Assisted Suicide Debate

In the end, 450 MPs turned up on a Friday for a Private Member's Bill, and an unprecedented 85 MPs wrote to the Speaker asking to speak. I'd prepared a 40 minute speech in case not many wanted to contribute. Was limited to just 3mins. Following is the speech which I would like to have made:

"Mr Speaker, the question before us in this Chamber today is not about whether helping someone to take their own life is compassionate or morally right or wrong.  Compassion and morality are common currency to both sides of this contentious debate.  The question is whether assisted suicide should be legalised.  Should the law be changed to license doctors to supply lethal drugs to terminally ill patients to enable them to take their own lives? 

Mr Speaker, that would represent a major change to the criminal law and to the fundamental 'do no harm ' principle that underpins all medical practice.  If this House is to be persuaded that it should go down that road, it needs to be presented with serious evidence that the law as it stands isn't fit for purpose; and, if that's the case, what should be put in its place that would be better - better, that is, for everyone, not just for some.  I have seen no such evidence.

Let us start with the law.  If we are talking about changing the law, we need to know what the law says, why it says it and how it works.  It's not against the law to take your own life or to attempt to take your own life.  But it is unlawful to encourage or assist another person to commit suicide.

Mr Speaker, there is good reason for this distinction.  Laws are more than just regulatory instruments.  An important purpose of the criminal law is to make clear those acts of which, as a society, we disapprove - like killing, injuring, stealing or cheating.  One of those acts is aiding and abetting suicide. 

The present law accurately reflects social attitudes to suicide.  We are not, as a society, judgemental about individual acts of suicide.  But there is a broadly-accepted consensus that, while people who attempt to take their own lives should be treated with understanding and compassion, suicide itself is not something to be encouraged.  That's what all the suicide watches and all the suicide prevention strategies are about.  It is perhaps ironic, Mr Speaker, that yesterday (10 September) was World Suicide Prevention Day. 

It is therefore an offence, under Section 2 of the Suicide Act, to encourage or assist another person's suicide.  However, the Act states explicitly that, before a prosecution for assisted suicide can be undertaken, the Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP) must give his or her consent.  In other words, prosecution isn't automatic and the DPP has discretion not to press charges if he (or she) judges that a prosecution isn't needed.  Why?

It's because assisting someone's suicide could cover a wide range of criminality.  At one end of the spectrum, it could have been done with great reluctance, after serious soul-searching and for wholly compassionate motives.  At the other end of the scale, it could have been malicious or manipulative assistance with suicide accompanied by pressure and for personal gain. 

That's why discretion is given over whether or not to prosecute.  And it's not just for this law.  Prosecutorial discretion is a feature of other criminal laws too. 

Well, then, does it work?  Yes it does.  Assisting suicide is a very rare offence.  The penalties that the law holds in reserve provide a powerful deterrent against malicious behaviour.  Less than 20 cases throughout the whole of England and Wales cross the desk of the DPP in any one year.  By any standard, that is a very low rate of law-breaking. 

But, if you think that's what would happen under an 'assisted dying' law, think again.  The US State of Oregon introduced a law like the one that is now being proposed in 1997.  Since then the death rate from legalised assisted suicide has risen steadily.  In 2014 there were nearly seven times as many cases as there were when the law came into force.  And, if we take Oregon's current - and rising - death rate from legalised assisted suicide and apply it to England and Wales, we are looking at between 1,500 and 1,600 cases a year.

An 'assisted dying' law flies in the face of all this.  It says that, while we should try to prevent suicide for most people, for some people we should actually facilitate it. 

It sends the dangerous social message that, if you are terminally ill, taking your own life is something that it's appropriate to consider. 

And it removes the deterrent.  Anyone now who is minded to assist a suicide for malicious reasons knows that a spotlight will be shone on his or her actions and that any malicious or manipulative behaviour could come to light as a result.  If we had an 'assisted dying' law, the only risk being run is that the request will be turned down.

Mt Speaker, I am aware that the Hon and Learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who held the office of Director of Public Prosecutions between 2008 and 2013, has declared his support for a change in the law.  But I should also draw to the attention of the House that his predecessor as DPP, Sir Kenneth (now Lord) Macdonald, takes a different view.  In an intervention in another place last year he put it this way - I will quote his words from the official record:

"It would be foolish to assume", he said, "that everyone counselling a suicide acts from pure motives or that malice and venality is always absent.  The equation we have developed - a broad legal prohibition on the one hand to deter those acting out of malice, and a carefully explained prosecutorial discretion on the other to protect those who act from genuine compassion - strikes the right balance". 

So, while we should respect the view of the Hon Member for Holborn and St Pancras, we should recognise that it is a personal opinion which is not shared by his predecessor and we should not assume - as I am sure the Hon Gentleman had no intention that we should assume - that it reflects the view of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Before going any further, I should like to deal with a common misconception - that doctors are routinely breaking the law and ending the lives of seriously-ill patients.  Independent research has concluded that in the UK such illegal activity is (and I quote) "rare or non-existent"[1], and the Chair of the pressure group Dignity in Dying, which is campaigning to legalise assisted suicide, declared only last month that such law-breaking is (and I quote) "highly unlikely" and "doctors now work in teams"[2].

Mr Speaker, I have spoken about suicide.  Ah but, say those who want to change the law, it isn't really suicide.  If you are expecting to die in the near future and you choose to take your own life instead of dying of natural causes, you aren't committing suicide but simply hastening their inevitable death. The analogy they sometimes draw is what happened on 9/11 fourteen years ago, when some people who were trapped high up in the Twin Towers chose to jump rather than be burned to death.  Was that suicide? they ask.  And what's the difference between that and choosing to take your own life in preference to dying of a terminal illness?

