Liverpool Care Pathway - My Speech

Since there was so much interest in the debate I led on the Liverpool Care Pathway yesterday, thought it might be interesting to those who offered me advice beforehand. So this is what I said;

Liverpool Care Pathway


Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): Mr Weir, I would like to say how much of a pleasure it is to serve under the chairmanship of a fellow Celt. I declare an interest as a board member of Living and Dying Well, which specialises in research into and opposition to the legalisation of assisted suicide.

I shall begin with a summary of the current position. The “Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient” was developed by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool as a framework for health professionals to use to ensure that people who are dying have as comfortable and dignified a death as possible. The pathway was developed and has been in use since the 1990s. Today, about 130,000 of the 450,000 patients who die in hospital care every year die while being cared for on the pathway. It has also been exported and is now in use in more than 20 other countries.

However, during the past few months, the Liverpool care pathway has been the subject of some very serious criticisms and allegations in the media, which has led to questions about whether it is indeed a worthy process. I shall explain why I sought this debate and the outcomes that I would like to achieve before considering in greater detail the criticisms that have been made of the pathway.

By any measure, the Liverpool care pathway plays a very significant role in how the end of life is managed in our country. Its role is much greater than most of us realise: 30% of patients who die in hospital care die while on the pathway. The sheer scale of this is why I believe that debate about it is too important to be led by national newspapers, although I certainly do not criticise those newspapers for reporting stories in the way they have done. Indeed, they have served a valuable purpose by raising public awareness of such an important issue. However, there is, almost inevitably, a tendency for newspapers to couch the debate in sensationalist terms. It is up to us as parliamentarians to ensure that this complex and potentially controversial issue is subject to balanced and thorough debate in the House of Commons.

The outcome that I seek today is calm reflection by parliamentarians, including those on the Front Benches, on this most sensitive of issues—calm reflection on the issues without encouraging the spread of alarm and despondency among those entering care, which can result from sensationalist allegations. I also seek a response from Government—from the Minister—that they will ensure that the review on which they have already embarked includes careful and thorough investigation of the allegations that have been made of bad practice. It is important to know whether the allegations are accurate and, if they are, where the weaknesses lie and what needs to be done to put those matters right.

I am a supporter of the Liverpool care pathway, but my aim today is not to defend or to attack the pathway, those who have made allegations of shocking bad practice, or the media, which have given the allegations such great publicity. It is to promote open and genuine debate in Parliament. In any case, I am not in a position to judge how much substance there is to the various criticisms that have been made, but I do know that we cannot avoid death and I also believe that most people do not fear death so much as they fear the process of death. The aim of the Liverpool care pathway is to ensure that the process is as compassionate, dignified and free from pain and discomfort as possible and, importantly, consistent with public safety. Our aim should be that the pathway is used in a way that retains public confidence—that it is being used in accordance with the principles on which the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute developed it.

I hope that the Minister will agree that we must ensure that the pathway is subject to the very highest levels of scrutiny and that the framework can be allowed to be implemented only against a background of total transparency. There must be discussion with patients or with patients’ families or carers and there must be clearly available avenues through which complaints and concerns can be channeled. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the very serious allegations reported in the media will be thoroughly investigated and that, if any examples of bad practice are found, action will be taken to expose those responsible, to hold them to account and to do everything possible to prevent it from happening again. The experiences at Winterbourne View and hospitals in Worcestershire and the appalling and chilling events that took place in Stafford are too raw in the memory to allow anything else. It is only through audit and disciplinary measures, if and when appropriate, that the Liverpool care pathway will retain the integrity needed for it to be acceptable and the confidence of those who might use it.

Two years ago, I had never heard of the Liverpool care pathway. I first took an interest in it as a consequence of my concerns about and opposition to the legalisation of assisted dying. I was hugely surprised by how widely the pathway was in use. I had no idea that 130,000 patients in hospital care died while on the pathway every year and I do not think that many people realise that today.

Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to a fellow Celt. I congratulate him not just on securing the debate, but on the tone in which he has introduced it. He referred to the number of people who are on the Liverpool care pathway, but to help the debate has he done any work on the expansion in numbers since the 1990s? Did we swiftly move to 130,000? Is that a consistent number, or has there been a gradual increase over time? I ask that because of course it is the rolling out of the pathway that may lead to some people having less expertise—less skill—and then, as a result of that, some of the instances that my hon. Friend refers to some poor reporting of?

Glyn Davies: My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the need for training and expertise for all those who are responsible for putting people on the pathway and for looking after them when they are on it. I want to come to that later in my comments.

The negative coverage in our national media has probably increased awareness of the Liverpool care pathway. To that extent, I think that it has been a very good thing, but because I do not believe that the scale of the pathway is widely known, I think that it is right to say something about what the Liverpool care pathway is and what it is not in order to set out the context of the debate. It is certainly not and must never be any form of “euthanasia by the back door”—a phrase that I have heard—nor is it a form of clinical treatment or even any specific type of care. It does not instruct doctors or nurses to provide this or that treatment. What it does is prompt them to consider whether certain treatments are appropriate in individual circumstances. It supports—it does not replace—clinical care. It is no more than a framework of good practice, backed up by training and education, to guide doctors, nurses and other health professionals towards delivering the high levels of palliative care that have been available in hospices for many years. It enables them to be transferred to hospitals, care homes and patients’ homes. It is about the appropriate way to look after a patient who is clearly dying through the last few days and hours of life.

Some other points should be made in this debate. The Liverpool care pathway does not recommend, as some have suggested, that dying patients should be deprived of food and water, although food and water may be withdrawn in individual cases if clinicians believe that that is the right step to take. The Liverpool care pathway does recommend to doctors and nurses that they explain to dying patients, or more often their next of kin, exactly what is happening and why. Secrecy forms no part of the Liverpool care pathway whatever.

It is also important to emphasise that there is nothing irreversible about being placed on the Liverpool care pathway.

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Glyn Davies: On that point, I will, yes.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank my hon. Friend for calling this very important debate. I, too, share some of his concerns about the consistency with which the Liverpool care pathway is implemented across the country. I made some inquiries in the hospitals that serve my constituents, but information seemed to be lacking on the implementation of the care pathway. I am particularly concerned that patients placed on the pathway may have no opportunity to be taken off it if they improve. There are no figures on the number of patients for whom care has been reintroduced after being placed on the pathway. One of the hospitals told me, anecdotally, that no one there could remember anyone being taken off the pathway. I find that worrying.

Glyn Davies: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Patients on the pathway should be monitored regularly, and if the patient shows signs of rallying, as does happen in a minority of cases, the treatment should be modified to support recovery. If that is not happening, the pathway is not being implemented properly. The Liverpool care pathway is not a pathway to death —a phrase I have seen used often, but which I think is unbelievably awful. It is a travesty of the truth to describe it as a form of euthanasia.

Why have we reached the point of huge public controversy, which has caused so much angst and fear? It has arisen from allegations—serious allegations, some of them from doctors and nurses—that the pattern of end-of-life care I have described has not been followed in some cases. There have been stories of dying patients being deprived of the food and water they needed and others being kept continuously sedated until they died; and of patients being placed on the pathway especially shocking, and I hope the Minister will comment specifically on the issue of targets.

Let me look at some of the allegations in more detail. According to the Daily Mail in June last year,

“NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds”.

The report is based on a presentation to the Royal Society of Medicine by Professor Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist. He stated:

“The lack of evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway makes it an assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway.”

That is the debate being led by the Daily Mail. Professor Pullicino continued:

“Very likely many elderly patients who could live substantially longer are being killed by the LCP.”

Imagine how a frail elderly person entering hospital a few weeks after reading that would feel. Professor Pullicino added:

“Patients are frequently put on the pathway without a proper analysis of their condition.”

According to the Daily Telegraph, in September, a group of experts stated in a letter that

“dying patients…can…have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.”

The letter—again according to the Daily Telegraph—spoke of a “national crisis” in patient care, and

“a national wave of discontent…building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients.”

According to the newspaper, some patients were wrongly being put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die. The report continued:

“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway”,

and,

“many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.”

Those are shockingly serious allegations. If they are true, urgent corrective action is needed.

There is another side to the equation, however. More than 20 respected organisations, including the Department of Health, Age UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, Macmillan Cancer Support, and the Royal Colleges of Physicians, General Practitioners and Nursing, have signed a declaration that:

“Since the late 1990s, the Liverpool Care Pathway has been helping to spread elements of the hospice model of care into other healthcare settings”.

It mentions:

“Published misconceptions and often inaccurate information”—

referring, I think, to the stories in national newspapers I have quoted. Our task and the Minister’s is to reconcile the support of all those organisations for the Liverpool care pathway with the allegations made—in good faith, I am sure—by people who believe that the pathway is what they call a pathway to death.

Any tool is only as good as the workman who uses it. The declaration states clearly that the Liverpool care pathway:

“Relies on staff being trained to have a thorough understanding of how to care for people who are in their last days or hours of life.”

We have to face the fact that, in most professions, there are instances of excellence and malpractice, and health care is no exception. It would be surprising if, when 130,000 people a year are dying on the Liverpool care pathway, there were no cases in which the pathway had been misapplied. That applies to every branch of medicine and, indeed, every occupation. There are good and less good doctors and nurses; there are well run and less well run hospitals; but to lay the blame at the door of the Liverpool care pathway is like tearing up “The Highway Code” because there are some bad drivers. Where there is bad practice and poor care, it should be rooted out and replaced with good care.

It seems to me that the review the Government recently launched provides an excellent opportunity to consider thoroughly all those issues. It is urgently needed. The review should call for any evidence of poor end-of-life care. We need the Minister to assure us this afternoon that the stories I have quoted will not simply be taken at face value, but will be investigated in detail, so that we can establish the scale of poor end-of-life care, and understand the causes and correct them.

Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab): I am listening carefully to the important points the hon. Gentleman is making. My constituents John and Mary Roche lost their mother five years ago. They came to see me because, having seen the media reports, they were concerned about her care toward the end of her life—she had been admitted to hospital and subsequently had her food and nutrition withdrawn. Does he think my constituents and others like them should be encouraged to share their stories, so that they can be taken into account in the Government’s review of the Liverpool care pathway and its appropriate use?

Glyn Davies: I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, because I most certainly do agree. I hope that, as a result of today’s debate, more people will come forward to put their experiences, especially of bad practice, in front of the Minister and the review.

We must not forget that it is necessary not to allow the shortcomings of some end-of-life care providers to undermine the outstanding work that the majority of doctors and nurses perform. It is easy to forget that, for those caring for people in the last days and hours of their life, alarmist stories cause real problems, misleading vulnerable people and their relatives into thinking that the unhappy experiences reported so prominently are typical of end-of-life care as a whole, making them reluctant to accept care that is genuinely beneficial, and generating fear of going into any sort of care setting. My sense is that the high profile given to these serious allegations, unaccompanied by supporting evidence, is analogous to shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. We need to know that the Minister will consider all the allegations that are made, including those that have been reported, look at the evidence, and institute whatever changes are needed to ensure safety and thereby confidence in the integrity of the Liverpool care pathway.

I end with a general observation. I was appalled, as I am sure everyone in the Chamber was, by the recent revelations of poor care in a Worcestershire hospital, in Winterbourne View and in Stafford hospital. I was moved, as many of us will have been, by the observations made in the main Chamber before the Christmas recess by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) regarding the inadequate and cruel care given to her late husband. We are reading about too many such cases. Considerable advances have been made in medical science, but we must ensure that, at the same time, we do not lose commitment in the NHS to basic care. I cannot help wondering whether the examples of poor end-of-life care that some relatives believe was given to their loved ones stem from the wider malaise of forgetting how to care for the sick, rather than from any specific clinical protocols such as the Liverpool care pathway.

Lets love bomb Ukip.

Seems that our Prime Minister is still not over-enamoured with Ukip activists/supporters. On Marr today he said some of them were 'pretty odd', which is being interpreted as 'insulting'. Since I think being 'pretty odd' is an essential requirement of anyone taking an active interest in politics, I do not consider this to be at all insulting. I've certainly been called a lot worse, without feeling at all offended. And I think David Cameron has called Ukip supporters something like 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists' in the past, so the relationship is clearly 'warming'.

The most ludicrous aspect of stories currently running about Ukip is the extrapolation of existing polling figures into a General Election result.  National newspapers are even predicting the current Conservative MPs who will be ousted as a result of Ukip votes. My good colleagues, Guto Bebb and Stephen Crabb are fingered here. If this sort of nonsense was for real, Electoral Calculus has me as the only safe Tory bet in Wales in 2015. Well, I suppose they have to fill their columns with something. Probably because politicians are generally a bit odd, some MPs are thrashing around like headless chickens, searching for an 'answer' to the 'Ukip problem'. Here's my suggestion.

The Government (and the Conservative Party) should focus on what is right for the UK, and smile benignly on our Ukip friends. Thank them for their contribution to political discourse, and for floating interesting ideas. Then buy coffees all round and get back to work. We know that the deficit has to be significantly reduced by 2015. We know that immigration numbers have to be significantly reduced as well. And we know that welfare spending has to be brought under control by, and that we must negotiate a different relationship with the EU by 2015. Plus a few other things as well. We need to do these things because they are right -and nothing whatsoever to do with Ukip. Normally, when UK Governments are embarked on difficult programmes, opinion polls tend to record big swings to the 'the third party', in past times, the Liberal Democrats. But the Lib Dems are now in Gov't so voters are backing Ukip to show displeasure. Lot better than the BNP. The increase in Ukip support is only in small part to do with 'policy'.

Most Ukippers I know are sensible patriotic people who detest bureaucracy, hate public sector waste, and are generally good and friendly folk. I also always find their instinct generally quite 'Conservative'. Can't recall engaging a Ukipper in conversation that I didn't like. Of course I don't agree with Ukip on everything, but we as Coalition partners don't agree on everything either. In fact I don't agree with my own party on everything. I just think we should address Ukip with Rees-Moggian politeness and style, and let them know how much we love them, and how much we would like them back in the fold. I reckon that in 2015, most of them will be.

Liverpool Care Pathway

Next Tuesday afternoon at 2.30, I will be opening a 90 minute debate on the Liverpool Care Pathway in Westminster Hall. I expect to speak for about 20 minutes, with perhaps another 10 minutes if there are a lot of interventions from fellow MPs. I may shorten my speech if there are many other MPs wanting to contribute as well. I intend to order my thoughts on this important issue on Monday, but this post is meant as an opportunity for visitors to this site to influence what I say.

The reason I asked for the debate was the horror with which I have been reading articles in the Mail/Telegraph (and others) describing the LCP as a 'Pathway to Death' and describing it as tantamount to euthanasia. I'm not in a position to challenge the truth of these allegations, but this debate cannot be conducted only in the sensationalist way that newspapers tend to do. Its vital that Parliament discusses all aspects of the issue in a considered and responsible way. We must try to limit the fear that this 'shocking' publicity must be creating in the minds of people suffering terminal illness, or of the frail elderly simply going into hospital. I hope we can have that responsible debate on Tuesday.

I will want to begin my speech by stating what the LCP is and what it is not. In the late 1990's the LCP was designed by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool, and is now widely used across hospitals in England - aand the world! The aim is to replicate in hospitals, care homes and at home, the high levels of palliative care that has long been typical of hospices. The LCP is not a treatment, but a set of 'guidelines' to help doctors and nurses who are caring for patients in the last hours/days of their lives. It does not instruct doctors in how to treat patients, but prompts them to consider whether certain care regimes or treatments are appropriate in the circumstances of individuals who are dying. And every case must be treated as 'individual'. Its also crucial that there be no 'secrecy' and that the patient (if appropriate) and/or next of kin are involved in the discussions.  The LCP is not about ending life, but about providing the best possible end-of-life care.

We will not be able to ignore the serious allegations that have been made. The reality, as in every occupation or branch of medicine is that there will be examples of excellence and bad practise. Tens of thousands of people die on the LCP every year. Its seems probable that there will be instances of bad practise (hopefully rare). We must do all possible to eliminate these instances. When allegations are made (and there should always be avenues through which its easy to make them) they should be thoroughly investigated. If not, the integrity of the LCP was be seriously compromised.

The Gov't is conducting a review of how the LCP 'guidelines' are being used. I hope its comprehensive, and ruthless in its honesty. The LCP  is hugely important in ensuring that end-of-life care is delivered with compassion and as little suffering as possible. Over 20 of the leading health-related voluntary organisations and the Dep't of Health have signed a 'declaration' in support of the LCP. I agree with them. But on its own, this will be not enough. Its vital that allegations which have the potential to undermine trust in the LCP are faced and investigated. It must not be left to the media. These are the messages I hope will emerge from Tuesday's debate.

GM Crops are here to stay.

I never completely trust people who have Damascene conversions but Mark Lynas is an interesting man. He's certainly caused something of a stir today with his speech to the Oxford Farming Conference. I have just watched a recording of it. Quite compelling. He explained with simplistic clarity why he changed from being a GM crop trashing 'green' activist into a raging enthusiast without any doubts - and roundly rubbishes those who don't agree, including the 'greens'. No-one as certain as the convert! Personally, I've always had a rather uncertain attitude towards GM, not having been prepared to accept commercial growing without comprehensive trials to establish safety. I was much involved in this debate as Chair of successive 'rural' committees over several years when a member of the National Assembly for Wales. Problem with my approach, which demanded successful 'pilot' schemes before GM crops could be grown commercially  was that all trials in Wales were being 'trashed' by people like Mark Lynas! So wales was declared GM Free.

Now lets look at Mark's position today. He has apologised fulsomely for his previous attitudes and actions. He now concedes that he was completely wrong. Science has shown him that it was a mistake in the past to have opposed GM. GM crops use far less damaging insecticides. GM crops bring benefits to poorer nations of the world and will reduce poverty and malnutrition. GM crops will succeed with less need for water. GM crops will feed the projected world population of 9.5 billion in 2050. He also reckons that organic farming can co-exist peacefully with GM. I'm not at all sure that these are all unchallengeable assertions.

All this is very interesting to a Welsh politician because of Wales' is 'GM Free' status - whatever that means. Mark Lynas was particularly scathing about Wales. The Welsh 'declaration' was agreed because GM's safety has not been proven in Wales. I still recall discussions where I used to ask how the safety of GM could ever be proven if it was not allowed to be grown in trials! I supposed that trials would have to take place in England - which is pretty much what happened. I remember visiting a site in Sealand, nr Chester to discuss the whole issue with a GM grower. He showed me some of his trashed crop plants. Activists had turned up wearing white 'space suits' to do their thing. At the time I thought they were damn stupid - and seen no reason to change my view since.

Anyway, I do think Mark Lynas moved the debate on today. We already have Owen Paterson, new Environment Secretary giving GM a big thumbs up. We have a colleague of mine, George Freeman MP campaigning strongly on GM's behalf in Parliament. For me, its what it always has been - a development about which I am wary and suspicious. But as with other scientific developments, the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. GM crops are going to be grown around the world, whether we like it or not. Just turning our backs on GM as some sort of gesture is not good enough. We must proceed with care and transparency - but proceed we must. Mark Lynas has probably persuaded several today.

Paul Burstow makes a good mark - even if confused.

Lib Dem MP, and former Minister, Paul Burstow has been hitting the headlines big-time today. He has been sharing his ideas with us on two policy areas - which for some illogical reason he has linked. But I must admit, it seems to have worked rather well in that it has generated some terrific headlines. The two issues are interesting enough to instigate this blog post.

