Ever since Ireland was granted a degree of self determination in Gladstone's time, constitutional academics have been considering how such arrangements should be legislated for.This consideration grew in public discourse when devolution was being considered in the late 1970s. The issue was best encapsulated in a question put in the House of Commons by Tam Dalyell, MP for West Lothian. He wanted to know;
"How long will English constituencies and English hon. members tolerate hon. members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important decisive effect on English politics, while they have no say on the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?" One would have expected this to be known as 'The English Question'. But in his response to Tam Dalyell, the great Enoch Powell suggested it should be known as 'The West Lothian Question'. And that is indeed what it is known as.
It was rather a good question, which over the years I've though about quite a bit - and my view has always been that its one of those questions which should not be answered. There is no doubt that the current position is a constitutional anomaly. But my opinion is that all the possible answers to the West Lothian Question create new constitutional anomalies - like flattening a bump in a water bed. The recently published McKay Commission report has just offered another one - equally flawed. Though if I put my partisan hat on I can see some real attractions to this one.
Lets consider some of the various answers. First up an 'English Parliament'. Now do we really need to create another 'parliament'? Is this what the people of Britain want? I have heard it suggested that current MPs sitting for English seats could meet as an 'English Parliament' each Friday at the House of Commons. Well, I would not want these English MPs deciding on health and transport policies in Shropshire without my being there, or air transport policy just because the actual airports are in England. Increasingly specialist services are going to be in England. Lots of mid Wales services are in Shropshire. Some form of an English Parliament is supported by those who want a 'federal' UK. Personally I do not thing a 'federal system is sustainable when one of the 'federal partners' is around 85% of the whole. Think Cyprus and the Eurozone!! Many sensible people like this idea. I don't.
So what about 'English votes for English laws'. Personally I think this is rather better, but would be horrendously complex and difficult to operate. Every bill would have aspects which affected England only. House of Commons would be like a non-stop Hokey Kokey. But this would be good for job creation - the million civil servants needed to make it work. This is not for me either - unless we unwisely decide 'Something must be done'.
So what about cutting back on the number of MPs representing the devolved nations. A few like this idea. It was proposed by Michael Howard when he led the Conservatives. The idea was (at the time) that if law making powers were not granted to Cardiff Bay the reduction would be to 33 MPs rather than 40 (pro rata the comparative populations), and if law making powers were granted (as they were by the 2006 Act) the number would be 26 MPs. Not sure there would be many takers for this. Just imaging all those hour long Chris Bryant speeches. God save us.
Of course we could just make the four nations 'independent' or scrap devolution altogether. While there would be a quite a few takers for both of these options, they are just not going to happen - anytime soon anyway. So we must consider what the McKay Commission is suggesting. I have not read the report yet (depending on media coverage only) so cannot make too firm a conclusion. But I cannot see the idea of English MPs having a veto on UK legislation (which affects only England) if there is no majority of 'English' MPs in support. I can see some attractions for the Tories here because of our relative strength in England. But we would still be the almost impossible position of identifying which bills (and clauses of bills) would qualify..... This game of possibilities could go on for ever!
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Just One True Cost of Welsh Organ Donation Change
The Welsh Government continues to press on with its misguided proposal to change the organ donation system in Wales from one based on opting-in to one based on opting-out. This action is causing real distress in the Dep't of Health, and amongst all the people involved in the donation system that I have discussed it with. It will cause great damage to the integrity of the National Assembly for Wales itself. It leaves me and people who agree with me about this issue wanting to reverse devolution of health back to Westminster! This policy is going to go badly wrong and its very vulnerable people who will be paying the price.
Lets look at just one aspect of this in this post. Fundamental to the policy change is that everyone in Wales is required to know about it for it to be legal. So must everybody who moves into Wales. The requirement under the European Convention on Human Rights is that individuals are fully aware of the need to consent or object, and be fully aware of the consequences. The people of Britain know that we have an opt-in system. Over the decades, billions have gone into promoting it. The cost of instilling knowledge of the change into the population of Wales (as well as those moving into Wales) is in my view unachievable, and it is one I believe the Assembly Gov't has seriously underestimated.
In a recent Assembly Health Committee Meeting, Ministers were questioned about the mere £2.9 million pounds sidelined to implement this policy. This is peanuts - and very small peanuts at that. The previous Assembly Health Minister, Lesley Griffiths, the Minister has claimed that the figure is appropriate and that the she reached that conclusion based on the campaign to raise the awareness of the smoking ban. These are completely different issues. The smoking ban attracted national media attention, was discussed in every pub and club, on every shop floor and at every dinner table. The change to organ donation is a subtle and complex change to a law covering a highly emotive subject that will undoubtedly leave many in our communities with no idea what the law is. What really bothers me is that I really don't think the Assembly Gov't cares. It just wants to push the law through - to hell with the consequences. Never felt more disappointed that I lost my seat in the Assembly. Rosemary Butler would have her work cut out controlling me when ever this issue cropped up.
£2.9 million pounds will fail miserably to inform the population of Wales of this important change - won't even scratch the surface. Done a few sums of my own to demonstrate lack of realism. Recently ITV ran a brilliant week long campaign ‘Heart to heart’ to promote organ donation. It resulted in around 120,000 people signing up to the opt-in register - a fantastic achievement. I asked ITV how much it would’ve cost to produce and broadcast the campaign - what was the value of the promotion. Answer was, without exaggeration, ‘you simply cannot put a cost on it’. But I have tried - on the basis that a 30 second advert at prime-time costs £51,000. A two hour programme at this rate would cost almost £12.5 million - though I suppose there might be a quantity discount.. In addition to the two hour programme, there were dozens of national news bulletins, features on Daybreak, on This Morning, on Loose Women and a 30 minute programme focusing on organ donation for viewers in Wales. We're talking £100 million plus - which tells me the cost of an effective campaign is completely unachievable
.
One problem those of us who oppose this misguided change is that the Welsh Gov't has invested heavily in it politically. They cannot back down. They will be looking for ways to justify what they are doing. One hope is that a new Health Minister has been appointed, Mark Drakeford, who I'm told is a very sharp cookie. I know he's been receiving evidence about issues like the shocking disinformation that was included in the consultation document. I was copied in. If he's as good as I'm told he is, he might just find a way of stopping the madness before it goes further. I really do hope so.
Lets look at just one aspect of this in this post. Fundamental to the policy change is that everyone in Wales is required to know about it for it to be legal. So must everybody who moves into Wales. The requirement under the European Convention on Human Rights is that individuals are fully aware of the need to consent or object, and be fully aware of the consequences. The people of Britain know that we have an opt-in system. Over the decades, billions have gone into promoting it. The cost of instilling knowledge of the change into the population of Wales (as well as those moving into Wales) is in my view unachievable, and it is one I believe the Assembly Gov't has seriously underestimated.
In a recent Assembly Health Committee Meeting, Ministers were questioned about the mere £2.9 million pounds sidelined to implement this policy. This is peanuts - and very small peanuts at that. The previous Assembly Health Minister, Lesley Griffiths, the Minister has claimed that the figure is appropriate and that the she reached that conclusion based on the campaign to raise the awareness of the smoking ban. These are completely different issues. The smoking ban attracted national media attention, was discussed in every pub and club, on every shop floor and at every dinner table. The change to organ donation is a subtle and complex change to a law covering a highly emotive subject that will undoubtedly leave many in our communities with no idea what the law is. What really bothers me is that I really don't think the Assembly Gov't cares. It just wants to push the law through - to hell with the consequences. Never felt more disappointed that I lost my seat in the Assembly. Rosemary Butler would have her work cut out controlling me when ever this issue cropped up.
£2.9 million pounds will fail miserably to inform the population of Wales of this important change - won't even scratch the surface. Done a few sums of my own to demonstrate lack of realism. Recently ITV ran a brilliant week long campaign ‘Heart to heart’ to promote organ donation. It resulted in around 120,000 people signing up to the opt-in register - a fantastic achievement. I asked ITV how much it would’ve cost to produce and broadcast the campaign - what was the value of the promotion. Answer was, without exaggeration, ‘you simply cannot put a cost on it’. But I have tried - on the basis that a 30 second advert at prime-time costs £51,000. A two hour programme at this rate would cost almost £12.5 million - though I suppose there might be a quantity discount.. In addition to the two hour programme, there were dozens of national news bulletins, features on Daybreak, on This Morning, on Loose Women and a 30 minute programme focusing on organ donation for viewers in Wales. We're talking £100 million plus - which tells me the cost of an effective campaign is completely unachievable
.
One problem those of us who oppose this misguided change is that the Welsh Gov't has invested heavily in it politically. They cannot back down. They will be looking for ways to justify what they are doing. One hope is that a new Health Minister has been appointed, Mark Drakeford, who I'm told is a very sharp cookie. I know he's been receiving evidence about issues like the shocking disinformation that was included in the consultation document. I was copied in. If he's as good as I'm told he is, he might just find a way of stopping the madness before it goes further. I really do hope so.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Spare Room Subsidy/Bedroom Tax
Perhaps the most contentious policy I've ever blogged on - but feel it should be done. Can't be ducked. Its taken me a while to feel completely comfortable backing this Government policy myself. The issue is changes to housing benefit, where there is some dispute about terminology. One man's ‘spare room subsidy’ is another man's ‘bedroom tax’. The gist of the change is that Housing Benefit will no longer be paid for bedrooms that are considered to be surplus to needs. But its not straightforward and I'll not pretend it is. I support the change - but I expect as many readers to disagree as agree.
Let me begin by setting out the context. Firstly, The incoming Gov't in 2010 faced a position where the outgoing Gov't had spent £150billion (that's £150,000,000,000) more in the previous year than it had coming in. There is not the slightest chance that Labour would not have been forced into making the same level of reductions in spending as the Coalition. And there are but two areas of major spending where these reductions could reasonably have been made - public sector pay and welfare (in a broad sense). Its highly questionable that enough reduction has yet been made. At current spending levels, the implications for future generations is horrific.
Secondly private sector tenants are already subject to similar legislation. The previous Gov't introduced a 'local housing allowance scheme' which meant no Housing Benefit would be available for private sector tenants. At the time there was a huge hoohah about evictions etc - which simply did not happen. There are over one million private sector tenants on housing benefit. Why is it 'fair' for tenants in the private sector, but not in the public sector?
And thirdly, what about the 250,000 households living in seriously overcrowded conditions - and the hundreds of thousands who are waiting for a home, and do not have a bedroom at all! Can this be fair when one third of working-age social housing tenants on Housing Benefit are in accommodation that is bigger than that which they actually need. There are nearly a million spare bedrooms, supported by the tax payer to the tune of £500 million per year. The main purpose of the change is to make more efficient use of our social housing stock.
The principles on which this change is based is entirely logical. Polling also shows that in general the public support the change - which is probably the reason behind some Labour spokespersons letting it be known that they are no longer opposed to the principle - and now fully support efficient use of social housing. Despite this, they still shout about the 'Bedroom Tax' at every opportunity, knowing that the reality is too complex for the media to report.
But as so often with a change of policy, there are difficulties at the 'individual' level. There are 'hard cases'. Always are. Which is why the legislation allows for 'exceptions'. It must, and always has excluded tenants who would find the change unacceptably difficult. The tactics of the 'Opposition' has spread great fear amongst tenants. Money is being given to local authorities so that they can help people on a case-by-case basis. I was particularly disgusted by the fears caused to foster families, which became so bad that the Gov't decided to make specific reference to them in the Bill. Some other 'exceptions' to the policy include disabled people requiring a non-resident overnight carer, as will pensioners and those in supported ‘exempt’ accommodation. Other exemptions allow a spare room where a child’s disability means they cannot share a bedroom. and will allow armed forces personnel to keep their bedrooms within their parent’s home when they are deployed on operations.
The new policy works so that each person (or couple) is allocated a bedroom. Only children under 16 of the same gender will have to share or children younger than 10 regardless of their gender. The reduction for having one spare bedroom will be 14% of the Housing Benefit, or 25% for two or more spare bedrooms. The coalition has calculated that the average reduction will be £14 per week - £2 per day.
This change is based on the principle of fairness. Fairness to those in overcrowded homes, fairness to those in the private rented sector who cannot have a spare bedroom under the current rules, and fairness to the taxpayer. As usual there are plenty of myths circulating these changes, many of which are completely unfounded. Of course, when policy makers initiate reform, they accept there will be tweaks to make before the reforms are introduced. Coalition Government is listening to the genuine concerns that have been expressed by we, MPs as well as the public. We are doing all we can seeking to make this reform one that is fair and workable. Its not a reform that MPs want to do, but Coalition MPs believe we have no choice.
Let me begin by setting out the context. Firstly, The incoming Gov't in 2010 faced a position where the outgoing Gov't had spent £150billion (that's £150,000,000,000) more in the previous year than it had coming in. There is not the slightest chance that Labour would not have been forced into making the same level of reductions in spending as the Coalition. And there are but two areas of major spending where these reductions could reasonably have been made - public sector pay and welfare (in a broad sense). Its highly questionable that enough reduction has yet been made. At current spending levels, the implications for future generations is horrific.
Secondly private sector tenants are already subject to similar legislation. The previous Gov't introduced a 'local housing allowance scheme' which meant no Housing Benefit would be available for private sector tenants. At the time there was a huge hoohah about evictions etc - which simply did not happen. There are over one million private sector tenants on housing benefit. Why is it 'fair' for tenants in the private sector, but not in the public sector?
And thirdly, what about the 250,000 households living in seriously overcrowded conditions - and the hundreds of thousands who are waiting for a home, and do not have a bedroom at all! Can this be fair when one third of working-age social housing tenants on Housing Benefit are in accommodation that is bigger than that which they actually need. There are nearly a million spare bedrooms, supported by the tax payer to the tune of £500 million per year. The main purpose of the change is to make more efficient use of our social housing stock.
The principles on which this change is based is entirely logical. Polling also shows that in general the public support the change - which is probably the reason behind some Labour spokespersons letting it be known that they are no longer opposed to the principle - and now fully support efficient use of social housing. Despite this, they still shout about the 'Bedroom Tax' at every opportunity, knowing that the reality is too complex for the media to report.
But as so often with a change of policy, there are difficulties at the 'individual' level. There are 'hard cases'. Always are. Which is why the legislation allows for 'exceptions'. It must, and always has excluded tenants who would find the change unacceptably difficult. The tactics of the 'Opposition' has spread great fear amongst tenants. Money is being given to local authorities so that they can help people on a case-by-case basis. I was particularly disgusted by the fears caused to foster families, which became so bad that the Gov't decided to make specific reference to them in the Bill. Some other 'exceptions' to the policy include disabled people requiring a non-resident overnight carer, as will pensioners and those in supported ‘exempt’ accommodation. Other exemptions allow a spare room where a child’s disability means they cannot share a bedroom. and will allow armed forces personnel to keep their bedrooms within their parent’s home when they are deployed on operations.
The new policy works so that each person (or couple) is allocated a bedroom. Only children under 16 of the same gender will have to share or children younger than 10 regardless of their gender. The reduction for having one spare bedroom will be 14% of the Housing Benefit, or 25% for two or more spare bedrooms. The coalition has calculated that the average reduction will be £14 per week - £2 per day.
This change is based on the principle of fairness. Fairness to those in overcrowded homes, fairness to those in the private rented sector who cannot have a spare bedroom under the current rules, and fairness to the taxpayer. As usual there are plenty of myths circulating these changes, many of which are completely unfounded. Of course, when policy makers initiate reform, they accept there will be tweaks to make before the reforms are introduced. Coalition Government is listening to the genuine concerns that have been expressed by we, MPs as well as the public. We are doing all we can seeking to make this reform one that is fair and workable. Its not a reform that MPs want to do, but Coalition MPs believe we have no choice.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
My Take on Six Nations.
Well that's it for another winter. The Six Nations over. What did we make of it. Lets run through the teams in the order they finished in the championship.
Wales. Terrible start. At half-time in the first game against Ireland, no-one sane would have bet on Wlaes winning. But they improved each game and played some smart rugby to beat France, Italy and Scotland. And today, under the closed roof of the Millennium Stadium produced the best team performance by a Welsh team I have ever seen. I cannot name a single player who started who should not be on the Lions tour. And Wales had the player of the tournament in Leigh Halfpenny. To beat England 30-3 was beyond every Welshman's dreams. Cannot name any others because they were all brilliant today.
England. Good tournament, but as always became caught up in the overblown hype whenever its England. They looked a good solid but inexperienced team which will get better. Today they were up against a class team right on their game - and the English boys were just not good enough. Even today they played well enough in the first half, showing some great defence - but were tsunamied in the second half. The ridiculous over expectation piled on Tuilagi's shoulders was exposed. But he may well make a great player - as may Barritt and the two second rows. Also think Farrell will turn out OK. I think these five should go on the Lions tour. Plus Dan Cole and Robshaw.
