Seems there's a bit of a hoohah about today's announcement by Defra that the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales is to be abolished. I arrived home from Westminster at 5.00 to find Radio Wales' Good Evening Wales had been on, wanting an interview there and then on the issue. Thought about 'ducking out' to get a briefing, but don't really like doing that - so took it on. So happens, I do know the issue reasonably well, even if not up to full speed on the day's events. Anyway, even though under the cosh a bit, thought I held my own quite well. Also thought I'd try to stimulate some debate by blogging on the issue.
Labour's Huw Irranca Davies had done a pre-record for GEW in which he seemed terribly agitated about process. Claimed Gov't had 'slipped it out' on last day of term as an amendment to Enterprise and Regulatory Bill. I suppose he was right about it being last day of term. But so what? I can never generate much excitement myself about 'process'. Reality is I've sat through more Opposition hand-wringing on this issue than anything else over the last year. Owen Paterson, new Sec of State at Defra has considered all the responses to the consultation and has decided to abolish the AWB as soon as possible. On balance I agree with him. And having made the decision we might as well get on with it.
Now to the issue itself. At heart the aim is to reduce red tape and unnecessary administration by abolishing the Agriculture Wages Board for England and Wales, together with the 31 associated bodies. Let the industry be free to negotiate its own wage structures, as happens in every other industry - with the National Minimum Wage as a 'backstop' to prevent abuse by the minority. Reality is that most employer/employee deals are negotiated at a level higher than either levels set by AWB or NMW.
Another reason for abolition is the completely different structure of many farm businesses today, which have diversified into non-agricultural activities - resulting in different wage structures operating within the same enterprise. And I'm told the inflexibility of the AWB leads to more short term contracts and less staff development. Must admit I cannot speak with any personal experience here, because I never took the slightest note of the AWB when I employed staff on my farm because I always paid well in excess of any suggested wage rates.
Two other points worth noting. There's been a wide consultation exercise. Big majority in favour of simplifying wage negotiating systems - though a smaller majority favoured keeping the AWB in a simplified form. But a large chunk of this support came from electronic emails organised by something called change.org.uk And then there's the opinion of the Welsh Gov't, which for some reason is vociferous in its opposition to abolition. Now I'm all in favour of consultation with the Welsh Gov't, but not in favour of giving it a veto on non-devolved matters. So there we have it. The Sec. of State has decided, and he's getting on with it.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
My 5 minutes in the Energy Bill Debate
Lots of MPs wanted to speak in yesterday's debate on the Energy Bill. Speaker cut us back to 5 minutes just before I was called to speak. Could have done with 10 mins, but managed to make thepoints I wanted to. Had to tidy up one ot two typos but here it is;
"There are two reasons why it is a huge pleasure for me to be called to speak in today’s debate. Firstly, it is a very important Bill. Secondly, today is a significant personal milestone. Precisely 10 years ago, at this time in the afternoon, I was at the Nuffield hospital in Shrewsbury in the throes of a six-hour operation to remove a cancerous tumour from my body. For those who are medically minded, the operation was a lower bowel perineal resection. One would have got very long odds indeed on my speaking in this Chamber 10 years later and representing my constituency of Montgomeryshire, particularly since at the time, it was one of the safest Liberal Democrat seats in the country.
I welcome the Bill and its commitment to energy market reform. Its purpose is to keep the lights on at an affordable cost to the nation, and to control the amounts of harmful gases which, it is said, are leading to global warming. Although I understand that we have not actually had any global warming for 15 years, is remains a laudable aim. It is a complex and wide-ranging Bill, and we can come at it from a variety of angles. I do not want to repeat what other Members have already said, which often happens in the later stages of a debate; I want to put forward considerations that Ministers might take into account when they deal with the implementation of ‘Contracts for Difference’.
I have spoken in this Chamber several times before about my antipathy to onshore wind projects in my constituency. It has been difficult for me to do so without becoming very angry because of the sheer unreasonableness of the situation. My constituency has been very supportive of renewable energy for as long as I can remember. It probably has more wind turbines than any other constituency in England and Wales, and near Machynlleth is the Centre for Alternative Technology. It had general support for renewable energy until two Governments—here in Westminster and in Cardiff—came together to attempt to impose on the constituency the appalling Mid Wales Connection. This project involves between 500 and 700 extra turbines, on top of what we have now, and almost 100 miles of cable, 35 miles of which is to be carried on 150 foot-high steel towers. It has transformed the attitudes of the people of mid-Wales towards renewable energy in general because of its unreasonableness.
It is not just me, as the Member for Montgomeryshire, who feels this way. I would point out to my Rt. Hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the other two MPs representing mid-Wales constituencies, both of them Liberal Democrats, members of his party share my view absolutely. There is a cross-party realisation of the unreasonableness of what is proposed for mid-Wales.
The impact on local democracy is also important. Governments in London and Cardiff may feel that mid-Wales can be sacrificed in what they might term ‘the national interest’. But it is not surprising that the people who live in these constituencies take an entirely different view and feel that we have a duty want to defend mid Wales. The applications by the development companies make no reference whatsoever to principles such as ‘cumulative impact’, to the importance of wild spaces and wild land in Britain, or to the visual impact that their project will have. All these aspects are devastating to my constituency.
A few days ago Powys County Council—the local planning authority—announced that it had set aside £2.8 million to defend its decisions to refuse 5 wind farm planning applications at appeal. Powys county council does not have £2.8 million to spare. It is a small rural council, and this would be devastating for local services. The council therefore asked the Welsh Government if they would help it to defend its planning judgments. The spokesman for the Welsh Government said that the council knew the costs involved when it turned the applications down. Clearly, the Welsh Government view is that the council should take the costs into account and approve inappropriate applications because it could not meet the costs of appeal. That is an affront to democracy.
Another constituency issue I want to raise relates to anaerobic digestion, of which I am a great supporter. Mr Clive Pugh of Mellington in my constituency is a pioneer in this field, into which he invested before the feed-in tariff legislation was enacted. He is currently paid 7p or 8p per unit for the electricity he produces, while all new developments in the field and of the same size are paid 14p per unit. He is a pioneer who put himself on the line, and it well be that he will be driven out of business. We need to ensure that any new system under ‘Contracts for Difference’ takes into account the impact on the pioneers—those who came before."
"There are two reasons why it is a huge pleasure for me to be called to speak in today’s debate. Firstly, it is a very important Bill. Secondly, today is a significant personal milestone. Precisely 10 years ago, at this time in the afternoon, I was at the Nuffield hospital in Shrewsbury in the throes of a six-hour operation to remove a cancerous tumour from my body. For those who are medically minded, the operation was a lower bowel perineal resection. One would have got very long odds indeed on my speaking in this Chamber 10 years later and representing my constituency of Montgomeryshire, particularly since at the time, it was one of the safest Liberal Democrat seats in the country.
I welcome the Bill and its commitment to energy market reform. Its purpose is to keep the lights on at an affordable cost to the nation, and to control the amounts of harmful gases which, it is said, are leading to global warming. Although I understand that we have not actually had any global warming for 15 years, is remains a laudable aim. It is a complex and wide-ranging Bill, and we can come at it from a variety of angles. I do not want to repeat what other Members have already said, which often happens in the later stages of a debate; I want to put forward considerations that Ministers might take into account when they deal with the implementation of ‘Contracts for Difference’.
I have spoken in this Chamber several times before about my antipathy to onshore wind projects in my constituency. It has been difficult for me to do so without becoming very angry because of the sheer unreasonableness of the situation. My constituency has been very supportive of renewable energy for as long as I can remember. It probably has more wind turbines than any other constituency in England and Wales, and near Machynlleth is the Centre for Alternative Technology. It had general support for renewable energy until two Governments—here in Westminster and in Cardiff—came together to attempt to impose on the constituency the appalling Mid Wales Connection. This project involves between 500 and 700 extra turbines, on top of what we have now, and almost 100 miles of cable, 35 miles of which is to be carried on 150 foot-high steel towers. It has transformed the attitudes of the people of mid-Wales towards renewable energy in general because of its unreasonableness.
It is not just me, as the Member for Montgomeryshire, who feels this way. I would point out to my Rt. Hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the other two MPs representing mid-Wales constituencies, both of them Liberal Democrats, members of his party share my view absolutely. There is a cross-party realisation of the unreasonableness of what is proposed for mid-Wales.
The impact on local democracy is also important. Governments in London and Cardiff may feel that mid-Wales can be sacrificed in what they might term ‘the national interest’. But it is not surprising that the people who live in these constituencies take an entirely different view and feel that we have a duty want to defend mid Wales. The applications by the development companies make no reference whatsoever to principles such as ‘cumulative impact’, to the importance of wild spaces and wild land in Britain, or to the visual impact that their project will have. All these aspects are devastating to my constituency.
A few days ago Powys County Council—the local planning authority—announced that it had set aside £2.8 million to defend its decisions to refuse 5 wind farm planning applications at appeal. Powys county council does not have £2.8 million to spare. It is a small rural council, and this would be devastating for local services. The council therefore asked the Welsh Government if they would help it to defend its planning judgments. The spokesman for the Welsh Government said that the council knew the costs involved when it turned the applications down. Clearly, the Welsh Government view is that the council should take the costs into account and approve inappropriate applications because it could not meet the costs of appeal. That is an affront to democracy.
Another constituency issue I want to raise relates to anaerobic digestion, of which I am a great supporter. Mr Clive Pugh of Mellington in my constituency is a pioneer in this field, into which he invested before the feed-in tariff legislation was enacted. He is currently paid 7p or 8p per unit for the electricity he produces, while all new developments in the field and of the same size are paid 14p per unit. He is a pioneer who put himself on the line, and it well be that he will be driven out of business. We need to ensure that any new system under ‘Contracts for Difference’ takes into account the impact on the pioneers—those who came before."
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Discussing Devolution of Power to Welsh Assembly
Mr Paul Silk and Professor Noel Lloyd came along for a friendly chat with the Welsh Affairs Select Committee this morning. All very genteel, but some interesting 'nuggets' emerged. Most discussion was about recommendations already made under Part 1 of his review on how to underpin the National Assembly with fiscal accountability. Very little discussion about Part 2, which will be about what powers should be devolved - in reality what extra powers should be devolved. That's for next meeting with the Silk team.
Best 'nugget' of the lot was Paul Silk's statement that his his Commission intends to look at whether parts of the 'benefits' system should be devolved to the Welsh Gov't. Secretary of State, David Jones told our last meeting that National Assembly powers should be no more than 'tweaked' under Part 2. Well, there is no way, devolution of benefits can be described as 'tweaking'. Clearly, Paul Silk, in his 'quiet but firm' way was putting down a marker. Sounded to me like a direct challenge to Sec of State - very interesting ! Though BBC's David Cornock tells me it was more 'could' than 'would'.
Quite a bit of discussion about devolution of income tax (part thereof). First Minister has tried to reassure all that income tax would not rise. Not sure about this myself, especially since its recommended there be freedom within tax bands. Doesn't look impossible to me that a future Labour Welsh Gov't might fancy putting top rate up to 50p, higher rate up by 1p and cutting lower rate by 1p. Any administration which wants to buy up airports might easily fancy a policy it could sell as "squeezing the rich". Could also see a future Welsh Conservative manifesto arguing that cutting income tax would stimulate the Welsh economy. Unlikely - but very possible. The rest of the Silk Report tax devolution proposals are small beer.
One issue of interest to me was the degree to which borrowing powers are dependent on power to access money for repayment. It will be no use a future Welsh Gov't going to the bond markets without the capacity to raise funds to repay. Only income tax devolution will provide that. Another recommendation of interest is that the block grant problems normally referred to as Barnett Formula issues must be sorted before income tax can be devolved. We' ve been talking about this for 30 yrs already! I see long grass before me.
Paul Silk was clear that a referendum is needed before income tax can be devolved - though I sensed there had been a bit of tension in the Commission over this. Major influence on the Commission had been desire of two main parties in Assembly for a referendum. Must admit I'm not at all convinced by this trend for politicians to set difficult issues aside by 'parking' them with promises of a referendum. We should tell people what we intend to do in manifestos. General Elections should be about policy decisions, not a beauty parade - which is why I'm totally opposed to TV Leader's Debates as well. It was a good interesting session. Perked up my interest in the Welsh Affairs Select Committee no end.
Best 'nugget' of the lot was Paul Silk's statement that his his Commission intends to look at whether parts of the 'benefits' system should be devolved to the Welsh Gov't. Secretary of State, David Jones told our last meeting that National Assembly powers should be no more than 'tweaked' under Part 2. Well, there is no way, devolution of benefits can be described as 'tweaking'. Clearly, Paul Silk, in his 'quiet but firm' way was putting down a marker. Sounded to me like a direct challenge to Sec of State - very interesting ! Though BBC's David Cornock tells me it was more 'could' than 'would'.
Quite a bit of discussion about devolution of income tax (part thereof). First Minister has tried to reassure all that income tax would not rise. Not sure about this myself, especially since its recommended there be freedom within tax bands. Doesn't look impossible to me that a future Labour Welsh Gov't might fancy putting top rate up to 50p, higher rate up by 1p and cutting lower rate by 1p. Any administration which wants to buy up airports might easily fancy a policy it could sell as "squeezing the rich". Could also see a future Welsh Conservative manifesto arguing that cutting income tax would stimulate the Welsh economy. Unlikely - but very possible. The rest of the Silk Report tax devolution proposals are small beer.
One issue of interest to me was the degree to which borrowing powers are dependent on power to access money for repayment. It will be no use a future Welsh Gov't going to the bond markets without the capacity to raise funds to repay. Only income tax devolution will provide that. Another recommendation of interest is that the block grant problems normally referred to as Barnett Formula issues must be sorted before income tax can be devolved. We' ve been talking about this for 30 yrs already! I see long grass before me.
Paul Silk was clear that a referendum is needed before income tax can be devolved - though I sensed there had been a bit of tension in the Commission over this. Major influence on the Commission had been desire of two main parties in Assembly for a referendum. Must admit I'm not at all convinced by this trend for politicians to set difficult issues aside by 'parking' them with promises of a referendum. We should tell people what we intend to do in manifestos. General Elections should be about policy decisions, not a beauty parade - which is why I'm totally opposed to TV Leader's Debates as well. It was a good interesting session. Perked up my interest in the Welsh Affairs Select Committee no end.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
BBC Wales 'Housing Debts' Story
BBC Wales is running big with a story about long term loans being serviced by the Welsh Gov't, which it has persuaded the leader of Plaid Cymru to describe as a 'scandal'. Such is the attention given to this that we can but conclude that BBC Wales agree with her. So happens I was guest in the studio for Politics Show today, and know a bit (though I concede only a bit) about the background. And I'm struggling to see anything scandalous at all.
Begin with a bit of background. On 18th Dec 1967, the then Labour Gov't set up the Mid Wales Development Corporation. It was charged with doubling the size of Newtown from about 5,500 to 11,000. Head of this body was the inspirational Peter Garbett-Edwards. In passing, I should say that he inspired me to become involved in public affairs. He and his redoubtable mother were committed Liberals - which may have prepared me for today's coalition politics! Anyway, the MWDC set about building factories and the key worked housing to attract industry to move in. About the same time, Gov't established the National Loans Fund - which became and remains the Gov'ts 'borrowing and lending' account. In effect Gov't was lending the money to a 'quango' of its creation at terms which are now being described as scandalous. For the BBC story to have any credibility, we would need to know what other similar public sector deals were at that time. Was 60 yrs unusual for public sector housing loans? Was 14% unusually high in the 1970s. (I recall paying that rate on my farm account at 2% over base for several years) No-one then anticipated the 'Brown boom' and consequent financial crash which has delivered much lower interest rates.
Another supposedly 'scandalous' aspect of this is that the assets are not owned by the Welsh Gov't. This is plain silly. The MWDC assets moved to the Development Board for Rural Wales, and then to the Welsh Dev't Agency (following merger- I think) before being taken 'in house' by Rhodri Morgan's 'Bonfire of the Quangos. As far as I can recall, Plaid Cymru backed Rhodri to the hilt. Am trying to scratch my head about what else might have been done. The 'public benefit' is a Newtown twice as big at it was and a Mid Wales economy and population transformed from that of the mid-60s.
The housing developments built by MWDC and finished off by the DBRW,were only ever meant to be owned temporarily. Once 'New Town' powers were removed from DBRW in late 80s, the houses had to be transferred. Most went to Montgomeryshire District Council, with some going to Newtown Housing Association, a social housing landlord run by the tenants. Some have been sold under RTB scheme and a few under something called 'flexi-ownership', a rather complex partnership arrangement. Most of them are still owned by the Council (now Powys CC). As far as I can see, everything is just as it should be, and much the same as most housing authority schemes.