Firstly, Paul is proposing that some support payments for the elderly should become means tested. He knows this cannot happen before the next General Election, so I'm not sure why he's raised the issue today. No doubt it will be an issue for parties to consider as preparing manifestos for the 2015 election. I would be deeply disappointed if the Prime Minister were to go back on his firm promise that these benefits would not be changed during the current Parliament. I also feel there should be detailed debate on the implications of such a policy change. I don't like means testing in principle. It disincentivises people from improving their own position, encourages behavioural activity which seeks to understate income, and carries significant administration costs. The pressure on Gov't to cut public spending is driving the means testing agenda - but I just don't like it, and don't support it unless it makes a significant and clear difference..

Another thing I don't like is the 'hypothecation' principle in Gov't spending that underpins today's publicity. Each Gov't decision should be justified on their merits, and not as justification for some other totally unconnected policy change. Its just about presentation. In today's instance, its served the purpose and secured a lot of publicity - but its led to confused debate. The two issues will have to be decided separately. Which brings me to the second.

There is no doubt in my mind that UK Gov'ts over a long period have not addressed the consequences of an ageing population. We are not looking after those who have become frail and vulnerable in our ever-ageing population. Many changes, some involving cost to the Treasury are needed. One of them is Gov't response to the Dilnot Report, which recommends a cap on care home costs - subject of Paul Burstow's comments today. We are anyway expecting an announcement on this in the imminent Mid Term Review (programme for the 2nd half of the current parliament). We need more investment in palliative care, more support for dementia, and a whole lot else as well.

Even though I cannot see the logic of linking two separate issues as Paul Burstow has done today, I think its terrific that he's put the need for greater support for the elderly on the front pages.

David Cameron into battle for UK's future in EU

Sometimes constituents ask me whether the Coalition will last until 2015. Or how I think the second half of this parliament will work out. My response is that I believe it will go the distance, and that we will carry on much as we have since May 2010 - with one very big ' question mark. Its been hovering there since the beginning. Europe. It is simply not possible to know how this issue will play out. If I had been leader of the Conservative Party over the last five years, I would have done the same as David Cameron, and done my best to prevent 'Europe' rearing its destructive head. The unknown is how much longer can this continue. I fear not very long at all. This is where the uncertainty lies.

I can hear the thunder of angry disagreement about the UK's relationship with the EU rolling ever closer. The Prime Minister is soon to enter the ring to take on the 'integrationists' while the surrounding seats are being taken up by the 'sceptics' and the 'outers'. No-one slips blows as well as David Cameron, but even Mohammed Ali was caught in the end. What sort of a new relationship between the UK and the EU can he negotiate to be in a position to offer an In/Out referendum - if he were to decide that is the best way forward.

My first experience of public political debate was in 1975, when I argued for the withdrawal of the UK from the then EEC. I thought it would become a undemocratic, expensive bureaucracy. Was on the losing side. In 1990s I was ferociously opposed to the UK entering the Euro - believing it may well collapse in armed conflict in Europe again. I well recall being called an 'extremist' at an NFU public panel meeting. On the winning side that time - though the growth of militarist groups in some European states suggests that the concern about conflicts was not that fanciful. What sort of 'detached status' or 'associate membership' can be negotiated - if at all? We really do not know. I have just read a book about the life of Disraeli, who managed to emerge smelling of roses from the unlikeliest of political middens. I do think if anyone can pull off an acceptable compromise, David Cameron can.

But its going to be an interesting few weeks on the EU front. We MPs will be sitting in the front row seats. I will be there to hear the Prime Minister report back. After that I may be able to answer my constituents about the future of this parliament with a bit more certainty.

The damage that deer do to wildlife

Month or so ago, the Daily Mirror gave me a bit of a going over for contemplating shooting a handsome stag that was grazing enthusiastically and destructively on my shrub border. All fair enough. Mirror now refers to me as a Tory Gun Nut - despite my not having shot anything for 45 yrs. What wasn't fair enough though was the behaviour of the RSPCA which was about as hypocritical as you can get. Condemned me. And day or so later praised Dr Brian May (who holds some position with the RSPCA) for managing deer sustainably after he'd paid a 'hired gun' to kill a whole 'collective noun' of them -  because they were damaging trees on his 'estate'. Actually, they were right to support Dr May, who was acting in the wider interests of wildlife - which brings me to a story that the BBC is reporting today.

The British Ecological Society have worked with Durham University and FERA to research the impact of roe deer on wildlife diversity. Roe and Red deer are the only two 'natural' British deer, though the Fallow has been about for a millennium. The Muntjac, Sika and Chinese water deer are all comparative newcomers. The deer which cause me stress through degradation of our garden are the Red and Fallow. Anyway, it seems that the research shows that deer eat saplings, debark young trees and eliminate much of the under-storey of vegetation. People who understand the countryside knew that already. The result of this deer activity when numbers are not controlled is a huge reduction in biodiversity, particularly of bird life. People who support the idea of greater diversity of wildlife should campaign in support of stalking and culling deer.

And while the British Ecological Society are at it, they should commission research into the impact of the great increase in badger numbers on birds which nest on the ground or in the base of hedges. And we know the damage to diversity causes by the hated mink - and that the rat-like grey squirrel has all but killed off our lovely native reds. The point I make is that this idea that all creatures in the wild should always be protected actually causes huge damage to wildlife diversity. The attack on me in the Daily Mirror certainly caused damage to my previously supportive attitude towards the RSPCA. You can tell it still rankles six weeks later.

Sound of 'Saesneg' in the Valleys.

I blog for enjoyment, or to bring order to the chaos of my mind, or to stimulate others to response through expression of my own opinions. But this post is a plea for information which might help me understand what on earth is going on at Radio Cymru. Its like watching a dear friend, having fallen seriously ill, and through ignorance of what medication is needed, being helpless to offer advice. Lets just consider the facts as I understand them. And I am open to correction.

In 2007, the Performing Rights Society decided that Welsh recording artists were being overpaid 'appearance money' when their music was being played on Radio Cymru. The PRS claimed it had calculated the payments on a mistaken formula, and 'corrected' the position by reducing the payments very significantly. The performers were and remain understandably disgruntled, and 331 of them have formed an 'negotiating body' called Eos, which has been negotiating with the BBC to establish a new payment regime. The BBC, on the other hand, reckon they have offered a generous increase. Eos disagree with this. From today there is impasse. We observers look on with incomprehension at what looks like a uncontrolled trip over a fiscal cliff, and all set to English music.

Radio Cymru, from today is playing music in mostly the English Language. This is a catastrophe for Radio Cymru. Its a catastrophe for the Welsh Language. And its a catastrophe for the artists who perform 'yn yr Iaith Cymraeg'. No other way of putting it. Radio Cymru receives annually £13.5 million of licence fee money, and has a weekly audience of about 150,000 - and its not even playing Welsh Language music, the point of its existence. This is lose/lose/lose.

And now to the advice and help I need. Are the artists demanding an unrealistic fee of Radio Cymru for the use of their music when there is no other output in the market for it? Or is the BBC trying to manipulate a monopoly position to secure rights to use music performed by Welsh Language artists on the unacceptable 'cheap'? No idea. Only hope I can see of extricating Radio Cymru from this total 'llanast' is through the extraordinary negotiating skills of Elan Clos Stephens. There will be many, like me, who are shaking their heads in bewilderment at what looks like self-inflicted damage.

And a Happy New Year to You

Over the next 6 hrs, I intend, accompanied by my wife, to take a drink in the village pub, before collecting friends. The four of us will then return to our home for another glass of champagne. I know this will be frowned on by the Whip's Office as being unacceptably ostentatious. But if its OK for Boris, I reckon its OK for us. And then its on to a dinner party with a larger gathering of friends, where we will see out 2012, hopefully in good spirits. A taxi is booked.

Before setting out on tonight's festivities is an appropriate time to reflect on happenings of 2012 and my expectations for 2013. Despite the remorseless dialogue of austerity, it was mainly a year of joy. At least it was for those of us who are committed monarchists and keen sports enthusiasts. My best memories are of the tubular bells clanging their way down the Thames under typically British cloudy skies and the poetry of David Rudisha's movement as he ran the most perfect race I've ever seen - bar none. Each year has its sad moments as well, and for me it was the service in memory of April Jones in Machynlleth. There is always evil lurking there as well.

2013 will begin well for me, as patients attend the new Renal Dialysis Unit at Welshpool next week - the culmination of much local campaigning and enthusiasm. I am also looking forward to a debate I have secured in the House of Commons on 8th Jan. I am keen to speak well, and inspire others to join in debate on the Liverpool Care Pathway. But I am fearful of a potential vote on Parliamentary boundaries reform in late January. It may be that I will have no choice but vote against my party whip for the first time. Most of my colleagues have done so without serious injury, but I do fear that I would feel it to be an act of disloyalty. Am unsure how that would affect me. I had hoped to end my Parliamentary career without ever voting against my own side. I'm happy to disagree with policy, but to move to the 'dark side' is just not something I do. It will inevitably make me a different sort of MP - whether lessor or greater I do not know.  I also hope that the Gov'ts in both Cardiff and Westminster will accept that it would be an act of brutal anti-democratic vandalism to allow wind farm bullies to impose the Mid Wales Connection on the land where I, and so many others have always lived and loved.

Bouts of ill health over the years have made me realise that I am quite resilient, and that no matter how bleak I sometimes feel, optimism will eventually surface. As we move from one year to the next, it is optimism that grips me tonight. So its a Happy New Year to all who visit this site.

