Backing Regional Aid

The decision by Nissan to build two new models in Sunderland has produced some what seem to me to be illogical attitudes amongst some of those who comment on my Facebook page - based on misconceptions of reality (past and present). Let's list a few. Firstly, that we should know exactly what discussions have taken place between Government and Nissan. Secondly, that the same terms, whatever they are, should be available to all. (this one is particularly misguided). And thirdly a local complaint that as a result of Govt policy, young people are leaving rural Wales in "droves". 

It would take too long to cover all aspects, but I can share some of my own experience, which in itself offers a reasonable rebuttal. I think so anyway. 

I left a small comprehensive school (Llanfair Caereinion HS), aged 16, to work on the family farm. Not a big farm, but a good little livestock rearing business which my parents had worked hard to build up from scratch over 16 years. My father died young, and I took over the farm. Aged 30ish began taking an interest in local politics.

I was much influenced by the opportunities (lack of) for my classmates when I'd left school and also, the dire state of the local economy. There were very few quality jobs available. Anyone academically minded had to leave for work. If continuing in education, they had to leave for university. They still do but it's not anything like so difficult to find good jobs locally today. Let's look at what's changed.

When I was young, the population of Montgomeryshire had fallen over recent decades - as rural based work had become mechanised. The population of Montgomeryshire, which had been well over 60,000, had fallen to a low of about 36,000. The economic prospects were so bleak that Govt contemplated building a new town of 65,000 people in the Severn Valley, incorporating Newtown and Caersws. Prospects for young people were so bad, I supported this crazy idea. Won my first bardic chair with an essay championing this plan. Very sensibly the Govt of the time decided against, but did establish a new town corporation to double the size of Newtown and established the Development Board for Rural Wales to promote economic dev't across Mid Wales. Now here's the relevant point. All this activity involved giving a business advantage to anyone establishing or expanding in Mid Wales. That's what regional aid involves. I was much in support of it. I still am, where it strengthens the economy of disadvantaged areas. That's why I welcome Gov'ts work with Nissan to agree it's massive investment in Sunderland. 

I find it difficlt to understand anyone who is not very pleased about the Nissan decision. Sec of State, Greg Clark went out to Japan to help develop a trusting relationship. I do not want to know what the discussion involved. I do assume it was consistent with state aid rules. It's the best form of regional policy I can think of. As well as being brilliant news in itself, it demonstrates the flexibility and agility the UK is capable of. It's great long term news for international investment in the UK, as well as a huge short term boost to the North East.

Nissan - Fantastic News.

Sometimes I despair of the negative discussion environment surrounding unalloyed good news stories. This week Nissan announced that it is to build not one, but two new models (the Qashqai and the X-Trail) in the UK. From every angle this is fantastic news indeed. It secures 7000 jobs in Sunderland, an area where these jobs are particularly valued. It is a massive boost to the automotive industry in the UK. It will deliver jobs over a much wider area through component suppliers. And it announces to the world that the UK is open for business. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that yesterday's announcement is anything but a huge success for the UK.

Ah but wait. Out come those who are determined to rubbish any good economic news, lest it challenge their own narrative that the UK economy is crashing following the EU Referendum vote to leave the EU. They just can't believe it. What on earth can Nissan be thinking about. Most shockingly of all, they give the impression that they would prefer to have seen Nissan announce they were going to build the new models outside of the UK. I can just about imagine the queue of 'remainers' outside the BBC studios wanting to denounce those who voted Leave if this had been the case.

Of course, these criticisms have to carefully packaged, in questions that suggest some questionable secret deal has been done. Matters not that Secretary of State, Greg Clark, who visited Japan last week, has said "No deal, no compensation, nothing about tariffs". No matter that the Nissan spokesman has said "No special deal. Expect nothing the rest of the industry would not have access to. We see this as a whole industry thing, not a Nissan thing." They seem to want every detail of every conversation to be made public. 

So happens I've done a bit in the 'inward investment' field myself - including visiting Japan. Still recall being despatched to distant capitals as part of Wales diplomatic efforts. Didn't enjoy the travelling much, and didn't make much publicity of it. It was a sort of quiet diplomacy. The transformation of the Welsh economy in the 1980s and 1990s was built on inward investment - exercised through the Welsh Development Agency and Development Board for Rural Wales. Much of the success was built on trust. No more so that in Japan does mutual trust count.  Hugely important that Greg Clark went to Japan to meet Nissan. That visit would have generated great mutual trust. The biggest investment in Montgomeryshire over the last year has been the purchase by Nidec of Control Techniques in Newtown. Another deal struck post Brexit.

Yesterday's announcement by Nissan was fantastic news, in every possible way. We should be cheering from the rooftops, not carping from the sidelines. Actually, that's what most British people will be doing.

Climate Change - Following the evidence.

Two weeks ago, I attended the 2016 GWPF (Global Warming Policy Forum) lecture at The Royal Society by Matt Ridley. My attendance, in itself was enough to draw down upon my head bucketfuls of contemptuous ire. The problem is that both the GWPF and Matt Ridley are open minded about the scale of dangerous global warming, and the appropriate public policy response to it. To many of those involved in what I will refer to to as the 'green' lobby, (and this is not meant to be disparaging) no right thinking person should even listen to any view other than that the world is facing catastrophe unless we make massive cuts to carbon emissions. We are simply told that the science is settled. There must be no further debate. My attending the Ridley lecture was akin to attending a meeting of devil worshippers intent on sacrificing virgins. Well, I think it's wise to listen to 'alternative' thinkers. Turned out it was a very good lecture. And thought provoking.

Matt Ridley began his lecture by telling us he agreed that we are experiencing a degree of global warming, and that he accepts the scientific consensus - which is that global warming is real, but not necessarily dangerous. There are several scenarios, ranging from harmless to catastrophic, according to the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), with the extreme predictions of dangerous climate change being very unlikely. That's not too far from what I think. But being instinctively a cautious man, I tend to lean towards the opinion that we should decarbonise as quickly as we reasonably can.

First part of the lecture was about the extent of 'global greening' - the degree to which vegetation covers the face of the earth. I've not considered this as I should have done. We all know that more carbon dioxide makes plants grow more quickly. Indeed I'm told some glasshouse growers maintain high CO2 environments to encourage growth. Matt Ridley claims there has been a huge growth in global greening over recent decades, which he further claims is the result of higher levels of CO2. This seems highly credible to me. There was a whole lot more as well.

I'm not a scientist, and have no wish to enter into any sort of debate about the science. Neither do I feel competent to judge most of the speech, though I did find it informed and interesting. What I do find really interesting, and the inspiration for this post is that I do not think Government policy should be based on a partial view of science. I like to make judgements based on evidence. So often, I hear the greatest advocates of action to limit climate change as dismissive of any questioning. It's a mistake. In the end, governments the world over will be guided by evidence - or science delivered as evidence. I think Matt Ridley deserves to be listened to. At least his speech to the GWPF deserves to be read.

Fight to save Montgomeryshire

Currently, a review of parliamentary constituencies across the UK is underway. In Wales, boundary commissioners have published their first draft of what they feel should be the parliamentary constituencies in the 2020 general election in Wales. A final decision is expected in time for Parliamentary approval in October 2018. In my experience, very few of my constituents are aware of the detail about what is happening, or the history which has led up to the current position, or what that current position actually is. The sad reality is that Parliamentary democracy as we know it is being emasculated in Mid Wales, with scarsely a murmur if dissent.

 So I invited Montgomeryshire's Town and Commiunity Councils (and County Councillors) to join me for a sort of 'seminar' last week. A few came along, and we had a good general discussion. I'd hoped more might come. The Montgomeryshire Conservative Association even provided refreshment, even though it was not a political meeting. I tried to be as non-opinionated as I could be, not a rule that applied to my guests of course. They could say what they wanted. They did. I've run through the history in a previous blog post, so here's just a brief summery of the background.

It began in 2009, following the 'Expenses Scandal'. Political parties competed to be the most beastly to future MPs, including cutting their number. The voting public was rather pleased about this approach. The Conservatives (led by new boy, David Cameron) made a manifesto promise to reduce the 650 MPs to 585, while the Lib Dems (then a force in the land) made a manifesto promise to cut to just 500. In the event, neither party won a majority. So in May 2010, the two parties formed a Coalition Government - and announced in its 'Programme for Government' that there would be a reduction in the number of MPs of 8% - from 650 to 600.

In 2011 the Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Act was passed, taken through the Parliamentary process in a resolute determined way by the then Lib Dem leader and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg. Not only did this Act reduce number of MPs to 600, it legislated to allow only a 5% difference in electorate of each of these 600 constituencies, eliminating the historic over-representation of Welsh MPs at the same time. The intention was that these new boundaries would be in place for the 2015 election, but in Sept 2013, this was scuppered when the House of Lords successfully inserted a 5 yr delay.

