April's Law Debate - my speech.

On Oct 1st 2012, I was at home, working on my iPad, when I read a tweet informing me that a 5 year old girl had disappeared after being seen climbing into a vehicle on the Bryn-y-Gog Housing Estate in Machynlleth, Montgomeryshire. There was something about that tweet that led me to immediately sense that this was a serious matter. Within hours the people of Machynlleth and surrounding areas had joined the search for April, daughter of Coral and Paul Jones, who live on the Bryn-y-Gog Estate. Over the following days, a huge number of volunteers, local and national organisations as well as the Police formed the most intensive widespread search I've ever seen. Six days later, a local man, Mark Bridger was arrested and charged with abduction and murder. In May 2013, Bridger was found guilty and sentenced to whole life imprisonment. The sentencing judge rightly pronounced that he should never be released from prison.

The death of April was particularly a tragedy for April's family. It was also a tragedy which touched the entire nation. There was a national, almost world-wide focus on the town of Machynlleth. The search for April, and the truly amazing response by the people of this small market town brought, what seemed like the world's media to Machynlleth. I spent several days in the town myself, and like everyone else, found it difficult to comprehend what had happened and what April's family were going through.


I want to pay tribute as I begin this speech to April's parents and sister, Jazz, who are here today. They have made huge efforts to raise awareness of the widespread availability of pornographic and sexualised images of children. They want to do all they can to prevent other families from facing a similar tragedy, from having to go through what they have gone through.  These e efforts have culminated in this debate in the House of Commons, following a petition raised  by April's family reaching over 1000,000 signatures. 

The petition which is the subject of today's debate is as follows: We, the undersigned, call on the Prime Minister to make all sex offenders remain on the register for life no matter the crime, for service providers and search engines to be better policed regarding child abuse images and harder sentences on those caught with indecent images of children.

In preparation for today's debate, I met with Coral and Jazz Jones in Machynlleth ten days ago. We talked through what they expected - what an April's Law might actually be. The petition itself call for legislation, based on three objectives. 

Firstly, and perhaps the most difficult, is to 'clean up' the Internet. It should be our ambition to remove sexual images of children from the Internet. We all know this is not an easy straightforward process. We all know the Internet is technologically fast moving and not easy to control through legislation. But there is a responsibility on Government (and on governments across the world) to do all within its power to 'clean up the Internet' as far as possible. 

Last week we learned of a disturbing report involving Facebook, a giant of the social media world.  A BBC investigative team had used Facebook's 'Report Button' which exists to highlight to Facebook any improper sexual images on its platform that 80% were not removed after reporting. There was simply an automated response stating that the images "did not breach community standards" whatever that means. Included were images of children in sexualised poses, pages aimed at paedophiles, and an image appearing to be taken from a child abuse video. Instead of taking these images down, astonishingly Facebook reported the BBC for sharing them!! 

Now I cannot be certain of the precise truth about what happened. It seems beyond belief. I understand the images have now been removed. What we want is Facebook and every other operator on the social network to be under a legal obligation to always take down such images, constantly surveying what is appearing on their social network platforms, and reporting whoever puts them there to the police (as far as its possible).  We need a law that bans such content and ensures action is taken against whoever instigates it or permits it. And it must make no difference if the offender is a small operator o the biggest companies in the world. 

The second aim of what an April's Law might include would be a stronger process through which the names of sex offenders can be removed from the Sex Offenders Register. Paramount always must be protection of the public. I don't consider myself to be sufficiently qualified to outline a precise process of de-registration, but it must ensure that no name should ever be removed from the Sex Offenders List until and unless there is total certainty that the offender is reformed, and is not likely to repeat offend. I ask whether it is possible to introduce rigour and sympathy into the system by establishing a structure similar to 'magistrate's courts' to adjudge each individual case. The basis on which we judge the suitability of any sex offender seeking removal of their name from the Sex Offenders List must always put first the safety of the public. 

And the third policy area I'd like to say something about is the importance of always putting an offender on the Sex Offenders Register if the offence justifies it. We cannot have a situation where police resources, or pressure on the criminal court system results in offenders not being prosecuted.

Two weeks ago, there was a report in The Guardian on comments by Simon Bailey, the chief constable of Norfolk constabulary and the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for child protection. He said that the police were struggling to cope with the huge number of criminals looking at indecent images of children online, and that they should focus their resources on high-risk offenders. That is not good enough. ALL offenders must be looked, not just high-risk offenders. How do we judge between a high-risk offender and a low-risk offender? They are all offenders.

I agreed with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who wrote in response to the chief constable:

“As you will know, for many decades institutions have put children at risk because it was seen as too difficult, not a priority or resources were insufficient to keep them safe. I would not want to see the same happen over online child abuse.”

I absolutely agree with that. She also said:

“This raises some very serious concerns about the scale of online child abuse, about the level of resourcing the police have available for it, about the systems the police has in place to deal with this new and increasing crime and also about the priority being given to it by police forces.”

We regard child abuse as a hugely serious crime and I believe that it is still under-reported. Police forces throughout the country should make dealing with it an absolute priority. Anybody who is deemed to be a sex offender—albeit they might be described as a low-level offender—should be prosecuted.

This crime destroys young people’s lives forever and it destroys families. We all know what has happened in Machynlleth and the damage it has done at a personal level to the family concerned, but this crime is happening in other places in Britain at a different level. We cannot ever say that the resources are not there to prosecute; we cannot ever knowingly allow somebody to come off a sex offenders register until we are absolutely certain that they are no longer a threat; and we cannot ever allow a major company—no matter how big, how rich or how powerful it is—to adopt an approach to dealing with sex offenders that is different to anybody else’s approach.

The Budget.

Last week was dominated by the Budget. First chance I've had to comment on it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us it will be the last 'Spring Budget'. In future there will be just one budget per year. It will be delivered in the Autumn. I was expecting a fairly quiet, 'not very noteworthy' bit dry sort of a budget. Turned out not to be the case.

