Eddisbury shortlist

Today I received the great honour from Eddisbury Conservative Association to be shortlisted to fight the parliamentary seat of Eddisbury at the forthcoming General Election.

I will be fully focussed on gaining the support of the members of Eddisbury Conservatives over the forthcoming days and if fortunate enough to be selected will be a full time candidate in the constituency until May 7^th.

If selected I have decided to donate the salary that I receive as an Assembly Member for North Wales for the parliamentary campaign period to charity, one of the recipients will the Moneypenny Foundation based in Wrexham. Moneypenny is a great local business that has helped a number of people back into work and the Foundation has had considerable success in the last year.  The remainder will go to Clare House who look after children from both sides of the border, but does not receive funding from the Welsh Assembly.   My constituency and Assembly office will continue to operate as normal, serving my North Wales constituents, until the outcome of the election is known.  I will resign my Welsh Assembly seat if elected, and I will also move into the Constituency, my family understand these decisions and support them.

Strong economic and social links exist between North Wales and Cheshire. Although there is a border dividing the two regions, many residents live, farm and work on both sides of the border. A strong Cheshire can only benefit North Wales and vice versa. Eddisbury, Chester and Wrexham/Deeside have always been good neighbours and if selected to contest the Eddisbury seat next week I will be fully focussed on developing and strengthening these links as the prospective Member of Parliament. 

I have gained a strong reputation for delivery for my constituents in North Wales and I pledge to be a similar strong voice for all the people of the Eddisbury constituency

Smacking Ban amendments in the Assembly this week

Today on  BBC Wales Sunday Supplement I was interviewed about the  "smacking ban" amendment to the proposed Domestic Violence Bill in the Assembly.  You can hear the argument for and against here (you may need to cut and paste the link)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0536jqc#auto

scroll through to 30 minutes.  The arguments of campaigners for a ban say that a child should be given the same rights as an adult - no matter what age that child is.  To my mind this is simply wrong.  Any parent of a toddler will know that feeling of fright when one minute they are next to you and the next minute they are gone - running out into the road - or in my case that total silence of my 3 year old, when I went to see what she was up to, she had my bunch of keys and was about to put them into an electric socket which was halfway up the wall - having climbed onto the sofa to do so.

It is absolutely clear that if you give your child anything more than a short sharp tap it is already illegal, if there is a bruise or anything other than a temporary red mark, you risk being investigated and charged by the police.  The CPS charging standards say that where there is bruising a parent should be prosecuted.  What is being argued for in the Assembly is what is known as a strict liability offence, which means no matter what the circumstances, if you smack your child you are a criminal and you could have a criminal record.  I don't think this is right as it will criminalise many loving parents, who care deeply about their children.  The current law provides a defence of "reasonable" punishment - this means that a jury or magistrate can look behind the smack, and see why the parent did it.  If their child ran out into the road, or was about to give themselves a huge electric shock, they can decide that the parent acted reasonably.  The current amendment would mean that would no longer be possible.  I think that is totally wrong and will not be supporting it.  I would rather trust 12 citizens to judge me, so they can apply the standards of reasonableness that apply at the time than a blanket criminal offence that makes every parent a criminal as soon as they smack a child and relies upon a police officer not charging.

I in no way condone violence against children, and a beating is clearly illegal now.  However the argument that education doesn't work is wrong.  We don't have education on healthy relationships, or very little of it.  Welsh Government have resisted the idea of every school having to teach about respect and health relationships - but locking up mothers or fathers for a short sharp tap is absolutely not the answer.  Through education change will happen, that is the route that we should promote as children do not have the same rights as adults, as anyone who has been the parent of a toddler will know, and the parents that are most likely to be criminalised will be those less able to talk themselves out of prosecution.  It would quite simply be wrong to turn many loving and caring parents into criminals.

When is a review not a review? When its a rubber stamping exercise

Recent press reports have indicated that Welsh Health Minister has called for an "independent" review.  How "independent" in reality is this review.  Lets look at the facts.  I  understand the Health Minister had a full briefing from the Health Board prior to the issue going to the full board and independent members.  Clearly if this is the case then the Minister did nothing to stop the downgrading proposals going ahead.  Which is surprising because there had been a complete lack of consultation with staff, patients and the Community Health Council who are there to protect our, the patients, interests.  The Minister must have known none of this had happened.

So - knowing what he did, and in the face of huge public opposition he has now appointed two Welsh Government appointees to look at the processes and decision making by the Board. Lets be clear - the decision that is being looked as is NOT the closure - but whether or not the plans to return services to the hospital are clear.  If the services leave - the review can happen and everything will be kicked into the long grass until 2017 (co-incidentally after the general election and after the Assembly elections) and Labour think they are safe again to say "temporarily" moved services will be permanently moved.  That is what has happened at all the other places where Professor Purt has been.  Withybush is a classic example of temporary services disappearing permanently.

Nothing in the Minister's letter acknowledges the knock on effects of removing the maternity service.  If the maternity services go from Glan Clwyd - so will the Special Care Baby Unit.  Where is that going to go?  If it goes to the Maelor babies from Ysbty Gwynedd are going to have to travel over 66 miles to access special care, meaning a greater risk to mothers and their babies.  A&E risks being downgraded without obstetrics as there will be no emergency care/expertise available on the site.  Most midwife led maternity units in England are within 10 miles of a consultant led service - that will not happen here where it is 33 miles.  Therefore the English statistics on safety are irrelevant, as the circumstances are totally different.

