S4C and Welsh Identity debate

S4C and Welsh Identity

Few weeks ago, I led a debate which I called S4C and Welsh Identity. I did quite a bit of preparation for my speech to open the debate. However I did not write anything down and just spoke as if in a conversation. Never again. I was shocked by how scattergun was the transcript. I thought it went rather well in the debating chamber, leading to a good debate, but I had to tidy it up a bit before putting up on my website. Anyway, here it is.

Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con):

S4C and its link with cultural identity are hugely important in Wales and a matter on which there is a large measure of agreement across all parties and among all Welsh MPs.  I would have liked to have had more Members from other parties present for the debate. Unfortunately, however, we clash with the Welsh Grand Committee, which meets at the same time.  So I fear that we may be short of the sort of numbers that I might have expected. This is certainly not a reflection of the strong interest of Welsh MPs in the future of S4C.

My personal interest developed in the 1960s and 1970s, when I became much more aware of my own identity - as we do tend to as we grow older.  I realised I was Welsh to the core.  First and foremost, I would always describe myself as Welsh. I have looked through records of my ancestors, and I do not have a single one who was not born in Montgomeryshire, Sir Drefaldwyn and every single one was a first-language Welsh speaker.

In the 1960s, my generation—my five sisters and I—were the first not to speak Welsh; we spoke only English. When I became a Member of the National Assembly for Wales in 1999, my sense of identity grew stronger and was such that I felt that I had to learn to speak Welsh. Since then I have become bilingual, and if anyone were to ask me what were the proudest achievements in my life, one of them would be becoming bilingual in the language of my own nation.

I have been asked why I sought today’s debate. It stemmed from a meeting with the chief executive of S4C, in which we talked about the channel’s forward budget and future programme development. It was about a chance conversation, three years on from the trauma experienced when the inflationary link on which S4C funding was based was broken. The avenue through which the funding is processed also changed so that it came via the BBC Trust, from the licence fee. That change was also significant, as well as being a sensitive issue, causing much concern in Wales.

Another factor in the timing of the debate is that we have a new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. There will inevitably be something of an induction course for the new Secretary of State.  He will soon realise that the S4C issue is not a quiet one. It might well be on his desk more than he expects. The issue is important, and he needs to be aware of just how important S4C, the Welsh language and the cultural link between them is to the Welsh people.

S4C is inextricably linked to the language and Welsh identity. More than anything else, it is the Welsh language that makes Wales special. As I said, my first interest in Welsh identity, including in the language, developed in the 1960s. At that time—this might come as a shock to my colleagues—I won a bardic chair for a 20,000-word essay on the future of the Welsh language. It might cause some amusement to hear that my pseudonym was Taurus ap Tomos; make of that what you will.

The conclusion of my essay was pessimistic, not an unusual conclusion to draw in the 1960s.  It was that the Welsh language would disappear as a spoken language. We have made a huge advance since then, because that is not something that people would say today. It is easy to forget just how negative prospects were in the 1960’s.

Before 1982, there had been a build-up to the establishment of S4C. Some Welsh language programmes appeared in the 1960s and 1970s on other platforms, the BBC and HTV Cymru. Before the 1979 general election, there was much debate about whether a new Welsh language channel would be created. But it was created, even though there was a bit of a hoo-hah after the election. The Government of the day was facing economic and budgetary pressures and had to consider carefully before committing to new spending. There was a lot of support for a new channel; the Welsh community came together and applied pressure, as they did three years ago, too. The outcome was that the then Government, led by Mrs Thatcher, created S4C in November 1982.

Despite the hoo-hah leading up to it, the creation of S4C under a Conservative Government is something that I look back on as a major step forward for the language. If we look at the record of the Conservative party, creating S4C was not the only thing it did: the Welsh Language Act 1993 was also a major step forward.  The creation of the Welsh Language Board was another Conservative initiative.

I am therefore proud, not only of the creation of S4C in 1982 — there can be debate about how that came about, particularly the influence of Gwynfor Evans’s threat to fast to death, and Opposition criticism of the prevarication in introducing the necessary Bill—but the budget it was granted. There has always been a good and adequate budget.  Since the beginning S4C has been good value. In 1991, a guaranteed link with inflation was introduced, and that funded the channel on a confident basis right up until 2010, when the incoming Government faced a similar position to that of the Government which came to power in 1979, facing threats to the economy and a need to cut back on public expenditure.

