Sending the wrong person

One might be forgiven for thinking that if the Secretary of State for Wales is sent on an official overseas visit, it would be to promote Wales. But no.

     

As we can see from the picture, David Jones is attending the 47th SEAMEO conference in Vietnam.

I quite welcome the idea of the UK becoming an associate member of the organization. But if the UK wanted itself to be taken seriously, why did it not send a minister with at least some responsibility for education?

There are, after all, four to choose from. Mike Russell, John O'Dowd, Michael Gove or even our own Leighton Andrews would have some international credibility. Sending David Jones is a bit of an insult.

David Jones must be sacked

I've pondered for a while over whether to say something about David Jones' extraordinary comments on Face to Face earlier this week, and his subsequent explanation for them. Of course I have nothing particularly new to add that hasn't already been said by hundreds, if not thousands, of people; but I've decided that I need to add my voice because his comments are of a nature that cannot be ignored. We cannot turn a blind eye to bigotry and prejudice against any section of our society, especially when it comes from those who hold positions of power in government.

First, we need to be clear about exactly what he said. This is the relevant extract from the interview:

     

"Certainly, in constituency terms, I felt that overwhelmingly the constituents of Clwyd West were opposed to the change. But also I regard marriage as an institution that's developed over many centuries, essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same-sex partners can't do. Which is not to say that I'm in any sense opposed to stable and committed same-sex partnerships."

Face to Face, ITV Wales, 14 February 2013

Although I disagree with his decision to vote against equal marriage, that in itself is no reason for him to be sacked. The reason David Cameron should remove him from his cabinet position is specifically because he said that same-sex partners cannot provide a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children. He made a blanket statement—to use his own words from the same interview, we might call it a crude characterization—which is not only patently untrue, but grossly offensive to the many same-sex couples who do provide a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children.

I would have hoped he might look again at what he said in the interview and apologize. In the stress of an interview it is all too easy not to express things as clearly as one would have liked. But instead of doing so, he tried to justify himself by making this statement:

"I was asked on the Face to Face programme why I voted against the same-sex marriage proposals. I replied that I had done so on the basis that I took the view that marriage is an institution that has developed over the centuries so as to provide a safe and warm environment for the upbringing of children. I made the point of stressing that I was fully supportive of committed same-sex relationships. I also strongly approve of civil partnerships.

"I did not say in the interview that same-sex partners should not adopt children and that is not my view. I simply sought to point out that, since same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage was one that, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite-sex partners."

ITV Wales, 15 February 2013

This is a classic example of studiously missing the point. Nobody is in any doubt that a marriage between opposite-sex partners can provide a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children. The point at issue is that David Jones made the blanket assertion that same-sex partners cannot provide that sort of environment. That is bigotry, pure and simple.

For me, the obvious question is why, if he really does believe that same-sex couples cannot provide that environment, he is in favour of same-sex partners being allowed to adopt children. In any adoption the well-being of the child is paramount, and no child should be adopted by any couple—whether gay or straight—which cannot provide a warm and safe environment for that child to grow up in. It is self-evident hypocrisy for David Jones to claim he is in favour of same-sex partners being allowed to adopt if he believes that same-sex partners are incapable of providing it.

Prejudice, offensiveness, bigotry and hypocrisy should not be tolerated from any politician of any political party. That is why he must be dismissed from his position as Secretary of State for Wales.

The very worst thing about AV

One of the reasons I include David Jones on my bloglist is for entertainment value. He can be guaranteed to say something that will make him look a fool.

Today he blogged about AV, telling us about an encounter he had while canvassing:

In Mountain View Avenue, Mynydd Isa, I stopped to chat with a gentleman who was creosoting his fence. How, I asked, did he feel about AV?

“Disastrous,” he replied. “Do you realise that if we’d had AV at the last general election, that [expletive deleted] man Gordon Brown would still be running the country? It doesn’t bear thinking about.”

I must confess that the possibility hadn’t occurred to me, but it is probably the most compelling argument against the Alternative Vote system I have yet heard.