Couple of additional points. Firstly its supposedly 'scandalous' that the Welsh Gov't cannot pay off the debt early because the long term interest rates are so high. If lenders were required to allow borrowers to 'pay off' long term debts when interest rates dropped, the original terms would be much more onerous. These things are worked out by actuaries. And secondly, there's the matter of 'lessons' to learn. This may well be so. There were certainly plenty to be learned from Gordon Brown's disastrous rush into PFI schemes.
The reason this is an issue is that the Welsh Gov't may find itself with borrowing powers in the future. Before launching into this new world, I would expect the Welsh Gov't to take best advice it can get hold of, and do best deals it can - which I've no reason for thinking isn't what happened in the 1970s. And always remember if you borrow money, it has to be paid back. I'd welcome comment from anyone with experience from the 70's.
Begin with a bit of background. On 18th Dec 1967, the then Labour Gov't set up the Mid Wales Development Corporation. It was charged with doubling the size of Newtown from about 5,500 to 11,000. Head of this body was the inspirational Peter Garbett-Edwards. In passing, I should say that he inspired me to become involved in public affairs. He and his redoubtable mother were committed Liberals - which may have prepared me for today's coalition politics! Anyway, the MWDC set about building factories and the key worked housing to attract industry to move in. About the same time, Gov't established the National Loans Fund - which became and remains the Gov'ts 'borrowing and lending' account. In effect Gov't was lending the money to a 'quango' of its creation at terms which are now being described as scandalous. For the BBC story to have any credibility, we would need to know what other similar public sector deals were at that time. Was 60 yrs unusual for public sector housing loans? Was 14% unusually high in the 1970s. (I recall paying that rate on my farm account at 2% over base for several years) No-one then anticipated the 'Brown boom' and consequent financial crash which has delivered much lower interest rates.
Another supposedly 'scandalous' aspect of this is that the assets are not owned by the Welsh Gov't. This is plain silly. The MWDC assets moved to the Development Board for Rural Wales, and then to the Welsh Dev't Agency (following merger- I think) before being taken 'in house' by Rhodri Morgan's 'Bonfire of the Quangos. As far as I can recall, Plaid Cymru backed Rhodri to the hilt. Am trying to scratch my head about what else might have been done. The 'public benefit' is a Newtown twice as big at it was and a Mid Wales economy and population transformed from that of the mid-60s.
The housing developments built by MWDC and finished off by the DBRW,were only ever meant to be owned temporarily. Once 'New Town' powers were removed from DBRW in late 80s, the houses had to be transferred. Most went to Montgomeryshire District Council, with some going to Newtown Housing Association, a social housing landlord run by the tenants. Some have been sold under RTB scheme and a few under something called 'flexi-ownership', a rather complex partnership arrangement. Most of them are still owned by the Council (now Powys CC). As far as I can see, everything is just as it should be, and much the same as most housing authority schemes.
Couple of additional points. Firstly its supposedly 'scandalous' that the Welsh Gov't cannot pay off the debt early because the long term interest rates are so high. If lenders were required to allow borrowers to 'pay off' long term debts when interest rates dropped, the original terms would be much more onerous. These things are worked out by actuaries. And secondly, there's the matter of 'lessons' to learn. This may well be so. There were certainly plenty to be learned from Gordon Brown's disastrous rush into PFI schemes.
The reason this is an issue is that the Welsh Gov't may find itself with borrowing powers in the future. Before launching into this new world, I would expect the Welsh Gov't to take best advice it can get hold of, and do best deals it can - which I've no reason for thinking isn't what happened in the 1970s. And always remember if you borrow money, it has to be paid back. I'd welcome comment from anyone with experience from the 70's.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Agreeing with Archbishop Barry Morgan again.
I didn't attend the statement on gay marriage by Maria Miller, Sec.of State for Culture, Media and Sport in the House of Commons last week. No point is causing myself unnecessary irritation I thought. She would have not the slightest interest in my opinion, and I thought I knew what she would say. But I didn't know - all of it anyway. I expected her to announce that the Gov't intends to legislate to allow gay marriage, including in a variety of religious institutions, but the ban the Church in Wales from conducting ceremonies came as a complete surprise.
Now this has left me a bit torn between two displeasures. As followers of this blog will know, I decided years ago that I would vote against redefinition of marriage (discussion for another day) - so you might think I'd be pleased by this. But its not that straight forward. I would indeed prefer the Church in Wales to decide against gay marriage, but cannot see why it, alone should be banned by law from doing so.
The Church in Wales has been disestablished from the state for almost 100 years. Why on earth should the UK Gov't be banning the Church in Wales, alone amongst many other disestablished churches. It just looks anti-Welsh. I accept that 'the Government' does pass laws which apply to all churches (not allowed to sacrifice virgins etc, - even if they wanted to) but this ban applies only to the Church in Wales. The Church of England is established - so 'fair enough'. In general, my libertarian instincts make me very suspicious of government poking its nose where there's no need. I expect this decision to cause much 'constitutional' outrage, and it may well be reversed.
Yet again I find myself aligned with Dr Barry Morgan - and again, coming to the same conclusion from a different direction. For example, we both passionately oppose changing the organ donation system to one based on opting-out rather than one based on opting-in. The Archbishop's opposition is about 'who owns our bodies'. Mine is that there isn't a shred of evidence that the change will increase the number of organs available. Its no more than a political stunt. And it seems we agree that the UK Gov't should not be banning Church in Wales from conducting gay marriage. The Archbishop seems keen to allow it to take place, while my concern is entirely constitutional. I also believe that where a proposal is not thought through or logical, it will not survive Parliamentary scrutiny. I very much hope I'm not obliged to vote on this.
Now this has left me a bit torn between two displeasures. As followers of this blog will know, I decided years ago that I would vote against redefinition of marriage (discussion for another day) - so you might think I'd be pleased by this. But its not that straight forward. I would indeed prefer the Church in Wales to decide against gay marriage, but cannot see why it, alone should be banned by law from doing so.
The Church in Wales has been disestablished from the state for almost 100 years. Why on earth should the UK Gov't be banning the Church in Wales, alone amongst many other disestablished churches. It just looks anti-Welsh. I accept that 'the Government' does pass laws which apply to all churches (not allowed to sacrifice virgins etc, - even if they wanted to) but this ban applies only to the Church in Wales. The Church of England is established - so 'fair enough'. In general, my libertarian instincts make me very suspicious of government poking its nose where there's no need. I expect this decision to cause much 'constitutional' outrage, and it may well be reversed.
Yet again I find myself aligned with Dr Barry Morgan - and again, coming to the same conclusion from a different direction. For example, we both passionately oppose changing the organ donation system to one based on opting-out rather than one based on opting-in. The Archbishop's opposition is about 'who owns our bodies'. Mine is that there isn't a shred of evidence that the change will increase the number of organs available. Its no more than a political stunt. And it seems we agree that the UK Gov't should not be banning Church in Wales from conducting gay marriage. The Archbishop seems keen to allow it to take place, while my concern is entirely constitutional. I also believe that where a proposal is not thought through or logical, it will not survive Parliamentary scrutiny. I very much hope I'm not obliged to vote on this.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Planning in Wales - One Party State Style
Just read reported comments to the BBC from the Welsh Gov't that has left me incandescent with anger. Only in what is effectively a one-party-state would such comments be made in the name of a government. Lets start with a bit of background.
In 2005, the then Welsh Gov't published 'guidance' for planning authorities about how to deal with renewable energy applications. This directed wind farm developers to 7 areas of Wales where permission for their obscenities could be granted. 3 of these areas were in mid Wales. The full implications of this document (popularly known as TAN 8) were not fully appreciated by the local population until National Grid announced their proposals to build the associated infrastructure needed. Unsurprisingly, international energy giants saw £million signs flash before their eyes and piled in with planning applications. Many of us have been horrified by the proposed desecration of our valued landscapes and protested. Powys County Council have considered some of these applications, and have recommended that 5 of them be refused. This automatically triggers a public inquiry.
Public inquires are very expensive. On the one side will be the developers, fattened and bloated on public subsidy (taxpayers and customers money). There is almost no limit to the public's money they have stuffed in their ever open wallets. On the other side is one of the smallest councils in the UK, which can only find the £2.8million the first five applications are going to cost from Council Tax payers. Powys is a comparitively poor part of Britain. Inevitably much of the money will have to be diverted from public services. All this is bad enough (appalling in my opinion), but today's comments from the Welsh Gov't (as reported on the BBC) had made it much worse.
In response to a request from Powys County Council for financial help to carry out its proper role in deciding planning applications the Welsh Gov't says;
"It must be remembered that the decisions to object to the wind farm applications referred to is entirely down to Powys County Council. They were aware of the financial implications when they decided to object to these things"
The position we are in is that councillors serving on my local planning authority are being told by the Welsh Gov't that they should decide applications not on what is right in planning terms, but on the basis of cost - when the developers access the money to pursue their case from public subsidy. And that their multiple applications are driven by Welsh Gov't policy. Its an absolute disgrace. And what will be most disgraceful aspect of all this is that these people will not even understand quite how outrageous this is. Its what happens when one party has been in power for so long, and sees itself beyond the normal democratic process.
In 2005, the then Welsh Gov't published 'guidance' for planning authorities about how to deal with renewable energy applications. This directed wind farm developers to 7 areas of Wales where permission for their obscenities could be granted. 3 of these areas were in mid Wales. The full implications of this document (popularly known as TAN 8) were not fully appreciated by the local population until National Grid announced their proposals to build the associated infrastructure needed. Unsurprisingly, international energy giants saw £million signs flash before their eyes and piled in with planning applications. Many of us have been horrified by the proposed desecration of our valued landscapes and protested. Powys County Council have considered some of these applications, and have recommended that 5 of them be refused. This automatically triggers a public inquiry.
Public inquires are very expensive. On the one side will be the developers, fattened and bloated on public subsidy (taxpayers and customers money). There is almost no limit to the public's money they have stuffed in their ever open wallets. On the other side is one of the smallest councils in the UK, which can only find the £2.8million the first five applications are going to cost from Council Tax payers. Powys is a comparitively poor part of Britain. Inevitably much of the money will have to be diverted from public services. All this is bad enough (appalling in my opinion), but today's comments from the Welsh Gov't (as reported on the BBC) had made it much worse.
In response to a request from Powys County Council for financial help to carry out its proper role in deciding planning applications the Welsh Gov't says;
"It must be remembered that the decisions to object to the wind farm applications referred to is entirely down to Powys County Council. They were aware of the financial implications when they decided to object to these things"
The position we are in is that councillors serving on my local planning authority are being told by the Welsh Gov't that they should decide applications not on what is right in planning terms, but on the basis of cost - when the developers access the money to pursue their case from public subsidy. And that their multiple applications are driven by Welsh Gov't policy. Its an absolute disgrace. And what will be most disgraceful aspect of all this is that these people will not even understand quite how outrageous this is. Its what happens when one party has been in power for so long, and sees itself beyond the normal democratic process.
Saturday, December 08, 2012
The Rise and Rise of Owen Paterson
I am a great supporter of David Cameron. Don't always agree with him, but reckon he's a top man. Its necessary to start this post thus because I want to reflect on who would take over if the position were to become vacant. My first choice would be William Hague. Can't think of any competition where I wouldn't vote for William if he were a candidate. But my guess is he wouldn't do it. And anyway, he's needed to continue his brilliant work at the Foreign Office. My second choice is a tougher call. But not if George Osborne cuts off the supply of taxpayer's millions to the subsidy junkies who build and run onshore wind farms. If George cuts off this money tap, he'd be a shoe-in for the top job.
Now to the real point of this post. The Rt. Hon. Owen Paterson, Sec of State at Defra, who is the subject of a major article by Ben Brogan and Robert Winnett in today's Telegraph. Owen is my neighbouring MP, representing North Shropshire. With him, you do get what you see. On the face of it, he doesn't do subtle, but yet, he managed to glide effortlessly through the political jungle that is Northern Ireland politics. The thing is, I agree with Owen Paterson on almost everything. We are both countrymen, and we both love wild creatures - in a pragmatic rather than a bunny-hugging way. We both love deer, foxes and badgers, but accept appropriate culling for the wider benefit of the countryside. A few other things as well.
There are two particularly big areas of agreement that dominate opinion in our constituencies. Firstly, there is the vexed matter of onshore wind farms and associated infrastructure. I suspect Owen shares my view that we should set out to reduce carbon emissions where its reasonable to do so. But not by destroying British industry, or impoverishing lower paid energy users, or forcing elderly people to freeze in their homes, or desecrating some of the most beautiful parts of Britain, or trampling all over local opinion, making a mockery of democracy. I go further - suspecting that some alien brain-manipulating force taken a grip on an entire Gov't Dep't (DECC), infecting it with a form of turbine madness. I desperately hope that new Energy Minister, John Hayes dosed himself with prophylactic medication before setting foot in the office. And then there's shale gas, which could well completely change the energy picture within two years. It would be economic lunancy to turn our backs on it.
The second big area is Europe - where I'm not sure that I am quite the same page as Owen. I am a Eurosceptic who has never committed to an IN/Out referendum - even though I concede that the logical conclusion of my approach may be withdrawal in the end. We will have to develop a new relationship with the EU, as the EU moves towards creating a single state, the inevitable consequence of the reckless decision to create the Euro. The people of Britain will not want to be a part of this new state, and there will inevitably be some redrawing of the relationship between the UK and the EU, which will probably be put to the people in a vote. The issue will be whether the EU Leviathan, so used to swallowing up everything in its path, will contemplate anything but British capitulation, or will it drive on regardless to its inevitable destruction, leaving Britain behind. Bit like staying in Southampton or Cork when the Titanic sailed.
But there is one area where I do not agree with Owen Paterson. He might be prime ministerial material, but its not on to call Alan Titchmarsh uncomplimentary names. For most of my gardening life, he's been an inspiration, and I cannot think of this great man as a 'muppet.
Now to the real point of this post. The Rt. Hon. Owen Paterson, Sec of State at Defra, who is the subject of a major article by Ben Brogan and Robert Winnett in today's Telegraph. Owen is my neighbouring MP, representing North Shropshire. With him, you do get what you see. On the face of it, he doesn't do subtle, but yet, he managed to glide effortlessly through the political jungle that is Northern Ireland politics. The thing is, I agree with Owen Paterson on almost everything. We are both countrymen, and we both love wild creatures - in a pragmatic rather than a bunny-hugging way. We both love deer, foxes and badgers, but accept appropriate culling for the wider benefit of the countryside. A few other things as well.
There are two particularly big areas of agreement that dominate opinion in our constituencies. Firstly, there is the vexed matter of onshore wind farms and associated infrastructure. I suspect Owen shares my view that we should set out to reduce carbon emissions where its reasonable to do so. But not by destroying British industry, or impoverishing lower paid energy users, or forcing elderly people to freeze in their homes, or desecrating some of the most beautiful parts of Britain, or trampling all over local opinion, making a mockery of democracy. I go further - suspecting that some alien brain-manipulating force taken a grip on an entire Gov't Dep't (DECC), infecting it with a form of turbine madness. I desperately hope that new Energy Minister, John Hayes dosed himself with prophylactic medication before setting foot in the office. And then there's shale gas, which could well completely change the energy picture within two years. It would be economic lunancy to turn our backs on it.
The second big area is Europe - where I'm not sure that I am quite the same page as Owen. I am a Eurosceptic who has never committed to an IN/Out referendum - even though I concede that the logical conclusion of my approach may be withdrawal in the end. We will have to develop a new relationship with the EU, as the EU moves towards creating a single state, the inevitable consequence of the reckless decision to create the Euro. The people of Britain will not want to be a part of this new state, and there will inevitably be some redrawing of the relationship between the UK and the EU, which will probably be put to the people in a vote. The issue will be whether the EU Leviathan, so used to swallowing up everything in its path, will contemplate anything but British capitulation, or will it drive on regardless to its inevitable destruction, leaving Britain behind. Bit like staying in Southampton or Cork when the Titanic sailed.
But there is one area where I do not agree with Owen Paterson. He might be prime ministerial material, but its not on to call Alan Titchmarsh uncomplimentary names. For most of my gardening life, he's been an inspiration, and I cannot think of this great man as a 'muppet.