There is room for debate about the impact of the inflationary link. On the one hand there was the positive element: S4C had a guaranteed income in a business in which forward commitments need to be made, and independence from Government interference. However, the statutory link to inflation may have led to an element of complacency. That guaranteed income meant that S4C had to keep thinking not about its market, but about satisfying the people in control of paying it.

It was quite an experience for me being involved in legislating to break the inflation link. I served on the Committee that examined the Public Bodies Bill. I had 1,200 e-mails on the issue, which is four times more than on any other subject since I became an MP. After I had spoken in committee I became something of a target. We even had someone carted out of the Public Gallery, because she began to shout at me. There was a huge rumpus in Wales as well. I was being doorstepped all over this building by various people lobbying. What all this showed me was that the people of Wales really cared about their channel. They were worried that changes would damage it, although over the past three years, in my opinion, things have worked out okay.

There was a second big change: rather than being funded directly from Westminster, the channel is now funded from the licence fee through the BBC Trust.  There is an issue consequent on this change that has raised its head this morning. Many were worried about that change at the time. Their worry is that we need an independent S4C that is not influenced by a paymaster—that is, not influenced by the BBC. 

The comments we have seen reported in the media today are a bit overblown. The director of BBC Cymru Wales has spoken about S4C viewing figures at peak hours, which might be perceived as wanting to influence the management of S4C.  I am not sure that that is right. What is crucial is that S4C is free and independent—editorially, operationally and managerially. The slightest suggestion that there might be some interference is what has caused a hoo-hah today. I welcome that, as it emphasises just how important that independence is.

I must say that the relationship between S4C and the BBC in Wales is probably better than anybody could have expected.

There is one aspect of the Public Bodies Act 2011 on which I would like a reassurance from the Minister—I am sure he will be happy to give it. Section 31 states that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport must ensure “sufficient funding” to deliver a Welsh language channel in Wales. That is rather imprecise. However, it is important that it is stated in the Act and that the Secretary of State has this responsibility.

My focus today is on the link between S4C and the language.  It is what I think is most important.  However, to a lot of people, the importance of S4C is about not just the language but the contribution that it makes to the economy. I was involved in economic development for the whole of Wales around the time that S4C was created. There followed a blossoming of the creative industries. A large number of small production businesses set up in parts of Wales where there had been depopulation, and to which it was difficult to attract other forms of business. S4C does not produce its own programmes but commissions it from others.  A large proportion of those commissions go not to the BBC but to independent companies. Today we have four major companies that produce programmes for S4C. These include: Boom Pictures, a successful international company; Tinopolis, a major company that produces “Question Time”; Rondo; and Cwmni Da, a company that has sold programmes to China.

We should not forget, however, that the last thing we want is for S4C to drop into a comfort zone of just working with established companies. We need to make certain that it is not just the four established companies with good relationships with S4C that continue to get all the work, and that there is still a blossoming of new, small companies in the more remote parts of Wales where it is still more difficult to develop the economy.

Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con): My hon. Friend will have heard that S4C is moving its headquarters to Carmarthen. The economic contribution that that will make across west Wales is profound. His point is a good one, and one that S4C is beginning to realise itself.

Glyn Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend. There will obviously be views on whether S4C should move its Headquarters from the capital, where political activity is mainly based and the creative industries are concentrated.  In my opinion the move is the right one to where the language is under most threat, in what I term the heartlands, where Welsh is still the language of the street and the playground.  Carmarthen is one of those places. Those are the areas where we have seen the biggest loss in Welsh speakers in recent years and where S4C can play a role in helping to stabilise decline in use of the language.

Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. To return to education and the importance of the language, does he agree that an essential role of S4C has been to buttress education policy in schools? It is not a tool of Government policy but has meant that children from an anglicised background have had the Welsh language made familiar in their homes in a natural way. Does he also agree that evidence for the fact that S4C is in no way complacent is the international success of many of its commissions, not least “Hinterland”, which was filmed in Ceredigion?

Glyn Davies: Indeed. The only difficulty I had with ‘Hinterland’ was that it rained pretty much throughout the first episode and was probably not particularly helpful to attracting tourists to Ceredigion. However, I have watched the later episodes, and greatly enjoyed them.