Any responsible budget always has to take account of the national finances, the annual deficit and the National Debt, which has reached an eye-wateringly high level. Throughout the current year, the Government is spending/investing over one billion pounds more every week than it is raising. The deficit is predicted to increase next year. This level of borrowing is deeply unfair to our children and grandchildren, who will eventually have to deal with this debt. Despite, the very good news last week that growth was higher than we thought, and the current year's deficit is a bit less than predicted, the Chancellor rightly decided that his budget must be fiscally neutral. Any extra spending has to be matched by spending reductions elsewhere. My view is that anyone opposing tax increases or promoting increased spending must tell us where the money is coming from to be credible.

The main extra spending announced by the Chancellor was for social care with some extra investment in training and education, and some relief for those hit by big increases in business rates. I was particularly supportive of help for social care. We are, on average, living much longer. Inevitably the cost of care through these extra years of life is comparatively high. We should look on the two billion extra (one billion in 2017/18) as no more than a first step. We must also accept that while unemployment is at record levels, our productivity must improve. Investment in training and education is crucial as the UK develops new trading links across the world.

Much the most controversial tax change in the Budget was a proposal to raise Class 4 National Insurance Contribution by 2% over the next 2 years, impacting on the self-employed. There is very public disagreement whether this is a 'broken promise' from the Conservative Party's 2015 manifesto. It's widely reported that it is a 'broken promise' but the Chancellor is adamant that the 'election promise' related only to Class 1 contributions - which is what 85% of the employed working population pays. Interestingly (to me anyway) that in discussion with my accountant today, he said that the accountancy profession had been assuming Class 4 at 12% for years! Whatever, there seems no doubt that the Chancellor and Prime Minister did not see this as a 'broken promise' at all, even if they thought it a difficult decision.

But the bigger question must be whether it's a sensible justifiable tax change. There's no doubt that it's disappointing to the self employed, normally thought to be a group favourably disposed to a Conservative Govt. While I do not think tax policy should be set on the basis of political considerations, I myself have a positive view of the enthusiasm and drive of the self employed. A negative reaction from a group who normally offer support is not welcome to this writer.

But is the Change fair. Usually, we look to the Institute of Fiscal Studies for the authoritative unbiased judgement. Today the IFS has enthusiastically welcomed the change, describing the current system as "distorting decisions, creating complexity and unfair". The IFS also points out that the current rapid switch from being employed to being self-employed is seriously undermining the tax base, and has left the Chancellor with little option other than to do what he did - even if my personal instinct to lower taxes might prefer some reduction in Class 1 NIC as the way to equalise Class 4 and Class 1.  As someone who has always been self-employed, I can fully understand the disappointment. And I can see fierce debate when this issue comes before Parliament in the autumn. 

A General Election? I think not.

Lot of discussion around today about whether the Prime Minister might look to call a snap General Election. My constituent and near neighbour, Lord Hague has stirred this particular pot with his Telegraph column today suggesting she should. But Theresa May has said very clearly that she is not going to, and I don't see her changing her mind. She's not a leader who likes to change her mind. In any case, it's not so easy for her to 'go to the country'. We have in place the Fixed Term Parliament Act which stipulates that the next General Election will be held in early May 2020 unless either two thirds of MPs vote for one, or there is a vote of 'no confidence' in the Govt and a new govt cannot be formed in 14 days.

I was never in favour of a fixed term parliament - especially fixing elections at five years. For centuries, the British way was to allow the Prime Minister of the day to decide when to go to the country - usually every four years. Letting it go to five years usually delivers a worse result for the 'hanging on in hope' incumbent.  The voters can see when a general election is needed, and if a Prime Minister is not in sync with the public mood, things backfire.

Bit of a hoo-hah down the corridor as their Lordships pass a couple of amendments to the bill authorising the invocation of Article 50. The actual purpose of course is that they are trying to reverse the entire referendum result, cloaking their tactics in reasonable sounding language. I've written quite a bit about these two issues on previous blog posts. Let's take the two successful amendments in turn. Firstly, there's the position of EU nationals in the UK concerned about being forced to leave. I've said often that there is not the slightest possibility of this actually happening. And must admit I would not be hugely upset if the amendment was not ping-pinged back. But there is another way of looking at this. And it's the Spanish dimension. Huge number of Brits in Spain, many of them there in retirement, creating a disproportionate cost on Spanish health service. That's how they see it. Generally speaking the Spanish in the UK are of working age. When discussion about the residency rights of EU citizens in other countries, maybe we shouldn't assume that the Spanish Govt will want to play ball. Follow the trail of that where you will. Lot of fuss about 'meaningful vote' as well. It's a fairly obvious tactic to ensure our current EU partners play hardball in negotiations. It's making the Prime Ministers job as she seeks an acceptable 'divorce settlement' more difficult. Let's cut the pretence about what this is about - not Parliamentary sovereignty but undermining a referendum vote.

Anyway, back to the likelihood of a general election. If the Prime Minister is not able to invoke Article 50 by end of March, maybe I'll have to write another blog post. But I don't expect that. I expect the Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 in the next week or two. That's when the really challenging discussions for the Govt begin. What we all know in today's politics, that even cast iron certainties can be overtaken in a few days. Best to hang onto your hats.