Thursday, December 06, 2012
St Patrick McLoughlin - giver of direct line to Shrewsbury
No-one pretends the almighty cock-up over the awarding of the West Coast Rail Line franchise was anything but a disaster. Silver linings are hard to find. But today, St Patrick McLoughlin delivered one for Mid Wales and Shropshire. When the direct train from Shrewsbury to Euston was lost, it was a big blow to Mid Wales in particular. And when First Rail 'won' the franchise earlier this year, I welcomed the proposed restoration of the direct link proposed to run from 2015. Went to listen to Patrick McLoughlin, Sec of State for Transport at the Despatch Box today telling us what was to happen from next week. I was primed to challenge the great man over the missing Shrewsbury-Euston link.
Well Santa Patrick had a nice little Xmas present lined up. He'd done a deal with Richard Branson to continue the Virgin contract for next 23 months, including a new direct Shrewsbury-Euston link, running from next year. No more hanging around B'ham New St. Stn, no more limping home on Arriva Trains to Shrewsbury, and sitting there for ages while some mysterious infrastructure changes are made (no idea what but it involves much banging and clanging).
I will probably start using the train again when the direct link is restored. At present, Welshpool is a problem because there is no return train late enough on a thurs to get past Shrewsbury. Shrewsbury itself is discouraging because of the hassle of train changes (which will now end) and by the time you've negotiated traffic to reach Wolverhampton Stn, you're already half way to London. And I see a new Premier Inn is being built nr Shrewsbury Stn to help passengers from furthest reaches of Mid Wales. Next challenge is to provide some proper parking at Shrewsbury. Mrs D once arrived home only to find the car nicked. And accessing the car park by walking across the Dana is too dark and threatening. But today was a good news day for rail travellers from Mid Wales and Shropshire. Instead of laying into the Secretary of State, I just offered to buy him a coffee on the inaugural journey!
Well Santa Patrick had a nice little Xmas present lined up. He'd done a deal with Richard Branson to continue the Virgin contract for next 23 months, including a new direct Shrewsbury-Euston link, running from next year. No more hanging around B'ham New St. Stn, no more limping home on Arriva Trains to Shrewsbury, and sitting there for ages while some mysterious infrastructure changes are made (no idea what but it involves much banging and clanging).
I will probably start using the train again when the direct link is restored. At present, Welshpool is a problem because there is no return train late enough on a thurs to get past Shrewsbury. Shrewsbury itself is discouraging because of the hassle of train changes (which will now end) and by the time you've negotiated traffic to reach Wolverhampton Stn, you're already half way to London. And I see a new Premier Inn is being built nr Shrewsbury Stn to help passengers from furthest reaches of Mid Wales. Next challenge is to provide some proper parking at Shrewsbury. Mrs D once arrived home only to find the car nicked. And accessing the car park by walking across the Dana is too dark and threatening. But today was a good news day for rail travellers from Mid Wales and Shropshire. Instead of laying into the Secretary of State, I just offered to buy him a coffee on the inaugural journey!
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Statutory Regulation - Welsh Gov't Style
You really couldn't make it up. And on the day Lord Justice Leveson recommended statutory regulation of the press. OK, he used the gentler, more innocent sounding 'legal underpinning' to make it sound more palatable - but statutory regulation is what it is. We are watching interviews on our screens where worthy sounding people are claiming how there is no danger to the 'free press' we have benefited from since 1695. Well lets just look at the breathtaking stunt the Welsh Gov't has just tried to pull off.
Before the last Assembly Election, Welsh Gov't's policy was to proceed with a targeted pilot cull of badgers in West Wales as part of its strategy to tackle the bovine Tb crisis. After the election, my old friend John Griffiths inherited responsibility for this policy. Now John is a fine fellow in many respects, but I knew immediately that he would not allow a badger cull. So he duly cancelled the policy, and has done something with vaccination instead - which many of us consider to be pointless.
Now to the funny bit. The highly popular Welsh Language soap, Pobol y Cwm, included a line from a distressed farmer disagreeing with this policy change suggesting that the Welsh Gov't "doesn't have the backbone" to carry on, and that the Welsh Gov't "doesn't care about the countryside because there aren't enough votes there". I can imagine this drawing a derisive snort from Welsh Ministers plus an affronted "How dare they"
So we have an official complaint to BBC, S4C and Ofcom - demanding a right of reply and claiming the programme beaches editorial guidelines. Now you might think this is not real - that I'm making it up. But it seems that it is. The only reason I don't claim this is where statutory regulation of the press will end up is that its so utterly ridiculous as to be incredible. "Avin a laugh" readers would think. And what's worst of all is that they will not be able to see it. Lib Dem AM came up with the brilliant comment that the Welsh Gov't will want Derek Brockway taken off air because he looks like the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones. I think this was a joke but.......
Before the last Assembly Election, Welsh Gov't's policy was to proceed with a targeted pilot cull of badgers in West Wales as part of its strategy to tackle the bovine Tb crisis. After the election, my old friend John Griffiths inherited responsibility for this policy. Now John is a fine fellow in many respects, but I knew immediately that he would not allow a badger cull. So he duly cancelled the policy, and has done something with vaccination instead - which many of us consider to be pointless.
Now to the funny bit. The highly popular Welsh Language soap, Pobol y Cwm, included a line from a distressed farmer disagreeing with this policy change suggesting that the Welsh Gov't "doesn't have the backbone" to carry on, and that the Welsh Gov't "doesn't care about the countryside because there aren't enough votes there". I can imagine this drawing a derisive snort from Welsh Ministers plus an affronted "How dare they"
So we have an official complaint to BBC, S4C and Ofcom - demanding a right of reply and claiming the programme beaches editorial guidelines. Now you might think this is not real - that I'm making it up. But it seems that it is. The only reason I don't claim this is where statutory regulation of the press will end up is that its so utterly ridiculous as to be incredible. "Avin a laugh" readers would think. And what's worst of all is that they will not be able to see it. Lib Dem AM came up with the brilliant comment that the Welsh Gov't will want Derek Brockway taken off air because he looks like the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones. I think this was a joke but.......
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
My 'Take' on Leveson - the day before publication.
Lord Justice Leveson has now delivered his report to the Prime Minister. Not sure its an issue that excites my constituents, but its going to dominate 'The Village' for days. On Monday, I sent an article to a national newspaper, which was not published, which represents my 'take' on the issue. So here it is;
A free press is as important to a civilised society as free-running sewers. Their effect is similar. Neither are looked on with affection and both are capable of carrying deeply offensive material. But try to imagine life without either. All sorts of detritus would be allowed to fester uncleansed. We need a free press to “keep the waters pure”. Thomas Jefferson wrote “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a Government without newspapers, or newspapers without a Government, I shall not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” I agree with Jefferson. When we consider Lord Leveson’s Report we should remember that another way of describing the ‘freedom of the press to publish’ is the ‘right of the citizen’s to know.’
Appearing on the radar of a newspaper can be a very uncomfortable experience. I’ve had my share over the last 30 years. I know what it’s like to be brought low by unfair coverage. Only last week, the Daily Mirror set aside three pages on consecutive days, portraying me as a “Tory Gun Nut” – as inaccurate a portrayal as its possible to make. I’ve had threatening letters and emails giving me both barrels. But I have no complaint. If I allow my quirky sense of humour free rein on twitter, I’m inevitably going to take the odd hit. Anyway, I could see the humour as well as the outrage in the reporting. Anyone who can’t take a bit of stick shouldn’t be in public life - or the entertainment business.
Much of the clamour for statutory regulation stems from the outrage felt about the hacking of mobile phones by a minority of journalists. I felt the same outrage. The nation was rightly horrified. The uprising of public anger is what led to Lord Justice Leveson being asked to hold the inquiry, which has produced the report just presented to David Cameron. But phone hacking is illegal. What happened was an abject failure of law enforcement. Of course the press have behaved badly, and the current system of regulation will have to be significantly strengthened. The press realise this as well. The debate is going to be what form this change takes.
While I am implacably opposed to the state regulating the press, I know there must be change. The people of Britain expect change. It’s not possible to be precise about what this change should be until the Leveson Report is public on Thursday, and we've had time to digest it.. Many will demand statutory regulation of the press (for the first time since the Middle Ages). No doubt it will be dressed up as a 'small step' involving 'statutory underpinning'. It will sound innocuous.They are wrong. I will want to see some form of effective, strong, genuinely independent self regulation, backed up by fines that hurt, and threats of going further if it fails.
If we introduce statutory regulation, even if disguised under gentle weasel words, it will hasten the end of our newspaper industry, already under threat from Internet based news sites. It will tip the balance even more in favour of digital platforms. It will be especially destructive of our much valued local newspapers. It will do harm to our way of life. After digesting the contents and recommendations of Lord Leveson, we will have to do something, but for the future of our civilisation, let it not be statutory regulation.
Not everyone is going to agree with. At present my own party seems split in half. But I'm hopeful that after reading His Lordship's report, there will be a greater measure of agreement.
A free press is as important to a civilised society as free-running sewers. Their effect is similar. Neither are looked on with affection and both are capable of carrying deeply offensive material. But try to imagine life without either. All sorts of detritus would be allowed to fester uncleansed. We need a free press to “keep the waters pure”. Thomas Jefferson wrote “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a Government without newspapers, or newspapers without a Government, I shall not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” I agree with Jefferson. When we consider Lord Leveson’s Report we should remember that another way of describing the ‘freedom of the press to publish’ is the ‘right of the citizen’s to know.’
Appearing on the radar of a newspaper can be a very uncomfortable experience. I’ve had my share over the last 30 years. I know what it’s like to be brought low by unfair coverage. Only last week, the Daily Mirror set aside three pages on consecutive days, portraying me as a “Tory Gun Nut” – as inaccurate a portrayal as its possible to make. I’ve had threatening letters and emails giving me both barrels. But I have no complaint. If I allow my quirky sense of humour free rein on twitter, I’m inevitably going to take the odd hit. Anyway, I could see the humour as well as the outrage in the reporting. Anyone who can’t take a bit of stick shouldn’t be in public life - or the entertainment business.
Much of the clamour for statutory regulation stems from the outrage felt about the hacking of mobile phones by a minority of journalists. I felt the same outrage. The nation was rightly horrified. The uprising of public anger is what led to Lord Justice Leveson being asked to hold the inquiry, which has produced the report just presented to David Cameron. But phone hacking is illegal. What happened was an abject failure of law enforcement. Of course the press have behaved badly, and the current system of regulation will have to be significantly strengthened. The press realise this as well. The debate is going to be what form this change takes.
While I am implacably opposed to the state regulating the press, I know there must be change. The people of Britain expect change. It’s not possible to be precise about what this change should be until the Leveson Report is public on Thursday, and we've had time to digest it.. Many will demand statutory regulation of the press (for the first time since the Middle Ages). No doubt it will be dressed up as a 'small step' involving 'statutory underpinning'. It will sound innocuous.They are wrong. I will want to see some form of effective, strong, genuinely independent self regulation, backed up by fines that hurt, and threats of going further if it fails.
If we introduce statutory regulation, even if disguised under gentle weasel words, it will hasten the end of our newspaper industry, already under threat from Internet based news sites. It will tip the balance even more in favour of digital platforms. It will be especially destructive of our much valued local newspapers. It will do harm to our way of life. After digesting the contents and recommendations of Lord Leveson, we will have to do something, but for the future of our civilisation, let it not be statutory regulation.
Not everyone is going to agree with. At present my own party seems split in half. But I'm hopeful that after reading His Lordship's report, there will be a greater measure of agreement.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
More on Votes for Prisoners.
Lord Chancellor made a Statement to the House of Commons today about the thorny issue of 'Votes for Prisoners'. He informed MPs that the Gov't intends to bring forward a bill which includes 3 options for MPs to decide on - votes for those serving less than 4 yrs, for those serving less than 6 mths, and no votes for prisoners at all. (except for those who currently qualify). Lots of us asked questions of Chris Grayling. Its a very important issue.
Its reasonably clear that when the debate takes place, MPs will vote for no extension of votes for prisoners at all. It follows that potentially, after the next election, prisoners could appeal to the European Court, and the UK could well face large fines. Of course the UK could simply refuse to pay the fines. This is what other states could do. But we are the UK - a country rightly proud of our commitment to the rule of law. Some of us are appalled at the prospect of the UK being seen to refuse to accept the law when we don't like it. Impossible to say what impact this would have on reputation.
This afternoon, I asked the Lord Chancellor to do his utmost to avoid this looming confrontation. Root of it is that Strasbourg Court is spreading its wings further, into policy that has been hitherto a matter for national courts. If this process isn't challenged, important parts of our sovereignty will continue to be transferred to the ECHR. Perhaps there would be no willingness to compromise by the Court. But it looks to me, we are heading to a standoff that could mean UK withdrawing from the European Court altogether. Personally, I would see this as a huge blow to the UK's standing in the world, but my feel is that there are a fair few MPs who do not share opinion.
Its reasonably clear that when the debate takes place, MPs will vote for no extension of votes for prisoners at all. It follows that potentially, after the next election, prisoners could appeal to the European Court, and the UK could well face large fines. Of course the UK could simply refuse to pay the fines. This is what other states could do. But we are the UK - a country rightly proud of our commitment to the rule of law. Some of us are appalled at the prospect of the UK being seen to refuse to accept the law when we don't like it. Impossible to say what impact this would have on reputation.
This afternoon, I asked the Lord Chancellor to do his utmost to avoid this looming confrontation. Root of it is that Strasbourg Court is spreading its wings further, into policy that has been hitherto a matter for national courts. If this process isn't challenged, important parts of our sovereignty will continue to be transferred to the ECHR. Perhaps there would be no willingness to compromise by the Court. But it looks to me, we are heading to a standoff that could mean UK withdrawing from the European Court altogether. Personally, I would see this as a huge blow to the UK's standing in the world, but my feel is that there are a fair few MPs who do not share opinion.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Thoughts of Shooting Feral Deer
Voicemail this afternoon. Daily Mirror wants me to ring back. What on earth can I have done now? Hope Phill hasn't messed up my expenses. Perhaps they've uncovered that I once voted for Plaid Cymru before I'd properly grown up. Anyway, nervously rang back. "There's a problem with one of your tweets". Not again I thought. Once had a bit of bother after blogging that Paul McCartney's lawyer looking good after his ex, Heather threw a jug of water over her. Been very careful to avoid trouble ever since. General policy is that 'Boring is Best'.
Anyway this is the offending tweet. "Beautiful antlered stag in the garden, browsing on the shrubs border. "Oooh", said all the family. I just wished I had my 12 bore handy". It seems that some animal rights groups had considered this an offencive comment for an MP to make. I accept that reference to a 12 bore was wrong. It should have been a .22 or some other rifle. Someone I know once did shoot a deer with a shotgun - a truly dreadful thing to do. He never did it again. In the interests of completeness, I should add that I've not shot anything for over 40 years, though I have 'shot at' grey squirrels and a horrid feral cat with an airgun. Always missed. But when it comes to deer in the garden, I can still think about shooting them. I thought it was a Mirror joke to begin with - but No. The complaints were for real. So now I'll be right up there with Prince Phillip in the public consciousness. Unfortunately I do not have a gun, or a gun licence - so it can be no more than a dream. I suppose I could buy a bow and arrow. I am after all the reigning Parliamentary Archery Champion.
Deer are a nightmare in our garden. Escapees from nearby Powis Castle have established wild herds of Red and Fallow Deer numbering thousands. Every year, a few of them sneak into our garden, usually during very early hours, and home in on our most valued shrubs. Adding insult, they normally just spit out the severed bits uneaten. Always go for the variegated Aralias and choicest bamboos. During the spring/summer, I hide a switched-on radio in the middle of the borders all night to put them off. Even change the station to prevent them becoming addicts of certain programmes. Friend of mine told me he thought subjecting them to listen to John Humphrys grilling hapless politicians was more cruel than shooting them. Anyway, I wonder what the Mirror will make of this. Something like "Heartless Tory makes joke of killing Bambi". I expect my career to survive.
Anyway this is the offending tweet. "Beautiful antlered stag in the garden, browsing on the shrubs border. "Oooh", said all the family. I just wished I had my 12 bore handy". It seems that some animal rights groups had considered this an offencive comment for an MP to make. I accept that reference to a 12 bore was wrong. It should have been a .22 or some other rifle. Someone I know once did shoot a deer with a shotgun - a truly dreadful thing to do. He never did it again. In the interests of completeness, I should add that I've not shot anything for over 40 years, though I have 'shot at' grey squirrels and a horrid feral cat with an airgun. Always missed. But when it comes to deer in the garden, I can still think about shooting them. I thought it was a Mirror joke to begin with - but No. The complaints were for real. So now I'll be right up there with Prince Phillip in the public consciousness. Unfortunately I do not have a gun, or a gun licence - so it can be no more than a dream. I suppose I could buy a bow and arrow. I am after all the reigning Parliamentary Archery Champion.