My request for today’s debate was instigated by a meeting with S4C where we discussed future funding. Decisions on future programming have to be made two or three years ahead, and those making the decisions need to have an idea of what their budget will be. Although most of S4C’s budget comes from the licence fee, which is fairly predictable, a certain amount still comes from the Westminster Government—from DCMS—and is guaranteed for only a limited period. Programmes such as “Hinterland” take more than two years to deliver, from initial discussions to delivery.  To commit to a programme such as ‘Hinterland’ a fair degree of certainty is needed. That is one of the main reasons I requested today’s debate, before discussions on S4C’s future funding are taken. The licence fee we know about, and the Minister may have already started discussions on its future. Officially, they will probably start after the next election.  If we are going to see good and internationally successful programmes such as “Hinterland”, we need to have a period in which the board and chief executive of S4C can commit to delivering programmes in two years’ time.  That requires some certainty about the budget.

Very soon now — perhaps it has already begun — the Secretary of State will be starting the long process of reviewing the BBC’s charter, and part of that will be its relationship with S4C and the continuation of the funding stream. There will also be discussions, which I hope honourable members will be part of, about S4C deciding what sort of organisation it wants to be. There will be changes — nothing stands still, particularly in the fast-moving world of the creative industries. There needs to be a serious look at how much money comes in from advertising which is a significant part of S4C’s funding.  This income inevitably is effected by viewing figures.  When I see headlines about audience figures, I never really trust them.  We have to look at the whole picture and what is behind the figures. S4C produces a lot of children’s programmes, which do not count in the way audience figures are measured.  S4C has been incredibly successful in that field, exporting children’s programmes all over the world. Also, there is a viewing trend affecting all television channels by the growth of online viewing, which inevitably leads to a reduction in audience figures. We have to look at the issue in the round before we make a judgment about viewing figures. There will be a significant debate about the sort of S4C we want. As I said, I think S4C is producing a document later this month which will be a chance for us to start engaging with it.

The United Kingdom has been a hugely successful entity for centuries. A key part of that is that each nation within the union, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, has to feel a sense that it is belonging to a team and that its differences and uniqueness are properly recognised right across the UK; that the whole team recognises its special features. In Wales, we have a much loved language, which about 20% of people speak; it is very successful. We have probably stopped its decline, but there remains a constant battle to protect and boost it. That has to be respected throughout the United Kingdom, not just in Wales, where we are very aware of it.  That is why it is important that we have a debate about S4C, the language and the identity of Wales here in the UK Parliament. That is why I have secured today’s debate and why I have enjoyed sharing my views on the issue with hon. Members.

Lobbying and Transparency Bill

A few months ago the Coalition Gov't brought forward a bill to fulfill its promise to control lobbyists and introduce more transparency into government. I thought there were major improvements needed, and I arranged meetings with the Leader of the House, Andrew Lansley who is responsible for taking this Bill through Parliament. Today we reached the stage where the House of Commons were  considering amendments made to the Bill in the House of Lords. Those we overturn will be sent back to the Lords for more consideration before coming back to the Commons. This process in known as 'ping-pong'. This post lays out where we are and how we got there. I have written it because there has been a orchestrated campaign pressurising MPs to abandon the Bill. Though its written as my take on it, I accept that its also written from a Coalition Gov't standpoint.

Its important for democracy that campaigning in elections is transparent and properly accounted for. Fundamentally, this Bill contains reforms to bring greater transparency and accountability to the political system. The measures in the Bill do not affect organisations who do not seek directly to influence the outcome of elections.

During its passage through the Commons, the Gov't made many concesions to meet the concerns of MPs on all sides. The bill sent to the Lords was much changed. In addition, during passage through the Lords Government made amendments which address the concerns raised about the potential impact of the Bill and existing rules on non-party campaigning at elections. These changes have been welcomed by charities and other groups.

Fundamental to the amendments was the raising of the registration rates to £20,000 for England and £10,000 in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will effectively exempt most campaigning groups and charities who are either small or undertake limited political campaigning from the requirement to register as a third party, and the associated reporting requirements that entails.

Other key Government amendments to which the House agreed were:

• Increasing the spending limits in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the levels originally set out in the Bill, giving an uplift of £20,000 to each nation.