Finally the Ministers letter says nothing about the 1 in 11 rota which apparently has created so called "clinical risks".  Everywhere else in the UK is a 1 in 8 rota, so why now has the Deanery imposed a 1 in 11 rota in Wales.  The board were given the option of continuing with a 1 in 8 rota - provided the board would guarantee the training element for Doctors - they refused.  It is that refusal that has led the management to be able to argue that services are "unsustainable" and a clinical risk.  The letter from the Minister published in the Daily Post today says nothing about this - why not.  It is not looking at whether or not services should be moved.  A truly independent inquiry would be looking into why BCUHB refused to provide the training guarantee, and would be looking into what attempts were made by the board to organise rotas across all three sites.  Which so far are none or almost none.

Without looking at those issues, then the review is not a review, but a rubber stamping exercise by Welsh Government.  The deadline for submission of the business case for the Sub Regional Neonatal Unit is the end of March - the Minister knows that - where is the business case.  Surely BCUHB should be championing publicly the creation of this new unit which will help with the recruitment issues - but no deafening silence.  If the March deadline is missed - that will tell you all you need to know about the Health Board's intentions.  The words "kick into the long grass" come to mind.

The Deanery rotation decision is apparently being looked at by the Welsh Government Health Minister - but his letter says nothing about the Review looking into workplace rotation, and rota issues - why not?  I questioned him on this last week, and he said that he would get his civil servants to "look into the matter".  What has happened since is a deafening silence.  I and the other AMs are waiting for his response, but deafening silence is not enough, and I would have expected the Minister to have an immediate answer as to why this is being imposed here in Wales, when a 1 in 8 rota could provide safe and sustainable services in the long term.

I urge you all to attend the protest meeting at the Events Arena in Rhyl on Saturday 21st February 2pm.  I along with many other Welsh AMs will be there, because this review is not a review.

Gagging orders and bullying at Glan Clwyd

In a deeply cynical move it appears that BCUHB have drawn attention to a Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists report prepared back in 2013 and reporting in 2014.  The report looks back at behaviour in the unit taken place as long ago as 2004.

The fact that this has been highlighted now, is no coincidence.  Staff have been told that they can not comment publicly, so are not in a position to rebut claims by the health board.  The real question to be asked is why the recommendations in the report were not acted on quickly and seen through.  There are serious questions about the "update" report which was with the board papers.  It was dated December 2014 and yet it shows that several of the recommendations were not acted upon, and gives no dates as to when procedures were put in place following the RCOG report.

The reason this has been highlighted now, is to try and cause doubt in the minds of the public - well I believe that those protesting against the closure will see through this attempt at smear tactics.  If issues were not dealt with - that was the fault of management rather than staff.

Recruitment issues were exacerbated for example by a Matron in the maternity unit being moved against her wishes, and against the wishes of the department.  By all accounts she had them all ticking like a well oiled clock with moral improving, and the team working well together.  What did the Health Board do?  Angela Hopkins and other senior staff ignored pleas not to move her.  Forcibly moved to Ysbty Gwynedd, despite having a seriously ill family member, against her will, she resigned and left the BCUHB to work in a new area.  The BCUHB then complain that they have recruitment and staff moral issues - is it any wonder why?

I hope the public will not fall for this attempt by senior management to smear their staff.  I for one am not taken in.

The voice of the victim in the Ched Evans case

The numerous newspaper articles and the constant press coverage of the Ched Evans case have finally prompted me to write, including BBC Question Time last night.  We are used to politicians taking up the cases of those who they believe to be innocent.   In this blog I am purely relying on the transcript of the Court of Appeal Judgement in the application for leave to appeal.  The victim's family have not approached me, and I am blogging because it matters.  Rape is an offence that is degrading, it dehumanises women or men who are the victims of rape.  It views the person being raped as a thing - an object, there for sex and nothing else, it treats the woman (or man or child) as a thing, there for the gratification of the rapist not a human being.    The psychological effects are devastating, often not only for the victim but for their family, and, if they have one, their partner.

I am clearly not one of the 12 jurors in the case, I am not a QC, I am not a Judge,  I am not a High Court Judge I am clearly not the Lord Chief Justice.  All these people know the case better than me.  They have all seen the evidence.  I have not.   All of these people have either convicted Ched Evans, or have upheld the rape conviction.

My name is in the public domain because I have chosen to take that course and I put myself up for election, Ched Evans's victim didn't make that choice.  I have not been named by nasty people on twitter, by misogynists or those that think it is ok to threaten women, be violent, to rape and to violate women. The victim in the Ched Evans case has been hounded by social media, by people who have not given her the time and space to recover.  She is young, and for her it may well take her many years to up the strength to be able to make choices, and choose how she feels, how she reacts to being in a public space not knowing which men she can trust and which she can't, and to finally realise that taking control is what prevents the perpetrator having control over your life.  That victim has had to move away from her family and friends and her father has described the impact on his daughter in an article which can be widely access on the internet.  His account of the impact it has had on her is quite simply awful.  Every time the media report on Ched Evans it brings her in to the public arena through no fault of her own.