Scotland. Not great, but we weren't expecting much. Stole victory against Ireland. Did well against Italy and did really well to come third. Cannot see many Scots going on tour. Had really fancied Hogg until today, and would take still take him. But Gatland will have several options at full back. No stand out players but a few who would not let Lions down.
Italy. Great tournament. They have the second best player in the tournament (and he would probably be best player if with another team. Parisse is a wonderful player, whom I never tire of watching. But Italy now are more than a one man team. Masi, Canale and others are good solid players. A trip to Rome has become a very tough fixture.
Ireland. Deeply disappointing tournament. Very unlucky with injuries but will have to recruit a new coach to regroup and rebuild. Felt really sad to see Brian O'Driscoll failing to make an impact, and being reduced to a sly stamp today which earned a yellow card - especially after his great play in the first 50 minutes against Wales. I would still take him on tour though, and Kearney. Sexton, Heaslip, and Tommy Bowe if fit. Expect Ireland to be back as a threat next year, but its been a tournament to forget. Still produced the best moment of the Six Nations when Zebo flicked the ball up with his foot into his hands to score against Wales.
France. What an incredible disaster of a season for a team bursting with natural talent. Less said the better - with just a mention for Picamoles, Huget and Fofana. And perhaps Bastereaud who was my man of the match against the Scots today.
Anyway, that's my take. Any other views welcome.
Wales. Terrible start. At half-time in the first game against Ireland, no-one sane would have bet on Wlaes winning. But they improved each game and played some smart rugby to beat France, Italy and Scotland. And today, under the closed roof of the Millennium Stadium produced the best team performance by a Welsh team I have ever seen. I cannot name a single player who started who should not be on the Lions tour. And Wales had the player of the tournament in Leigh Halfpenny. To beat England 30-3 was beyond every Welshman's dreams. Cannot name any others because they were all brilliant today.
England. Good tournament, but as always became caught up in the overblown hype whenever its England. They looked a good solid but inexperienced team which will get better. Today they were up against a class team right on their game - and the English boys were just not good enough. Even today they played well enough in the first half, showing some great defence - but were tsunamied in the second half. The ridiculous over expectation piled on Tuilagi's shoulders was exposed. But he may well make a great player - as may Barritt and the two second rows. Also think Farrell will turn out OK. I think these five should go on the Lions tour. Plus Dan Cole and Robshaw.
Scotland. Not great, but we weren't expecting much. Stole victory against Ireland. Did well against Italy and did really well to come third. Cannot see many Scots going on tour. Had really fancied Hogg until today, and would take still take him. But Gatland will have several options at full back. No stand out players but a few who would not let Lions down.
Italy. Great tournament. They have the second best player in the tournament (and he would probably be best player if with another team. Parisse is a wonderful player, whom I never tire of watching. But Italy now are more than a one man team. Masi, Canale and others are good solid players. A trip to Rome has become a very tough fixture.
Ireland. Deeply disappointing tournament. Very unlucky with injuries but will have to recruit a new coach to regroup and rebuild. Felt really sad to see Brian O'Driscoll failing to make an impact, and being reduced to a sly stamp today which earned a yellow card - especially after his great play in the first 50 minutes against Wales. I would still take him on tour though, and Kearney. Sexton, Heaslip, and Tommy Bowe if fit. Expect Ireland to be back as a threat next year, but its been a tournament to forget. Still produced the best moment of the Six Nations when Zebo flicked the ball up with his foot into his hands to score against Wales.
France. What an incredible disaster of a season for a team bursting with natural talent. Less said the better - with just a mention for Picamoles, Huget and Fofana. And perhaps Bastereaud who was my man of the match against the Scots today.
Anyway, that's my take. Any other views welcome.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Statutory State Regulation of the Press - Strike against Democracy
Have to admit David Cameron's decision to bring cross party talks on Lord Leveson's proposals to statutorily regulate the press to an end took me by surprise. I had expected an agreement based on Royal Charter. I am hugely disappointed no agreement has proved to be possible, but I am pleased that we are going to put this taxic issue to bed on Monday. Personally, I do not support statutory regulation - no matter how its dressed up. It crosses a Rubicon for me. No matter how appallingly the press has behaved, (and some of it has) the answer is to come down ruthlessly when the law is broken, not to pass new laws designed to regulate it. So while Monday's debate and vote may be difficult for some, it will not be so for me. I know exactly which way I will vote.
Now I know lots of people will disagree with me over this - which discomforts me. They genuinely believe the press should be brought to heel by state regulation. I understand how angry those whose mobiles were hacked feel. They were treated appallingly - and the guilty should feel the full force of the law. I've had my fair share of what I thought to be very unfair coverage in the press over the years. Damn near broke me once. But in the end I just took it and said nothing. Life moves on. And its not that I have any sympathy at all for the press (in general anyway). It's unacceptable behaviour has brought this situation about. But responding by using the law to regulate the press is undermining what makes the UK a free and open society. I cannot vote for it.
Its clear that the Labour Party and our Coalition colleagues, the Liberal Democrats want new legislation as recommended by Lord Leveson. I did not, do not and it seems that David Cameron doesn't either. He knows its wrong and he knows he will take some stick - but he also knows he's doing what he believes to be right. This is how a Prime Minister should behave. So lets be done with this poisonous issue. Its been hanging over our democracy like a black rancid cloud for too long. If a majority of MPs want to back state regulation of the press, they must vote for it - and if they are in a majority, so be it. Let the evil deed be done, and we can move on to other things. I'm pleased that David Cameron has said (I think) that should he ever control a majority in Parliament he would reverse it - but once we are on the road to state regulation it will be damningly difficult to get off. It does strike me as rather sad that great political parties which have played a proud role in how our democracy has developed, underpinned by a free and sometimes unruly press, are contemplating bringing an end to press freedom as we know it. Thank God for the Internet.
Now I know lots of people will disagree with me over this - which discomforts me. They genuinely believe the press should be brought to heel by state regulation. I understand how angry those whose mobiles were hacked feel. They were treated appallingly - and the guilty should feel the full force of the law. I've had my fair share of what I thought to be very unfair coverage in the press over the years. Damn near broke me once. But in the end I just took it and said nothing. Life moves on. And its not that I have any sympathy at all for the press (in general anyway). It's unacceptable behaviour has brought this situation about. But responding by using the law to regulate the press is undermining what makes the UK a free and open society. I cannot vote for it.
Its clear that the Labour Party and our Coalition colleagues, the Liberal Democrats want new legislation as recommended by Lord Leveson. I did not, do not and it seems that David Cameron doesn't either. He knows its wrong and he knows he will take some stick - but he also knows he's doing what he believes to be right. This is how a Prime Minister should behave. So lets be done with this poisonous issue. Its been hanging over our democracy like a black rancid cloud for too long. If a majority of MPs want to back state regulation of the press, they must vote for it - and if they are in a majority, so be it. Let the evil deed be done, and we can move on to other things. I'm pleased that David Cameron has said (I think) that should he ever control a majority in Parliament he would reverse it - but once we are on the road to state regulation it will be damningly difficult to get off. It does strike me as rather sad that great political parties which have played a proud role in how our democracy has developed, underpinned by a free and sometimes unruly press, are contemplating bringing an end to press freedom as we know it. Thank God for the Internet.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Let 6th formers learn about Organ Donation
Have attached my name to a Motion to bring in a Bill called 'Blood, Organ and Bone Marrow Donation (Education)'. The motion is Seema Malhotra's, a new and talented Labour MP. I was pleased that Seema asked me to become involved. Its always better if Private Member's Bills have cross-party support. The reality is that this bill is unlikely to become law, but it enables Seema (and me) to raise awareness of a an issue that is important to both of us.
As regular visitors to this blog will know, promoting organ donation is one of my many obsessions. I want Gov'ts to encourage more people to donate their organs. The key to increasing organ donation is to encourage everyone to tell their next of kin of their support - which is a far more effective way of improving organ donation than the misguided plans of the Welsh Gov't to change the donation system in Wales to one based on opting out rather than opting in - a dreadful mistake in my opinion. There is no evidence whatsoever that this change will improve the position - and there's fear at the Dep't of Health that it will do real harm. What would make a difference is educating people during school years ensuring that organ donation is a part of life that we all understand and appreciate - and that its important their next of kin knows their wishes.
But back to the Seema's motion. Its purpose is to establish a duty on schools and colleges to educate pupils aged 16 and over about organ donation. Great example of how we should be integrating health and education. Meeting the demand for donations can be tackled by educating young people about how they can save a life. Most of us are potential donors but most of us just don't turn our attention to organ donation while we are fit and well. In circumstances where donation is an option, next of kin will be better prepared to deal with what will be a traumatic situation - and thus more willing to agree to donation.
An opt-in system allows next of kin to refuse to allow organs to be donated. But there is overwhelming evidence that education and forethought provide the crucial difference between the next of kin of a potential donor agreeing. ITV's hugely successful 'From the Heart Campaign' that ran for a week over Valentine's resulted in a surge of 120,000 people joining the organ donor register, primary evidence of the value of raising awareness.
As a society we are poor about discussing difficult issues. There is nothing more difficult than our own death! I am planning to write to local schools and sixth forms in Montgomeryshire and raise the possibility of holding debates/discussions on this issue. Let us build on the magnificent initiative of ITV.
As regular visitors to this blog will know, promoting organ donation is one of my many obsessions. I want Gov'ts to encourage more people to donate their organs. The key to increasing organ donation is to encourage everyone to tell their next of kin of their support - which is a far more effective way of improving organ donation than the misguided plans of the Welsh Gov't to change the donation system in Wales to one based on opting out rather than opting in - a dreadful mistake in my opinion. There is no evidence whatsoever that this change will improve the position - and there's fear at the Dep't of Health that it will do real harm. What would make a difference is educating people during school years ensuring that organ donation is a part of life that we all understand and appreciate - and that its important their next of kin knows their wishes.
But back to the Seema's motion. Its purpose is to establish a duty on schools and colleges to educate pupils aged 16 and over about organ donation. Great example of how we should be integrating health and education. Meeting the demand for donations can be tackled by educating young people about how they can save a life. Most of us are potential donors but most of us just don't turn our attention to organ donation while we are fit and well. In circumstances where donation is an option, next of kin will be better prepared to deal with what will be a traumatic situation - and thus more willing to agree to donation.
An opt-in system allows next of kin to refuse to allow organs to be donated. But there is overwhelming evidence that education and forethought provide the crucial difference between the next of kin of a potential donor agreeing. ITV's hugely successful 'From the Heart Campaign' that ran for a week over Valentine's resulted in a surge of 120,000 people joining the organ donor register, primary evidence of the value of raising awareness.
As a society we are poor about discussing difficult issues. There is nothing more difficult than our own death! I am planning to write to local schools and sixth forms in Montgomeryshire and raise the possibility of holding debates/discussions on this issue. Let us build on the magnificent initiative of ITV.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Tories should look more kindly on Lib Dems.
Its probably because my experience of Lib Dems at a personal level is positive that I was comfortable with the idea of a Lib Dem/Conservative Coalition being formed in 2010. I had great respect for two of my predecessors as Montgomeryshire MPs, who were also good friends - the late Lord (Emlyn) Hooson and Lord (Alex) Carlile. I always took notice of what Emlyn said, and I still talk through some issues with Alex before settling on an opinion. More controversially, it seems I'm one of the few who have some admiration for Nick Clegg. Like David Cameron, he has a very difficult hand to play. They've both shown the skill and tenacity needed to herd cats and nail jelly to the wall at the same time. So it will come as no surprise that I'm not overly aghast at the thought of another coalition post 2015.
Of course I would prefer that my Conservative Party come cruising home as runaway winners in the next election. Even though there are over two years to go until the election, the polls are not offering much encouragement that this happy conclusion will come to pass. It inevitably leads to tentative consideration about whom we might climb into bed with come May 2015. There seem to be two possible candidates, Ukip and the Lib Dems - though we do not know whether Ukip's popularity will carry through to 2015 in sufficient strength to win seats. My instinct tells me that Ukip's surge will last until mid 2014, but fall back after that. We will have to wait and see about that. Anyway, this same instinct is telling me that the Lib Dems will remain a force in the House of Commons, and if my party fails to win an overall majority, will be the only potential partner. The choice again will be do we soldier on as a minority Gov't or enter coalition. In those circumstances I'd support giving it another go.
Of course the next two years are not going to be easy. Nick Clegg will have to show a lot of yellow stocking to his fractious party, some of whom have not come to terms with the responsibility that comes with governing. And David Cameron will have to show some blue stocking to his troops, some of whom do not know what playing for the team means. And on both sides there are 'players' positioning themselves in preparation for the event of defeat. And there's the tearoom tittle-tattle that keeps the keyboards of James Forsyth and Tim Montgomerie in business. But so far the Coalition has delivered more than could have been expected. The Lib Dems signed up to big cheques in the Coalition Agreement. And they are still signing cheques. Last week it was 'secret courts'. Danny Alexander, David Laws, Steve Webb (in particular) - and Vince Cable is much more sound than he would have us think. My message to my colleagues is to look at the price the Lib Dems have paid and think about the alternatives - pre 2015 and after 2015.
Of course I would prefer that my Conservative Party come cruising home as runaway winners in the next election. Even though there are over two years to go until the election, the polls are not offering much encouragement that this happy conclusion will come to pass. It inevitably leads to tentative consideration about whom we might climb into bed with come May 2015. There seem to be two possible candidates, Ukip and the Lib Dems - though we do not know whether Ukip's popularity will carry through to 2015 in sufficient strength to win seats. My instinct tells me that Ukip's surge will last until mid 2014, but fall back after that. We will have to wait and see about that. Anyway, this same instinct is telling me that the Lib Dems will remain a force in the House of Commons, and if my party fails to win an overall majority, will be the only potential partner. The choice again will be do we soldier on as a minority Gov't or enter coalition. In those circumstances I'd support giving it another go.
Of course the next two years are not going to be easy. Nick Clegg will have to show a lot of yellow stocking to his fractious party, some of whom have not come to terms with the responsibility that comes with governing. And David Cameron will have to show some blue stocking to his troops, some of whom do not know what playing for the team means. And on both sides there are 'players' positioning themselves in preparation for the event of defeat. And there's the tearoom tittle-tattle that keeps the keyboards of James Forsyth and Tim Montgomerie in business. But so far the Coalition has delivered more than could have been expected. The Lib Dems signed up to big cheques in the Coalition Agreement. And they are still signing cheques. Last week it was 'secret courts'. Danny Alexander, David Laws, Steve Webb (in particular) - and Vince Cable is much more sound than he would have us think. My message to my colleagues is to look at the price the Lib Dems have paid and think about the alternatives - pre 2015 and after 2015.
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Early Call for the Lions Team
Still a bit early to settle on the Lions team, but here's my assessment of what Warren Gatland will be thinking about as we approach the run-in to final selection. Inevitably there's a bit of Welsh bias in my selection, even if I've tried to avoid it. But I have picked seven Welshmen. The next two games could change that.
Prop - Gethin Jenkins. Back to form now he's back to playing. Needs to be back in the UK.
Prop - Adam Jones. Still the best in my book.
Hooker - Rory Best. Obvious choice.
Second Row - Geoff Parling.
Second Row - Alun Wyn Jones, though he needs two good games to tell us he's really back to form.
Blind side - Tom Croft, just ahead of Sean O'Brien. Both will step aside if a fully fit Dan Lydiate returns.
No 8 - Toby Faletau.
Scrum Half - Mike Phillips.
Stand Off - Johnny Sexton - after Farrell's petulant display against France.
Inside Centre - Brad Barritt. I really like him. Not flash. Just very good.
Outside Centre - Brian O'Driscoll. Controversial call this. No complaint if Tuilagi's picked.
Wing - Tommy Bowe. Brilliant and just hope he's back in time.
Wing- George North. Very Special player.
Full Back - Leigh Halfpenny. Obvious choice and goalkicker.
There are a few others who could be selected without dispute from me - and I have assumed some anticipated form improvement over the last two rounds. Here's my respected alternatives who will make the tour - Dan Cole, Tom Youngs, Richie Gray, Joe Launchbury, Johnnie Beattie, Jamie Heaslip, Justin Tipuric, Sam Warburton, Ryan Jones (Captain of mid week side), Ben Youngs, Owen Farrell. Manu Tuilagi, Jamie Roberts, Jonathon Davies, Stuart Hogg.
Prop - Gethin Jenkins. Back to form now he's back to playing. Needs to be back in the UK.