• Removing all burdens from low-spending participants in a campaigning coalition by allowing larger campaigners to provide a single report on their behalf.

• Removing the requirement for a return, or a nil return, in relation to spending returns, donations reports and statement of accounts, if a recognised third party has not spent above the registration threshold.

• A review of the effects of the provisions of Part 2 to report following the 2015 UK Parliamentary General Election, to ensure the regulatory system remains effective and proportionate.

• Reducing the length of the 2014/2015 regulated period for non-party campaigning. It will now commence the day after the Scottish independence referendum on 18 September 2014.

• An exemption for the costs of translating material from and into Welsh, and for campaign costs relating to disability and security.

My view is that the Lobbying and Transparency Bill is now much better than it was, and that a lot of my concerns have been met. On balance I am now willing to support it. The Bill does not prevent third parties from campaigning, but it does require that they be upfront about their spending, and not be allowed to overwhelm and outspend candidates and parties.

It remains the case that there remain some constituents that disagree with me, and I'm sorry about that, particularly bearing in mind the work I've put in. I do have to add that some of the tactics employed by an organisation named 38 Degrees have been extremely non transparent and have not been at all helpful to anyone. I sense that the Bill has now reached its final form, and will go as it is foward to Royal Assent.

Hayley's Suicide and the Policy Context.

I wrote this yesterday, hoping a national newspaper would pick up on it. I the event, the Telegraph ran an article and rang me for quotes. I thought it was quite a decent article so thought I'd post it.

'Let sick Brits die like Hayley'. So read the headline in The Sun a few days ago, referring of course to the suicide of the soap opera character Hayley Cropper in ITV's Coronation Street. What was meant by this, of course, is that Parliament should legalise what is being called 'assisted dying' - the phrase that has become code for assisted suicide. 

There have been concerns expressed over copycat suicides. I share these concerns. However, I am also worried that Hayley's suicide is being depicted as a response to terminal illness. That risks sending a message to people who really are terminally ill that to take your own life might be 'the decent thing to do'. At a time when we have an ageing population and rising health care costs, is this really a message we want to send? 

 The 'Corrie' storyline is about an act of suicide. Predictably, however, the campaigners are jumping on the bandwagon to try and bolster their own agenda, which is legalisation of assisted suicide. Law-making is a serious business. It has to be, because laws have consequences. They can bring benefits, but they can also do harm. It's one thing to say you like the idea of 'assisted dying' but, if you are talking about legislating for it, you have to consider the practicalities. And it is here where the campaigning falls flat. 

Take, for example, Lord Falconer's 'Assisted Dying Bill', now before the House of Lords. It sets out various criteria that a request for physician-assisted suicide should meet. But nowhere does it specify any steps that a doctor who is faced with such a request must take in order to be satisfied that those criteria have been met. Don't worry about that, we are told, it will all be decided by other people at a later date if Parliament agrees to legalise assisted suicide. I'm sorry, but this just won't do. When I buy a used car, I want to see the MoT certificate and the service history before I pay up, not after. 

We are not talking about tax law or planning law or traffic regulations here. We are talking about a law with (literally) life-or-death consequences. For such a law the safeguards debate cannot be by-passed. If the supporters of assisted suicide are so sure that their ideas can be put into practice without causing harm, let them come out and show us their safety system upfront. If Parliament were ever to consider passing such a law, it would need to be very tightly drawn. What has been served up to us so far is about as watertight as a colander. 

It's also about time that all the euphemisms were jettisoned and the campaigners start using plain language about what they are proposing. MSP Margo MacDonald, who has introduced a bill of this kind into the Scottish parliament, is refreshingly upfront about what she wants to legalise: her bill is titled the 'Assisted Suicide (Scotland)' Bill. Yet south of the border Lord Falconer hides behind the term 'assisted dying' and describes the lethal drugs that he wants doctors to be able to supply to patients as 'medicines'. In legislation with such potentially serious consequences we need clarity and transparency, not language bubble-wrapped to disguise its real meaning. 

And it's about time too that the campaigners summoned up the courage to bring their proposals to the elected House rather than, as has been the case up to now, to the House of Lords. Most of the debate over the last 10 years has been in the Upper House. A year ago Richard Ottaway MP secured a debate in the House on one aspect of this subject - prosecuting policy in cases of assisted suicide. Richard and I take different views on whether the law should be changed, but I supported his action and I participated, along with many others, in what was a very worthwhile debate. It is the Commons where any future bill should first be considered. 