The worst thing about AV – David Jones, 20 April 2011

At this point, it might be worth reminding people about this story from the Telegraph in February:

     David Cameron: Gordon Brown would still be prime minister under AV

Poor David. Caught lying through his teeth. He's hardly the sharpest tool in the box, but not even he could be as dumb as he likes to make out he is.

Now if we read the article, what his leader said at the time was that under AV, Labour could have stayed in power. Sure. And my next door neighbours on both sides could each have won the lottery.

It would be very hard to work out what the results of a previous election would have been if AV had been used. You'd need to know if a person's expressed choice was their first preference or whether s/he was voting tactically; you'd need to know what their other preferences were; and also to know who else might be standing as a candidate, because one advantage of AV is that it would enable a wider range of candidates to stand because there would be no danger of them splitting the vote.

-

So then, what is the very worst thing about AV, I hear you ask?

Simple, that the mere mention of it encourages those who have a vested interest in maintaining the current voting system to tell even bigger lies than they normally would.

Carwyn and too much cheap booze

When Carwyn Jones said on Friday that Wales was now "a full and equal partner" in the United Kingdom it was either because the euphoria of the occasion had gone to his head, or an attempt at a not so coded message that Labour wants people in Wales to be content with the constitutional settlement we now have and not expect any further progress for a long, long time.

That's simply not good enough. The truth is that Wales is still very far from having the same devolved powers as either Scotland or Northern Ireland ... as this story from Northern Ireland illustrates perfectly:

     

Plans to set Northern Ireland alcohol prices

The Health and Social Development Ministers are proposing to introduce a new minimum price for selling alcohol in Northern Ireland in a bid to curb binge drinking.

Alex Attwood and Michael McGimpsey are pushing for a minimum price per unit of alcohol to be set between 40p and 70p in off-licences, supermarkets, pubs and registered clubs as part of a government drive to reduce irresponsible drinking. They say alcohol abuse, particularly among teenagers, is costing Northern Ireland as much as £700m a year.

Detailed research from Sheffield University highlights the real impact setting a minimum price of 40p has on reducing alcohol consumption.

In Northern Ireland, the minimum price introduction would mean a six pack of beer containing approximately 11 units of alcohol would cost £4.40 if the price of 40p per unit is accepted or £7.70 if the price of 70p per unit is chosen.

Scotland has already consulted on a 45p per unit minimum price, however, bringing this forward as legislation has proved unsuccessful.

UTV, 7 March 2011

As it happens, Northern Ireland is the third devolved administration to propose a minimum price for alcohol. The Scottish Government attempted to introduce a 45p per unit price last year, but the SNP couldn't command a majority for it in Holyrood, and that part of the bill was defeated.

That's fair enough ... democracy is all about what people, through their elected representatives, want. But the point of principle is that both Northern Ireland and Scotland would be perfectly entitled to pass a law setting a minimum price for alcohol if the proposal had majority support in Stormont or Holyrood.

-

Only Scotland's attempt to pass such legislation was mentioned in the UTV report, but we in Wales have also been trying to introduce a minimum price for alcohol. I talked about the background to it in this post in August last year. But unlike Scotland, our problem was not that we couldn't get a majority of our AMs to vote for it, but that the Wales Office simply refused to entertain the idea. This is what David Jones, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Wales Office said at the time:

The Wales Office has accused the assembly government's health minister of breaking the devolution agreement by calling for powers over alcohol licensing. Edwina Hart has asked fellow cabinet members to help her "take control and take action" over alcohol policies.

But David Jones said alcohol licensing will never be devolved. He agreed that alcohol abuse was a "major blight" but said laws over it would never be devolved.

Mr Jones added: "Alcohol pricing is specifically excluded from a devolution settlement, it will never be part of the devolution settlement and I'm rather surprised that Mrs Hart made the announcement in the way she did. What it shows is it is useful if assembly ministers consult not only with their own colleagues in the assembly government, but also with colleagues at Westminster before making announcements of this sort."

He said "I fully agree with Edwina Hart to the extent that alcohol is a major blight upon the social life of this country."