Letters from my Postbag - 4

Unsurprisingly, I'm still receiving lots of emails and letters asking me to inform the world that I want the UK to remain in the EU. They take many forms. Some inform me that many who voted to leave have changed their minds, despite all polling evidence pointing to the opposite. Some want a second referendum, which I suppose would have to be 'best of three' to be fair! Some want me to demand we stay in the Single Market, which is much the same as not leaving at all. I should begin by restating my position on this issue - just to clarify things.
In 1975 I voted and campaigned for 'Out' of the EEC. Though working constructively with the developing European superpower ever since then, I made no further comment about EU integration until consideration was being given by Blair to joining the Euro. I was fiercely opposed to that, and appeared on panels opposing it. Very grateful to Gordon Brown at the time for scuppering what I thought a mad idea. Later, I was in favour of a referendum on approving the Lisbon Treaty, as were all main political parties. But Labour and the Lib Dems reneged on their promises and it was signed off in 2010, before the Coalition took over from Labour. However, I was not in favour of an In-Out referendum, mainly because I thought it an impossible question for voters to decide on. (I believed the EU would eventually collapse anyway). But David Cameron committed us to one in 2013, which was eventually held on June 23rd. I would have preferred not to have made public which way I voted in the EU referendum, but that was not a freedom available to me, as an MP. As it was, I was heavily criticised for refusing to say anything until the Welsh General Election in May was over. By then, I was so disapproving of both campaigns that I wanted no part in the actual campaigning at all. (Not sure that was the right thing to have done). I just exercised my right, same as everyone else to cast my vote as I thought best for the future of Britain. I have never said I would vote differently.
So it's no use asking me to change my mind, or support some action designed to frustrate the process of leaving. To do that would be an unacceptable breach of faith with everyone who has discussed the matter with me since early 1970s. And I am not in favour of another referendum either. One was one too many.
 There are a few connected issues being hotly debated at present. I will refer to just two of them.
The first is the demand that the UK Govt guarantees the long term residency rights of non British people, legally in the UK at present. This is a hugely important issue to those involved, but not significant from a constitutional standpoint. It will be resolved soon, whether on the face of the bill or not. There is not the remotest possibility that a British Govt would send them home. It's just not going to happen. Personally, I'm not much concerned if the Lords amendment to the Bill in respect of this issue is not reversed.
The second issue seems to me much more imporant, and would be a blatant attempt to scupper the referendum result by making it more difficult for the Prime Minister to negotiate a good deal. Holding a debate on the negotiated terms in 2019 cannot be included on the face of the Bill. How on earth could the Prime Minister negotiate with the 27, if they knew a bad deal would be more likely to result in Parliament deciding that the UK should remain in the EU after all. The amendment us designed to deliver a bad deal. I hope this amendment is not passed, and if it is, that MPs commit to pinging it back to the Lords for as long as it takes. This issue is designed to frustrate the referendum result, and is not acceptable in my view. This amendment is a very big deal.
Perhaps the oddest emails I get are from constituents demanding to know how I'm going to represent the 48%. Simple answer. The same as the other 52%. I've not asked any constituent how they voted in the EU Referendum. Its their business, not mine. And I would totally respect their right to have voted as they thought best - same as I did. I think what they really want is for me to change my position on the UK leaving the EU. Sorry but I''m not going to do that. I try to stand by what I promise. I will represent my constituents as best I can whichever way they voted.

Letters from my Postbag - 3

Over last couple of years, I've had lots of emails and letters objecting to hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for shale gas in the UK. Still receiving them. Expect a few more following today's news that Shell is bringing in shale gas 'fracked' in the Peruvian Amazon - an environmentally important site. Shale gas 'fracked' in the US is already coming into Grangemouth in Scotland. This makes no sense at all to me - from any standpoint, the environment, the economy or energy security.
My view on recovering shale gas in the UK has remained the same since we first realised there are trillions of cubic ft under our feet. I am supportive of developing a shale gas industry in Britain, if it can be done safely - but it's far too early to know whether this new industry is viable. At present we have no fracking in the UK - one well is currently being constructed in Lancashire and another with planning permission in Yorkshire. It cannot make sense to import shale gas in giant tankers from halfway across the world, including the environmentally important Amazon basin, when we have so much of the stuff under our feet. But of course it must be done safely. Internet based stories about gas leaks are not about the fracking process deep down in the earth, but the transportation of the gas to the surface.
The most authorative voice on environmental impact in Britain is the Committee on Climate Change. It's chaired by the much respected Lord Deben. This body is independent of Government, and is charged with holding the Government to account. The CCCh makes the judgement that well regulated domestic production of shale gas actually has a lower carbon footprint than imported liquified natural gas. The CCCh expects gas to be a major source of energy til 2030s and for heating until 2050s. It's the only way we are going to stop burning coal which the CCCh tells us is 50% more damaging to the climate than gas.
There's been, and remains a great deal of opposition to establishing a shale gas industry in the UK. Local Planning Authorities have been faced by protests which understandably have made them reluctant to grant approvals. The consequence has been that the Government has resolved to fast-track applications to avoid Councils delaying decisions.I still have no idea whether a shale gas industry is viable in the UK.

Letters from my Postbag - 2

Another issue generating much interest among constituents at the moment is the absence of guaranteed rights for EU citizens, currently legally resident in the UK, to remain after we have left the European Union. Huge publicity about this issue today, following the defeat of the Government in the House of Lords yesterday over this issue. Causing much pain and uncertainty - and all totally unnecessary. It causes me a mixture of anger and sadness. It's a row over nothing.

Because my view is that there is not the remotest possibility that a British Govt will insist non British citizens legally in the UK, will be asked to leave post-Brexit, I did think that it would have been sensible to gaurentee the future of these immigrants on June 24th. But equally, I do not think the Government's position on this issue, taking a different view from that which I held immediately after the referendum is at all unreasonable. Let's look at the issue factually.

When the people of the UK voted to leave the EU, a key inflencial factor for many was that in future, the UK would decide its own immigration policy. The long term status of EU migrants resident in the UK, automatically became as issue. The new Prime Minister, Theresa May, took the position that she was keen to gaurentee the residency rights of EU citizens in the UK quickly, and sought an early agreement which included the rights of British citizens, legally resident in other EU countries. Regrettably, our EU partners refused to even discuss the issue, until Article 50 has been invoked (still expected to be before end of March). Strangely, the finger of blame in the emails I'm receiving seems to be pointed at the British Government, rather that in the direction of those who are causing the problem! It's the Commission and 'a small number of EU members' are blocking discussion on a deal.

Inevitably, the huge focus being put on this issue by those who want to frustrate the exit of the UK from the EU is causing anxiety and fear amongst EU residents in Britain. Some may be considering going home, causing damage to our economy and our public services. Ironically, those making a major issue of the position of non British residents, are causing more uncertainty and more distress. While other EU states refuse even to discuss this issue before Article 50 is invoked, there can be no resolution. I hope it can be resolved quickly afterwards and we can all agree permanent residency for all EU migrants currently in all other EU countries - as long as they are there legally of course. 