This is a complex and difficult subject on which we need open and informed public debate. But that isn't what is happening. What we are getting is spin and sensationalism, not rational discussion. So let's have an end to the euphemistic language and asking Parliament to sign blank cheques. If the campaigners want Parliament to take them seriously, let them say what they mean in plain language and tell us how it will work. Only in that way can we take informed decisions.

A Politically Correct Christmas Poem

First time I have visited my blog for many weeks. I did post this in draft. Forgot about it, until visited now to post the article I wrote on last night's Corrie suicide story. I heard this read by Rod Liddle at the Spectator Christmas Carol service. Rod gave me a copy afterwards. Thought I may as well post it.

T'was the night before Christmas and Santa's a wreck... How to live in a world that's politically correct? His workers no longer would answer to "Elves". "Vertically Challenged" they were calling themselves. And labour conditions at the North pole Were alleged by the union to stifle the soul. 

Four reindeer had vanished, without much propriety, Released to the wilds by the Humane Society. And equal employment had made it quite clear That Santa had better not use just reindeer. So Dancer and Donner, Comet and Cupid Were replaced with four pigs, and you know that looked stupid! 

The runners had been removed from his sleigh; The ruts were termed dangerous by the E.P.A. And people had started to call for the cops When they heard sled noises on their rooftops. Smoke from his pipe had his workers quite frightened. His fur trimmed red suit was called "Unenlightened." 

And to show toy the strangeness of life's ebbs and flows, Rudolf was suing over unauthorised use of his nose And had gone on the One Show in front of the nation, Demanding millions in over-due compensation. So, half of the reindeer were gone; and his wife, Who suddenly said she'd enough of this life, 

Joined a self-help group, packed, and left in a whiz, Demanding from now on her title was Ms. And as for the gifts, why, he'd never had a notion That making a choice could cause so much commotion. Nothing of leather, nothing of fur, Which mean nothing for him. And nothing for her. 

Nothing that night be construed to pollute. Nothing to aim, Nothing to shoot. Nothing that clamored or made lots of noise. Nothing for just girls, or just for the boys. Nothing that claimed to be gender specific. Nothing that's warlike or non-pacifistic. 

No candy or sweets...they were bad for the tooth. Nothing that seemed to embellish the truth. And fairy tales, while not yet forbidden, Were like Ken and Barbie, better off hidden. For they raised the hackles of those psychological Who claimed the only good gift was one ecological. 

No baseball, no football...someone could get hurt; Besides, playing sports exposed kids to dirt. Dolls were said to be sexist, and should be passe; And Nintendo would rot your entire brain away. So Santa just stood there, disheveled, perplexed; He just could not figure out what to do next. 

He tried to be merry, tried to be gay, Hut you've got to be careful with that word today. His sack was quite empty, limp to the ground; Nothing fully acceptable was to be found. Something special was needed, a gift that he might Give to all without angering the left or the right. 

A gift that would satisfy, with no indecision, Each group of people, every religion; Every ethnicity, every hue, Everyone, everywhere...even you. So here is that gift, it's price beyond worth... May you and your loved ones, enjoy peace on Earth.

The Times and devolution to Wales - Sept 1969.

Clearing out an old cellar space today and came upon a yellowed copy of The Times from September 16th 1969. A most interesting read. Two front page stories. First there's reports of an EEC summit conference to be held shortly in The Hague to consider terms of UK membership. Bill Cash MP is not quoted. Second story is about Whitehall greeting figures which demonstate that export-led expansion of the economy is finally underway. Amazingly, no politician of any sort is quoted. In Sept 1969, they would all have been enjoying their 4 month recess around the Med or in the West Indies. And then there's a photograph of Liberal Leader, the beautifully besuited Jeremy Thorpe with two handsome young men in swimming trucks on Brighton beach, chatting before a two day Liberal conference on constitutional reform. I promise you I have not made up a single word of this. So over to page 2, and what do we have here. A report about the interests of Wales not being properly represented at Westminster. Sir Goronwy Daniel, a man of fame when I first entered public life, insists that the interests of Wales are not being neglected. Sir Goronwy is of the view that at present the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State are well able to exercise considerable influence on the 'Whitehall and Westminster Gov't'. (No need for too much of this devolution nonsense perhaps). Sir Goronwy accepts the possibility of change and that the Welsh Office could be ready in a year or two to take over functions such as education, Home Office matters and agriculture. Wonder what Home Office matters he had in mind. But he is concerned that too much work would mean that the Secretary of State would not be able to cope, which in turn will mean a danger of Wales being increasingly governed by civil servants. He goes on to say that a reform of local governmnet is needed to reduce numbers of councils and councillors. Rest of report is about Lord Ogmore, a Labour MP who became a Liberal peer advocating a Welsh Assembly with extensive powers. Plaid Cymru are to outline its view tomorrow. What strikes me as interesting is how little has changed in 44 years!

