S4C lobbying campaign

Had a stack of identical emails over the last week or so, demanding changes to the way S4C is funded. They have clearly all been written by the same hand, before being circulated and forwarded to me. And I don't know quite how to respond either. I sympathise with the underlying objective, which is a viable Welsh Language TV channel. But because the 'demand' is totally undeliverable, the campaign is devalued, and will have a much reduced impact.
I agree with most of the email content. I know that S4C is hugely important to Welsh culture and our Welsh Language. I know the channel was set up by the first Thatcher Govt after much campaigning. I also know that many seek to suggest Mrs T was forced into it - like she was easily forced into anything!! I know the key decision by Mrs T's Govt was to put in place funding arrangements that guaranteed success. She has never been given due credit.
And of course I remember the painful changes implemented by the Coalition Govt in 2010, when confronted by a bare cupboard. Reducing the S4C budget. That was inevitable. Breaking the inflation link. That was inevitable too. Transfer of  funding most of the S4C budget to the licence fee. Accepted that as better than the alternative. No reason to think independence has been compromised, as was feared by some at the time.

But now we face another challenge, as the Government considers BBC Charter Review, against background of continued public spending cutbacks. Personally I do not think the S4C budget should be further reduced. Personally I do not think the Government should transfer it's remaining financial commitment to the licence fee. And personally, I do not think broadcasting (and associated funding) should be devolved to the Welsh Government. Though this view could change if the broadcasters supported it.
This should put me on the same side as my correspondents. But the emails end up demanding a return to 2010 levels of funding, and re-establishment of the inflation link. This is fantasy. So it's an unrealistic campaign which undermines the best efforts of those of us who actually support the argument for a well funded Welsh Language TV channel. Disappointing.

NHS future in Montgomeryshire.

Traditionally, most secondary care accessed by Montgomeryshire patients has been from hospitals located in Shropshire. It follows that Montgomeryshire's MP still retains a significant role in NHS provision for constituents, even though healthcare in Wales has been devolved to the Welsh Government. In fact, I have taken a close interest in the Shropshire NHS for decades. I recall a regular squash partner, who also happened to be a brilliant 'guts' specialist in Shropshire berating me about the crazy decision to build the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford over 30 yrs ago. Dr Paul Brown, who died very young, used to tell me "If you build a new DGH at Telford, in the long term you will be closing The Royal Shrewsbury". There is a plaque on the wall at the Princess Royal remembering Paul. He was a lovely man and I felt sad as gazing upon the plaque commemorating his work a few months ago.

Be done with this nostalgia. Let us consider the position today. As Dr Paul Brown predicted 30 yrs ago, Shropshire cannot support two major hospitals. The current structure is completely unsustainable, will go bankrupt in the near future, and must be reformed as soon as possible. I had long hoped for a brand new replacement hospital, somewhere between Telford and Shrewsbury, on a green field site. The first stage of this would have been a new 'Emergency Centre' taking all the 'blue light' emergencies in Shropshire and Mid Wales, leaving the two existing hospital sites to deal with all 'non time critical' patients. It's an option which has been carefully studies over last year. But sadly, and disappointingly, I fear this optimum option will be kicked into oblivion later this week. I anticipate us being told it is unaffordable. I do despair.

So what can we expect to hear on Thurs. In my view there cannot much doubt about where we are going - one Shropshire hospital dealing with 'emergency care', and one Shropshire hospital dealing with diagnostic and elective care. No matter how this is cut, it means a significantly lesser range of services available at both hospitals - in the interests of a better sustainable service as a whole across Shropshire and Mid Wales. The big question for Montgomeryshire is which arrangement best suits us. I've agonised over this. Believe me, it's not an easy question to answer.

There are other (in my view secondary) questions as well. What is going to happen to the spanking new Women's and Children's Hospital in Telford, and where are those currently going to A&Es who are not deemed emergencies going to be treated in future. We do know there will be a network of what are called Urgent Care Centres, strategically located around Shropshire to deal with this. But we have not a clue what will happen to my constituents in Montgomeryshire. I do find this policy vacuum hard to comprehend.

I anticipate we will all know a bit more detail later in the week. The one thing that is not going to happen is nothing. Structural reform of the NHS in Shropshire is going to happen. And soon. And if Wales does not engage with this reform, it's going to happen anyway. Not surprisingly I've been worried about this for months. I fear we are already in the position of commenting on decisions made by others, rather than contributing to the making of the decisions that impact on us.

And while I'm commenting on cross-border health issues, let me tell you about a constituent who wrote to me today. She is due two replacement knees. She is in great pain, and has been told that if she lived in England she would wait 2 months for her operations. But since she lives in Wales she will have to wait 9 months. It's enough to make you cry.

Feed-in Tariffs - The Future

The intention of this post is to inform rather than advocate. Its about information rather than opinion. It's about future of Feed-in tariffs, the renewable energy subsidy system for smaller developments. And it's stimulated by the large number of complaints I am receiving about planning applications for individual wind turbines, of which there seems to be a glut at present. 

We need to begin by looking back to provide context for the current position. In order to meet it's legal decarbonisation targets, Parliament passed into law the Energy Act in 2008, which amongst much else, introduced the feed-in tariffs scheme. Govt has also adopted other different subsidy regimes to encourage investment for larger developments.

