. But I can see that it was a highly unpopular. Left me stranded - but its what the people wanted.  I'll soon get over my discomfort - already have! Would we really have been right to push on with it. Perhaps its better to be wise than strong. Much the same can be said about the changes to charitable donations.
The big changes in the budget have been left intact.  This is being completely ignored by the media, and there is little public debate about it. There has been no U-turn on the proposals to equalise the level of tax free allowances across age groups, taking huge numbers of people out of the tax system altogether - or about the important Corporation Tax changes.
OK, so the media have had a field day over what were less important issues in the budget. But Mrs D, who is a good judge of these things doesn't like it at all. She likes the idea of 'you turn if you want to, I'm not'. But I'm left asking myself whether this is all a bit of old fashioned 'macho'. At a very basic philosophical level, every Gov't makes proposals which it comes to regret, but its only a very stupid Gov't which carries on after realising it. Discuss.

Postponing Mid Wales Connection.

National Grid has informed us that it is postponing its announcement about which part of Mid Wales it wants to desecrate with its landscape wrecking 400 kv line from Shropshire to a 20 acre electricity substation in mid-Montgomeryshire to serve around 500/600 new wind turbines. Personally I welcome this postponement.  Eventually the madness of onshore wind in general and this scheme in particular will become obvious to all, so the longer its put off the better. Griff Rhys Jones came up with an interesting observation today when he described onshore wind as the "hypocrisy of green tokenism".

Amusingly, National Grid are putting it about that they are agonising over a difficult decision, and want to consider carefully impact on our countryside. You can believe that if you want. Is that a pig with a propeller on its back flying past my window! Far more likely that National Grid decided to postpone its decision so as to avoid its horrible plans being a Council election issue, and realised that to announce this week would expose its blatant tactics - so another postponement might make it look better.

Not sure that National Grid realises just how hated its becoming in Mid Wales. No-one likes a bully, no matter how the brutality is dressed up in nice words and glossy leaflets. In Mid Wales, National Grid  is the black enemy of the people.

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.