Personal brush with a wind farm bonanza

A dominating issue in Montgomeryshire over the last few years has been proposals to transform the beautiful  landscape of the old 'County' into one dominated by wind farms and associated transmission infrastructure. It has created much social division, splitting communities and families. I have been opposed to the proposal since it was first given substance in 2005 by the publication of Welsh Gov't planning guidance on renewable energy, popularly known as TAN8. This issue has potential to cause huge environmental and social damage to mid Wales as well as inflict massive financial burdens on the local council.

But thus post is about my personal involvement in the onshore wind issue in mid Wales, rather than the issue itself. Normally, I take not the slightest notice when misguided individuals make untrue statements about 'personal stuff' (deliberate or otherwise). None of their business. But on this issue its probably sensible to put things on public record.

Until 2005, I was generally unconcerned about the building of wind farms in mid Wales - though never convinced they would make much impact on our energy needs. It was the 2005 new TAN8 planning guidance which shocked me into outright opposition. The implications of the Welsh Gov't's intentions were horrific - though the wider public did not fully grasp what it all meant 'on the ground' until 2009/10. It was the sheer scale of what was proposed that made me an implacable opponent. Montgomeryshire probably already has more turbines than any other county in England or Wales. The Mid Wales Connection will mean another 500/600 turbines plus 100 miles of cable, 30 miles of which will be carried down one of our narrow valleys on 150' high steel towers to connect with the Grid in Shropshire.

Sometime in 2005/06, the representative of a Spanish energy company knocked on my door, totally unsolicited, asking me whether I would be interested in locating a wind farm on land owned by my family near the village of Llanerfyl. Gamesa seemed a very reputable company, and I learned much about the industry from Mr Partridge, who worked for them. But the proposed site, which covered land owned by 5 different families was one of great prominence and beauty. I could not have prevented the other 4 from going ahead, but I had no intention of joining in, even if it was an issue the family would decide on. I decided to invite the BBC along to highlight the divisions that communities faced - extra income against landscape damage. I will never forget taking the BBC film crew up the mountain, through driving rain and muddy tracks and in a thundering gale. Still laugh when I think about it. Anyway, Gamesa decided to proceed and offered the landowners a 5 yr exclusivity contract - money for nothing! Despite the family involvement, I wanted no part of it, and declined whatever money would have been on offer. Must admit I would have preferred this to have remained a private matter. Its bad for the reputation of a hill sheep farmer to be known to have refused money! I do not know what the other farmers involved did. That's their business. Also, despite my decision to take no part, I decided that I should declare an interest when opposing wind farms in the National Assembly. Not sure there was actually reason to, but its always best to be open. Some people don't understand the principles behind declaration of interests, and made incorrect assumptions. I continued to so declare until it became clear the scheme had no chance of going ahead, and that there was no 'opportunity' of benefit - even though I had no intention of taking it!. As far as I know, Coedtalog Mountain is safe from turbines for evermore.

Jacob Rees-Mogg pays tribute to his great father.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has written a nice tribute to his late, great father, Lord (William) Rees-Mogg. Jacob is an unusual but brilliant MP, and I sometimes go into a debate just to hear him speak. He operates at a level of politeness that I can but dream of. Who can ever forget the look of utter shock on his face when Emily Maitlis asked him on Newsnight when he had last sworn at anyone. "I do not think Ms Maitlis that I have ever sworn at anyone in my adult life". Priceless.

Anyway, I considered William Rees-Mogg to be as balanced and able a journalist as its ever been my pleasure to read. I have read Jacob's tribute in today's Mail on Sunday three times, and reproduce here a few of the words used to describe his father's life.

"His reputation as a wordsmith who could produce long and elegant articles was unsurpassed. The bulk of his career was spent with The Times but he was particularly pleased, aged 75, to get a new job as a Mail on Sunday columnist" - which was the first article I read each Sunday morn.

"His family was central to his life. Although very busy, he turned up to childhood events. He was always in the audience at my school plays, and he encouraged all his children in whatever they wanted to be."

"He also had an inspirational faith, which helped him approach death without fear. He believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church and had not only been ready but inquisitive about meeting his maker for many years" - ever the journalist!

"His greatness was in his gentleness, his enthusiasm and his spiritual completeness, more than having known everyone who was anyone for 60 years. May he rest in peace."

I can see Jacob in my imagination saying this words.

Which way forward for the Conservatives.

Ex Tory MP, Paul Goodman is a insightful writer. He believes the 2015 General Election is already lost to the Conservatives - which seems to me a quite ridiculous thing to say, with 2yrs and 4mths to go. Does he not remember the landslide victory that was there for Gordon Brown until he chickened out of an Oct/Nov election in 2007. 2/3 years is an age in politics. But bearing in mind polls which are currently putting Labour around 10% ahead, Conservative appeal to the voters must be a matter of growing interest to us. And its against this backdrop that I read Mathew d'Ancona's observations in today's Telegraph.

To summarise - Mathew believes that the Prime Minister has turned his back on 'modernisation' of the Conservative Party - "the Tories' worst strategic error since the poll tax". These seem to me strange words to write. Lets start with this concept of 'modernisation'. I'm just not sure what it is. Of course there's always a danger of a political party not adapting smartly enough to keep pace with the people it wants to govern, but the Conservative party has always changed. But not just to satisfy short term fashion. That's how we were so successful through the last century. Its still changing. Nothing wrong with a few PR initiatives, but there's no point in carrying on with policies which we can see are damaging to the country and the party. For example, its right that we make commitment to international aid, and make certain its to alleviate suffering or develop capacity for self-help. Its right that we develop renewable energy, but not just chase the cheapest options, sacrificing rural Britain to the Philistines. Its ridiculous to believe open neck shirts and recycled trainers are anything more than a one-day-wonder - a passing fad.

I don't dismiss what Mathew d'Ancona writes. Not at all. Image does matter. The message matters as well as the policy. What matters is that we choose the right message. For example. Personally, I cringe every time I here a Conservative speaking derogatorily of benefit recipients. The reality is that the welfare budget has to cut big-time - but the best way to give credence to a 'nasty party' image is to bang on about 'shirkers' etc. Ian Duncan Smith uses the right language of helping people out of dependency. And its also illogical and self defeating to do anything other than treat our Lib Dem coalition partners with genuine respect. Nick Clegg took a painful and brave decision, for the benefit of country over party, setting aside the cynical opportunism that had typified Lib Dem tactics for decades, and we should respect that. If they renege, it will be them who will be damaged. And there's plenty more.

But then, there is the EU, where its anybody's guess. Prime Minister would find herding cats easier than developing policy on this issue. But I do think clarity will emerge. Its just that the gestation period is longer than we would like. There will be some renegotiation of our relationship with the EU. Germany and France will accept a degree of realpolitik over this. And there will be an in/out referendum on the renegotiated position. The questions are when this will happen and who will be leading the Gov't which arranges it. I am far more optimistic than Paul Goodman that it will be David Cameron.

Lets hope the Lib Dems rethink overnight

When I was selected in 2007 to contest Mongomeryshire at the 2010 General Election, I did not want anyone associated with the Conservative Party in Montgomeryshire to say or do unkind things to the Liberal Democrats. Firstly, I wanted the Lib Dem supporters to feel well disposed towards me. There were a few thousand more of them than us at the time. And I don't believe voters respond well to the childish name-calling that passes for much of modern politics in Britain anyway. Its also why I totally ignore the attempts of my predecessor to rile me, except to feel a sense of sorrow. There's nothing wrong with a 'blast' occasionally, but monotonous rudeness besmirches politics and leaves me bored and cold. So It was not difficult for me to sign up to the Lib Dem/Conservative Coalition in 2010. In fact, I rather approved of it. I also reckon that when you sign up to a deal, you sign up to a deal. And I suspect its what the public thinks too. Which is why the anti-Lib Dem nit-picking that comes from some of my colleagues seems to me to be both disloyal and self-harming.

So what on earth are our Lib Dem coalition partners up to today - putting out a press release announcing that advice is going out to all Lib Dem MPs, peers and staff instructing them to 'rubbish' the Conservatives whenever they have the opportunity. Even more pathetically, they are pretending its a'leaked' memo. Its no more 'leaked' than the Sermon on the Mount. And its inconceivable that the Deputy Prime Minister did not approve it before it was 'leaked' - probably left 'accidentally'on his desk. Its just so incredibly childish - and it may well also be self defeating.

I suppose the Lib Dems are in a bit of a spot, and are not sure what to do about it. Well, my advice for what its worth is the same as that given to them earlier this week by Lord Carlile, the most able Lib Dem in Britain today - "grow up". The Lib Dems made a big sacrifice in 2010, acknowledging that their manifesto promises were 'fairy stories' and setting aside 'party interest' in order to form a coalition with the Consevatives to try to bring order to the UKs public finances. That decision has cost them politically, as they must have known it would. The reward should come later, when the job is done. But to decide part way through the deal that they signed up to that they don't like it, will be the worst of all worlds for them. And I genuinely wish the Lib Dems well. Lets hope that like Darragh and Ffion, our lovely grandchildren, they will have forgotten today's silly plans when they wake up tomorrow.

A row over 'Pum deg wyth punt, chwedeg dau'

What are we to make of the little altercation which took place in the Spar shop in Pwllheli today. Many of you will be scratching your heads when you read about it - and you will. Its guaranteed to make all the UK media because it makes us Welsh look silly. The serious point behind it will not be understood at all. No doubt there will be much amusement. This is what I understand happened;

Former Archdruid of the Gorsedd of Bards, 83yr old Dr Robyn Lewis collected up goods worth |£58. 62p from the shelves of the Spar shop. At the till he was asked by a cashier in the English Language for the money. Dr Lewis insisted on being asked for "Pum deg wyth punt, chwedeg dau". There must have been a bit of a stand-off because store manager, Mr Conrad Davies decided to call in the police to sort out the disturbance. To make the situation worse, the first police officer on the scene was a monoglot English speaker - so a bilingual back-up was called to sort things out. It seems all was settled in the end when another cashier, who could speak Welsh asked Dr Lewis for the money in the way he demanded.