 Currently, the three main subsidy  schemes are the 'Renewable obligation' (ROCs), 'Contracts for Difference (CfD) and Feed-in Tariffs (Fits).  ROCs and Fits are demand led, meaning that the costs are not controllable by Govt. If anyone secures permission and builds a qualifying structure, it automatically gets the subsidy. The inevitable result has been that the overall budget for renewable developments went through the roof! The financial cap, or Levy Control Framework (LCF) as it's known was put in place to control costs up to 2020/21 (paid for through a levy on customers bills). This was blown before May's General Election. When Amber Rudd took over as Secretary of State in May, LCF funding was all gone. There was no money left. The cupboard was bare.

Let's look at the already committed costs under the LCF, up to 2020/21, of the various subsidy schemes. It is already £9.1 billion (at 2011/2012 prices) - over £12 bn in anticipated 2020/21 prices. This is way over budget. The three main scheme contributing to this are ROCs - £6.3bn; CfDs - £3.1bn, Fits - £2.1bn. In order to bring the overall LCF budget under control, the Govt has already announced that the ROCs scheme is being closed in April 2016 for new projects (except for some schemes qualifying for a grace period until April 2017). The Govt has complete control of CfDs already so there is no need to change this. If the money is not there, no schemes will be approved. Which brings us to Feed-in Tariffs. 

As an interim step, the Govt is seeking to discourage too much demand by proposing that the existing pre-accreditation/pre-registration is to end. This system enables developers to know the price they will receive before beginning construction, in effect giving an early price guarantee, inspiring confidence in a period when subsidy levels are falling. In future the price will be that which applies when power is actually first produced. The consultation ends a week on Wednesday. Clearly, the aim is to make Fits less attractive. In addition, the Secretary of State will be reviewing the entire Fits scheme in the autumn. The ending of pre-accreditation is but an interim measure.

 The aspect which most concerns me is the impact on 'community schemes'. It seems the ending of pre-registration applies to these as well. But I hope and will campaign for this to be reversed. And I think it will. No doubt there will be amendments to this post as commenters tell me where I'm wrong.

The Budget.

Never thought I would ever hear a Conservative Chancellor announce a compulsory National Living Wage. Was sitting near Ian Duncan Smith, who celebrated like he'd won the lottery. Probably because a philosophical shift in strategy to tackle poverty through work rather rather than welfare matters more to him. It's been his dream for years. Labour MPs were stunned into silence. I was sitting on the step in front of an annoyingly shouty one, who had her voice cut from beneath her feet. They were all so stunned that George Osborne repeated the paragraph. He thought they had not quite grasped the enormity of what had just happened. It was one of the great moments of my Parliamentary life.

Lots of stuff in today's budget. But this philosophical shift was the biggie. We knew that the Chancellor was going to take £12bn out of the social security budget. He told us that during the election campaign. We didn't know the precise detail, but everyone expected a cut in working tax credits which have ballooned to an eye-watering £30bn. Won't pretend I wasn't worried about this. I represent a low wage area. I had hoped for an increase in the Minimum Wage. Well, out of his top hat, the Chancellor pulled the big fat rabbit of a compulsory National Living Wage. Lots more detail to understand and looking forward to reading the analysis, but the tone of this Parliament was set in one sentence.

This is one hell of a shift in policy. I still remember the Conservative Party opposing the introduction of the Minimum Wage. Seen as a threat to jobs. And of course today's announcement is. I've already had emails from local employers concerned about competition in the export market. But we are told the number of jobs which may be lost is around 60,000 - set alongside the anticipated extra million jobs predicted to be created over the next five years. 

Lots of other big stuff as well. Totemic was the commitment to 2% of GDP to be spent on defence. That's Conservative. Corporation Tax down to 18%. That's Conservative. Freeze on fuel duty. That's welcome in rural Montgomeryshire. End of non dom status scrapped for permanent residents. That's fair. Inheritance Tax changes. That's welcome but small beer, and why on earth is it limited to the house and not to 'the estate'. Plenty more not so welcome too. That's unavoidable in the circumstances. 

There will be losers in today's budget - inevitable when reducing the annual deficit from £80bn to balance. Most people in Britain will accept that today was necessary. It was what the Conservatives promised the people before they voted on May 7th. We do not want to end up like Greece, and after today, we very definitely will not.

The Battle of the Strawberry Fields

Many a great battle has been fought throughout the history of man in the gardens of the world. Great men have died to defend their crops from marauding intruders. One such great battle is being played out in our garden at Cil Farm at present. It's not possible to know who is going to prevail, but it's a fight to the death.

On the one side is our eldest son, Edward (let's call him Edward 1st, another great warrior) who decided to turn our greenhouse bench into a strawberry patch. And very successfully. Big, red and juicy they were. Ffion was really appreciating the fruits of her proud dad's labours. It was all going so well - until 'The Grey Squirrel' decided he liked them too. And devouring them before they were red and juicy. Now my advice was to shoot it, or corner it and bludgeon it to death with a club of some sort. But our son is a gentle soul, and set about replacing all the broken panes the squirrel was using for entry and exit. Job done, without hurting the squirrel.

Next day, our conquering hero was luxuriating in victory amongst his strawberries. He and the squirrel saw each other at the same time - when the vermin poked his head above the foliage. It had entered through a window slit. Battle had truly been joined. A trap was set, outside the window slits, loaded with all manner of squirrel delicacies. The idea was to catch the squirrel and take it some distance away for release. My air gun and club ideas still not consider appropriate. 