Mr Jones said among the proposals the UK coalition government was working up were to ban the sale of alcohol below cost pricing and to review alcohol taxation and pricing to tackle binge drinking. He said they would consult with the assembly government, but "it is a process that should be developed at an England and Wales level."

BBC, 17 August 2010

It's an almost exact parallel of the situation we faced with the smoking ban. We in Wales were only allowed to implement it after Westminster decided to do it in England. But why on earth should things "be developed at an England and Wales level"? If it is acceptable for both Northern Ireland and Scotland to be able to legislate on behalf of their people in areas like this, why shouldn't our National Assembly be able to do the same?

Wales has still got a second class devolution settlement compared with both Scotland and Northern Ireland. Yes, last week's referendum has made some difference to what we can legislate on, but only some. We have a long way to go before we can be considered "a full and equal partner" in the UK. Perhaps when the euphoria has worn off, Carwyn Jones and his party will join us in realizing that we still have a lot more to fight for.

Maybe in Manchester ... but not in Wales

Somewhere in David Jones' locker there must be a glimmer of perspective, but it's a long way down.

The Welsh Government has made no secret of its belief that stricter controls are necessary on alcohol. This is from a BBC report at the start of a consultation on drug and alcohol abuse more than two years ago:

Speaking at the launch of the consultation, Social Justice Minister Brian Gibbons said the economic and social costs of alcohol and class A drug misuse were estimated to be as much as £2bn each year.

"It also puts pressure on public services, costing the NHS in Wales up to £85m a year," he said. "It is therefore right we should place a greater emphasis on alcohol and reducing the harm it causes."

Wales' Chief Medical Officer Tony Jewell said the strategy would target younger drinkers. "There is growing evidence that young people in Wales are starting to drink at an early age and regularly binge-drink – with consequent risk of injury, road traffic crashes, unsafe sex and anti-social behaviour."

BBC, 11 February 2008

As things evolved—particularly with regard to the policy the Scottish Government has proposed—the Welsh Government reached a firmer position, which Edwina Hart presented in an oral statement to the Assembly in April this year. This is an extract:

In some ways, it is common sense that lower prices lead to more consumption. But there is now strong evidence to support this assertion – major reports produced by the Institute of Alcohol Studies, and by the University of Sheffield, have demonstrated that increases in affordability of alcohol lead to increases in consumption. They have also shown that increasing the price of alcohol will reduce consumption, particularly amongst young people, binge drinkers, and harmful drinkers who are dependent on alcohol. So we believe that there is now a strong case for the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol.

But what can we do about this in Wales? Our substance misuse strategy sets out our determination to tackle the harms associated with alcohol misuse, and commits us to press for robust action to tackle the availability of alcohol, including:

•  Stricter rules on the promotion of alcohol,
•  Consideration of reducing demand by introducing minimum pricing, and
•  Increased taxation, linking levels of tax more closely to alcohol strength

We do not currently have the powers to implement these changes ourselves. Our focus has been on making the case to the UK Government, and I and my Ministerial colleagues have written on a number of occasions to highlight these issues. And I believe that opinion is swinging our way. In recent months we have seen calls for minimum pricing from the BMA, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, and the Parliamentary Health Select Committee.

Oral Statement on Alcohol Pricing Policy, 27 April 2010

So it shouldn't have come as any real surprise to David Jones when Edwina Hart wrote to the Welsh Cabinet asking to set in motion a process for devolving such powers to Wales. But it was. As we can read in this report today:

But Mr Jones told BBC Radio Wales that they were "rather surprised" about Mrs Hart's announcement, as alcohol licensing powers were "specifically excluded" from the devolution settlement.

Well, if they were already included, there wouldn't be much point in making a request, would there? For it is something that is outside the scope of the GoWA 2006.

-

But to my mind, what he goes on to say displays an even greater degree of political ignorance:

Mr Jones said he would object in principle to powers on alcohol being devolved. He said the matter should be "properly dealt with on an England and Wales basis".

"Differential regimes could lead to so called alcohol tourism whereby people who live in Wrexham could go to Chester and do their alcohol shopping for a different price," he said.