Prop - Adam Jones. Still the best in my book.
Hooker - Rory Best. Obvious choice.
Second Row - Geoff Parling.
Second Row - Alun Wyn Jones, though he needs two good games to tell us he's really back to form.
Blind side - Tom Croft, just ahead of Sean O'Brien. Both will step aside if a fully fit Dan Lydiate returns.
No 8 - Toby Faletau.
Scrum Half - Mike Phillips.
Stand Off - Johnny Sexton - after Farrell's petulant display against France.
Inside Centre - Brad Barritt. I really like him. Not flash. Just very good.
Outside Centre - Brian O'Driscoll. Controversial call this. No complaint if Tuilagi's picked.
Wing - Tommy Bowe. Brilliant and just hope he's back in time.
Wing- George North. Very Special player.
Full Back - Leigh Halfpenny. Obvious choice and goalkicker.
There are a few others who could be selected without dispute from me - and I have assumed some anticipated form improvement over the last two rounds. Here's my respected alternatives who will make the tour - Dan Cole, Tom Youngs, Richie Gray, Joe Launchbury, Johnnie Beattie, Jamie Heaslip, Justin Tipuric, Sam Warburton, Ryan Jones (Captain of mid week side), Ben Youngs, Owen Farrell. Manu Tuilagi, Jamie Roberts, Jonathon Davies, Stuart Hogg.
Friday, March 01, 2013
Reflecting on Eastleigh
Been too busy to think much about the Eastleigh by-election result until now - even though I've done a few interviews on the subject, and am on Radio Wales soon after 8.00 in the morning. I do not believe it is a game changing result - even if it's quite interesting. Ironically, I reckon a Conservative victory would have been much more destabilising for the Coalition. But I did not like being 3rd. In a few days time, the by-election will be forgotten. But I do not want to forget about it. I hope we learn from it.
It was a bad night for all the three mainstream parties - even if less obviously so for the Lib Dems. It is frankly ridiculous of Nick Clegg to describe the Lib Dem success as a "stunning" victory. The Lib Dems lost half their vote! But at least they did had a victory to console them. The Conservatives didn't. We lost a big chunk of our vote as well. The result was big-time disappointing. It was also pretty disastrous for Labour, which made no progress at all despite unpopular decisions having to be taken by the Coalition and favourable mid-Parliament polls.
The big winners were Ukip, and the "stuff the lot of you party". My view is that if the campaign had lasted another week, Ukip may well have won. If Nigel Farage had had the gonads to stand, Ukip might have won. Whatever it was a very good night for Ukip. We do not know how long this success is going to last, but I simply do not think it is much to do with Ukip policies. Have no doubt that its in part a 'protest vote - despite what Ukip says. Ukip is not seen as a serious governing party and offers a convenient way for voters to express unhappiness and displeasure. This is not to suggest I don't take the Ukip threat seriously. Where mainstream parties lose the confidence of the voters, non serious parties take over the space. The recent Italian elections inform us of what can happen - and it could happen in Britain.
Personally, I think a big part of the problem is that voters do not think they are being listened to. Its not just that the Government does things the voters disagree with. That's always been the case. Its just that it sometimes seems to me that voter's opinions are dismissed out of hand. In Montgomeryshire, we see this with the wind farm debate. The majority of voters are utterly incensed by the Gov'ts intentions (both at Westminster and Cardiff Bay) to destroy our landscape with many hundreds of pylons and turbines. We have tried everything to try to get a hearing. But every word coming out of the Welsh Gov't and DECC equates to "Dear Voters - Get Stuffed." Its like shouting in the middle of the Sahara. The voter's message from Eastliegh is "Please listen to us. Give us hearing. Don't talk down to us. Use language we can understand." Oh how I'd like to think the Eastliegh election result could be a turning point - inspiring us to grab a victory out of the jaws of defeat.
It was a bad night for all the three mainstream parties - even if less obviously so for the Lib Dems. It is frankly ridiculous of Nick Clegg to describe the Lib Dem success as a "stunning" victory. The Lib Dems lost half their vote! But at least they did had a victory to console them. The Conservatives didn't. We lost a big chunk of our vote as well. The result was big-time disappointing. It was also pretty disastrous for Labour, which made no progress at all despite unpopular decisions having to be taken by the Coalition and favourable mid-Parliament polls.
The big winners were Ukip, and the "stuff the lot of you party". My view is that if the campaign had lasted another week, Ukip may well have won. If Nigel Farage had had the gonads to stand, Ukip might have won. Whatever it was a very good night for Ukip. We do not know how long this success is going to last, but I simply do not think it is much to do with Ukip policies. Have no doubt that its in part a 'protest vote - despite what Ukip says. Ukip is not seen as a serious governing party and offers a convenient way for voters to express unhappiness and displeasure. This is not to suggest I don't take the Ukip threat seriously. Where mainstream parties lose the confidence of the voters, non serious parties take over the space. The recent Italian elections inform us of what can happen - and it could happen in Britain.
Personally, I think a big part of the problem is that voters do not think they are being listened to. Its not just that the Government does things the voters disagree with. That's always been the case. Its just that it sometimes seems to me that voter's opinions are dismissed out of hand. In Montgomeryshire, we see this with the wind farm debate. The majority of voters are utterly incensed by the Gov'ts intentions (both at Westminster and Cardiff Bay) to destroy our landscape with many hundreds of pylons and turbines. We have tried everything to try to get a hearing. But every word coming out of the Welsh Gov't and DECC equates to "Dear Voters - Get Stuffed." Its like shouting in the middle of the Sahara. The voter's message from Eastliegh is "Please listen to us. Give us hearing. Don't talk down to us. Use language we can understand." Oh how I'd like to think the Eastliegh election result could be a turning point - inspiring us to grab a victory out of the jaws of defeat.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Downgrade of XXX Credit Rating - Mark 2
During the day, I've agreed to be interviewed on this issue in both Welsh and English. Some consistent themes have been coming through the questioning. Let me reflect on them and on what I've said.
Firstly, there's the economic impact of the downgrade itself on the UK's credit rating to Aa1 by Moody's. My approach has been to dismiss this as not being anything significant. In reality, it has had almost no traction with the general public, despite the BBC's desperate efforts to make it a defining issue. Harriet Harman and Ed Balls have never had so many free hits - to little effect in my opinion. This is because the general public are not daft (nothing like as daft as a few backbenchers it seems). From an economic perspective, I reckon the downgrade will not have any significant impact on interest rates at which the UK borrows money (which is what matters) - and the downgrade was factored into the market already.
But from a political perspective its a different matter. In the febrile atmosphere of Westminster it does matter, partly because commentators can come up with various quotes that a downgrade was not going to happen. MPs are very excitable people. We are likely to find out more about what it all means in the lead-in to the budget, and reaction to the budget itself. In interviews with the Welsh media, I've resorted to the 'hindsight' approach. With hindsight, our focus should have been on our commitment to ensuring lowest possible interest rates in the markets, rather than the credit rating which delivered it. The reality is that its not going to make any significant difference. This approach seems to works - mainly because its true.
But please don't think I'm at all dismissive about the state of the UK economy. The Institute of Fiscal Studies reckons the 2012/13 deficit will add another £128 billion to the National Debt, which will reach around £1.6 trillion by 2016. It was not much over £300 billion in 2000, and not much over £500 billion in 2008. The Coalition Gov't inherited one hell of a mess, and its a long steep road to stable ground. As it is, we are in the midst of the biggest Keynsian cash splurge ever seen in living memory (and beyond). I have four children and two grandchildren, whose contemporaries will have to repay these mind blowing debts. We are probably the most selfish generation in the human history of our nation. And always the questions keep coming asking about a Plan 'B' or "Kick starting the economy to create growth" - meaning even more borrowing. I'd like to see tax cuts myself but it cannot be without more cuts in public spending, particularly welfare spending. And we are finding out just how hard that is in a Coalition.
Another reason why we are a selfish generation is that we seem happy to allow devaluation of our currency - the inevitable consequence of the mega-money that the Bank of England has been printing. It just means that we are devaluing the savings that we should be using to help future generations to repair the damage. If we had fixed exchange rates, what has happened over recent months would have put us in devaluation territory. As it is we may find Sterling depreciation a difficult animal to control. Its a b*****y good job I'm a hill sheep farmer. I'm sure I'd be as terribly worried if I was an economist. One consolation is that at least my family owns a bit of land.
Firstly, there's the economic impact of the downgrade itself on the UK's credit rating to Aa1 by Moody's. My approach has been to dismiss this as not being anything significant. In reality, it has had almost no traction with the general public, despite the BBC's desperate efforts to make it a defining issue. Harriet Harman and Ed Balls have never had so many free hits - to little effect in my opinion. This is because the general public are not daft (nothing like as daft as a few backbenchers it seems). From an economic perspective, I reckon the downgrade will not have any significant impact on interest rates at which the UK borrows money (which is what matters) - and the downgrade was factored into the market already.
But from a political perspective its a different matter. In the febrile atmosphere of Westminster it does matter, partly because commentators can come up with various quotes that a downgrade was not going to happen. MPs are very excitable people. We are likely to find out more about what it all means in the lead-in to the budget, and reaction to the budget itself. In interviews with the Welsh media, I've resorted to the 'hindsight' approach. With hindsight, our focus should have been on our commitment to ensuring lowest possible interest rates in the markets, rather than the credit rating which delivered it. The reality is that its not going to make any significant difference. This approach seems to works - mainly because its true.
But please don't think I'm at all dismissive about the state of the UK economy. The Institute of Fiscal Studies reckons the 2012/13 deficit will add another £128 billion to the National Debt, which will reach around £1.6 trillion by 2016. It was not much over £300 billion in 2000, and not much over £500 billion in 2008. The Coalition Gov't inherited one hell of a mess, and its a long steep road to stable ground. As it is, we are in the midst of the biggest Keynsian cash splurge ever seen in living memory (and beyond). I have four children and two grandchildren, whose contemporaries will have to repay these mind blowing debts. We are probably the most selfish generation in the human history of our nation. And always the questions keep coming asking about a Plan 'B' or "Kick starting the economy to create growth" - meaning even more borrowing. I'd like to see tax cuts myself but it cannot be without more cuts in public spending, particularly welfare spending. And we are finding out just how hard that is in a Coalition.
Another reason why we are a selfish generation is that we seem happy to allow devaluation of our currency - the inevitable consequence of the mega-money that the Bank of England has been printing. It just means that we are devaluing the savings that we should be using to help future generations to repair the damage. If we had fixed exchange rates, what has happened over recent months would have put us in devaluation territory. As it is we may find Sterling depreciation a difficult animal to control. Its a b*****y good job I'm a hill sheep farmer. I'm sure I'd be as terribly worried if I was an economist. One consolation is that at least my family owns a bit of land.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Losing Our AAA Credit Rating
Just agreed to join the cast of Radio Wales Sunday Supplement tomorrow morning to discuss the downgrading of the UK's Aaa credit rating by Moody's earlier this week. Also 'appearing' on Radio Cymru's Bwrw Golwg to discuss 'militarisation' of foreign aid budget. Great for me - getting straight back into big serious issues after a few days reading thrillers and playing a bit of golf in the sun. Have to get my thoughts in order.
At one level the credit rating downgrade is of very little consequence. Its been factored into the market for months. There can hardly have been an economist who didn't expect the downgrade. Many had expected it sooner. Some Treasury 'body language' had suggested to me months ago that this was almost inevitable. What matters of course is the interest rates the UK has to pay in the bond markets, and the downgrade is unlikely to have any effect on that. What matters is whether the markets have confidence in the UK's ability to come through the economic turmoil that's hitting most developed countries. I suspect the value of sterling early next week will concern the Chancellor more.
But in my world of politics, symbolism matters. Since before the last General Election, "maintaining our AAA rating" has been used so often as a Gov't objective that the downgrade carries much greater symbolic political significance than its economic impact should justify. That's politics though. I'm on with an economist on Sunday Supplement. Be interesting to hear his take on things.
Normally, such a symbolic disappointment for a Gov't would be damaging. But thanks to the nonsensical response of the Shadow Chancellor, the Opposition are in a hopeless position to take political advantage. Our problems are the weight of growing national debt, and continuing deficit. My 5yr old granddaughter, Ffion could work out that increasing public spending is politics of lunacy - except in the minds of the economically illiterate/irresponsible/opportunistic (take your pick). Simple message from me will be "symbolically important, politically disappointing and economically insignificant".
At one level the credit rating downgrade is of very little consequence. Its been factored into the market for months. There can hardly have been an economist who didn't expect the downgrade. Many had expected it sooner. Some Treasury 'body language' had suggested to me months ago that this was almost inevitable. What matters of course is the interest rates the UK has to pay in the bond markets, and the downgrade is unlikely to have any effect on that. What matters is whether the markets have confidence in the UK's ability to come through the economic turmoil that's hitting most developed countries. I suspect the value of sterling early next week will concern the Chancellor more.
But in my world of politics, symbolism matters. Since before the last General Election, "maintaining our AAA rating" has been used so often as a Gov't objective that the downgrade carries much greater symbolic political significance than its economic impact should justify. That's politics though. I'm on with an economist on Sunday Supplement. Be interesting to hear his take on things.
Normally, such a symbolic disappointment for a Gov't would be damaging. But thanks to the nonsensical response of the Shadow Chancellor, the Opposition are in a hopeless position to take political advantage. Our problems are the weight of growing national debt, and continuing deficit. My 5yr old granddaughter, Ffion could work out that increasing public spending is politics of lunacy - except in the minds of the economically illiterate/irresponsible/opportunistic (take your pick). Simple message from me will be "symbolically important, politically disappointing and economically insignificant".
Thursday, February 14, 2013
The 10p Tax
I have to make an admission. I never thought that the 10p rate of Income Tax was sensible, and I still don't think it is. I wouldn't have bothered make this admission, except that Ed Miliband has announced today that he thinks its a good idea. It could be his first policy commitment! He has gone as far as to denounce Gordon Brown's decision to axe it. Though it should be noted that Ed Balls is telling us that its not yet certain to be a manifesto commitment.
Disagreeing with Ed Miliband is no bother. I disagree with most of what he says. But to disagree with Robert Halfon MP is an entirely different matter. I often sit by Robert in the Chamber. He is a star - and its the first time I can recall disagreeing with him. Now I do agree that we should be cutting the Income Tax of those on lowest incomes, so I'd better explain my own position on this area of tax policy.
I believe that the Conservative Party should commit in our next manifesto to raise the tax-free personal allowance to £11,000. I've been hugely enthusiastic about the massive increases in the tax-free allowance the Coalition Gov't has introduced - which will have risen to £10,000 by the next election. We should build on this, and take it further in the next parliament. I'd like to have said £12,000 allowance, but it would cost too much.
Usually, discussion about the 10p tax rate is based on a £9205-£12,000 range. We are told this is likely to cost around £6billion per annum in lost revenue. For the same cost to the Treasury, the tax-free personal allowance could be raised to £10,620. Even at this modest level, all those earning up to £11,800 would be better off than under a new 10p tax band with a £12000 limit. Only those earning £11,800-£12,000 would be worse off. And crucially, we would also be increasing the age-related personal allowance, the freezing of which has caused much concern to so many of my constituents. Personally, I'd like us to go a bit further than £10,620, which is why I advocate an £11,000 upper limit. I'd lay a sizable bet that our Coalition partners will commit to a £12,000 upper limit in their manifesto.
Main reason that I oppose a 10p tax rate is the matter of added complexity in the tax system. (I also believe there should be a top rate of 40p, which is what the Labour Party operated throughout its 13 yrs in office - though I accept that 'politics' rules that out at present). All we should have is two rates of tax, and one level of personal allowance. Keep it simple. While some countries move towards a flat tax, we should not be moving in the opposite direction. There are other reasons as well, but lets not complicate the case.
What I do find hugely encouraging however is that whenever I hear Robert talk about the 10p tax rate its that we have a Conservative voice (and a respected one at that) making the case for levying less tax on those on lowest incomes. I approve of that big-time. I suppose the differences between us are not that great.
Disagreeing with Ed Miliband is no bother. I disagree with most of what he says. But to disagree with Robert Halfon MP is an entirely different matter. I often sit by Robert in the Chamber. He is a star - and its the first time I can recall disagreeing with him. Now I do agree that we should be cutting the Income Tax of those on lowest incomes, so I'd better explain my own position on this area of tax policy.
I believe that the Conservative Party should commit in our next manifesto to raise the tax-free personal allowance to £11,000. I've been hugely enthusiastic about the massive increases in the tax-free allowance the Coalition Gov't has introduced - which will have risen to £10,000 by the next election. We should build on this, and take it further in the next parliament. I'd like to have said £12,000 allowance, but it would cost too much.