Anyway Mrs D has reported to me that she was passing by the greenhouse today, when she noticed the squirrel back and busy amongst the strawberry foliage. Seems it had got in via a roof light this time, and couldn't get out again. Not sure where this is all going to end. I'll be home on Thursday, and am wondering if there's any movement on my gun and club plans. They are very nice strawberries.

"Told you so" - Euro always destined to fail.

Usually, it's a bad situation when we can say "Told you so". So it is with the Euro crisis following today's vote by the Greeks in a referendum. Not sure I fully grasp the precise details of what the referendum was actually about. Not sure Greek voters did either. But the message was clear. They did not want their elected Govt to be bullied and humiliated by the Euro-elite. Forget how we got here. The No vote was two fingers up to the EU establishment. I would have voted No as well. Anything else and Greece would, in effect, no longer have been an independent country. I do think the current political leadership in Greece are not on this planet, but they have been elected to lead a sovereign country.

 Now to the "Told you so" bit. Actually, mine was a little echo of William Hague, then Conservative Party Leader who campaigned with great fervour to "Keep the Pound". Lots of us wore little £ badges. I even took an egg in the Middle of my back for William at a rally in Monmouth. Spoilt a nice suit. And I still recall being on a public panel at the Tanhouse Inn before an audience of farmers, discussing merits of the UK joining the Euro. I was alone in opposing the idea. And vehemently opposed at that. Dismissed as an 'Extremist' I was. Me an 'Extremist'! But the debate was very hot.

William had the best line of all. Being in the Euro was like being stuck in a house with no doors -ok until there was a fire. It's on fire now. Anyway Gordon saved us from the furnace that Blair and so many others would have taken us into. Britain will always be grateful to Gordon for that. 

But where are we now in Greece following an overwhelming No vote. Syriza, led by Tripras will survive as the Government. Now I know the EU always pay up in the end, but I just can't see it this time. It would open the floodgates to similar uprisings in other EU states. It's a lot easier defaulting on debts than repaying them if you can get away with it. It does look that after all the 'huffing and puffing' as if it's for real. We could be headed back to the Drachma.

Whatever, it's going to a real Greek tragedy - hyperinflation, mass unemployment, people starving on the streets and sick people dying untreated. And yet some of us sense it may be for the best in the long term. I hope EU Gov't's will help Greece adjust, and everyone who can will help the Greek economy by booking this year's and next year's holidays there. And take some spending money. It's in no-ones interests to see Greece become a failed state. 

And I daresay it will look a whole different tomorrow! 

Another Mid Wales Connection Project 'Update'.

I had promised myself I would not allow the flicker of a wind turbine blade or the shadow of a pylon to intrude on this blog ever again. The whole Mid Wales Connection Project (MWCP) stuff has caused me so much angst, I want to escape it's turbulence. But I'm being pressed to update the position, as best I can. So ok. Just this once. And not offering opinion but a perspective on where we are at. And I speak only of my constituency, Montgomeryshire. There is much more to be said if taking a UK perspective.

Firstly, It seems to me that the conjoined public inquiry into 5 local wind farms, which so many people are anxious about is largely irrelevant. There is no reason to think anything other than that those which want to connect to the MWCP are dead as dodos. The Prime Minister no less has made clear that no subsidy will be available for any of them under the Gov't's new subsidy scheme, Contracts for Difference (CfD). And none of them, or any other which might want to use the MWCP can  even think about the old subsidy scheme, based on Renewable Obligation Certificates. They would have to actually be exporting power to the Grid by April next year. And at best the connection line could not be operating until 2020.

There are two wind farm proposals in Montgomeryshire which could go ahead - one I think very likely and one not likely at all (but possible). Tir Gwynt nr Carno is very likely. It meets the conditions which allow an extra year to reach production stage - April 2017. It has planning permission, a grid connection agreement and ownership of the land. Nothing to stop it. In truth I'm very surprised it has not already been built. The much less likely one is the Llandinam re-powering. Technically, it does not qualify for the 'grace period'. It does not have planning permission, but I suppose the developer could well argue there is already a permission on the site (for the current wind farm which would be removed). And it would not produce electrics by the relevant date to qualify for RO in time - but again the developer could try to argue the site is producing electricity already. Not sure these arguments will stand up though - which is why I think it very unlikely. 

Many people want to know when we can draw a line under this whole saga. Well, this I don't know. National Grid, who have I'm told largely, though not totally suspended work on the line still maintain it is contracted by developers to continue building. "Nothing to do with us mate"!  It's Scottish Power Energy Networks (representing developers) which holds the contracts with National Grid. I plan an early discussion with SPEN to try establish what the position is. Expecting obfuscation though.

There are other tangential issues which make things confusing. One issue is the decision by the UK Govt to 'devolve' decision making across England and Wales to local communities. In Wales it applies only to wind farms over 50 MW, since below that figure it's already devolved. And It seems likely that the Welsh Govt will very quickly make a power grab for everything over 25mw (up to 350mw). UK Conservative Govt is localising while Welsh Labour Govt is centralising! But none of this makes much difference in Montgomeryshire, if there is no subsidy available for the wind farms.

And then there's the public inquiry. We know the Planning Inspector gave his report to DECC on Dec 8th 2014. Since then nothing. Personally I hope it stays that was. Sorry - opinion creeping in!! Anyway, if they are approved it makes no difference because no subsidy.

Now to the main concern I continue to have. Some of these developers may decide to go to war with the Govt, and secure permissions, even with no prospect of actually building. If they do a minimal amount to establish a 'start on site' and just sit on them in the hope of a future Government restarting the subsidy train again. This would leave a long term legacy of uncertainty.