On one level this is no more than an amusing little story. I rather like stubborn principled people like Dr Robyn Lewis. He has a reputation for this sort of thing, and took it upon himself to make a point. He wanted to be spoken to in his own language, in his own country, and why not. He would have been completely stuck in Berriew though, unless I happened to be picking up my Telegraph and in a position to help him out. The point he was making is that retail units should, wherever possible, ensure customers who want to be served in Welsh can be.

I have two observations/questions about this. I do think the Spar in Pwllheli could put up a sign identifying a till where Welsh is available. It would be a sensible marketing ploy if nothing else. There would be quite a lot of Welsh speakers in Pwllheli. But the bigger issue for me is that we (Welsh speakers) are being mocked and laughed at in the UK media. I am not at all sure that this type of story is helpful to the Welsh Language.

Agreeing with Archbishop on Organ Donation

I really should try to fix up a coffee with Dr Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales. Despite coming from very different backgrounds and probably from a different location on the political spectrum, I find myself agreeing with him on some fundamental issues. I was not in support of establishing the National Assembly for Wales, while he was - but today we both want it to develop into a stronger 'parliament' now that its been created. I am not in favour of redefining the meaning of marriage, while the Archbishop is - but we both think the Church in Wales should be free to decide, along with other non-established churches. And today he's been discussing with David Williamson of the Western Mail another issue we agree on - disagreement with the Welsh Gov'ts plans to change the organ donation system to one based on presumed consent 'opting out' rather than one based on assumed consent, 'opting in'.

Reason I need to talk this through with the Archbishop is because we arrive at our similar conclusions from very different considerations. And I need to emphasise that both of us are hugely enthusiastic about promoting organ donation. There is a waiting list of individuals suffering organ failure, and there are steps we can take which will make a difference, (rather than just giving the appearance of doing something).  He is deeply concerned that the proposals will change the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state. He's absolutely right about this of course, but my principal concern is that it just will not increase the number of organs available for donation, will waste public money on the wrong solution when it could be so much better used, and may well make the position worse. There is not a shred of evidence that 'opting out' will result in a single extra donated organ. The contrary has and continues to be asserted as fact, without any supporting evidence, and has traction with listeners because there is an instinctive assumption that "it must be true".  Its not.

Another relevant opinion that I share with the Archbishop is that the Welsh Government should be free to introduce 'misguided' laws if it so decides. And it may be that it has the freedom to continue with its determination to introduce 'presumed consent'. But perhaps not. There is a responsibility on those of us who think the change may do harm to the organ donation system to say so. I believe there is real concern within the Dep't of Health that the terrific progress that has been made across the UK since the Organ Donation Taskforce Report was published 3/4yrs ago will be stopped in its tracks. There is also real concern that BME communities will become even less willing to donate - which is a particular problem because its members are physiologically more predisposed to organ failure. Both the Archbishop and I are both very supportive of increasing the number of organs available for donation. Its one of my particular interests as a politician. The Welsh Gov't seems to both of us as 'misguided' and likely to achieve the reverse of what is intended. Its a terrible shame.

Lord Carlile tells Lib Dems to 'grow up' over Comms Data Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew was my immediate next door neighbour for the whole 13yr period he represented Montgomeryshire in the House of Commons. He was also and remains a good friend, and a man whose opinions I have always taken great note of. I suppose you could look on us as a early precursor to the current Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition. I respect his opinion, especially on legal matters. Today its being reported that he has told his Lib Dem colleagues to "grow up" in its approach to the Communications Data Bill. He has described some comments opposing the Bill as "irresponsible". And last week he said that the term "Snooper's Charter", (which is used by many who have contacted me as part of an email lobbying group's campaign) as a "complete traducement of the Bill". He's also makes the point that many private firms collect more intrusive information about us already. None of this surprises me because I met up with Alex two weeks ago for a coffee and discussion about all this.

Now its not only the Lib Dems who are concerned about the proposals in the Communications Data Bill. Plenty of Conservatives are concerned as well. And so are Labour, though Alex tells me the Bill is similar to proposals put forward by the Labour Gov't in 2007. I suppose that's what oppositions do. The reason I'd asked to speak to him about it was that I have an instinctive distrust in 'the state' accessing and holding any information about us that is not absolutely needed. No-one is better placed than Alex is to judge what is necesssary.

Most people who have raised the Bill with me in person (rather than email) have not known much about its content. Discussion seems to dilute their opposition. Gov't agencies already have access to communications data, but the law has not kept up with modern means of communication - mobiles, the web and social networking. The Bill extends powers to take account of modern technology. All it does is require providers to hold records so that 'approved' Gov't agencies can discover 'who, when,where and how' information - without having access to 'content'. Access to the information held would be granted only on a 'case by case basis', approved by a senior designated officer - with the whole process supervised by the Information Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner. Make of that what you will.

The questions we as MPs have to face is whether we are content to allow the Internet to operate as an 'unpoliced space' where criminals are free to roam, and whether the Communications Bill before us strikes the right balance between law enforcement and individual's privacy. Its no surprise that the Parliamentary process is leading to significant changes being made to the proposals. So far I've been publicly wholly supportive of the Home Secretary, even if I've shared some concern privately. Its a difficult sensitive issue

Parliamentary Boundary Reform - Mark 11

Regular visitors to this blog know I am opposed to the way the current parliamentary boundary review is being implemented. If the whole thing is thrown out, it will bring great joy to Montgomeryshire. I will hold a celebratory party for supporters if and when the death knell is confirmed. I suspect it will be celebrated in other places as well, where the relevant MPs are sensibly more cautious in expressing opinions than I am.

So it follows that my eye was caught by today's Telegraph article reporting that 'senior' Conservative Party figures, following victory at the next General Election, would move to redraw boundaries within days of  forming a Government. This is a rather cheering prospect, in that it involves a Conservative victory and the demise of the current proposals. And it foresees a fresh attempt to introduce  much needed fairness into our electoral system. I'd just like to make some suggestions about how reform could be made more palatable next time around.

The way to move forward with more agreement is to set aside all 'party' considerations and allow the Boundary Commissions to do their job - with more freedom than they had, trapped within the straitjacket of the current Bill. Firstly we should abandon the plan to reduce the number of MPs by 50, cutting the membership of the Lords by 300 instead. The Commission could be advised that a decrease in the number of MPs should be proposed where impact would not be too damaging to local democracy. Secondly, the 5% maximum variation in constituency population should be dropped - either by making it 10%, or preferably simply charging the Commission to equalise constituencies as far as it thinks sensible, taking account of population, history, rurality etc.. I do have to accept that the current over-representation of Welsh MPs should be tackled, particularly if the National Assembly acquires responsibility to levy income tax. Probably have some more suggestions as well if the time comes - though I expect these 'senior' Conservatives will take about as much notice of me as last time. Of course this is just me thinking aloud, after a relaxing day or two away from the influence of Westminster.

Connecting with Constituents

Spent this morning at the traditional Boxing Day meet of the Tanatside Hunt outside the Royal Oak in Welshpool. No more than 40 horses this year because it was too wet to ride out on farmland. But around 1000 supporters lining the street. The numbers have been much higher since the ban on hunting with dogs was enacted. This morning, several of the attendees decided to share their opinions with me on numerous issues.

Quite a few wanted to know when the Gov't is going to deliver the promised 'free vote' of MPs on repeal of the hunting ban. Discussion had been stimulated by reported comments from N Shropshire MP, Owen Paterson that there would be no vote in 2013. Though I was very opposed to the ban, and would vote to overturn it, I'm not at all sure that I want a vote. Case of being careful what you wish for. I do think there will be a majority to repeal in this Parliament - so cannot see the point of a vote. It would only give more credibility to the ban. As long as its enforced with common sense, most hunts and packs can just about live with it.

Other issues as well. Serious stick for not deporting Abu Qatada. Bit unfair, since no-one would like to see his back more than me. Couldn't agree with the proposed solutions to the issue! If I did, the Mirror's depiction of me as a "Tory Gun Nut" would seem gentle. But I did agree with the general principle. Same with scale of immigration. for many years its been at an unsustainable level, but not easy to bring control without damaging economy. But again agreed with general principle. Also comments about the ridiculous story that BBC Wales ran recently about Welsh Gov't residual debts following stock transfer of MWDC housing in Newtown. Because I tried to point out how stupid this 'scandal' story was, I am blamed for it, though having nothing to do with. Finally there was much comment about 'scroungers on benefit'. always surprised me how brutal public opinion is. Again its the general direction of Gov't policy, even if not driven by the same reasoning.

Notably, there was not a single comment about 'gay marraige' or the 'Leveson Report'. Now, what messages do I take from all this?

Our Failure to Care for the Elderly

Called in at Welshpool Hospital to visit Cllr Ann Holloway today. She has fallen and lost mobility. Thankfully, she was looking was looking near back to normal - which can sometimes be thoroughly irascible. Miss Holloway had been a great supporter of mine, and for many years nothing has been too much trouble for her. She probably had as many visitors today as Tescos down the road. Anyway, my point is that there is a very good atmosphere at Welshpool Hospital. While I'm not competent to judge about standard of specialist care, I'd be surprised if the basic care was not of a very high standard. But it is not always so elsewhere.

Earlier this week we read of the utterly dreadful cases of poor care at hospitals in Worcestershire. Compensation has been paid to 38 families in acknowledgement of poor care (though legal liability has not been accepted) over a period of 38 years. And earlier this year we learned of the terrible events that happened at Winterbourne View Hospital, And I've learned of other examples since Ann Clwyd MP raised the issue of elderly care in a highly emotional way following personal experience a few weeks ago. Of course, most care in our hospitals is very good, but in my opinion the greatest challenge facing Jeremy Hunt, Sec. of State for Health is raising the bar in how we look after elderly people.