Mr Evans' carefully crafted recent statement could have been made the day he was released from prison.   Whatever his view was of what happened that night, and whether or not he believed that his victim consented it was clear, and always has been clear, that his actions that night had a devastating effect on the women that he had sexual intercourse with.  Mr Evans actions have led to her having to move, change her name, live under a  form of a prison sentence longer than his because of his actions, and others that support him...whether or not he agrees with their actions.  Her prison sentence is worse because there is no end to it - there is no walking through the gates into freedom.  She has had to move away from family and friends, because repeatedly and publicly his supporters are trashing her reputation.  Attacking a victims reputation is now governed by strict legal rules in court. so supporters of Mr Evans are now doing this on Facebook, on twitter this campaign is now being undertaken in the court of public opinion, and the victim can not speak out and defend herself as it will just feed the media frenzy, and risk her anonymity being blown again.

Every time Mr Evans goes for a new job - his fight to overturn his conviction implies that she is a liar, despite the fact that 12 independent people believed her, and the other witnesses who described the condition she was in.  The High Court Judge said there were no grounds of appeal, so did one of the most senior experienced criminal law judges, the Lord Chief Justice, and two other Court of Appeal Judges.  They made it clear as a matter of law the Judge in the case acted properly, he directed the Jury properly and there was no lurking doubt about the conviction.  The so called apology is too little and certainly too late.

Mr Evans didn't speak out against the "mob justice" he now feels he is a victim of, but it was ok for the women Mr Evans had sex with to be hounded, to have to move not once, not twice but a number of times, being forced to change her name and identity over three times.  Mr Evans was willing to take a risk. I don't know how much he had to drink - but Mr Evans and other men like him need to know that is not ok not to care, that if you don't know or care whether or not the women you are in bed with is so drunk, or "off her head" whether through drink, drugs or having a drink spiked that in todays society is not acceptable for a man to abuse that situation, and the law makes it clear that this is rape.

You can't pick a "bird" who is drunk and think it is ok to not to care whether or not she is consenting.    If I was a sponsor of a football club I wouldn't want Mr Evans to play for the club I support and I wouldn't want my company logo to be in the shirt that Mr Evans may or might wear.

Of course Mr Evans has served his time, but I am amazed that the Football Association would allow a professional footballer to be able to waltz back into the professional game.  The recent developments from the Football Association are welcome and it is about time they look at the rules they have and change them to prevent this situation ever happening again in the future.  It would be inconceivable that a Doctor would be allowed to practice, a teacher wouldn't be able to go back to teaching, no MP would be able to be elected, no lawyer could practice.

Perhaps the past few months have made Mr Evans realise what it is like to have to walk away from your home, your friends, your job.  He hasn't had to  change his name, he still wants to be treated like a footballer, rather than a convicted rapist - which is he - until and if, and its a big IF his conviction is ever overturned.  Any person who is convicted and applies for a job, in most job applications will have to disclose that conviction, and many will find that employers will not want to employ them.  That is what happens day in day out to those coming out of prison.

In the meantime lets hope that this case does make sure that the FA takes robust action, that it adopts clear rules which ensure that this position isn't repeated in the future, and that no other victim is going to have to watch as the perpetrator of the offence touts around club after club putting the victim back into the press time and time again, with all the distress that must cause to her, her family and her friends.

Call on "devolved nations" to have a say

I read with interest Leanne Wood's speech to the SNP conference, stating that devolved nations should have a say - on matters such as welfare.  The fact is that we do.  The "people power" that she referred to is the vote that each an every one of us has in Westminster elections.  The speech of the Plaid leader is in effect a call for independence by another name.

The fact that Plaid does not get the representation at a UK level that it gets for the Assembly is a democratic choice by the electors here in Wales.  What is being suggested by Plaid is to go behind the  verdict of voters at the ballot box.  Plaid want the position where Wales is subsidised, by a UK Government Treasury and tax take, but doesn't want to accept that a UK Government, when taking into account all the constituent parts of the UK, may have a different political guise to the one voted for at an Assembly level.

The same intellectual bankruptcy is shown by her demand that each constituent part of the UK should be required to vote by a majority to leave or stay in the EU.   I can not see why Plaid would suggest that the principle of one person one vote should be undermined.  The fact is that every voter in the UK should have an equal vote, to any other voter living in the UK, and that the "weight" of that vote shouldn't depend on where you live.  Plaid's position undermines democracy and takes away the power from people seeking to put it in the hands of a distrusted "political class".

The Lidl Welsh Language "Ban"

Media reports are suggesting that Lidl in Wales has imposed a Welsh Language ban on its staff.  This appears to have arisen from a case in Scotland, rather than Wales, where two polish employees were asked to speak to Lidl customers in English.

Following reports of that case the BBC Welsh Language Website appears to have done an interview with a "spokesman" from Lidl who seems to have been singularly unprepared for the interview, and know little about Wales and their stores in Wales.

I am aware of a number of Lidl stores in Wales, presumably successful, as they have expanded rapidly across North Wales.  Clearly staff there have been interacting with their customers in both English and Welsh.  Welsh Language has official status, and I am certain that Lidl will not be seeking to go behind that status.  If they do they risk being investigated by the Welsh Language Commissioner and they will rightly be censured.   Public Services in Wales have to be offered both in English and in Welsh, allowing people the choice of which language they want to speak.  The same is not true of private companies, but a measure of common sense has to be applied.  One tweet suggested that no business should operate in Wales if they did not speak or offer Welsh.