Dare say there will be lots of questions. Fire away. I still have a few myself. I'm not getting involved in opinion of what's right and wrong here. Just what I think it the actual position - and surely missed a few things.

The Count

'A View from Rural Wales' is springing back to life. Like those amazing plants which emerge from an arid landscape following the first rain after a ten year drought. Rather like the plant, which will normally never be seen, it may be that no-one will be drawn to read my blog. They used to. I'm returning to this strange activity to indulge my pleasure of writing for its own sake. It will be a periodic commentary on Westminster activities and reflection on issues that catch my attention. So read or not read as you wish. I will not be adulated or offended, whatever your response.

I feel an appropriate point to restart this is from 'The Count'. Approaching midnight on 7th May, the Davies family, including candidate, spouse and four children set forth from Cil Farm to the desperately non-atmospheric Flash Leisure Centre in Welshpool to discover what the voters of Montgomeryshire had decided that day. I'd warned the family this could be a humiliating night. We had seen the Exit Poll, which I had dismissed as ludicrous. Lord Paddy Ashdown was entirely justified in promising to eat a marzipan hat! To lose my seat to a Lib Dem when they were being obliterated across the UK could not be spun as anything but humiliation. But I also said, I thought "I would be elected, though not shocked to lose". In fact first time I'd ever gone to a count in Montgomeryshire with any optimism. The once I'd won came as a total shock!

Arrived to mixed reactions from my team. Some headshaking from the office pessimist (he knows who he is) but thumbs up from the remainder. There was a huddle of Lib Dems sitting to one side looking rather downcast which told the story. Rather sympathised. I've been there!! Anyway it was soon clear to all that I was heading to Westminster for another 5 yrs. Did the formalities and some good photos for the family album on stage. Then a few interviews - before heading up to the office uptown Welshoool for a quiet celebratory glass.

Then there was the penis. No commentary on the 'The Count' in Montgomeryshire can be complete without its inclusion. One voter had drawn an anatomically correct representation of a penis in the box next to my name. On the basis that it was completely confined within the box, and more importantly had a 'smiley face' the Returning Officer adjudged that it should a valid vote cast in my favour. Just imagine the hoo-hah if I'd won by one vote - which I did when first elected to Montgomeryshire District Council a long time ago.

I'm not sure this is a very dignified end to the resurrection of A View from Rural Wales. But it does establish a style.

Wales Bill

Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the occasion of the Bill’s return from the House of Lords in much improved form, if I may say so. In general, I welcome the Bill although I am concerned about some elements. Perhaps it is a Welsh trait that we can never completely agree on things, and I want to touch on one issue where I am not in agreement.

What I welcome in particular is the new reality of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition shaping the process and future of devolution and driving forward, leaving—if I may say so to the shadow Secretary of State—Labour languishing in its wake. He may describe that as a U-turn, but that is the reality today. I want to make just one important point, which is very much a personal view. I disagree with one specific aspect of the Bill, but I would like to emphasise my overall support: it is a very good and welcome Bill.

I would like to put my point in context by painting some background to my personal journey in the devolution debate. I was not in favour of the form of devolution on offer in the referendum on 18 September 1997. It seemed to me to be creating a permanently unstable constitutional settlement. A settlement is the last thing it was. I attended the count in Llandrindod Wells leisure centre, watching the TV coverage as the decision of the voters of Wales came through and they decided in favour of establishing a national assembly for Wales. I drove home knowing that there was no going back. The people had spoken, albeit by a tiny margin of 0.6%. We were now facing an entirely new question: how would devolution work in practice? I concluded immediately that the new Welsh Assembly would eventually become a law-making, tax-raising Parliament based in Wales. That has influenced my thinking on the issue ever since. I did not want to be dragged, kicking and screaming, and trying to refight the 1997 devolution referendum. I preferred to get ahead of the curve and identify where we were going to get to, and move towards that in a positive and smooth way. That was not a change of mind, but a recognition of a new reality.

Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North)

My hon. Friend, through his service in the Assembly, has been one of the individuals who has encapsulated the position adopted by the Conservative party. Although the party battled against establishing the Assembly in the first place, and although the margin was only 4,000 in a million, nobody could claim other than that my hon. Friend and the party in Wales have since not been dragged back to the previous debate, but have moved forward and sought to make a success of the devolution settlement.

Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire)

Nowhere has that been more obvious than in the contribution from those on the Front Bench when we started today’s debate.

The Government of Wales Act 2006, introduced by the Labour party, moved things forward quite a lot, as did the 2011 referendum in relation to tax-raising powers. The Wales Bill takes us further down the road to what I consider to be the inevitable conclusion, but not far enough for me on tax levying responsibility. I will be blunt about my view: it is a mistake that the Bill requires a referendum before devolving responsibility for levying part of income tax collection to the Welsh Government. That is properly an issue for a general election. The Welsh Government are not financially accountable to the people of Wales until they are responsible for levying a degree of income tax. It is also my personal view that financial accountability through responsibility for income tax is so fundamental to a proper, grown-up National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Government that we should not devolve extra responsibility until this principle is accepted—no financial accountability, no new powers.

