Friday, September 22, 2017

Prime Minister goes to Italy.

Our Prime Minster, Theresa May has been speaking in Florence today. It was good to see the 3 best mates, Boris, Philip Hammond and David Davis smiling happily in the front row seats. I liked the speech. It was very much as I expected. Much the most encouraging aspect is that the UK media had totally failed to line up interviewees of any significance to declare it was "disappointing" and "unrealistic". Not even the BBC. Most negative line was that not much would change for 5 years. My response to that is "So what". They had to fall back on Nigel Farage, and we all know that nothing would have satisfied him. He had prepared his negative lines before he heard the speech!
There will be differing responses, including within the Conservative Party. Already had one constituent on the phone upset that we are not just walking away with no deal. Personally, I welcome today's speech. Very much in line with my own opinions. The UK will leave the EU end of March 2019 - a timetable driven by the Lisbon Treaty. That does not leave enough time to work through a trade deal which is best for both sides. It seems there will be a period of about two years after March 2019 to negotiate a sensible trade deal which benefits EU and UK. Again personally, my response is "So what". We need best possible deal, and 'so what' if it takes until 2021. We do need the deal to be done before General Election in 2022 though.
What finance transfers there will be from UK to EU is another big issue. Personally, I've always accepted the the UK will pay what we owe, both legally and morally. In fact the figures being talked about today are far lower than that we had been led to expect. I suspect the EU negotiators will want more. But what's important to the negotiations is that it's interpreted as 'sufficient progress' to move on to discussions on trade.
Two other comments I want to make. Will be looking at commentators opinions. Is the reassurance given to EU legally migrants in the UK in the UK acceptable. And how will the commentators react to Mrs May herself. My view is that she is a good Prime Minister. Today I thought she really looked the part. I sense that she has poked in the eye those who have been most relentless in their criticisms.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Complexities of 'end of life' care

BBC is reporting today on an important legal case where Mr Justice Jackson has ruled that where relatives and clinicians treating patients in a permanent vegetative state agree that care can be ended, there should be no need for a judge to agree as well. Until now, all treatment, except withdrawal of food and fluid can be ended without a judge's involvement. A judge's involvement means incurring  great unnecessary expense. However, the implications of this judgement are such that the Official Solicitor may well appeal in the interests of clarifying the law.
This is a sensitive and difficult policy area, morally, legally and from the perspective of patient safety. A few years ago, I made public comment disagreeing with a judge who had ruled that a patient suffering from anorexia, with only a minuscule chance of living should be force fed. The case attracted a lot of publicity, as did my comment, which I had intended only to stimulate discussion. It was a policy area of interest to me, being opposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide - itself not a straightforward issue. The Justice Jackson case is not the same, but raises equally difficult questions in the field of end of life.
In this case, and at this stage, I rather agree with the judge. But I do feel the need to discuss it with others before coming to a final conclusion. Relatives and clinicians can already take actions such as withdrawing Dialysis, which results in death, without the involvement of a judge. I cannot see why this principle cannot be extended withdrawal of food and fluids. The only issue of concern to me is that it only applies in cases where the patient is in a permanent vegetative state and has miniscule chance of recovery.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Scotland and Wales First Ministers in tandem

 Wales First Minister, Carwyn Jones and Scotland First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon seemed to getting along very well in all today's TV clips. They might have disagreed over the Scottish Independence Referendum but they do give the impression of being as one in wanting to stop Brexit happening in March 2019 - or at all! know that Carwyn Jones says that he accepts the EU Referendum result but it doesn't sound much like it to me. Whatever, the Carwyn/Nicola show was in full cry today. I'm not sure how much of it is bluster for public consumption and how much is for real.
It seems that the Wales First Minister is planning to put forward 38 amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I suppose he would have to persuade MPs or members of the Lords to do this for him. And if these amendments are not agreed to, Carwyn Jones informs us will ask Assembly Members to refuse to agree to the Bill. Must admit I don't know precisely what power he has to deliver on this - or whether the Assembly Members can actually stop the Bill making progress. Maybe it's no more than an attempt to put pressure on the Westminster Gov't to agree to his demands. The reason I decided to write this blog post was because I need some clarity on the constitutional position here. If a constitutional lawyer happens upon this comment, any clarity would be welcomed. So treat this as 'work in progress'.
According to the BBC, the First Minister has four aims.
1) Ensure devolved policy areas come back to the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament after Brexit.
2) Prevent UK Minsters unilaterally changing the Gov't of Wales Act and the Scotland Act.
3) Require the agreement of the Welsh Gov't on necessary changes to EU Gov't law in devolved areas after Brexit.
4) Ensure additional restrictions are not placed on devolved ministers compared with UK Gov't ministers.
I expect there to be much discussion between the UK Gov't and devolved Gov'ts over these 'conditions' as there will be over how we develop 'statutory frameworks' to protect the UK internal market and work through the powers being transferred temporarily into a 'Holding Pattern'.
I repeat, treat this blog post as 'work in progress'!