Perhaps depressingly for me is the rise of the Lidl stores in the first place.  Take Denbigh for example two really great butchers on the High Street - but recently the greengrocers and a bakery have closed for business.  I hope that those outraged by the "ban", if there is one, take the chance to really support local businesses, whose £ goes back into the economy, and choose to buy local rather than supporting a foreign company where margins are squeezed to offer customers produce as cheaply as possible.

Living as I do in an area where 50% of the population speaks Welsh, I am perhaps aware of some wider issues, including the fact in the first three Assembly terms the records of committee meetings where AMs receive evidence and scrutinise policy decisions, were not available bi-lingually, due primarily to cost and practicality.  Fortunately technology advances have changed the position but that has only happened in this Assembly, and I am delighted that they are now bi-lingual.

Many of the Community Councils here conduct their business in Welsh, that is their right and their choice the meetings are held in Welsh, the minutes are produced in Welsh all pre and post discussions are in Welsh.  At the same time, unless there is accurate translation the remaining 50% of the population are effectively disbarred from taking part in matters which are directly relevant to their community.  Whilst there is a Welsh Language Commissioner who can ensure that the democratic process is accessible for Welsh speakers, there is no corresponding recourse where the position is reversed, presumably Simon Thomas and others would equally condemn that position.   When I  receive letters, as I did last week, saying that I am "English" and  a "Tory" I should "go back over the border" I regard that as racist.  This kind of racism would be completely unacceptable if I was say Afro Carribean, or Irish, or Indian  - but apparently because I am "English" it is acceptable both to put that  in writing - and to say it publicly. Similarly for the tweet that was favorited a number of times calling for "extermination" of people like me.  I didn't see any of the outraged language tweeters condemning those sort of comments, quite the reverse.

That is why it was so sad to see Lord Elis Thomas being sacked for speaking out against Plaid  calling people "un Welsh". We lost a good committee chair, who was highly effective and passionate about all things Welsh, but who dared to be open and inclusive about the concept of "Welshness".

In the meantime I have no doubt that Lidl stores will operate as they have done over many years, speaking to their customers in both English and in Welsh.

Caroline Spelman is brave to speak out.

Caroline Spelman is right to point out that Parliament is going back to the 19th Centuary in the article quoted here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10967149/Strict-expenses-rules-driving-Parliament-back-to-the-19th-century-former-minister-says.html

It is an unpopular thing to say, but the problems are no less severe in the Welsh Assembly.  When elected in 2011 as a lone parent, there were, and remain no policies in place that in any way recognised the position that I was in and the difficulties this caused for me personally. 

The way that things currently work in Wales, I dont believe a lone parent from North Wales, who did not have the support given to me by my family, could actually do the job.  If a child is of school age then it is not possible to move them to Cardiff for three days a week, and back to North Wales.  It is my view that standing for election should be open to all, and not just the wealthy few, and that we need a diversity of voices in the Assembly, including those of lone parents.

The failure of the remuneration board to deal with this issue is wrong, particularly when it means that the unelected board is in effect failing to consider the barriers for lone carers both in standing for election, and also once elected, from actually being able to do the job.

Needless to say I have tried to improve it for lone parents who might follow me, so far with  spectacular failure, although I might finally have prompted the paid commissioner for Equalities Sandy Mewies AM to put in a response to the next consultation, something she has spectacularly failed to do to date.

Questions remain after Minister for Natural Resources fired.

Today Minister for Natural Resources, Alun Davies AM was fired, following a request to civil servants to disclose and find out confidential information in relation to opposition Assembly Members and their families, which sought to breach the protections of the Data Protection Act, which protects every citizen against information being shared with those not authorised to see it.

Despite firing the Minister, serious questions remain concerning the actions of First Minister Carwyn Jones. 

(1)     Carwyn Jones has repeatedly refused to disclose which breaches of the Ministerial Code he considered were breached by Alun Davies, and why it was that they were not sackable breaches. 

 

(2)    It is clear that the First Minister himself was misled by the Minister when Alun Davies asked his private secretary to make the FM “aware that I have sought advice on this Ministerial Code on two occasions with reference to this issue since being appointed to my current role in March” – However the Minister did not apparently tell the FM that he had ignored and directly contravened the advice that he had been given. (see para 68 of the report).  The FM must have been aware of this when he received a copy of Sir Derek Jones’ report, but concluded that he could stand by a Minister who had actively misled him.

 

(3)    Why have Welsh Government continued to refuse to disclose the Circuit of Wales due diligence report.?

 

(4)    Furthermore, why has the First Minister not disclosed the further information requested in my email of the 2^nd July, which I will include below.  The ONLY inference, is that other Ministers could also be tainted by the scandal and are being sheltered by the FM whilst he makes inquiries.

below is the text of the letter sent to Carywn Jones on the 2nd July 2014 - the day Alun Davies decided to request information to smear opposition members.