The First Minister, and perhaps Labour Members here on the Opposition Benches, do not want financial accountability. How convenient it is to bask in the credit of every spend that the people of Wales approve of and blame the UK Government for every difficult decision needed to bring order to the United Kingdom’s finances. We see the First Minister in Wales scrabbling around for any reason he can come up with to avoid committing to a referendum. First, it was lockstep, which is removed by the Bill. Then it was the Barnett deficit, until it became clear that it is a rather smaller Barnett deficit than we thought. I hear now that air passenger duty might be another reason, and if that is resolved, there will be another one. The reality is that Welsh Labour in Cardiff is desperate to avoid financial accountability. It does not want to be properly financially accountable to the Welsh people.

Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument and thinking about what the Labour spokesman said. When the Silk proposals were being discussed, the First Minister of Wales was adamant he did not want air passenger duty devolved, but suddenly he has woken up and is desperately keen on it. It depends what day of the week we are in.

Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire)

I would be more encouraged if I thought the day of the week was the reason. I think it is a desperate attempt to find one more hurdle to prevent us from moving towards financial accountability.

During the passage of the Bill, I accepted it would include a commitment to a referendum on devolution of income tax levying powers. It was a recommendation of the all-party Silk commission, and in 1997 there was a referendum on this issue in Scotland. In my view, however, the Silk commission was wrong, and weak in its recommendation on this point. Devolving income tax powers is not as big a change as is being made out, and it is entirely appropriate that it be decided at a general election; it does not need a referendum. If a Welsh Labour Government acted irresponsibility, which they might well do, they would quickly be turfed out of office. It is much easier to sit in blissful impotence, complaining.

I would like to see manifesto commitments by my party, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru to revisit this issue, perhaps in a Wales Bill early next Parliament

and before the Assembly elections in 2016, and to devolve income tax. We should put an end to Labour’s easy ride in Wales and make the Welsh Government properly fiscally accountable to the Welsh people. Only then will devolution grow up and reach its inevitable, logical conclusion.

 

Motion before MPs tomorrow about action to confront ISIL

Tomorrow, Parliament is recalled to debate a motion tabled by Her Majesty's Government supported limited action against the brutal terrorist organisation, ISIL. It reads as follows;

That this House;

Condemns the barbaric acts of ISIL against the peoples of Iraq, including the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Christian and Yazidi and the humanitarian crisis it is causing;

Recognises the clear threat that ISIL pose to the territorial integrity of Iraq, and the request from the Government of Iraq for military support from the international community and the specific request to the UK Government for such support;

Further recognises the threat ISIL pose to wider international security, and the UK directly through its sponsorship of terrorist attacks and it's murder of a British hostage;

Acknowledges the broad coalition contributing to military support of the Government of Iraq, including countries throughout the Middle East;

Further acknowledges the request of the Government of Iraq for international support to defend itself against the threat that ISIL poses to Iraq and it's citizens, and the clear legal basis that this provides for action in Iraq;

Notes that this motion does not endorse UK air strikes in Syria as part of this campaign, and any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote in Parliament;

Accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government, working with allies, in supporting the Government of Iraq in protecting civilians and restoring its territorial integrity, including use of UK air strikes to support Iraq, including Kurdish security force's efforts against ISIL in Iraq;

Notes that Her Majesty's Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations;

Offers it's wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.

Military Action on ISIL

This is an email I sent to those constituents whose email addresses I have. Well over a hundred responded, with around 90% leaning towards accepting that UK involvement in air strikes against ISIL may be inevitable. Very few were totally opposed. We all have concerns of course. Unfortunately three responders were so offensive that I must ensure I do not email them again - and that is a pity. It's a few days late but here it is;

Last summer, the House of Commons was recalled following the gassing of innocent civilians by the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad. At the time, I anticipated being asked by the Prime Minister to support a military strike on Damascus. I emailed those constituents I was able to, inviting opinions on what they considered to be the best way forward. Most of the replies reinforced my personal view that the case for military action had not been made. I could not see how it would improve the position. I and many other like-minded Conservatives informed the government of our opinion and the motion finally put to the recalled House of Commons after much negotiation did not sanction a military strike. I considered the final motion to be acceptable and was very disappointed when it was defeated. It felt to me that the UK, a leading NATO country was turning its back on the world, an act that would only encourage those with evil intent. The reality was that the UK and the US did stand back, and have allowed events in the Middle East to play out as they have done. The current position is far more worrying than it was last year.

This email once again shares with you the decision I may face in the near future. It's rumoured that there may be a sudden recall of Parliament this week or next to consider becoming involved in air strikes against ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. At this stage, we do not know what military action would be involved. However I would expect it to involve air strikes against ISIL, though perhaps not in Syria and not involving troops on the ground. This, of course, may change.

This time, I am personally more inclined to support military involvement. The scale of ISIL's advance, its incredible brutality, its mass killings and beheadings, and threat it poses to us here in the UK seem to me to be increasingly serious. At this stage I feel we cannot continue to turn our backs on what is happening. It is important that I keep in touch with my constituents’ views on such an emotive and controversial issue. Entering military conflict is an extremely serious matter, full of uncertainty, and it seems right that I should invite my constituents to share any thoughts they have on the matter.

Reflections on Scotland's Referendum.

In the end, the Scottish voters decided by a more comfortable margin than we expected that they preferred their nation to remain part of the United Kingdom. The canny Scots refused to follow the pied piper over the edge. Not enough of them joined in surfing the wave of emotion. Hopefully the repair work needed to mend the divisions created by such a ferocious debate will not be too difficult. This blog post is an early assessment of where go from here, and written from a Wales perspective.