I'm sorry but these contortions just won't hold water.  We are talking here about amending the Suicide Act.  That law, like other laws, is there to protect vulnerable people.  It applies equally - and should apply equally - to everyone irrespective of age, gender, race - and state of health.  To say that taking your own life when you are terminally ill isn't suicide - and therefore others should be able to assist you to do so with impunity - amounts to removing one group of people from the protection of the law.

The deaths in the Twin Towers were deaths by misadventure.  Those who died had no intention of ending their lives.  They were the innocent victims of external events, and those who jumped were choosing between two horrendous but unavoidable forms of death.  By contrast, the choice we are dealing with here is between intentional hastening of one's own life and dying of natural causes. 

I can understand that the supporters of the Hon Gentleman's bill do not like references to suicide.  In the same way they don't like talking about 'lethal drugs' - the Hon Gentleman's bill refers to them as 'medicines'.  But we need to approach this subject with our eyes wide open and to see what is being proposed for what it is, not for what some might like it to be.

None of this, Mr Speaker, is to say that in some circumstances it might not be a compassionate or moral thing to do to help someone out of this life.  But in a civilised society we don't license an act by law simply because we can empathise with it in exceptional circumstances.  None of us would wish to see a parent who broke the speed limit while rushing a desperately sick child to hospital prosecuted for dangerous driving.  Or a man who injured a nocturnal intruder in order to protect his family charged with assault. 

But no one would seriously argue that we should have laws licensing dangerous driving or assault in advance and in prescribed circumstances.  We expect those laws to be maintained to protect us -  all of us - and exceptional cases to be dealt with exceptionally.  That is what happens now with what is being called 'assisted dying'.  The law has the teeth to deter malicious assistance with suicide and the discretion to deal sensitively with genuinely compassionate cases.  It's been called a law with a stern face and an understanding heart.  And so it is.

For these reasons, Mr Speaker, I am not persuaded that the first test for changing the law has been passed.  However, for the sake of argument, I am going to assume that a case for changing the law has been made and I want to look at the Hon Gentleman's bill and consider whether it is fit for purpose.  So let's move on to the second of the two tests - would the Hon Gentleman's bill be a better than what we have now?  And, in particular, would it be safe to enact?

The Hon Member for Holborn and St Pancras has stated, in The Times, that (and I quote his words) "the important thing is to have safeguards".  I agree with him, as I am sure most of us would.  So let's take a look at the so-called safeguards in this bill.

What the bill contains is a series of qualifying criteria.  It would allow people to receive lethal drugs to take their own lives if they are thought by two doctors:

- to be terminally ill;

- to have less than six months to live;

- to have a settled wish to end their lives;

- to be acting voluntarily;

-to have the mental capacity to take the decision to take their own lives; and

- to be making an informed decision.

If two doctors agree that someone seeking assisted suicide passes these tests, the request would then be passed to a judge of the High Court to confirm the decision.

At a superficial glance, it all sounds reassuring.  But, if we look a little closer, we can see that these so-called safeguards are actually full of holes.  Mr Speaker, I have no wish to try the patience of the House, but this is such an important issue that we cannot just skate over it. 

The first point to recognise is that many of these so-called safeguards are not safeguards at all.  They are just statements of what ought to happen.  It may sound reasonable to say that a person seeking assistance with suicide must have a settled wish and be acting voluntarily.  But how is a doctor to decide whether this is the case?  The Hon Gentleman's bill does not require any minimum steps to be taken to ensure that these conditions are met.  It envisages that the Secretary of State may - not must - publish codes of practice dealing with some of these issues.  But these codes of practice would not appear until after Parliament has agreed to change the law to license assisted suicide. 

Yet how can this House decide whether it is safe to change the law until it has seen how any safeguards would work and reached a view on whether they would protect vulnerable people from harm?  All we are being given as a basis for making this decision are broadly-worded criteria.  Mr Speaker, it's not enough.  The House is being asked, in effect, to sign a blank cheque.

The proponents of the bill argue that codes of practice are a common way of dealing with the detail of legislation.  Yes, they are; but this is not typical legislation.  We are not discussing traffic regulations or planning or tax law here.  We are talking about legislation with (literally) life or death consequences.  For such legislation, codes of practice are more than just 'details'; they are of the essence of what is being proposed and this House needs to see and examine them before, not after, taking a decision about whether the law should be changed.

Now let's look at another problem with these so-called safeguards.  It's fair to ask doctors to diagnose terminal illness and to offer a prognosis - though, as I will explain in a moment, this is not as simple as it may sound.  But many of the conditions for assisted suicide lie outside a doctor's professional field.  How, for example, is a doctor to know whether a request for assisted suicide reflects a settled wish and whether it's a completely voluntary request?  The bill seems to assume that we all have what used to be called 'family doctors' - that is, doctors who have known us and our families for years and are regular visitors to our homes.  I'm sorry, but that just isn't the real world these days.  Many, if not most, of us are registered with multi-partner GP practices and our doctors rarely see us in our home environments.  Yet that's the time when a doctor might just get a fleeting glimpse of whether there are any family attitudes or pressures that might be influencing a request for assistance with suicide.

And then there is the question: where are the doctors to be found who will agree to consider these requests?  A recent poll of 1,000 GPs revealed that only one in seven would be willing to assess a request for 'assisted dying' and to decide whether it met all the criteria.  So anyone seeking this service would be likely to end up in the hands of doctor who had been selected solely for the purpose, who would never have met the patient before and who would have no knowledge of the patient beyond the case notes.