If he—or even one of his researchers or a Wales Office special advisor—had read the Daily Telegraph a fortnight ago, he would know that local authorities in and around Manchester are intending to propose a minimum price on alcohol:

Manchester attempts to impose minimum price of alcohol

The ten local authorities in and around Manchester hope to pass a by-law that would set a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol, in an attempt to end to the cheap deals blamed for drink-fuelled disorder and health problems. It would affect all the pubs, supermarkets and off-licences in Manchester, Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham and the area covered by the The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA), which has a population of 3.9 million.

This move would be far bolder than proposals by the Coalition Government, which have so far suggested investigating the banning of below-cost selling. A consultation has started to ascertain how to define "below-cost".

The Manchester idea has been pioneered by Our Life, an NHS-backed campaign group, which says North West England has one of the worst alcohol problems in the country. Andy Walker, at Our Life, said: "There are 1.3 million adults in the North West who drink hazardous or harmful amounts of alcohol. And the cost to the NHS North West, in terms of treating alcohol-related injuries and illnesses, is in excess of £400 million a year."

Daily Telegraph, 2 August 2010

So we see Manchester, an area with a very similar population to Wales, wanting to locally control alcohol pricing for its citizens in the same way as we want to do in Wales.

Now if the Tory party were being consistent, they would have dismissed Manchester's initiative out of hand. They would say it was illegal. They would say they were against the idea "in principle". They would point out that:

"Differential regimes could lead to so called alcohol tourism whereby people who live in Wrexham Manchester could go to Chester and do their alcohol shopping for a different price."

They might even go so far as to proclaim that:

"Laws over it would never be devolved."

But the Tories didn't do that in the case of Manchester. In fact they did precisely the opposite.

Despite retailers and the alcohol industry insisting Manchester's attempt stood no chance of passing the first legal hurdle, the Home Office said it was supportive of the idea.

A Home Office spokesperson said: "We welcome initiatives from local authorities especially when they are responding to the concerns of local people."

The lesson to be learned? If you represent the "local people" of Greater Manchester, the Tory/LibDem Government is all in favour of listening to your concerns and will support your initiative. If you represent the "local people" of Wales, that same government will not take any notice of your concerns ... and will dismiss your initiative out of hand.

David Jones and the darker side of politics

There was something about the title of David Jones' most recent blog post that sounded familiar. At first I wondered if "Voices of Colwyn Bay" was an old mariners' tale telling of the disembodied souls of those who had lost their lives a shipwreck on some stormy night a century or more ago. But it was a post about a meeting to express public concern for the future of Colwyn Bay pier ... an entirely good and worthy cause, and one which I hope succeeds.

But at the bottom of the post I noticed a familiar name: John Oddy.

Mr Oddy stood for election to Colwyn Bay Town Council in 2008 as a BNP candidate and, sadly, was returned unopposed. I crossed swords a few times with him on the WalesOnline forum and can assure anyone who cares to trust my judgement that he is a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

After a short while he, and two other BNP councillors who had come to office in the same way, made a show of leaving the BNP for what he would only describe as "personal reasons". I suspected at the time that this was just a cosmetic exercise designed to fool the public ... and it seems I have now been proved right, because he is openly supporting the BNP again, as we can read in this post on his blog.

As anyone who clicked the link can see, the title of John Oddy's blog is ... "Voices of Colwyn Bay".

Now of course I wouldn't want to suggest that the Tory MP for Clwyd West is in any way connected with the BNP. He is probably simply grateful for the publicity that John Oddy was able to give the campaign to save the pier. I'm sure that any little old lady would be equally grateful if a BNP supporter helped her across a busy road ... though I wonder if she would accept such help if she knew about who was offering it.

-

I'm quite sure David Jones chose the title of his post simply as a way of saying "thank you" to John Oddy for the publicity he was able to provide, and linked to his blog just to give it a little more publicity in return. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. But it is ... how shall we put it ... just a little unfortunate that he chose to do so.

