Introduction to Reorganisation of Shropshire NHS Services.

I've always taken a close interest in how the NHS is organised in Shropshire - despite it sometimes has been difficult to engage interest in Montgomeryshire. But I've stuck at it. Its also the case since devolution in 1999 (with health being devolved) that the Welsh Gov't has been keen that Welsh patients be treated in Wales wherever possible, rather than across Offa's Dyke in England. But this applies only to patients needing elective surgery of course. Those needing urgent or emergency treatment are still sent to Shrewsbury and Telford because they are nearer. I've always been antagonistic to this approach. Firstly, it has in my opinion inevitably led to less consideration for Montgomeryshire when services are being reconfigured in Shropshire. And it would not be surprising if some resentment might be engendered when the work with potential for 'profit' is retained in Wales, while work with potential for 'loss' is sent over the border.

Anyway last week NHS leaders in Shropshire announced a comprehensive review of services. Not a surprise. Three of the top bosses have announced that over the next six to nine months they will be leading a debate across Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin and Mid Wales focusing on how to provide acute and community services that best meet the needs of urban and rural communities. This is extremely important to Montgomeryshire - which is why I spent this afternoon travelling over to the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford to discuss this with Peter Herring, Chief Exec of the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Hospitals Trust.

There are several drivers behind this process. Firstly, the fact that we are living longer disproportionately increases the demand on NHS services. Increased demand is putting ever more pressure on a system never designed for such a workload. But secondly (and this has an effect on me personally) there are the horrors of what happened in Mid Staffordshire. Huge numbers of vulnerable people dying as a result of unacceptably poor care. We can no longer take the risk of allowing acute services to operate without the presence of a consultant with the appropriate skills. This makes it very difficult in Shropshire, which is effectively one hospital split on two sites. This is driving the need for debate. The shadow of Mid Staffs is dark and long.

Most concern seems to about A&E. Media are reporting the possibility of one of the two hospitals losing its A&E. While I do not think this at all likely, (and was specifically ruled out in the announcement letter) I do think we could end up with two rather different A&Es. There could be one with a focus on major accidents and wounds associated with violence, while the other could be more focused on heart attacks, strokes etc. Such an arrangement might enable more patients to move straight to the treatment bed, bypassing A&E altogether. It could be an improvement.

Far to early to take a view on all this yet. My interest (and the reason I've always taken a close involvement in Shropshire health matters) is that I want the best access possible for patients from Montgomeryshire. And I want them to be an integral part of the discussions. I have written to the Powys Community Health Council asking that public meetings be held in Llanidloes, Newtown, Welshpool and Llanfyllin when we have more idea of what the discussion is about - probably early in 2014. There will be several aspects of this issue which will appear on this blog site over the next few months.

Read More

Hiring immigrant labour.

Today's Telegraph has a headline which activated my interest. It read 'Tesco hiring immigrants on the cheap, says Labour'. It seems that a Labour MP intends to make what's termed a 'keynote' speech tomorrow in which he intends to name Tesco and Next as being 'unscrupulous employers' and being 'guilty' of employing immigrant labour at rates lower than would be paid to British labour. I suppose this sort of talk feeds into the paranoia which surrounds the whole immigration debate. Anyway, its an issue that did once crop up in my experience. I will share it with you, dear reader - in a 'factual' rather than an 'opinionated' way.

Between 1999-2007, I represented Mid and West Wales in the National Assembly for Wales. Around ten years ago I was approached by several constituents, including councillors in one of the towns (not going to identify it) complaining about an influx of hundreds of Poles who were taking all the jobs of locals, and behaving in a threatening way, preventing local people being able to walk their own streets. I decided to raise these concerns with the local Police, and with two of the employers who were deemed 'guilty' of bringing all these Poles in. Let me share with you what I was told. Firstly, the Police. They had not received a single complaint, though people had discussed the issue with them. Its true that there were a lot of young men, sometimes loud and boisterous, outside pubs, in largish groups speaking in a foreign language, Polish. The Police told me there had not been any trouble at all. None.

My discussion with the employers was even more interesting. For years both had not been able to recruit enough dependable staff locally. The benefit system was encouraging potential employees to accept a job, and leave after a few days. The recruitment process was so costly, they both decided to enter into contract with an agency, which bussed in workers every day. For some reason (which I cannot recall) the agreement terminated, and a new agency was engaged, which sent nothing but Polish immigrants - lots of them. They were described as excellent workers, enthusiastic, committed and dependable. Far from costing less, they were actually more expensive than local employees. Both businesses were mostly employing labour at around minimum wage - but plus the agency fee for the Poles. Very soon, the Poles stopped being bussed in, and rented flats and houses locally. Generally they were said to be hard-working, family orientated, church-going with many keen to attend English language classes.

At the time, I thought the sudden influx of so many Polish workers all together may well cause trouble. It did not. I still think it would have been better if there had been some control on numbers at the time, but it was absolutely not true that local businesses were employing immigrants because they were 'unscrupulous employers'. Come to think of it, it was a Labour Gov't in power at the time. Brass necks come to mind.

And that's what I thought of when I read today's Telegraph article. Must admit I might have been influenced by an interest in the Second World War, and the suffering of the Polish nation on behalf of the allies. There may even actually be something in the 'keynote' speech I will definiely not be listening to, but I suspect that a lot of it will be  b******.

Read More

Bamboo in variety

Grow lots of bamboo in the Garden. Not everyone's favourite plants but I like them a lot. Thought I'd put up four of my favourite sorts. We've probably got about 20 in all shapes and sizes. As always the spade in there to give an idea of size. This first is the bamboo I the plant like best. Big but non-invasive

This is a bamboo which I've divided over the years, and now we use it alongside what we grandly refer to as a 'Bamboo Walkway'. Another big bamboo, but easy to divide with a spade. We use it for beansticks.

This bamboo is a low spreader. Looks a mess after snow but miraculously straightens up again.

I added this one for two reasons. Firstly because its reputed to be the biggest bamboo growing in Britain. Its tall but don't think it can be called the biggest. Second reason is a warning about how easy it is for the amateur gardener to be conned. I paid £85 for this in a 5" pot about 5yrs ago. Perhaps in time!! 

Read More

Horse and Teak Balls as Art

After a month and more without access to my blog, have managed to get it fixed. And am just getting back into the swing of things with a blog about developments in the garden. New additions this year are a horse made from African oil drums, bought at Hampton Court Flower Show, and a few teak balls bought from Charlies at Coed-y-dinas. As is my practice I leave my spade in the photographs to give perspective.

Here's a close-up. And another glitch appears. How did I manage to  introduce underlining. I had to recruit my Parliamentary support to switch to Firefox (I think that's what he said). Had no idea what he was on about. I suppose I know a bit about gardening, and others know about computers. On Monday I'll  ask Huw or James in the office to fix that for me. Jeez - now I've lost that closae-up photograph altogether. Sometimes I really do hate technology

If you look carefully, you can see our new African Horse in the distance. Takes his place well I think.. 

And here are two pictures of  the teak balls. They are very hard and heavy. Look a bit  like dinosaur eggs.

Read More

Vatterfall Wind Power Ltd sidesteps local opinion

Received a nice innocent seeming letter from a Swedish energy giant today. As always with these giant energy subsidy junkies, these 'nice' letters are not what they seem. Vatterfall Wind Power Ltd has withdrawn Planning Application No M20070972 - a planning application for a under 50 mw wind farm in West Montgomeryshire. Such applications are dealt with by Powys County Council, the Local Planning Authority. For those of us who are opposed to desecration of the Mid Wales landscapes by multiple wind farms and National Grid pylons, this is bad news - because Vatterfall is submitting an over 50 mw wind farm application instead.