Dear Carwyn

 

I am grateful that you placed on the record in Plenary that the correspondence requested in my email  to you dated 13^th June 2014 would be disclosed to me at the same time that the report was placed in the library.  The information requested was as follows

 

(a)    Copies of all correspondence from Alun Davies to the Chief Executive, board members or other employees of NRW concerning the Circuit of Wales whether in his capacity as Minister or AM.  I have seen Annex 3 and don’t require disclosure of that material, which was already in the public domain.  However I would welcome confirmation that no additional correspondence exists and that full disclosure has been made of all emails, notes of meetings and contact.

(b)   All correspondence between Alun Davies and the Ministers responsible for Planning and the Economy on the circuit of Wales again whether in his capacity as Minister or local Assembly Member.  Any meetings to discuss finance to the Circuit of Wales attended by the Minister for Natural Resources. 

 

In addition I request disclosure of the following items referred to in the report of the Permanent Secretary under the FOI Act provisions, although I would suggest that transparency and openness require these to be disclosed prior to the debate currently tabled.

 

(c)    Further to the publication of the report I request disclosure of the full advice provided to the Minister by his officials refered to in Paragraph 36 of the report and a full copy of the Cabinet Division advice dated 28^th March 2012.

(d)   Copies of the relevant extracts of the Ministerial Code provided to Alun Davies by his Private Secretary in March 2013.

(e)    Details as to whether the Minister had notified his ministerial staff of the meeting on the 18^th June.  Confirmation as to whether his specialist advisor was present at that meeting or any member of his constituency staff.  Confirmation as to whom authorised that no minutes be made or taken both by NRW and by the Minister.  Confirmation as to whether the meeting was entered into his Ministerial diary.

(f)     A full copy of the email sent by the First Minister’s office on the 2^nd August 2013.  A full copy of the response made by the Private Secretary to Alun Davies following the email of the 2^nd August as detailed in Paragraph 68.

(g)   Details as to whom prepared the proposed statement by the minister on the 13^th August. A copy of the proposed but unreleased statement.  Full copies of all notes or correspondence from the Minister to his officials seeking guidance as referred to in paragraph 69 of the report and a full copy of all advice from his ministerial advisors – whether in note, written or other form.

 

Kind regards"

 

The failure of the First Minister to put this information in the public domain, particularly where it seems that Alun Davies actively misled the First Minister in the item requested in paragraph (f) requested above.

The failure to disclose this infomation immediately, puts other Ministers as being at risk from this scandal, particularly those who had meetings or discussions over providing further finance to the project, and it is surprising that the FM has not sought to release the information quickly and effectively, as issues around the Circuit of Wales will not be going away. 

Breaches of the Ministerial Code and Circuit of Wales

Carwyn Jones' failure to act against Minister for Natural Resources Alun Davies is shocking in the light of conclusions of his own Permanent Secretary's report.  The report outlines that the Minister had received advice on the 28th March 2013 that he "should not comment on the matter, even in his capacity as AM".  Furthermore advice was given to the Cabinet by the Cabinet Division that Ministers should not comment on the individual merits of a case.  At this stage NRW was opposed to the application. 

Roll forward to the 12th, 13th and 18th June 2013 when the Permanent Secretary's report concludes that the Minister, in arranging a meeting with NRW to "agree a way forward" could only have been acting in his capacity as Minister, as in his role as an ordinary AM he would "have had no role in agreeing a way forward in how NRW responds to its statutory planning responsibility". 

The report to the First Minister clearly outlines "As Mr Davies porfolio area had a key role in the planning process for the Circuit of Wales, including advising on whether the application should be called in by Welsh Government, and could be subject to direction on the exercise of its functions of the Circuit for Wales, it was important that Mr Davies did not by his pronouncments or actions do anything which might be regarded by NRW as conveying an expectation on what the Welsh Ministers required of NRW in respect of  the application"

In that context the email of the Minister of the 13th June is absolutely damning.  He wrote

"Thank you Graham.  This second letter does being to move us in the right direction.  I do appreciate that and I am grateful to you for taking the time to review these matters. 

However I remain very concerned with the processes at work with NRW in this matter.  In addition I do not believe that the current NRW position does reflect the totality of the statutory duties and the demands of the remit letter provided to NRW by the Welsh Government.

It would be very useful to meet.  Could I suggest 11.00am on Tuesday? I would be content to meet at Newport Road or alternatively we could meet at the Assembly in the Bay.  I will also invite a representative of the develop[ers to join us and I hope that between us we can agree a way forward."

Carwyn Jones' Office wrote to Alun Davies expressing "surprise about the remarks attributed to the Minister - in his capacity as AM" in an article in the Western Mail. 

All of this, and more detailed in the report shows a contempt for the advice of his officials not to comment even in his capacity as AM.  A threat is a threat, and as the Minister responsible for setting the budget and "remit" of NRW in his portfolio - the second paragraph is a clear reference to his own portfolio.

Low and behold in August NRW do an about face and drop their opposition to the project, less than 2 months after the Minister's meetings and emails.

I am not surprised that NRW have said that they werent "influenced" - NRW's chief executive Emyr Roberts is a former civil servant working at the heart of the education department for a number of years.  It is unlikely he would turn on his masters who have promoted him, and had NRW accepted that it had been influenced, his head would potentially have been on the block as well.  All of this leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth indeed one that the Minister for Natural Resources says "do as I say...not as I do".