We have learned that commitment to the United Kingdom by its member nations cannot be taken for granted. Leaders of the three main Westminster parties decided they needed to make a last-minute offer to Scotland before the vote. This 'Vow' must be delivered. No ifs or buts. And we now have to answer the West Lothian Question, which I've always thought best not asked. This all has a significant impact on the future governance arrangements for Wales, even though I expect this to be of only passing interest to the rest of the UK. But it matters to me.

The most concerning part of the 'Vow' was the commitment to an unreformed Barnett Formula, which gives Scotland significantly more than 'needs ' dictate she should have. While Wales receives more per head than England, it does not receive the level of funding justified by her 'needs'. Difficult to know the precise size of Wales underfunding, but a figure of £300 million per annum is usually used. It's very much my view that the Wales Office and the Treasury need to find a satisfactory way of addressing this Barnett deficit. It's not a huge sum of money in the greater scheme of things.

There will be a significant change in the tax arrangements/powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. In future 100% of income tax will be devolved. A huge change with no referendum, though there was one on the principle of devolved tax-raising in 1997. We are just going to do it. I very much agree with this change. To devolve powers without matching financial accountability is a recipe for division between the Scottish and UK Parliaments. It allowed the Scottish First Minister to play the victim card to great effect. It almost destroyed the United Kingdom. The same situation exists in Wales. My view is that we should transfer responsibility for 50% of income tax to the Welsh Assembly without any referendum. We have seen just how destabilising a devolved  government without fiscal accountability can be. We need to act on this now. If it's decided there must be consultation with the people of a Wales, this should be done through our 2015 manifesto rather than a referendum. I fully expect the Labour Party in Wales to do everything possible to stop this happening, thus retaining the happy position of only taking responsibility for one side of the ledger.

My final observation in this post is the proposal to prevent Scottish MPs voting on laws that apply only to England. Unfortunately, the anti-English tone of the Yes campaign in Scotland has made this inevitable. Personally, I do not like it one bit, believing it to be far more complex (to the point of being unworkable) than is thought. But it is much better than the appalling prospect of an English Parliament. I am not at all sure it can be applied to Wales in the same way, because the level of shared services across the border is so much greater. Again, Labour will do everything possible to prevent this happening. Already we see much discussion about a constitutional convention - a fairly blatant tactic to avoid anything at all happening.

I'd better stop. This post could become a long essay. I have just written as the words tumbled out. It's probably a bit jumbled, and I'll probably edit tomorrow. Inevitably, so soon after the referendum, all of our thoughts are a 'work in progress'. Writing it down helps firm me things up.

My 'Politically Speaking' Column for County Times - 14th Aug

I used the 'Politically Speaking' column in the County Times last week to share my thoughts on the foreign affairs issues causing distress to many of my constituents. In particular I repeated the call I first made two weeks before in my column in the Oswestry and Borders Chronicle that Parliament should be recalled. I accept the case for recall is now lessened because it's only a few days until MPs are back in Westminster anyway. Now I call for House of Commons business to be changed to allow a foreign affairs debate during our first week back. My article follows;

One year ago Parliament was recalled from summer recess to consider what Britain should do in response to the gassing of innocent civilians in Syria by their President, Bashar al-Assad. It was thought that Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama were seriously contemplating military action to punish Assad. It was the most difficult issue I have faced since being elected MP for Montgomeryshire in 2010. After much discussion with, and advice from many constituents, I decided that the case had not been made for a military strike against Damascus. I could not see how it would improve the situation, or what clear purpose dropping bombs and firing missiles would have. But I did agree with David Cameron that we should not completely 'close the door' on intervention if circumstances in Syria changed.

After a long impassioned debate, I was on the losing side of the vote. The House of Commons decided to completely rule out military intervention no matter what. I thought that was the wrong course, and a very bad day for world peace. I felt that forces of evil would have been watching, and realising that the NATO powers were no longer willing to even consider acting to prevent the worst atrocities of evil regimes against innocents. And sadly, that is where we are today.

In Syria, around 200,000 people have been killed, with perhaps another 8million made refugees. It's likely that many of these will have been gassed. Because Western media is banned, this reign of terror hardly features on our news channels - a shocking and disgraceful failure of our free press. On the border of Eastern Ukraine, a Russian war making machine is gathering, almost certainly to invade the free country of Ukraine, no doubt on some trumped up pretext of a peacekeeping or humanitarian mission. Its likely thousands of innocents will die. In Kurdistan in Northern Iraq, whole populations of minorities are being slaughtered simply because they are who they are. Christians are being given the choice of converting to Islam, fleeing the country or being killed. Yazidis are being treated even worse, reported to be being buried alive in their hundreds. The barbaric cruelty of the Islamic State (Isis) knows no limits.

In Britain and the United States, our Governments are waking up to the reality that we cannot turn our backs on the world. For evil to prosper all it needs is for good people to do nothing. President Obama has been forced to act to save the lives of innocents being crushed before the Islamic State. The UK is also sending humanitarian aid to save Christians trapped on Mount Sinjar. The UK is also sending Tornados to help with surveillance work. I fully support all this, but it does seem very little, very late. We must always retain the hope that it turns out not to be too late.