Letters from my postbag - 1

It's a metaphorical postbag. Usually, it's emails, to which this blog post is a response. I will ask my office to email it out to all those who have written to me about the issue. I simply do not have enough time to respond to all the emails individually. I hope this form of responding will be ok. What I want to cover in this post is the position of refugee children in fellow EU countries.
I first took a close interest in the refugee crisis in Syria several years ago, when being recalled in summer recess to sanction a military strike against the brutal Bashar al-Assad. I could not see how a military strike would help, and needed clarity about what our forces would do. In the event no attack was agreed. But the controversy about the votes that Sept evening caused me to become much concerned about the appalling conditions being faced by several million displaced people in Syria, being subjected to poison gas, mass murder and deliberate starvation. At the time, I supported the UK taking in Syrian refugees, and am pleased we are taking in 20,000 by 2020. My personal view is that we could take even more - not easy because of security considerations. I attended meetings with refugees, and an important meeting arranged by Andrew Mitchell MP and Clare Short, who had both visited the camps in and around Syria. Some time later, I began receiving emails about the plight of refugee children in France, asking for priority to be given to them. I discussed the issue with Lord Dubs, who had been himself a refugee, and who became the focus for a campaign. I met Lord Dubs, whom I greatly respect, but told him I could not agree with him. My view then, and remains my view now is that that every penny the UK can commit to helping with the refugee crisis must be committed to helping on the ground in Syria and in the camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. I did agree to vote for what became known as the Dubs Amendment, after a long Sunday morning phone conversation with the Immigration Minister, making it clear I still thought it was wrong. Refugees in France were the responsibility of the French Government, a stat e as caring and humanitarian as the UK.
My views have only become firmer over time. And I was particularly moved when watching an hour long film of conditions in Libya a few days ago, created by Ross Kemp of Eastenders fame. It's a deeply shocking and moving film. Human traffickers are taking the money of hundreds of thousands of people in and around Libya, promising them transfer to the UK, as well as other EU countries - and then sending them all to sea in unseaworthy boats. The occupants of those captured in Libyan waters are dumped without food or water on the Libyan border. Many of the poor souls who reach Med waters are simply drowned. It's a devastating film.
Two further points. The Home Secretary informs us that the French authorities are now opposed to our taking refugees from France, because it's being used by traffickers as a 'sales pitch' to refugees looking for a better life. It's making the problem in France worse. And secondly. There is a real fear that the Libyan refugee crisis is spreading to nearby Nigeria, where millions live in fear of Boko Haram, a brutal terrorist organisation. Bringing refugees into the UK from EU countries not only makes the refugee problem worse, but takes our attention away from the 10 million displaced refugees in and around Syria.
I can support calls that the UK should take in more refugees. Even though the UK has contributed more aid than any other country to bringing relief to the refugee disaster in the Middle East. But every ounce and penny of British effort must go to where the humanitarian need is greatest, and not be driven by where the media are free to capture heartbreaking pictures and stories. I have not any doubt where my duty lies. I am driven only by a commitment to ensure the UK work and investment acheives maximum humanitarian impact.

Political Turbulence

Quite a bit of turbulence in British politics as we move into another week in Westminster - even if my week in going to be dominated by things Welsh and Colombian. Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones has invited me his grand St Davids Day bash at Lancaster House tomorrow and we have a Dydd Dewi Sant do at No 10 on Wednesday. And no less than three meetings about Colombia on Wed, including meeting with the Ambassador.

But back to the political turbulence. Hard to judge how significant it is. Firstly, we have just seen the Conservatives win the Copeland by-election, following resignation of the excellent Labour MP, Jamie Reed - and it wasn't a shock result. It seems an absolute disaster for Labour. We have to go back many decades to have seen such a rejection of the main opposition party in Britain. So one question exercising many of us today is the future of the Labour Party. Does it has one?

And then there was the failure of UKIP to take Stoke in another by-election on Thursday. If UKIP can't take Stoke, where can they win. While Mr Farage MEP seems to be having a grand time mixing with Donald Trump, I cannot see where his old party is going to make any political gain. And UKIP members are fighting like ferrets. So another question exercising us is the future of UKIP. Does it have one?

And then there's Lord Heseltine, a man I greatly admire. Amongst other things, he is a wonderful gardener. He's been telling us today how he's going to force through amendments in the Lords to the Article 50 Bill. Seems there are two he's keen on. The first will not make much difference. The amendment would protect the status of non British migrants resident in Britain as part of the Bill. No amendment would mean a wait of a few weeks to achieve the same end. The other could be more problematic. Would have thought it helpful to Govt Ministers negotiating the UKs exit from the EU, if exit is certain. If there has to be an affirmative vote at the end of the negotiation, it encourages those who want to stop the UK leaving to agree a bad deal. Not sure this looks wise. Whatever, I sense Govt is not in the mood to compromise. Lord Heseltine has a big task before him.

Parable of the Little Green Tractors.

Once upon a time, there was a very big farmer, who was so rich that he lived in a big house at Portland Place, in Central London. Farmer Hall, for that was his name was very wealthy. He had lots of money to give away. He loved to lavish gifts upon his children. This week his little boy, Dafydd was thrilled to bits when Rhodri, Farmer Hall's man in Wales, delivered unto him a lovely green tractor as a surprise present from his daddy. He was beside himself with joy. Something he'd been pleading for since he was old enough to love little green tractors. "Diolch Daddy" he cried, with lots of hugs and besitos.

And then Rhodri burst into floods of tears. He started shouting and stamping his feet. What could possibly have happened? Well, Rhodri had noticed that Angus, his older, bigger brother had received a far bigger green tractor - nearly 4 times bigger. Suddenly Rhodri's tractor was proof that Farmer Hall did not love him, and was just throwing a few grudging crumbs his way from the great tractor table. Rhodri's lovely green tractor seemed lovely no more. In fact in was just another 'slap in the face'.

And then the English cousins of Rhodri and Angus, noticed the new green tractors, and that Farmer Hall had not given them one at all. They all felt upset as well. In fact, everyone except Angus was upset. And to make things worse, Angus wasn't even grateful. Angus was never grateful. Nothing it seems would stop Angus from demanding more. Turned out that poor old Farmer Hall satisfied no-one. The lesson to be drawn from this sad sad story is "When you share out the cake, don't hand over all the slices at the same time.".

Helping Refugees

Just wrote an article for a local newspaper which reflects on the problems faced by the movement of peoples from troubled parts of the world, and how I think British Govt should respond. As follows....