The new planning application will not go before the Local Planning Authority at all. Because its over 50 mw, it goes directly to the Secretary of State at the Dept of Energy and Climate Change. And the reason behind this is that Vatterfall think the Sec of State will ignore local opinion. This cynical move will be dressed up to demonstrate that its actually beneficial to the area!Its the way they tell 'em. Its a straight forward strategy to circumvent local opposition by going direct to DECC, which it knows cares not for local opinion or landscape or disturbance to populations in areas like Mid Wales, which are of no consequence. What really grates on me is that I will have to sit in Parliament listening to DECC Ministers talking about this lunacy as wonderful investment in rural Wales.

 Personally, I do not think we will recover any sort of control of our own destinies until DECC is would up. The takeover of our lives by the EU has nothing on the bullying domineering attitudes of DECC, with its advance attack units of foreign owned giant subsidy swallowing energy companies and the even less responsive National Grid.

Read More

Peruvian Lilies

The garden is looking a bit jaded in the current hot spell. No garden has much of a chance when its pushing 30 degrees every day. But we have lots of alsteomerias to brighten things up. They come in a range of colours and heights. We have about 20 different varieties. They flower for a long time. And if you just pull them up after the flowers die off, they will reward with a second flush in a few weeks time. My favourite is the little red peruvian lily in the first photograph.

Read More

Cheating in the Cattle Judging Ring

Following Stuart Broad's act of non-sportsmanship yesterday, the Telegraph today has a truly shocking story about dirty tricks at the Great Yorkshire Show. For 155 yrs, the finest cattle breeders from across Britain have entered their finest in the battle for rosettes. A 'first' or 'champion' rosette can put thousands on the value of a beast and more importantly 'bragging rights' in the livestock market bar. Its a matter of honour, and cheating is unthinkable. But it seems not at this yr's Great Yorkshire.
I used to be a judge of dairy cattle, and in my YFC days represented Wales at the Dairy Show in London. First time I visited the great city, and learned about things I didn't know existed. Key to the best dairy animal is the udder, its general shape, its firm atachment at the escutcheon preventing any tendancy to by pendulous, the neat positioning of the teats, and being nicely pushed forward along the underbelly. Rarely would one see a perfect udder, there always being some minor fault. But it seems these may have been corrected by using superglue. In order to give more firmness and shape to the udder, air may have been pumped in before the judging and the teat blocked with superglue. Now I've glued the odd petal into head of a Chrysanthemum or a Dahlia immediately before judging, but I do think to glue up a teat is going too far.
Its not that I'm claiming sharp practise is unheard of at agricultural shows. Dental work, bit of false colouring, and there was even glueing false hair to tidy up the top line not unheard of. Telegraph reports that a false tail has been glued on, though this is new one on me. But I really do draw the line at superglueing teats. I dread to thing what might be happening in the Bulls competition.

Read More

Presumed Consent - Sorry cannot edit for some reason

Something strange is happening in the Welsh Assembly.

Professor John Fabre

Professor Emeritus, Kings College London, and past President (1992 – 1995) of the British Transplantation Society.

In January 2008, the Guardian commentator Polly Toynbee referred to the argument for presumed consent for organ donation as a “fight with the forces of superstition and reaction” www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/15/politics.publicservices. In this spirit, the Welsh Assembly is proceeding apace with legislation to enable doctors to presume consent for donation unless the deceased person has registered their name on a national “opt-out” register or has unequivocally told their family that they do not wish to donate their organs. The mantra is that presuming consent in these circumstances will increase donation rates and save lives – a heroic banner by any reckoning, especially for politicians.

In 2007 the then Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson made presumed consent an important component of his plans for the NHS, and the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, considered it the foundation for his “transplant revolution”. However, against this strong tide, the Department of Health’s Organ Donation Taskforce, after the most comprehensive examination ever undertaken of presumed consent, reported in November 2008 against it. The Taskforce encompassed a large committee of experts, and the report ran to several hundred pages . Here is the their conclusion. “The Taskforce’s members came to this review of presumed consent with an open mind, with many sympathetic to the view that presumed consent seems an obvious step forward. However, the more the Taskforce examined the evidence, the less obvious the benefit, and the more multifaceted and multidimensional the issue of increasing organ numbers was revealed to be. It became clear that what appeared to be a simple idea to increase numbers may not in fact generate additional donors in sufficient numbers to justify the significant investment needed to put a new system into place. Moreover, there are risks in going down the opt out route which could impact negatively on organ donation. The Taskforce reached a clear consensus in their recommendation that an opt out system should not be introduced in the UK at the present time”.

Nothing has happened since November 2008 to justify a change in this recommendation. Quite the contrary. Donation rates in the UK have risen spectacularly from 2008, after being static or falling, since 1989/1990. The number of donors per annum over the years 2007 to 2012 have been 809, 899, 959 1010, 1088 and 1212. This represents a rise of 49.8% over the 5 years from the 2007 baseline. The donation rate is still rising – the early figures for 2013 show a rise of 9.5% over 2012. This remarkable transformation, which presumably would fit Gordon Brown’s definition of a transplant revolution, has of course been achieved without presumed consent. It is a direct consequence of the carefully considered recommendations made in January 2008 by the Department of Health’s Taskforce, mainly in the area transplant coordination (for example the identification and referral of potential donors within intensive care units). Another crucial area is of course consent, to which we shall return.

In their zeal to save lives and to blaze what they see as a bold new trail for Wales, and to set an example for the UK as a whole, Welsh Ministers and the large majority of Assembly Members are behaving in a rather depressing fashion. Uncomfortable truths are being ignored. False statements are being accepted without challenge. Silly propositions are being accepted as facts. Disingenuous statements are being made without obvious qualms. There appears to be a collective loss of common sense and suspension of critical judgement.

As often happens in these situations, we have rebranding. What is “presumed” consent in the rest of the world has become “deemed” consent in Wales. Whether one is deemed to have consented or presumed to have consented is a fine point – but in practice it is the same thing, and for the sake of clarity I shall stay with “presumed” consent.

Point 1. Spain and presumed consent .The fact that Spain does not operate a presumed consent system is being studiously ignored and sometimes misrepresented. This is important because Spain has consistently had the highest donation rate in the world, and the best consent rate. If the Assembly were to accept this simple truth it would have several crucial but uncomfortable implications - hence the averted gaze.

Spain passed presumed consent legislation in 1979. However, it was not until 1989, when crucial organisational changes were instituted, that Spain’s donation rate began to rise to the pre-eminent position it currently occupies. Many observers have, wrongly, attributed Spain’s success since 1989 to its presumed consent legislation. To correct this misconception, the Director of the Spanish Organ Donation Organisation, Dr Rafael Matesanz, was the senior author on a paper published in the British Medical Journal in October 2010 www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4973. Here is what the paper says. “Crucially, Spain does not have an opt-out register for those who do not wish to become organ donors. Not a penny is spent on recording objections to organ donation by Spanish citizens, nor on public awareness of the 1979 legislation. Clearly, the presumed consent law in Spain is dormant, and it pre-dates key policy changes made in 1989. In these circumstances, Spain’s outstanding deceased organ donor rate cannot reasonably be attributed to its presumed consent laws”. How can there be a legally binding form of presumed consent without giving citizens the opportunity to opt out, and without even making any effort to inform citizens of the existence of the law? When this was pointed out to Lesley Griffiths, the former Minister for Health in Wales, she replied that the Assembly’s Social Research officials had found “…….a wide consensus in research papers which consistently categorise Spain as a country with an opt-out system of legislation”. That is true, but hardly a substantive response, on two counts. Lesley Griffiths and her successor Mark Drakeford must surely be aware that having presumed consent legislation is one thing, and operating a presumed consent system is quite another. Moreover, although most research papers over the years have indeed classified Spain as a presumed consent country, others have not, and the latter might be the better informed. The Ministers have simply gone with the majority because it suits them. When the Director of the Spanish Organ Donation Organisation seeks to explain the basis for the misconception about Spain and presumed consent, and makes it clear that Spain does not operate a presumed consent system, nobody seems to listen.