Leonardo Glyn Martinez Davies (Leo) and others.

Couple of photographs of Leo and his dad and taid.

Last Word on EU Referendum til 2017

Shared an interview with Peter Hain on Radio Wales' Sunday Supplement this morning. Not sure what reach the programme has, but its my favorite to appear on. Vaughan Roderick, a sort of Radio Wales Paxman without the sneer is most knowledgeable journalist I know in Wales. Always asks the one question you dont want him to - and very politely which makes it worse. Anyway, this morning's discussion was most odd. I couldn't for the life of me understand what Peter Hain was on about. Now Peter is a serious politician to tangle with. Crafty as they come, and been around a long time. So I was waiting for the 'killer line' - which never came. Seems he was demanding that David Cameron does pretty well what David Cameron has said he's going to do. The subject under discussion was an EU Referendum (again) - a subject designed to drive readers away from any blog that opens discussion about it. But its taking up so much Parliamentary time, and exercising some of my colleagues to such an extent, that I should set out what I think about where we have come from, where we are and where we are going - at least as far as I'm able to. It will be this blog's last word until 2017. I have always tended towards the Eurosceptic - driven by libertarian and anti-statist instincts. In 1975, after developing in YFC confidence to speak in public, I campaigned a bit for the 'Out' side. When the debate at that referendum started out, my side thought we could win, but as the campaign wore on, we were soundly trounced - an experience that some current politicians would do well to note! Today, I sense that the people feel that the EU interferes more than it should in matters that are properly affairs of the nation state. I also feel that the people of the UK want another referendum to establish whether they wish to remain members of the EU. It also seems to me that politicians across the EU are realising that Europe is losing competetiveness with other parts of the world. You might even say losing ground in the 'Global Race'. David Cameron seems to take the same view, and has developed a pragmatic policy to address all of these issues. In his Bloomberg speech last January, the Prime Minister announced that if he were to be elected as leader of a Conservative Gov't in 2015, he would immediately open discussion with our EU partners about what changes could be made. I suspect some EU leaders, notably Angela Merkel share some of the Cameron concerns. And then when we know what the result of all this discussion is, the British people will have their referendum in late 2017. Personally, the Bloomberg speech was good enough for me. I was happy to leave it at that. But not for all my colleagues. Some of them want to legislate in an effort to bind any future Gov't to holding a referendum in 2017. Its this which is swallowing up MPs time, and making meaningful engagement with constituents almost impossible. 3 Fridays at Westminster in November. Sometimes I do reflect how much easier it would be to be a Lib Dem MP. Sometimes, I'm aked which way I will vote in 2017. How on earth do I know. It depends what the negotiations produce. If there were to be no change at all, I could well vote to leave the EU. If there were to be substantive change I could well vote to stay in. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in being committed to a renogatiation with a closed mind. It would be good if this were to be my last word on this subject. It is my intention. But EU discussion is a bit like Bruce Forsyth - keeps coming back week after week.