Deer are a nightmare in our garden. Escapees from nearby Powis Castle have established wild herds of Red and Fallow Deer numbering thousands. Every year, a few of them sneak into our garden, usually during very early hours, and home in on our most valued shrubs. Adding insult, they normally just spit out the severed bits uneaten. Always go for the variegated Aralias and choicest bamboos. During the spring/summer, I hide a switched-on radio in the middle of the borders all night to put them off. Even change the station to prevent them becoming addicts of certain programmes. Friend of mine told me he thought subjecting them to listen to John Humphrys grilling hapless politicians was more cruel than shooting them. Anyway, I wonder what the Mirror will make of this. Something like "Heartless Tory makes joke of killing Bambi". I expect my career to survive.
Votes for Prisoners
Seems as though we MPs are going to have an opportunity to discuss 'Votes for Prisoners' this coming Thursday. As writing this post, I don't know whether its a 'statement', where we don't actually vote or a debate where we could vote. Doesn't matter for the purpose of this post, because its the principle that I'm reflecting on.
Discussion seems to revolve around three options, one where votes are allowed for prisoners serving less than 4 yrs, one where sentences are less than 6 mths and one where no prisoners at all are allowed to vote (except those on remand). If there's a vote I will probably vote for the third option, but its by no means straight forward. There is a case for allowing prisoners the vote - even is almost no-one in the UK agrees with this and it would make the Prime Minister "physically sick".
The reason I do not support votes for prisoners at all is that I think the people I represent, and the people of the UK are overwhelmingly against it. Gov't should not ignore people's strongly held opinions. But there are two reason's for the alternative view. Firstly, I'm hugely enthusiastic about rehabilitation of prisoners into civilised society - because it greatly reduces the level of re-offending. Gerry Hendry, Governor at HMP Shrewsbury has done magnificent work on this. And secondly, a refusal to allow votes for any prisoners will be unacceptable to the European Court of Human Rights (which is nothing to do with the EU). The UK has been a leading champion of promoting human rights on the international plain and I certainly would not want to lose this British influence for decency and good in the world. The ECHR is not a "Micky Mouse" body. In fact I think its judgements are part of UK law. Personally, I well understand why some MPs will support 'Votes for Prisoners' but I just do not think this is an issue where the powerful opinion of British people can be ignored. So its still No.
Discussion seems to revolve around three options, one where votes are allowed for prisoners serving less than 4 yrs, one where sentences are less than 6 mths and one where no prisoners at all are allowed to vote (except those on remand). If there's a vote I will probably vote for the third option, but its by no means straight forward. There is a case for allowing prisoners the vote - even is almost no-one in the UK agrees with this and it would make the Prime Minister "physically sick".
The reason I do not support votes for prisoners at all is that I think the people I represent, and the people of the UK are overwhelmingly against it. Gov't should not ignore people's strongly held opinions. But there are two reason's for the alternative view. Firstly, I'm hugely enthusiastic about rehabilitation of prisoners into civilised society - because it greatly reduces the level of re-offending. Gerry Hendry, Governor at HMP Shrewsbury has done magnificent work on this. And secondly, a refusal to allow votes for any prisoners will be unacceptable to the European Court of Human Rights (which is nothing to do with the EU). The UK has been a leading champion of promoting human rights on the international plain and I certainly would not want to lose this British influence for decency and good in the world. The ECHR is not a "Micky Mouse" body. In fact I think its judgements are part of UK law. Personally, I well understand why some MPs will support 'Votes for Prisoners' but I just do not think this is an issue where the powerful opinion of British people can be ignored. So its still No.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Police and Crime Commissioners in Wales
Must admit to never having been a great supporter of the Police and Crime Commissioner idea - though did become more supportive after sitting through the Prime Minister's Statement on the Hillsborough Disaster a few weeks ago. I cannot imagine police behaviour so incredibly awful happening if there had been a head of police answerable to voters at an election - even if it was over 20 years ago. The idea of PCCs was a clear Conservative manifesto commitment in 2010, so I dutifully voted in favour as the legislation went through the House of Commons. Soon as it became an act, I wanted the new system to work as successfully as possible.
Of course yesterday's turn-out was disappointing. In large part this has been because people decided to just not vote, or spoil their ballot papers, as their way of registering disapproval. Personally, I think it would have helped if each candidate had been allowed one free election communication. In Dyfed/Powys we put a lot of effort into helping Chris Salmon engage with voters, but still many felt they knew nothing about who was standing. Its a very difficult job for a candidate to engage with such a large dispersed population. But I do not buy this stuff about low turn-out depriving the new PCCs of credibility or authority. That will depend on the personalities of those newly elected and how well they work with their Chief Constables.
Wales threw up some surprising results - in two of the four elections anyway. Labour were expecting to win three for certain with high hopes in the fourth, but won only one. Very bad day for Labour in Wales. Alun Michael was elected as PCC for the South Wales Force. Had my run-ins with him over the years, but he's a very sound man on law and order. So I reckon he'll do a good job. Big surprise in Gwent where Ian Johnson, an ex-policeman standing as an Independent defeated the favoured Labour candidate. And another surprise in North Wales where Lib Dem member and former Counsel General of the National Assembly for Wales defeated Labour's favoured Tal Michael. The competition in Dyfed Powys was close, with our man, Christopher Salmon just squeezing out Labour's Christine Gwyther. I believe Chris will be a great success in the job.
Lots of very sensible people decided not to vote, and several thousand defaced their ballot papers. It is their right of course, but I just do not agree with this. The PCCs legislation was properly enacted within our democratic system. Lots of things have become law over the decades that I disapproved of - but I've always voted, and accepted the result of the ballot. That's how democracy works. We now have PCCs in place, and if any of them do not perform as required, those who did not vote will not be in any position to complain. Lets hope that in four years time the turn-out will be nearer the 50% it should have been.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Are MPs allowed an opinion?
Yesterday I wrote that I would vote against redefinition of the word 'marriage'. Only did it because I'd been forced to declare publicly my opinion. Chris Eakin asked me directly when I was reviewing the papers on BBC News Channel on Tues night. I would have preferred not to have been asked, but it was an entirely fair question and not one I felt I could avoid. So I expressed my honest opinion. Worst fears have been realised. I have been widely branded a homophobe, a description I find deeply offensive. It leads me to reflect whether MPs are wise to ever express honest opinions. Probably a better tactic to waffle -be slippery - avoid answering the question.
I've been around a long time, and I'm comfortable with my opinions. And I'm not afraid to say what they are. I'm usually willing to consider amending them if confronted by logical persuasive argument. But since being elected an MP, declaration of opinion seems to cause trouble. Lets look at a few examples. I am in favour of a pilot cull of badgers. I oppose legalisation of assisted suicide. I oppose introduction of presumed consent into organ donation system. I support stricter rules for abortion. And I oppose redefinition of the meaning of the word 'marriage' to allow gay marriage. I fiercely oppose mass building of wind turbines and pylons in Montgomeryshire. And much else as well. Made all of this public before I was elected. Now I receive emails from constituents informing me that they will not vote for me again because of one or more of these opinions. I don't object to anyone disagreeing. Because no two thinking people agree on everything, this seems a bit odd. We settle these things by voting on them.
The strongest response so far has been about gay marriage. Some of the commentary has been unpleasantly condemnatory. I have been accused of being a bigot and homophobic. I deeply resent being so branded. Its utterly ridiculous. Gay friends tell me they agree with me. They tell me they resent being used in a rebranding exercise for a political party.
Now here's another opinion. Nothing damages politics more than politicians refusing to answer questions, using a form of words to disguise what they are saying. The curse of modern politics is 'The Line to Take'! I don't much like being given stick on the Internet - especially by constituents. But I think I will carry on trying to be open about what I think.
I've been around a long time, and I'm comfortable with my opinions. And I'm not afraid to say what they are. I'm usually willing to consider amending them if confronted by logical persuasive argument. But since being elected an MP, declaration of opinion seems to cause trouble. Lets look at a few examples. I am in favour of a pilot cull of badgers. I oppose legalisation of assisted suicide. I oppose introduction of presumed consent into organ donation system. I support stricter rules for abortion. And I oppose redefinition of the meaning of the word 'marriage' to allow gay marriage. I fiercely oppose mass building of wind turbines and pylons in Montgomeryshire. And much else as well. Made all of this public before I was elected. Now I receive emails from constituents informing me that they will not vote for me again because of one or more of these opinions. I don't object to anyone disagreeing. Because no two thinking people agree on everything, this seems a bit odd. We settle these things by voting on them.
The strongest response so far has been about gay marriage. Some of the commentary has been unpleasantly condemnatory. I have been accused of being a bigot and homophobic. I deeply resent being so branded. Its utterly ridiculous. Gay friends tell me they agree with me. They tell me they resent being used in a rebranding exercise for a political party.
Now here's another opinion. Nothing damages politics more than politicians refusing to answer questions, using a form of words to disguise what they are saying. The curse of modern politics is 'The Line to Take'! I don't much like being given stick on the Internet - especially by constituents. But I think I will carry on trying to be open about what I think.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Is Redefining the Meaning of Marriage Popular amongst Tories?
I am opposed to redefining the meaning of the word 'marriage'. I'm disappointed that the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Chancellor are supporting the change with such enthusiasm. When my whip discussed this matter with me soon after I was elected an MP, I advised that I wouldn't vote for it. I will vote against it, even if its a 'whipped' vote (which it probably won't be). This is the second time I have stated this opinion publicly. And its only because BBC News Channel's Chris Eakin put me 'on the spot' in last night's paper review (which was the first time). The Chancellor, for some reason, went big on it for today's papers and I couldn't avoid the issue. The reason I've not chosen to speak on the matter is that I will be accused of being homophobic - which is just not true. If this proposal was going to confer some new right upon gay people I would probably support it. But it doesn't. It just redefines a word which has great meaning for hundreds of thousands of good people across Britain - for no real purpose, other than to convey some ill-defined 'message'. Anyway, I had to say this on national TV last night, so I'm repeating it in a considered way. And hope that I don't have to discuss it again.
But this post is not about the rights and wrongs of redefinition of the meaning of marriage. In the end that will be decided on a majority vote, (which I fully expect to approve the change). Sadly, I will just have to accept it. What this post is about is whether this proposal will benefit the Conservative Party at the polls. The leaders of my party think it will boost our popularity. I don't. So today's spat about comments from ComRes's CEO, Andrew Hawkins about a letter sent by the Prime Minister to my old boss, Cheryl Gillan is particularly interesting. Its also an unusually direct criticism of the PM, accusing him of misleading voters. He says that the letter to Cheryl Gillan used statistics to show that refining the meaning of marriage would make the Conservative Party more popular. However, Andrew Hawkins insists that his polling shows that the Conservative Party loses more votes than it gains, and former Conservative voters are especially less likely to return. Andrew Hawkins also refers to a general detrimental impact on the Party's fortunes. He describes the PM's claims that all polls show more votes support the change in the law than oppose to be simply not the case. I am looking forward to reading reports in tomorrow's papers, challenging these statements. Whatever, I need to have a chat with my old boss about this next week!
Must add that I'm certainly not suggesting that the Government I support should back off doing something because its not popular. Clearly David Cameron, Nick Clegg and George Osborne think redefining the meaning of marriage is absolutely the right thing to do. Perhaps where they all live and in the circles they inhabit there are many who agree. Its just that I don't. And I would be genuinely surprised if a majority of Conservatives where I live do either.
But this post is not about the rights and wrongs of redefinition of the meaning of marriage. In the end that will be decided on a majority vote, (which I fully expect to approve the change). Sadly, I will just have to accept it. What this post is about is whether this proposal will benefit the Conservative Party at the polls. The leaders of my party think it will boost our popularity. I don't. So today's spat about comments from ComRes's CEO, Andrew Hawkins about a letter sent by the Prime Minister to my old boss, Cheryl Gillan is particularly interesting. Its also an unusually direct criticism of the PM, accusing him of misleading voters. He says that the letter to Cheryl Gillan used statistics to show that refining the meaning of marriage would make the Conservative Party more popular. However, Andrew Hawkins insists that his polling shows that the Conservative Party loses more votes than it gains, and former Conservative voters are especially less likely to return. Andrew Hawkins also refers to a general detrimental impact on the Party's fortunes. He describes the PM's claims that all polls show more votes support the change in the law than oppose to be simply not the case. I am looking forward to reading reports in tomorrow's papers, challenging these statements. Whatever, I need to have a chat with my old boss about this next week!
Must add that I'm certainly not suggesting that the Government I support should back off doing something because its not popular. Clearly David Cameron, Nick Clegg and George Osborne think redefining the meaning of marriage is absolutely the right thing to do. Perhaps where they all live and in the circles they inhabit there are many who agree. Its just that I don't. And I would be genuinely surprised if a majority of Conservatives where I live do either.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
The Value of the BBC
Quite often, I disagree with the BBC. I think Auntie is biased in favour of European integration, of wind farms, and almost every 'leftie' fad going. In Wales I always think she's is biased in favour of Plaid Cymru. But its never bothered me at all. Viewers and not daft and they allow for this bias. Always feel that if I answer straight, I get a fair deal and get my message across. And anyway, in a few years time she may be biased in directions I approve of. Despite all the above, I have a deep rooted love for the BBC and am very alarmed indeed by much of what is happening at present.
Personally, I did not think that George Entwistle needed to resign. Its a measure of his decency that he has done so quickly. He knows that a great wrong was done to Lord McAlpine by the BBC, and though he wasn't involved in the decision to broadcast the offending edition of Newsnight, he has decided, because he is editor-in-Chief to take the hit. Its tough, but its sometimes what happens to the person at the top. I just hope that whoever it was took the decision to broadcast is sacked as well. Such appalling journalism cannot be allowed to remain unpunished. It was driven by prejudice, and it must be rooted out.
I am horrified by the idea that Newsnight should be scrapped. Its my favourite programme. Its the only BBC programme I aspire to appear on (but that only happens to Conservatives in the 'favoured set'). I'm very happy with the New Channel paper review every three weeks. Come to think of it, that's my favourite programme. But Newsnight has been a part of my life for decades - even if I do think Jeremy Paxman sometimes poses like a clever dick prima donna. And some of the other presenters sometimes copy. Give me Eddie Mair any day.
Its important to understand what happened. Someone was so excited by the prospect of a mega-scandal linked to the name 'Thatcher' that normal journalistic standards went out of the window. An innocent man's reputation was shredded. Of course there was no intent to lie and defame in such disgraceful fashion, but such was the scale of sloppiness that the person/persons responsible must be sacked.
But this post is about balance and proportionality. The BBC is hugely respected across the world, and is one of Britain's greatest assets. We must cherish the BBC. While we try to ensure standards, lets remember just how important the BBC is. No doubt there will be a few jumping on the 'Kick the BBC' bandwagon. But I'm not. Bad mistake. Sack the offender. Apologise profusely. Learn what went wrong. Move on. Don't do it again. Its like when a much loved member of the family errs. They are still family and admonition must be balanced with rehabilitation. Come on BBC, hit us with quality and make us forget.
Personally, I did not think that George Entwistle needed to resign. Its a measure of his decency that he has done so quickly. He knows that a great wrong was done to Lord McAlpine by the BBC, and though he wasn't involved in the decision to broadcast the offending edition of Newsnight, he has decided, because he is editor-in-Chief to take the hit. Its tough, but its sometimes what happens to the person at the top. I just hope that whoever it was took the decision to broadcast is sacked as well. Such appalling journalism cannot be allowed to remain unpunished. It was driven by prejudice, and it must be rooted out.
I am horrified by the idea that Newsnight should be scrapped. Its my favourite programme. Its the only BBC programme I aspire to appear on (but that only happens to Conservatives in the 'favoured set'). I'm very happy with the New Channel paper review every three weeks. Come to think of it, that's my favourite programme. But Newsnight has been a part of my life for decades - even if I do think Jeremy Paxman sometimes poses like a clever dick prima donna. And some of the other presenters sometimes copy. Give me Eddie Mair any day.