The proposals for Wales assume the number of Welsh MPs falling from 40 to 29, and each electorate being approximately 72,000-78,000. The poor old Welsh boundary commissioners had little choice but to carve up Mid Wales to make the numbers work elsewhere. And that's where we are today. Last Thursday we awere considering the first attempt to carve us up!  I just do not think many people know all this. Which is why I invited Council reps to come for a chat about it.

Interesting meeting. All agreed with the input I'd had into the Welsh Conservative official response - moving Llanidloes and Blaen Hafren back into the South Powys Seat, and moving Forden/Berriew into the North Montgomeryshire and Clwyd South seat. But I accept this is 'tinkering at the edges'. Some wanted to go further, and challenge the proposals wholesale, launching a fight to retain a Central Powys constituency (Montgomeryshire/Radnorshire). I said I thought this is tantamount to opposing the 2011 Act. At the personal level,I would love to see this approach succeed. 

Surpringly, some of the Councils most affected by the changes did not turn up, which was a bit disappointing. They probably have other forums to discuss these changes. But there were a few seasoned campaigners there, who do not intend to go quietly. So I expect we will hear more of this. Expect updates.

Motor Neurone Disease.

Was thinking what I should write about for my fortnightyly column in the Oswestry and Borders column earlier this week. Wanted to move away from Brexit or Wales Bill. So I went for Motor Nuerone Disease. I am president of the Montgomeryshire branch of MND. 

Politicians become involved in a broad range of issues, some specific to the constituency, some of national and international significance, but some based on personal experience and interest. Some interests are born of chance. Several of my broader interests revolve around ill health and social care. As examples, last week I sponsored a 2 hour meeting of RESEC (Research into Specialist Elderly Care) in Parliament. And this week, I joined a highly successful reception held near Westminster Abbey by the Motor Neurone Disease Society. 

Motor Neurone Disease is very cruel. It is fatal, attacking nerves in the brain and spinal cord. It leaves people living with MND locked in a failing body, progressively unable to talk, or move and finally unable to breathe. The disease effects up to 5000 people in the UK at any one time. About six per day die of MND. I have been president of the Montgomeryshire branch of MND for many years now. Our aim is to raise awareness of the disease and campaign to support those living with MND and fund research into finding a cure.

This week's reception was to highlight concerns, designed to influence Government. Government Minister, Penny Mourdant, joined us as a key speaker. There are two issues causing concern at present. Firstly there is the requirement for those with MND to undergo regular re-assessment for welfare support. Been a bone of contention for years with people living with degenerative conditions. They are not going to get better. Re-assessment is pointless. The Government has announced it intends to legislate to exempt progressive diseases from the need for re-assessment. This must apply to MND. It's a disease without a cure. It's a slope which leads only one way.

The second big concern is the Government’s intention to devolve social care payments to local authorities or in the case of Wales, to the Welsh Government. I must admit I support this, though it will inevitably lead to variable standards of service. To argue against this is to argue against devolving powers from central government. But it is an issue needing further discussion.

I particularly enjoyed meeting Prof Jane Hawking at the reception. She was married to the brilliant scientist, Stephen Hawkins for 26 years. I felt that I knew her already, having watched The Theory of Everything, the film based on her book outlining her experience, as a nurse, Carter and wife. She may not look like the actress who played her in the film, Felicity Jones. But she still exudes the intensity and strength, based on her faith, which enabled her to cope with the extraordinary pressures that MND meant for her as well as her husband. 

It was a good event, arranged by dedicated people. I hope Govt listens to what they say.

"Making your mind up"

Bucks Fizz do it their way. I do it 'My way'- and so does Boris. The process of developing opinion is an individual thing. My way is never trust instant decisions. Think about the question, consider the options, discuss with others, then decide. First instinct is of course a part of this. Even after all that, I sometimes change my mind. I don't like to be rushed. That's what I think Boris Johnon did before coming out in favour of backing the UK leaving the EU. Actually, I thought we all knew that. Hasn't stopped the BBC running this total non-news story as their lead today. I suppose it feeds into the Beeb's refusal to accept the referendum result.

Now let's turn to the much lesser fish, the MP for Montgomeryshire. My instinct was Leave, having voted 'Out' in 1975. Accepted the vote then and worked in several positions to ensure the EU delivered benefit for Wales. Was fiercely opposed to us joining the Euro though - where we were saved by Gordon Brown. I was not enthusiastic about the EU Referendum. Perhaps naively, I believe the whole structure would one day collapse. Still do. I did not campaign, not being impressed by the campaigns. But on June 23rd I had to choose. Like many I approached the vote with much uncertainty. Never in doubt that I was always going to vote 'Leave' but I did think it was impossible to reach a fully considered position. Also thought this would apply to so many others. Never expected Leave to win, and felt quite stunned on 24th June. If we had decided to remain I would have accepted the result. But we voted 'Leave' and that is what I expected to happen.

Now let's move on 6 mths, to today. On June 24th, we were expecting Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to be invoked immediately. It's what the then Prime Minister had promised. Also, EU top team demanded an early invocation (if that's the word). Not willing to open discussions before they said. It's what they still say. Personally, I took totally different view. Luckily, our new Prime Minister agrees. Article 50 should be invoked at the at the most beneficial time -for the UK and the EU. I rather fancied it to be on Feb 16th, my birthday. The Prime Minister thinks before end of March. There seems to be a growing campaign for MPs to have a vote on this beforehand. Can't work out what this vote is supposed to be about. Clearly it cannot be about terms of leaving the EU because no negotiations will have taken place. And the Prime Minister will totally destroy her negotiating position if she told us what the UK view will be before negotiations start. Truth is that the 'Remain' side do not accept the referendum result, and want MPs to reverse it - while declaring the opposite of course. Don't know how this affects the typical British voter, but it's changing me from being relaxed about the issue, to being totally committed to 'Leave'. Personally, I think there would an explosion of voter outrage (fully justified) if MPs decided not to invoke Article 50, and if I were Prime Minister, (now there's a thought) I'd be tempted to bring the invocation date forward. 

However, I do expect votes on Brexit after the Queens Speech though, as MPs debate the Great Repeal Bill. It will be very interesting to see which MPs will vote against the Bill, which MPs refuse to accept the voice on the people. It may well be quite a dramatic vote. Whatever, I do expect a rare old rumpus over this. No idea how it's all going to end. Perhaps I should write another post tomorrow outlining an 'opposing' position to help me clarify my thoughts!! 

More turmoil in Shropshire NHS.

I suspect this post will need updating on Monday. I've only just read about the latest change at the top, in the management of Shropshire NHS. Over the years my blog, A View from Rural Wales has often commented on what's happening over Offas Dyke, in Shropshire. That's where my constituents look for their NHS care. We don't have a major hospital in Montgomeryshire at all. My last post was about yet another delay to NHS reform in Shropshire.

Today's news is about Mr David Evans, who has been 'Accountable Officer' of the 3 important organisations deciding on the location of services following desperately needed reform, and also delivering those services as effectively as possible until reform takes place. I think the 'accountable officer' is another term meaning 'the boss'. 

It's a bit complicated for anyone not familiar with the NHS management structure. Top tier are the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). There are two - the Shropshire CCG and the Telford and Wrekin CCG. These two CCGs established a new organisation, the Future Fit Management Board, to make recommendations about the future. I think getting on for £3million has been spent on this.  Mr David Evans is 'Accounting Officer' of all three bodies. Today it was announced that he is being replaced, with almost immediate effect from the Shropshire CCG. Dr Simon Freeman will take over next week. The only information I've seen so far is that the debts facing the CCG are such that special measures are needed. The projected debt for the current year was £14.5 million, and has been brought down to a projected £11 million by year end.

Now I don't know enough to be critical of anyone. Don't even know what's 'planned' or 'unplanned'. But uncertainty is a real worry for patients. Last week we expected to be told what recommendation would be put out to public consultation on Dec 12th. But because of a threat of judicial review, the decision was put off - hopefully for a short period allowing the consultation to still begin on the 12th. Failure will mean significant delays, perhaps up to six months. This would be catastrophic for the people of Mid Wales and Shropshire who are (and will be) awaiting treatment. An update on Monday.

Press Comment about Shropshire NHS Reform.

Glyn Davies, Conservative MP for Montgomeryshire, has reacted with both concern and disappointment at news that progress towards deciding on the future structure of Shropshire NHS services and location of new 'Emergency Centre' has been delayed yet again.

David Evans, the Senior Responsible Officer for the Health Board’s ‘Future Fit’ Programme, yesterday announced that due to recent specific concerns about the Programme’s decision making process, the Programme Board is delaying its decision on a preferred option for the future of Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital’s for at least a month.