The Ministers seem unaware that in Spain the explicit consent of the family is required. The consent (presumed or explicit) of the donor is insufficient. The family must sign a permissions form for organ donation to proceed. The central role of the family is demonstrated in Spain’s approach to donor cards. Here is what the National Organ Donation Organisation (Organizacion Nacional de Trasplantes) website says: “The donor card is a document that testifies to our desire to be an organ donor after death. However, the card has no legal value. We need to tell our families our desire to be donors, to authorise the removal of organs after death” www.ont.es/informacion/Paginas/TarjetadeDonante.aspx. In Spain, the explicit consent of the donor at the time of death by the carrying of a donor card is not sufficient to permit donation. The responsibility for permitting donation rests with the family. In these circumstances, it is difficult to imagine how anyone can sensibly persist in the contention that Spain operates a presumed consent system.

Once it is accepted that Spain does not operate a presumed consent system, several issues need to be addressed:

• Lesley Griffith’s claim that the introduction of presumed consent legislation in Wales is an essential component of any strategy to improve donation begins to wear thin.

• Clause 102 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill must be recognised as containing a misleading factual error. Under the heading of “Evidence base to establish impact of Proposed Legislation” it states “For example, an opt-out system is operated in Spain and it has the highest donation rate in the world…”. Such a false statement at the core of the official papers underpinning the proposed legislation makes a mockery of the democratic process, and could mislead Assembly Members to vote in favour of this controversial Bill.

• Several of the papers quoted as supporting the introduction of presumed consent (especially that by A. Abadie and S. Gay) incorrectly classify Spain as a presumed consent country.

Point 2. “Soft” or “hard” presumed consent - the proposed role of the family in Wales. The system proposed in Wales has consistently been described as “soft” presumed consent, to distinguish it from hard presumed consent where donation may proceed without consultation with the family. The importance of the family has been constantly stressed. For example, in an interview with The Observer in May 2010, the First Minister for Wales, Carwyn Jones, said “We have decided on soft presumed consent, where relatives can veto organ donation, because we want to make it as easy as possible” www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/may/09/opt-out-organ-donation-wales. Clause 16 of the Stage 1 report of the Health and Social Care Committee (HSCC) states that “A soft opt-out system is one ……where the next of kin will be involved in the decision-making process”. In a letter dated February 2013 to a concerned Welsh citizen, a government official wrote “Organ donation will remain a clinical decision in which families are always involved” and “families will be fully involved in the decision-making process”.

However, the truth is that the family will not be involved in any substantive fashion. Doctors will check the opt-out register, and if the deceased person is not on it (and therefore consent can be presumed) the family will be consulted purely to confirm that the deceased person did not oppose donation. Clause 44A of the Explanatory Memorandum states that “the next of kin will be able to say whether they have any information that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the deceased person would not have consented”. If they have not, it is proposed to proceed with the donation. Clause 245 of the HSCC report states that “The family are merely being asked if they have any information that the deceased would have objected”. Clause 253 of the HSCC report states that family members “are not being asked to make a decision on donation, but rather to provide information. This is because the deceased has already made a decision to have their consent deemed”.

It is clear that the family will not be asked for their views regarding donation. The repeated reassurances that the family will be involved in the decision-making process are plainly disingenuous. Wales is in fact proceeding with what most people would regard as hard presumed consent.

It is worth looking at the legal position. If someone makes it clear in their lifetime that they do not wish to donate their organs, for example by going on to the proposed opt-out register or indeed any opt-out register even if not backed by legislation, that is their legally recognised view. Nobody can overturn it, and doctors cannot remove their organs under any circumstances. Equally, if someone makes it clear that they do want to donate their organs, that too is their legally recognised view, and nobody can overturn it. However, doctors are under no legal obligation to comply with the deceased person’s wishes. Doctors can therefore use their discretion as to whether or not to proceed with donation, for example in the face of family opposition or distress or any other factor which might adversely affect transplantation. A family opposed to donation for whatever reason, and with sufficient social confidence to express their opposition to the process engulfing them, can in practice halt donation if they show severe distress or express strong views opposing donation.

Point 3. The wishes of the donor. The wishes of the deceased person are said to be of fundamental importance in all the discussions and documents emanating from the Assembly. However, there is quite obviously no way of ascertaining the wishes of a dead person who has not put their name on an opt out register, who has not subscribed to the existing Donor Register, and who has not discussed donation with their family. The reality is that the absence of an objection cannot be taken as a reliable basis for consent. It defies common sense to say so, however legally expedient it might be, and it is humbug to adopt the posture that the presumption of consent defends the wishes of the donor.

Point 4. The current system in the UK involves expressed consent from donors or their families - it is NOT an opt in system. It is frequently stated that the UK has an opt in system for organ donation (simply because it does not have an opt out system!). This is not the case, and it is a very important point to note. This misconception implies that the 69% of the UK population who have not joined the Donor Register cannot become donors, and is sometimes seen as an argument for presumed consent legislation. For example the BBC Wales political reporter Carl Roberts states today that the proposed presumed consent legislation “….would mean a change from the current opt-in system, where would-be donors have to sign a register” . Another example is a statement from the First Minister for Wales. In the interview mentioned in point 2 above he stated “At the moment, if people are not carrying donor cards then it is presumed that they didn’t want to be a donor”. This is completely wrong. If people are not on the Donor Register and do not carry a donor card, no presumption is made about their wishes. In the current system, where the wishes of the deceased person are not known, the decision rests with the family. It is of course very valuable to join the Donor Register. However, the reality is that more than 60% of organ donors in the UK have not joined the Donor Register.

Point 5. There is a “majority” in Wales in favour of the proposed legislation. Various surveys have shown that between 49% and ~65% of Welsh citizens are in favour of the proposed legislation. This usually just fits the mathematical definition of “majority”. However, for a controversial Bill affecting all citizens, this is what the French once referred to as “un petit oui” – a little yes. More importantly, those voting in favour assume that they are voting for a soft opt out system where the family is involved in a substantive fashion in the decision to donate. They also assume that there is no alternative to legislation. Respondents are unlikely to know that the country with the best donation rate in the world and the best consent rate does not operate a presumed consent system.

Point 6. The aspect of donation directly addressed by presumed consent legislation is consent. It has been repeatedly stated that the presumed consent legislation will be one of a package of measures to increase donation. However, there can be only one direct beneficial effect of presumed consent legislation - an improvement in the consent rate. All of the associated measures (e.g. publicity) can be instituted without the legislation. Moreover, some measures will have no effect on consent but improve donation by other means, for example by increasing admission of potential donors into Intensive Care Units. It would help to focus the debate to acknowledge that the legislation itself can improve donation only by improving consent rates.

The consent rate in the UK, i.e. the percentage of approached families who approved donation, was 56.7% in 2010 and 55.4% in 2011. The corresponding figures for Wales were 63.5% and 58.7% respectively. By contrast, the consent rates in Spain in 2010, 2011 and 2012 were 81%, 84% and 84%, without presumed consent. This is a huge difference, and represents a massive and dreadful waste of organs. If the consent rate in the UK could be increased to 80%, this would represent an increase in the donation rate of more than 40%. In Wales, it would represent an increase of ~30%, higher than that envisaged for the proposed legislation. This high level of consent has been consistently achieved in Spain by promoting better public understanding of transplantation, better public appreciation of its outstanding benefits, and optimal approaches to the family at the time of donation – not by legislation. This is surely achievable in Wales, and is an area where Wales could indeed lead the way for the rest of the UK.