Its important to understand what happened. Someone was so excited by the prospect of a mega-scandal linked to the name 'Thatcher' that normal journalistic standards went out of the window. An innocent man's reputation was shredded. Of course there was no intent to lie and defame in such disgraceful fashion, but such was the scale of sloppiness that the person/persons responsible must be sacked.
But this post is about balance and proportionality. The BBC is hugely respected across the world, and is one of Britain's greatest assets. We must cherish the BBC. While we try to ensure standards, lets remember just how important the BBC is. No doubt there will be a few jumping on the 'Kick the BBC' bandwagon. But I'm not. Bad mistake. Sack the offender. Apologise profusely. Learn what went wrong. Move on. Don't do it again. Its like when a much loved member of the family errs. They are still family and admonition must be balanced with rehabilitation. Come on BBC, hit us with quality and make us forget.
Weekend No 1 - Autumn Internationals
Off we go. Autumn internations time. It may be crazy that our top players are playing so much international rugby, shortening careers and diminishing value of club rugby. But its unmissable stuff. Here's my first round of prediction.
Wales will bt Argentina. It will be tough and close. Wales will miss physical presence of Mike Phillips, though quicker ball could be important. Will miss Adam Jones even more. Could be behind at half time.
England will bt Fiji easily. Don't expect a pretty match.
France will bt Australia in what should be the match of the weekend.
Ireland will bt South Africa by a point. Irish at home are tough nuts to crack.
Italy will bt Tonga.
New Zealand will bt Scotland, though the Scots will do better than expected. I'll want to watch rugby gods, McCaw and Carter playing. Somehow feel the greatest openside that has ever lived is reaching the end of the road. There is only so much even his amazing body can take.
Wales will bt Argentina. It will be tough and close. Wales will miss physical presence of Mike Phillips, though quicker ball could be important. Will miss Adam Jones even more. Could be behind at half time.
England will bt Fiji easily. Don't expect a pretty match.
France will bt Australia in what should be the match of the weekend.
Ireland will bt South Africa by a point. Irish at home are tough nuts to crack.
Italy will bt Tonga.
New Zealand will bt Scotland, though the Scots will do better than expected. I'll want to watch rugby gods, McCaw and Carter playing. Somehow feel the greatest openside that has ever lived is reaching the end of the road. There is only so much even his amazing body can take.
Thursday, November 08, 2012
No Statutory Regulation of the Press Please
Must admit I am not greatly impressed that dozens of my Conservative colleague MPs are leading a public campaign for some form of statutory press regulation. So far its just a letter which has been well covered on ConservativeHome. It seems that there are 42 names appended to some letter, which has clearly been made public - taking a view on this issue before Lord Leveson has reported. This demand for statutory regulation is backed by words of comfort, such as a free free being needed for a free society. Hmmmm. Not convinced.
It may well be that I will eventually sign up to this opinion (in spirit if not in writing) but I want to know what Leveson says first. What on earth is the point of setting up such a high profile and costly inquiry - and then drawing conclusions before its reported. And I'll want to know what Lord David Hunt makes of it before I commit myself. Now I know a bit more about what a press intent of shredding a reputation can do than most. I've taken a fair bit of stick myself over the years - some of which I considered to be outrageously unfair. It upset me a lot at the time. But I always felt it was a price I had to pay as a leading figure in public life. Even though I just took it on the chin at the time, I'd say that most Welsh people didn't believe it. Its just the way it is. I've suffered a lot of very generous unwarranted coverage as well. The swings and roundabouts of public life.
We do not yet know what Lord Leveson is going to recommend - probably some sort of regulation more independent of the press than now. Don't think it can be unfettered self-regulation. After Leveson reports, we will have to look seriously at this. But I will take a lot of persuading that statutory regulation is the right way to go.
It may well be that I will eventually sign up to this opinion (in spirit if not in writing) but I want to know what Leveson says first. What on earth is the point of setting up such a high profile and costly inquiry - and then drawing conclusions before its reported. And I'll want to know what Lord David Hunt makes of it before I commit myself. Now I know a bit more about what a press intent of shredding a reputation can do than most. I've taken a fair bit of stick myself over the years - some of which I considered to be outrageously unfair. It upset me a lot at the time. But I always felt it was a price I had to pay as a leading figure in public life. Even though I just took it on the chin at the time, I'd say that most Welsh people didn't believe it. Its just the way it is. I've suffered a lot of very generous unwarranted coverage as well. The swings and roundabouts of public life.
We do not yet know what Lord Leveson is going to recommend - probably some sort of regulation more independent of the press than now. Don't think it can be unfettered self-regulation. After Leveson reports, we will have to look seriously at this. But I will take a lot of persuading that statutory regulation is the right way to go.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Stirred up by BBC on Organ Donation System
Just watched the BBC's 'Week In, Week Out' programme of last Tues on IPlayer. The subject was one that I had decided not to say much more about - but the programme has stirred me up. This issue is as controversial as it gets - the Welsh Gov't'd proposals to introduce 'presumed consent' into the organ donation system in Wales. It was a very good programme, and I strongly recommend anyone interested in this issue watch it. It builds on a Dragon's Eye programme, also produced by BBC Wales on the same issue last year - the best ever edition of Dragon's Eye ever broadcast.
I have always been in favour of doing what we can to increase the number of organs available for transplant. I share the desire to do what we can to meet the needs of those awaiting new organs. Its just that I have never believed that introducing 'presumed consent' will increase the number of organs at all, and there is not a shred of evidence to support those who claim it will. I always feel a surge of anger (which I've learned to contain) whenever I hear 'spokepersons' stating that the change will increase number of organs available by 25%. It is simply not true. At least the Welsh Gov't Health Minister has started to say "could increase etc" which I suppose is true even if deceptive.
Worth mentioning how impressive former Conservative AM, Jonathon Morgan was on the programme. Class act - clear, concise, confident, and leaving viewers with the impression that his view was based on evidence - the same evidence that informs my view, and everyone else prepared to study it. And it was clear he knew what he was talking about. Must admit I was a bit alarmed that the Health Minister repeatedly refused to use words that would make clear that next of kin's opinions would be over-ruled by clinicians if the Welsh law is introduced. She made herself sound like a politician trying to hide her true intentions. Left me thinking - So much for 'soft opt-out'.
Perhaps my greatest concern is that a change in Wales will damage the entire UK organ donation system. I am reluctant to become involved in what the Welsh Gov't does, but I do have a responsibility as an MP for the UK system. I have no choice but press the Dep't of Health to study the effects and make public what they calculate will happen, including the dangers. Will begin asking questions on the issue in the House of Commons.
Another concern I have is that I cannot believe that the welsh Gov't has competence to pass a law which so clearly threatens the human rights of individuals. If no transplants are allowed to take place without next of kin approval, I can see that the proposal may fall within Welsh Gov't competence - but not otherwise. As sure as night follows day, an organ would be taken from someone who's next of kin objects and takes a case to the European Court of Human Rights. This proposal, if enacted, will inevitably finish up in the Supreme Court. I have taken no pleasure at all in writing this blog post.
I have always been in favour of doing what we can to increase the number of organs available for transplant. I share the desire to do what we can to meet the needs of those awaiting new organs. Its just that I have never believed that introducing 'presumed consent' will increase the number of organs at all, and there is not a shred of evidence to support those who claim it will. I always feel a surge of anger (which I've learned to contain) whenever I hear 'spokepersons' stating that the change will increase number of organs available by 25%. It is simply not true. At least the Welsh Gov't Health Minister has started to say "could increase etc" which I suppose is true even if deceptive.
Worth mentioning how impressive former Conservative AM, Jonathon Morgan was on the programme. Class act - clear, concise, confident, and leaving viewers with the impression that his view was based on evidence - the same evidence that informs my view, and everyone else prepared to study it. And it was clear he knew what he was talking about. Must admit I was a bit alarmed that the Health Minister repeatedly refused to use words that would make clear that next of kin's opinions would be over-ruled by clinicians if the Welsh law is introduced. She made herself sound like a politician trying to hide her true intentions. Left me thinking - So much for 'soft opt-out'.
Perhaps my greatest concern is that a change in Wales will damage the entire UK organ donation system. I am reluctant to become involved in what the Welsh Gov't does, but I do have a responsibility as an MP for the UK system. I have no choice but press the Dep't of Health to study the effects and make public what they calculate will happen, including the dangers. Will begin asking questions on the issue in the House of Commons.
Another concern I have is that I cannot believe that the welsh Gov't has competence to pass a law which so clearly threatens the human rights of individuals. If no transplants are allowed to take place without next of kin approval, I can see that the proposal may fall within Welsh Gov't competence - but not otherwise. As sure as night follows day, an organ would be taken from someone who's next of kin objects and takes a case to the European Court of Human Rights. This proposal, if enacted, will inevitably finish up in the Supreme Court. I have taken no pleasure at all in writing this blog post.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Badger Culls, P***ups and Breweries
Yesterday in Parliament witnessed an all-day debate about whether the Gov't's targeted pilot cull of badgers (taking place to establish whether it would help control bovine Tb) should go ahead or not. Interest was heightened because we had Dr Brian May in attendence. After the opening statements the debate was mainly a series of prepared speeches, with very little actual 'debating'. Opinions were being put forward as 'facts' and just repeated ad nauseum, even when it was pointed out they were not factual at all. Mr Owen Paterson, Secretary of State at Defra was reported to have left after 20 minutes having taken as much of it as he could stand - though he claims it was due to diary commitments. What we do know is that around 30,000 cattle are slaughtered every year as a result of the Bovine Tb eradication programme. We also know the cost to Gov't is around £100 million per yr (£1billion over next 10 yrs) and the human cost to livestock farmers in terms of stress and mental pressures is massive. And we also know that badgers suffer from bovine Tb and are carriers of the disease. What we do not know is what part (if any) badgers play in spreading the disease - which is why the Gov't intends to carry out a pilot cull targeted in two parts of England where the disease is most rife in order to find out.
But this post is not about Bovine Tb itself, but about what yesterday's debate teaches us about how to put forward a case to MPs. Its clear that those of us who share my approach to countryside issues have to completely rethink our strategy. Lets look at what happened. I received perhaps 100 emails from constituents opposed to a badger cull in any circumstance. Most emails were exactly the same and had clearly been prepared by some central agency. I did not receive one single constituency email in support of a cull - though I did receive well argued submissions from farmer representative organisations. I suspect every other MP was in the same position - and that everyone who spoke in favour of a cull yesterday was speaking completely against his or her constituency postbag. It's no longer enough for the NFU and others to send us excellent briefing material. They must immediately establish a unit which gathers together a million email addresses and asks them all to write to their MPs on issues that matter to them. No good complain about 38 Degrees. They do a great job for those who have signed up to their agenda. The need is to fight fire with fire. I've already told my local NFU that without a change of tactic, they might as well wind up their parliamentary lobbying altogether.
And its worth a word about how the Gov't whips handle these issues. Yesterday's debate was a 'Backbench Debate' - and the Whip's Office reckon these debates should not be whipped. This means that since the 'payroll' do not vote on unwhipped motions, the Government will almost always lose if the motion is opposing Gov't policy. It seems the view is that since the vote is not binding, the Gov't should not be concerned. (though I do wonder whether a backbench motion of no confidence in a Gov't minister would remain unwhipped!) I had thought that this did not matter too much because the Gov't could always simply not push it to a vote. But yesterday, Labour got around this by voting both for and against the motion, forcing a division all on their own. Truth is we were comprehensively stuffed. Most Coalition MPs had left the building. I spoke near the end of the debate but had just gone when the division bell rang. The result was a 147-28 defeat for Gov't policy to proceed with a cull. Now theoretically, this has no actual impact on Gov't policy at all, but I'm not at all sure that those who watch proceedings can have a clue what's going on. Personally, last night's vote reminds me of a cross between 'Yes Minister' and 'Monty Python's Circus'.
But this post is not about Bovine Tb itself, but about what yesterday's debate teaches us about how to put forward a case to MPs. Its clear that those of us who share my approach to countryside issues have to completely rethink our strategy. Lets look at what happened. I received perhaps 100 emails from constituents opposed to a badger cull in any circumstance. Most emails were exactly the same and had clearly been prepared by some central agency. I did not receive one single constituency email in support of a cull - though I did receive well argued submissions from farmer representative organisations. I suspect every other MP was in the same position - and that everyone who spoke in favour of a cull yesterday was speaking completely against his or her constituency postbag. It's no longer enough for the NFU and others to send us excellent briefing material. They must immediately establish a unit which gathers together a million email addresses and asks them all to write to their MPs on issues that matter to them. No good complain about 38 Degrees. They do a great job for those who have signed up to their agenda. The need is to fight fire with fire. I've already told my local NFU that without a change of tactic, they might as well wind up their parliamentary lobbying altogether.
And its worth a word about how the Gov't whips handle these issues. Yesterday's debate was a 'Backbench Debate' - and the Whip's Office reckon these debates should not be whipped. This means that since the 'payroll' do not vote on unwhipped motions, the Government will almost always lose if the motion is opposing Gov't policy. It seems the view is that since the vote is not binding, the Gov't should not be concerned. (though I do wonder whether a backbench motion of no confidence in a Gov't minister would remain unwhipped!) I had thought that this did not matter too much because the Gov't could always simply not push it to a vote. But yesterday, Labour got around this by voting both for and against the motion, forcing a division all on their own. Truth is we were comprehensively stuffed. Most Coalition MPs had left the building. I spoke near the end of the debate but had just gone when the division bell rang. The result was a 147-28 defeat for Gov't policy to proceed with a cull. Now theoretically, this has no actual impact on Gov't policy at all, but I'm not at all sure that those who watch proceedings can have a clue what's going on. Personally, last night's vote reminds me of a cross between 'Yes Minister' and 'Monty Python's Circus'.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Looking behind 'Expenses' so-called 'scandals'.
Our national newspapers seem deeply troubled about MP's expenses - in particular the two newspapers that find their way into our house, the Telegraph and the Mail. Over the last few days, two aspects of 'expenses' have made huge headlines. I do think the reporting fails to make the issues clear. So I'm doing my bit to try and help explain what's going on.
Firstly there's the story about MP's renting a flat at public expense while at the same time letting out a property they own. This is exactly what I expected to happen when it was ruled that mortgage interest payments would no longer be a legitimate MP's expense. While I would have no interest in buying a London property myself, I really cannot see why tenancy should be so preferable to ownership. The base position is that each MP is allowed about £20,000p.a. to cover cost of living in London - rental, Council Tax, electricity etc. I've never seen any sense at all in that allowance not including mortgage interest.I accept that it should not cover any improvement or even maintenance - just mortgage interest.
The position used to be that all sorts of other home expenses were allowed under the rules, many of them utterly ridiculous (duck houses, moats etc.). Thankfully that's all been stopped. Now some of the consequences of the new policy are also ridiculous. An pre-2010 MP who owns a flat finds it not possible to sustain two properties (London and constituency) without support, and has to sell or rent out, and move into a rented property where support is avai;lable. Usually, the cost to the taxpayer is much higher under the new arrangement. The recent coverage describes this as a scandal - despite MPs having no option. The salary simply does not allow for running two homes without some support - unless the MP has another income. The usual criticism of the system that I advocate is that MPs may benefit financially from a property where value has been enhanced by the taxpayer - which is why there can be no help for improvement or maintenance. As always, a property buyer has to take a chance on the market. In passing, we still own the property in Cardiff from when I was an AM and its worth considerably less than I paid for it.
The second 'scandal' has involved MPs using first class travel. The position is that the taxpayer will pay for travel if it less than the open standard fare. So if an MP is well organised and books a first class seat in advance it sometimes falls below the accepted limit. So happens that when first elected I used the train - always standard class. But sometimes found it standing room only from Euston to Milton Keynes (and my back problem means I can't stand up that long). So now I just drive instead - more expensive, more environmentally unfriendly and more stressful.
I'm fortunate in that these issues bother me not at all. I rent a flat, and drive from Montgomeryshire to Westminster. A current disappointment is that I (and other MPs) are having to move out of our flats in the old County Hall (very convenient) and give way to overseas students (probably) because London rents have rocketed while the rent allowance has remained the same. But I have no complaint. I enjoy my job and accept the terms of employment. And there would be plenty of people who would like to step in if I didn't. I just thought I'd try to explain that these so-called 'scandals' are not quite what they seem.