Commenting on latest position, Glyn Davies MP said;

"Montgomeryshire depends on the NHS A&E services based at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital. And over recent years it has become increasingly clear that trying to sustain A&E services at both Shrewsbury and  the Princess Royal in Telford means, in practice, that the capacity to deliver effective emergency care in Shropshre as a whole is under threat. The population base will support just one."

"Millions of pounds have been invested in meticulous research, consultation and calculation to establish a way forward that is best for the people of Shropshire and Mid Wales. It’s gone time for decisions and actions. We were expecting a clear recommendation about future direction yesterday. It is both disappointing and frustrating that a decision has been delayed yet again."

"Let it be clearly understood. Any further delay is a threat to future NHS care for Shropshire and Mid Wales patients. Consultants will leave Shropshire NHS, unless we have early reform to provide a safe and effective service. I have always believed the only logical location for an 'Emergency Centre' is on the site of the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital."

"I accept that a decision to locate the new 'Emergency Centre' at Shrewsbury will be seen as negative for Telford, though I do not believe this should be the case. It is so desperately disappointing that crucial reform is now being held up by threats of a judicial review, which could delay progress. If there is delay, it will put patients at risk into the future."

“We are being told that there will be a recommendation on the way forward made in time for public consultation in early December. For the sake of future generations resident in Montgomeryshire and Shropshire, I hope this turns out to be the case"

Brexit means what?

IUsed my fortnightyly column for the Oswestry and Border Chronicle today to consider where we are in relation to Brexit - where we are in the process of delivering on the EU referendum vote that the UK should leave the EU. I like to write about issues I'm uncertain about. Useful way of arranging my thoughts into an opinion! Those who have read me on this issue will know I didn't want the referendum. I thought it was too complex an issue for a Yes/No response. But since there was a vote I voted Leave. I voted Leave in 1975, and would always have voted Leave. I did not expect Leave to win, but win if did. And that is it. No going back. So this is what I wrote.

"The dominating political issue of the moment is Brexit, the process by which the UK will leave the EU. A few people are still refusing to accept the clear judgement of the British people in the Referendum on June 23rd. Some are still calling for a second referendum. It's not going to happen. There are some advocating a long delay in the hope that the Exit process will simply run out of steam. That's not going to happen either. The reality is that most people, including many who campaigned to 'Remain' are now accepting the reality of Brexit. The argument is over.

Since June 23rd, we have been reading lots of comment about what Brexit means. The Prime Minister has told us that "Brexit means Brexit" which tells us 'everything' and 'nothing'. Theresa May is absolutely clear that Britain will be leaving the EU, and she is refusing to be rushed into hasty judgement. She is decisive about the principle, but cautious about how it's delivered. She wants to get it right. I fully support this common sense approach. 

This week we have learned something about two crucial steps needed to set the process underway - to press the official start button. Firstly, the two year period of formal negotiation on terms of withdrawal will begin before end of March 2017. For several weeks we have heard demands that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty be invoked immediately - probably by people wanting the process to fail. Today we are hearing accusations that the process is being rushed!! My view is that Mrs May has got it bang on in terms of timing. We also know that Parliament will be asked in the spring to repeal the European Communities Act 1972. It will be interesting to see how many MPs and Peers will oppose this, openly refusing to accept the voice of the people. 

Currently, we are being subjected to millions of confused and confusing words about a 'Hard Brexit' or a 'Soft Brexit'. What is this all about? Its the commentariat making up a story, because Mrs May is governing for the country and not for the media. She is not governing by press release. So the media are having to resort to invention. My advice is ignore it.

Some things that are obvious. The UK simply cannot stay in the 'Single Market', as many are demanding. We cannot accept the free movement of people from the EU (or anywhere else) into the UK, which is a fundamental principle of the Single Market. But we will want access to the Single Market, as the EU will want to the British market. The British economy needs immigrant workers to support our hotels, restaurants, care homes, NHS, agriculture, financial services etc. Trans-Europe trade does not need tariffs or anti-competitive rules. We need good trading arrangements with EU countries, and they will with us. Both negotiating teams will have an interest in an amicable divorce, leaving both parties content. The Prime Minster knows that the road ahead will be a bit bumpy. Brexit is a mighty change. But I expect Mrs May to deliver it. 

Welsh Constituency Boundaries Review.

The Wales Boundary Commission has published its 'interim' report for the review of Parliamentary constituencies in Wales. This is the last stage in the reform of constituencies which began over five years ago. The Boundary Commission will now consult on today's proposals and publish a 'final report' by September 2018, when there will be a vote in the House of Commons to approve the constituency boundaries for the 2020 General Election.

Let us consider the context in which these proposals have been prepared.  It began with the election of the Coalition Government  in 2010. During the previous Parliament there had been an almighty row about MP's expenses. No punishment was deemed too harsh for MPs. Amongst the various actions was an agreement to reduce the cost of democracy by cutting the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Actually, the manifesto commitment was a reduction to 585 - but let's not split hairs. A bill was taken through Parliament to enact this, and entirely logically it included equalisation of constituency size, which had not been reviewed for too long. The Act included a provision that meant all constituencies should have the same number of electors - around 75,000. Crucially, it included the stipulation that only a 5% tolerance be allowed in variation of size of constituencies. This Act passed into law, and it was assumed the new constituencies would be adopted for the 2015 General Election. But the Liberal Democrats undermined their own Act in the House of Lords by joining with Labour and others to delay final approval of the actual boundaries for 5 yrs. Though this suited me very well, it was a constitutional outrage in my opinion. This 5yr delay will be up in Sept 2018.

It's no point MPs shouting at the boundary commissioners. Not their fault. It was MPs who stitched up the restrictive rules, ensuring that consideration of geography, cultural and historic considerations counted for nothing. Especially in Wales, where I can only concede there has been 'over representation' for decades. And that's not making allowance for powers being transferred to the Welsh Parliament. The Wales Commissioners were required to reduce 40 constituencies to just 29. They had very little freedom of movement. Today, we have seen the results of their handiwork. And for me, it's devastating.

Let's consider the position in my constituency of Montgomeryshire. The electoral wards of Glantwymen, Banw, Llanrhaedr, Llansilin, Llanbrynmair, Llanfair, Llanfihangel, Llanwddyn, Meifod, Llandrinio, Guilsfield, Welshpool, Trewern, Llanfyllin, Llansantffraid, Machynlleth, Llandysilio go into a Clwyd South and North Montgomeryshire seat.

The electoral wards of Berriew, Caersws, Churchstoke, Dolforwyn, Forden, Kerry, Llandinam, Montgomery, Newtown and Tregynon go into the Brecon, Radnor and Montgomery seat.

The electoral wards of Blaen Hafren and Llanidloes go into Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire.

This is a total demolition of the historic county of Montgomeryshire. Montgomeryshire is being torn into three pieces to 'top up' other constituencies. Parliamentary democracy in the old County of Montgomeryshire will be much diminished. MPs will become as little known in future as MEPs are little known now. This boundaries review may well be 'fair' in a statistical sense. But it's heart breaking for me. The only consolation is that the Welsh Parliament constituency will remain Montgomeryshire. This will be confusing at first, but less so as familiarity with MPs decreases. These new constituencies will resonate with very few in Montgomeryshire. And at its root, the cause of all this was the abuse of expenses by MPs several years ago - nothing whatsoever to do with most of today's MPs.

I'm typing this at 3.30am because I'm so upset about it that I can't sleep. I've always lived in Montgomeryshire. Always will. I don't have a single ancestor who was born anywhere else. For 40 yrs I've represented Montgomeryshire in one way or another - well as representing Montgomeryshire in stock judging, public speaking, squash, won bardic chairs at Montgomeryshire eisteddfodau, and a whole lot more. Three of our children with their five children have moved back to be near us at Berriew No way could I ever think about representing a different seat. If these proposals are approved in 2018, that will have to be it for me. But I won't be leaving politics. Politics will be leaving me.

Our Welsh Parliament is here to stay.

There's been a flurry of media comment over the last few days (mainly driven by politicians) suggesting that if there were to be a referendum on the future existence of the Welsh Parliament (or National Assembly for Wales if you prefer) the people of Wales would vote In favour of abolition. No chance. Not sure why this is being taken so seriously. Perhaps the media and commentariat so enjoyed the Scottish Independence Referendum and the EU Referendum that they cannot bear to see Wales left out! Two people asked me whether they were going to have the chance to vote 'that circus in Cardiff' out of existence at today's Berriew Show Charity Lunch. Told them this is one circus I approve of! Even if I did campaign with great vigour in opposition to its creation in 1997. Should add that I don't think their views were a reflection of current Welsh public opinion.