Two weeks ago I called for Parliament to be recalled to debate these issues, alongside the Gaza crisis, which has featured prominently in the British media. Thankfully, as I write this column for the County Times the ceasefire in Gaza is holding. We can only hope the worst of the violence is over. Over the last few days, several news channels have contacted me, asking me to go to London to share my views on recall on national television. But I've left that to other MPs who live nearer, and who now share my opinion. I am desperately keen to return to Westminster though, not for TV interviews, but to take part in a recalled House of Commons debate. We are on the brink of a humanitarian disaster, with innocents being killed on a massive scale. It seems now to be accepted that Parliament would indeed be recalled if Government decided to embark on military action. Personally, I believe MPs should be given the opportunity to represent the views and concerns of their constituents, even without any decision to put "boots on the ground". Because doing nothing could be an even worse option, we should be recalled to Westminster immediately.

Great letter written by John Day, local Chair of Parkinsons UK

For many years now, I've been President of the Montgomeryshire Branch of Parkinson's UK. Although I've not had any direct personal or family brush with this cruel disease, I have known people who have. Invariably I find sufferers to be determined to make the best of life. There was some publicity about Parlinson's last week, following the death of Robin Williams. Our Chair, John Day was inspired to write a letter which I think deserves a wider readership. Here it is;

Parkinson's  - It’s difficult to always look on the bright side of life

“I was very saddened by the news that Robin Williams had died last week, he was a very talented actor and comedian who had the ability put a smile on the faces of people of all ages.  He had been diagnosed with the early stages of Parkinson’s.

It has prompted me to pass on some of my thoughts and experiences of Parkinson’s to enable others to gain a better understanding.  Both I and my wife Sue have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s for over 10 years.  In some cases diagnosis can be a confusing and uncertain time. Much of the information at that time of our diagnosis came from the internet.  We have always had good support from our fantastic family, great circle of friends and from medical professionals in Powys and Shropshire. 

 

Many people think that it affects only the elderly; unfortunately this is not true it affects people of all ages. Most of the people who are diagnosed are over 50; however one in 20 is under the age of 40. Roughly 127,000 people in the UK have Parkinson’s, with over 300 people in Powys.

Actor Michael J Fox, who was himself diagnosed with the condition in 1991, spoke of his shock at learning that his friend Robin Williams had also been suffering from Parkinson’s. In the year 2000 he established the Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research in America.  It is dedicated to finding a cure for Parkinson’s and ensuring the development of improved therapies for those living with Parkinson's. 

 

In the UK we get outstanding support from Parkinson’s UK, a registered charity, which has a well established support network throughout the country, together with a central help line and online access to a wealth of information on all aspects of Parkinson’s.  They have a number of trainers who run a range of specialist courses for health care professionals in hospitals, care homes and health centres.

I feel honoured to be the Chairman of Montgomeryshire Branch of Parkinson’s UK and always look forward to our monthly meetings with a great bunch of people.  We have guest speakers come along and talk to the group on a variety of interesting topics and have coach trips and a range of other activities. We have many fund raising events throughout the year and much of the money raised goes towards research and making life a little easier for people with Parkinson’s and their families and carers.

We enjoy the support of our Welsh Assembly Members, especially Russell George who supports many of our events.  We have met on several occasions to lobby and create awareness of the needs of Parkinson’s sufferers.  I must express my gratitude to Glyn Davies, MP who is President of our Branch and frequently attends our events, as long as they do not clash with his Westminster duties, he has a good understanding of health related matters and understands the needs of people with Parkinson’s and the various ways it affects patients and their families.

The support we have received from our Medical Practice in Welshpool has been excellent, together with a Parkinson’s Specialist Nurse and a host of other local health care professionals.  Last year I was admitted to Welshpool Hospital, I had never stayed in hospital before and was quite concerned and anxious.  I am so grateful to all the staff for their help and encouragement and getting me on the road back to recovery, they are a very dedicated professional and caring team. 

Parkinson's can be a very difficult condition to diagnose, as no two people with Parkinson's are the same, not everyone will experience all of these symptoms and the order in which they appear and their severity also differs from person to person. The primary symptoms of Parkinson’s disease relate to movement.  Rigidity can cause cramps and stiffness of muscles.  There are other functions that are also affected, including dizziness, pain, fatigue, in addition to a number of health problems like depression and anxiety. 

A tremor, or the involuntary shaking of a body part, is sometimes the first sign of Parkinson’s and it can spread from a finger in one hand into the arm or even into the foot on the same side of the body, not all people have tremor.  In my case it started with a small twitching of my left side little finger, followed months later by my toes, some days I have a very visible tremor especially when tired or under stress.   

It can limit facial expressions, make the task of walking extremely difficult, and can make repetitive movements such as brushing teeth also hard.  It means that simple activities such as eating or getting dressed become increasingly difficult.  It can be very frustrating when simple tasks like doing up shirt buttons and belts take so long.  It can take quite some time to get out of bed in the morning.  When I take my medication it takes a while to get “switched on” and get those rigid muscles going again. 

For all Parkinson’s patients it is very important that they take the medication on time.  Where suitable, most hospitals will allow patients to administer their own medication.

Parkinson’s itself does not cause people to die, but symptoms do deteriorate over time.  Though there is no known cure for the condition, treatments to help control the symptoms of Parkinson’s include medications and physical therapies.

Drug treatments can help control some of the problems associated with the condition.  One of the main drugs is Levodopa which is effective at improving mobility and motor function. There is a great deal of ongoing research into a cure and improving medications that will help to replace the reduced dopamine levels.

Neurosurgery is sometimes used to treat those who have had Parkinson’s for a long time and whose condition is not responsive to medication.

We have been referred to the National Exercise Referral Scheme which is funded by Welsh Assembly Government and has been developed over the last few years to target clients who have a chronic disease or are at risk of developing chronic disease.  We attend the one at Maldwyn Sports centre in Newtown, these exercise sessions are available throughout the county.