Lets not forget that 750,000 cubic tonnes of peat will be excavated for the project - a clear conflict for a Minister supposedly in charge of our Natural Environment.  Hard pressed farmers who have had lecture after lecture from this Minister over their enviromental failings will quite rightly laugh in his face now, given his rank hypocracy.  It also shows a real weakness in Carwyn Jones' leadership.  The First Minister is clearly happy to cover up for a lousy Labour "Taffia"  - AWEMA, RIFW - now Circuit of Wales.  Speaks for itself really.

Give businesses in Wales the same support as in England

Businesses hit by storms and flooding should be given a three-month break from paying rates. The move is urgently needed to help companies get back on their feet. Businesses have been hit doubly hard – firstly through damage thanks to the floods and the storm, and secondly they’ve seen  a sharp drop in trading either because people very sensibly have stayed at home during the bad weather, or because they’ve had to shut their doors for safety reasons. According to retail analyst Springboard, footfall in Wales plummeted 18.6% year on year on Monday and 17.7% on Tuesday. As an example, Debenhams closed two stores early in Bangor and Llandudno because of high winds and today other stores will be shut across the region while insurance assessors check for damage.

The road network across North Wales and north west England was brought to a virtual standstill on Wednesday night because of the high winds – the area around the Britannia Bridge has become a giant lorry park. That is also affecting deliveries in and out of Wales – both of items to customers and supplies into retailers and companies.  The rail network across North Wales has also been severely affected.

In the Parliament this week, at Prime Minister’s Questions, David Cameron vowed to waive business rates for three months and English companies can also defer VAT, PAYE and corporation tax for the same period.

We need similar action on business rates now from the Welsh Government businesses hit by storms and flooding should be given a three month break from paying rates.  The UK Government's help on VAT, PAYE and Corporation tax will help.  

Statement on the reshuffle

Tonight I have travelled to North Wales because my region is being battered by storms that is where my focus is.  Many residents have suffered damage to their homes and their businesses and I have seen on my journey the emergency services working flat out, council teams out clearing roads, and I know the Red Cross are helping stranded Lorry drivers in Bangor affected by the road closures to Anglesey.  My constituents should know that I may have lost the title "Shadow Minister for Rural Affairs" but I have not lost my voice or my brain.  I intend to continue to use both to speak up for my constituents and my region, as I have done throughout my time in the Assembly.  Those living in rural communities will still benefit from the knowledge and experience that I have gained whilst shadow minister for rural affairs and I will continue to speak up for the needs of rural communities and North Wales, many of whom are without electricity at the present time or who have been cut off with transport problems across the North Wales region.

Tomorrow me and my staff will be focusing on providing support to those who need it.  Businesses and homeowners affected by the storms and floods should contact their local bank branches as many of the UK banks are offering assistance to those who have been affected, including mortgage interest holidays, and business loans for those businesses affected by floods.  My office will be open tomorrow to assist those that need it and I receive emails 24 hours a day.  I shall be remaining in the region next week to ensure that we provide all the support and help that is needed.

I call upon the Welsh Government to follow the lead of the UK Government and to extend business rate relief to businesses affected by the flooding and storms.  That is an immediate step which can be taken which would provide support and help to those businesses that have been affected.

Questions about tax are not relevant to the vast majority of my constituents at this present time, and if others wish to concentrate on the question of tax - that is a matter for them.  I took a position which I believe to be the right one, and the debate will no doubt be conducted in the future when it is more appropriate.

Pontcysyllte to Cardiff

WALKING across the Pontcysyllte aqueduct on Monday morning gave me a bird’s eye view across Wrexham and parts of Flintshire, and into England – it’s a good job I’ve a head for heights.

Thomas Telford’s masterpiece of engineering, 126ft high and 1007ft long, is one of the Wonders of Wales. But this Grade I listed, Unesco-protected World Heritage Site isn’t just a place of history, it’s also somewhere with a great future.

I’ve been involved in discussions about regenerating an area around Trevor, near the aqueduct. There is a huge economic opportunity here, both in continuing to bring in tourists, and in helping people find a home they can afford.

It would involve a new marina with berths for tourist boats and also residential berths for people who live on narrow-boats. It’s an affordable way for many to live in their own home, in a popular area where there are few homes to rent, or to buy.

My stroll along the Llangollen Canal bank was to accompany supporters of Enough Food For Everyone If…. This campaign wants action to end world hunger, with action to stop tax avoidance by multi-nationals. In the Third World last year $160bn was lost in tax avoidance.

Enough Food is also calling on Wales’ AMs to ensure the money we spend supports fair trade, tax transparency and environmental sustainability. I understand their concerns about ending this unfairness. It’s frustrating to know the world produces enough food for everyone, but not everyone has enough food.
The campaign is also pressing for the UK to use its Presidency of the G8 and the Enniskillen Summit in June, to urge other rich countries to meet their longstanding promises of spending 0.7% of GNP on aid - the UK is the only member of the G8 to spend this amount on global aid.  This shows the commitment of the UK Government to helping the poorest in our world.  This is not without controversy as many people here question why we are spending that money abroad and not at home, but some of the people being helped live on less than a £1 a day.