The reality is that it is simply not going to happen. There will be no referendum. Not in any foreseeable future. We've had enough of referendums. And if there were to be, all the evidence I've seen suggests to me that devolution is here to stay. I know not everyone agrees with me about this, and it's very much in fashion to be opposed to anything remotely to do with the 'establishment' or any form of Government. Voting No has become the default position on constitutional issues. But for me, discussion about the future of the Welsh Parliament comes under the heading of 'harmless fun'.

In fact, I may become a great champion of retaining the Welsh Parliament come September 13th. That day we learn of the Boundary Commission for Wales proposals for reform of Welsh Parliamentary constituencies. Inevitably, since they fall in number overall of Welsh parliamentary constituencies from 40 to 29, these proposals will inevitably inform us that Montgomeryshire will be no more by 2020 General Election. Over 40 yrs I've been active in the public life of Montgomeryshire. I'm building myself up for a very sad day. The only way to retain our old historic county of Montgomeryshire will be as an Welsh Assembly seat. But that's a blog post for when we see the detailed proposals. I will write a blog post summarising the background to all this tomorrow. In the meantime, better get used to having the Welsh Parliament around.

What's to be done about Hinckley Point.

Most disappointing consequence of recent Government convulsions is that the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee will be no more. I've been a member since the last Genetal Election. Select Committees 'shadow' Govt departments and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has been merged into the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Department (BEIS). I'd put a lot of effort into educating myself on this subject. That 'education' process was to some extent a waste of my time - though I will retain an interest in 'energy' issues,

Which brings me to Hinckley Point C. I've written about this before. It's now a month since the French energy business, EDF committed to building the new power station. And almost as long since our new Prime Minister put the whole project on hold. We don't know why - beyond her entirely reasonable wish to consider very carefully before signing off the deal. Media reports suggest the reasons are to do with the scale of Chinese involvement in the overall package, which extends much further than Hinckley. Whatever, we will soon be approaching decision day.

EDF Chief Executive, Vincent de Rivas has written a confident 'bullish' article for the Telegraph extolling the virtues of the Hinckley Point project. He's quite a character is de Rivas. It's easier to nail jelly to a wall than corner him in debate. He cites the Chinese involvement as hugely positive. Must admit I agree with him, even if it grieves me to write so. The shameful neglect of nuclear by the Blair/Brown Gov'ts left the UK without expertise to do the job ourselves. The Hinckley project is too big for EDF on its own, and the Chinese are probably the only realistic potential partners. We do have two other nuclear projects (Wylfa B and Moorside) coming along as well and quietly, but we need them all.

There has been much made of the price the UK Govt has agreed to pay for electricity generated by Hinckly Point over a 35 yr period. It's a lot of money. The comparison usually featuring in comment is "twice the current cost of energy" which has fallen dramatically over recent years. True- but the real comparison is with what the price of energy will be when Hinckley Point comes on stream in the mid-20s. It's unlikely that current low prices will continue (my opinion). Interestingly, the current price of offshore wind is nearer three times the current energy price, though likely to come down over time.

Our future energy needs will be met by a mix of energy sources. Gas (shale or imported) will feature strongly (if we are to stop burning coal). Renewables will continue to expand, particularly if storage technology develops as we hope (interesting to see Vattenfall securing a contract to build a 22MW battery next to its South Wales onshore wind farm at Pen Y Cymoedd).  Interconnectors will play a part as well. And we still hope tidal power will become competitive. And I'm a supporter of solar power. But nuclear is crucial to provide the base load power. We need new nuclear as current aging nuclear plants are decommissioned. Maybe Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) will become a reality in time, but there is not one operating yet. Today, we need large scale nuclear. I have no idea whether the Prime Minister will give Hinkley Point C the go-ahead. On balance it seems sensible to me that we should (if we take decarbonisation at all seriously).  I have a suspicion that she will.

Brexit - Two months on.

It's now over two months since the referendum in which a majority of UK voters, Wales voters, Shropshire voters and Powys voters decided they wanted the UK to leave the European Union. It was a hard fought referendum. In retrospect, I think I was weak to take so little part in it. I might not have approved of the campaigns, but life is like that. Biggest battles are fought in the gutter. What has surprised me is how some of those who voted Remain refuse to accept the voice of the people. I'm still having earache for voting Leave by many of my friends. Had some more at a local function tonight. It makes no impact that if it was a clear result on a huge turn-out. The majority in favour of Leave was over a million votes. There are calls for another referendum (so that we could make the 'right' decision!).  Or for a vote in Parliament to approve the terms (yet to be negotiated) on which the UK will leave. This is nothing more than a legalistic delaying tactic, dressed up in legalistic language. It seems some 'clever' lawyers reckon the referendum was 'advisory' only. Tell that to the people. 

Dear 'A View from Rural a Wales' readers, it's not going to happen. It's time to get real. As our new Prime Minister, Theresa May has said again and again "Brexit means Brexit". This might be open to interpretation, but there will not be a re-run of the referendum, no matter how many petitions there are, or how many lawyers produce reports. The BBC's relentless pro-Remain bias will not succeed - except to damage the BBC and increase the level of discord. The unelected House of Lords will not be free to frustrate the will of the people. If they were to, it would quickly lead to a power-reducing reform of the Upper House. The voters of Britain have spoken and there voice will be respected. In any case, my view is that another vote would only deliver a bigger Leave majority, as the voters of the UK expressed their outrage at being misled.

Let's consider what has happened over the last two months, compared with the disasters that we were told were going to happen before the referendum. We were warned that the city would suffer a meltdown. But the FTSE has risen to near record levels. As has the FTSE 250. It's true that the value of Sterling has fallen, encouraged no doubt by Bank of England money creation. This has been a major boost to exporters, the tourism industry, and to my own industry of livestock farming. We were told there would be more unemployment, higher mortgages and big falls in house prices. Reality is that jobs have carried on being created - to record levels since we voted to leave. Businesses which threatened to leave the UK have decided to invest here after all. There has been no 'emergency budget'. The Governor of the Bank of England has been left with egg yoke all over his face. Consumer spending is going well, despite the best efforts of self-justifying 'remainers' to talk us into recession. The impact of a Leave vote has had nothing like the impact that was predicted. All this is really good news for the UK, and already we are seeing growth predictions being revised upwards.

But it's not time to celebrate yet. The UK will be a full member of the EU for another two/three years at least. International markets do not like uncertainty. During the next two years, we will need to establish new trading agreements across the world. We will need to have negotiated a new agreement with the EU. It will happen, but I do think it will be complex. There will be disappointments along the way. Perhaps most controversially, I do not think we will see net immigration numbers falling to the levels that some hope. Neither do I think our financial obligations to our neighbours will fall as some hope. But I remain entirely confident the British people took the right devision on June 23rd. They decided to 'Take Back Control' and I think they were absolutely right to do so.

Let Labour set its own leadership rules.

I don't now if there any lawyers versed in constitutional law who might read my blog posts. If there are maybe they can explain to me and help me understand why the High Court should be getting involved in the Labour leadership election. Surely this is a matter for the Labour Party. Surely it's a political matter that the High Court should keep its ermine-clad nose out of.

A few days ago I took about two hours to write a post about the 'political' interference of the European Court of Justice in European Union matters. This court, more than any other body delivered the vote to leave the European Union. It took its decisions in support of the political objective of "Ever closer union." The people of the U.K. decided they'd had enough of this and voted to Leave. There is a proper place for courts to decide. And there are times when courts should decide not to decide. How the Labour Party chooses its leader is one of them. In my opinion (as a sheep farmer and gardener that is)!! 

Helping Syrian Refugees

The dominating story in UK media a few months back was the difficulties faced by young Syrian refugees in Calais, who wanted to apply for Asylum in Britain. I was on the wrong side of public opinion at the time. But I stuck to my position, despite ferocious lobbying. Lord Dubbs had led a campaign to have the UK allow several thousand young refugees resident in Calais to come to Britain to claim asylum. It was said that they would not be treated sympathetically or fairly in France. In passing, I'm not sure what this says about France!! Anyway, even though I did not agree with this policy, I accepted the Dubbs amendment to the Immigration Bill. In my opinion it was not facing up to the refugee issue, but it did help a few Syrian refugee children. So it was beneficial to a small number, even if it did nothing to help the wider Syrian refugee problem.

Reason I revisit this heart breaking issue today is the decision by the Court of Appeal to over-turn a decision taken by the High Court in January to allow four refugees in Calais to travel to Britain to have their asylum applications heard. This was a test case. The UK Govt lodged the appeal, because the court decision would have fatally undermined the Dublin Regulation, which insists refugees must make their asylum applications in the first safe country they arrive in. This is an important principle, which helps separate genuine asylum seekers from economic migrants and others who want to move to the UK. 