Usually, discussion about the 10p tax rate is based on a £9205-£12,000 range. We are told this is likely to cost around £6billion per annum in lost revenue. For the same cost to the Treasury, the tax-free personal allowance could be raised to £10,620. Even at this modest level, all those earning up to £11,800 would be better off than under a new 10p tax band with a £12000 limit. Only those earning £11,800-£12,000 would be worse off. And crucially, we would also be increasing the age-related personal allowance, the freezing of which has caused much concern to so many of my constituents. Personally, I'd like us to go a bit further than £10,620, which is why I advocate an £11,000 upper limit. I'd lay a sizable bet that our Coalition partners will commit to a £12,000 upper limit in their manifesto.
Main reason that I oppose a 10p tax rate is the matter of added complexity in the tax system. (I also believe there should be a top rate of 40p, which is what the Labour Party operated throughout its 13 yrs in office - though I accept that 'politics' rules that out at present). All we should have is two rates of tax, and one level of personal allowance. Keep it simple. While some countries move towards a flat tax, we should not be moving in the opposite direction. There are other reasons as well, but lets not complicate the case.
What I do find hugely encouraging however is that whenever I hear Robert talk about the 10p tax rate its that we have a Conservative voice (and a respected one at that) making the case for levying less tax on those on lowest incomes. I approve of that big-time. I suppose the differences between us are not that great.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
ITV Brilliant on Organ Donation
Regular visitors to this blog will know of my implacable opposition to the Welsh Gov't's proposals to introduce 'presumed consent' into the organ donation system in Wales. It will not increase the number of organs available for donation - no matter how often the opposite is stated by supporters of the change, there is not a shred of evidence to support the contention that it will. Developing and maintaining an 'Opt-out' register is a waste of money and it could well do damage to the organ donation system across the UK. I am discussing this aspect with the Minister in a few days time. But there can be no disagreement about the wonderful initiative taken by ITV this week in support of organ donation. It is the most positive step taken in support since the reports published by the Organ Donation Taskforce in 2008.
I want every potential organ donor's next of kin throughout the UK to be asked to allow organs to be taken from brain dead bodies in Intensive Care Units as a matter of course. And there must be trained co-ordinators available at every site to ensure the approach is carried out as sensitively and professionally as possible. Professional training is crucial train co-ordinators to manage what will always inevitably be a traumatic situation. I also want as much effort (and money) put into promoting campaigns based on 'Tell your Family' - particularly in BME communities. The key to reducing the refusal rates of next of kin to allow organs to be donated is to reduce the shock of being asked. This is the key change which has produced such excellent results in Spain (world's best) and underpinned the improvements we have seen in the UK - particularly in Wales. What ITV have done this week is beyond my wildest hopes. If it had been advertising space paid for, it would probably have cost about as much as the Welsh Gov't's annual budget.
There is a huge unmet demand for donated organs. Eventually, stem cell research may resolve the problems, but in the meantime, we depend on donation, often altruistically from live donors ( of kidneys). ITV's 'From The Heart' campaign aims to raise awareness of organ donation. A main aim is to encourage everyone to talk to their loved ones about their wishes. There is a range of programmes all week on prime time TV, covering all aspects of organ donation - after working with NHS Blood and Transplant, the body responsible for the NHS Organ donation Register. Just brilliant. I called at a dinner to congratulate and thank Phil Henphrey, Head of News and Programmes for ITV Wales and West to congratulate him and the broadcaster on the wonderful service they have provided to the nation, and particularly to all those waiting for a transplant.
I want every potential organ donor's next of kin throughout the UK to be asked to allow organs to be taken from brain dead bodies in Intensive Care Units as a matter of course. And there must be trained co-ordinators available at every site to ensure the approach is carried out as sensitively and professionally as possible. Professional training is crucial train co-ordinators to manage what will always inevitably be a traumatic situation. I also want as much effort (and money) put into promoting campaigns based on 'Tell your Family' - particularly in BME communities. The key to reducing the refusal rates of next of kin to allow organs to be donated is to reduce the shock of being asked. This is the key change which has produced such excellent results in Spain (world's best) and underpinned the improvements we have seen in the UK - particularly in Wales. What ITV have done this week is beyond my wildest hopes. If it had been advertising space paid for, it would probably have cost about as much as the Welsh Gov't's annual budget.
There is a huge unmet demand for donated organs. Eventually, stem cell research may resolve the problems, but in the meantime, we depend on donation, often altruistically from live donors ( of kidneys). ITV's 'From The Heart' campaign aims to raise awareness of organ donation. A main aim is to encourage everyone to talk to their loved ones about their wishes. There is a range of programmes all week on prime time TV, covering all aspects of organ donation - after working with NHS Blood and Transplant, the body responsible for the NHS Organ donation Register. Just brilliant. I called at a dinner to congratulate and thank Phil Henphrey, Head of News and Programmes for ITV Wales and West to congratulate him and the broadcaster on the wonderful service they have provided to the nation, and particularly to all those waiting for a transplant.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
David Cameron - Saviour of the EU ?
Last Friday, the UK Prime Minister pulled off a spectacular victory in Brussels, a 'smasheroo', a Messi/Gareth Bale flash of brilliance. Not only was the EU's next seven years spending budget (2014-2020)reduced for the first time ever (as he's been negotiating over the last two years) but he achieved this by creating alliances with other EU members, notably Germany's Angela Merkel. This was not supposed to be possible. After the way the then rather rude French President tried to humiliate David Cameron last year, it does give an added tittle of pleasure to see the current French President being outmanoeuvred.
This is of course 'old news' - the agreement having been reached almost three days ago. But I feel the need to make something of it - because the media have virtually ignored it. Its treated on the same scale of importance as if Burkino Faso win the African Nations Football Tournament! From a UK perspective the EU budget deal is a very significant event - historic even. Beats me why David Cameron has not been lauded from every rooftop - except those that belong to the anti-British of course. Their churlishness is understandable. I suspect its partly because of the redefinition of marriage issue. Those who would have been praising the Prime Minister loudest are still feeling bitter about the way they were so dismissively treated last week.
Lets consider what the PM achieved. For years its been assumed that the UK/EU relationship is a one-way street, ever closer union, ever rising spending power. Whatever the EU Commission agreed should come to pass - after a bit of fuss perhaps - has always come to pass. Until last year's UK veto. Suddenly the reality is apparent to other member states. It doesn't have to be that way. Scales have fallen from their eyes. The necessity to consider major change to cope with Eurozone failure, the comparative fall in international competitiveness, the dangers of public disorder arising from a democratic deficit. These issues are now being discussed around polite Brussels tables - and its all down to David Cameron. Even Ukip's Nigel Farage was forced to admit that DC had done well, until he quickly switched back into 'Eastleigh' mode. The last 7 years budget was a Euro or two short of a thousand billion Euro. The next 7 years budget is around 50 billion Euro less. That's money that would have left a big hole in taxpayer's wallets.
Its a different story in Wales of course, where we have a Labour one-party state. Inevitably, the First Minister was first on the airwaves with his pre-prepared criticisms. Inevitably, if the EU budget is reduced, there is less money for the EU to redistribute in various forms of subsidy - so less EU subsidy for the Welsh Government to distribute. The fact that its recycled British taxpayer's money is simply ignored. For the last 14 years mega-millions of regional development money has been pouring into Wales as subsidy. Ironically, the performance of the Welsh economy has gone backwards during the same period. But spending other people's money is part of Labour's DNA - so less taxpayer's money to the EU has to be bad. And the logic of this position is that the bigger the EU budget, the better. Even Labour in Westminster can see that policy is economic lunacy. But that doesn't stop the First Minister repeating the mantra over and over - usually unchallenged.
So let's hear it for David Cameron. He's achieved something that no other British PM has achieved before. And I say to all those Europhiles who don't like it, he may just have helped save the EU from itself. I think the mood is changing and there's a genuine chance of a significant repatriation of policy to the UK. My money is on a Yes vote for 2017, which is perhaps another reason why the voices of congratulation are more muted than they should have been.
This is of course 'old news' - the agreement having been reached almost three days ago. But I feel the need to make something of it - because the media have virtually ignored it. Its treated on the same scale of importance as if Burkino Faso win the African Nations Football Tournament! From a UK perspective the EU budget deal is a very significant event - historic even. Beats me why David Cameron has not been lauded from every rooftop - except those that belong to the anti-British of course. Their churlishness is understandable. I suspect its partly because of the redefinition of marriage issue. Those who would have been praising the Prime Minister loudest are still feeling bitter about the way they were so dismissively treated last week.
Lets consider what the PM achieved. For years its been assumed that the UK/EU relationship is a one-way street, ever closer union, ever rising spending power. Whatever the EU Commission agreed should come to pass - after a bit of fuss perhaps - has always come to pass. Until last year's UK veto. Suddenly the reality is apparent to other member states. It doesn't have to be that way. Scales have fallen from their eyes. The necessity to consider major change to cope with Eurozone failure, the comparative fall in international competitiveness, the dangers of public disorder arising from a democratic deficit. These issues are now being discussed around polite Brussels tables - and its all down to David Cameron. Even Ukip's Nigel Farage was forced to admit that DC had done well, until he quickly switched back into 'Eastleigh' mode. The last 7 years budget was a Euro or two short of a thousand billion Euro. The next 7 years budget is around 50 billion Euro less. That's money that would have left a big hole in taxpayer's wallets.
Its a different story in Wales of course, where we have a Labour one-party state. Inevitably, the First Minister was first on the airwaves with his pre-prepared criticisms. Inevitably, if the EU budget is reduced, there is less money for the EU to redistribute in various forms of subsidy - so less EU subsidy for the Welsh Government to distribute. The fact that its recycled British taxpayer's money is simply ignored. For the last 14 years mega-millions of regional development money has been pouring into Wales as subsidy. Ironically, the performance of the Welsh economy has gone backwards during the same period. But spending other people's money is part of Labour's DNA - so less taxpayer's money to the EU has to be bad. And the logic of this position is that the bigger the EU budget, the better. Even Labour in Westminster can see that policy is economic lunacy. But that doesn't stop the First Minister repeating the mantra over and over - usually unchallenged.
So let's hear it for David Cameron. He's achieved something that no other British PM has achieved before. And I say to all those Europhiles who don't like it, he may just have helped save the EU from itself. I think the mood is changing and there's a genuine chance of a significant repatriation of policy to the UK. My money is on a Yes vote for 2017, which is perhaps another reason why the voices of congratulation are more muted than they should have been.
Saturday, February 09, 2013
NHS Failings. Shrewsbury and Telford Trust ????
Charles Moore is a brilliant writer. But I think he's gone too far in the article he's written for today's Telegraph about the NHS. I realise its suddenly become acceptable to point out the failings of the NHS. Hallelujah to that. Whenever I hear the NHS being discussed as if its manned by a million saints, I just roll my eyes. Yes we know there are committed and compassionate people working in the NHS. I've been treated by some of them. To me, Mr Hunt remains a God-like figure - and Tracey remains a caring angel. But I do think its right that Sec of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt takes a realistic approach, realising there are real problems to address - while not making knee-jerk blanket criticisms. As a general philosophy there should be hard-nosed audit to uncover problems, and a determination to put matters right. To build on a recent speech comment that went well "Just because there are a few bad drivers, you don't scrap the Highway Code - just ban the bad drivers"
What happened at Mid Staffordshire was shocking in its awfulness. Its incredible that no-one is being held responsible - and that no-one has yet been charged, or even sacked. We saw supposed carers at the Winterbourne View Hospital being jailed recently for unacceptable behaviour. I'm signed up to Paul Burstow's Private Member's Bill to make corporate responsibility a criminal offence. And I'm involved in pressing for review of the Liverpool Care Pathway to ensure its used properly after negative press reports. Surely allowing hundreds of people to die unnecessarily is much worse than any of this. I'm one who finds it difficult to understand why the man at the top of the West Midland Strategic Health authority at the time, and Chief Exec of the NHS can possibly stay in his job. Whether he's a good man or not is simply irrelevant. Its a question of public confidence.
Its also not credible that there aren't other cases where patients have died in large numbers because of unacceptable care. Its right that the hospital trusts with the worst 'death rates' should be independently investigated - though I do accept that statistics can mislead. The Medical Director of the NHS, Sir Bruce Keogh is shortly going to announce the 12 hospital trusts he is going to investigate to ensure there hasn't been another 'Mid Staffs'. I was inevitably concerned to read that the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Hospital Trust is 7th on the list of NHS trusts with highest rates of recorded deaths above expected levels during 2009-2012 - according to a report in today's Telegraph. This is my local NHS Trust. Its frightening, when I think of the people I've known from Montgomeryshire who have died there. We do not yet know whether it will be on Sir Bruce's list or that there have been unnecessary deaths from 'poor care'. I do hope not, but I owe it to my constituents to follow up this matter with determination.
What happened at Mid Staffordshire was shocking in its awfulness. Its incredible that no-one is being held responsible - and that no-one has yet been charged, or even sacked. We saw supposed carers at the Winterbourne View Hospital being jailed recently for unacceptable behaviour. I'm signed up to Paul Burstow's Private Member's Bill to make corporate responsibility a criminal offence. And I'm involved in pressing for review of the Liverpool Care Pathway to ensure its used properly after negative press reports. Surely allowing hundreds of people to die unnecessarily is much worse than any of this. I'm one who finds it difficult to understand why the man at the top of the West Midland Strategic Health authority at the time, and Chief Exec of the NHS can possibly stay in his job. Whether he's a good man or not is simply irrelevant. Its a question of public confidence.
Its also not credible that there aren't other cases where patients have died in large numbers because of unacceptable care. Its right that the hospital trusts with the worst 'death rates' should be independently investigated - though I do accept that statistics can mislead. The Medical Director of the NHS, Sir Bruce Keogh is shortly going to announce the 12 hospital trusts he is going to investigate to ensure there hasn't been another 'Mid Staffs'. I was inevitably concerned to read that the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Hospital Trust is 7th on the list of NHS trusts with highest rates of recorded deaths above expected levels during 2009-2012 - according to a report in today's Telegraph. This is my local NHS Trust. Its frightening, when I think of the people I've known from Montgomeryshire who have died there. We do not yet know whether it will be on Sir Bruce's list or that there have been unnecessary deaths from 'poor care'. I do hope not, but I owe it to my constituents to follow up this matter with determination.
Friday, February 08, 2013
Telford company buy all shares of Welshpool Business
Significant business matter happened last week that passed me by unnoticed. Don't think it was noticed by many others either. One of Montgeryshire's biggest employers changed ownership on January 31st.
Denso Manufacturing UK Ltd, located in Telford, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Denso International UK Ltd, (part of the Denso Group) purchased all the shares of Shimizu Industry UK Ltd. Shimizu employs around 170 people on the Buttington Cross Estate near Welshpool. It manufactures plastic products for car air conditioners and radiators. New owners manufacture car air conditioners and heaters - so the deal looks to be a good fit.
At present, I have no idea if there any employment consequences of this deal, either positive or negative. No reason to think this is anything but a simple change of ownership, but its such a significant development that I hope I can arrange a visit to the company next week. Inevitably constituents are going to be asking questions, and it would be good to give informative answers.
Denso Manufacturing UK Ltd, located in Telford, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Denso International UK Ltd, (part of the Denso Group) purchased all the shares of Shimizu Industry UK Ltd. Shimizu employs around 170 people on the Buttington Cross Estate near Welshpool. It manufactures plastic products for car air conditioners and radiators. New owners manufacture car air conditioners and heaters - so the deal looks to be a good fit.
At present, I have no idea if there any employment consequences of this deal, either positive or negative. No reason to think this is anything but a simple change of ownership, but its such a significant development that I hope I can arrange a visit to the company next week. Inevitably constituents are going to be asking questions, and it would be good to give informative answers.
Thursday, February 07, 2013
DWL Rowlands (Ukip stalwart) - 1934-2013
My good friend, David (DWL) Rowlands died yesterday (Wed) after a short illness. I had known him well since I was elected to Montgomeryshire District Council in 1976. We immediately became friends, drawn to each other by our anti-planning instincts. Together with Hedd Bleddyn Williams, representing Llanbrynmair we saw ourselves as the 'Freedom Fighters'. We shared many interests, and he still wrote to me regularly or called in my Welshpool office to share his opinions (which were often related to the latest outrageous edict from the EU). He was a startlingly honest man, and despite his extensive public involvements, kept his private life to himself.
David's family owned the Montgomeryshire County Times and Express, but after University he entered the world of estate management, and I first heard of him when he managed the Lake Vyrnwy Estate, which in those days comprised a large workforce. David has written extensively about the history of the Dam and estate, and still retained his great love for the Vyrnwy area. He has been taking a keen interest in Severn Trent's current plans to sell on the estate. He was still trying to protect an area he loved all of his life.