Point 7. The recent fall in donation rates in Wales. The number of donors per annum in Wales over the six years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 has been 45, 35, 41, 66, 67 and 52 respectively. These numbers are small, and it is essentially impossible to ascribe the large fluctuations in particular years to particular causes (e.g. the rise of 61% in 2010 and the fall of 22% in 2012). It is therefore unwise of those opposing presumed consent to attribute the fall in 2012 to possible negative effects of the proposed legislation. It is equally unwise of those promoting presumed consent to see the fall as a threat and to respond with unfounded blandishments. Here is what Mark Drakeford said in the debate in the Assembly on the 16th April. “What happened in the last year is simple when you understand it. It is not so much that the rates of organ donation went down, it is that the number of people who were able to be donors went down in the first half of that year. That is a good news story, because we do not want people to be in the awful circumstances where they can be donors”. The number of potential donors is influenced by many factors, for example the occupancy of ICU beds and hence the probability of admission of patients who might become donors, as well as other factors when the patient is in the ICU. To describe the fall in donor numbers as good for Welsh citizens, if not for transplantation, is nonsense.



Point 8. The “robust” international research. The research under-pinning the proposed legislation is almost invariably described as robust, presumably in order to give it greater authority. However, it is not so. The Department of Health’s Taskforce had concerns about the selective inclusion of countries for analysis in these research studies. This, and the incorrect assignation of Spain as a presumed consent country,are some of the problems.

But why cling to old studies with uncertain conclusions? The simplest and most convincing “international” research one can do is to look around the world today. If one does that, it is clear that two of the top five countries for organ donation (Spain and the United States of America) do not operate presumed consent systems.

Point 9. The “robust” assessment of the effects of the proposed legislation. Given the substantial effort that has already put into the proposed legislation by various Committees and Assembly Members, and the very substantial future costs, it is frequently stated to be of the utmost importance that the effects of the legislation be not just assessed, but “robustly” assessed. Given the major fluctuations in donation rates in Wales in recent years (noted in point 7 above), the fact that the legislation in Wales will be introduced along with several other measures such as a publicity campaign, and the fact that the Department of Health is planning to introduce additional improvements nationally in the coming years, it is plainly obvious to all except the most credulous that to disentangle the effects of the legislation in any meaningful way is impossible.

Point 10. The future. If additional donors are to come from the proposed legislation, it will be from families who are not happy about organ donation by their loved ones, but who lack the confidence to say so if it is left for them to oppose the system unasked. This is not a healthy foundation on which to build transplantation in Wales.

In the debate in the Assembly on the 16th April, Byron Davies, the Shadow Minister for Transport, gave his view that “…..when someone dies without giving or withholding consent, the family, as the surviving representatives of the deceased, has the final say”. That must surely be the principle on which to move forward in Wales. It is the principle on which the outstandingly successful Spanish system is based.

The tragic irony of all this activity and lobbying for legislation is that the objective of substantially improving donation rates is achievable more cheaply, more effectively and in a socially inclusive manner without legislation. Wales should aim for a consent rate of 80%, which the Spanish have achieved consistently for many years, without presumed consent. The idea that you can legislate for consent is naïve. Addressing the issue of consent in a considered and comprehensive manner is the next logical step to build on the success of 2008 – 2013, both in Wales and nationally.

Read More

The Planning Inspector and the Man from DECC

This is for the few with specialised interest. I like to keep visitors to this blog up to date with what's happening on the local 'Mid Wales Connection Project' front. Early this year I raised some issues about the local public inquiry into the six wind farms currently being considered by an 'Independent' planning inspector. There had been some concern that a representative of the Department of Energy and Climate Change had been sharing 'top table' with the Inspector when he first outlined his plans for running the Public Inquiry. Looked very odd in that its a DECC Minister who will receive the Inspector's recommendations and decide. I did say in a Westminster debate that I would write to the Minister about this concern - but he wrote to me first. It did not address the points I was concerned about. So on 16th April, I wrote formally to the Minister of State for Climate Change. Here is my letter.
16 April 2013
Rt Hon Gregory Barker MP
Minister of State for Climate Change
DECC

Dear Minister,
Thank you for your letter of 20th March. It does raise one point on which further clarification would be helpful.

In your letter you refer to the “line” which the Inspector took during the PIM for the Mid Wales turbine applications and you reproduce some of the response from him to one or more requests from your officials. There is widespread anxiety among my constituents who express concern that:

(i) a representative of your department was engaged in discussions with and was present at the table with the Inspector at the first preliminary meeting and

(ii) that DECC and the Inspector appear to be engaged in yet further discussions and exchanges ‘behind the scenes’ without the public being made aware of the existence, nature or content of those exchanges.

In order completely to allay concerns over these aspects, it would be helpful if you would make available to me copies of all correspondence, exchanges and notes of discussions to from and between (or on behalf of) DECC and the Inspector and PINS from the first date leading to his appointment to the present (naturally redacting personal details).

Because of the great local concern over this matter I await hearing from you at the earliest opportunity.

Yours sincerely,
Glyn Davies

I did not receive a reply, so I raised the matter in the chamber, when speaking on the Energy Bill, which led to a response that my letter could not be traced. So I sent it again, and received the following reply.

Department of Energy & Climate Change
3 Whitehall Place,
London SW1A 2AW                                                                     Your ref:
T: +44(0)300 068 5677                                                                  Our ref: FOI/EIR Request 13/0725
E: gareth.leigh@decc.gsi.gov.uk
www.decc.gov.uk                                                                           1 July 2013

Glyn Davies MP
House of Commons

London
SW1A 0AA

Dear Mr Davies

Thank you for your letter of 16 April 2013 where you requested the following information:
“Copies of all correspondence, exchanges and notes of discussions to from and between (or on behalf of) DECC and the Inspector and PINS from the first date leading to his appointment to present (naturally redacting personal details)”.
As Anjoum Noorani, Greg Barker’s, Senior Private Secretary’s e-mail message to Mr Carlick, your Office Manager/Secretary, of 5 June 2013 explained, it appears that, for some reason, your letter was never received by our correspondence system.
Your request is now being considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIRs’) on the basis that the information you have sought disclosure of, does in our view, fall within the definition of ‘environmental information’ as stated in the EIRs.
We are writing to advise you that the time limit for responding to your request for information needs to be extended. This is because it includes some information provided by third parties that is not already in the public domain and it is necessary therefore to first seek their views before we can release that information.
Under the EIRs, we are required to respond to requests as soon as possible and in any case no later than 20 working days after receiving a request. However, by regulation 7 the period of 20 working days may be extended up to a total of 40 working days if we reasonably believe that the complexity and volume of the information requested means that it is impractical to comply with a request within the earlier period or to make a decision to refuse to do so.
In respect of your request, we believe that regulation 7 applies. Therefore, although we shall not be able to respond fully to your request within the 20 working day period, we shall do so as soon as possible within the extended period. We hope to provide you with a response by 17 July 2013.

Appeals Procedure
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within 40 working days of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be sent to the Information Rights Unit at:

Information Rights Unit (DECC Shared Services) Department for Business, Innovation & Skills
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET
E-mail: foi.requests@decc.gsi.gov.uk

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

Gareth Leigh
Section Head, National Infrastructure Consents

Now make of this what you will. But my guess is that I'm not going to get an answer that tells us anything meaningful. I'm afraid that's how it is. But I know there are a few of you who are interested in this stuff, so I thought I'd share it.