As I have said, even the medical side of these assessments is far from being simple or straightforward.  Yes, doctors are used to diagnosing terminal illness.  But predicting life expectancy is (as Professor Sir Mike Richards, currently Chief Inspector of Hospitals, has said) "fraught with difficulty"[3].  The Royal College of General Practitioners told a select committee in another place a few years ago that, whole it's possible to predict death in terms of days, when predictions are made in weeks or months, the scope for error can extend into years. 

Anyone inclined to doubt this should reflect on the case of Abdel-basset al-Megrahi, who was imprisoned for complicity in the Lockerbie bombing.  He was released from prison in Scotland and repatriated on the basis of a prognosis of three months to live.  He died two and half years later.  Such cases are not at all untypical.

When a terminally-ill doctor is asked by a patient 'how long have I got?', the honest answer is very often along the lines 'it could be three months or it could be twelve months'.  Is that within the terms of the Hon Gentleman's bill or is it not?  The point I'm making, Mr Speaker, is that predicting how long someone has to live isn't like measuring the oil level in your car.  It's more of an art than a science. 

Then there's the question of mental capacity.  Just what is (and I quote from the Hon Gentleman's bill) "the capacity to make the decision to end their own life". 

Capacity is decision-specific - the more serious the decision, the higher the level of capacity required.  A decision to end your life has to be at the top end of any spectrum of gravity and therefore demands a very high bar to be set for determining capacity. 

A doctor who encounters a patient with a suicide wish does not assume that the patient is thinking straight.  He assumes the contrary and takes steps for the patient's protection. Yet the Hon Gentleman's bill requires that capacity should be assumed unless there is evidence to the contrary[4] and it requires referral for psychiatric assessment only in cases of doubt. 

There is a similar provision in Oregon's assisted suicide law, and it has been shown not to work.  Independent research in Oregon has revealed that some people seeking legalised assisted suicide have been supplied with lethal drugs by doctors who failed to spot the presence of clinical depression and failed to refer them to a specialist for treatment.

What we have in the Hon Gentleman's bill, therefore, is not safeguards but simply statements of what ideally should happen.  But simply stating that someone must have a settled wish and mental capacity and be free from coercion won't make it happen - any more than putting up  'please drive carefully' signs will make motorists drive with care.  What are needed are concrete procedures which must be followed in order to ensure that these conditions are met.  But they are not there.

Mr Speaker, I have not so far mentioned the High Court.  Under the Hon Gentleman's bill doctors would decide who did and who didn't meet the criteria for assisted suicide and a judge of the High Court would 'confirm' their decisions.  This may sound reassuring, but in practice it adds little.  The Hon Gentleman's bill does not require the Court to undertake any inquiries of its own in order to confirm the decisions the doctors have made: and it requires the Court to make a decision within just two weeks.   That totally precludes any kind of independent scrutiny.

The High Court does consider cases like this now - for example, requests to withdraw life-support.  But, when it considers such cases, it makes its own inquiries, collects its own expert evidence and makes it own independent decisions.  If we were ever to have an assisted suicide law in this country (and, as I have said, no serious case has been presented that we should), the High Court would probably be most appropriate forum for dealing with such cases.  But it should be the Court alone, and following the Court's procedures - not the hybrid system that is now being proposed, whereby the Court is being asked simply to run a cursory rule over prior decisions by others.

The 'assisted dying' lobby has had years in which to devise proper safeguards but it has sloped shoulders.  It has chosen to rely instead on a law which was passed in an American State very different in character from Britain.  If we were ever to have an assisted suicide law here, it should be a law that learns from the experience of others and is designed around the particular circumstances of this country, not a slavish imitation of a law in a jurisdiction six thousand miles away which has been shown to have significant weaknesses - to which I now turn.

Those who want to see our law changed assure us that Oregon's assisted suicide law is working well and that there have been no cases of abuse or malpractice since it was introduced.  I'm afraid it's not quite like that.  There's no provision in Oregon's law for investigating how requests for assisted suicide are actually being handled.  There is no way of knowing whether careful inquiries are being made into such things as mental capacity or the possibility of unseen pressures or whether requests for assisted suicide are being approved simply on the basis of a consulting room chat.  There's a lot of form-filling involved but no provision for shining a light onto what is actually happening on the ground. 

Ten years ago a select committee of the another place visited Oregon and they asked about this.  They were told, by the equivalent of the Department of Health, that "we are not a regulatory body".  And they were told by the equivalent of our General Medical Council that "we only react to complaints" and that "we don't go out looking for trouble".  So I'm afraid these statements that there has been no abuse of the law in Oregon are little more than wishful thinking.  What we are looking at in Oregon is a closed system. The official reports are simply statistical analyses of how many people have died by legalised assisted suicide, how old they were, what illnesses they had had and so on.  As for what is happening on the ground, they are completely silent.

What we do know, from the official reports and from research, is that the death rate from legalised assisted suicide is rising year by year and that it is now nearly seven times what it was when the law came into force.   What we do know, as I have mentioned already, is that some people with clinical depression have been getting through the net and taking their own lives with legally supplied lethal drugs instead of being referred for treatment.  And we do know there is 'doctor shopping', with many doctors unwilling to have anything to do with assisting suicides and a small number of doctors writing several prescriptions for lethal drugs every year. 

The campaigners here have been telling us for years now that there has been no move to extend Oregon's law.  Well, that's no longer true.  This year the first attempt has been made to extend the six-months-to-live criterion to twelve months.  It may not succeed on this occasion.  But it's inevitable sooner or later - and for a very good reason.

If we look at the criteria that are being proposed for 'assisted dying', such as terminal illness and six months to live, we can see that they are purely arbitrary.  This raises some awkward questions.  For example, if the aim of 'assisted dying' is to relieve suffering, why should it be offered to people who are expected to die of natural causes in the not-too-distant future but not to others - for example, people with long-term illnesses like MS or Parkinsons - who may have years of distress to cope with? 