He was elected as Chairman of Montgomeryshire in 1978-81, and was a huge support to me when I was elected to the same position from 1984-87. He was Finance Committee chair for many years, until I took over in 1987, and again a great help to me. David was a key player in the restoration of Llangedwyn Mill into workshops, prominent in the Powysland Club, and several other local voluntary bodies.
David Rowlands would have liked to be involved in national politics, but was too 'independently minded' to join a mainstream party, and first stood as an 'Independent' in the '83 General Election, when Alex Carlile was first elected to Westminster. He later became closely involved with Ukip, flying it's flag in the mid Wales/Shropshire area over recent decades, standing as Ukip candidate on many occassions. Over recent summers David has been one of that intrepid group who man the Ukip stand at local shows. I spent so much time chatting to him, that it would not have been unreasonable for people to think I was a Ukip supporter! His last attempt to secure election was at the General Election in 2010, when I was elected an MP. It was odd contesting an election against a good friend. He garnered over 1000 votes for Ukip in Montgomeryshire.
Over recent years, David suffered much ill health, but I shall always imagine him striding along the streets of Welshpool at tremendous speed, always looking a man of great purpose - totally oblivious to the difficulty being experienced by the persons struggling to keep up with him. Despite ill-health DWL Rowlands (as he was often referred to) seemed to me indestructible. It is sad and seems strange that he has died, He will be remembered with affection by the many people who befriended and worked with him throughout his incredibly active life.
David's family owned the Montgomeryshire County Times and Express, but after University he entered the world of estate management, and I first heard of him when he managed the Lake Vyrnwy Estate, which in those days comprised a large workforce. David has written extensively about the history of the Dam and estate, and still retained his great love for the Vyrnwy area. He has been taking a keen interest in Severn Trent's current plans to sell on the estate. He was still trying to protect an area he loved all of his life.
He was elected as Chairman of Montgomeryshire in 1978-81, and was a huge support to me when I was elected to the same position from 1984-87. He was Finance Committee chair for many years, until I took over in 1987, and again a great help to me. David was a key player in the restoration of Llangedwyn Mill into workshops, prominent in the Powysland Club, and several other local voluntary bodies.
David Rowlands would have liked to be involved in national politics, but was too 'independently minded' to join a mainstream party, and first stood as an 'Independent' in the '83 General Election, when Alex Carlile was first elected to Westminster. He later became closely involved with Ukip, flying it's flag in the mid Wales/Shropshire area over recent decades, standing as Ukip candidate on many occassions. Over recent summers David has been one of that intrepid group who man the Ukip stand at local shows. I spent so much time chatting to him, that it would not have been unreasonable for people to think I was a Ukip supporter! His last attempt to secure election was at the General Election in 2010, when I was elected an MP. It was odd contesting an election against a good friend. He garnered over 1000 votes for Ukip in Montgomeryshire.
Over recent years, David suffered much ill health, but I shall always imagine him striding along the streets of Welshpool at tremendous speed, always looking a man of great purpose - totally oblivious to the difficulty being experienced by the persons struggling to keep up with him. Despite ill-health DWL Rowlands (as he was often referred to) seemed to me indestructible. It is sad and seems strange that he has died, He will be remembered with affection by the many people who befriended and worked with him throughout his incredibly active life.
Sunday, February 03, 2013
Reorganising the way Wales is Governed
Am going to watch The Wales Report tonight (BBC Wales 10.35) - though it does look as if the producers had nothing much of new interest to cover. Which is why they've invited Lord Elis Thomas onto the programme to say pretty much what we all knew he thought already. Though he comes from a 'Plaid Cymru perspective' I always reckon what Dafydd El says is worth pondering on. When short of material, ask Dafydd El for an opinion is an old BBC standby. Asking Richard wyn Jones for his opinion is another BBC Wales standby. And as usual, they've been hyping it up as if its an announcement of great moment. So better watch.
Lets look at what we're told the great man is going to say. 1) That the number of local authorities should be cut to 5-7 from current 22. 2) That number of Welsh MPs should be cut. 3) That number of AMs should be increased. Only thing missing from the 'full set' is that the Wales Office should be abolished along with the Cabinet position of Secretary of State for Wales. Even though these suggestions flow from a Plaid Cymru perspective, I reckon they're worth considering seriously. So let's do it.
There is certainly a case for cutting 22 primary councils to 7. I recall believing that then Labour Assembly Minister, Sue Essex, had this in mind when she proposed strategic regional authorities when she was the responsible Minister - though it was never spelt out. She was careful not to tread on Labour council leader's toes. And I had some 'conditional' sympathy with the idea. When 22 local councils were established in 1994, it was assumed that some would become 'lead authorities' avoiding the need to create 22 all singing/dancing management teams. Didn't happen. We had 22 costly all singing/dancing teams. Though my 'shadow' responsibilities were all-Wales, I took a particular interest in mid-Wales. I could see case for a Mid Wales Authority, (the old DBRW area) with delivery sub-offices in Montgomeryshire, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion and Meirionydd. I still can. Always saw it is reinforcing my desire to 'Bring Montgomeryshire Back'.
But I cannot agree that strategic authorities can be based on current Health Board areas. Powys is completely unsustainable, which is why health responsibilities are currently being shared out elsewhere. There is no population base, and no General Hospital. At least Mid Wales would have Bronglais - though I also believe we should consider hospitals in England as being providers of services to Wales as well. Seems that the First Minister now agrees with this, now that he sees the Welsh NHS as on the point of collapse. About time too.
Of course there's a case for reducing number of Welsh MPs, but its not going to happen anytime soon. The Wales Boundary Commission should be asked to consider how a reduction of say 6 seats could be arranged, without insisting that number of voters should be the same - allowing for sparcity, history and geography I've just opposed the impact of reduction to 30 seats in Wales with equal electorates as unacceptable to mid Wales. And at some stage there will be a case for 80 AMs but not until the National Assembly has genuine fiscal accountability (until it's responsible for raising tax) and I can't see that happening anytime soon either. The Silk report -Part One has been kicked into the long grass as far as I can see. Only thing left is the scrapping of the Wales Office, for which I can also see the case - but I'm not going to support reducing the Wales voice at Westminster - especially when mid Wales seems further away from Cardiff than Westminster. All things considered, I don't think tonight's Wales Report is going to be anything more than an academic exercise going nowhere.
UPDATE - Watched the programme and could have enjoyed talking through Lord Elis Thomas' comments. Particularly liked his idea of reducing size of Second Chamber, and having 5% from Wales. The appointment of another 70 Lords in the near future seems very odd when we're supposed to be looking to reduce cost of Government. Dafydd El suggested 350 peers. I reckon about 500 would be more realistic - as a first step anyway. and he talked much sense about local government. He was squirming when Huw Edwards was pushing him on MP numbers. Suppose he didn't want to cut across Elfyn, Hywel and Jonathon who have been taking a different line. Not so impressed by Richard Wyn Jones though. I agree with his contention that Wales should not have greater representation at Westminster than rest of UK - which means a reduction of 6/7 Welsh MPs - which does not justify his disparaging tone. My own view is that if the Boundary Commission had been allowed greater flexibility it might have happened last week.
Lets look at what we're told the great man is going to say. 1) That the number of local authorities should be cut to 5-7 from current 22. 2) That number of Welsh MPs should be cut. 3) That number of AMs should be increased. Only thing missing from the 'full set' is that the Wales Office should be abolished along with the Cabinet position of Secretary of State for Wales. Even though these suggestions flow from a Plaid Cymru perspective, I reckon they're worth considering seriously. So let's do it.
There is certainly a case for cutting 22 primary councils to 7. I recall believing that then Labour Assembly Minister, Sue Essex, had this in mind when she proposed strategic regional authorities when she was the responsible Minister - though it was never spelt out. She was careful not to tread on Labour council leader's toes. And I had some 'conditional' sympathy with the idea. When 22 local councils were established in 1994, it was assumed that some would become 'lead authorities' avoiding the need to create 22 all singing/dancing management teams. Didn't happen. We had 22 costly all singing/dancing teams. Though my 'shadow' responsibilities were all-Wales, I took a particular interest in mid-Wales. I could see case for a Mid Wales Authority, (the old DBRW area) with delivery sub-offices in Montgomeryshire, Brecon and Radnor, Ceredigion and Meirionydd. I still can. Always saw it is reinforcing my desire to 'Bring Montgomeryshire Back'.
But I cannot agree that strategic authorities can be based on current Health Board areas. Powys is completely unsustainable, which is why health responsibilities are currently being shared out elsewhere. There is no population base, and no General Hospital. At least Mid Wales would have Bronglais - though I also believe we should consider hospitals in England as being providers of services to Wales as well. Seems that the First Minister now agrees with this, now that he sees the Welsh NHS as on the point of collapse. About time too.
Of course there's a case for reducing number of Welsh MPs, but its not going to happen anytime soon. The Wales Boundary Commission should be asked to consider how a reduction of say 6 seats could be arranged, without insisting that number of voters should be the same - allowing for sparcity, history and geography I've just opposed the impact of reduction to 30 seats in Wales with equal electorates as unacceptable to mid Wales. And at some stage there will be a case for 80 AMs but not until the National Assembly has genuine fiscal accountability (until it's responsible for raising tax) and I can't see that happening anytime soon either. The Silk report -Part One has been kicked into the long grass as far as I can see. Only thing left is the scrapping of the Wales Office, for which I can also see the case - but I'm not going to support reducing the Wales voice at Westminster - especially when mid Wales seems further away from Cardiff than Westminster. All things considered, I don't think tonight's Wales Report is going to be anything more than an academic exercise going nowhere.
UPDATE - Watched the programme and could have enjoyed talking through Lord Elis Thomas' comments. Particularly liked his idea of reducing size of Second Chamber, and having 5% from Wales. The appointment of another 70 Lords in the near future seems very odd when we're supposed to be looking to reduce cost of Government. Dafydd El suggested 350 peers. I reckon about 500 would be more realistic - as a first step anyway. and he talked much sense about local government. He was squirming when Huw Edwards was pushing him on MP numbers. Suppose he didn't want to cut across Elfyn, Hywel and Jonathon who have been taking a different line. Not so impressed by Richard Wyn Jones though. I agree with his contention that Wales should not have greater representation at Westminster than rest of UK - which means a reduction of 6/7 Welsh MPs - which does not justify his disparaging tone. My own view is that if the Boundary Commission had been allowed greater flexibility it might have happened last week.
Cameron Leadership Challenge - Total B********
Despite everything, I like the Daily Telegraph. Particularly enjoy Charles Moore - and Boris is always good for a snigger. Sometimes think his interest in politics is a sad loss to journalism. And I've got to know the Deputy Editor, Ben Brogan a bit. He's seems very solid and sensible. But today, I do think the full-page article written by James Kirkup is total b*****ks. Its all about some supposed conspiracy amongst Conservative MPs to "bring down" the Prime Minister. Don't think I've ever read such tosh.
Now I'm sure Adam Afriyie is a very good man. Certainly he's tall, slim, handsome, well dressed, very rich and it could well be that he's supremely clever, giving of nature and pure as an archbishop. We're told he's a
advantaged because he has a disadvantaged background - though why that should make any difference I do not know. Clearly he has some 'leadership' qualities to have made such a success of his business. But its beyond serious consideration that we should be thinking of him as a replacement for David Cameron. Not sure that I've ever heard Adam speak in the House. So I looked it up on a site called 'They work for You' which informs us he's made 11 contributions in the last year. Looked up my own name to find I'd made 94 contributions - which is probably too many. Now this doesn't tell us that much because it depends on the quality and import of what's said. But any potential Prime Minister has to demonstrate a capacity and desire to command the debating chamber.
Anyway none of this is the point. David Cameron is head and shoulders above any other UK politician in the Prime Minister stakes (though I reckon William Hague is also a class act). He is far more popular that the Conservative Party he leads. He is successfully leading a Coalition Gov't, the political equivalent of herding cats - many of which do not want to be herded. Now I do not agree with everything David Cameron does and says. I think its a mistake that he's brought forward the Gay Marriage Bill as an example. He's about as different from me as chalk is from cheese. But whenever we need a Leader to stand tall and represent the UK, he does it brilliantly.
Its a game. What if a bus or even worse, a wind turbine carrier came along and took out our PM. Who would then step in. I suppose it depends when it is. If tomorrow, the new leader would be one of the existing top team. Reality is it could be anyone. Two years before David Cameron took over, we had never heard of him. And that's how its going to be. Its a game - and a very very silly one.
Now I'm sure Adam Afriyie is a very good man. Certainly he's tall, slim, handsome, well dressed, very rich and it could well be that he's supremely clever, giving of nature and pure as an archbishop. We're told he's a
advantaged because he has a disadvantaged background - though why that should make any difference I do not know. Clearly he has some 'leadership' qualities to have made such a success of his business. But its beyond serious consideration that we should be thinking of him as a replacement for David Cameron. Not sure that I've ever heard Adam speak in the House. So I looked it up on a site called 'They work for You' which informs us he's made 11 contributions in the last year. Looked up my own name to find I'd made 94 contributions - which is probably too many. Now this doesn't tell us that much because it depends on the quality and import of what's said. But any potential Prime Minister has to demonstrate a capacity and desire to command the debating chamber.
Anyway none of this is the point. David Cameron is head and shoulders above any other UK politician in the Prime Minister stakes (though I reckon William Hague is also a class act). He is far more popular that the Conservative Party he leads. He is successfully leading a Coalition Gov't, the political equivalent of herding cats - many of which do not want to be herded. Now I do not agree with everything David Cameron does and says. I think its a mistake that he's brought forward the Gay Marriage Bill as an example. He's about as different from me as chalk is from cheese. But whenever we need a Leader to stand tall and represent the UK, he does it brilliantly.
Its a game. What if a bus or even worse, a wind turbine carrier came along and took out our PM. Who would then step in. I suppose it depends when it is. If tomorrow, the new leader would be one of the existing top team. Reality is it could be anyone. Two years before David Cameron took over, we had never heard of him. And that's how its going to be. Its a game - and a very very silly one.
Friday, February 01, 2013
Constituency Boundaries - The Last Post
On Tuesday this week, the proposal to redraw Parliamentary constituencies was put on the back burner until 2018. Everyone I've met since is delighted that the Montgomeryshire constituency is to remain. But I have not met anyone who knows the background, and detail of just what has happened. Just in case there is an anorak out there who shares my interest in these things, this post runs through it chronologically.
1) - Following the 'expenses scandal',of 4 yrs ago, David Cameron, then Leader of the Opposition announced he would reduce the number of MPs by 10% (from 650 to 585). This was included in the Conservative manifesto. At the same time, the Lib Dems included in their manifesto a commitment to reduce no of MPs to 500.Following the election, the Coalition agreed to bring forward a Bill to reduce no of MPs to 600.
2) - The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was intoduced and approved by both Houses of Parliament after a long ferocious battle. As well as reducing the no of MPs to 600, the Bill required the boundary commissions of England and Wales to redraw boundaries to ensure an equal no of constituents in each constituency - with no recognition for sparcity, tradition or geographical considerations. This would inevitably have a disproportionate impact on Wales, partly because of current over-representation, and partly because the sea border and Offa's Dyke injected added inflexibility into what options could be considered. Crucially, the Bill demanded a tolerance of only 5% in constituency numbers, ruling out ability to cope with anomolies. The Bill also stipulated that there would be a vote in October 2013 to confirm the Boundary Commission proposals. At this stage I realised that I could not support the proposals because of the impact on parliamentary democracy in Mid Wales. I must admit that I had decided to vote against my Government in October. Now this was a big deal for me, since I had always supported my Government previously.
The next significant development in this saga was that Nick Clegg announced, because Conservative backbenchers had prevented progress on a Bill to reform the House of Lords, that he was going to instruct all Lib Dem MPs to take 'revenge' on Conservatives by withdrawing support in the October vote confirming the Boundary Commissions proposals. Since the two issues were not linked anywhere except in Nick Clegg's mind, this was breathtaking stuff. It meant that gov't ministers would be voting against a Gov't bill which they had previously supported. I thought a big deal for a backbencher! The Oct vote suddenly became very significant indeed.