Inevitably, those who think as I do were dismissed as callous and uncaring (even if the opposite was the case). It was quite aggressive criticism on times. However, I tend to study the evidence before I take a position, and support what I believe delivers the greatest good, rather than meet the emotionally charged line driven by the media. Now here is the reality about the UK's contribution. No European country has done more to support Syrian refugees than the UK. The UK has focussed its efforts on helping Syrian refugees where it's most beneficial - near the Syrian border. While the attention of the U.K. media was on Calais, the true refugee suffering was (and is) in Syria. I read reports that there are over 6 million Syrian refugees displaced in Syria. Almost 3 million in Turkey. 1.5 million in Lebanon and 1.2 million in Jordon. This is where the British effort was, is and should be concentrated.

When this issue was 'in the news' a few months ago, I and others were vilified for being concerned that over-riding the Dublin Regulation would encourage refugees to take desperately dangerous journeys in unseaworthy crafts, leading to deaths at sea. Since then, there has been a deal agreed with Turkey to attempt to counteract this 'refugee pull' - though whether that agreement with Turkey is functioning now is uncertain. I suspect Syrian refugees are still dying in the Mediterranean, though it's no longer being reported on our TV screens every night. The media caravan has moved on. The tragedy hasn't.

Anyway, back to this week's Court of Appeal judgement. I was opposed to the Dubbs amendment because it undermined the important Dublin Regulation and did not help the greatest number of refugees. Ok, I was not unhappy that a majority of MPs supported it. I spoke at length with the immigration minister, and accepted the position. It was not so much wrong, as not as right as it should have been. And I must admit I don't much enjoy being shouted at and accused of being callous. Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this is that the Court of Appeal judgement passed almost unnoticed in the media this week. The media has moved on. The British Govt's policy should always be to help the largest number of refugees that it can. It's what we are doing.

What is going on at Hinckley Point?

Must admit I was very surprised by last night's Govt statement that it was 'pausing' the final decision on signing the deal with EDF (the French Govt) and the Chinese General Nuclear Power Corporation. Like most people, I had assumed that the key decision was that of the EDF Board on Thursday, and that the Friday signing would be no more than a formality. The Chinese certainly thought so, having travelled over to Hinckley from China for the party. The marquee just flapped in the Somerset breeze - unused and empty. Actually we had two surprises. First was the degree of  disagreement and opposition within the EDF Board. And second Greg Clarke's statement that the UK Gov't was going to study the deal before signing it off. There may have been some connection. Was certainly a thought in my mind.

Anyway, it's interesting to indulge in conjecture about why. I don't think we have any real idea. Firstly it may just be that the new Prime Minister wants to have a detailed look at the books before signing it off. Fair enough, but does seem a bit late in the day. We did know the EDF decision was coming a good while back. Couldn't have been a surprise. Personally I don't think the Prime Minister (if it was her decision) was being unreasonable. So much concern about the project (particularly the technology) that it's no surprise she wants to consider it carefully. It seems not even the French are fully sold on the deal. As soon as it emerged that there would be a pause, the shares in EDF jumped skywards.

The media seem to think it's about the involvement of the Chinese - a long term security consideration. 

And not so much the £6 billion investment planned for the Hinckley Point project, but subsequent investments in Sizewell and Bradwell.  No way we can know if this is true. But if it is, it would mark a big change in attitude towards Chinese investment by the new Prime Minister/Chancellor team from previous regime. The Chinese are reported to be "bemused" and "frustrated". I suspect that's Cinese for absolutely bl*****y furious. 

Not really sure where we are now, or what view to take. I had been very much against the UK pulling out of the deal, because of the reputational damage it would do to the UK and to investor confidence. But the French Govt reaction may be a great sign of relief, that a humiliating decision had been taken for it. Since the strike price was agreed EDF has spent £2/3 billion on preparing the site. That's a very big sum to write off. 

Anyway we will have to wait and see. What I really do hope is that there is no knock-on negativity impacting on Wylfa B and Moorside. 

My submission to Sec of State re quashed wind farm decisions

Dear Secretary of State...

Re-determination of planning applications by RES UK and Ireland Ltd and RWE Renewables Ltd to build onshore wind farms at Llanbrynmair and Carnedd Wen in Montgomeryshire. 

"This letter is my response to your invitation (dated 6th July) to comment on the two above re-determinations (Carnedd Wen and Llanbrynmair) which the Secretary of State will make following the quashing of the two previous refusals made by his predecessor in 2015. It should be treated as a joint response to both re-determinations.

I am the Member of Parliament representing Montgomeryshire, and am opposed to both of these developments. I took part in the Mid Wales Conjoined Public Inquiry which took place between June 2013 and May 2014. Large numbers of my constituents made their opposition clear to the Inspector at the Inquiry. Large numbers of us cooperated in opposing the wind farm developments, particularly the associated transmission infrastructure, which we believe would cause great damage to the economy, landscapes and environment of Mid Wales. We were pleased that the previous Secretary of State refused the Llanbrynmair and Carnedd Wen proposals, and were desperately disappointed when the two decisions were quashed. We hope that the two developments will again be refused by the new Secretary of State.

My principal reason for opposing these two wind farms is the cumulative impact they would have on one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom. The greatest damage would be inflicted by the necessary grid infrastructure, without which these wind farms could not be built. The central feature of this infrastructure development would be the 'Mid Wales Connection Project' proposed by National Grid to serve the wind farms. It would a 42km 400kV carried for most of its length from North Shropshire on 50 meter high pylons along the length of one of our beautiful area's narrow valleys into the heart of Montgomeryshire. It is a transmission line dedicated to wind farms, so it seems clear to us that once built, it would lead to perhaps another 15/20 wind farms, utilising the unused capacity. There is a 'trigger point' of guaranteed connection sites before the Mid Wales Connection Project would go ahead. I have been very surprised that both National Grid and OFGEM have refused to tell me what that 'trigger point' is, flying in the face of public commitments made by both bodies about transparency. National Grid has also refused to contemplate undergrounding, except for a short length around the village of Meifod. The line would cause particular damage around the village of Llansantffraid, and surrounding areas where tourism is of great importance. In the vicinity of the village, the proposed line crosses the Vyrnwy 12 times in 3 miles.

In my evidence to the Inspector, which I repeat in this submission, I emphasised that the wind farms and the power line, while separate projects, should in fact be considered as one single project. The electricity cannot be transmitted to the Grid from the wind farms unless the line is built. I believe that at an early stage in the Inquiry, the Inspector asked the developers to show how the power could be transmitted without the Mid Wales Connection Project. After initially claiming this would be possible, it was admitted that this is not feasible. In addition, there has been an attempt to portray the Mid Wales Connection Project as contributing to 'a stronger network' to serve the Mid Wales economy. This is totally baseless and no more than false justification. Local protestors, including myself and Powys County Council, pressed the Inspector to adjourn the Inquiry until an environmental assessment of the impact of the transmission line was carried out. We were both disappointed and mystified why the Inspector refused to accede to this request. The absolute linkage of the proposed wind farms and the Mid Wales Connection Project was clear to all, when National Grid ceased all work as soon as the planning applications were refused.

In conclusion, this letter should be regarded as an appeal to the Secretary of State to honour the Government's 2015 manifesto commitment to only support onshore wind farms where they have the support of local people. The applications at Llanbrynmair and Carnedd Wen are very strongly opposed by local people, by Powys County Council and by both the local Assembly Member and Member of Parliament. These two wind farms, and the damage they would cause have been hanging over the heads of the people of Mid Wales for far too long.  I appeal to the Secretary of State to reaffirm the previous decisions to refuse permission for them.

Hinckley Point C.

Over the last few days I've received many emails from constituents and others asking me to press new Chancellor, Philip Hammond to withdraw Govt support for the proposed Hinckly Point C nuclear power station. I cannot do that. I must explain why. For the UK to withdraw from agreements it has signed up to with the French energy company, EDF and the French Govt would seem to me to be an unthinkable breach of faith with our good friend and neighbour, France. 

At this stage I should make clear that I'm no great enthusiast for the Hinckley Point C nuclear power station which looks as if it may receive the final go-ahead this coming week. It's a huge investment and would make an important carbon-free contribution to Britain's 'base load' energy needs. It involves the construction of two EPR reactors with a combined output of 3,200MWh. A meeting of the EDF Board has been called for Thursday, when the final decision should be made to go ahead and build - after much delay. It has become a major issue for EDF and the French Govt. To understand why the UK cannot just walk away, we need to look at the background. 