Silk Part One and All That

Last week, the Prime Minister came to Wales with a veritable bag of Halloween 'goodies'. Firstly, and I put this first because its received nothing like the coverage it merits, is the next Nato Summit coming to Newport in Sept 2014. This is huge for Wales. President Obama walking in the steps of Tiger Woods at Celtic Manor will be beamed across the world. Biggest opportunity for Welsh tourism and recognition since...Ryder Cup. Now I don't expect an invite to the Summit, and no doubt the Welsh Gov't will put on some associated hospitality, but I do hope Welsh MPs, Welsh tourism and Welsh business are in on the act as well. Now the other package of announcements (which pushed the Nato Summit off the Welsh front pages) was what we can describe as an initial response to the Silk Report Part 1. This may well mean nothing whatsoever to you! In essence its about how Wales should be governed in the future - how devolution develops. Paul Silk was asked to produce the Report by the Secretary of State for Wales. It was published a year ago and the response had been long anticipated. Generally to be welcomed (by me anyway) but there remain uncertainties. A full response to the Report will follow in due course. But PM told us that Stamp Duty Land Tax and Landfill Tax are to be devolved to the National Assembly for Wales (as recommended). The Aggregates Levy and Air Passenger Duty are not. Upshot of this is that the Welsh Gov't will now have capacity to raise taxes for the first time. The Welsh Govt will also be able to borrow money, but I am a bit uncertain about what's involved here. My understanding is that some old existing WDA powers are being used to facilitate this. My understanding is also that its only proposed that the borrowing powers can be used for M4 and A55 inprovements. Also I'm not sure whether the tax raising capacity is actually needed to cover the borrowing if existing powers are being used, or if they are whether they are sufficient to finance what will be in excess of a £billion of investment. If its using powers already in existance, and limiting it to what UK Govt approves, not sure how much of a constitutional change this actually is. All will be revealed in due course. The biggie is devolution of income tax - as already happens in Scotland. The position is that legislation will be introduced at Westminster, giving the National Assembly for Wales the power to call a referendum on devolving to the Welsh Government the responsibility for levying half of our income tax bills, together with the power to vary the rate. There seems a view by many that the Silk Commission recommendation that this power to vary should apply to each tax band separately is what's envisaged. I do not believe this is what the Prime Minister said. As in Scotland, its only the power to vary the tax rate across the board. So bang goes the campaigning opportunity for Welsh Conservatives to promise a cut in 40p rate at Assembly Election, a real opportunity to sell Wales as an attractive place to move to. Such a promise in Wales would be wholly financially positive. Again all will be revealed in due course. Anyway, the Labour Party hate the idea of the Welsh Gov't becoming financially accountable. So easy just to blame Westminster Gov't for everything. The co-ordinated message coming out of the First Minister's office and the Shadow Sec of State for Wales is 'no income tax powers til the Barnett Formula is reformed' - in other words 'No Thanks'. Next step is the official response to the Silk Report Part 1 - which seems likely to be tied up with the 'Wales Bill' promised in the Queen's Speech. There is no doubt that the Coalition Gov't moved the devolution process on last week, especially with the granting of borrowing powers. But there's still a bit of water to flow under the bridge until we can be sure where it will lead. All will be revealed in due course.

Leonardo Glyn Martinez Davies

This day a fourth grandchild was delivered unto Glyn and Bobbie Davies, named Leo. His mother Zulma is an proud as punch and Leo looks at home in his big new world after a tough journey into it. Like all families there are problems to be faced, but today belongs to Zulma, Pat and Leo.