But then opposition peers decided to step in. They developed a strategy which anyone who cares about constitutional propriety will have found deeply shocking. I spent 90 minutes in The Lords watching what I thought a disgraceful spectacle as their Lordships tried to justify what they were doing. They approved an amendment to a totally disconnected bill, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which deferred any further consideration of new boundaries until 2018. Their Lordships were advised that this strategy was improper, but constitutionally, the Lords is not fettered in any way. It would never have been allowed in the Commons. Personally, I believe that this behaviour was too much for the much respected Leader of the Lords, Lord Strathclyde, who has just resigned. He would have been disgusted. Disgust was written all over the faces of Conservative peers. Anyway their Lordships passed the amendment into the Bill, which was then returned to the Commons for approval. Inevitably the Gov't (less the Lib Dems) had no option but to propose that the amendment be overturned and sent back to the Lords to be reconsidered - not unusual and what we call 'ping-pong'. Last Tuesday's vote was on the Gov'ts proposal to reverse the amendment, and send the Bill back.
Personally, I was in a dilemma - as I think were many other MPs. I had nothing but utter contempt for the way the Lords had behaved, and just could not bring myself to vote in support of their amendment. Neither could I vote against it (which I would dearly like to have done) because it would be helping introduce new boundaries, which I had decided to oppose in Oct. Two unacceptable options before me. I could vote for either of them. I accept that many of my colleagues were disappointed , as was the Chief Whip when I was called to discuss my failure to support the Gov't with him on Thursday. So happens that my vote was did not matter anyway, because there was a majority of 42 to allow the Lords amendment to stand. So where are we now. We have agreed that new constituency boundaries will not be considered until 2018, rather than defeated outright, which is probably what would have happened if the vote had taken place, as it should have been, in Oct.
Not sure whether anyone is still with me - not fallen asleep or moved on to more interesting fare. I've no intention of writing another word on this issue - not until 2018 anyway.
1) - Following the 'expenses scandal',of 4 yrs ago, David Cameron, then Leader of the Opposition announced he would reduce the number of MPs by 10% (from 650 to 585). This was included in the Conservative manifesto. At the same time, the Lib Dems included in their manifesto a commitment to reduce no of MPs to 500.Following the election, the Coalition agreed to bring forward a Bill to reduce no of MPs to 600.
2) - The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was intoduced and approved by both Houses of Parliament after a long ferocious battle. As well as reducing the no of MPs to 600, the Bill required the boundary commissions of England and Wales to redraw boundaries to ensure an equal no of constituents in each constituency - with no recognition for sparcity, tradition or geographical considerations. This would inevitably have a disproportionate impact on Wales, partly because of current over-representation, and partly because the sea border and Offa's Dyke injected added inflexibility into what options could be considered. Crucially, the Bill demanded a tolerance of only 5% in constituency numbers, ruling out ability to cope with anomolies. The Bill also stipulated that there would be a vote in October 2013 to confirm the Boundary Commission proposals. At this stage I realised that I could not support the proposals because of the impact on parliamentary democracy in Mid Wales. I must admit that I had decided to vote against my Government in October. Now this was a big deal for me, since I had always supported my Government previously.
The next significant development in this saga was that Nick Clegg announced, because Conservative backbenchers had prevented progress on a Bill to reform the House of Lords, that he was going to instruct all Lib Dem MPs to take 'revenge' on Conservatives by withdrawing support in the October vote confirming the Boundary Commissions proposals. Since the two issues were not linked anywhere except in Nick Clegg's mind, this was breathtaking stuff. It meant that gov't ministers would be voting against a Gov't bill which they had previously supported. I thought a big deal for a backbencher! The Oct vote suddenly became very significant indeed.
But then opposition peers decided to step in. They developed a strategy which anyone who cares about constitutional propriety will have found deeply shocking. I spent 90 minutes in The Lords watching what I thought a disgraceful spectacle as their Lordships tried to justify what they were doing. They approved an amendment to a totally disconnected bill, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which deferred any further consideration of new boundaries until 2018. Their Lordships were advised that this strategy was improper, but constitutionally, the Lords is not fettered in any way. It would never have been allowed in the Commons. Personally, I believe that this behaviour was too much for the much respected Leader of the Lords, Lord Strathclyde, who has just resigned. He would have been disgusted. Disgust was written all over the faces of Conservative peers. Anyway their Lordships passed the amendment into the Bill, which was then returned to the Commons for approval. Inevitably the Gov't (less the Lib Dems) had no option but to propose that the amendment be overturned and sent back to the Lords to be reconsidered - not unusual and what we call 'ping-pong'. Last Tuesday's vote was on the Gov'ts proposal to reverse the amendment, and send the Bill back.
Personally, I was in a dilemma - as I think were many other MPs. I had nothing but utter contempt for the way the Lords had behaved, and just could not bring myself to vote in support of their amendment. Neither could I vote against it (which I would dearly like to have done) because it would be helping introduce new boundaries, which I had decided to oppose in Oct. Two unacceptable options before me. I could vote for either of them. I accept that many of my colleagues were disappointed , as was the Chief Whip when I was called to discuss my failure to support the Gov't with him on Thursday. So happens that my vote was did not matter anyway, because there was a majority of 42 to allow the Lords amendment to stand. So where are we now. We have agreed that new constituency boundaries will not be considered until 2018, rather than defeated outright, which is probably what would have happened if the vote had taken place, as it should have been, in Oct.
Not sure whether anyone is still with me - not fallen asleep or moved on to more interesting fare. I've no intention of writing another word on this issue - not until 2018 anyway.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Tories will win even on current boundaries
Thank the good Lord that's over. No more obsessing about boundary reform. In the end, the ship went down by 42 votes - bigger majority than anyone expected. We did waste such an enormous amount of Parliamentary time chasing a prize that turned out to be dud. Now we must get on with governing the country and showing the people of Britain why they should vote Conservative at the next election. All the wasted effort going after those extra 20 seats (which I never believed anyway). What we should do is make sure we govern well, engage with the people and we can win the election anyway. We had a 13% plus swing in Montgomeryshire last time round. Its more than possible.
Despite the vote going the way I wanted it to, I don't feel at all joyous. Its a bad feeling, not to have supported the Gov't (if that's the right description without the Lib Dems). First time I'd done that. Like many a ex-virgin who has recently achieved the status, I do ask myself if I did the right thing. I simply couldn't vote because I was faced with two alternatives both unacceptable to me. Firstly we had a Boundary Commission proposal which would cause so much damage to Parliamentary democracy in mid Wales. And the second alternative on offer was the utterly disgraceful amendment from the House of Lords which killed off the reform. Their Lordships were told their amendment was out of order before they passed it, but they went ahead anyway. I just could not bring myself to vote for such a constitutional abomination.
Perhaps the biggest burden my conscience has to carry is that I know the Gov't proposals would have dealt with the gross unfairness inherent in the current distribution of seats and boundaries. No doubt that the Conservatives lose out. If only there had been a bit more flexibility in the system, which would have enabled the Boundary Commission to deal with the biggest anomalies. But its too late now. Time to move on, and focus on the 2015 winning post. Contrary to current odds, I think we'll win.
Despite the vote going the way I wanted it to, I don't feel at all joyous. Its a bad feeling, not to have supported the Gov't (if that's the right description without the Lib Dems). First time I'd done that. Like many a ex-virgin who has recently achieved the status, I do ask myself if I did the right thing. I simply couldn't vote because I was faced with two alternatives both unacceptable to me. Firstly we had a Boundary Commission proposal which would cause so much damage to Parliamentary democracy in mid Wales. And the second alternative on offer was the utterly disgraceful amendment from the House of Lords which killed off the reform. Their Lordships were told their amendment was out of order before they passed it, but they went ahead anyway. I just could not bring myself to vote for such a constitutional abomination.
Perhaps the biggest burden my conscience has to carry is that I know the Gov't proposals would have dealt with the gross unfairness inherent in the current distribution of seats and boundaries. No doubt that the Conservatives lose out. If only there had been a bit more flexibility in the system, which would have enabled the Boundary Commission to deal with the biggest anomalies. But its too late now. Time to move on, and focus on the 2015 winning post. Contrary to current odds, I think we'll win.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Tomorrow's RSPCA Debate.
Debate tomorrow morning led by Simon Hart MP about the way the RSPCA goes about its business. Simon's main point is likely to be that the RSPCA should not be principally a 'prosecution' body rather than principally as a 'welfare' body - and that it behaves more like an animal rights organisation rather than one concerned with animal welfare. I suspect that I'm going to agree with Simon's speech. I have put my name down to speak, and hope to catch the speaker's eye, as we MPs say. Not sure what I'm going to say, until I hear how the debate is going - but I have an idea of one or two points I'd like to make. Whatever I'm looking forward to hearing what Simon says.
Since I was a young lad on the farm, I've always hated cruelty to any living creature. To this day I will not watch TV or films that involve cruelty to fellow humans or animals. I'm not even keen on David Attenborough showing the chase and kill that takes place in the natural world. This probably started with the ritual annual killing of the farm pig. Might mention that tomorrow. And I gave up the occasional rough shooting when I was around 20 yrs old. Its epically ironic that the Daily Mirror has branded me a "Tory Gun Nut". When I took over the family farm, I banned any form of game shooting on my farm. I was a keen supporter of the RSPCA.
But I changed my approach. I realised that my farm was not being farmed for wildlife. Wildlife was paying the price for my conscience. So I allowed the hunt and rough shooters back in return for investment in habitat creation. Same sort of irony with the Hunting with Dogs ban. Never been hunting in my life, but was so outraged by the ban that I've become an avid supporter of the hunt - though still never tempted to join in. And I've become disillusioned by the 'political' approach of the RSPCA. Anyway, quite looking forwards to tomorrow's debate.
Since I was a young lad on the farm, I've always hated cruelty to any living creature. To this day I will not watch TV or films that involve cruelty to fellow humans or animals. I'm not even keen on David Attenborough showing the chase and kill that takes place in the natural world. This probably started with the ritual annual killing of the farm pig. Might mention that tomorrow. And I gave up the occasional rough shooting when I was around 20 yrs old. Its epically ironic that the Daily Mirror has branded me a "Tory Gun Nut". When I took over the family farm, I banned any form of game shooting on my farm. I was a keen supporter of the RSPCA.
But I changed my approach. I realised that my farm was not being farmed for wildlife. Wildlife was paying the price for my conscience. So I allowed the hunt and rough shooters back in return for investment in habitat creation. Same sort of irony with the Hunting with Dogs ban. Never been hunting in my life, but was so outraged by the ban that I've become an avid supporter of the hunt - though still never tempted to join in. And I've become disillusioned by the 'political' approach of the RSPCA. Anyway, quite looking forwards to tomorrow's debate.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Intersting Week in Westminster coming up
2.00 Sunday and setting off early to Westminster. Its going to be a full week. Unusually there are three debates I hope to contribute to if other commitments allow. Firstly, on Tues, there's 90 minutes on the RSPCA - a body for which I used to have a great deal of respect. But its clearly become a 'political' body and not a proper charity. I want our much loved RSPCA back. Secondly, on Thurs there's a debate to acknowledge the 30th anniversary of establishment of our much loved S4C. This is one for Welsh MPs. And I understand there's a debate about EU/UK relationship, following 'the speech' of last week on Wed. -- and on Wed evening I'll be reviewing the papers on BBC News Channel. And I think I have an article to write for the House magazine on the Liverpool Care Pathway. Daresay some things will fall.
But biggest issue for me this week by a constituency mile will be a vote on a Lords amendment on Tuesday which could sink the proposals to introduce new constituency boundaries in this Parliament. The amendment (to a completely unrelated bill) delays the change until 2018. I attended much of the debate in the Lords, and was quite shocked by the cynical oportunism on the opposition red benches. While I have nothing but disgust for what seems to me the improper way their Lordships have behaved over this issue, it does look as if, for the first time as an MP, I will forced into a position where I'll not be able to support my Government. Its not something I'm looking forward to at all, and have no doubt it will make me unpopular with (some) colleagues. Luckily there is no position I can be sacked from! All MPs have to strike a balance between 'the party' and the 'constituency'. If the Gov't wins, Montgomeryshire ceases to exist, representative democracy in Mid Wales will be greatly diminished, and I'll be announcing that I won't be contesting the next election. I desperately hope there's not a majority of one. All in all it should be an interesting week.
But biggest issue for me this week by a constituency mile will be a vote on a Lords amendment on Tuesday which could sink the proposals to introduce new constituency boundaries in this Parliament. The amendment (to a completely unrelated bill) delays the change until 2018. I attended much of the debate in the Lords, and was quite shocked by the cynical oportunism on the opposition red benches. While I have nothing but disgust for what seems to me the improper way their Lordships have behaved over this issue, it does look as if, for the first time as an MP, I will forced into a position where I'll not be able to support my Government. Its not something I'm looking forward to at all, and have no doubt it will make me unpopular with (some) colleagues. Luckily there is no position I can be sacked from! All MPs have to strike a balance between 'the party' and the 'constituency'. If the Gov't wins, Montgomeryshire ceases to exist, representative democracy in Mid Wales will be greatly diminished, and I'll be announcing that I won't be contesting the next election. I desperately hope there's not a majority of one. All in all it should be an interesting week.
Percy Thrower - Centenary of an Inspiration
Today's Telegraph has a nice article on someone who had an influence on my life - Percy Thrower, who was born 100 yrs ago. Alan Titchmarsh reckons Percy Thrower inspired him to take up gardening (for the great benefit of all) and I used to watch Gardening World avidly when he was presenting it. Apart from Titchmarsh himself, Percy Thrower was the best gardening presenter of them all - though I do think Monty Don is quite good as well. In part that's because he was first and foremost a gardener, who turned out to be a good presenter as well. He was a big celebrity of his time. We also liked Arthur Billett, who lived at Clack's Farm in Worcs. who for a while did a double act with Percy Thrower.
I had no interest in gardening at all until I married my wife who had a love for growing things. She had grown a few seeds since infanthood. Anyway, I was required to dig over a patch here, and dig a trench there. Soon my obsessive streak took over. Began reading gardening mags, watching TV programmes and visiting gardens - including The Magnolias, Percy Throwers home just outside Shrewsbury. I ordered chrysanths from Woolman's of Shirley and onions from Robinsons of Preston (I think) as recommended by Percy Thrower, and began competing in horticultural shows - including Shrewsbury Flower Show, which was held in the parks where Percy Thrower was head gardener. I remember spending 5 hrs overnight building an arrangement in the pedestal competition. Not many rugby playing farmers doubled up as flower arrangers.
Anyway its Percy Thrower's centenary this week and this post is my way of remembering him, and his fuchsias, and his lithospermum Heavenly Blue, plants he was very keen on. With a business partner he bought Murrell's nurseries (of Hilda Murrell fame) in Shrewsbury and developed the successful Percy Thrower Garden Centre. Its off the old Shrewsbury by-pass and nothing like as handy to get to as the larger Dobbies on the new by-pass. I prefer it though. Percy Thrower died in 1988
I had no interest in gardening at all until I married my wife who had a love for growing things. She had grown a few seeds since infanthood. Anyway, I was required to dig over a patch here, and dig a trench there. Soon my obsessive streak took over. Began reading gardening mags, watching TV programmes and visiting gardens - including The Magnolias, Percy Throwers home just outside Shrewsbury. I ordered chrysanths from Woolman's of Shirley and onions from Robinsons of Preston (I think) as recommended by Percy Thrower, and began competing in horticultural shows - including Shrewsbury Flower Show, which was held in the parks where Percy Thrower was head gardener. I remember spending 5 hrs overnight building an arrangement in the pedestal competition. Not many rugby playing farmers doubled up as flower arrangers.
Anyway its Percy Thrower's centenary this week and this post is my way of remembering him, and his fuchsias, and his lithospermum Heavenly Blue, plants he was very keen on. With a business partner he bought Murrell's nurseries (of Hilda Murrell fame) in Shrewsbury and developed the successful Percy Thrower Garden Centre. Its off the old Shrewsbury by-pass and nothing like as handy to get to as the larger Dobbies on the new by-pass. I prefer it though. Percy Thrower died in 1988
Saturday, January 26, 2013
More on Liverpool Care Pathway.
A few weeks ago I instigated a debate in the House of Commons on the Liverpool Care Pathway. The gist of the speech with which I opened the debate was that in general, I support the principle of transferring the commitment to palliative care typical of hospices to hospitals and other forms of care - but that the Pathway must be implemented strictly in accordance with the principles on which is has been established. There seems to be much evidence that this has not always been the case. I asked that the Gov't thoroughly investigate recent publicity about patients being placed on the Pathway without consultation with them or their next of kin. This is not acceptable. There are also reports of other departures from proper procedures. A line which grabbed public attention and summed up my approach was that "we shouldn't scrap the LCP - we wouldn't scrap the Highway Code because there are some bad drivers on our roads".