"The issue that currently causes me most concern as an MP is the humanitarian refugee crisis facing much of our world as a result of conflict. Some of these conflicts cause huge increases in the movement of people away from problem hotspots, attracted by promises (invariably false) of a better world elsewhere. These promises usually turn out to be empty and dangerous.

Even though the scale of warfare in our world continues to fall, modern means of communication, carried on comparatively inexpensive mobile technology, greatly worsens the refugee crisis. It's only going to get worse. It's inevitable that there will be hundreds of millions of people fleeing the brutality of terrorists and drought. 

There has been much publicity and campaigning to allow refugees from fellow EU countries into Britain. Many constituents have written to me, supporting this course of action. I have resisted this, simply because I cannot accept it is the most effective way to help. I have always believed that the UK should take in more refugees than we have done, or have promised to do, but it should always be from where we can have the best humanitarian impact. We should be guided by the scale of disaster and our capacity to help rather by what our media covers. The BBC gives most coverage to where it can safely take its cameras.

This week, I met with former East Enders star Ross Kemp, who has created a very powerful film outlining the position in Libya. Libya is on the point of being a 'failed state' where there is no government. It's being run by war lords on a tribal structure. Human rights do not exist. The status of women is particularly awful. Into this environment step traffickers, promising transfer to Europe in return for all of their money. They are then put into unseaworthy boats and sent out to the Med. If they progress out of Libyan waters, they often sink. No-one knows about them. If caught in Libyan waters they are dumped on the border.

This lawlessness may well lead to Nigeria, where the population is over 100,000,000. About ten million Syrians have been displaced during the current conflict. Many have died, or been killed by Assad or Russian forces. After meetings with activists who know the area, I became convinced that every penny that Britain can contribute should go to where the need is greatest. That is the most humanitarian response."

Best EDM of the Year so far

Because I'm a PPS in the Wales Office I'm not supposed to sign up to Early Day Motions. Must admit this is one of the more sensible Parliamentary conventions. But I can see no reason why I cannot give publicity to the work of the wonderful Ann Clwyd MP. Not many MPs were able to attend the showing of the Ross Kemp film yesterday afternoon. Think I was the only Conservative there. It was shocking and moving, portraying the cruel brutal awful reality behind the refugee crisis in Libya. The position in Aleppo, and refugee camps on the Syrian border (Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan) will be much the same - though with better structure for support in part. Perhaps what should truly concern us in Europe in the consequences of spill over of 'failed state' reality to Nigeria and other states.


Treatment of Migrants and Refugees in Libya

That this House is shocked by the appalling treatment of migrants and refugees in Libya by state officials and illegal people trafficking networks, as depicted by the very powerful Ross Kemp documentary Libya’s Migrant Hell, shown at a Parliamentary screening organised by the All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group; notes with considerable concern that many making the journey to Libya in the hope of reaching Europe are fleeing violent conflict and famine in their home countries; calls on the UK Government and its partners within the international community to assist Libyan officials, and international and domestic humanitarian organisations, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that migrants and refugees within that country are treated with dignity, provided with adequate food and basic healthcare, and not subjected to ill-treatment; further calls on the UK Government and others to do much more to address the underlying causes resulting in increased flows of migrants and refugees, as well as to ensure that safe and legal channels into Europe are provided for those who qualify for international protection.    

My Article re Trump Visit for today's Guardian.

Wrote an article at an hour's notice for the Guardian yesterday. Don't know whether it reached print. It's not the daily paper I normally read. The article is a summery of my last post about the President of the United States. Anyway, this is what I wrote;

"I support the impending state visit of Donald Trump to the United Kingdom. He has been elected to the position of President by the voters of the United States in a free and fair election. President Trump now leads a country which has long been a dependable partner and ally of Britain. It's crucial for our security and economic interest that this 'special relationship' with the United States continues into the future.

I accept that President Trump has made comments both before and after his election that I, and many other British people, find unacceptable. I accept he has sought to implement policies I consider objectionable. I find his style, his language and his denigration of the media to not be what I'd expect of a world leader. But he is doing pretty much what he said he was going to do in his election campaign, and he won. He was elected. If we are to respect democracy as a principle, we accept it when we do not much care for the result.

During the reign of Her Majesty our Queen,  over 100 state visits have been granted to a wide variety of national leaders, many of whom have been strangers to the idea of democracy. Many have been controversial. I have always thought it good politics to try to promote better government across the world by engaging with leaders, who have traits we disagree with.

Britain's Prime Minister has a difficult and sensitive path to tread. Central to her thinking must always be the national interest. She may well express disapproval and disagreement to President Trump, but in public she will be constructive and welcoming. This is the right approach. The State Visit must go ahead as planned.

What to think about Donald.

Big fuss at Westminster today. 3hrs debating the impending State Visit to the UK by the President of the United States. It's been scheduled because two petitions relating to the visit have reached the 100,000 needed to trigger consideration of a debate. The largest petition condemns the invitation - which in turn instigated the petition welcoming the visit. Had a good chat about this with Rachel Garside on Good Morning Wales this morning. And an interview for Newyddion tonight. And there were a fair few protestors in Parliament Square generating a bit of a rumpus.

I should, for context, admit that I am no fan of the new President's style or use of language or some of his declared policy. He does seem to have a variably firm grip on facts, admittedly not a characteristic exclusive to the Donald. But he has been elected President by the US people. In passing, not enough research is being done on why they did this. I suppose it's too easy (and sloppy) just to condemn the stuff that would do for him in the UK - and leave it at that.

The Trump state visit will happen- no matter how much noise there is. No way can the Prime Minister withdraw an invite. Nor should she. State visits are about promoting the British interest. Or should be. Theresa May has had to walk on eggshells in her dealings with the US President.  There may be Trump traits that she may not like. Perhaps she referred to them in private conversations. I hope she did. But publicly, as our Prime Minister, she will be be focussed on the British interest, from both the security and economic standpoint. Not for her the freedom to play to the gallery. She has a hard headed job to do and she is doing it well very well.