With the right medication and exercise, many people continue to live a full and active life with Parkinson's.

The Montgomery Branch meet at 2pm on the last Thursday of each month in the Welsh Chapel, Mount Street, Welshpool.

John Day

Chairman Parkinson’s UK, Montgomeryshire Branch

Tynwtra, Bwlchyffridd, Newtown, Powys, SY16 3HX

Wales Bill

Glyn Davies: I am grateful to be called to speak on an issue that is of great personal interest. As well as being the Member of Parliament for the Welsh seat of Montgomeryshire, I served for eight years representing Mid and West Wales as a regional Member of the National Assembly for Wales. My dominant interests since becoming a Member of Parliament have been Welsh politics, the Welsh economy, Welsh public services and, indeed, the relationship between Cardiff Bay and Westminster as they deal with the devolution process, which will continue for many more years to come. The nature of constitutional process is that one does not reach an end stage.

Unlike the Shadow Secretary of State, I do not think this a dry debate at all. Debates about the constitution tend not to jokey or light hearted. But as someone who is deeply embedded in Welsh politics, I find a debate about a Bill concerning the future governance of my nation hugely interesting.

I declare my enthusiastic support for the Wales Bill. It is a significant step forward in the devolution process, even if there are aspects with which I do not agree. In this disagreements I may be in a small minority, but I should refer to them alongside my general support for the Bill, putting my opinions on the record for the benefit of anyone in my constituency and indeed the rest of Wales who might want to know what they are.

I have listened to most of the debate; I missed some of it owing to other meetings. My general impression is that Labour’s position in particular is thoroughly confused. Clearly, Members on this side of the House are pleased that Labour will be supporting the Wales Bill—that is a positive move—but the contributions of many Labour Members suggest that they just do not accept the principle of financial accountability underlying the devolution of income tax raising to the National Assembly for Wales. Some of their language has sounded more as though they oppose the Bill than being in support of it.

The Plaid Cymru contributions have been ‘churlish’—that is the word that I will use. During this Parliament it was a Conservative Secretary of State who introduced, with very great determination, the Bill that created law-making powers in Wales. I do not believe that it would have been introduced if it had not been a Conservative Secretary of State; I think that a Labour Secretary of State would probably have chickened out. It was a Conservative Secretary of State who established the Silk commission, which has done very good work. Like several other Members, I commend it for its work. It is a Conservative Secretary of State who has introduced this Bill. I perfectly accept that it does not go as far as Plaid Cymru Members may want—one would not expect that—and, indeed, there are differing views on the detail of the Bill across all parties, but nobody can disagree that granting tax-raising powers to the National Assembly for Wales, and the borrowing powers that go with them, is anything but a huge constitutional step forward. On that basis, it might have been at least fair of Plaid Cymru to congratulate the Conservative party on taking us down the road, not as far as it would want, but certainly in a positive direction.

Mr Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman said that he had been in and out of the debate, and I accept that—so have I. My colleagues were generous about various parts of the Bill, but nevertheless there are parts about which we are concerned, and that is the nature of politics. Do not call us churlish because we find fault in some way with the Bill. That is just politics, is it not?

Glyn Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for that. He has been a friend for a long time. It is reassuring that he has decided to intervene and say how supportive he is of what the Conservative Government have delivered in the past few years. I shall read today’s debate in Hansard to pick out all those individual bits that he speaks so enthusiastically about.

There are several elements to the Wales Bill, the most important one by a long way being the tax raising powers and the commensurate borrowing powers that go with them. There will be continuing debate about this matter. It may well feature in the manifestos of the various parties leading up to the next general election, and I believe it will be revisited in the next Parliament. That is naturally the way of things with constitutional issues when. There will be a next step in this process, and I look forward to being a part of it after the next general election.

Another issue that is causing a lot of excitement is the removal of the ban on dual candidacy. Labour today is describing this change as political gerrymandering. If there has been any political intent to gerrymander, it was on the part of the Labour party when it introduced the ban. No independent body in Wales, including the Electoral Commission, thinks that it is any way partisan to scrap the ban on dual candidacy. It was brought in by the Labour Government in this place with the support of Labour in Cardiff, with the view that it would benefit the Labour party in Wales, and it is truly ironic that it did not. The Opposition should welcome what is a right and proper constitutional change being brought in by this Government.

Personally, I am not in favour of a referendum. In general, I do not like them. Political parties should tell the people what they intend to do and if the people vote for them at a general election they can carry it out without a referendum. I accept that I am in a minority in relation to a referendum on tax-raising powers in Wales. The Silk commission recommended one and there was a referendum in Scotland before tax raising powers were introducing. On this specific issue, I will have to sneak back into my box rather quietly.

I am also not in favour of introducing a five-year term between Assembly elections. Again I might be in a minority. I generally think that four-year terms are right for Parliaments. We have a five-year term here at Westminster, and I realise that there is a lot of support for a five-year term for the National Assembly. Again, that involves another little box that I will have to crawl into.

But let us not forget what the Bill will do if, as I hope it will, it receives its Third Reading today. This Westminster Parliament is granting to the National Assembly for Wales the power to raise taxes, including a significant proportion of income tax — delivering financial accountability. In future a Welsh Government will be accountable to the people whom they represent. There is further to go, but this is an important principle. A Bill put forward by a Conservative Secretary of State is making a significant contribution to the process of devolution in Wales.