Since the debate, the Gov't has appointed former Lib Dem peer, Baroness Neuberger to chair an independent inquiry. She is on record of being supportive of the Liverpool Care Pathway, but there is no reason to think she will not be thorough and objective. She will have read comments in yesterday's Telegraph by her former Lib Dem colleague, Lord Carlile of Berriew, which offer her some strongly worded advice. On this sort of issue, I usually agree with Lord Carlile.
While I do not disagree at a fundamental level with anything Alex Carlile is reported to have said, there is no doubt that the tone of his comments take him further than I went. He calls for the Liverpool Care Pathway to be replaced, and to be given a different name. I would support that if Baroness Neuberger recommended it, though my view is that the problems arise from the Pathway not being followed as it should be, rather than the Pathway itself. I do agree that 'Pathway' seem to me to be a particularly unfortunate name though. Alex is also reported to be calling for doctors who put patients on the LCP without telling next of kin to be reprimanded by the General Medical Council, even 'struck off'. Personally, I feel that continuing with regular checks every few hours to make certain that patients have not rallied enough to be taken off the Pathway is another crucial part of proper palliative care. Whatever, Its clear there's much uneasiness about how the Liverpool Care Pathway is being implemented, and we need the independent report delivered to Secretary of State for Health as soon as possible.
Since the debate, the Gov't has appointed former Lib Dem peer, Baroness Neuberger to chair an independent inquiry. She is on record of being supportive of the Liverpool Care Pathway, but there is no reason to think she will not be thorough and objective. She will have read comments in yesterday's Telegraph by her former Lib Dem colleague, Lord Carlile of Berriew, which offer her some strongly worded advice. On this sort of issue, I usually agree with Lord Carlile.
While I do not disagree at a fundamental level with anything Alex Carlile is reported to have said, there is no doubt that the tone of his comments take him further than I went. He calls for the Liverpool Care Pathway to be replaced, and to be given a different name. I would support that if Baroness Neuberger recommended it, though my view is that the problems arise from the Pathway not being followed as it should be, rather than the Pathway itself. I do agree that 'Pathway' seem to me to be a particularly unfortunate name though. Alex is also reported to be calling for doctors who put patients on the LCP without telling next of kin to be reprimanded by the General Medical Council, even 'struck off'. Personally, I feel that continuing with regular checks every few hours to make certain that patients have not rallied enough to be taken off the Pathway is another crucial part of proper palliative care. Whatever, Its clear there's much uneasiness about how the Liverpool Care Pathway is being implemented, and we need the independent report delivered to Secretary of State for Health as soon as possible.
'Bedroom Tax' and building Social Housing
Met with Mid Wales Housing Association today. Two important issues to discuss - which though local have a wider relevance. I wanted to discuss the background to them. Montgomeryshire AM, Russell George came along as well. First issue is construction/repairs contracts letting. Second issue is what's become known as 'bedroom tax'. Lets look at them in turn, against a background of how I see things. Other eyes will see things differently.
Over recent years its become fashionable for Housing Associations (and Councils) to come together and form a 'purchasing' group. The theory is that the 'bulk buying' aspect of this will lead to lower prices for contracts. I never thought this process would deliver - for several reasons. One problem in a sparcely populated area is that local contractors would not be big and flashy enough to put in glossy tender documents that impress. And that the winning tenders would sub-contract the work back to local contractors instead. And so its turned out. One recent substantial Newtown contract was let to a North Wales firm, Waites, who then sub-contracted to local firm, J U Bowen, who in turn used local contractors to do most of the actual work. Where we are now is that Waites are sitting pretty, Bowen's has gone bust and local contractors have lost very large sums of money. I wanted an assurance that the Housing Association would try to ensure Bowens had been paid for all work done - and if not to try to ensure it was recovered from Waites and passed on to local contractors. The Association take the same view, which was good. Not sure how successful they'll be though. I was also pleased that a different way of tendering projects in future is being considered.
The second issue is more problematic for me. First the background. There are lots of people in our country with nowhere to sleep. There is a huge surplus of bedrooms - often in properties occupied by single people. And there is a need for the social welfare bill (including Housing Benefit) to be brought under control. So the Government intends to reduce the housing benefit for occupants of housing with unused spare bedrooms. At least, it sees no reason why the taxpayer should pay housing benefit to support them. The issues surrounding this policy change are fairly obvious. I wanted to get an idea of what it all means 'on the ground'.
Mid Wales Housing Assoc. has about 10% of its properties with spare bedrooms. No reason why other social landlords wouldn't be about the same. Some of these tenants will find a way of coping with reduced housing benefit; some may let out the spare bedrooms; and some may try to find a single person property. Inevitaby, its going to make life more difficult for some. Today, we agreed that future building should include more single person properties, which seems blatantly obvious. My view is that almost no other form of social housing should be built in the near future. Homes for families would be freed up by those moving into single person properties. Obvious problems though - particularly from delays. Houses can't be built in a day. Another related issue is that the level of social housing grant available to the housing association is being cut from 58% to 25%. Inevitably rents are going to have to rise substantially to deliver a return on investment.
Left the meeting chewing hard on the food for thought I'd just been fed. Gov't and public bodies have no option but to cut spending and secure value for money. But lets not pretend there are not unwelcome consequences.
Over recent years its become fashionable for Housing Associations (and Councils) to come together and form a 'purchasing' group. The theory is that the 'bulk buying' aspect of this will lead to lower prices for contracts. I never thought this process would deliver - for several reasons. One problem in a sparcely populated area is that local contractors would not be big and flashy enough to put in glossy tender documents that impress. And that the winning tenders would sub-contract the work back to local contractors instead. And so its turned out. One recent substantial Newtown contract was let to a North Wales firm, Waites, who then sub-contracted to local firm, J U Bowen, who in turn used local contractors to do most of the actual work. Where we are now is that Waites are sitting pretty, Bowen's has gone bust and local contractors have lost very large sums of money. I wanted an assurance that the Housing Association would try to ensure Bowens had been paid for all work done - and if not to try to ensure it was recovered from Waites and passed on to local contractors. The Association take the same view, which was good. Not sure how successful they'll be though. I was also pleased that a different way of tendering projects in future is being considered.
The second issue is more problematic for me. First the background. There are lots of people in our country with nowhere to sleep. There is a huge surplus of bedrooms - often in properties occupied by single people. And there is a need for the social welfare bill (including Housing Benefit) to be brought under control. So the Government intends to reduce the housing benefit for occupants of housing with unused spare bedrooms. At least, it sees no reason why the taxpayer should pay housing benefit to support them. The issues surrounding this policy change are fairly obvious. I wanted to get an idea of what it all means 'on the ground'.
Mid Wales Housing Assoc. has about 10% of its properties with spare bedrooms. No reason why other social landlords wouldn't be about the same. Some of these tenants will find a way of coping with reduced housing benefit; some may let out the spare bedrooms; and some may try to find a single person property. Inevitaby, its going to make life more difficult for some. Today, we agreed that future building should include more single person properties, which seems blatantly obvious. My view is that almost no other form of social housing should be built in the near future. Homes for families would be freed up by those moving into single person properties. Obvious problems though - particularly from delays. Houses can't be built in a day. Another related issue is that the level of social housing grant available to the housing association is being cut from 58% to 25%. Inevitably rents are going to have to rise substantially to deliver a return on investment.
Left the meeting chewing hard on the food for thought I'd just been fed. Gov't and public bodies have no option but to cut spending and secure value for money. But lets not pretend there are not unwelcome consequences.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
'Independence' crucial to quality social care standards
Some mildly disappointing news today. Longstanding visitors to my blog may recall my involvement with a social care company called EuropeanCare during the 3 yrs between my being an AM and an MP. I didn't actually work for this company, but after meeting its inspirational Chairman, Anoup Treon, I agreed to set up and chair a Welsh Advisory Board within the company. It was a sort of 'internal audit' system, but my board was to have complete independence to advise as we thought proper. First initiative we took (and the best) was to set up a Lay Visitor Scheme, where an approved team of individuals with relevant experience were appointed to call unannounced at any home, at any time, with rights to see anything they wanted (always in pairs) . All managers of EuropeanCare homes in Wales were signed up to the scheme, after some training. It was innovative and I thought it a terrific success, the key element being its total independence from the company. The scheme was so well regarded that it spread to other regions of the UK. I still think it was a real example of best practice. Lots of other key people thought it was as well.
When I was elected an MP, I stood down from my involvement with EuropeanCare. But I have retained an interest in what happens to the company. There has been much turbulence in the social care sector, and much in EuropeanCare as well. The then chair, Anoup, and senior personnel remain friends of mine but have left the company. Its now being run by a new team led by Ted Smith, whom I've met but do not know. Its to be expected that a new CEO will make changes, and he most certainly has. While its not for me to comment on these changes (and I don't in any case have the competence) I am disappointed to learn today that the Lay Visitor scheme is being disbanded. The company is putting in place an in-house team to supervise standards. It could be that the focus is to be on 'compliance' - hugely important but different from the Lay Visitor Scheme. My disappointment stems from its being in-house, which suggests to me that it is much more about compliance. My view is that the key to success of any quality standards scheme, and the only way it will win the confidence of national quality standards authorities if its at arms length - and not in-house.
This general area of social care audit has to be strengthened. This is why I retain an interest in how all social care providers deliver services. After the horrors in the sector that have littered our media over the last few years, supervision of quality standards has to be addressed by Government. Only last week, I joined former Lib Dem Minister, Paul Burstow in his attempt to introduce legislation establishing failures in 'corporate responsibility' as a criminal offence to punish the managers as well as the delivers of care services. Change is needed. It may well be that EuropeanCare's new system will prove effective, but it does leave me feeling disappointed. Seems to me to be going in the wrong direction. I hope it works out OK though - for the sake of the residents.
When I was elected an MP, I stood down from my involvement with EuropeanCare. But I have retained an interest in what happens to the company. There has been much turbulence in the social care sector, and much in EuropeanCare as well. The then chair, Anoup, and senior personnel remain friends of mine but have left the company. Its now being run by a new team led by Ted Smith, whom I've met but do not know. Its to be expected that a new CEO will make changes, and he most certainly has. While its not for me to comment on these changes (and I don't in any case have the competence) I am disappointed to learn today that the Lay Visitor scheme is being disbanded. The company is putting in place an in-house team to supervise standards. It could be that the focus is to be on 'compliance' - hugely important but different from the Lay Visitor Scheme. My disappointment stems from its being in-house, which suggests to me that it is much more about compliance. My view is that the key to success of any quality standards scheme, and the only way it will win the confidence of national quality standards authorities if its at arms length - and not in-house.
This general area of social care audit has to be strengthened. This is why I retain an interest in how all social care providers deliver services. After the horrors in the sector that have littered our media over the last few years, supervision of quality standards has to be addressed by Government. Only last week, I joined former Lib Dem Minister, Paul Burstow in his attempt to introduce legislation establishing failures in 'corporate responsibility' as a criminal offence to punish the managers as well as the delivers of care services. Change is needed. It may well be that EuropeanCare's new system will prove effective, but it does leave me feeling disappointed. Seems to me to be going in the wrong direction. I hope it works out OK though - for the sake of the residents.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
First Day supporting In/Out vote since 1975
Issue of the day has to be Prime Minister's Europe speech. Seems he was right about 'tantric' approach. the consummation has been thunderous. He entered the chamber like a Roman gladiator to a rousing approval. Best welcome of this Parliament. Stirring stuff. No sign of any plotters tonight. While I support the decision David Cameron has taken today, I'm not joining in all this exuberance. The joyfulness is too good to last and I'm a touch nervous. Perhaps I'm just one of nature's cautious creatures. Let me use this blogpost explore the basis of my uncertainty.
Until today I've never supported an In/Out referendum - not since 1975 anyway. Have never been willing to back one while I felt the Prime Minister of the day was not willing to actually withdraw from the EU if the voters said No. Well, David Cameron satisfied me today that if its a popular No vote in 2017, its the divorce court for the EU and UK. So I've been willing to publicly support the referendum today. And while I'm not prepared to say which way I'll vote myself (its a few years too soon) I believe there will be a sufficiently successful renegotiation to persuade UK voters to decide to remain married. Worry I have is that the 'integrationists' will take it as a green light - as they did in 1975.
Perhaps I'm too influenced by 1975 - the first political event I took any interest in. I was a committed campaigner for an 'Out' vote. We had a 2-1 lead in the polls at start of the campaign - and went down to comprehensive defeat. I've consistently warned my Ukip friends and the like-minded to be careful what they wish for. Well they have their wish. It looks as if the 'Europe' issue is going to dominate the next general election. And if the Conservatives win, the negotiations will dominate the early years of the next parliament. Now that we've decided what's going to happen on the European front, perhaps we can focus 100% on repairing the public finances. That will matter a lot more to the voters in 2015. I sense there's a lot of turbulence ahead.
Until today I've never supported an In/Out referendum - not since 1975 anyway. Have never been willing to back one while I felt the Prime Minister of the day was not willing to actually withdraw from the EU if the voters said No. Well, David Cameron satisfied me today that if its a popular No vote in 2017, its the divorce court for the EU and UK. So I've been willing to publicly support the referendum today. And while I'm not prepared to say which way I'll vote myself (its a few years too soon) I believe there will be a sufficiently successful renegotiation to persuade UK voters to decide to remain married. Worry I have is that the 'integrationists' will take it as a green light - as they did in 1975.
Perhaps I'm too influenced by 1975 - the first political event I took any interest in. I was a committed campaigner for an 'Out' vote. We had a 2-1 lead in the polls at start of the campaign - and went down to comprehensive defeat. I've consistently warned my Ukip friends and the like-minded to be careful what they wish for. Well they have their wish. It looks as if the 'Europe' issue is going to dominate the next general election. And if the Conservatives win, the negotiations will dominate the early years of the next parliament. Now that we've decided what's going to happen on the European front, perhaps we can focus 100% on repairing the public finances. That will matter a lot more to the voters in 2015. I sense there's a lot of turbulence ahead.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Avoid a Stroke. Check your Pulse.
Today's post is a health lesson. Reading it could save your life. I chair the Atrial Fibrillation (AF) All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). Its one of the myriad of complaints I've recovered from over the last few years. Recovery from illness is my specialist subject. Today we launched in the House of Commons a document titled 'Taking The Pulse'. Its about raising awareness of AF and about how to treat it. I thought I'd share some basic stuff with you about what AF is. There are a lot of you out there suffering from it.
AF is the most common arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat). This means the blood doesn't flow through all parts of the heart as it should, which can lead to some deposit growing in there, and breaking off as a clot in the bloodstream. Clot's first port of call is the brain - which can lead to a stroke. Suffering from AF will make you 5 times more likely to have a stroke, which is likely to be more serious, and more likely to lead to your death. So do not be stupid if you suffer a bit of breathlessness from time to time or anything that feels a bit odd. Ask your GP/district nurse to check your pulse and if in any doubt ask for an ECG. A third of over 75s suffer from AF, as do many younger people - even very fit athletes. Welsh dual Olympic gold medallist rower, Tom James is a sufferer.
Lot of discussion today was about what to do if you have AF. Treatment will probably involve a daily pill/pills to thin down your blood - usually of Warfarin. Biggest hassle is the regular blood tests to ensure correct dosage - which is very important. Too little and it doesn't work, while too much could lead to a internal bleed. Warfarin is cheap as chips, but the blood testing infrastructure is a bit of a pain and a cost on the NHS. There are new Warfarin replacement products coming onto the market but they are much more expensive at present. As with a lot of treatments, the up front cost of these new drugs would be an additional burden on the NHS, but the long term savings in reduced strokes would make it worthwhile. But the argument has to be made. Its short term cost against long term gain - never very appealing to Gov't.
Some of us can be fortunate enough to be able to correct the irregularity by attaching some jump leads to chest and back and shocking the heart back into sinus rhythm (normal). General anaesthetic so I knew nothing about it. Neither did Tony Blair when he was done. Most upsetting for me was having the manly covering of chest hair shaved off, and the itching on the parts of my back I couldn't reach as the back hair started to regrow. Fortunately my heartbeat has not slipped back into atrial fibrillation. Anyway, today's message is about 'Taking The Pulse'. You know it makes sense.
AF is the most common arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat). This means the blood doesn't flow through all parts of the heart as it should, which can lead to some deposit growing in there, and breaking off as a clot in the bloodstream. Clot's first port of call is the brain - which can lead to a stroke. Suffering from AF will make you 5 times more likely to have a stroke, which is likely to be more serious, and more likely to lead to your death. So do not be stupid if you suffer a bit of breathlessness from time to time or anything that feels a bit odd. Ask your GP/district nurse to check your pulse and if in any doubt ask for an ECG. A third of over 75s suffer from AF, as do many younger people - even very fit athletes. Welsh dual Olympic gold medallist rower, Tom James is a sufferer.