Airline Delays and your rights

Last summer I blogged about the problems of JET2 for passengers on flights with the company, and the fact that there were particular problems with cancelled flights being referred to as "delayed" flights.  Two recent Judgements have improved consumer rights in this area.  For delays the "Tui Travel" case established that where a flight has been delayed for more than 3 hours passengers will be entitled to compensation.  The Civil Aviation Authority have updated their advice for passengers which can be accessed here http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2211&pageid=14023

For a Guardian article which outlines further information http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/jan/31/airlines-refuse-delayed-flight-payouts

It is time now for Airlines to give their passengers the compensation they are properly entitled to.

Marine Conservation Zone U-Turn

John Griffiths has been forced to put a hold on his proposals for MCZ's.  His department received 7000 responses, and reading between the lines has been totally overwhelmed by the opposition to the proposals which would have had far reaching consequences along the Welsh Coast, with huge potential impacts on the Tourism and Fishing sectors.

Particularly embarrasing for Welsh Government was the fact that in the last 5 years in Marine Protected Areas NO enforcement action has been carried out.  At least  "not to their knowledge" which is the worrying answer I got in an FOI request.

My consultation response has been uploaded to other websites, or a copy can be obtained from my constituency office as it runs to some 9 pages, but I thought you might like to know my conclusions, posted here.

"In conclusion, I would recommend the following course of action:
1. A moratorium should be placed upon the MCZ implementation process pending further research and evidence gathering on the socio-economic impact of MCZs in the areas identified;

2. An integrated environmental, fisheries and socio-economic assessment is conducted before any further action is taken by the Welsh Government. Only after the results of such an integrated and holistic assessment are analysed can the foundation upon which effective management of the MCZs be developed;

3. The Welsh Government fully takes into account the proposals contained within the WFA Striking the Balance document."

All in all it is another embarrasment for Environment Minister John Griffiths, whose department churns out consultations like confetti.  What is clear both from my response, and from the many coastal communities was that "environment" sections of Welsh Government had not been talking to Fisheries..... leading to an awful mess, and yet another "task and finish group".  Something tells me that the delay to 2013 may indicate a desire by the Minister to push the whole thing off to the new Natural Resources Wales Body, and wash his hands of the whole mess.

Healthcare reorganisation of community hospitals

Yesterday I was at two BETSI meetings held in Flint, and I was there to see the local people of Flint who had come out to support their Community Hospital.  I have also been at meetings in Colwyn Bay, Prestatyn and Rhyl.  Rhyl has already seen the closure of the Alex Hospital.  Prestatyn, Flint and Colwyn Bay are facing closure of their community hospitals, with services being concentrated at other sites accross North Wales.  The Health Board is promising what it calls "Home Enhanced Care" which will allow greater investment in care at home accross North Wales.  The figures last night were that it costs abouts £924,000 to keep Flint Community Hospital open, with the hospital having a 160 in patient addmissions over the course of the year.  The Health Board are arguing that they need to provide a greater consistency of care accross North Wales.  The problem is that 5 years ago, when there was a raft of closures of community hospitals accross North Wales improvements in care were offered, and the argument then was that better care would be offered in the home. People are just not convinced that they are going to see those improvements.  Aligned with this are proposals to move level 3 neonatal intensive care to Arrowe Park in Liverpool.  I have blogged about these proposals in earlier posts.  I have raised with the Health Board the statistics which show that infant mortality in Anglesey is 6.7 and Denbighshire is 7 when the Welsh Average is 4.3, the fact that the Health Board wishes to move neonatal intensive care should be a wake up call, as it will mean the downgrading of services at Glan Clwyd, and the loss of specialist Doctors who have experience with the smallest of babies, who can not talk and tell Doctors what is wrong with them.  This is likely to mean the loss of 5 Senior House Officer Doctors.  What can you do?  Get involved, respond to the consultation email the Health Board at jointhedebate@wales.nhs.uk  if you dont fight to retain local services, you will loose them.

Betsi Consultation on Intensive Care for Babies. What they dont know

The Betsi Health Board have launched their consultation.  I sat in on two of their meetings today in Rhyl and was really concerned about their approach to Neo Natal intensive care services.  This is called a "level 3" service.  The proposal is to move the beds to Arrowe Park in Liverpool.  This will mean a massive journey for patients from the more rural parts of  North Wales and the more Western part of North Wales, with the possibility that mothers will be seperated from their babies, if they are not well enough to travel.  Not only that, but it will also mean that parents will potentially be seperated from their existing children.  What was not clear was that Arrowe Park is in fact in a position to offer better care.  It appears that Glan Clwyd has one on one nursing with special intensive care babies, Arrowe Park does not.  Arrowe Park does have more consultants, but it doesnt seem to have the 5 Senior House Officer Doctors that are present at Glan Clwyd.  Furthermore what Betsi has not told the public is that if the level three service moves, so will the ability to train the Senior House Officer Doctors.

Betsi knew that the Deanery (responsible for decisions on training) have said that this will happen.  What does it mean for the public in North Wales, it means a downgrading of the maternity services available, it means that Betsi's sums are wrong on the savings that they will make, as they will need to employ additional consultants or non SHO Doctors, and it will mean a key service being shut down in North Wales.  Get involved with the consultation.  Write to me with your objections and I will pass it on as to retain the service it will need public support.  More worryingly, the answers given in the earlier meeting were not the same as in the later meeting, I have got that on the record and will be submitting FOI's to Arrowe Park, as clearly Betsi dont know the current level of cover, or arrangements because they are having to check them after parents from the charity Cuddles challenged the Health Board's assertions.