And let us for one moment consider some of the other great icons of morality and democracy that have been granted state visits during the reign of Her Majesty The Queen - well over 100 of them. Mugabe perhaps. Or Hirohito. Or Putin. Or Ceaucescu. Or our last visitor, President Xi Jinping. I was there when our current Mr Speaker fawned all over this icon of democracy.

And then we have the entertaining sideshows. Like me writing 300 words for tomorrow's Guardian. Actually, now I mention it, I remember writing a few pieces for the Guardian a few years ago. And there's the sheer pleasure President Trump will take from the way he has dominated British politics this week. How he will have enjoyed the three hour debate in the Palace of Westminster, where he was the subject of not one, but two contradicting petitions running simultaneously.  I do hope we can move on from Trumpmania tomorrow.

Best way to help Syrian refugees.

I've blogged before about the best way to help Syrian refugees, challenging the idea that the proposal put forward by Lord Alf Dubs to take refugee 'children' in from France was neither the most effective nor the most humanitarian. I have much respect for Lord Dubs' opinion, bearing in mind his personal back story, but thought he was mistaken. It was too important an issue just to 'go with the flow' for an easy life. Because of Lord Dubs background, I felt there was not a proper evaluation of the options open to the UK to help. I also disagreed with Govt when it legislated to accept the amendment. I made my views known to my whips office.  The Minister telephoned me at home on a Sunday morning, hoping I would not rebel on the issue. I didn't because the Dubs amendment would clearly bring humanitarian relief to refugees, even if not the most effective and most humanitarian way to do it. The Dubs amendment has worked in practice very much as I expected. The Home Secretary has now published a 'statement' outlining the Govt position - as follows....

"Britain has a proud record of helping the most vulnerable children who are fleeing conflict and danger, and this Government is committed to upholding this fine tradition.

Our response to the migrant crisis has been to establish resettlement schemes from the region, where we can best target our support to help the most vulnerable. That is why we will resettle 20,000 Syrians over the course of this parliament and we will also resettle 3,000 children and their families from the wider region. In the last year we have granted asylum or another form of leave to over 8,000 children and of the over 4,400 individuals resettled through the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement scheme so far, around half are children.

This week the Government announced that in accordance with section 67 of the Immigration Act (the so-called Dubs amendment) we will transfer 350 children.  to meet the intention and spirit behind the amendment.  This number includes over 200 children already transferred under section 67 from France, and will include a further 150 over the coming months.

The scheme has not closed, as reported by some. We were obliged by the Immigration Act to put a specific number on how many children we would take based on a consultation with local authorities about their capacity. This is the number that we have published and we will now be working in Greece, Italy and France to transfer further children under the amendment. We’re clear that behind these numbers are children and it’s vital that we get the balance right between enabling eligible children to come to the UK as quickly as possible and ensuring local authorities have capacity to host them and provide them with the support and care they will need.

We consulted extensively with local authorities over several months to reach this number, but if your local authority is contacting you suggesting they have extra capacity to take children then please encourage them to participate in the National Transfer Scheme. Each year we have around 3,000 unaccompanied asylum seeking children arrive in Britain and currently a small number of councils are taking a disproportionate share of the burden in caring for these children.

The Government has also always been clear that we do not want to incentivise perilous journeys to Europe, particularly by the most vulnerable children.  That is why children must have arrived in Europe before 20 March 2016 to be eligible under section 67 of the Immigration Act.

I’m proud of the action this Government has taken, and will continue to take, to support and care for the most vulnerable children caught up in the crisis in Syria."

Speaker error - not that important.

Speaker Bercow was (in my opinion) 'out of order' to effectively ban the President of the United States of America from speaking in Westminster Hall and the Royal Gallery when he visits Britain later this year. But I think "So what". Everyone does and says things I disagree with. What matters is the overall judgement and effectiveness of Speaker Bercow. And I've always thought and said that he has done an excellent job, reforming how the House of Commons works, and holding the Govt to account. But this post is about why I think he was wrong to lay into Donald Trump as he did. And I am not going to speculate on why he did it - but I do think he will be entirely happy that I should. It helps his standing with other political parties.

All I'm going to do is repeat parts of an article by Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Govt at King's College. Brilliant authority on constitutional issues. The best, and I share his opinion.

"The Speaker of the House of Commons is expected, like the Queen, to preserve strict political neutrality. Yet, John Bercow...has declared that President Trump should not be invited to make an address to Parliament."
"The Speaker, however is a servant of the House of Commons. He is not empowered to express his own views in public, but only the views of the Commons. But the Commons has not yet come to a view. The Speaker's intervention, therefore, constitutionally improper."
"It is also politically unhelpful. For it is by no means clear whether an invitation to address Parliament is one that the US President actually seeks. In that case, the Speaker will have initiated an unnecessary diplomatic spat by pronouncing on an issue that may not arise and in any case did not need to be addressed in public."

"Theresa May has been treading on eggshells. She believes, probably rightly, that there is more to be gained from private remonstrance than from publicly snubbing the notoriously thin skinned President. She is engaged in a delicate diplomatic balancing act, avoiding confrontation while making it clear she does not share some of the President's views and in particular his policy on immigration."

"The Prime Minister will likely be not grateful to the Speaker who, in parading his virtue, may have undermined her diplomacy."

"Until the Commons comes to a definite view on the state visit and the possibility of anaddress to Parliament, the Speaker should stay silent, even if he believes his view is backed by many. It is not his job to counterpose his own opinion against that of the elected Government. In any case, megaphone diplomacy rarely succeeds."

Colostomy Irrigation Speech.

When I secured this debate, I had not realised that it would be so close to World Cancer Day - on Saturday. Given the close connection between my subject and cancer, I could not have chosen a more appropriate date.

I begin by paying tribute to the colostomy nurses at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, particularly Tracy Lunt, my personal stoma nurse, who helped me through a difficult time in my life and who encouraged me, and introduced me to colostomy irrigation 14 years ago. I also thank colostomy nurse, Julie Powell, who telephoned me late one evening this week to help me to prepare, after hearing that I had secured the debate. Colostomy nurses are special people, drawn to an unglamorous job that involves helping and encouraging people at the most difficult time in their lives.
 I imagine the subject of this debate is not often the subject of debate in Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been an MP for longer than I have and may remember another occasion, but I do not. As far as I know, this may be the first time that this subject has appeared on the Order Paper.