Lot of discussion today was about what to do if you have AF. Treatment will probably involve a daily pill/pills to thin down your blood - usually of Warfarin. Biggest hassle is the regular blood tests to ensure correct dosage - which is very important. Too little and it doesn't work, while too much could lead to a internal bleed. Warfarin is cheap as chips, but the blood testing infrastructure is a bit of a pain and a cost on the NHS. There are new Warfarin replacement products coming onto the market but they are much more expensive at present. As with a lot of treatments, the up front cost of these new drugs would be an additional burden on the NHS, but the long term savings in reduced strokes would make it worthwhile. But the argument has to be made. Its short term cost against long term gain - never very appealing to Gov't.
Some of us can be fortunate enough to be able to correct the irregularity by attaching some jump leads to chest and back and shocking the heart back into sinus rhythm (normal). General anaesthetic so I knew nothing about it. Neither did Tony Blair when he was done. Most upsetting for me was having the manly covering of chest hair shaved off, and the itching on the parts of my back I couldn't reach as the back hair started to regrow. Fortunately my heartbeat has not slipped back into atrial fibrillation. Anyway, today's message is about 'Taking The Pulse'. You know it makes sense.
A Prime Minister on top of the job
Yet again today the Prime Minister showed us in the House of Commons that he is the overwhelmingly dominant politician in the UK. I thought his Statement on the Algeria Hostage Crisis was powerful and correct in all respects. Any Conservative MP who doesn't recognise his value as leader of the party and leader of our country is suffering from a nasty case of self-destructive delusion. But back to the Statement.
I was particularly pleased by the supportive comments made about the Algerians. The Prime Minister recognised the challenge that the Algerian Gov't had been forced to confront - over 30 terrorists hell-bent on murdering innocent people in a huge, remote and dangerous industrial complex. The attack was sudden - and the terrorists were ready to kill in cold blood. Immediately after acknowledging the awful tragedy of deaths of innocents, it was right for David Cameron to pay tribute to the resolve shown by the Algerians, and placing responsibility for the murders four-square on the terrorists (which for some unfathomable reason the BBC refer to as militants).
I was also relieved to know that the Prime Minister is aware of the scale of the problems European states face. While President Obama was talking about the end of ten years of conflict, David Cameron was warning us that we could have decades of conflict in front of us. The President seems incredibly complacent to me, as well as indicating a declining interest in the security problems of Europe. David Cameron on the other hand seems very aware of the security issues confronting Europe.
The Prime Minister ended his Statement by declaring the importance of an international response (which is why we will help the French in Mali) - tough, intelligent, patient and based on international partnerships. There is potential for development of terrorist activity right across the Sahel - on the doorstep of Europe. There is a massive job to do - militarily and through cooperation at all levels. Its right that international aid is more biased in favour of improving social conditions in support of peoples targeted by these evil terrorists. At least, the United Kingdom has a Prime Minister who understands what needs to be done.
I was particularly pleased by the supportive comments made about the Algerians. The Prime Minister recognised the challenge that the Algerian Gov't had been forced to confront - over 30 terrorists hell-bent on murdering innocent people in a huge, remote and dangerous industrial complex. The attack was sudden - and the terrorists were ready to kill in cold blood. Immediately after acknowledging the awful tragedy of deaths of innocents, it was right for David Cameron to pay tribute to the resolve shown by the Algerians, and placing responsibility for the murders four-square on the terrorists (which for some unfathomable reason the BBC refer to as militants).
I was also relieved to know that the Prime Minister is aware of the scale of the problems European states face. While President Obama was talking about the end of ten years of conflict, David Cameron was warning us that we could have decades of conflict in front of us. The President seems incredibly complacent to me, as well as indicating a declining interest in the security problems of Europe. David Cameron on the other hand seems very aware of the security issues confronting Europe.
The Prime Minister ended his Statement by declaring the importance of an international response (which is why we will help the French in Mali) - tough, intelligent, patient and based on international partnerships. There is potential for development of terrorist activity right across the Sahel - on the doorstep of Europe. There is a massive job to do - militarily and through cooperation at all levels. Its right that international aid is more biased in favour of improving social conditions in support of peoples targeted by these evil terrorists. At least, the United Kingdom has a Prime Minister who understands what needs to be done.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Horse on the Menu
I've always been very suspicious of 'value' burgers, meat pies, sausages etc. Ever since I visited a prawn farm in West Scotland in the 1980s and saw all the seconds being tunched up in great vats into what looked like stinking sewage, I've liked as much certainty as possible about ingredients in what I eat. Have eaten only whole prawns ever since. It has come as no surprise to me at all that there are bits of horse in some 'value' beefburgers. I suspect there's quite a bit of other stuff in there that I wouldn't fancy on its own either. What really happened last week was that new investigative techniques, just as it did with Lance Armstrong, exposed the truth of what's been happening. What we don't know is the scale to which its being going on.
Lets look at what actually happened - at least as far as I can make it out. The Irish take food safety and authenticity very seriously indeed - and search out deceptions. Over recent years the Food Safety Authority of Ireland has discovered 'farmed salmon' being sold as 'wild salmon, Chinese honey being sold off as Irish honey, imported chicken fillets pumped up with water, and pollock being used in 'cod and chips' and a lot else besides. Last year the Food Safety Authority of Ireland raised the bar by setting up a 'food fraud task force', with access to new technologies. It was this task force which discovered traces of horse and pig meat in frozen beef products - with a lot more than a trace of horse in one case. The discoveries were the result of DNA testing, normally used to link criminals with the scene of the crime. Lots of these products were exported to the UK. Personally I think its wrong to criticise the Irish - certainly until we know a lot more. The Irish Gov't should be congratulated on raising the standards of food testing to a new higher level, and for being prepared to not keep it secret. We need to raise standards throughout Europe.
We do not know the full story yet, and cannot draw final conclusions. We don't know where the product (probably a filler of some sort) came from. We do not know whether the presence of horse meat was inadvertent or deliberate (which could well mean its criminal). And we have absolutely no idea of the scale of the problem, or for how long its been going on. And since there is no suggestion that the 'beefburgers' are in any way unfit for human consumption, it seems a dreadful waste that 10,000,000 burgers have been dumped. Ironically, there was a World Hunger seminar taking place in Dublin last week!'. There's nothing wrong with eating horses, or dogs or donkeys or squirrels. Its just that we Brits don't do it much. I've eaten horse myself, but not knowingly. It was on a rugby trip and tasted OK as I recall - though I admit that at the time anything would have tasted OK.
Every food retailer could be affected by this 'scandal' - and I was much impressed by the supermarkets swift response to clear their shelves (if shockingly wasteful). They know that customers must have confidence that what they are buying is what they think they are buying - or as the PM would say "what it says on the tin". British farmers are appalled to see the reputation of beef products so damaged, especially since the problem seems to elsewhere that the UK and Ireland. There should be an opportunistic 'Buy Local, Buy British' campaign. Personally, I see this as a serious commercial and 'foods standards' crisis - rather than a 'health' crisis. In the way I stared eating beef again when BSE struck, its now my patriotic duty to eat British beefburgers - and I suppose I could try a bit of horse (though Mrs D, as a horse lover wouldn't be willing to cook it).
Lets look at what actually happened - at least as far as I can make it out. The Irish take food safety and authenticity very seriously indeed - and search out deceptions. Over recent years the Food Safety Authority of Ireland has discovered 'farmed salmon' being sold as 'wild salmon, Chinese honey being sold off as Irish honey, imported chicken fillets pumped up with water, and pollock being used in 'cod and chips' and a lot else besides. Last year the Food Safety Authority of Ireland raised the bar by setting up a 'food fraud task force', with access to new technologies. It was this task force which discovered traces of horse and pig meat in frozen beef products - with a lot more than a trace of horse in one case. The discoveries were the result of DNA testing, normally used to link criminals with the scene of the crime. Lots of these products were exported to the UK. Personally I think its wrong to criticise the Irish - certainly until we know a lot more. The Irish Gov't should be congratulated on raising the standards of food testing to a new higher level, and for being prepared to not keep it secret. We need to raise standards throughout Europe.
We do not know the full story yet, and cannot draw final conclusions. We don't know where the product (probably a filler of some sort) came from. We do not know whether the presence of horse meat was inadvertent or deliberate (which could well mean its criminal). And we have absolutely no idea of the scale of the problem, or for how long its been going on. And since there is no suggestion that the 'beefburgers' are in any way unfit for human consumption, it seems a dreadful waste that 10,000,000 burgers have been dumped. Ironically, there was a World Hunger seminar taking place in Dublin last week!'. There's nothing wrong with eating horses, or dogs or donkeys or squirrels. Its just that we Brits don't do it much. I've eaten horse myself, but not knowingly. It was on a rugby trip and tasted OK as I recall - though I admit that at the time anything would have tasted OK.
Every food retailer could be affected by this 'scandal' - and I was much impressed by the supermarkets swift response to clear their shelves (if shockingly wasteful). They know that customers must have confidence that what they are buying is what they think they are buying - or as the PM would say "what it says on the tin". British farmers are appalled to see the reputation of beef products so damaged, especially since the problem seems to elsewhere that the UK and Ireland. There should be an opportunistic 'Buy Local, Buy British' campaign. Personally, I see this as a serious commercial and 'foods standards' crisis - rather than a 'health' crisis. In the way I stared eating beef again when BSE struck, its now my patriotic duty to eat British beefburgers - and I suppose I could try a bit of horse (though Mrs D, as a horse lover wouldn't be willing to cook it).
Friday, January 18, 2013
Will the PM's EU Speech change much?
Events are conspiring to prevent the Prime Minister making his supposedly game-changing 'Speech' on Britain's relationship with the EU. On Thursday S4C interviewed me for Newyddion at 7.30 pm about what I was expecting and hoping for. I don't know whether it was pulled after David Cameron took the proper decision to postpone his Amsterdam speech an hour before it was due to be broadcast. I'm booked in to discuss the speech with Peter Kellner and Vaughan Roderick on Sunday supplement - but not sure if that's going ahead now that it won't have been delivered. Its been a week for big tragic stories, and the importance attached to the PM's speech seems to be withering a bit.
Reality is that we all now have a fair idea what's going to be in this speech. The Prime Minister is going to say that he wants the UK to remain an integral member of the EU, but as the Eurozone countries change relationships to take major steps towards economic and political union, its vital that the UK relationship changes as well. He is going to demand that some sovereignty is returned to the UK in a significant renegotiation - and when that process is done, there will be a referendum seeking the support of the British people for the new deal. This means there will be a timetable which envisages the referendum being held well after the next General Election (2018 perhaps).
On the face of it, while this will please me (and a few others), it might not please many other groups. It will certainly not please the Liberal Democrats - despite this not being far from the Lib Dem policy before the 2010 election. It will not please Lord Heseltine (whose words are suddenly being treated with great reverence by the BBC), Kenneth Clarke, the CBI etc.. It will not please the most Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party who want a commitment to an In/Out referendum without bothering to wait and see what's on offer - and it won't please the Daily Express which agrees with them. It won't please all those who have decided to tell pollsters they now support Ukip, who just want out whatever. And it won't please Labour - though they have not decided why yet. But on balance it will please me - because I think it seems the best course for the UK at present.
There will be some big questions for other speeches on other days. Like what happens if our EU partners won't play ball at all. Or what will be the alternative if the people of the UK do not like the renegotiated position and refuse to vote for it. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have talked about walking, almost unknowingly towards the EU exit. That's true. I'm not at all sure this speech, when eventually delivered, is going to do much to change that. But then, David Cameron has shown before an ability to herd cats while pulling a rabbit out of his hat. He might confound us all by doing it again.
Reality is that we all now have a fair idea what's going to be in this speech. The Prime Minister is going to say that he wants the UK to remain an integral member of the EU, but as the Eurozone countries change relationships to take major steps towards economic and political union, its vital that the UK relationship changes as well. He is going to demand that some sovereignty is returned to the UK in a significant renegotiation - and when that process is done, there will be a referendum seeking the support of the British people for the new deal. This means there will be a timetable which envisages the referendum being held well after the next General Election (2018 perhaps).
On the face of it, while this will please me (and a few others), it might not please many other groups. It will certainly not please the Liberal Democrats - despite this not being far from the Lib Dem policy before the 2010 election. It will not please Lord Heseltine (whose words are suddenly being treated with great reverence by the BBC), Kenneth Clarke, the CBI etc.. It will not please the most Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party who want a commitment to an In/Out referendum without bothering to wait and see what's on offer - and it won't please the Daily Express which agrees with them. It won't please all those who have decided to tell pollsters they now support Ukip, who just want out whatever. And it won't please Labour - though they have not decided why yet. But on balance it will please me - because I think it seems the best course for the UK at present.
There will be some big questions for other speeches on other days. Like what happens if our EU partners won't play ball at all. Or what will be the alternative if the people of the UK do not like the renegotiated position and refuse to vote for it. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have talked about walking, almost unknowingly towards the EU exit. That's true. I'm not at all sure this speech, when eventually delivered, is going to do much to change that. But then, David Cameron has shown before an ability to herd cats while pulling a rabbit out of his hat. He might confound us all by doing it again.
David Lloyd George - 150 yrs old.
I joined a group of mostly Welsh persons at Parliament Square, Westminster this afternoon to remember David Lloyd George, contender for greatest British Prime Minister of the 20th Century. We sang Fy Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau in front of his statue, along with a male voice choir. He is certainly on the short short list. Today is the 150th anniversary of his birth (in Manchester - a standard quiz question). He is best known for 5 reasons - in no particular order. 1) Great war leader. 2) Laid foundations of modern welfare state 3) negotiated Treaty of Versailles and would have preferred less onerous reparations, thus reducing the risk of 2nd World War 4) So randy he was also known as 'the Goat' 5) Handed out honours for cash.
But for me the truly amazing achievement was to serve as 'effectively' the leader of the Conservative dominated Coalition from 1916-1922, until he overstretched Tories patience and was replaced by Andrew Bonar Law. How on earth does a second language English speaking Welsh radical from a little village in Gwynedd manage to lead the Tories for 6 yrs?
The most fascinating conversations I used to have with my good friend, the late Lord Hooson was when he was telling about his meetings and conversations with Lloyd George (and Churchill). He must have been the most amazing personality. I have visited the Lloyd George Museum at Llanystumdwy on two occasions, and felt overawed by his presence - even if his statue there is of him when a slim and short young man. The statue in Parliament Square is as we remember him as Prime Minister.
I strongly recommend Ffion Hague's biography (sort of) of the great man through the eyes of the women he loved, and who loved him, 'The Pain and the Priviledge'. His prodigious appetite for affection and female company led to his 'The Goat' nickname. And there can be no doubt that the Lloyd George ruthlessness played a big part in the end of the Liberal Party as a great force in British politics. It was nice to see a descendant of Asquith at today's celebrations - so perhaps the great rift is finally healed. Could be a good omen for Nick Clegg!
There were plenty of negatives and close shaves with Lloyd George. The Marconi shares, the honours for sale scandal and the serial womanising would have done for him today. But what an amazing man. When I did a radio programme, Beti a'i Phobl, involving invitations to dinner of 4 greatest persons in the history of man, my first guest was David Lloyd George. I would not have invited my wife along though- or given him her mobile no..
But for me the truly amazing achievement was to serve as 'effectively' the leader of the Conservative dominated Coalition from 1916-1922, until he overstretched Tories patience and was replaced by Andrew Bonar Law. How on earth does a second language English speaking Welsh radical from a little village in Gwynedd manage to lead the Tories for 6 yrs?
The most fascinating conversations I used to have with my good friend, the late Lord Hooson was when he was telling about his meetings and conversations with Lloyd George (and Churchill). He must have been the most amazing personality. I have visited the Lloyd George Museum at Llanystumdwy on two occasions, and felt overawed by his presence - even if his statue there is of him when a slim and short young man. The statue in Parliament Square is as we remember him as Prime Minister.
I strongly recommend Ffion Hague's biography (sort of) of the great man through the eyes of the women he loved, and who loved him, 'The Pain and the Priviledge'. His prodigious appetite for affection and female company led to his 'The Goat' nickname. And there can be no doubt that the Lloyd George ruthlessness played a big part in the end of the Liberal Party as a great force in British politics. It was nice to see a descendant of Asquith at today's celebrations - so perhaps the great rift is finally healed. Could be a good omen for Nick Clegg!
There were plenty of negatives and close shaves with Lloyd George. The Marconi shares, the honours for sale scandal and the serial womanising would have done for him today. But what an amazing man. When I did a radio programme, Beti a'i Phobl, involving invitations to dinner of 4 greatest persons in the history of man, my first guest was David Lloyd George. I would not have invited my wife along though- or given him her mobile no..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)