Firstly there's the story about MP's renting a flat at public expense while at the same time letting out a property they own. This is exactly what I expected to happen when it was ruled that mortgage interest payments would no longer be a legitimate MP's expense. While I would have no interest in buying a London property myself, I really cannot see why tenancy should be so preferable to ownership. The base position is that each MP is allowed about £20,000p.a. to cover cost of living in London - rental, Council Tax, electricity etc. I've never seen any sense at all in that allowance not including mortgage interest.I accept that it should not cover any improvement or even maintenance - just mortgage interest.
The position used to be that all sorts of other home expenses were allowed under the rules, many of them utterly ridiculous (duck houses, moats etc.). Thankfully that's all been stopped. Now some of the consequences of the new policy are also ridiculous. An pre-2010 MP who owns a flat finds it not possible to sustain two properties (London and constituency) without support, and has to sell or rent out, and move into a rented property where support is avai;lable. Usually, the cost to the taxpayer is much higher under the new arrangement. The recent coverage describes this as a scandal - despite MPs having no option. The salary simply does not allow for running two homes without some support - unless the MP has another income. The usual criticism of the system that I advocate is that MPs may benefit financially from a property where value has been enhanced by the taxpayer - which is why there can be no help for improvement or maintenance. As always, a property buyer has to take a chance on the market. In passing, we still own the property in Cardiff from when I was an AM and its worth considerably less than I paid for it.
The second 'scandal' has involved MPs using first class travel. The position is that the taxpayer will pay for travel if it less than the open standard fare. So if an MP is well organised and books a first class seat in advance it sometimes falls below the accepted limit. So happens that when first elected I used the train - always standard class. But sometimes found it standing room only from Euston to Milton Keynes (and my back problem means I can't stand up that long). So now I just drive instead - more expensive, more environmentally unfriendly and more stressful.
I'm fortunate in that these issues bother me not at all. I rent a flat, and drive from Montgomeryshire to Westminster. A current disappointment is that I (and other MPs) are having to move out of our flats in the old County Hall (very convenient) and give way to overseas students (probably) because London rents have rocketed while the rent allowance has remained the same. But I have no complaint. I enjoy my job and accept the terms of employment. And there would be plenty of people who would like to step in if I didn't. I just thought I'd try to explain that these so-called 'scandals' are not quite what they seem.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
The Case for Gary McKinnon's Extradition.
I was pleased to hear the Home Secretary tell us this week that Gary McKinnon was not to be extradited to stand trial in the US. As far as I could tell, almost all of us on the Gov't benches were pleased. In general the opposition benches were more muted. It was only Alan Johnson, former Home Secretary who openly disagreed. I have to admit that I thought Alan Johnson made a fair point, as he usually does, and was extremely brave to stand up and make it. The Telegraph has given him a platform to go into greater detail. It's worth reading.
I was pleased by Mrs May's decision because 'politics' and 'public opinion' inevitably plays a part in how we feel about issues of this sort. The Home Secretary would be horrified to hear this - and would deny absolutely that any such considerations entered her mind. I'm only saying why I was 'pleased' - not why I thought she was right. And to be frank, I'm not at all sure she was right. Lets consider some of the issues.
It's generally thought that the 2003 extradition treaty is biased in favour of the US. The UK seeks extradition on the basis of the test of 'probably cause' while the US seeks it on the basis of 'reasonable suspicion'. Mrs May accepts, backed by the Coalition Gov't's own Scott Baker Report that there is no practical difference. In any case this was not a determining factor.
Gary McKinnon has admitted that he 'hacked' into highly sensitive US defence infrastructure soon after 9/11. He left a message criticising US foreign policy and warned that he would strike again - even if he later claimed he was looking for UFOs. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary and I reckon these to be very serious charges indeed. There has been much legal consideration of all the points at law, and all have been fully satisfied. The only avenue open to Mrs May was to decide whether extradition would breach Article 3 of European Convention of Human Rights. Sometime during this process Gary McKinnon was diagnosed as an Asperger's sufferer - which meant that the process was started again. This was not accepted as reason to prevent extradition by Lord Justice Burnton in 2009. Alan Johnson claims that while he was Home Secretary, he saw no reason to bar extradition and that Gary McKinnon refused to undergo independent medical assessment. Only Mrs May has seen the most recent medical evidence, but Alan Johnson believes it must be substantially the same as it was in 2009. I do not claim to have any idea. But it's what Mrs May made her decision on.
Various reasons have been put forward by those supporting Gary McKinnon's case, but the Home Secretary dismisses them all - except that based on Article 3. Wonder when this case will be first used as a precedent to prevent us extraditing some unsavoury character! Having written all this, I have not persuaded myself that I should be anything but pleased by the decision. Just grateful that I'm not a former Home Secretary.
I was pleased by Mrs May's decision because 'politics' and 'public opinion' inevitably plays a part in how we feel about issues of this sort. The Home Secretary would be horrified to hear this - and would deny absolutely that any such considerations entered her mind. I'm only saying why I was 'pleased' - not why I thought she was right. And to be frank, I'm not at all sure she was right. Lets consider some of the issues.
It's generally thought that the 2003 extradition treaty is biased in favour of the US. The UK seeks extradition on the basis of the test of 'probably cause' while the US seeks it on the basis of 'reasonable suspicion'. Mrs May accepts, backed by the Coalition Gov't's own Scott Baker Report that there is no practical difference. In any case this was not a determining factor.
Gary McKinnon has admitted that he 'hacked' into highly sensitive US defence infrastructure soon after 9/11. He left a message criticising US foreign policy and warned that he would strike again - even if he later claimed he was looking for UFOs. Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary and I reckon these to be very serious charges indeed. There has been much legal consideration of all the points at law, and all have been fully satisfied. The only avenue open to Mrs May was to decide whether extradition would breach Article 3 of European Convention of Human Rights. Sometime during this process Gary McKinnon was diagnosed as an Asperger's sufferer - which meant that the process was started again. This was not accepted as reason to prevent extradition by Lord Justice Burnton in 2009. Alan Johnson claims that while he was Home Secretary, he saw no reason to bar extradition and that Gary McKinnon refused to undergo independent medical assessment. Only Mrs May has seen the most recent medical evidence, but Alan Johnson believes it must be substantially the same as it was in 2009. I do not claim to have any idea. But it's what Mrs May made her decision on.
Various reasons have been put forward by those supporting Gary McKinnon's case, but the Home Secretary dismisses them all - except that based on Article 3. Wonder when this case will be first used as a precedent to prevent us extraditing some unsavoury character! Having written all this, I have not persuaded myself that I should be anything but pleased by the decision. Just grateful that I'm not a former Home Secretary.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
How Machynlleth responded to abduction of April
Two weeks ago a five year girl named April Jones was abducted from close to her home on the Bryn-y-Gog Estate in Machynlleth, while she was playing with her friends. The Police have charged a local man with her abduction, murder and perverting the course of justice. But the search for April goes on. Its an awful tragedy. I really do not know how April's family can cope with such an evil act being struck against them. Everyone still hopes she will be found. But its the response to this tragedy that this post is about, rather than the tragedy itself.
As soon as news of the abduction went live on twitter and Facebook, the people of Machynlleth left their homes in their hundreds to search for April. They carried on searching, through the night and next day, setting aside everything else they had planned to do. They searched for days- and would still be searching now if the Police asked them to. I went to Mach myself next day, and the days after that. I wanted the people of Mach to know that all of Montgneryshire was thinking of them. I have never before seen a community response remotely like it. I never expect to anything like it again.
The Dyfed Powys Police have been astoundingly good. They have searched and organised by day and night. They have managed tragedy with great sensitivity and firmness. They have through Police Officers, Ian Johns, Reg Bevan and Steve Hughson communicated with the people and the media in an adult and sensitive way. They have brought in specialist reinforcements from across Britain to supplement any weaknesses that a small force inevitably has. They have linked with Mountain Rescue Services, who have also been wonderful and determined and other volunteers. Chief Constable Jackie Roberts can be very proud of her force.
And its not just the searchers. Its the back-up - the supplies to keep the searchers going. Supplies were coming into the Leisure Centre in loads. There were hot drinks and rolls for everyone. Yesterday, there were still enough biscuits and crisps to feed a Millennium Stadium crowd in the Plas. Early on a message went out on Facebook to ask if anyone had a fridge to keep milk cool. Within two hours, 11 fridges arrived. A message went out that plastic cups were needed. Almost immediately a van turned up with 2,500. It was all quite incredible. The Bishop of Bangor was there supporting the local Church, which became a centre for prayers for April. And much else I've not mentioned.
And a word for the media as well. We all know how ruthless and insensitive the national media can be - and it was the biggest media scrum I've seen, including College Green. I did lots of interviews as did the Mayor, Gareth Jones and County Cllr Michael Williams, both of whom were much affected by the tragedy. Every interview was sensitive and entirely proper. I believe the media, including hard-nosed hacks were genuinely taken aback by the public response. They had a story to tell, but they wanted to do it with respect, and mostly they did.
I hope I'm called by Mr Speaker on Wed at PMQs so that I can ask The Prime Minister to join me in a tribute to all of these people. I've never seen anything like it, and through the tragedy I have felt humbled by the way the community of Machynlleth, the Police, the Church and volunteers of all sorts have come together in such a positive way. Nothing will ever compensate April's family for what has happened, but I think they will always be able to remember that the people of their town did everything in their power to help.
As soon as news of the abduction went live on twitter and Facebook, the people of Machynlleth left their homes in their hundreds to search for April. They carried on searching, through the night and next day, setting aside everything else they had planned to do. They searched for days- and would still be searching now if the Police asked them to. I went to Mach myself next day, and the days after that. I wanted the people of Mach to know that all of Montgneryshire was thinking of them. I have never before seen a community response remotely like it. I never expect to anything like it again.
The Dyfed Powys Police have been astoundingly good. They have searched and organised by day and night. They have managed tragedy with great sensitivity and firmness. They have through Police Officers, Ian Johns, Reg Bevan and Steve Hughson communicated with the people and the media in an adult and sensitive way. They have brought in specialist reinforcements from across Britain to supplement any weaknesses that a small force inevitably has. They have linked with Mountain Rescue Services, who have also been wonderful and determined and other volunteers. Chief Constable Jackie Roberts can be very proud of her force.
And its not just the searchers. Its the back-up - the supplies to keep the searchers going. Supplies were coming into the Leisure Centre in loads. There were hot drinks and rolls for everyone. Yesterday, there were still enough biscuits and crisps to feed a Millennium Stadium crowd in the Plas. Early on a message went out on Facebook to ask if anyone had a fridge to keep milk cool. Within two hours, 11 fridges arrived. A message went out that plastic cups were needed. Almost immediately a van turned up with 2,500. It was all quite incredible. The Bishop of Bangor was there supporting the local Church, which became a centre for prayers for April. And much else I've not mentioned.
And a word for the media as well. We all know how ruthless and insensitive the national media can be - and it was the biggest media scrum I've seen, including College Green. I did lots of interviews as did the Mayor, Gareth Jones and County Cllr Michael Williams, both of whom were much affected by the tragedy. Every interview was sensitive and entirely proper. I believe the media, including hard-nosed hacks were genuinely taken aback by the public response. They had a story to tell, but they wanted to do it with respect, and mostly they did.
I hope I'm called by Mr Speaker on Wed at PMQs so that I can ask The Prime Minister to join me in a tribute to all of these people. I've never seen anything like it, and through the tragedy I have felt humbled by the way the community of Machynlleth, the Police, the Church and volunteers of all sorts have come together in such a positive way. Nothing will ever compensate April's family for what has happened, but I think they will always be able to remember that the people of their town did everything in their power to help.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Out speaking about an EU Referendum
Have decided to go out speaking at the occasional Tory dinner again. Mainly because I enjoy it. Since being elected I've always refused speaking invites - because having to spend 4 days/wk at Westminster, I've wanted to commit remainder of my time to Montgomeryshire. Don't want to lose ability to speak. Anyway, last night I went to Hanmer in Clwyd South to speak to the local branch - and a thoroughly enjoyable evening it was.
Surprisingly no questions on gay marriage. We had discussion about constituency boundaries (where I said I was increasingly opposed to the proposed changes) and inevitably the EU referendum. I said that I did not think there would be an In/Out referendum in the foreseeable future - but that I did think there would be a referendum on a renegotiated relationship between the UK and the EU - at or soon after the next General Election in 2015, or possibly incorporated as part of the competing parties manifestos. I also think there will be a genuine meaningful renegotiation - because anything less will not satisfy anyone. We know that the EU will froth at the mouth about such a prospect, but froth it will have to - because otherwise there may well be a real prospect of the UK withdrawing.
I think my audience was a touch surprised that I was so adamantly opposed to an In/Out referendum - particularly since I've always been more than a touch Eurosceptic. I told them there are two main reasons. Firstly, I do not believe any potential UK Government would act on an 'Out' vote to begin the withdrawal process - so any vote would (in my opinion) be a deception on the voting public. This of course may change at some stage in the future. And secondly I think that the British people would vote to stay in the EU when it came to it. OK, I can hear my Ukip friends snarling and see them finger-jabbing to emphasise disagreement, but that's what I believe. I remember the last referendum in 1975. I was all for withdrawal then, and thought my side would win - only to be trounced by the 'In' team. The result heralded a great burst of EU integration - which is why I've been careful about what I've wished for ever since.
Whatever it was an enjoyable evening. I sat next to a man who wanted to end the ban on hunting, scrap the welfare state, bring back hanging, do nasty things to Dennis Skinner - and reckoned riding to hounds was better than sex. He thought of himself as a 'One Nation' Conservative!
Surprisingly no questions on gay marriage. We had discussion about constituency boundaries (where I said I was increasingly opposed to the proposed changes) and inevitably the EU referendum. I said that I did not think there would be an In/Out referendum in the foreseeable future - but that I did think there would be a referendum on a renegotiated relationship between the UK and the EU - at or soon after the next General Election in 2015, or possibly incorporated as part of the competing parties manifestos. I also think there will be a genuine meaningful renegotiation - because anything less will not satisfy anyone. We know that the EU will froth at the mouth about such a prospect, but froth it will have to - because otherwise there may well be a real prospect of the UK withdrawing.
I think my audience was a touch surprised that I was so adamantly opposed to an In/Out referendum - particularly since I've always been more than a touch Eurosceptic. I told them there are two main reasons. Firstly, I do not believe any potential UK Government would act on an 'Out' vote to begin the withdrawal process - so any vote would (in my opinion) be a deception on the voting public. This of course may change at some stage in the future. And secondly I think that the British people would vote to stay in the EU when it came to it. OK, I can hear my Ukip friends snarling and see them finger-jabbing to emphasise disagreement, but that's what I believe. I remember the last referendum in 1975. I was all for withdrawal then, and thought my side would win - only to be trounced by the 'In' team. The result heralded a great burst of EU integration - which is why I've been careful about what I've wished for ever since.
Whatever it was an enjoyable evening. I sat next to a man who wanted to end the ban on hunting, scrap the welfare state, bring back hanging, do nasty things to Dennis Skinner - and reckoned riding to hounds was better than sex. He thought of himself as a 'One Nation' Conservative!
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Puleese - Not another Reference to the Supreme Court
Since the people of Wales decided in 1997 that a National Assembly for Wales was to be created, I've taken an interest in how my nation is governed. I want Wales to be governed well. So its depressing to read that another 'law' made by the National Assembly is being considered by the Attorney General as to the competence under which its been drawn up. This time it concerns the Welsh Language - or more precisely, the English Language. It seems there are doubts that the National Assembly can pass any 'law' relating to the English Language, and Dominic Grieve's view may well turn on whether the reference to English is no more than incidental to the main purpose of this 'law' (which is actually about the Welsh Language). If the Attorney General concludes that the Assembly has acted beyond its competence, the 'law' will be referred to the Supreme Court. B****** ***. Not again.
If this happens, we are facing a difficulty. The Government of Wales Act 2006 (including the changes brought about by the 2011 referendum) should be clear. I'd expected to be. That's what these well paid drafting lawyers are supposed to ensure. But it seems things are not clear at all. The first Assembly law is currently being considered, at great cost, and total mystery to the public in the Supreme Court. For this to happen once is a pity. To happen twice would be a real problem, which we would need to think about. And then there's the proposed new Assembly 'law' to change the organ donation system to come!
Personally, I'd like the National Assembly new 'laws' to be agreed. But the Attorney General must do his job. He must conclude on the basis of the Government of Wales Act. He has no choice. And its completely pointless blaming the Wales Office, the Welsh Secretary of State, or the Attorney General if 'competence' is found to be absent - though I've no doubt that some with other agendas will use it to drive wedges between Westminster and Cardiff, Making law is a complex, nit-picky, mind-numbingly boring business - but it has to be done properly. If the current law does not work, we need to look at it. This is what the Silk Commission will be doing from November.