I had best begin with some explanation of why the subject is of such importance to me and to many other people—we do not know how many people because the subject is not talked about much. It is difficult to know how many people are irrigators, how many could be irrigators or how many would be if encouraged and helped by a sympathetic introduction process. At this point, I should introduce the background to my interest, which derives from bowel cancer. Colostomy irrigation has given me the freedom to live a full and active life. I will mention bowel cancer quite a lot because of its close connection with colostomy irrigation.

I am an ostomate—a person with a colostomy. I have owned my colostomy for almost 15 years, since undergoing an abdominoperineal resection to remove a cancerous tumour in 2002. I did not want a colostomy, but the alternative at the time was a far less attractive prospect. It was perhaps the most traumatic event in my life. I was uncertain about the future or, indeed, whether I even had a future at all. It certainly gave me a good understanding of how others feel in the same situation. I consider myself to have been extraordinarily lucky in that I made a full recovery.

One of the key reasons for my good luck and full recovery was that my cancerous colorectal tumour was diagnosed early in its development, before the disease had spread to my liver and elsewhere, when full recovery would be much less certain. Unsurprisingly, I have been a champion of early diagnosis ever since, and played a role in promoting bowel cancer screening programmes in Wales, when they were introduced a few years ago. The campaigning charity, Beating Bowel Cancer, is currently leading a campaign to reduce the age at which screening is offered from 60 to 50, as it is in Scotland. Instinctively, I support early screening, but I realise that it serves no real purpose unless accompanied by the availability of sufficient endoscopy capacity.​

Colorectal cancer, or bowel cancer, as it is commonly known, is one of the most common forms of cancer, with 110 new cases diagnosed every day. It is a traumatic shock for many when the tumour is first diagnosed, but the cancer is completely curable if caught early enough. It is possible to recover and do some fairly crazy things. For example, after recovery, I initiated the establishment of the Welsh parliamentary rugby team. In passing, I should say that, rather shamefully, our first game versus the Lords and Commons parliamentary team degenerated into a full-scale brawl, which received much coverage in the national media, and that is when I first met the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), a Labour MP. I went training with the late, great All Black Jonah Lomu, who had also suffered life-threatening illnesses, in preparation for that game. My friends, of course, think it was even crazier to seek election as a Member of Parliament.

The final introductory point I want to make concerns the title I have chosen for this debate. Until recently, I used the term “colonic irrigation”, like most people, but it is too often associated in the public mind with a lifestyle choice available in health and massage centres—a practice I have never really taken much interest in—so I now use the term “colostomy irrigation”, which has no such associations, and which accurately describes the process.

My speech has three main purposes. First, I want to explain what colostomy irrigation actually involves—what it is. Secondly, I want to explain why I decided to become an irrigator. Thirdly, I want to explain why I am seeking to raise the profile and awareness of colostomy irrigation, which is something I have been doing for 14 years. This Adjournment debate is the best platform to raise awareness that I have ever secured.

First, on the actual process, I am constantly surprised by how little is known about it. Even people suffering illnesses such as colitis or bowel cancer, who face the prospect of a permanent colostomy, seem to know little about the procedure. A colleague MP with a background in the clinical profession approached me today and said that not even all colostomy nurses know about it or encourage it. It seems not to be thought suitable for polite conversation; the human mind seems to go into “block” mode if the subject crops up.

However, the process is very simple. All it involves is hanging what is in effect a polythene bag, containing 1,000 to 1,500 ml of warm water, on some convenient hook—I usually use the bathroom curtain rail. One of the problems with smart modern hotels is that there are often no convenient hooks. Luckily, I am a farmer by background, so I am quite practical and naturally given to improvisation, and a coat hanger can be quite a handy hook. The water is then allowed to run by gravity, via a polythene tube, into that part of the lower bowel that my brilliant consultant surgeon left me with after surgery in 2002. Then, the water is allowed to just run out naturally; there really is not much more to it than that. The biggest downside is that the irrigator has to remain in the same location for about 45 minutes, but with complete freedom to read, write, telephone, prepare speeches for Adjournment debates, do sudoku, watch TV and a whole host of other things.

I want to emphasise that the process is not suitable for all ostomates. There can be insurmountable physical and, indeed, mental barriers that mean irrigation is just not possible. There are additional bits of equipment, such as commercially available water pumps, that replace simple gravity, but my experience is that they are not usually needed.

There is another point of interest here—certainly to me and, I think, to the Minister. I am told that while a very small percentage of ostomates in the UK irrigate—less than 5%—a very high percentage do so in the US. That is thought to be because all the equipment associated with wearing a colostomy bag is free in the UK but has to be paid for in the US—1,000 ml of water comes free.

Secondly, why do I irrigate myself? When I am asked, I give the same answer as when I am asked why I voted to leave in the EU referendum on 23 June—it could one day become a pub quiz question: what is the connection between the EU referendum and colostomy irrigation?—and that answer is to take back control. I wanted to take back control of my own body and not allow my colostomy to rule my life, which it could well have done. I did not want to have to wear a colostomy bag. I wanted to continue my public life without being concerned about an “active” colostomy at inconvenient times. I can irrigate when and where it is convenient for me to do so. I take the decisions, not my colostomy. I have—as, indeed, have all the other ostomates who irrigate—genuinely taken back control.

Thirdly, I turn to the main reason why I am raising the issue in this debate. Having experienced the extra freedom, self-confidence and control that colostomy irrigation gives me, I want to encourage other ostomates to think about doing the same. I must emphasise that it does not work for every ostomate, and, in any case, it is a matter of choice. It is not a question of what one should do; it depends on what one can do and what one wants to do. All I want to do is to suggest to ostomates who have never thought about irrigation to consider it. There will be a few uncertain days to begin with while the body familiarises itself with the process, but, with the guidance and encouragement of their stoma nurses, they too may find the freedom and control that colostomy irrigation brings.

The background to every colostomy is some form of clinical need, involving fear, trauma, great uncertainty, great need for relief from pain or even simply a desire to stay alive. World Cancer Day is on Saturday, and I am really grateful that I have had the chance to play a small part in making life better for at least some of those who are suffering from the implications of bowel cancer.