Monday, September 18, 2017

20 yrs ago today, the voters of Wales decided.

On 18th September 1997, the voters of Wales decided that a National Assembly for Wales should be established. Well, around 25% of them did. But as someone once surely said "one is a majority". And 6,000 votes is a lot more than one. Even if it wasn't a thumping 52%/48% victory. A majority of 0.6% ignored my advice that they should reject this expensive extra layer of bureaucracy. I was the only No person at the count in Llandrindod Wells in the early hours of Sept 19th when the last result came in from Carmarthen giving the Yes campaigners victory. I was surrounded by dancing, singing, whooping and tears of joy. I could see immediately that there was not to be any going back. Case of "if you can't beat them, join them"! Not quite perhaps, but I did accept the result immediately, and have worked to make a success of it ever since.
I stood for election to the National Assembly at its first election in 1999. I was defeated in Montgomeryshire by the all conquering Liberal Democrats in the form of Mick Bates. But I was elected as a 'regional' Assembly Member' for Mid and West Wales. Same thing happened 4 yrs later in 2003. But by 2007, the Labour machine banned 'duel candidacy' and I had to choose which hill to climb. Since I'd represented Mid and West Wales for 8 yrs I went for the 'list seat' and my political career bit the dust because my Conservative Party did too well. I was sad about that. That sort of thing happens with PR systems.
Anyway, in 2010, I rose from my political grave to be elected MP for Montgomeryshire, vanquishing the colourful Lembit Opik, and repeated the performance with increasing majorities in 2015 and 2017. Earlier this year I was very pleased to be a part of the Wales Office team that took the most recent Wales Act through to the statute book. I was especially pleased that responsibility for raising income tax and that the 'conferred powers' model of devolution has been replaced by the 'reserved powers model.
Its my desire to see devolution be a success, I do not think it has been yet. Services have not improved. If anything the reverse has been the case. And disappointingly, the politics of the National Assembly has not changed as I would have expected. Labour has formed the Government since day one, supported for part of that time by Plaid Cymru, the Lib Dems and by Lord Elis Thomas. No fault on Labour for this. It's a matter for the opposition parties. Unfortunately, the Welsh Conservatives have not persuaded others (notably Plaid Cymru) to lie in bed beside them. Maybe someday. When Labour are in opposition, the Welsh Parliament will have 'grown up'. Hope we don't have to wait 20 years for that!

Sunday, September 17, 2017

What did Boris mean by that!