There are so many aspects to this issue. The announcement we're expecting in the Mid Term Review about a cap on care home fees would be good but incidental to delivery of basic care. We need a system of comprehensive unannounced inspection that puts a stop to the examples of appalling care that drags the reputation of the care and hospital services down. What good is conscience-salving £10,000 compensation to the families. We need people who abuse the elderly to be imprisoned - and a whole new culture hammered into our care system.

Other matters flow from all this. How on earth can anyone suggest legalising assisted suicide when this sort of abuse happens - when very vulnerable people are treated as non-human. Where would it lead. And what about the future of the Liverpool Care Pathway, which 'should' be a way of easing the discomfort of people in their last days. How can we have trust in the integrity of the LCP while examples like the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch and Winterbourne keep on happening. Because this is such a toxic and important issue, I have secured a 90 minute debate in the House of Commons on 8th Jan, our second day back, to debate it. I hope lots of MPs will participate. We cannot leave discussion about these important issues to the sensationalist front pages of national newspapers. How we look after those who can no longer look after themselves is a measure of how civilised we are - and at present we are not coming up to the mark.

Is cutting Welfare State to 'help' or 'punish'

Another thoughtful article from Peter Oborne in today's Telegraph - about the appropriate approach to 'welfare' that should be adopted by the Coalition Gov't. Now I don't know how much truth there is in the suggestion that Ian Duncan Smith and George Osborne are at loggerheads over this, or that the Treasury is determined to take over 'welfare' policy - but there is certainly an issue about attitude and language, if not about policy.

The current working/early retirement age generation are probably the most selfish in our history. And Britain is not alone in this. We are living way beyond our means and leaving a terrible legacy for future generations to repair. At the same time, the way we look after those who are approaching the end of their lives is a national scandal. The very young and the very old do not have a loud enough voice. All fair people will surely agree. There is no alternative to the direction of the Chancellor's fiscal policy, even if there is argument about detail. The only doubt I, personally have is that he is not being ruthless or radical enough. Because I believe Gov't should be spending significantly more on various forms of elderly care, there is no choice but to implement major cuts in most other budgets, including the welfare state. So far; I suspect there will be quite a lot of agreement - which may be about to change!

Peter Oborne's article is about 'language'. Now I do not doubt that there are some scroungers and benefit cheats in the land, but I believe most people on benefit would much rather be in work, or would have preferred  to be in work, if they had not become 'programmed' to life on benefit. The IDS approach is one of 'tough love'. We must do everything we can to give people a purpose in life, based on meaningful activity and commitment to others, weaning them off benefit where we can. Which is why work, volunteerism, family etc is so important. Its also why I so much prefer the language (which Chris Grayling used so well before being promoted to Lord Chancellor) about "helping people escape cruel dependency on welfare wherever possible". I really do not care for these disparaging attacks on 'shirkers' and ugly focus on ending the "something for nothing" culture. It might appeal to base instincts but will only breed resentment and won't make a difference. Gov'ts purpose should be to help people, not vilify them. This supposed difference of opinion could be entirely a figment of Peter Oborne's imagination, but if its for real, I'm on IDS's side.

Backing my local Police despite horror of 'Plebgate'.

I like to think I've a good relationship with the Dyfed-Powys Police. I accept that several officers have contacted me declaring their unhappiness about their working conditions and pension entitlements over the last year or so. I'd like to say I agree with them, but it would not be honest of me to do that. The economy that the Coalition Government inherited in May 2010 has meant cutbacks in every area of Gov't spending, and meant very tough decisions, often affecting policy areas that the nation hugely supports. I can't alter that. We have only to read the Archbishop of York's comments yesterday about impact of our reduced spending on our armed forces. But through it all, I've retained great respect for the work that the Dyfed Powys Police Force do. But that can never mean that I cannot question police actions when I'm concerned about them.

And I am much concerned about what has become known as 'Plebgate'. I recall being interviewed on Radio Wales when the affair first broke, 'defending' Andrew Mitchell - not defending the way he had spoken to the police at gates to Downing St., but that I did not think it was a 'hanging offence'. It certainly warranted an apology, some contriteness and perhaps a meeting without coffee at No 10, but not the sack. I admit to a degree of personal loyalty to Andrew because he did come to Montgomeryshire to campaign for me in the 2010 General Election - and a very good campaigner he was too. But for various reasons, in the end his resignation became inevitable. But we now know it should not have been so.

I've watched the Channel 4 documentary on the issue, including the CCTV footage, which shows that there were no members of the public present - contradicting the police version of what happened. Neither did it look as if there was any sort of row between Andrew Mitchell and the Police officer. And we are now told that the email supposedly written by an outraged member of the public who supposedly witnessed the incident, was actually a policeman serving with the Diplomatic Protection Group. This was given to the Deputy Chief Whip, John Randall who handed it on, as he was obliged to do, to the Prime Minister's office. It smells very much like a stitch-up. Our country is indebted to Channel 4's Michael Crick.

This issue is no longer about Andrew Mitchell, though I personally hope he's returned to a senior position in the Gov't. Its about the integrity of the Metropolitan Police. How can we have reached the stage, in Britain, when serving police officers are thought to have tried to 'bring down' a Cabinet Minister' by a 'stitch-up'. When I sat through the Hillsborough Disaster Statement recently which outlined the most appalling behaviour of police officers, I thought it was 23 years ago and could not possibly happen today. But the superficial evidence suggests that on a smaller scale, it may well have done so. This issue goes to the heart of the integrity of the Metropolitan Police and there can be no issue more importent in the in-tray of the Met's Police Commissioner. We must be told what happened. And I suspect no-one feels that more than police officers in Dyfed Powys.

On the Horns of a Parliamentary Dilemma.

Its always been the case that if an MP wants to be noticed, he or she either has to be one of the 'favoured' faces - or one that rebels against the party. The MP who is not 'favoured', and votes consistently with the party whip is normally referred to in derogatory terms in the media as a poodle, and ignored by the 'upper strata'. Which is why yesterday's splendidly ferocious article by Peter Oborne in the Telegraph was a very good read. Now I didn't agree with all of it, but it did give me comfort that there's merit in the way I approach my job as an MP. Perhaps its because of my years playing in the back row with blind loyalty to my team that I would feel sick to the pit of my stomach to step into the opposition lobbies to vote against the Coalition Gov't. The circumstances would have to be extreme. In the two years eight months since I was elected, I have always voted with the Gov't - though I must admit I would have abstained in one crucial vote on Lords Reform, had it not been 'pulled' at the last minute.

The foregoing will make clear to you  how much it pains me to be contemplating voting against my Government for the first time. The issue causing me such distress is Parliamentary boundaries reform. I should take you through the process that has brought me to what I consider to be a very dark place.

I was elected in 2010 on a manifesto which promised to reduce the number of MPs to 585 - though I must admit I did not think this a sensible change to make. No-one took the slightest notice of me. It was a popular promise, because of the utter contempt in which MPs were held in 2010. I also voted for the Bill to give effect to this promise as it proceeded through its Parliamentary stages, which reduced the number of MPs to 600 - while privately making my increasing unhappiness known to my party. I was especially concerned about the impact on Wales of the very rigid constituency equalisation clauses. I feared that the Boundary Commission for Wales would be forced into proposals that would greatly damage Parliamentary democracy in mid Wales. The proposals that eventually emerged were even worse than I had imagined. The impact is catastrophic for mid Wales. Within a short period, MPs would have less profile in mid Wales than MEPs do now - and this is not in any way a comment on the quality of our current four Welsh MEPs.

So what do I do if, as is rumoured I am faced with a crucial vote on the issue next month. If passed, the Montgomeryshire I have known man and boy would be no more. The new constituencies that touch on mid Wales will have population centres elsewhere. My local party association is so horrified by the implications of the proposals that it has told me in no uncertain terms that they want me to oppose the new boundaries. And at a personal level, I would hate to see all the work we have done to build our Association in Montgomeryshire disappear in a cloud of angry blue smoke - because I believe those who have done this transformational work will not carry on. The outcome would be so horrific that I simply couldn't carry on either. The principles which underpin an MP's work are country first, party second and self third - and this change will end Parliamentary democracy in mid Wales as we know it.

 I face some choice. If I vote for the new boundaries, I will be turning my back on all I've worked for in public life and all those I've worked with in Montgomeryshire. If I vote against them by joining Labour in the lobbies, I will be turning my back on the Party I support. This is something to chew over when I've finished with the turkey bones. Looks like plenty of indigestion this Christmas.

Abolition of Agricultural Wages Board

Seems there's a bit of a hoohah about today's announcement by Defra that the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales is to be abolished. I arrived home from Westminster at 5.00 to find Radio Wales' Good Evening Wales had been on, wanting an interview there and then on the issue. Thought about 'ducking out' to get a briefing, but don't really like doing that - so took it on. So happens, I do know the issue reasonably well, even if not up to full speed on the day's events. Anyway, even though under the cosh a bit, thought I held my own quite well. Also thought I'd try to stimulate some debate by blogging on the issue.

Labour's Huw Irranca Davies had done a pre-record for GEW in which he seemed terribly agitated about process. Claimed Gov't had 'slipped it out' on last day of term as an amendment to Enterprise and Regulatory Bill. I suppose he was right about it being last day of term. But so what? I can never generate much excitement myself about 'process'. Reality is I've sat through more Opposition hand-wringing on this issue than anything else over the last year. Owen Paterson, new Sec of State at Defra has considered all the responses to the consultation and has decided to abolish the AWB as soon as possible. On balance I agree with him. And having made the decision we might as well get on with it.