Read More

The Winning Artwork of Harriot Bates

Last week, I was invited to the unveiling of a statue welcoming the world to Welshpool. It was designed by local artist, talented Harriot Bates. The construction work was done by local man and Town Cllr, Steve Kaye. Very enjoyable event. Parents, Michael and Elaine were clearly very proud of their girl. And I enjoyed a chat with her two grannies, who were well chuffed. On disadvantage of being an MP (in Gov't) is that I can so infrequently join in local stuff like this, being 'whipped' to be in Westminster. But it worked out this time. Anyway the artwork is located outside the Tourism Information Office in the town. Y Trallwng (Welsh for Welshpool) is on the other side. Conveniently there are 9 letters in both Welshpool and Y Trallwng.

Read More

S4C's Budget.

I'm not in any sort of position to write definitively about what might happen to S4C's budget next Wednesday - when the Chancellor stands up in the House of Commons to inform us of his Spending Review decisions. But I do note that there's been a fair bit of media comment yesterday and today. It may even be that I have 'inadvertantly' caused a bit of it.

Last Thursday morn I asked Andrew Lansley, the Leader of the House during his weekly Business Statement session if he would arrange a debate on the value to the cultural life of Wales of S4C. I also pointed out to the Chamber how important S4C is to the development and promotion of the Welsh Language. Inevitably, the the truffle hounds at the BBC spotted this morsel, and wondered why I would be asking such a question at this time. They guessed it might be connected with a concern for next week's CSR announcement. Anyway, on Friday I had a call Radio Cymru asking if I'd do an interview for Post Prynhawn. I agreed, without realising that S4C and DCMS had already been contacted.

What I said, basically was this. Because of the scale and nature of cuts agreed to the S4C budget in 2010, there is now a strong case for not cutting any further at present. S4C is hugely important to the cultural and business life of Wales, as well as to the Welsh Language. I understand that the UK Govt is facing huge financial problems, and has to make significant reductions in spending - but any reduction in S4C's budget should be minimised (if there is to be any cut at all). This only repeated what I had said to Secretary of State, Maria Miller previously. All we can do now is wait until Wednesday. But we can look back at the history of all this.

When S4C was established in 1980, its annual budget was linked to an inflation formula. By 2010, the budget had risen to about £100million per annum - plus about £20million's worth of programming from the BBC. When every other budget was being cut, this could not continue. The inflation link was ended by the Public Bodies Act. I served on the Public Bodies Bill in Committee and received about 1200 emails protesting. Even more dramatically, most of the responsibility for the reduced budget was transferred to the BBC. Today, the BBC grant is around £70million, derived from its Licence Fee money. DCMS grants only about £6.7million. This meant a substantial cut in S4C funding overall, and an over 90% cut in the DCMS annual payment. That's where we are now.

Seems that there are rumours in the Welsh media world suggesting that the Sec of State might just abolish the DCMS payment altogether. No idea whether this is the case or not. I very much hope its not. I would be hugely disappointed to me if it were to be so. I would not be able to say anything else. Lets hope its just empty rumour. If it were to be true, I wonder whether the Welsh Gov't would be tempted to step in to help. Not sure whether it can, since broadcasting isn't devolved. But the Welsh Gov't can certainly invest money in the creative industries. It would seem odd if funding for S4C was emanating from the Welsh Gov't (with none from the UK Gov't) while broadcasting remained undevolved. Be an interesting position. But this is silly - all pointless conjecture. But I suppose, rather like a question to the Leader of the House, there's usually some underlying reason for 'pointless conjecture'.

Read More

Azaleas. Garden on fire

Late May and through June, our garden is on fire with Azaleas. They really can be breath taking. Better this year than ever. We have about 80 of them. Here's a sample that I want to share.

Strictly speaking this is a Rhododendron yakushimanum (below).  Included it because I think it an absolute beauty, which will never grow more than 4' tall. And its white. We have lots of white Azaleas too, but they are mostly only 3 or 4 yrs old, and not so impressive.

Read More

My Speech to Welsh Grand Committee

Need to get one thing clear. I'm not publishing my speech because of a developing sense of self-importance. Its just that I treat the Welsh Grand Committee as a Welsh Parliamentary 'Think Tank' where we can explore and develop opinion. It follows that I don't feel constrained by any 'party line'. And I would expect disagreement with some of it, particularly the references to devolution of powers over a significant proportion of income tax. The Labour Party are very opposed to this. They rather enjoy their ability to blame every failing of the Welsh Government on the UK Tory/Lib Dem Coalition Gov't. Real financial accountability they do not want. Anyway, here it is (with grammatical error corrected). Feel free to comment.


Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): Thank you, Mr Owen, for calling me to speak in this debate on the Queen’s Speech, the coalition Government’s third legislative programme, and specifically its Welsh aspects.


I apologise to you and fellow Members that as soon as I have spoken I would like to leave, to go to the Chamber, where there is a debate in which I have a strong constituency interest. I will try to be back for the closing speeches.

It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Torfaen. His speeches always contain sections that I find impossible to disagree with—even if they also contain parts that I can disagree with. He also always presents his arguments in a considered tone.

This Queen’s Speech debate has given contributors an opportunity to discuss a very wide range of issues. But I want to speak about the draft Wales Bill and what it might contain as well as what it might not. However I feel that I must comment on two issues which featured strongly early in the debate. One is the overarching aim of the Queen’s Speech. It is to restore order to the United Kingdom’s public finances by reducing our debt, bringing down the annual deficit and generally creating more economic activity and employment.

One reason I want to emphasise this is so that I can pay tribute to the work of the Liberal Democrats. I am inspired to do that by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, who referred in generous terms to the Pensions Minister, an excellent member of the Government, and by the negative comment about the Liberal Democrats delivered by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, which was amusing but unfair. The truth is that two of Britain’s great political parties have come together to form a Coalition, making compromises for the greater good. Sometimes those compromises are difficult for their memberships. However, the two parties have come together because they recognise that this country faces huge problems which must be addressed. The Conservative party is the larger, more numerous party, but it is right that we acknowledge the huge contribution that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Liberal Democrat Members have made to the coalition.

Paul Murphy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Glyn Davies: Indeed I will. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for stopping me at that stage.

Paul Murphy: And I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks earlier. Would he not, however, consider the point that whatever the academic distinction of the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), no one in their right mind would ever have invented the bedroom tax?

Glyn Davies: I am reluctant to be drawn into other issues and away from the points I want to discuss. I will say, however, that I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy made Some good points about this issue and I would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to go and listen to the Pensions Minister the next time he makes a considered speech in the House. He should then read the speech the next day in Hansard. Like me, he will be convinced that the changes in housing benefit subsidy are the right policy.

Paul Murphy: I would not normally do this, but I actually sat in a Westminster Hall debate with the Pensions Minister some months ago. I thought he was entirely unconvincing, as, I am sure, do the 40,000 people in Wales who will be affected by the bedroom tax.

Glyn Davies: I am not quite sure at what stage the scales fall from politicians’ eyes, but I have sat through three speeches by the Pensions Minister on this issue, and think he makes an incredibly strong and unanswerable case.

I want to come to a second general point, which was very much part of our early exchanges this morning. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is a complex issue and will feature prominently in British politics over the next four years. It is an important issue in Wales. Opposition Members have suggested that the attitude of the people of Wales might be different from that of people in the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether that is the case or not. But i do know from contacts with the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales that there is a lot of concern in the farming community about what changes in the relationship might mean.