Or, again, if promoting autonomy is the aim, where does an assisted suicide law leave people who are physically incapable of administering lethal drugs to themselves and whose autonomy could only be met by legalising full-blown euthanasia, as in Holland or Belgium. 

The campaigners deny that they want to go as far as that - and they may well mean what they say.  But the problem is that the boundaries of their law have no basis in rationality and, for that reason, they contain within themselves the seeds of their own extension.  That is what worries many of us who are opposed to legislation of this nature.

Let me quote to you the words of Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, formerly President of the Family Division of the High Court:

"Laws are like nations states", she says.  "They are safer when their boundaries rest on natural frontiers.  The law that we have no rests on just such a natural frontier.  It rests on the principle that we do not involve ourselves in deliberately bringing about the deaths of other people.  Once we start making exceptions to the principles based on arbitrary criteria like terminal illness, that frontier becomes just a line in the sane, easily crossed and hard to defend against encroachment".

So what are we to make of all this?  Let me be clear.  I am not suggesting that taking our own lives can never be justified.  I can envisage highly exceptional circumstances where it might possibly be the right thing to do.  But I have serious reservations about the notion that we should create a licensing system to facilitate it.  I believe our society's view of suicide is a healthy one.  We are not judgemental about it and we treat people who are suicidal with compassion and care.  But we are also clear that suicide isn't something to be encouraged, much less assisted.  As I said earlier, laws are more than just regulatory instruments.  They have to reflect social attitudes.

Which brings me to the subject of opinion polls.  I would not doubt that a majority - possibly a large majority - of people tell opinion pollsters that they would support a change in the law.  But you need to look beyond the banner headlines and read the questions that are asked and at the answers that are given. 

These polls are often sponsored by campaigning groups.  They use gentle-sounding language - like 'assisted dying' instead of assisted suicide and 'medicines' instead of lethal drugs.  They talk of 'strict safeguards', whereas in reality (as we have seen) there are no safeguards, just vaguely-worded conditions. 

And the results of these polls are often publicised in a selective manner.  For example, a recent poll of GPs, to which I have referred earlier, revealed that only one in seven would be prepared to make an assessment of whether someone seeking assisted suicide met all the criteria.  But you won't find any mention of that in the publicity that surrounded the poll.

Public opinion supported going to war in 1914.  It favoured appeasement in the 1930s.  Today polls often show support for such causes as bringing back hanging, banning immigration and leaving the European Union.  Opinion polls have their value: they show what a cross section of people say they think, at a given time and response to specific questions.  But on their own they do not form a valid basis for legislation, especially where (as here) life-or-death issues are involved.

And what about medical opinion?  Doctors are, after all, members of the public.  And they would be in the front line if the Hon Gentleman's bill were to be passed.  They, and their professional bodies, are opposed to legalisation.  Surveys of medical opinion show that around two thirds of all doctors do not want to see an assisted suicide law.  Among those who specialise in treating and caring for the dying over 80 per cent are opposed.  They also show that only one in seven GPs would agree to participate in assisting patients' suicides.  Among specialists in end of life care the figure is less than one in twenty.

When I was young, Mr Speaker, there was a lot of debate about another issue - abolishing the death penalty.  Parliament abolished hanging in the 1960s - though public opinion was very divided on the subject.  One of the reasons it did so was that, just occasionally and despite careful legal process, there were tragic mistakes.  Yet the risk of error here is hugely greater. 

For all these reasons, Mr Speaker, I cannot support the Hon Gentleman's bill.  I have no doubt it is well-intended.  It might possibly give some terminally-ill people what they say they want.  But my concern is for the vulnerable majority.  There can scarcely be a more vulnerable group of people than those who are facing dying.  A terminal diagnosis can be a shattering experience.  Most terminally ill people are not the strong-willed and clear-headed individuals who step out of the pages of this and similar 'assisted dying' bills.  They are often struggling to make sense of what is happening to them and to come to terms with their mortality, they can veer from hope to despair and back again and they may have unspoken concerns about the impact their illness is having on those around them.  They need our protection, they need help to live and to die in peace and with dignity - not to be handed the medical equivalent of a loaded gun.

Montgomeryshire Landscapes Saved

In 2005, the Welsh Labour Govt decided on a policy of building a huge number of wind farms in Mid Wales. It was claimed that this was because Mid Wales is a windy place. My view was that the  Labour Assembly Govt at the time was uncaring about landscape, and uncaring about mid Wales. I vowed to do what I could to stop it. It took ten years. 

What has angered me most has been the deception. We were not being told a new 400kv power line would be needed - a line dedicated to wind farms, which would mean another 500 turbines as well as the pylons. Peter Ogden of the CPRW explained all this to me in 2005. Horrified I was. Even 3 years ago, First Minister, Carwyn Jones was publicly claiming the line would not be needed. And when he capitulated to the developers, and changed his mind, he tried telling us the line was needed to support the economy. 

Anyway, after all sorts of angst and despair, protests and marches, we ended up years later with a conjoined public inquiry into 5 wind farms and a new 32kv line from Kerry to Welshpool. Today, the Secretary of State refused permission for 4 wind farms and the 32kv power line. And the one wind farm she did approve looks dead in the water. Now that is one hell of a result.

I should feel vindicated and happy. But I don't. So much customers money has been wasted - probably £20 million by National Grid alone. The Council has spent £2million to defend their decisions Communities have been divided. The farming industry has been divided. Families too. People have contacted me, terrified by National Grid heavies. Scottish Power has blown a stack of money as well. It's been like something out of a horror film, where the world is taken over by some alien force.