The Special Relationship.

President Trump is not the easiest of men to deal with. Luckily for us in the UK we have a Prime Minister who seems to understand the President and get along with him. Hopefully this will enable her to influence him. This is important for several reasons, the most important of which is national security. It was very reassuring to hear the President giving enthusiastic backing to NATO, which has underpinned our security for decades. He has been making the entirely fair point that he wants NATO members to contribute the agreed 2% of GDP to defence, but it has created nervousness throughout the world that the US might not continue to support NATO. This would of course be the end of it as a truly effective deterrent. But it emerged in discussions between the Prime Minister and Mr Trump that the US remains firmly committed to NATO.

The second reason the British PM needs to develop a good relationship with the President is trade - not so much the development of a bilateral trade deal, but to challenge his enthusiasm for a 'protectionist' approach to world trade. The world, and the West in particular needs the US to be buying and selling around the world. Through promoting trade agreements with the US, we challenge the idea that 'protectionism' is a wealth creating approach for any country, including the US. I read so much 'guff' about how crucial a 'trade deal' with the US is, and where in the non-existent queue the UK stands. What the UK and the world needs is as close to tariff-free trade as possible. Prime Minister May did some excellent 'groundwork'. 

And then there is the hoohah that the new President creates through controversy. I'm never sure whether it's deliberate or accidental. But our media love it. NATO - boring. Protectionism and trade in a capitalist world - boring. Let's do some headlines about 'holding hands'. Even I thought the interpretations were quite funny, if ludicrous. The reality is it was a hugely successful visit.

But it is President Trump - who cares not a fig what the media thinks. No sooner had the UK Prime Minister left his country, he signed an executive order banning citizens from seven countries from entering the US. OK, following his election campaign, its no surprise that he wants to tighten up immigration control, but this ban won't work in the US interest, and in due course will probably be dropped. It's discriminatory and very UN-British.  Bit of fuss that the Prime Minister did not immediately condemn President Trump at a media event. She did what she usually does. Thought it through carefully, understanding what it means and then tells us it's not a policy she or Britain would ever follow, and that her Govt will act to support any UK citizens caught up in it. Careful, cautious and thought through. All in all, our Prime Minister has had a very good week. 

The human cost of inaction.

Bearing in mind the dispute there has been (and remains) between Shrewsbury and Telford about the location of  'emergency' services in Shropshire, you'll be surprised to read about my deep concerns about the future for the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford. Of course my main interest is in services available to my constituents in Montgomeryshire, But I've had a close association with and interest in all of Shropshire for all of my adult life.

As we know, the Shropshire, and Telford and Wrekin Clinical Commissioning Groups met before Christmas to consider a new A&E/emergency structure for whole of Shropshire. It proposed an Emergency Centre at Shrewsbury and two Urgent Care Centres at Shrewsbury and Telford, which would deal with about 80% of those currently attending A&E. The plan had been developed by a group set up by both CCGs known as the Future Fit Programme Board. This Board had been working for almost 3 yrs and had cost at least £2million. But the proposals were rejected, casting many of us into a state of despair.

I immediately realised that this refusal to grasp the solution was very bad news for all of Shropshire and Mid Wales, but particularly bad news for The Princess Royal in Telford. Let me explain why to those who do not think so. We can all agree that the status quo is not sustainable  - unless some miracle tree that grows consultants who want to work in Shropshire is discovered. Unfortunately there is no such tree. Over the last 15 years there have been occasions when the A&E service has been barely clinically safe. It is currently 'on the edge'. I remember a previous Chief Executive telling me he should have closed the PRH overnight, because of insufficient consultant cover. Since then, we have had the Mid Staffs scandal. Today, he would have acted, not hoped for the best. With the increasing throughput we are seeing at A&E units, it cannot be long before a real 'clinically unsafe' crisis happens and the PRH is simply closed overnight. It's going to happen. No amount of political posturing will obscure the shock of this situation.

A lot of the debate is presented as a Shrewsbury and Mid Wales versus Telford and Wrekin. It is not. It's a debate about clinical outcomes, where the best outcome for patients across the region is not being taken forward, because of 'Political' considerations. And now I cannot see a way forward. The more I think about it, the more despairing I become. Many people are anticipating an early decision. We've been led to believe it could be a matter of weeks or months. I'm not so sure. The UK Govt is under huge pressure to agree capital investment across every part of England. In most places there is a case agreed locally. Are we really imagining that Govt will allocate capital spending to an area in local dispute, with no sign of resolution.  I feel we have run into a wall of stone cold realism. There will be a heavy price for inaction. And the main sufferers are going to be those who have stood in the way of progress with the Future Fit Programme Board recommendations.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill (HC Bill 132)

A bill to enable Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to be invoked has been published today. Debate will take place over the next few days, and it's hoped that it will be approved by both Houses of Parliament in time for the Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 by end of March as she has said she intends to.

                                                         A BILL to

Confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty
on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the
EU.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Power to notify withdrawal from the EU

(1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European
Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

(2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European
5Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.

2 Short title

This Act may be cited as the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act
2017.

The Brexit White Paper

The Prime Minister has shot another fox in the great Brexit debate. The latest focus for those not entirely supportive of the UK leaving the EU was a demand for a White Paper setting out the Govt's plans. This particular fox was just generating a bit of pace, when Theresa May despatched it by announcing that she intends to publish the demanded White Paper.

Must admit I personally was not that keen for both security and political reasons. The Prime Minister will have to be careful not to include in a White Paper any information that could prove useful to those sitting opposite her at a future negotiating table. Whatever is included, there will be those who will not be satisfied - in fact would not be satisfied until the Govts opponents were in a position to create an impossible negotiating position. I also think the Prime Minister will be careful not to set unacheivable targets, creating opportunities to accuse a future Govt of 'failures'. A White Paper will set out what the Prime Minister will hope to acheive as entering a negotiation. Inevitably there will be some 'give and take'. I feel sure these dangers will be avoided.

Today's announcement does have real benefit apart from the tactical fox-shooting aspect. It creates goodwill and by agreeing to what those who have opposed Leave, and may be fearful of the outcome have wanted. So even though I was a bit doubtful, I can see a White Paper may have some benefit.