However, we know two things. We know that there is huge dissatisfaction about the current distribution of powers between the EU and Britain. It is right that we explore whether we can tackle this public discontent—that is what constituents tell me they want. We must see whether we can renegotiate so that it is more acceptable to the British people. I also feel that the British people think that 1975 is such a long time ago, and they would like the opportunity of a vote on whether to be in the EU or out of it. The Government have tackled these two issues. The Prime Minister has said that he wishes to have a renegotiation with the European Union, to see whether we can make the relay ship more acceptable to the British people, and to then hold a referendum. That is the right thing to do, and I am still hopeful that members of the Opposition parties will come around to accepting it as the right way and that they will eventually support us.

Jonathan Edwards: If there is a strategy for renegotiating the European settlement based on repatriating powers, what are the objectives going into that renegotiating process? We have heard about the working time directive. Does the renegotiation include convergence funding and agricultural support?

Glyn Davies: That has been asked several times of me and others. I resist answering it specifically because there will be a range of issues. Even today the Secretary of State answered a similar question by referring to one issue. The immediate assumption is that there is only one issue. There will be a wide range of issues on the table, and if we are going into a negotiation it seems rather unwise that we should show our cards in public by deciding now exactly what those issues should be. There will be a negotiation. The Prime Minister is in a very good position to represent Britain in that negotiation, and we have two years before a general election in which all the points that hon. Members want to make can be made.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman would concede, however, that if someone is going into a meeting to renegotiate, the participants in the meeting and the supporters would at least know what the agenda is—what is in there.

Glyn Davies: The negotiations will start in 2015, and there is a general election before that. I should have thought that it will be very clear during that election campaign exactly what the intentions of the various parties will be, and it may well be that the hon. Gentleman’s party will make its views clear, unless he is entirely satisfied—

The Chair: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but he is discussing issues that were not in the Queen’s Speech. I know that some of his party’s Back Benchers were upset that that issue was not in the Queen’s Speech, but we will be discussing what is in the Queen’s Speech and how it relates to Wales.

Glyn Davies: I am most grateful to you, Mr Owen, for allowing me to move on to the draft Wales Bill, which I have been trying to do for a while; Opposition Members have made that a little difficult by their interventions

I have to make an admission—to me, the Welsh Grand Committee is a real joy. I look on these occasions as is a bit like a parliamentary political think-tank. One can come here and discuss issues in a convivial way with Opposition Members, ranging over issues about what might or might not be in a draft Wales Bill.

I have some concerns about what seems to be currently proposed. The first issue I want to address is that of dual candidacy. I shall have to declare an interest in that I was a beneficiary of the system, in the sense that I contested two elections in 1999 and 2003 , where I lost as the candidate in Montgomeryshire but was elected as a regional AM for Mid and West Wales. In all probability, had there been a ban on dual candidacy, I would have contested the seat, accepting that I would have been unlikely to have been elected to the National Assembly.

I cannot see the logic of having an additional member system—albeit we do not much like the system—that insists that 20 of the 60 Members of the National Assembly for Wales would not have stood on the doorstep to talk to voters, asking for there vote because they were actually barred by law from doing that. In general, I am not in favour of creating laws just for their own sake; a law must have a worthwhile purpose. What the Coalition Government is proposing is eliminating a law, taking an unnecessary law away.

If the Labour party, or any other party, does not want to have a candidate on a regional and also fighting a constituency seat it can ensure that it does not happen with its own candidates. It is perfectly open to the party to do that. I would expect the Opposition parties to do just that, bearing in mind the comments that they are making today if the law is changed. However, we do not need this law. Let it be a matter for the political parties and the voters to make a judgment on the candidates that political parties choose to put forward for election.

I feel somewhat the same about the issue of double-jobbing. I do not think that anybody, neither constituents nor political parties, like the principle of double jobbing—of serving as an MP and an AM—but we have to question whether we need a law To ban it. Voters and political parties themselves have the power to prevent it. Voters will not support people in these circumstances. And if we are going to pass such a law, we must think carefully about where it leads. This is where I agree with some of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Torfaen. Why would we not extend the principle to the House of Lords? And what about the local councils? Being a councillor is now often a full-time job. Once we go down the banning road, logic takes us a long way.

And even though we can introduce discretions within the ban, they will inevitably make it more difficult to move from being a Member of this House to being a Member of the Assembly, and vice versa. We currently have a good process, beneficial to both sides, where members can move from one to the other, increasing understanding. It is something that we should encourage.

The third issue is the fixed term. I must admit that I am not convinced that a five-year fixed term for Assembly Members is something that I am in support of at this stage. There are two reasons for that. A lot of people might look at the current Government and think that perhaps five years is too long.

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Way too long.

Glyn Davies: I thought you might think that. In general, in Parliaments across the world, four years seems to be accepted as about right, and that was the period chosen for the National Assembly for Wales. What we would be doing is changing the position in the Assembly because of what we have done in this House.The National Assembly for Wales is an important body In its own right. If four years was considered right for the Assembly when it was set up and is right now, I do not see any reason why we should change it because of the arrangements we have put in place here.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the Committee of how he voted on the legislation which went through this place, advocating five-year fixed term Parliaments for the House of Commons?

Glyn Davies: I pointed out earlier that I consider the Welsh Grand Committee to be such a joy. It is because I feel I can speak rather more freely. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Torfaen said that sometimes the restrictions on Members speaking in the main Chamber are a little more onerous than perhaps they are in the Welsh Grand

One argument that I have heard is that there may be a possibility of a clash if elections are held on the same day. I cannot see why that should be of concern. If it is a real concern, the Assembly has the facility to move the election by a limited period, so that it is not on the same day, but I cannot see why it should not be on the same day. To suggest that the voters cannot discriminate between two elections on the same day is an insult to them. We have certainly had a referendum on the same day as an election in the past. We should trust the voters to make the judgment. We should not use the possibility of a clash as a reason to create a five-year term for the National Assembly.

Finally, let me touch on the Silk commission. Like other Members, I thought that there would be a reference to part I in the draft Wales Bill. I support the creation of the National Assembly for Wales as a fiscally accountable body to the people of Wales, and income tax has to be a part of that accountability - which is what Silk recommended. If it is not, we are tinkering at the edges in terms of both fiscal accountability and borrowing powers for the Welsh Government. If taxation powers for the Welsh Assembly are included in the draft Wales Bill, I will argue that power to levy income tax, or a substantial part of them, should be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. And my view is that we should do that not by referendum, but by treating the next general election as a referendum. I accept that not many people hold this view, but it is mine. Only exceptionally should decisions be taken by referendum. Political parties should tell voters what they stand for, what they will enact, and then act on it if elected.

Read More

Tax Avoidance at the G8

Have not had time to blog for ages. So much to do and see on summer evenings. For last three weeks, whenever I'm home with time to spare, I am gripped by the Azaleas. They are just incredible. More photos tomorrow. But I want to blog tonight - not to share some great insight, but to order my thoughts on the tax arrangements of global businesses - usually focusing on Google, Starbucks and Amazon. There are lots of oothers. Being invited to discuss this issue with Vaughan Roderick on Radio Wales' Sunday Supplement this morning started me off thinking about it. Some of my Parliamentary colleagues have been doing little else for weeks. The following is factual, as I understand it, without much opinion. Corrections and contrary opinions are welcome.

The current position is that very many UK citizens are resentful that global companies are able to arrange their taxation affairs to avoid paying Corporation Tax in the UK. Not suggesting this is illegal, but it cannot be moral that Google pays just £10million tax on £11.5billion revenues. I know we do not pay Corporation Tax on revenues, but this is ridiculous. Lots of billions of potential tax is being lost to the Treasury- which must irritate the Chancellor no end. The only effective way of injecting fairness into the system is through greater transparency and international agreements. The Prime Minister, who is chairing the G8, meeting in N Ireland this week, wants some action. But the UK is seen as the main 'offender' when it comes to transparency. So David Cameron has met with British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies to raise his status and credibility on the issue as going into the talks.