Today, I sense it's the end of this nightmare. We have a UK Govt which puts a value on landscape. Mid Wales is not just a dumping ground. We have saved the wondrous land we Montgomeryshire folk call home. We will pass it on to the next generation - the legacy our predecessors passed on to us. For me today has been a great day. Rejoice my friends, Rejoice.

Military Action in Syria ?

BBC Wales rang me earlier tonight asking whether I'd 'appear' on Good Morning Wales tomorrow to discuss the issue of a involvement of British forces in Syria. In particular, whether I support the proposition.
I do not know. The Prime Minister would have to make the case to MPs, and it would have to be very persuasive. We can all see the current position is a nonsense - where it's permissible to peruse enemy bombers up to the Syrian border, but not be able to pursue any further. I feel rather as I suspect the Prime minister feels. He will need a cast iron persuasive case, with cross party support before he seeks authority from MPs, following the fiasco last time.

I recall well the last time. I had left for Westminster expecting to vote against my Govt for the first time. I could not support military action at that stage. I could not see how a military strike against Bashar al-Assad's forces in Damascus would help a very fraught situation. But when the motion was put before us, I was content to support. It was, in effect, condemning Assad, declaring a will to intervene, but requiring another vote of MPs before action could be taken. This left the door open for the Prime Minister to return with a clearer strategy - which we may or may not have backed. 

Ed Miliband decided to play politics. The Prime Minister thought he had his agreement, but Miliband decided to divide the House with his own motion. It was the day I thought he demonstrated his unfitness for the office of Prime Minister. In the end, MPs threw both the Prime Minister and Miliband's motions out. MPs simply turned their backs on what was happening in Syria. The mass ranks of dead children, gassed by Assad's chemical weapons had no impact. The chamber was stunned. Must admit I was utterly appalled. The context may look different today, but those scars were deep. I don't want another vote like that one, which I thought shamed Parliament. Any action needs careful thought and cross party support. There would never be unity amongst the population on this issue, but as a minimum, it would need the new Labour Leader to be supportive.

Anyway, turned my opinions are not of any consequence. Hadn't heard my phone above the noise of the mulcher. They had found someone else by the time I rang back! Luckily perhaps !

Honey Bees

This post may be of interest to readers who love bees. I hope there are some. I've spent some time on research. I am very fond of bees. My great uncle, Will Lloyd kept bees. If I'd lost my role representing Montgomeryshire last May, I would have joined the retiring Bill Turnbull as a bee farmer. This post is an introduction to discussion on the ban on neonicotinoids, which has inspired a deluge of emails, and much misinformation. My effort to spread a little factually correct information.

Bees have been in decline for decades. We do not know why but the reasons being put forward include weather, pests, parasites, neonicitinoids, loss of food source and other reasons (unknown).

In Dec 2013, the EU introduced a ban on three neonicotinoids (sprays) on the basis that they may be a contributory factor. The UK did not support the ban, not accepting that evidence justified it. However, the UK has accepted the ban and fully complied with it. Over the last two years, the EU has carried out large scale field trials, to help with a review of the ban in Dec 2015, as was always intended. The ban remains in place, and has not been overturned.

There was always the right for any member state to put forward a case for a limited derogation from the ban, normally for a specific area for a specific period. Several states have sought and been granted derogations, including the UK  (in 4 counties) and other member states which supported the ban in 2013. This is how it was anticipated that the ban would operate.

If there is evidence that neonicotinoids are a threat to bees, I would support a ban. So would the good folk at Defra. I'm not sure such evidence exists. Also, there has been no new approach to this by the new UK Govt. The points to make are 1) there has been no overturning of the ban 2) the UK has fully complied with the ban and 3) decisions have been made by independent committees. This is not the impression being given in the deluge of emails I am receiving.

How best to help refugees

Having lots of emails from constituents, calling for the Govt to allow more Syrian refugees to enter the UK. They all insist such a step would help alleviate the suffering of those desperate people seeking to move to EU countries from Syria, Eritrea, Libya, Nigeria, Afghanistan, etc.. Let's just consider this proposition. I was rather in favour of the UK taking in some Syrian refugees when it first became a major subject of public debate a year ago. And been disappointed that we have taken in so few. I admit my view was influenced by what I saw as MPs turning their backs on Syrian refugees when we ruled out any consideration of action against Bashar-al Assad a year ago. We knew the Syrian dictator was inflicting unimaginable horrors on his own people, killing children indiscriminately in the most violent ways, including gassing them in acts of genocididal mass slaughter. 

I took some criticism at the time for saying we should take in 15000 'Christian refugees' who seemed to be under particular threat. Not meant to suggest Christians were more valued than any other refugees. I was just responding in the context that Christians seemed to be singled out for persecution in many parts of our world. The negative response to my public support to take in refugees certainly made me wary of making any comment on the crisis since - probably not the response my critics would have wanted! The level of public interest has reached such a level that I'm venturing more comment. I also acknowledge that my view was as much about making me feel better about myself and my country and would have been a minuscule response to the massive humanitarian crisis a year ago. If anything it's worsened, certainly in terms of populations on the move.

As the crisis has developed over the last year, I have considered whether allowing significant numbers of refugees into European countries could actually make the problem worse. In two ways. Firstly it strengthens the siren calls of the evil people traffickers who have moved in to offer safe passage to EU countries, when the passage is anything but safe -and in many cases a roadway to death. And secondly it removes those who are often the most able and entrepreneurial people from their home areas - the very people who will at some stage be needed to rebuild.