Engaging with Constituents and Rationalising EU Referendum Policy

Haven't visited my blog for weeks. Not been enough time. But have called in tonight to report on my emerging campaign for re-election as MP for Montgomeryshire in 2015. Not going to change practice much, but we do have to develop a different mindset. No point in standing without having a fair crack at winning. But in general, I'm going to stick by the rules that got me this far! Now it seems that I'm bookies favorite to win. In 2010, Mrs D risked a small wager on me and got odds of 8/1. I was told that at one stage a bookie offered 15/1. If I'd seen that I'd have bet on myself. I think its allowed. Anyway, I'm told it would be about 1/3 now. That's some turnaround. I should add that I dont think bookies have a clue about what Montgomeryshire thinks. What I do know is that its been Lib Dem (in its various forms) since 1880 - except for one blip in 1979, when the Conservatives won it, only to lose it to an unknown outsider in the Thatcher landslide of 1983! A cursory glance at history squeezes all complacency out of our thinking. Anyway, my strategy is to leave the actual campaigning to my team, which luckily, the super-efficient Simon Baynes has agreed to help me with. I'm just going to carry on engaging with my constituents, doing my job, setting aside all negative comment about my opponents. In fact, I don't really intend to discuss them at all. And at the heart of my strategy is 'the community meeting'. Old fashioned I know - but trust me. Arranged the first at Berriew on Friday. Between 50-60 came along and raised enough issues to keep my office going for days. Had to call a halt after near 90 minutes. Plenty more issues after the bell. One of my constituents wanted to know my opinion on UK membership of the EU. Didn't have a definitive answer. This is what I said - which is really the point of this post! I have always been Eurosceptic, and as a young man campaigned for 'out' in 1995. But its not rational to say 'In' or 'Out' at this stage. What I can say is that my approach is driven by two factors. Firstly, the EU interferes too much in what should be the role of the individual state - which is why the Prime Minister will try to reform the relationship. And secondly, the people of the UK want a referendum on whether to remain part of the EU or not. This is what I reckon the people want, and this is what a future Conservative Gov't would give them. About a year ago, the Prime Minister announced that were he to be elected as leader of a Conservative Gov't, he would begin reform process in 2015, and hold a referendum in 2017. I'm happy with that. I was happy with that even without the Private Members Bill currently being debated in the House of Commons. Its just not rational to say I want 'Out' without knowing what 'In' would be. I know this cuts no ice with some of my colleagues, who have tabled an amendment to the Wharton Private Mmembers Bill demanding that an In/Out referendum be held before any attempt to reform and while we are still governed by a Coalition Gov't, one part of which will have none of it. This seems most unwise to me. And Nigel Farage has stirred things up a bit by promising not to put up a UKIP candidate against anyone who supports the Adam Alfriye amendment. Tempting! By this stage I think my constituent was uterly mesmerised. Thank the Lord she didn't raise the issue during the meeting, which reinforced the old dictum 'All politics is local'. Anyway I thought it was a great success, and will be planning my second 'community meeting' tomorrow.

Working with Montgomeryshire UKIP.

Seems to be quite a bit of discussion around concerning the possibilities of some sort of pact between Conservatives and UKIP to contest the 2015 General Election. Seems that UKIP leader, Nigel Farage went along to Manchester today and fell into discussing the idea. My understanding is that he's against anything at national level, but open to agreements at local level. Must admit I've no idea how such arrangements would work out in practice. Anyway, The Conservative leadership has absolutely ruled it out. But its provided a bit of entertainment for the twitteratti - especially when he tangled with the redoubtable Bill Cash at a 'fringe' meeting. Would quite like to have seen that.

But enough of Manchester. What about Montgomeryshire. I've always rather liked the UKIP people in my own area, especially when one of my oldest friends, David Rowlands was carrying the banner for them. I felt very sad when David died earlier this year. We had worked closely together as Montgomeryshire District Cllrs. and shared many interests. And their candidate in the Assembly elections, Christine Williams seemed a capable candidate. I've always found a cup of coffee at the UKIP stand at local summer shows to be a convivial experience. But I could never contemplate any sort of joint ticket at election time - never ever.

But lets look at policy. This is where I find it difficult to find clearly defined differences between me and Montgomeryshire UKIP. I suppose the first issue is the EU. We both agree there should be a referendum on continued UK membership. I'm not sure it can now be avoided anyway. Would not surprise me if all parties sign up to it by 2015. Perhaps I will differ from UKIP on how we will approach that referendum in 2017. Its just too early to know yet. Most Ukippers will be for 'out' whatever, while I want to see what changes the Prime Minister can win before committing myself. But without a Conservative-led Govt, there wouldn't be a referendum at all.

UKIP are as sound as the Coalition parties on the economy. We agree on the need for control of immigration - though the tone and language may differ. UKIP shares my implacable opposition to the Mid Wales Connection Project which will cover Montgomeryshire with pylons and turbines. And UKIP are now accepting that the National Assembly is here to stay, and we should focus on making it work in the interests of Wales. I even tried making a speech with a pint of real ale in my hand a few weeks back, which went quite well.

Where I have a bit of a problem is in tone of some of UKIP rhetoric, though it seems to be changing rapidly. MEP, Geoffrey Bloom was recently kicked out of the party for unacceptable comments. Thats growing up a bit. What I will say is that in my conversations with Montgomeryshire Ukippers, there is not a problem, even where we don't see exactly eye to eye on things. I suppose it is a bit of an irony that if Montgomeryshire UKIP does very well in 2015, it may gift victory to a party much less in agreement with them, and if national UKIP does very well, it may gift the Government of Britain to the Labour Party. Politics is an odd business.