Yesterday's meeting at No 10 included Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Aguilar, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos, Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man. They all agreed a "clampdown on tax avoidance" - though I'm not certain precisely what this entails. A 'Multinational Convention on Mutual Assistance in Tax Matters' has been agreed - led by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Also agreed is a plan to publish what each will do to register beneficial ownership, detailing who exactly owns these so-called 'shell companies'. Initially this register will be made known only to HMRG, but there will be consultation about whether it should be made public. Personally, I reckon the jury is out about whether any of this will make any real difference. If Merkyl and Obama were willing to sign up, maybe the G8 would be able to move things along.

When I think of this issue, the company that comes to mind is Starbucks. I like their cappuccino and flapjack and will enjoy same tomorrow when I stop at a service station en route to London. Starbucks pays no Corporation Tax, which rankles. Reckons none is due. No profits. B*****cks. Mrs D used to be involved in running restaurants, which focused on morning coffees. She had to pat tax. Where's the fairness in that. But I can see its not so simple to sort out, unless there is international agreement. So lets hope the G8 deliver on this.

Read More

How the 'lobbyists' 38 Degrees operates.

Yesterday, a recipient of prepared emails that 38 Degrees send out to constituents all over Britain including a pre-prepared email for onward transmission to MPs forwarded me a copy. In the interests of transparancy, I decided to copy it onto my blog site. I have received about 30 emails written in the terms which 38 Degrees suggested. Make of it what you will.
Dear XXXXXX,

It’s bad news. Yesterday MPs voted against including a clean energy target in the Energy Bill. [1]

The vote was painfully close - if just 12 MPs had voted differently, we would have won. [2] It was edge-of-the-seat stuff. Yesterday, it felt too close to call. But ultimately, we just didn’t have enough votes.

It’s sad when we lose. Especially when it’s on something as important as protecting our planet. But we fought valiantly and gave it our all, and today we can be proud as well as disappointed.

A year ago, the prospect of so many MPs voting for a clean energy target was inconceivable. Our work, alongside our friends at Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, changed that.

Together we sent tens of thousands of emails and tweets, and made hundreds of phone calls to our MPs. We also ramped up the pressure on wavering MPs with adverts in local newspapers, thousands of leaflets through doors and many face-to-face meetings. It’s thanks to all we did together that so many MPs switched their votes, and turned out yesterday in support.

This is not where we wanted to be today. But there’s still hope that we’ll secure the target we need. The Energy Bill will now go to the House of Lords to be debated again. They have the power to include a clean energy target. They are much more likely to do so because it was such a close vote in the House of Commons.

Sadly, your MP, Glyn Davies, didn’t vote the right way. Whether it was because he voted with his political party, or he wanted to back dirty fossil fuels or for some other reason, he backed George Osborne at the expense of the environment and against the wishes of his voters.

It’s important that we let those who voted against the clean energy target know that we’re disappointed in them. It will show that we’re watching them, so in the future they’ll know there are consequences for their actions. And next time there’s a big climate vote, they’ll be under no doubt from the outset where their voters stand.

Could you email Glyn Davies now? Click here to him know that you’re disappointed in how he voted.

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/mp-voted-against

So, overall, a disappointing result. Sometimes it can be tempting at moments like this to feel like giving up. But we know we did our best. And we know that if we keep working together, there will be chances in the future to turn it around. So let’s take a moment to give ourselves a pat on the back. We'll keep going, because we know it's the right thing to do. And because we know that together we can make a difference.

Thanks for everything you do,

Susannah, Becky, James and the 38 Degrees team

PS. Campaigns like this one don’t cost the earth, but they cost something. 38 Degrees relies entirely on donations from members like you, giving one-off donations or small regular sums of £2 or £3 per week.

Would you consider making a donation? Just 2 or 3 pounds a week makes a massive difference. It only takes a few minutes to set up, and it means that we can pull together massive campaigns like this over the days, weeks, months and years to come. Please click here to get started:

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/start-a-direct-debit/?ref=ebillmpagainst

Read More

Introduction to my Garden

Over the years regular visitors to my blog will have noted frequent references to our garden at Cil Farm. When we moved in there just field - which became an obsession. We created all that's there. Anyway I decided that the Azaleas this year were such that I should share the beauty with you. But first here's five overall view shots which can be treated as an introduction to the garden. I'll try to find time to put up a 'garden blog post' once a week. Next week will be some of the Azaleas. I hope you enjoy. This first photograph is taken from near the house.

Next photograph is taken from the bottom of the main lawn, and shows off the pond that we dug out and the boathouse that we built, and where on a warm summer's evening we sit with wine and nuts and watch the widlife. Unfortunately that does not happen as often as we would like these days. If the Lib Dems were to have their way, I would have more time after May 2015!!

Next photograph is of the 'marquee lawn' which we made for Tim and Adrienne's wedding. The semi-circular rockery bed is filled with fuschias. I'll re-post this in Sptember when it can be compared with the plants when they have grown and are in flower.

Next photograph is a peaceful spot, quite near the house, which is an alternative when we can't be bothered to walk down to the boathouse.

Final photograph today is of the welcome that awaits when you visit us - alongside the drive.

 

Read More

Lord Carlile denounces Nick Clegg over new Data Bill

Lord (Alex) Carlile is a powerful debater - forensic and ferocious. Luckily I'm usually on the same side as him, despite us being members of different political parties. But we have both represented Montgomeryshire in the House of Commons and are both board members of 'Living and Dying Well', a reseach body which opposes legalisation of assisted suicide, so perhaps its no great surprise. Today, in the Mail on Sunday he has turned his fire on my Coalition colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg.

The instigation  for Lord Carlile's ire is the obstuctions being put in the way of a new Data Communications Act by the Liberal Democrat leader. Alex Carlile was for ten years independent reviewer of terrorism legislation for the Gov't. He knows a bit about the threats. Since the shocking murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, several other noted politicians have said much the same. The UK needs a new Data Communications Act. This morning, former Home Secretary, Alan Johnson told us he considered it so important that Theresa May should resign if she cannot persuade the Gov't to introduce it before the next General Election.

Lord Carlile is clearly incensed that the draft legislatiuon has become dismissed as a 'Snooper's Charter'  ("casually and incautiously labelled"). I've received hundreds of emails condemning this 'Snoopers Charter'. I could never really understand why. Alex is also clearly incensed that his own party leader, Nick Clegg vetoed a bill out of this month's Queen's Speech. He judges it to be a 'political' decision, and not one based on eveidence, or the advice of people whose advice should be taken. A few days ago (before Drummer Rigby's murder) Lord Carlile wrote to Nick Clegg warning him that his veto will come back to haunt him. Strong stuff.

At present, we do not know the full story behind the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby - or whether greater access to data communications would have been a help in preventing it happening. We do not know whether it was a 'Lone Wolf' terrorist, or part of wider group, who may have been communicating - there have been several arrests. But what we do know is that knowledge of who has been talking to whom and when and for how long they have been communicating has saved many lives, and caught many criminals in the past. Lord Carlile vehemently insists that unless our security forces have access to this information using modern means of communication, people will die, paedophiles will escape capture, planners of terrorism will be more likely to succeed.

Initially, I was sceptical about the need for a new Data Communications Act myself. My libertarian antennae were twitching. I do not approve of giving power to Gov't unless absolutely necessary. Some months back, I did discuss it over coffee with Lord Carlile as part of my consideration. I did blog on this issue soon after our meeting. In the end, and on balance, I accepted a new act was needed. Not because its played a part in the murder of Drummer Rigby (it may not have done) but because its right, sensible and proportionate. The first duty of Gov't is to protect its citizens. A new Date Communications Act is needed to do just that.