Now to the issue itself. At heart the aim is to reduce red tape and unnecessary administration by abolishing the Agriculture Wages Board for England and Wales, together with the 31 associated bodies. Let the industry be free to negotiate its own wage structures, as happens in every other industry - with the National Minimum Wage as a 'backstop' to prevent abuse by the minority. Reality is that most employer/employee deals are negotiated at a level higher than either levels set by AWB or NMW.

Another reason for abolition is the completely different structure of many farm businesses today, which have diversified into non-agricultural activities - resulting in different wage structures operating within the same enterprise. And I'm told the inflexibility of the AWB leads to more short term contracts and less staff development. Must admit I cannot speak with any personal experience here, because I never took the slightest note of the AWB when I employed staff on my farm because I always paid well in excess of any suggested wage rates.

Two other points worth noting. There's been a wide consultation exercise. Big majority in favour of simplifying wage negotiating systems - though a smaller majority favoured keeping the AWB in a simplified form. But a large chunk of this support came from electronic emails organised by something called change.org.uk And then there's the opinion of the Welsh Gov't, which for some reason is vociferous in its opposition to abolition. Now I'm all in favour of consultation with the Welsh Gov't, but not in favour of giving it a veto on non-devolved matters. So there we have it. The Sec. of State has decided, and he's getting on with it.

My 5 minutes in the Energy Bill Debate

Lots of MPs wanted to speak in yesterday's debate on the Energy Bill. Speaker cut us back to 5 minutes just before I was called to speak. Could have done with 10 mins, but managed to make thepoints I wanted to. Had to tidy up one ot two typos but here it is;

"There are two reasons why it is a huge pleasure for me to be called to speak in today’s debate. Firstly, it is a very important Bill. Secondly, today is a significant personal milestone. Precisely 10 years ago, at this time in the afternoon, I was at the Nuffield hospital in Shrewsbury in the throes of a six-hour operation to remove a cancerous tumour from my body. For those who are medically minded, the operation was a lower bowel perineal resection. One would have got very long odds indeed on my speaking in this Chamber 10 years later and representing my constituency of Montgomeryshire, particularly since at the time, it was one of the safest Liberal Democrat seats in the country.


I welcome the Bill and its commitment to energy market reform. Its purpose is to keep the lights on at an affordable cost to the nation, and to control the amounts of harmful gases which, it is said, are leading to global warming. Although I understand that we have not actually had any global warming for 15 years, is remains a laudable aim. It is a complex and wide-ranging Bill, and we can come at it from a variety of angles. I do not want to repeat what other Members have already said, which often happens in the later stages of a debate; I want to put forward considerations that Ministers might take into account when they deal with the implementation of ‘Contracts for Difference’.

I have spoken in this Chamber several times before about my antipathy to onshore wind projects in my constituency. It has been difficult for me to do so without becoming very angry because of the sheer unreasonableness of the situation. My constituency has been very supportive of renewable energy for as long as I can remember. It probably has more wind turbines than any other constituency in England and Wales, and near Machynlleth is the Centre for Alternative Technology. It had general support for renewable energy until two Governments—here in Westminster and in Cardiff—came together to attempt to impose on the constituency the appalling Mid Wales Connection. This project involves between 500 and 700 extra turbines, on top of what we have now, and almost 100 miles of cable, 35 miles of which is to be carried on 150 foot-high steel towers. It has transformed the attitudes of the people of mid-Wales towards renewable energy in general because of its unreasonableness.

It is not just me, as the Member for Montgomeryshire, who feels this way. I would point out to my Rt. Hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the other two MPs representing mid-Wales constituencies, both of them Liberal Democrats, members of his party share my view absolutely. There is a cross-party realisation of the unreasonableness of what is proposed for mid-Wales.

The impact on local democracy is also important. Governments in London and Cardiff may feel that mid-Wales can be sacrificed in what they might term ‘the national interest’. But it is not surprising that the people who live in these constituencies take an entirely different view and feel that we have a duty want to defend mid Wales. The applications by the development companies make no reference whatsoever to principles such as ‘cumulative impact’, to the importance of wild spaces and wild land in Britain, or to the visual impact that their project will have. All these aspects are devastating to my constituency.

A few days ago Powys County Council—the local planning authority—announced that it had set aside £2.8 million to defend its decisions to refuse 5 wind farm planning applications at appeal. Powys county council does not have £2.8 million to spare. It is a small rural council, and this would be devastating for local services. The council therefore asked the Welsh Government if they would help it to defend its planning judgments. The spokesman for the Welsh Government said that the council knew the costs involved when it turned the applications down. Clearly, the Welsh Government view is that the council should take the costs into account and approve inappropriate applications because it could not meet the costs of appeal. That is an affront to democracy.

Another constituency issue I want to raise relates to anaerobic digestion, of which I am a great supporter. Mr Clive Pugh of Mellington in my constituency is a pioneer in this field, into which he invested before the feed-in tariff legislation was enacted. He is currently paid 7p or 8p per unit for the electricity he produces, while all new developments in the field and of the same size are paid 14p per unit. He is a pioneer who put himself on the line, and it well be that he will be driven out of business. We need to ensure that any new system under ‘Contracts for Difference’ takes into account the impact on the pioneers—those who came before."

Discussing Devolution of Power to Welsh Assembly

Mr Paul Silk and Professor Noel Lloyd came along for a friendly chat with the Welsh Affairs Select Committee this morning. All very genteel, but some interesting 'nuggets' emerged. Most discussion was about recommendations already made under Part 1 of his review on how to underpin the National Assembly with fiscal accountability. Very little discussion about Part 2, which will be about what powers should be devolved - in reality what extra powers should be devolved. That's for next meeting with the Silk team.

Best 'nugget' of the lot was Paul Silk's statement that his his Commission intends to look at whether parts of the 'benefits' system should be devolved to the Welsh Gov't. Secretary of State, David Jones told our last meeting that National Assembly powers should be no more than 'tweaked' under Part 2. Well, there is no way, devolution of benefits can be described as 'tweaking'. Clearly, Paul Silk, in his 'quiet but firm' way was putting down a marker. Sounded to me like a direct challenge to Sec of State - very interesting ! Though BBC's David Cornock tells me it was more 'could' than 'would'.

Quite a bit of discussion about devolution of income tax (part thereof). First Minister has tried to reassure all that income tax would not rise. Not sure about this myself, especially since its recommended there be freedom within tax bands. Doesn't look impossible to me that a future Labour Welsh Gov't might fancy putting top rate up to 50p, higher rate up by 1p and cutting lower rate by 1p. Any administration which wants to buy up airports might easily fancy a policy it could sell as "squeezing the rich". Could also see a future Welsh Conservative manifesto arguing that cutting income tax would stimulate the Welsh economy. Unlikely - but very possible. The rest of the Silk Report tax devolution proposals are small beer.

One issue of interest to me was the degree to which borrowing powers are dependent on power to access money for repayment. It will be no use a future Welsh Gov't going to the bond markets without the capacity to raise funds to repay. Only income tax devolution will provide that. Another recommendation of interest is that the block grant problems normally referred to as Barnett Formula issues must be sorted before income tax can be devolved. We' ve been talking about this for 30 yrs already! I see long grass before me.

Paul Silk was clear that a referendum is needed before income tax can be devolved - though I sensed there had been a bit of tension in the Commission over this. Major influence on the Commission had been desire of two main parties in Assembly for a referendum. Must admit I'm not at all convinced by this trend for politicians to set difficult issues aside by 'parking' them with promises of a referendum. We should tell people what we intend to do in manifestos. General Elections should be about policy decisions, not a beauty parade - which is why I'm totally opposed to TV Leader's Debates as well. It was a good interesting session. Perked up my interest in the Welsh Affairs Select Committee no end.

BBC Wales 'Housing Debts' Story

BBC Wales is running big with a story about long term loans being serviced by the Welsh Gov't, which it has persuaded the leader of Plaid Cymru to describe as a 'scandal'. Such is the attention given to this that we can but conclude that BBC Wales agree with her. So happens I was guest in the studio for Politics Show today, and know a bit (though I concede only a bit) about the background.  And I'm struggling to see anything scandalous at all.

Begin with a bit of background. On 18th Dec 1967, the then Labour Gov't set up the Mid Wales Development Corporation. It was charged with doubling the size of Newtown from about 5,500 to 11,000. Head of this body was the inspirational Peter Garbett-Edwards. In passing, I should say that he inspired me to become involved in public affairs.  He and his redoubtable mother were committed Liberals - which may have prepared me for today's coalition politics! Anyway, the MWDC set about building factories and the key worked housing to attract industry to move in. About the same time, Gov't established the National Loans Fund - which became and remains the Gov'ts 'borrowing and lending' account. In effect Gov't was lending the money to a 'quango' of its creation at terms which are now being described as scandalous. For the BBC story to have any credibility, we would need to know what other similar public sector deals were at that time. Was 60 yrs unusual for public sector housing loans? Was 14% unusually high in the 1970s. (I recall paying that rate on my farm account at 2% over base for several years) No-one then anticipated the 'Brown boom' and consequent financial crash which has delivered much lower interest rates.

Another supposedly 'scandalous' aspect of this is that the assets are not owned by the Welsh Gov't. This is plain silly. The MWDC assets moved to the Development Board for Rural Wales, and then to the Welsh Dev't Agency (following merger- I think) before being taken 'in house' by Rhodri Morgan's 'Bonfire of the Quangos. As far as I can recall, Plaid Cymru backed Rhodri to the hilt. Am trying to scratch my head about what else might have been done. The 'public benefit' is a Newtown twice as big at it was and a Mid Wales economy and population transformed from that of the mid-60s.

The housing developments built by MWDC and finished off by the DBRW,were only ever meant to be owned temporarily. Once 'New Town' powers were removed from DBRW in late 80s, the houses had to be transferred. Most went to Montgomeryshire District Council, with some going to Newtown Housing Association, a social housing landlord run by the tenants. Some have been sold under RTB scheme and a few under something called 'flexi-ownership', a rather complex partnership arrangement. Most of them are still owned by the Council (now Powys CC). As far as I can see, everything is just as it should be, and much the same as most housing authority schemes.