What has nauseated me most has been the behaviour of the media over the last couple of weeks. We have been inundated with anti-migrant headlines for years. During the election, it was the top issue, even in Montgomeryshire, driven in part by media frenzy. For the whole of last week, there was one subject leading the news - the failure of the Govt to bring down net immigration. I did point this out in an interview on Radio Wales this week about comments made by the Home Secretary suggesting only allowing  migrants to move to the UK if they had a job. The reporting confused economic migrants with refugees (and it's the latter that lose out).

The events of last few days has not changed my original view. The British people want a significant number of refugees to be allowed into our country to settle. While I'm not convinced it will improve the position overall, I do think it's worth allowing say 15000 to move here - though I make no suggestion how they should be chosen. It may help. It's almost impossible to decide what to do for the best. I just think the British people want to do something to help beyond the magnificent work the UK Govt has been doing supporting refugees near their home countries (which is where the solution lies). Anyway, I do think we should allow some to come in.

Where now with Renewables subsidies.

I've never enjoyed saying "I told you so". Actually, the thought usually annoys me. That's how I feel reading through DECC's newly published 'Consultation on Feed-in-Tariffs'. Arising out of my noisy opposition to National Grid's Mid Wales Connection Project, I've warned about cost of subsidies for renewables running out of control for years. So let's start with this aspect of the debate.

In 2010, the Coalition Govt decided to go big on promoting renewables. It put in place two major schemes to subsidise it - Renewables Obligations and Feed-in-Tariffs (for small scale dev'ts). A generous budget was granted, paid for by energy users. This budget (or Levy Control Framework) was to protect consumers - set at what was thought a very generous £7.6bn up to 2020/21. The OBR claim that £9.1bn is already committed. Amber Rudd, has an office with a big desk and an empty cupboard. Wasn't  difficult to see coming. Irresponsible is understatement.

Now we are faced with potential massive disruption of all the technologies dependent on Feed-in-Tariffs. Huge reduction in subsidy levels are proposed, until scheme is ended in 2018/19. A cap of £75m-£100m is being put on the FiTs total over those three yrs. Daresay that much has been spent on the idiotic proposals to cover mid Wales in wind farms. And if it looks as if this cap is too small, (which it will be) the scheme be completely ended in January. I was quite shocked to read the consultation document, even it was giving voice to the warnings of some of us over recent years. 

Its not good news in those areas where new businesses have developed to supply the renewables sector. Parts of my constituency, Montgomeryshire will inevitably see loss of business and jobs. I've always been a fan of PV solar in particular, which is now to suffer a major setback. Grieves me to think of all the money committed to wind farms. I'm bound to be criticised, despite all of my warnings of what would happen - the inevitable collision when DECC ran into the buffers of financial reality.

Jonah Lomu. True Great. Man and Player.

In all other aspects of life, I love the English. They are my friends, my colleagues, often my inspiration. But I am a passionate Welshman and rugby player (ex). Whenever I see the red rose on a white shirt in the vacinity of an oval ball, a mist envelops me with an overwhelming desire to see the English vanquished, crushed even. Oh the joy of recalling Scott Gibbs dancing through the defence, Henson's mighty winning kick, Jamie Roberts galloping through the demoralised English to win the Chamionship by 30-3. But nothing will ever top Jonah Lomu in the 1995 semi final. I stood stunned before our TV as Jonah ran through Underwood, Catt and Andrew as if they were mere cardboard cut outs.

I've always liked the idea of New Zealand. Where we have England, they have the brash Aussies. We have had Gareth Edwards, JPR and George North. They have had McCaw, Carter, the mighty Meads, and so many others. And then there's Lomu. Something else. Jim White wrote a lovely piece about him in yesterday's Telegraph. Lomu did those great things while suffering kidney disease. Just imagine what he could have done if 100% fit.
I met Jonah socially. Well sort of. When I recovered my feet after a lower bowel re-section, removing my bowel, other bits and cancerous tumour, in 2002, aged 58, I decided I wanted to play rugby again. Decided to start a Welsh Parliamentary XV to take on the world. Needed some publicity. Jonah, who was playing for Cardiff agreed to let the BBC film him coaching me in scrumaging tactics. He was huge, and gentle, and polite. Two men recovered and playing again. I was in awe. 
Our rugby was sort of similar (in style rather than standard). Big men who ran fast, and through opponents rather than around them. We both became wingers by accident - put there because no- one else was available, and proved difficult to stop. I was a big winger in the 1960s.
Jonah Lomu has always suffered renal disease. He's had a kidney transplant in 2004. Things went wrong in 2011, and he needs another transplant. He's on dialysis until a new kidney is found. During the World Cup he's touring the country speaking and visiting dialysis units. If he were to come to visit the Welshpool unit, a thousand wild buffalo would not keep me away. I really must write to him tomorrow. A truly great player. And great man.

Immigration

There is no issue more controversial at present than immigration. It's been so for many years, but today's net immigration into the UK over the last year has poured petrol on the fire. It's an issue distorting British politics and is set to continue.

During the six weeks before the General Election, a team of my supporters knocked on thousands of Montgomeryshire doors. Our avowed aim was to coax voters into telling us what they thought were the important issues. I wanted to know their concerns, and understand. It would be good in the event of my being re-elected.

I was surprised indeed by the response. Very few were concerned about our NHS and schools. As I had expected, and had focused on in my campaign literature. In second place was concern about an over-generous benefit system. But in first place, by a long way, was concern about immigration. I admit to being quite taken aback.  Even in Montgomeryshire, where immigration is comparatively low, there was a widespread concern that too many migrants are coming into the UK.