The last nuclear power station to be given the go-ahead in the UK was in 1987. Because of political difficulty, Gov't's have failed to face down anti-nuclear protest, and British expertise was lost. Which meant that when the Liberal-Conservative Coalition decided in 2010 to go forward with 8 new nuclear power stations, it had to look overseas for the expertise needed to build them. While the Japenese are leading the only Welsh-based new build at Wylfa B on Ynys Mon, the French energy generating company, EDF, largely owned by the French Govt is building Hinckley Point C, with significant financial input from the Chinese. The UK's involvement is through a guarantee (the strike price) that it will pay £92.50MWh for 35 yrs. This adds up to lot of money. On the basis of this agreement, EDF and the French Govt have carried on preparing to build Hinckley Point C, at great cost. It would cause huge damage to the UK's reputation and to future investor confidence when dealing with the UK Govt if we were to walk away now. It would a shocking betrayal of the French Government, at a time when we are looking to work through with the French the Brexit negotiations.

It will be good news if EDF make the final decision to go ahead on Thursday. It will be a very strong statement that France does not see Brexit as an obstacle to investment in the UK. It will give us some reassurance that the Government's nuclear ambitions are on track. But what is absolutely crucial is that if Hinckley Point C does not proceed, it will as a result of a decision by the French, and not a U-turn by the UK, which would do huge damage to the Entente Cordiale. It's why I cannot agree with those who have written to me, demanding that the the Government tears up the agreements previous British governments have made.

Brexit means Brexit means what?

While I've always been for 'Leave' as far as EEC/EU is concerned, I sometimes sound as though I'm more of a 'Remain' man. Mainly because I've tried to point out just how difficult 'Leaving' is going to be. And I've always thought the timetable should be based on achieving the best conclusion, rather than some artificial timetable. Those calling for early invocation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty either have not thought it through or want Brexit to fail.

Clearly developing trade links is a key part of any Brexit strategy. The UK needs to move fast. Big responsibility on Liam Fox and his team. There is absolutely no guarantee that the UK will have access to the single market. The price may be too high. The UK needs to develop effective trade arrangements with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, India, China, Columbia, Brazil, Africa etc.. Progress on these arrangements may well make it easier to reach agreements in Europe. But this is just one aspect of Brexit, and not the subject of this post.

Let us consider the law instead. If I have to choose one reason why I voted to 'Leave' it would be about how UK law is made. And it seems to me it's the behaviour of Court of Justice of the EU over many years which more than anything else delivered the vote to leave. Up with the CJEU the British people would not put.

The majority of British people are committed to self-government, to parliamentary democracy and the prerogatives of the nation-state. Over many years, the EU has misused judicial power, and given every indication it intended to misuse it further. This is not about the European Court of Human Rights, which is often blamed and which may well not be effected. It is about the Court of Justice of the EU, which has become, in effect, a 'political court' - guilty of unacceptable 'overreach' pursuing the political objectives of 'ever closer union'. This approach to law is not British, and has been rejected by the British people. We do not want our Parliament to be effectively subjected to a foreign court.

Brexit will free the UK from rule imposed by the CJEU. She will recover parliamentary democracy, though remaining subject to the Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights (which it should). In time Brexit will change the way our leading lawyers behave. Over recent years many have caught the European tendency to see common law as being secondary to law emanating from the EU. As a result of Brexit, we will see a change in how lawyers think about the British constitution. Parliament is sovereign (unless it knowingly agrees not to be), it is constitutionally entitled to decide on our laws, and the courts should faithfully uphold that principle. This principle, fundamental to Brexit, must lead to a rebalancing between the powers of the courts and the powers of Parliament. If not Brexit would not have been worth it.

I know lots of lawyers. And mostly I like them. But I fear they have become far too big for their boots. Since the referendum vote, I've received hundreds of emails from constituents asking me to agree with some Cambridge lawyer that the referendum result should be regarded as unlawful and should be ignored. Must admit I consider this to be utterly ridiculous - politically impossible. Others 'advise' that the vote should be just one of the considerations influencing Govt, because the referendum was 'advisory'. I'm afraid I thought that to be equally nonsensical - and hugely damaging to the British constitution if acted on. There are other lawyers arguing that an Act of Parliament is needed before Article 50 is involved. This looks like a simple delaying stunt. As David Cameron actually promised to do before June 23rd, it would have entirely lawful for him to invoke Article 50 on the 24th. And then we had 1000 lawyers writing to the media refusing to accept the decision of the public vote. They do not realise the destructive damage they would do to democracy, if we took the slightest notice of them. Thank goodness we seem to have a Prime Minister who grasps fully what the vote to 'Leave' meant.

I am likely to amend this when I re-read it tomorrow. I'm open to be persuaded as well if arguments are based on accepting the will and voice of the 17.4 million voters who were not fooled by the often outrageous promises of Armageddon if they voted 'Leave'. They did and it must be respected.

Boundary changes

How am I supposed to find time to blog when the political world is in such turmoil? So much going on. Starting early and working late - just to keep up with what's happening.  Today has been the 'Day of the long stiletto', more brutal than any 'night of the long knives'. I've never seen the like of it. David Cameron was a pussy cat compared with this. Mrs May has been magnificent, striding through the Westminster jungle, scything down saplings and giant oaks with abandon, giving an almighty shake-up to the cosy politics of Westminster.

But I'm blogging about a different issue. I've promised to provide an update (more a recap actually) on where we are in the process of redrawing Parliamentary constituencies boundaries.

It began before the 2010 General Election, at which I was first elected to Parliament. MPs had been up to all sorts as claiming their expenses, and the Telegraph printed it all. Was astonishing stuff, which seriously damaged public confidence in politicians. The then Conservative Opposition Leader reacted by making a manifesto commitment to reduce no of MPs from 650 to 600. I disapproved of this, but was in a minority of about 1%!! After the election, bill was passed by the Coalition Gov't to deliver this manifesto pledge. The Boundary Commission was asked to draw up new constituency boundaries, based on roughly an equal number of voters. But the Lib Dems (together with Labour) in the Lords reneged, delaying approval of the new boundaries for 5 years - or until Sept 2018. 

In Wales the proposals will be made by the Boundary Commission for Wales. So far we have been told that there will be a reduction from 40 seats to just 29 seats, far bigger fall than anywhere else in UK (which reflects historic over representation). The actual new boundaries as proposed by the Boundaries Commission will become public on September 13th.

This will almost certainly be a sad day for Montgomeryshire. It's almost certain that the historic Parliamentary constituency of Montgomeryshire will disappear under these proposals. Not enough people live here. We are probably about 25,000 short of the population needed. All looks so neat and tidy on paper, and "reduces the cost of democracy". It's all total cobblers of course. It destroys accessible democracy in rural areas, and the extra cost of the expanded House of Lords is far greater than 50 fewer MPs.

But there is hope. The final vote will be in Sept 2018. Who knows what will have happened by then. I know it's to my Conservative Party's disadvantage, but I do hope this anti-rural vote bites the dust. I think we all know that 3 yrs is a long time in politics!!

My Wales Bill Speech of this week.

Monday saw the whole House of Commons sitting as a committee to consider the Wales Bill 'line by line. We spent 6 hrs in debate and will spend another 6 hrs next week. Thought I'd tidy up my speech a bit and share it.

"I begin by paying tribute to the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). I have a particular personal reason for welcoming him to his position. Of all the Welsh Members of Parliament, I am probably the nearest to becoming an octogenarian, and his wonderful example gives me promise and ambition for the future. It may yet be that I will find a place on the front bench. If he can do it in his eighties, there is no reason why I will not be able to do the same. I thank him for rekindling my ambition, as well as for the great wit with which he has entertained me over many years.

The Bill is wide-ranging. Inevitably, opinions on aects of it will differ. To be passed by this House it will need an element of compromise on all sides. In his response to earlier amendments, the shadow Secretary of State said that we need to be pragmatic. He tells us that Labour intend to be pragmatic. We have differing opinions, including in my own party. I will address those later in my speech. But we all, or nearly all want this Bill pass into law. For that to happen we need compromise.

The major compromise that I have had to make personally is that the Bill transfers energy powers to the Welsh Government, the idea of which fills me with absolute horror. I would find it difficult to support the Bill, except that the Welsh Government have, quite shockingly and disgracefully, already taken unto themselves those powers through their local government responsibilities. It was one single act that in my view showed Welsh Labout to be unfit to hold power in the National Assembly for Wales. It is ironic that that hideous centralising power grab makes the Bill’s transfer of energy powersin the Bill less damaging to mid-Wales and less of an attack on the people of mid-Wales than it would otherwise have been.