Read More

The Lions team for 1st Test in Brisbane

Only a week until the British and Irish Lions kick off this summer's tour down under. Now that we know pretty much who's going we can consider the team we expect to be in line to play the first test on June 22nd. Only change we expect to be made to the Lions party is that Rory Best will now come in for a banned Dylan Hartley (unless he can persuade the disciplinary panel that he was abusing his own team-mate rather than the ref today).  Here's the team I expect to see stepping out at Brisbane.

Full Back - Leigh Halfpenny. .....Kearney is good, and could be Halfpenny will be picked on the wing but not for me. Halfpenny is a dead cert.

Wings - George North and Alex Cuthbert......Though I do think a match fit Tommy Bowe will replace Cuthbert by 3rd test in Sydney.

Centres - Brian O'Driscoll and Jamie Roberts... though wouldn't argue with Jonathon Davies and Manu Tuilagi. Big question mark about whether the great Irishman's body will hold out.

Stand off - Johnny Sexton.......Just don't think Owen Farrell is up to it yet. If Sexton's injured, we will see Johnny Wilkinson in the team. Aussies will be licking their lips at the thought of nailing our ten.

Scrum Half - Mike Phillips. Hope the big man's on form.

Front Row - Gethin Jenkins, Richard Hibbard, Adam Jones - but will need three front rowers on the bench as replacements.

Second Row - Paul O'Connell and Alun Wyn Jones.....Stand out.

Back Row - Sam Warburton, Jamie Heaslip and Tom Croft..... lots of options here. Dan Lydiate could be back for 2nd test. Gatling likes him (rightly). Can't rule out Justin Tipuric, Toby Faletau and Sean O'Brien either.

OK its 10 Welshmen. Promise I tried not to be partisan. And I think the Lions will win 3-0. Won't be easy, and Will Genia will have to be watched like a hawk, which is why I think Lydiate might make it. Only reason there are doubts is because of weakness at stand off.

Read More

Hope for Onshore Wind Sanity.

Regular visitors to this blog will know that I am implacably opposed to the Mid Wales Connection Project. Despite a wish to stop 'banging on' about the same issue, I keep stumbling on interesting things to report. At least it stops me 'banging on' about Europe I suppose!!
Anyway there are two dev'ts worth reporting on. Firstly some encouraging news. In a letter to my close colleague, Chris Heaton Harris MP. the Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Sec. of State with reposibility for planning wrote;

"I note your concerns about the impact of wind turbines. The National Planning Policy Framework, published last year makes clear that the adverse impact of renewable energy developments, including cumulative landscape and visual impact should be addressed satisfactorily. Applications for wind farms should only be approved if they are, or can be made acceptable".

New planning guidelines are expected by the summer. I knew they were coming and had hoped they would be published already. What I'm expecting, and desperately hoping, for is 'guidance' that stops well argued local objection being 'trumped' by national policy - completely dismissing the local voice. We need it now. But perhaps there is hope after all.

The second item it very disturbing - shocking even. Earlier this week, I tweeted that bailiffs acting for National Grid in Montgomeryshire had delivered a notice of forced access, and when challenged for ID, had told my constituent to "Fu** Off" - upsetting his wife in the process. Now another constituent has emailed me to tell me of other similar incidents, including seriously upsetting his 86yr old female neighbour. She has now been advised to cooperate for her own welfare by my constituent. And there have been other examples of similar activity as well. I have advised him to go public tomorrow on this. His name is Digby Davies, and he lives in Llansanffraid. I believe he will. This shameful behaviour, done on behalf of National Grid, and within arrangements approved by Gov't is scarcely believable. But when it comes to forcing onshore wind onto reluctant communities its been a case of anything goes. Its important that people know what is being done on their behalf.

Read More

Assisted Suicide is wrong - my Speech

I am opposed to changing the law to legalise Assisted Suicide. Because I realise that many people do not agree with me, I am posting the speech I made last year in a debate on the subject. I don't expect everyone to support my view, but a great majority of MPs did. If the debate were to come before the House of Commons again next year (which it might) I would make the same speech again - though expanding on several points if the Speaker allowed me more time.

Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this very important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael). We do not always agree, but I agreed with every word that he said on this occasion. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on the tone that he adopted: I thought it just right for the introduction of such an important debate.

I should declare an interest. I am a member of the board of Living and Dying Well, an organisation that commissions evidence-based research into end-of-life care. I have regular conversations with Lord Carlile, who chairs it, and with Baroness Finlay, who has already been mentioned today. I too have received several letters from members of Dignity in Dying. I write back disagreeing, but I always do so with a great deal of respect, because—like other Members who have spoken—I think that opinions on both sides of the debate are motivated by compassion, and I do not think it right to be critical of those who take a different view if compassion is what motivates them.

But I am concerned about some of the media coverage that appeared before today’s debate, which seemed to suggest that we were contemplating, and perhaps moving towards, a change in the law. That is not the case. All that we are discussing today is a reaffirmation of the current position in law, which is why I am happy to support the motion.

I am probably unusual here in having had an interest in assisted suicide for as long as it has been an offence. I was 17 in 1961, and an active member of my young farmers club. As young farmers clubs do, we discussed the issues of the day in debating competitions, and I supported the decriminalisation of suicide. A key point, however, is that that simply would not have happened without the inclusion in the Suicide Act 1961 of section 2, which introduced the offence of assisting a suicide and was seen as an absolute protection allowing the offence of suicide itself to be abolished.

My view remains exactly the same today. Over the last few days I have received many representations and briefings, as have many other Members, and over the months during which I have been a member of Living and Dying Well, we have commissioned several research papers. There so much information that it is almost impossible to engage one’s mind clearly with all of it, and because the time limit on speeches today is so tight, I shall make just one fundamental point. In 1961, I just knew that assisted suicide was wrong. I thought that it was extremely dangerous, and I still think so. If the DPP’s guidance were to become statutory we would, in effect, be legalising assisted suicide, and I believe that that would have a very negative impact on the frail elderly, the terminally ill, the incapacitated and the seriously depressed.

I have never believed that the malicious assister is the biggest problem, although that is an issue that concerns many. What has always concerned me is the likelihood that the normalisation of assisted suicide would lead to uncertainty about their own worth among the groups whom I have listed. It would cause them to ask questions about their own value. They would see themselves as becoming a burden on society. When we talk to elderly people who are nearing the end of their lives, we often find that they are concerned about not being able to leave assets to their grandchildren, and I believe that that concern would be expanded greatly if assisted suicide were legalised and normalised. My view is that it was and is wrong, and that only in very special circumstances should it not be prosecuted.

Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con): I think that there is a clear distinction between allowing discretion for a prosecution that says “It is wrong to assist someone in committing suicide,” and potentially widening the number of people who may be put under pressure by codifying assisted suicide in any form in law.

Glyn Davies: I firmly believe that assisting in suicide is wrong and should be a criminal offence, but, as with all criminal offences, the DPP or the prosecution service must always have the discretion to apply a degree of common sense and make judgments about what motivated the person concerned to commit that criminal offence. Since the guidelines were issued two years ago, the DPP has made a sensible judgment in every case. Where he has been satisfied that the crime was motivated by compassion, no prosecution has taken place. The system is working well. It is delivering exactly what we want in law; it supports what this Parliament has judged we should have in law. If we were to put things on a statutory basis, we would damage the current law, which is working so well, and it would result in pressure being put on some of the most vulnerable people in society, which would be plain wrong.

Finally, I want to say something about palliative care. For decades, all Governments have spent a huge amount of money on extending life and curing disease. We have not spent nearly enough time ensuring that that extended life is a life of quality.

Read More