Planning and the Environment

An article on the BBC website indicates that the Welsh Government is going to bring forward new planning rules "next month" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-19490475 .  John Griffiths the Minister for the "Environment" has a poor record on planning.  Over the last year he has been pushed repeatedly by me and others to permit small scale renewable installations, such as solar panels, and to include them in the permitted development rules.  He has dragged his feet and delayed, which meant that many people were not able to install when the more preferential rates were available.  One development in Deeside worth millions could not go ahead.  So you would think the news might be good news that new rules are coming out.  My concern is that the new rules will be used to drive through highly controversial onshore windfarm developments.  We will wait to see what the new rules say.  Housing developers have clearly indicated why they are not building at the moment, rules on the environmental standards are the toughest in the UK and that combined with new fire sprinkler requirements are what are holding back developments in North Wales at the moment. If Griffiths wants to kick start the housing sector, then it will be interesting to see if those issues are addressed. 

Labour's economic failure

A recent lecture by Peter Watcyn Jones from Eversheds at the Eisteddfod illustrates dramatically Labour's economic failure in Wales.  Here is an extract of what he said

"
The report's main message is that Wales, since the mid-90's, has seen a serious economic deterioration, to such an extent that Wales is now at the bottom of the economic table in terms of prosperity and wealth. There is a gap, if not chasm, opening up between Welsh economic success and the rest of Britain. The report suggests that each individual in Wales is £1,850 poorer than their counterparts in England – referred to in the report as "Offa's Gap". It notes that the financial services sector is becoming increasingly centred on London, leaving Wales all the poorer. It suggests that Wales imports far too much, and the famous economist A P Thirwal is quoted as suggesting that long-term growth depends on exports rather than imports. Is this principle also valid when considering the export of talent as well as goods? "

He then went onto say

"When undertaking my budget review, I noted the analysis in "Offa's Gap" with regard to the dearth of large private limited companies in Wales which would be likely to use Welsh lawyers for their work. My understanding is that there are only 16 such companies with an office or base in Wales. Of those, seven are in Cardiff or Newport, two in Ewloe, one or two in Swansea, one on Anglesey, another three in North Wales and one in Chester – possibly on the other side of the Welsh border anyway! The annual reports of these PLCs suggest that only three are represented by Welsh law firms."

Both those points, dramatically and clearly illustrate Labour's economic failure in Wales.  Labour has to raise its game on the economy in Wales, we have seen a consistent jobs flight from the private sector, over the border into England.  Sadly I think this will continue for as long as Labour remains in power in Wales

AIrline Delays and Cancellations - Your Rights

Twice this year I have taken flights which have been delayed/cancelled by over 24 hours.  I therefore thought it would be worth writing about where passengers can find help in the event that they face long delays and/or cancelled flights.

EU regulation 261/2004 is the document which lays down the rights of passengers.  The regulation extends to scheduled flights AND non-scheduled flights including those part of package tours.  One of the aims of the regulation is stated in the preamble as being "to strengthen the rights of passengers" and "Passengers should be fully informed of their rights in the event of denied boarding, and of cancellation or long delay of flights, so that they can effectively exercise their rights"

Both Airlines I flew with Qatar Airways and Jet2 have industry led "awards", both have failed to comply with the law as it currently stands in Europe.  The first delay with Qatar meant that we missed the first night of our honeymoon, meaning we missed an overnight stay in Colombo and also meant that we had an 8 hour journey after we had finally arrived, they have offered compensation, but not in line with regulation 261/2004.  Jet2 are arguing that a 24 hour delay was not a cancellation and are refusing compensation.  Qatar didnt tell us that we had the right to be able to find an alternative flight to Colombo.  Jet2 delayed in telling their passengers about that right until it was virtually impossible to use it.

When is a delay to be treated as if it were a cancellation?  The Sturgeon case in the European Court held that where a flight was delayed by 3 hours or more ie if they land more than three hours after their scheduled landing time, passangers should be treated as if their flight had been cancelled and this meant that they are entitled to the compensation outlined in regulation 261/2004 ourlined in Article 7 of the regulations.  Compensation depends on the distance flown, and ranges between 250-600 euros per passenger.  Airlines are refusing to apply the Sturgeon case.  A further case to the European Court (TUI and Others v the Civil Aviation Authority) is expected to be decided in September, and I will update the result of that case on the blog.

What to do if your flight is delayed/cancelled. I would advise you to read the regulations, they are only a couple of pages long, are easy to understand, and you will then know what you are entitled to ask of the airline, and what options are available in terms of telling the airline that you will make an alternative booking if you are able to at the Airport.

If you face a delay of three hours of more, on a flight, make a written complaint to the Airline.  Persist, as the Airlines will tell you that Sturgeon doesnt apply (it does until the Court rules otherwise).   The Civil Aviation Authority enforces these regulations, and will need copies of correspondence if it gets that far.

The Civil Aviation Authority has a customer support line which can help passengers with their complaints.  For further information on how to complain go to website http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2226&pagetype=90

The above link will tell you what your rights are, how to use them.  The important thing is to claim before the outcome of the September case is known.  The provisional decision is in passengers favour.  Lets hope the ECJ upholds it!