The intention behind the Bill is to provide a much more stable, long-lasting and permanent settlement for Wales and to provide greater clarity. Previous speakers have suggested this Wales Bill should be a permanent settlement. I am not sure about the word “permanent”. I do not think it is wise to have a Wales Bill every five years, which is pretty much what we have been doing. But this bill is not permanent. We will come back to developing devolution at a pace the people of Wales will be comfortable with. Plaid Cymru Members spoke earlier about a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales. If at some time in the future, the body of Welsh law is no longer tiny, when it has grown to be substantial, we may have to revisit the issue. The same may be true of other aspects of devolution that we have not entirely foreseen.

Today, I want to base most of my speech on clause 16 of the Bill. Devolving responsibility for levying income tax to the Welsh Government is absolutely fundamental to the Bill. Devolving this responsibility is hugely important, ensuring that the Welsh Government becomes properly financially accountable to Welsh voters. Like the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I was opposed to devolution in 1997, but came to terms with the result almost immediately. This is the way we should do react to a referendum result when we have been on the losing side. In 1997 it was a very close result indeed, just 50.3% voting in favour on a 50% turn-out. As I was driving home from the count in Llandrindod Wells in the early hours of the morning of Sept 19th, I accepted that we would have a Welsh Assembly. The only way forward was to become committed to making a success of it. In this Wales Bill, we are doing our best to achieve that.

At the first Assembly election in 1999, I was elected to be an AM, representing Mid and West Wales. Some years later I was appointed the Welsh Conservative spokesman on finance. I was expected to speak for my party in the annual budget debate. As preparing to speak in that debate, I realised “This isn’t a budget; what we are dealing with here is just a spending plan”. When I was chairman of the finance committee on Montgomeryshire District Council, the biggest meeting of the year, by a long way, was the meeting at which we set the rates. We set aside a whole day to debate whether or not to put a penny on the rate. Every budget I have ever been involved in debating has two sides of the ledger to consider - one side relating to what will be spent and on the other relating to how the neccasary resources are to be raised.

Devolving responsibility to levy income tax is now the Government’s view. It's one of the two most important provisions in the Wales Bill. The Silk Commission’s recommendations may be the bible of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), as he told us in his earlier speech. I too welcomed the a Silk Report, but it was wrong to recommend making devolution of responsibility to raise income tax provisional on a referendum. It was a weak recommendation. The Silk Commission should have recommended that the only way to ensure financial accountability is to allow income tax bands to be varied by the Welsh Government. A referendum has been proposed in the past. I am pleased that this requirement has been dropped in the Wales Bill we are debating today.

I know from campaigning at election time that how much money the competing parties will levy in tax is a fundamental consideration. It engages the interest of voters if they are able to consider how much Monet they will have to pay in tax, and what it will be spent on. That is what elections should be about—but not in Wales. In Wales, if the Government are spending money on a popular provision that the people might generally approve of, they say, “This is what we are doing, aren’t we great?”. However, occasionally in politics we find that Governments have to support a law, or an investment that is not so popular and is difficult to argue for in public because people are not altogether convinced. It is not acceptable just to say, “We can’t do that because we don’t have enough money from the Westminster Government”. The Government have to be financially accountable to people. That is what makes a parliament.

In this Bill, we intend to change the position and allow the National Assembly for Wales to formally change it's name to a "Welsh Parliament". I fully support that. However, if it is going to be called 'The Welsh Parliament', it has to have the powers and responsibilities, and particularly the financial accountability, which we would expect a Parliament to have. That is why that is so important and fundamental to this Bill.

There is division of opinion on this issue. Some of my colleagues do not agree with me, and we have had this difference debated previously. Sir Alan, this is not an occasion on which I want to be party political, but what I am about to say could be interpreted as being so - against the Labour party. It is not intended to be, but rather it is an attempt to demonstrate point I want to make? A lot of people are opposed to granting the ability to vary income tax to the Welsh Government because they assume it will always be led by Labour. I do not know why my colleagues are quite so pessimistic. The day will come when the Welsh ​Government will not be led by Labour. In fact, we are not so far from that day now. We had a Welsh Assembly election on May 5th, in which the total Labour vote was about 30% or 31%. We then had an EU referendum in which the advice of the First Minister, who had put himself at the head of the 'Remain' side in Wales, was virtually ignored in Labour strongholds. It was ignored by the very people who usually support Labour. They just dismissed the First Minister’s leadership of the campaign. The First Minister must wake up in the night thinking, “My position is looking a bit dodgy, seriously weak. I’ve had just 30% support of the Welsh vote in May (the lowest percentage of the vote in recent history) and that may well have been halved in the EU referendum among Labour voters.” We could well be reaching the end of Labour domination in Wales.

I genuinely believe that we are on the verge of creating a proper democracy in Wales, one in which not everyone assumes that Labour will rule, but we have competition instead. People will be much more engaged and interested. My comments might be perceived as being against Labour, but they are not meant to be. I am simply saying that I am in favour of genuine political debate whenever we have an election in Wales. That can only happen if the Welsh Government is financially accountable to the voters. I believe we are not too far away from that.

One issue that has caused some controversy, on the Conservative Benches in particular, has been the need for a referendum on whether income tax powers should be devolved. I think we have had enough of referendums. As a general principle I am not in favour of them. On this particular issue I do not think one is necessary. That has been my view for a long time. I believe the referendum has been proposed, and is supported, as a blocking mechanism to ensure that the Welsh Government never become financially accountable. That is not the right way to go.

The Bill is broad-ranging and hugely important to the future of how Wales is governed. It is the next step forward in making the Welsh Assembly into a Parliament. It will settle the constitution for some years to come—I would not like to predict how long it will be until we are back here talking about another Wales Bill; I might even join the Shadow Secretary of State as an octogenarian by then. The Bill before us today is an important step forward and I very much hope that it passes through this House, and the other place largely unchanged."

Come on Waaaales

Yeaterday, I wrote my column for my local weekly, the County Times. It comes out tomorrow but you can read it here. Only one story in town. Can Wales make the Euro16 final.

"What an astonishing two weeks it's been. The people of Britain, of Wales and of Powys have voted to favour of Britain leaving the European Union. The Prime Minister has announced his retirement about two years sooner than we expected. The Labour Party (Her Majesty's Official Opposition) is in a state of chaos/meltdown. Despite all of this, the biggest news and talking point in Wales today is Football. And the man of the moment is Gareth Bale.

As I write this column, I do not know whether Wales has defeated Portugal to reach the final of Euro 2016. But whether they have or haven't doesn't change what's happened. The players and management which has represented Wales in Euro 2016 have been magnificent. They have performed with skill, determination and a commitment to each other and their country that must make every Welsh person proud. I'm a rugby man, and know team spirit to be a crucial element in success. The team spirit on the Football pitch when this Wales team is playing is special to behold.

For a long period in the 1980s/1990s I was involved in promoting Wales abroad. I was trying to persuade overseas visitors to Europe to come to Wales. I wanted people the world over to think of Wales as the proud nation of Owain Glyndwr, Powis Castle, John Charles, Gareth Edwards, Anthony Hopkins and Tom Jones. I wanted to stop Americans in particular thinking of Wales as 'a part of England'. We needed Welsh heroes that could reach out across borders. Welsh heroes that are proud to fly the Welsh flag. I've been involved in spending millions of pounds of public money in an effort to achieve all this.

And then this amazing thing happened at Whitchurch High School in Cardiff. Two boys emerged together to take the world of sport by storm, Sam Warburton and Gareth Bale. And it's not just their sporting prowess which makes them great. It's their humility, their appreciation of how lucky they have been, their realisation that their team-mates are as important as they are. Whenever either of them are interviewed, I listen with admiration. They speak with great respect for their opponents, who they know are doing their best as well. There's a total absence of vulgar chest beating we so often see in sport. And in politics. It puts Prime Minister's Questions to shame.

At present British politics is in a very strange place. There are five Conservative MPs bidding to become Prime Minister. I know them all. Even though I've said I will be voting for Stephen Crabb, I admire all five. There is little philosophical difference between them and any of them would make a good Prime Minister. They will all respect the British people's decision to take the UK out of the EU. They are all One Nation Conservatives, committed to governing for everyone, particularly vulnerable groups. And they all believe the only way to achieve this is through popular capitalism. Whoever wins, will develop their own style. I hope they have been watching the way Wales and Iceland have performed in France. And I hope they have watched the way the supporters of these two small nations have acted as ambassadors for their countries. We should all be unstinting in our admiration. Politics can learn a lot from them."

Could UKIP oust Labour in Wales.