All in all this episode probably says more about how little David Jones knows about politics in his very own constituency ... and that is something rather more unfortunate.

Half marks for David Jones MP

I do read David Jones' blog. It is a perfect example of trying to create the impression you have something important to say, then saying things which are usually inane.

Today he advertized the fact that he had spoken in the Commons about renewable energy. Good. I agree that it is an important subject. But speaking is usually of little use if you haven't a clue what you're talking about. This is what he said on his blog:

However, I was disappointed that more was not being done to encourage the development of reliable renewable technology.

The biggest obstacle to progress is the way that Renewables Obligations certificates (ROCs) are structured, giving developers every incentive to opt for wind power, a relatively cheap and well established but inefficient technology, rather than invest in potentially more reliable renewables such as tidal power.

ROCs are very blunt instruments. One ROC is awarded for every megawatt hour of renewable generation, irrespective of the technology used to produce it. This tends to favour wind farms and to discourage investment in new technologies.

The Government recognises the problem and intends to address this by "banding" ROCs, giving additional ROCs to innovative technologies. However, onshore wind will continue to attract ROCs at the current rate, providing an attractive return that will mean that wind farms will continue to proliferate and the development of tidal power, like CCS, will probably go overseas.

Waste of Energy - 8 December 2009

David is a year behind all the rest of us. Last December I posted this:

     Change in the way ROCs are calculated

And the changes duly came into force on 1 April 2009 by means of this SI.

Poor man. At least his heart is in the right place, even though his knowledge isn't up to the job. Who knows, perhaps there's a thriving internal market in recycled Tory research papers, and he bought a job lot without looking at the date.

-

But I agree with his sentiments. I am all for wind power, but believe that the financial incentives that were designed to promote its development have outlived their usefulness in the case of onshore windfarms. It has become an easy, cheap option and therefore there is a temptation to develop windfarms anywhere and everywhere. I believe onshore wind has its place, but will be much more readily accepted when communities take ownership of them, so that the financial benefits are localized. There is a huge difference between this and some large, multinational company making all the profits by building on a site which is easy and cheap to develop against the wishes of the local community.

If I had my way—and on the basis that we are now stuck with the ROC system for many years to come, 2037 in fact—I would band small scale community developments more highly, using the mechanism of the total number of ROCs held by a company to essentially price out large companies from small scale projects. Of course the local communities would probably still need to rely on large companies for their expertise and commercial clout, but the community would own and therefore control everything that was done.

-

Offshore wind is different. Winds are generally stronger and more reliable and there is no problem with noise or flicker. The new generation of far offshore sites in Round Three means that the turbines will be hardly visible too ... although I think they're quite beautiful and have never minded their impact on either land or seascape.

-

However, as an example of a more progressive way of handling the need to devolop tidal and wave energy, we need only to look to Scotland. Indeed the BWEA (who care just as much about other renewables as they do about wind) produced a report in October:

The report also expressed a fear that because of the more generous support given to marine technologies in Scotland, and abroad, developers will look to base projects outside England and Wales.

Since 2006, the Scottish government has supported nine projects through its £13.5 million Wave and Tidal Energy Support Scheme (WATES) and plans to increase support available to three ROCs per MWh for electricity generated from tidal devices and five ROCs per MWh for wave energy.

New Energy Focus - 26 October 2009

As I've said before, Scotland is a country that has got its act together on this and is way ahead of us. I find it hard to escape the conclusion that Westminster's plans for England and Wales are less committed to developing renewables, and particularly marine renewables, for the simple reason that they are too focused on nuclear power.

Of course I don't object to Westminster making those decisions for England, but I'm quite sure that we in Wales would be doing the same things as Scotland is doing if we had the power to do so. Why should we put up with a situation where investment flows into Scotland and not into Wales? We are blessed with geography that gives us every bit as much marine energy potential as Scotland ... our waves might not be quite as big, but our tides are a good deal better!

We must devolve responsibily for energy to Wales. It's not a matter of more powers for the sake of more powers, but the ability to set the rules so that they work in our favour. To bring development, and therefore jobs and profit, to Wales.