Since May the scale of immigration has increased further. Today we learn that in the year up to March, net migration has reached the astonishing highest ever level of 330,000 - up 94,000. It's become a serious concern right across the EU. And it's increasing. Thousands of people are being picked up in the Med every day off the coast of Italy. Thousands are arriving in Greece every day. Germany expects 800,000 refugees this year. It's the same all over Europe. And the reality is that once all these migrants become established, EU rules based on the fundamental principle of the free movement of people across EU borders mean they can settle anywhere in Europe, including Britain.

Some people campaign to have all, or at least a significant number of these migrants/refugees to be allowed into the UK. There are two million Syrian refugees - displaced by an evil regime that Parliament decided last September should be allowed to continue its brutal attacks on its own people. If we were to open our borders, where on earth would they all go? What would happen to our schools and health services? What would happen to wage levels, which have only recently started to rise again? 

There are no easy answers. Next year or in 2017 there will be a referendum on whether we should remain members of the EU. Unless the huge numbers of migrants into the EU is brought under control. Voters may well link immigration with being in the European Union. I really can see the British people voting to leave the EU altogether. It's not just in Montgomeryshire this issue is a major concern. I suspect it's of far greater concern in many other parts of the UK.

Assisted Suicide - putting less value on life of the vulnerable

In general, I take but little notice of letters to newspapers. But I was pleased to read a good letter signed by 89 doctors is today's Telegraph warning about the dangers involved in legalising assisted suicide. It goes some way to balance the determined campaign by a lobbying group known as Dignity in Dying, which has been running a massive campaign for many years to change the law to make helping someone kill themselves legal. I fiercely disagree with this campaign.
On September 11th, there will be a debate in the House of Commons on a Private Member's Bill introduced by Labour MP, Rob Marris. MPs will be deciding whether to approve it at Second Reading, allowing it to go into Committee. I hope to speak in this debate and try to persuade my colleagues to throw this dangerous, misguided bill out.
The Marris Bill, like other attempts to change the law to make assisted suicide legal promoted by Lord Falconer and others puts a lesser value on the lives of the most vulnerable - the seriously disabled, the frail elderly, the severely mentally ill and the terminally ill. Society rightly disapproves of suicide, but according to the Bill's promoters it should disapprove less in respect of these vulnerable groups. Inevitably, legalisation will lead to  the normalisation of suicide, and self-imposed pressure to end life. Over the last few weeks we have seen much publicised reports of individuals ending their lives simply because they do not want to be old.

It is true that as a society, we have not given enough attention to managing death - not remotely enough attention to palliative care. We invest too much in prolonging life, and not enough in making the passage from life to death more comfortable. The most vulnerable do not have a loud voice.
Legalising assisted suicide would change the relationship between doctor and patient. It would conflict with the doctor's 'duty of care' and responsibility to discourage suicide. It's no surprise to me that most doctors oppose this Bill.

 I have always opposed proposals to help people kill themselves being made legal. It can be dressed up in emotive language about an individual's 'right to die', focussing on tragic 'hard cases'. Individuals already have the 'right to die'. What they don't have is the right to involve someone else in helping them.
I really do hope that MPs will kick the Marris Bill into touch on Sept 11th. I believe they will. It will be one of the most important debates of this Parliament.

Labour Pains

This is (I think) the first time since becoming a representative of the Conservative Party that I have ever openly expressed disagreement with the leadership choices of another party. Even though I thought Labour should have gone with David Miliband and the Lib Dems with Norman Lamb, I thought it was a matter for them. But as it becomes ever more likely that Labour will choose Jeremy Corbyn, I am departing from this approach. This post expresses my astonishment if this comes to pass, and deep concern about the future of the United Kingdom.
I don't know Jeremy Corbyn. I see him in the Commons of course. He seems genial, unassuming and polite. Bit disconnected from his own party, which he rarely seems to support. Think of him alongside Diane Abbott, Dennis Skinner and a few others - but lacking the charisma. Never seen anything that can be described as a leadership quality.  I suspect he would agree with and approve of this assessment.
But he's not seeking to lead some campaigning organisation, or think tank, or collection of self-regarding academics writing a letter to the Times, or the Monster Raving Loony Party. He wants to lead the Official Opposition in the British Parliament, where he would become a major figure on the world stage. He would have access to confidential information, and help shape the world's view of Britain.
No significant country will take Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Opposition in the UK Parliament seriously. He will oppose any military action by Britain, no matter what the cause. He even opposed saving the Kosovans from genocide. He would advocate withdrawal from NATO. He would campaign to nationalise much of British industry, and return power and influence to the trades unions.   He would let our National Debt rocket. He would not respect our Parliamentary traditions, particularly those related to The Monarchy.
Even at this late stage, I hope the Labour Party, will draw back from stepping over the edge into an abyss of uncertainty. It may seem a jolly good jape to kick the 'establishment' up the backside. But there in possible way a Jeremy Corbyn victory can end well.

UKIP and Welsh Assembly

If UKIP did not publish a single leaflet, or issue a single press release, I'd expect the party to do quite well in next year's Welsh Assembly elections. They won't win any 'constituency seats', but the additional member PR system is likely to deliver a few 'regional member' seats. As watching the party's election guru in Wales, Mark Reckless, on TV today, I conclude that the biggest threat to a decent UKIP result is the party itself. I just cannot see how a man of Kent, about as unWelsh as you can imagine, crossing Offa's Dyke to tell us how we should vote will help at all.

But two aspects of the Reckless comments this morning caught my ear, both about devolution of income tax powers. Firstly, he spoke about an emerging consensus that a significant part of income tax will be devolved without a referendum. Well, I didn't know there was an emerging consensus. I've been in favour of this step for years, and have seen my position on this as being a lonely place. But the right place. Such a step would be transformative, making the Welsh Govt financially accountable, and would end the democracy destroying 'one party state' we suffer so much from in Wales. I realise that UKIP want there to be a consensus to 'legitimise' the anti establishment vote they desperately need. It just that I do not think there is one - yet.