I want to see the National Assembly working comfortably within the UK constitution. Most people want this to be the case. Lots of questions beofre us at present.
If this happens, we are facing a difficulty. The Government of Wales Act 2006 (including the changes brought about by the 2011 referendum) should be clear. I'd expected to be. That's what these well paid drafting lawyers are supposed to ensure. But it seems things are not clear at all. The first Assembly law is currently being considered, at great cost, and total mystery to the public in the Supreme Court. For this to happen once is a pity. To happen twice would be a real problem, which we would need to think about. And then there's the proposed new Assembly 'law' to change the organ donation system to come!
Personally, I'd like the National Assembly new 'laws' to be agreed. But the Attorney General must do his job. He must conclude on the basis of the Government of Wales Act. He has no choice. And its completely pointless blaming the Wales Office, the Welsh Secretary of State, or the Attorney General if 'competence' is found to be absent - though I've no doubt that some with other agendas will use it to drive wedges between Westminster and Cardiff, Making law is a complex, nit-picky, mind-numbingly boring business - but it has to be done properly. If the current law does not work, we need to look at it. This is what the Silk Commission will be doing from November.
I want to see the National Assembly working comfortably within the UK constitution. Most people want this to be the case. Lots of questions beofre us at present.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
In praise of Paul Wood
Would have commented before today, but my eyes have been watering too much to see the screen. I want to write a post in praise of Paul Wood, who played for Warrington Wolves against Leeds Rhinos in last weekend's Grand Final. I watched the fearsome game played between two sides willing to put their lives on the line. I never played rugby league competitively myself, except in training when I played for Shrewsbury RUFC. It helped put pace and urgency into our game. I was built for it. Loved it.
Anyway, on Saturday, Paul ran full tilt into a Rhino named Callum Watkins whose knee came up, scrunched into his 'groin' and smashed one of his testicles. Ronaldo, Suarez or Ashley Young would still be rolling on the ground in tears two days later. Paul just got up and played on. "Really bad pain" he said, "but it was the Grand Final". He'd trained to play through pain. He was conditioned to have the mental toughness to play on no matter what. He carried on for 20 minutes, then stayed to congratulate and shake hands with the Leeds players. Then he went to hospital to have his ruptured testicle removed.
When Peter Allen asked him on Drive the next day whether everything was in full working order, he laughed and said he had not tried it out fully yet. All that mattered was that this removal would not have a negative impact on his ability to play. Paul Wood and rugby players generally play the game to the sometimes brutal limit, and with incredibly good sportsmanship. What a shame it is that those wonderfully talented fit men who play top quality football have been indoctrinated to dive, cheat and generally behave like petulant wooses.
Anyway, on Saturday, Paul ran full tilt into a Rhino named Callum Watkins whose knee came up, scrunched into his 'groin' and smashed one of his testicles. Ronaldo, Suarez or Ashley Young would still be rolling on the ground in tears two days later. Paul just got up and played on. "Really bad pain" he said, "but it was the Grand Final". He'd trained to play through pain. He was conditioned to have the mental toughness to play on no matter what. He carried on for 20 minutes, then stayed to congratulate and shake hands with the Leeds players. Then he went to hospital to have his ruptured testicle removed.
When Peter Allen asked him on Drive the next day whether everything was in full working order, he laughed and said he had not tried it out fully yet. All that mattered was that this removal would not have a negative impact on his ability to play. Paul Wood and rugby players generally play the game to the sometimes brutal limit, and with incredibly good sportsmanship. What a shame it is that those wonderfully talented fit men who play top quality football have been indoctrinated to dive, cheat and generally behave like petulant wooses.
Friday, October 05, 2012
A day dominated by little children.
Day began at 6.30 with a phone call from LBC, wanting to discuss the 'abduction' of 5yrs old April Jones in Machynlleth on Monday evening. Little to add this morning, except that the community and Police are working together to do all they can to find April. Cllr. Gareth Jones, Mayor of Mach was also on the programme. As for so many others, this 'abduction' has disturbed me. Its impossible to comprehend how anyone could be so evil as to snatch a 5yr old little girl from her parents in this way.
After breakfast it was off to join a presentation by Tesco-Newtown to four local primary schools of equipment following collection of Tesco vouchers. There were two youngsters from each of the schools to receive equipment - or skive off school for an hour (take your pick). Lots of photographs, and smiles from the children.
Next stop was Berriew Church for the local school's harvest festival. Had to go this year because our little Ffion (five yesterday) was there. She's just moved back from Ireland to live by us and start school in Berriew. She was loaded down with her collection of offerings, and was clearly pleased to see her Granny and 'Taidy' there to watch her first public performance. It was a pity that I could stay for only 20 minutes before heading to Tesco-Welshpool for another presentation of school equipment to another five local schools. More children 'skiving off'. Not really.
After lunch it was back up to Machynlleth. For no real reason other than that I wanted to. Plan was just to have a coffee in the Plas, and chat with the Mayor, Cllr Michael Williams and Russell George AM about how the search for April was going. But by this time the Police had re-arrested Mark Bridger on suspicion of murder. Really felt the balance between hope and despair moving in favour of the latter. And the quiet coffee became a round of interviews, which I didn't much enjoy. But I really do want to praise the community and Police for the way they have responded to April's disappearance at every opportunity. Late afternoon was taken up speaking from Newtown studio to around 15 BBC regional radio stations. Although its only repetition, I felt shattered by the end. Needed a coffee on my own to recover. Before going home to face up to our grandson, little Darragh aged two, who is staying over this weekend.
The reason that the tragedy in Mach has had such an impact across Britain is that so many of us have a Ffion or a Darragh in our lives. We cannot comprehend what April's parents are going through. I don't know April or her parents but when spending the day with different little children all over Montgomeryshire, its impossible not to see April in every one of them. If a little girl can be snatched on Bryn-y-Gog (an open plan estate), when playing with her friends, in Machynlleth (one of the safest small towns anywhere), in Mid Wales (safest region in the UK) it can happen anywhere. Tonight, everyone in Machynlleth is still holding on to a little hope.
After breakfast it was off to join a presentation by Tesco-Newtown to four local primary schools of equipment following collection of Tesco vouchers. There were two youngsters from each of the schools to receive equipment - or skive off school for an hour (take your pick). Lots of photographs, and smiles from the children.
Next stop was Berriew Church for the local school's harvest festival. Had to go this year because our little Ffion (five yesterday) was there. She's just moved back from Ireland to live by us and start school in Berriew. She was loaded down with her collection of offerings, and was clearly pleased to see her Granny and 'Taidy' there to watch her first public performance. It was a pity that I could stay for only 20 minutes before heading to Tesco-Welshpool for another presentation of school equipment to another five local schools. More children 'skiving off'. Not really.
After lunch it was back up to Machynlleth. For no real reason other than that I wanted to. Plan was just to have a coffee in the Plas, and chat with the Mayor, Cllr Michael Williams and Russell George AM about how the search for April was going. But by this time the Police had re-arrested Mark Bridger on suspicion of murder. Really felt the balance between hope and despair moving in favour of the latter. And the quiet coffee became a round of interviews, which I didn't much enjoy. But I really do want to praise the community and Police for the way they have responded to April's disappearance at every opportunity. Late afternoon was taken up speaking from Newtown studio to around 15 BBC regional radio stations. Although its only repetition, I felt shattered by the end. Needed a coffee on my own to recover. Before going home to face up to our grandson, little Darragh aged two, who is staying over this weekend.
The reason that the tragedy in Mach has had such an impact across Britain is that so many of us have a Ffion or a Darragh in our lives. We cannot comprehend what April's parents are going through. I don't know April or her parents but when spending the day with different little children all over Montgomeryshire, its impossible not to see April in every one of them. If a little girl can be snatched on Bryn-y-Gog (an open plan estate), when playing with her friends, in Machynlleth (one of the safest small towns anywhere), in Mid Wales (safest region in the UK) it can happen anywhere. Tonight, everyone in Machynlleth is still holding on to a little hope.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Tories must own 'One Nation' banner.
"A week is a long time in politics". One week ago Ed Miliband and Mitt Romney were both mocked as no-hopers. By general consensus, both have now climbed the ladder of possibility to be genuine contenders for national leadership. One week ago, I blithely thought that Richard Branson was whinging without justice about a lost contract, only to find his words justified by one almighty embarrassing c*** up in Gov't. And one week ago I would have described the Bryn-y-Gog Estate in Machynlleth in Montgomeryshire as one of the least likely places in the UK where a 5 yr old girl would have been abducted while playing amongst her friends. I've completely forgotten what I was worried about one week ago.
But to this 'One Nation' philosophy that Disreali developed and Miliband was majoring on yesterday. It's so long ago that I read 'Sybil'. I suppose its the same sort of thing as "we're all in it together". Anyway, Peter Oborne has written a very good article in today's Telegraph, where he advises David Cameron to major on his 'One-Nation' credentials - and recommit to his partnership with the Lib Dems in order to deliver it. He wants more 'rose garden' co-operation. I totally agree. Its been a theme of my postings over the last 30 months.
I cannot comprehend what is in the minds of colleagues who would welcome the Coalition's collapse. Two parties came together in a spirit of compromise for the benefit of the UK, following the most disastrous management of our economy in modern history. We knew it would be tough and that sacrifice would be needed. The Lib Dems made even greater sacrifices than my party did. I feel a sense in which I owe them - and I've spent most of my life opposing them in Montgomeryshire! We can only succeed as a team - playing in the same direction.
Lets look at the reasons that this coalition has been struggling. Firstly the collapse of Lords Reform, on top of the defeated AV referendum. Good riddance to both. Then there's the probable failure to approve new constituencies in time for the 2015 election. Personally, I believe that's good riddance as well. I never believed this stuff about it giving a 20 seat benefit to the Tories anyway. It drove a coach and horses through traditional constituencies, with a non-Tory disregard for history - and would be a massive blow to democracy in rural areas. Time to kiss, make up and move on - singing a 'One-Nation' duet in harmony. Let us put behind us what has gone. Our coalition must stand up for everyone in our country (including those who need public support), must show respect for public servants (especially while reducing public expenditure), must back each other publicly when the going gets tough (and stop the snide undermining comments about leadership of both parties). Of course, we as MPs will sometimes disagree over policy. There is disagreement over our EU relationship. I disagree ferociously over coalition policy on onshore wind, and will say so at every opportunity, but I'll not undermine Ed Davey. We are a team, up against another team. We will only win if we rekindle the spirit of the rose garden that promised so much in 2010.
But to this 'One Nation' philosophy that Disreali developed and Miliband was majoring on yesterday. It's so long ago that I read 'Sybil'. I suppose its the same sort of thing as "we're all in it together". Anyway, Peter Oborne has written a very good article in today's Telegraph, where he advises David Cameron to major on his 'One-Nation' credentials - and recommit to his partnership with the Lib Dems in order to deliver it. He wants more 'rose garden' co-operation. I totally agree. Its been a theme of my postings over the last 30 months.
I cannot comprehend what is in the minds of colleagues who would welcome the Coalition's collapse. Two parties came together in a spirit of compromise for the benefit of the UK, following the most disastrous management of our economy in modern history. We knew it would be tough and that sacrifice would be needed. The Lib Dems made even greater sacrifices than my party did. I feel a sense in which I owe them - and I've spent most of my life opposing them in Montgomeryshire! We can only succeed as a team - playing in the same direction.
Lets look at the reasons that this coalition has been struggling. Firstly the collapse of Lords Reform, on top of the defeated AV referendum. Good riddance to both. Then there's the probable failure to approve new constituencies in time for the 2015 election. Personally, I believe that's good riddance as well. I never believed this stuff about it giving a 20 seat benefit to the Tories anyway. It drove a coach and horses through traditional constituencies, with a non-Tory disregard for history - and would be a massive blow to democracy in rural areas. Time to kiss, make up and move on - singing a 'One-Nation' duet in harmony. Let us put behind us what has gone. Our coalition must stand up for everyone in our country (including those who need public support), must show respect for public servants (especially while reducing public expenditure), must back each other publicly when the going gets tough (and stop the snide undermining comments about leadership of both parties). Of course, we as MPs will sometimes disagree over policy. There is disagreement over our EU relationship. I disagree ferociously over coalition policy on onshore wind, and will say so at every opportunity, but I'll not undermine Ed Davey. We are a team, up against another team. We will only win if we rekindle the spirit of the rose garden that promised so much in 2010.
Monday, October 01, 2012
Welsh Language vital issue for Tories
There are many good reasons why the Conservative Party should become full-blooded champions of the Welsh Language. The main reason is that its the right thing to do. Another (less honourable perhaps) is that it would be a big electoral plus for us. More so than any other political party in my opinion. We are still sometimes dismissed as being 'English', which offends me hugely - something to do with pit owners 100 yrs ago I think! Lord Roberts of Conwy challenged this perception brilliantly for many years, but I do think we need to take it more seriously again.
I don't mean token bilingualism. The odd "Bori Da" by non-Welsh speakers making a laudable effort is not enough. I mean standing up proud for a full-blooded bilingual nation named Wales. No leaflets produced by the central party anything but fully bilingual. All advertising material produced centrally fully bilingual. Major meetings equipped for translation. Constituency offices offering callers a bilingual service, transferring to a central bilingual contact if no Welsh speaker available. We must never force anyone to listen, or join in. That does more harm than good - breeding resentment. But the Welsh Language must be really special to us, and everyone should know its special to us.
Perhaps this is not going to happen. Perhaps its just my imagination on fire again. Anyway that's not the point. My point is that dreaming this dream, and shouting it from the tops of Snowdon and Plynlumon is what we Tories should be doing - not despite us being Tories but because we're Tories. And it will make us more popular, and morev people in Wales will vote for us.
Across the world, it is parties of the centre/right which support 'regional' government, and minority rights. Its a centre/right philosophy to accept freedom of minorities to live as they wish. Its libertarian right to respect people's right to diversity rather than forced compliance to the usual. Its the Welsh Language that makes Wales different. Sure, we have mountains - but so does Scotland. Better bigger mountains. We have a lovely coastline. So does Cornwall. But we are the only part of Britain which has a significantly used and living language. Its a great USP. We should build on it.
When it comes to it, its always been the Conservative Party that took the decisive steps which stopped the remorseless decline of the Welsh Language over the last 40 yrs. When I won a bardic chair for an essay on the future of the Welsh Language in the 1960s I concluded it would wither to academic use only within a century. Not now. Its been a dramatic turnaround, which the Tories can take a big part of the credit for. But sometimes we seem almost embarrassed about what we have achieved. I want to see the Tories loved by the Welsh people. I want to see the Tories admired and voted into power by the Welsh people. Let us become full-blooded champions of our unique language and it could happen.
I don't mean token bilingualism. The odd "Bori Da" by non-Welsh speakers making a laudable effort is not enough. I mean standing up proud for a full-blooded bilingual nation named Wales. No leaflets produced by the central party anything but fully bilingual. All advertising material produced centrally fully bilingual. Major meetings equipped for translation. Constituency offices offering callers a bilingual service, transferring to a central bilingual contact if no Welsh speaker available. We must never force anyone to listen, or join in. That does more harm than good - breeding resentment. But the Welsh Language must be really special to us, and everyone should know its special to us.
Perhaps this is not going to happen. Perhaps its just my imagination on fire again. Anyway that's not the point. My point is that dreaming this dream, and shouting it from the tops of Snowdon and Plynlumon is what we Tories should be doing - not despite us being Tories but because we're Tories. And it will make us more popular, and morev people in Wales will vote for us.
Across the world, it is parties of the centre/right which support 'regional' government, and minority rights. Its a centre/right philosophy to accept freedom of minorities to live as they wish. Its libertarian right to respect people's right to diversity rather than forced compliance to the usual. Its the Welsh Language that makes Wales different. Sure, we have mountains - but so does Scotland. Better bigger mountains. We have a lovely coastline. So does Cornwall. But we are the only part of Britain which has a significantly used and living language. Its a great USP. We should build on it.