Personally, I'm reckon a bit of disagreement within political parties can be positive and creative. It can lead to  better decision making in that it can expose an unwise step to closer scrutiny. I know that political party's whipping operations like to keep everything under tight control, but Farage/UKIP, Corbyn/Labour and Trump/Republican have shown us that in today's turbulent politics, where social media and fake news are so influential, dominating the agenda is what matters - within reason anyway.
Anyway Boris Johnson wrote a 4,000 word article for the Daily Telegraph yesterday which doesn't seem to fit into anyone's media planning. It's generated a lot of interest, despite being totally loyal to the Prime Minister, and not actually saying anything he's not said before. As always with Boris, his writing is flamboyant, and his arguments well constructed. And it will connect. The aspect that interests me is what he says about the claim made by the Leave side leading up to the EU Referendum that leaving the EU would allow a future UK Govt to invest another £350million per week in the NHS.
I don't think anyone can give us precise figures, but this 'promise' made in early 2016, would have meant an extra £18bn per year added to the NHS budget. I should add that though I voted Leave, I did not use this figure at all. It seems to me that we could spend £18bn per year when we stop paying in (prob 2022). Though Boris thinks it could be earlier. The Govt has already increased the NHS budget by £8bn per year since the EU Referendum,  and I'd be surprised if the NHS budget was not increased again in the November budget.
Boris is a brilliant wordsmith. His article or 'essay' is readable and conveys a joyously optimistic
vision of a UK outside the EU. It is in no way disloyal to the Prime Minister and it says nothing that he hasn't said before. It was a very good read. I'm looking forward to a similarly good read on Friday when the Prime Minister makes a key Brexit speech in Florence. After a few months when not much seems to have been happening on the Brexit front, it does look as if things are starting to take shape. It's very interesting times we live in.

Friday, September 15, 2017

Renewable Energy from Offshore Wind.

I have always supported sourcing more of our energy from offshore wind. Offshore wind farms don't trash beautiful landscapes as onshore wind farms do. I thought the costs involved would fall over time. But I did not expect the rate at which the costs would fall to deliver the cfd (Contracts for Difference) prices announced yesterday. They were a real game changer. Worth looking at in detail.
The current market price of energy is around £53.50 per MWh (megawatt hour). Just 2yrs ago, offshore developers needed a guaranteed £117.14 per MWh to build offshore wind farms. Yesterday massive new projects in the North Sea were agreed at just £57.50 per MWh. Truly astonishing. And it's expected that prices will fall further. We expect battery technology to deliver more efficiency and lower costs, through reducing the negative impact of inconsistent generation. Development of non time-critical electricity users (electric cars) will also reduce costs.
Important to understand that no Government subsidy is involved. It's users of electricity that pay to guarantee the price. Yesterday's cfd auction prices are great news for electricity buyers into the furure.
 I have no doubt that onshore wind farm generation will be lower than the current £52.50 per MWh price. And I've no doubt that some onshore development will happen, especially in Scotland, where opposition to trashing the landscape is less than elsewhere. Certainly a lot less than in Mid Wales. I did my utmost to stop the appalling Mid Wales Connection Project from going ahead - and will continue as long as I have breath in my body. The implications of this delelopment in Mid Wales are horrendous. Like pouring a bucket of tar on a painting by Sir Kyffin Williams. It would be utter madness when cost of offshore wind is dropping like a stone.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon. Where now?

I have always supported the idea of using tidal power to generate energy. Since it was first proposed, I have supported the idea of the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon. I'd love to see us run with this scheme - if it's viable. Now that's a very big 'if'. Despite supporting the idea, I've never felt able to completely commit to it. I've been surprised by how many are calling for the Govt to run with this scheme, no matter what the cost. Worryingly, most of the narrative around the project has involved criticism of the Govt for not agreeing to quarentee to buy the power produced by the SB Tidal Lagoon at the same price it will pay for that produced by nuclear power plants, but for nearly three times as long - which makes it much much more expensive. I know that the Hendry Report, commissioned by the Govt backed the scheme. Didn't expect anything else from Charles Hendry from the moment he was given the task of assessing it. The responsible Secretary of State, Greg Clarke is taking his time assessing the project. Quite right too. He's a very good Minister.  My guess is that the advice he is receiving from independent assessors is not flashing up 'Green'. So we will have to wait and see.

There is nothing at all new in this post so far. But the comments coming from Dale Vince, the founder and still owner (I think) of Ecotricity in a letter to Greg Clarke, reported on the BBC today is very significant. Dale Vince knows what he's talking about. Despite being hugely supportive of renewable energy, including tidal power, be believes that a lagoon not attached to the land will create energy at around a quarter of the price. And be more environmentally friendly. If it had been someone else saying this, it would just be an opinion, alongside other opinions. But it's the opinion of a man who knows. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee has just decided to take evidence and prepare a report on tidal lagoons. I do hope Dale Vince is invited to share his thoughts with us as part of that.