The second aspect of the UKIP approach is to interpret the granting of income tax powers as the same  thing as raising income tax. It is not. Very definitely not. I would argue the only change to benefit Wales would be to reduce the top rate, bringing higher earning people into Wales (to pay more tax!). But the reality doesn't matter. It's perception that counts. Only reason there's support for a referendum (yet another) is that it can be interpreted as 'the Welsh Govt putting up your taxes'. Cobblers of course.  This morning we saw how it will be used. It's no more than a 'blocking mechanism' by those who are still fighting the 1997 referendum. I think it was rather helpful to see the strategy exposed so early in the run up to the Wales Bill. Feeling confident I could be on the winning side on this come the debate next year.

British Politics - three pronged madness.

Was relaxing with a glass of wine tonight, contemplating British politics. How mad and sad is that? Well, it's  not as mad as the politics I'm mad to be thinking about. I got to be thinking about  what are the most mad happenings of recent years. Here's my top three contenders.

In third place I put the demise of the Liberal Democrats. If I had been in discussion with David Dimbleby  at 10.00pm on election night, I too would have offered to eat my hat if the exit poll, just published, were to be correct. The prediction that the Lib Dems would drop to 10 seats was idiotic. Turned out to be  an over-estimate! They won just 8 seats. Truly astonishing.

In second place I put the transformation of Scottish politics. How on earth did the SNP win 56 out of 59 Scottish seats in the General Election. Such things do not happen. But it did happen. My old Labour mate on the Gardening APPG, Brian Donahoe went into the election with a massive majority, and lost with a massive deficit. Not seen anything like it before. Surely nothing could top this.

But the election of a Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Labour Party would top everything. Labour are electing the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, the person who will debate with David Cameron at the Despatch Box, their leader at the 2020 election. And it very much looks as if the Labour membership are going to elect Jeremy Corbyn. I'm tempted to say I'll eat my (marzipan) hat if he wins. But he is the favorite. It looks to me as if the Labour Party has completely lost it's marbles.

None of these will last of course. The Lib Dems will recover, the SNP will fall back and Jeremy Corbyn would crash and burn well before 2020. I could be lining up marzipan hats to eat.
And who would have thought that the emergence of Ukip would not make my top three. I do think UKIP will perform quite well in the Welsh Assembly elections, but will wither like an unwatered tomato plant after the EU referendum. If they win more than one seat in 2020 that's another hat to eat!

Church of St Mary's at Llanllugan

Wanted to write a totally innocuous post, devoid of any possible opportunity to cause offence or controversy - a post where readers will think nicely of me!  I'm a tough old character, but I've had enough of being abused for a day or two. Simply for having an opinion. Decided to pick on the Church of St Mary's at Llanllugan. It's one of those hidden away little gems buried deep in the Montgomeryshire countryside. I had not appreciated it's historical interest myself until tonight. What's prompted this is the honour and pleasure I took from opening a fete tonight in nearby Cefn Coch to held to raise funds to maintain what is a modest structure but with a great back story.

I've been checking up on the internet. First record of a place of worship on this site involved Llorcan Wyddel in the 6th century. The next recorded significant development was a Cisterian nunnery founded about 1188 by Maredydd ap Robert, Lord of Cedewain - linked to Strata Marcella. It was recorded as the Abbey of Llanllugan in 1239. The current church was built a bit later. This is a very long time ago. It's much older than the Palace of Westminster, even the version that was burnt down. Not many places have this sort of recorded history.

And it's also recorded that Glynne visited the Church in 1867. Don't know exactly what Glynne did there. Well, another Glyn opened the fete tonight, which I should think raised a fair sum of money to help with upkeep. Really good turn-out. Mixture of locals and visitors. Events like tonight's make this MP's political life a real pleasure. And I reached this last line without mentioning any controversial intrusive modern structures alien to this lovely area around Cefn Coch!!

Shropshire NHS Reform -An Update

Knew it was coming of course. But still a major disappointment. The Shropshire Future Fit Board has today decided to abandon any idea of a new 'Emergency Care' hospital on a green field site between Shrewsbury and Telford. Just too expensive. The option I've been dreaming of has fallen off the edge.

The reality now is that, basically, there are two proposals left on the table - changing the Royal Shrewsbury into an 'emergency centre' and the Princess Royal at Telford into a 'Diagnostic and Treatment Centre' Or the other way around. There will also be an Urgent Care Centre and some local planned care at both hospitals. Either way, it's inevitable there will be a lesser range of services available at both hospitals. Not necessarily an overall poorer service in my view. But deeply concerning just the same. I have no option but support this reform. There is no alternative if we are to retain a sustainable hospital service available to Shropshire and Mid Wales into the future.

The Future Fit Board's 'preferred final option' will be announced in 7 weeks time. The formal consultation will begin end of December. Importantly, a full business case will be prepared for each option before the formal consultation. This will conclude before Assembly election purdah, and the final decision announced next May.

Two other important issues yet to be decided. Firstly, will the amazing new Women's and Children's Hospital remain in Telford or be moved to Shrewsbury. And secondly, what network of Urgent Care Centres will be developed across Shropshire.

Major interest for me, and everyone else in Montgomeryshire is what is going to happen our side of Offa's Dyke. The retention of an Urgent Care Centre at Bishops Castle is especially significant. It's most odd. Big decision been taken today in Shropshire, about future health care in Montgomeryshire, and almost no- one seems to be engaged with the debate.

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.