When it comes to it, its always been the Conservative Party that took the decisive steps which stopped the remorseless decline of the Welsh Language over the last 40 yrs. When I won a bardic chair for an essay on the future of the Welsh Language in the 1960s I concluded it would wither to academic use only within a century. Not now. Its been a dramatic turnaround, which the Tories can take a big part of the credit for. But sometimes we seem almost embarrassed about what we have achieved. I want to see the Tories loved by the Welsh people. I want to see the Tories admired and voted into power by the Welsh people. Let us become full-blooded champions of our unique language and it could happen.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Should Lembit offer sartorial 'tips' to Assembly Members
Great story in Telegraph today about the Welsh Assembly Commission spending £10,000 on giving tips to Assembly Members on how to dress properly. Probably a bit of journalistic licence in the report, but it made me laugh. Pity it wasn't available when I was an AM. Try as I did, I was always a touch scruffy. Still am. A bit of dress tutoring might have made the difference. But then, Rhodri Morgan was a bit scruffy too, and it did him no harm. Both of us looked particularly shaggy when in need of a haircut. Now on the other hand there was the sartorial elegance of Lord Elis Thomas and the colourful flamboyance of Rhodri Glyn Thomas to set a higher standard. His Lordship was always one for Bond St. stylishness. And Tory AM, David Melding, who has been defending the spending today, was always quite a snappy dresser himself. Expect Tory leader, Andrew RT Davies to always be kitted out in vertical stripes in future.
The Assembly Commission could have recruited cheaper advice from former Montg. MP, Lembit Opik who has recently launched The London Academy Business School, where he offers himself as a guru on public speaking and presentational skills. Am told he charges £149.00 for a 2 hr course. Its advertised as a 'personal and tailored experience' and 'provides tips to make your presentation sparkle'. OK, I know he didn't look too good when that wrestler had him in a headlock, but I remember Lembit as always quite well turned out. He's seemed a bit unsure of career direction for a while, but could be that the desire of AMs to smarten themselves up creates an opportunity for Lembit to use his skills for the benefit of Welsh politics again.
The Assembly Commission could have recruited cheaper advice from former Montg. MP, Lembit Opik who has recently launched The London Academy Business School, where he offers himself as a guru on public speaking and presentational skills. Am told he charges £149.00 for a 2 hr course. Its advertised as a 'personal and tailored experience' and 'provides tips to make your presentation sparkle'. OK, I know he didn't look too good when that wrestler had him in a headlock, but I remember Lembit as always quite well turned out. He's seemed a bit unsure of career direction for a while, but could be that the desire of AMs to smarten themselves up creates an opportunity for Lembit to use his skills for the benefit of Welsh politics again.
The Badger Cull in England.
I sometimes blog on the most controversial of issues. More likely to spark a debate. And today there is nothing more controversial than the badger cull which is about to begin in England. Its not at all a straight forward issue. I've been involved in the debate for a very long time. Its complex. But bottom line is that I support the cull - even though I'm not wholly convinced it will succeed in making a big difference. This is why I support only a 'pilot' targeted cull.
As an adult I have always been a lover of wildlife. When out at night with calving cows and lambing sheep as a young man, we rarely saw a badger. Any sighting was a talking point over breakfast. When I drive out over the same fields today, badgers are a common sight. Coincidentally (though I think not) I never see another much loved creature that was common then, the hedgehog.
Also when I was a young man making my way in livestock farming, bovine Tb was rare. My 120 sucklers were tested on a regular basis, and we never had a case. Today my neighbours are losing cows by the dozen, and are regularly under restriction. Bovine Tb is causing absolute havoc throughout the cattle industry, and is costing the Gov't huge sums in compensation. Because badgers suffer from and carry the bovine Tb infection, many people believe there is a link, and that badgers should be culled as well as any suspicious cattle.
Spent a lot of time on this when chairing the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee in the National Assembly for Wales, including a visit to Ireland to discuss the lessons of badger culling there. On first consideration, the Irish experience strongly supported a cull of badgers. Bovine Tb, which had been much worse than in the UK, had been dramatically lowered. But the sheer scale of slaughter of cows, deer and badgers across the nation was bound to lower incidence of disease, and I felt we could not conclude with certainty that there was a definite link - though the Irish believed there was. Also we had the Krebs Trials in England, which again failed to give support for a cull - though I didn't have much confidence in the integrity of the trial. The pilot areas were too small, and the trials were disrupted by opponents of culling. In fact there was some suggestion that the position was made worse because badgers moved into the space vacated by culled badgers.
Since then my stance has been that we need a proper trial - over a much larger area than Krebs. I would not support a widespread slaughter of badgers unless this 'pilot' showed clear evidence. 3 years ago, the then Welsh Gov't decided to implement such a pilot, but messed up the paper work, and it never happened. The new Welsh Gov't has no intention of taking things forward, except in a hopelessly impractical PR exercise (in my opinion). Seems to me this is an irrelevance.
The UK Coalition Gov't is now going forward with a cull which has won legal backing. Not sure this post needs to go into the details of how the cull is to be carried out. That's another issue. This is about where we go from here. Lots of my farming friends want to see the cull extended. I'll not support that unless there is evidence from a pilot that culling badgers is an effective control. Biggest danger is that disruption of the cull will nullify the evidence - and ironically, lead to other more extensive culls in the future. There's also the case that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the farming industry will continue to blame the badger - with inevitable consequences. I just hope we conduct an effective cull and discover with some certainty whether culling badgers works. In the long run we may find an effective treatment that eliminates the case for culling altogether. Its what we all want, But over the 20 yrs I've been involved, an effective vaccine has always been about 10 yrs away! It still is.
As an adult I have always been a lover of wildlife. When out at night with calving cows and lambing sheep as a young man, we rarely saw a badger. Any sighting was a talking point over breakfast. When I drive out over the same fields today, badgers are a common sight. Coincidentally (though I think not) I never see another much loved creature that was common then, the hedgehog.
Also when I was a young man making my way in livestock farming, bovine Tb was rare. My 120 sucklers were tested on a regular basis, and we never had a case. Today my neighbours are losing cows by the dozen, and are regularly under restriction. Bovine Tb is causing absolute havoc throughout the cattle industry, and is costing the Gov't huge sums in compensation. Because badgers suffer from and carry the bovine Tb infection, many people believe there is a link, and that badgers should be culled as well as any suspicious cattle.
Spent a lot of time on this when chairing the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee in the National Assembly for Wales, including a visit to Ireland to discuss the lessons of badger culling there. On first consideration, the Irish experience strongly supported a cull of badgers. Bovine Tb, which had been much worse than in the UK, had been dramatically lowered. But the sheer scale of slaughter of cows, deer and badgers across the nation was bound to lower incidence of disease, and I felt we could not conclude with certainty that there was a definite link - though the Irish believed there was. Also we had the Krebs Trials in England, which again failed to give support for a cull - though I didn't have much confidence in the integrity of the trial. The pilot areas were too small, and the trials were disrupted by opponents of culling. In fact there was some suggestion that the position was made worse because badgers moved into the space vacated by culled badgers.
Since then my stance has been that we need a proper trial - over a much larger area than Krebs. I would not support a widespread slaughter of badgers unless this 'pilot' showed clear evidence. 3 years ago, the then Welsh Gov't decided to implement such a pilot, but messed up the paper work, and it never happened. The new Welsh Gov't has no intention of taking things forward, except in a hopelessly impractical PR exercise (in my opinion). Seems to me this is an irrelevance.
The UK Coalition Gov't is now going forward with a cull which has won legal backing. Not sure this post needs to go into the details of how the cull is to be carried out. That's another issue. This is about where we go from here. Lots of my farming friends want to see the cull extended. I'll not support that unless there is evidence from a pilot that culling badgers is an effective control. Biggest danger is that disruption of the cull will nullify the evidence - and ironically, lead to other more extensive culls in the future. There's also the case that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the farming industry will continue to blame the badger - with inevitable consequences. I just hope we conduct an effective cull and discover with some certainty whether culling badgers works. In the long run we may find an effective treatment that eliminates the case for culling altogether. Its what we all want, But over the 20 yrs I've been involved, an effective vaccine has always been about 10 yrs away! It still is.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Lib Dem plans for successful people
Over last few days leading Lib Dems have proposed a wealth tax, a mansion tax, a tax on second homes in London, higher taxes on top 10% of earners (who curerently pay 55% of income tax), a tax on those earning over £50,000, use of pension funds to underwrite mortgages, and removal of universal benefits from pensioners who earn £1million. And as I understand it are threatening to oppose any proposal to further reduce public spending (even if they believe it's needed to deliver deficit reduction) unless these ideas are agreed to. Not sure whether these ideas have been thought through. But must be trying to say something to those of us who want to achieve success in our lives, work hard to help set up our children, or invest in our properties.
Is Powys sustainable as a political entity?
I should begin by declaring that I have never believed the county of Powys to be a sustainable creature. It is too geographically large to deliver services and has too small of a population to deliver strategic vision. This is not a criticism of those who try to make 'Powys' work, but repetition of a long held view that the job can't be done. We've already seen areas of health care being hived off from Powys to other regions. Today has demonstrated the reality in spades with changes to delivery of further education..
Powys College and Neath Port Talbot College have announced today that they are to 'merge' next year. This is a very big deal, which will not be much of a 'Welsh' story - because its mid Wales. We only make the news if its a quirky story or its destruction by wind farms. Today's announcement is being portrayed as a 'merger' and I accept it may well be being approached in this spirit. But when one partner in a 'merger' is dominant in terms of size, it usually works out as more of a 'takeover'.
Should make clear that I'm not criticising what's happening. Since Powys Council decided to retain it's sixth forms (correctly) the writing was on the wall for Coleg Powys. Falling rolls means that its not sustainable to deliver further education on a discrete Powys basis. Had no idea what sort of arrangement would emerge, but knew something would have to happen. This is it. And no reason to think there's a better deal on the table anywhere else.
Of course it will be sold as much greater capacity to deliver range of courses and greater investment. But I've been around too long to take things as they might seem. OK, Brecon marches well with Neath Port Talbot - but Montgomeryshire....... We have more in common with North Wales. And I fully expect to see more students heading over the border to Shropshire. And why not I ask myself! After all, what matters is the student experience. I wish the 'merger' well, and hope it delivers. But Powys Council's Education Cabinet Member will have to keep a very close eye on things.
Powys College and Neath Port Talbot College have announced today that they are to 'merge' next year. This is a very big deal, which will not be much of a 'Welsh' story - because its mid Wales. We only make the news if its a quirky story or its destruction by wind farms. Today's announcement is being portrayed as a 'merger' and I accept it may well be being approached in this spirit. But when one partner in a 'merger' is dominant in terms of size, it usually works out as more of a 'takeover'.
Should make clear that I'm not criticising what's happening. Since Powys Council decided to retain it's sixth forms (correctly) the writing was on the wall for Coleg Powys. Falling rolls means that its not sustainable to deliver further education on a discrete Powys basis. Had no idea what sort of arrangement would emerge, but knew something would have to happen. This is it. And no reason to think there's a better deal on the table anywhere else.
Of course it will be sold as much greater capacity to deliver range of courses and greater investment. But I've been around too long to take things as they might seem. OK, Brecon marches well with Neath Port Talbot - but Montgomeryshire....... We have more in common with North Wales. And I fully expect to see more students heading over the border to Shropshire. And why not I ask myself! After all, what matters is the student experience. I wish the 'merger' well, and hope it delivers. But Powys Council's Education Cabinet Member will have to keep a very close eye on things.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Day in the Life of..And now to bed
Today has been a difficult day - but in the end not so bad. The most important bit went well. My contribution to the Heart Rhythm Congress at the Birmingham ICC seemed to go down ok with a room full of heart specialists. But lets start at the beginning.
Began at 6.00 with an SoS from family for some help, which required Mrs D to immediately hotfoot it to Manchester. Couldn't get back to sleep so arose to prepare for my interview with Post Cynta about 'Gategate'. Prob wouldn't have agreed to speak on this issue, except that it was for Radio Cymru - and I always try to agree interview requests in Welsh Language. And always try to use a word I've not used before. Today it was 'Cwrtais' which means 'Courteous'. Things went down hill from there.
Intended to catch train at Welshpool at 11.00, and left home in plenty of time. Came upon a flood nr Castle Caer, which I judged I could drive through. Wrong. 50 yds in and car died. Water was deep. No choice but shed trousers and footwear to push car back to dry land. Not what my consultant advised after carrying out arthroscopy on my right knee 4 days ago. Anyway, was fully dressed when a guardian angel driving a 4x4 came by to carry me back home. Left car recovery in charge of my garage, and taxi to catch train. Still on time, until nr Telford, train came to a stop - for 90 mins. Failed to reach conference in time to chair 'Big Discussions' on aspects of treatment of the heart condition, Atrial Fibrillation. But did make it in time to deliver my 15 minutes speech about the AF All Party Parliamentary Group which I chair + questions. Went well, which is more than you can say for my train journey home - 5 hours from B'ham to Welshpool.
My enthusiasm for involvement with Atrial Fibrillation is that I believe, even as a non-clinician I can help the experts. Its an illness which is common, but not well know. I sometimes tell Mrs D that she's one in a million. Well I am - because I'm one of the million affected by AF in the UK. Thousands of people suffer strokes every year because their AF has not been diagnosed, and they are not being treated - usually by taking an anti-coagulant. Personally, my AF was sorted by cardi-version - a full-on electric shock with restored my heart rhythm to the normal 'sinus rhythm'. I just want everyone to have their pulse checked to establish whether they are a sufferer, and to take steps to avoid strokes. Been a deeply frustrating day, but on balance, I feel it was worthwhile.
Began at 6.00 with an SoS from family for some help, which required Mrs D to immediately hotfoot it to Manchester. Couldn't get back to sleep so arose to prepare for my interview with Post Cynta about 'Gategate'. Prob wouldn't have agreed to speak on this issue, except that it was for Radio Cymru - and I always try to agree interview requests in Welsh Language. And always try to use a word I've not used before. Today it was 'Cwrtais' which means 'Courteous'. Things went down hill from there.
Intended to catch train at Welshpool at 11.00, and left home in plenty of time. Came upon a flood nr Castle Caer, which I judged I could drive through. Wrong. 50 yds in and car died. Water was deep. No choice but shed trousers and footwear to push car back to dry land. Not what my consultant advised after carrying out arthroscopy on my right knee 4 days ago. Anyway, was fully dressed when a guardian angel driving a 4x4 came by to carry me back home. Left car recovery in charge of my garage, and taxi to catch train. Still on time, until nr Telford, train came to a stop - for 90 mins. Failed to reach conference in time to chair 'Big Discussions' on aspects of treatment of the heart condition, Atrial Fibrillation. But did make it in time to deliver my 15 minutes speech about the AF All Party Parliamentary Group which I chair + questions. Went well, which is more than you can say for my train journey home - 5 hours from B'ham to Welshpool.
My enthusiasm for involvement with Atrial Fibrillation is that I believe, even as a non-clinician I can help the experts. Its an illness which is common, but not well know. I sometimes tell Mrs D that she's one in a million. Well I am - because I'm one of the million affected by AF in the UK. Thousands of people suffer strokes every year because their AF has not been diagnosed, and they are not being treated - usually by taking an anti-coagulant. Personally, my AF was sorted by cardi-version - a full-on electric shock with restored my heart rhythm to the normal 'sinus rhythm'. I just want everyone to have their pulse checked to establish whether they are a sufferer, and to take steps to avoid strokes. Been a deeply frustrating day, but on balance, I feel it was worthwhile.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
New Business Bank
Looking forward to hearing more from Vince Cable tomorrow about the new 'Business Bank' that he and the Chancellor have been talking about recently. It will need to be on a big scale if its going to shake up the lending market, which is the ambition. Inevitably the Gov't is going to have to put in a £billion or so, which will have to produce an extra £10billion on so of new lending to business if its going to make any significant difference.
Also intererested in how this new 'Business Bank' is going to work. The Business Secretary tells us that more detail will be available tomorrow. Lets hope its enough detail to be confident it will make a difference. In my part of the UK, banks are keen to lend to secure farming businesses, and wind farms which are backed up by massive subsidies form Gov't. And that's about it. All the money ploughed in by the Bank of England through the printing presses has gone into de-leveraging (covering the toxic undeclared debts!). Still, tomorrow could well be a significant announcement.
Also intererested in how this new 'Business Bank' is going to work. The Business Secretary tells us that more detail will be available tomorrow. Lets hope its enough detail to be confident it will make a difference. In my part of the UK, banks are keen to lend to secure farming businesses, and wind farms which are backed up by massive subsidies form Gov't. And that's about it. All the money ploughed in by the Bank of England through the printing presses has gone into de-leveraging (covering the toxic undeclared debts!). Still, tomorrow could well be a significant announcement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)