Couple of additional points. Firstly its supposedly 'scandalous' that the Welsh Gov't cannot pay off the debt early because the long term interest rates are so high. If lenders were required to allow borrowers to 'pay off' long term debts when interest rates dropped, the original terms would be much more onerous. These things are worked out by actuaries. And secondly, there's the matter of 'lessons' to learn. This may well be so. There were certainly plenty to be learned from Gordon Brown's disastrous rush into PFI schemes.

The reason this is an issue is that the Welsh Gov't may find itself with borrowing powers in the future. Before launching into this new world, I would expect the Welsh Gov't to take best advice it can get hold of, and do best deals it can - which I've no reason for thinking isn't what happened in the 1970s. And always remember if you borrow money, it has to be paid back. I'd welcome comment from anyone with experience from the 70's.

Agreeing with Archbishop Barry Morgan again.

I didn't attend the statement on gay marriage by Maria Miller, Sec.of State for Culture, Media and Sport in the House of Commons last week. No point is causing myself unnecessary irritation I thought. She would have not the slightest interest in my opinion, and I thought I knew what she would say. But I didn't know - all of it anyway. I expected her to announce that the Gov't intends to legislate to allow gay marriage, including in a variety of religious institutions, but the ban the Church in Wales from conducting ceremonies came as a complete surprise.

Now this has left me a bit torn between two displeasures. As followers of this blog will know, I decided years ago that I would vote against redefinition of marriage (discussion for another day) - so you might think I'd be pleased by this. But its not that straight forward. I would indeed prefer the Church in Wales to decide against gay marriage, but cannot see why it, alone should be banned by law from doing so.

The Church in Wales has been disestablished from the state for almost 100 years. Why on earth should the UK Gov't be banning the Church in Wales, alone amongst many other disestablished churches. It just looks anti-Welsh. I accept that 'the Government' does pass laws which apply to all churches (not allowed to sacrifice virgins etc, - even if they wanted to) but this ban applies only to the Church in Wales. The Church of England is established - so 'fair enough'. In general, my libertarian instincts make me very suspicious of government poking its nose where there's no need. I expect this decision to cause much 'constitutional' outrage, and it may well be reversed.

Yet again I find myself aligned with Dr Barry Morgan - and again, coming to the same conclusion from a different direction. For example, we both passionately oppose changing the organ donation system to one based on opting-out rather than one based on opting-in. The Archbishop's opposition is about 'who owns our bodies'. Mine is that there isn't a shred of evidence that the change will increase the number of organs available. Its no more than a political stunt. And it seems we agree that the UK Gov't should not be banning Church in Wales from conducting gay marriage. The Archbishop seems keen to allow it to take place, while my concern is entirely constitutional. I also believe that where a proposal is not thought through or logical, it will not survive Parliamentary scrutiny.  I very much hope I'm not obliged to vote on this.

Planning in Wales - One Party State Style

Just read reported comments to the BBC from the Welsh Gov't that has left me incandescent with anger. Only in what is effectively a one-party-state would such comments be made in the name of a government. Lets start with a bit of background.

In 2005, the then Welsh Gov't published 'guidance' for planning authorities about how to deal with renewable energy applications. This directed wind farm developers to 7 areas of Wales where permission for their obscenities could be granted. 3 of these areas were in mid Wales. The full implications of this document (popularly known as TAN 8) were not fully appreciated by the local population until National Grid announced their proposals to build the associated infrastructure needed. Unsurprisingly, international energy giants saw £million signs flash before their eyes and piled in with planning applications. Many of us have been horrified by the proposed desecration of our valued landscapes and protested. Powys County Council have considered some of these applications, and have recommended that 5 of them be refused. This automatically triggers a public inquiry.

Public inquires are very expensive. On the one side will be the developers, fattened and bloated on public subsidy (taxpayers and customers money). There is almost no limit to the public's money they have stuffed in their ever open wallets. On the other side is one of the smallest councils in the UK, which can only find the £2.8million the first five applications are going to cost from Council Tax payers. Powys is a comparitively poor part of Britain. Inevitably much of the money will have to be diverted from public services. All this is bad enough (appalling in my opinion), but today's comments from the Welsh Gov't (as reported on the BBC) had made it much worse.

In response to a request from Powys County Council for financial help to carry out its proper role in deciding planning applications the Welsh Gov't says;

"It must be remembered that the decisions to object to the wind farm applications referred to is entirely down to Powys County Council. They were aware of the financial implications when they decided to object to these things"

The position we are in is that councillors serving on my local planning authority are being told by the Welsh Gov't that they should decide applications not on what is right in planning terms, but on the basis of cost - when the developers access the money to pursue their case from public subsidy. And that their multiple applications are driven by Welsh Gov't policy. Its an absolute disgrace. And what will be most disgraceful aspect of all this is that these people will not even understand quite how outrageous this is. Its what happens when one party has been in power for so long, and sees itself beyond the normal democratic process.

The Rise and Rise of Owen Paterson

I am a great supporter of David Cameron. Don't always agree with him, but reckon he's a top man. Its necessary to start this post thus because I want to reflect on who would take over if the position were to become vacant. My first choice would be William Hague. Can't think of any competition where I wouldn't vote for William if he were a candidate. But my guess is he wouldn't do it. And anyway, he's needed to continue his brilliant work at the Foreign Office. My second choice is a tougher call. But not if George Osborne cuts off the supply of taxpayer's millions to the subsidy junkies who build and run onshore wind farms. If George cuts off this money tap, he'd be a shoe-in for the top job.

Now to the real point of this post. The Rt. Hon. Owen Paterson, Sec of State at Defra, who is the subject of a major article by Ben Brogan and Robert Winnett in today's Telegraph. Owen is my neighbouring MP, representing North Shropshire. With him, you do get what you see. On the face of it, he doesn't do subtle, but yet, he managed to glide effortlessly through the political jungle that is Northern Ireland politics. The thing is, I agree with Owen Paterson on almost everything. We are both countrymen, and we both love wild creatures - in a pragmatic rather than a bunny-hugging way. We both love deer, foxes and badgers, but accept appropriate culling for the wider benefit of the countryside. A few other things as well.

There are two particularly big areas of agreement that dominate opinion in our constituencies. Firstly, there is the vexed matter of onshore wind farms and associated infrastructure. I suspect Owen shares my view that we should set out to reduce carbon emissions where its reasonable to do so. But not by destroying British industry, or impoverishing lower paid energy users, or forcing elderly people to freeze in their homes, or desecrating some of the most beautiful parts of Britain, or trampling all over local opinion, making a mockery of democracy. I go further - suspecting that some alien brain-manipulating force taken a grip on an entire Gov't Dep't (DECC), infecting it with a form of turbine madness. I desperately hope that new Energy Minister, John Hayes dosed himself with prophylactic medication before setting foot in the office. And then there's shale gas, which could well completely change the energy picture within two years. It would be economic lunancy to turn our backs on it.

The second big area is Europe - where I'm not sure that I am quite the same page as Owen. I am a Eurosceptic who has never committed to an IN/Out referendum - even though I concede that the logical conclusion of my approach may be withdrawal in the end. We will have to develop a new relationship with the EU, as the EU moves towards creating a single state, the inevitable consequence of the reckless decision to create the Euro. The people of Britain will not want to be a part of this new state, and there will inevitably be some redrawing of the relationship between the UK and the EU, which will probably be put to the people in a vote. The issue will be whether the EU Leviathan, so used to swallowing up everything in its path, will contemplate anything but British capitulation, or will it drive on regardless to its inevitable destruction, leaving Britain behind.  Bit like staying in Southampton or Cork when the Titanic sailed.

But there is one area where I do not agree with Owen Paterson. He might be prime ministerial material, but its not on to call Alan Titchmarsh uncomplimentary names. For most of my gardening life, he's been an inspiration, and I cannot think of this great man as a 'muppet.

St Patrick McLoughlin - giver of direct line to Shrewsbury

No-one pretends the almighty cock-up over the awarding of the West Coast Rail Line franchise was anything but a disaster. Silver linings are hard to find. But today, St Patrick McLoughlin delivered one for Mid Wales and Shropshire. When the direct train from Shrewsbury to Euston was lost, it was a big blow to Mid Wales in particular. And when First Rail 'won' the franchise earlier this year, I welcomed the proposed restoration of the direct link proposed to run from 2015. Went to listen to Patrick McLoughlin, Sec of State for Transport at the Despatch Box today telling us what was to happen from next week. I was primed to challenge the great man over the missing Shrewsbury-Euston link.

Well Santa Patrick had a nice little Xmas present lined up. He'd done a deal with Richard Branson to continue the Virgin contract for next 23 months, including a new direct Shrewsbury-Euston link, running from next year. No more hanging around B'ham New St. Stn, no more limping home on Arriva Trains to Shrewsbury, and sitting there for ages while some mysterious infrastructure changes are made (no idea what but it involves much banging and clanging).

I will probably start using the train again when the direct link is restored. At present, Welshpool is a problem because there is no return train late enough on a thurs to get past Shrewsbury. Shrewsbury itself is discouraging because of the hassle of train changes (which will now end) and by the time you've negotiated traffic to reach Wolverhampton Stn, you're already half way to London. And I see a new Premier Inn is being built nr Shrewsbury Stn to help passengers from furthest reaches of Mid Wales. Next challenge is to provide some proper parking at Shrewsbury. Mrs D once arrived home only to find the car nicked. And accessing the car park by walking across the Dana is too dark and threatening. But today was a good news day for rail travellers from Mid Wales and Shropshire. Instead of laying into the Secretary of State, I just offered to buy him a coffee on the inaugural journey!