You might think it a bit odd, but I'm interested in the impact the resignation of Nigel Farage as UKIP leader will have in Wales. Must admit I've never cared for Nigel Farage, even while conceding he has his strengths. Where some see a 'cheeky chappie', I see a 'pub bore'. I concede he may have played a part in Brexit, through pressurising Prime Minister, David Cameron to agree to an In/Out referendum in early 2013. But over last few months he has attracted a negativity that  has damaged UKIP. We do not know who will replace him as UK UKIP leader, but it seems to me there is a chance that UKIP Wales will seek to rebrand itself as a more modern Welsh left-of-centre party, seeking to represent the people who have traditionally supported Labour - and now feel alienated from today's Labour of Carwyn Jones and Jeremy Corbyn.

Let's consider the state of Labour. In the recent Assembly election, Labour secured only just over 30% of the vote - the lowest % in modern times. And six weeks later, surely half of those hard fire Labour voters totally ignored Carwyn Jones in the EU Referendum. He has become disconnected from traditional Labour voters. UKIP Wales are hoovering them up. Carwyn Jones should be very concerned. He put himself at the head of the Remain campaign in Wales, and the head fell off. 

This is interesting to me because it changes the context in which we are debating giving income tax powers to the Welsh Parliament (without a referendum). I've favoured this for many years, making the Welsh Government financially accountable. The first time I 'argued my case' on this a few years ago, it was from a minority position in the Tory Party. There was minimal support at Westminster. Today there was an attempt to derail the proposal when the Wales Bill was debated in committee, but it went down 285 - 7. It doesn't come much more comprehensive than that. 

The problem for some Welsh Conservatives is that there's always been an assumption that Labour will always be the ruling party. And that Labour has a tendency to put up taxes. Well, not any more. Today, though there has been very little comment on it, Welsh Labour looks a bedraggled group struggling to find a resonating message. And a Labour leader in Wales who looks increasingly isolated. Neither he nor his party look to be in touch with their traditional support. Maybe it's too big an ask to expect traditional Labour supporters to back the Tories. Some things are just too ingrained. But Welsh UKIP is an entirely different matter. Labour at Westminster are in despair. Labour in Cardiff Bay should be.

Post referendum emails.

Ten days on from the EU Referendum, the fallout continues. The next few weeks will be about the election of a new Prime Minister. But there's a lot more too. Here's a flavour of what's being said.

Had a stack of emails from constituents over last week, asking me to take positions I simply cannot agree to. Most have been calling on me to back a re-run of the EU Referendum. Now wait a minute! 17.4 million people voted to leave - the biggest vote in the  history of Britain. And I'm told only 72.2% of the voting population actually voted, as if that is a low percentage, justifying a re-run. It's an astonishingly high percentage. And it so happens that no-one has told me to my face that I should renege on my promises, and the Gov't's promises, to accept the Referendum result. Some have told me they abstained because, after much thought, they did not know which way to vote. Much as it disappoints me not to accede to constituent's requests, there is no way I will support a 2nd referendum - in the foreseeable future anyway. 

It seems that the claims of the campaign team backing Leave have conned millions of voters! "Lies, lies, lies" they shout. Let's consider this. So happens I agreed with the criticisms of the claims about £350million a week going into the NHS. It was an unsustainable claim. My colleague MP, Sarah Woollaston jumped sides and voted remain because she could see it was unsustainable. I said it was unsustainable. It was one reason why I did not campaign for Leave at all. But the reality is you would have to have been very very gullible to have believed it. Not sure it had much impact at all.

I thought the claims of the Remain side were far far worse. Mainly because they were being made by the Gov't, and connected parties like Mark Carney, who let himself and the Bank of England down. The claims were so ridiculous that very few actually believed  them. And we need to remember that the Leave side had no official support to prepare their arguments, while the Remain side had the entire Civil Service. In my view a lot more voters believed the Gov't backed Remain 'false nonsense' than believed the Leave side 'false nonsense'. So I don't think that impacted on the vote either.

The one comment in many of these emails that really 'narked' me is that those of us who voted Leave have sacrificed the future of our children and grandchildren - (almost knowingly) as if they care about theirs more than I care about ours. The reason I've always opposed membership of the EU (and the EEC before it) is to ensure that my children and grandchildren are not governed by an undemocratic bureaucracy in Brussels, rather than a Government they can remove from office if they want to. As soon as I read that line about "children and grandchildren" a surge of resentment washes over me.

Also being asked whether I think a PM who voted remain can take the UK out of the EU. I certainly think they can. What matters is not which side they campaigned on, but how determined they are to implement the clear majority decision of the voters of the United Kingdon, the voters of Wales and the voters of Powys. I believe Stephen Crabb and Theresa May would do that. 

And the final comment I'll make is about the odd way the losing side has persuaded the media to search out voters who claim to have changed their minds. The position is that the BBC in particular wanted us to vote Remain, and are intent on undermining the voters decision. It's not going to happen.   I recall the vote to create a Welsh Assembly in 1997, which the media generally supported. 50.3% voted Yes on a 50% turnout. No-one went around then searching out those who had 'changed their minds'. I do also recall that there were huge numbers who were opposed to devolution and thought not voting was an effective way of stopping it. Those, like me, who had opposed devolution simply accepted the result. That's the proper response to a referendum result.

The Race to No 10.

I've never felt the need to tell my journalist friends how I intend to vote in secret ballots. They are secret for a reason. It's my business. And it limits scope for a late change of mind! But sometimes I succumb to the 'natural human urge to expose' when contemplating a blog post. To date, I've not wanted to make public my thoughts on the runners and riders in the current race for the keys to No 10. I suppose I did have to share some of my thinking with Vaughan Roderick on O'r Bae yesterday. Incidentally, failed to use my phrase of the day. Whenever I make an extensive appearance on a Welsh Language programme, I like to use a new word/phrase. Yesterday planned to use 'cyfalafiaeth' (capitalism) but didn't manage to squeeze it in !

There are 5 candidates in the race. I know them all reasonably well, two rather better than that. All 5 have great strengths, though in terms of political philosophy there are no huge differences. For me it's  an embarrassment of riches. I would be content to see any of them as PM. No doubt you will read everything from their primary school careers to shoe size in the media. So I'm just going to reflect on my own (current) thoughts. Have sent out invite to all Montgomeryshire Tory members (the electorate in this case) to join me when the two runners who make it into the 'home straight' are known.

I am minded to support Stephen Crabb in the first vote on Tuesday. I've known Stephen for 20 yrs and been knocking doors in Pembrokeshire campaigning for him. Very calm, sound and thinks things through carefully. I suppose he's not much experience of high office, but has been an MP for 11 yrs. Not yet had long enough in difficult job at Work and Pensions to make his mark. But he has much more experience than David Cameron had when he became our Leader! So not sure great experience matters that much. I look on Stephen as a good friend, and when I mix in loyalty with respect, he probably wins my vote.

I also know Andrea Leadsom well. Andrea was the energy minister who responded to the Inspector's Report following the Conjoined Public Inquiry into onshore wind farms in Mid Wales. I so approved of her decisions that I feel I owe her now. I've also been involved in many long discussions with her as a member of Energy and Climate Change Committee. Had two hrs on Wed discussing Investor Confidence in energy generation. Andrea is tough, and single minded. More than a touch of 'Maggie' about her. I think she will make last two and be difficult for me not to support her at that stage.

Runaway favourite at this stage is Theresa May. She has been to Montgomeryshire a fair few times. Came to Dyffryn Farm, Meifod a few weeks back, home of Jonathon Wilkinson to meet farming representatives. First time I met her was in 1997, when she came door knocking with me around Argae Hall and the Revel. Caught the eye of Dai Pryce in very short skirt and open top BMW Sportscar. (Theresa not Dai). We had lunch in the Talbot. Great experience and very safe hands. Most interesting would be who she appoints to implement Leave, and to the Treasury. And of interest to me who she appoints to lead at DECC. 

And then there is Michael Gove. Michael is not how he's portrayed. Very funny, bright and emotional. A nonstop fount of ideas. Radical, progressive and driven by logic. But many Tory MPs will not forgive him for derailing the Boris bandwagon. Not universally popular in our house. We have an English school teacher amongst us!! Sense he won't make last two. But he really believes in what he does. Would be great choice to negotiate UK exit from EU. Be no backsliding then.

And then there is Liam Fox. Nothing wrong with Liam. He'd be good PM. But I sense it's just not his time. 

Must add a word about Boris. He delivered the vote to Leave. Wouldn't have happened without him. In reality Boris has had more impact on British politics already than several previous prime ministers have had. What really surprised me was Michael Gove deserting him basically because Boris doesn't do detail. We knew that already. Boris does engagement with the popular vote. Also has fearsome ability, which does his best to hide. What would have mattered would be who he employed to do the detail. Also generates strong antipathy in some. Lot of Remainers will never forgive him for defeating them. Anyway it's all over for Boris (for now anyway). 

By tmrw morning, it might all look totally different!