MAKING OUR DEMOCRACY WORK FOR US

The bottom line is that all votes should be equal - the problem is that they are not. The corrupt nineteenth century voting system is a total anachronism, which is no longer fit for purpose. The number of votes accumulated to elect a representative to the Mother of Parliaments (for want of a better phrase) is as follows:

• Labour MP- 33,350 votes
• Tory MP- 34,989 votes
• Plaid MP- 55,131 votes
• SNP MP- 81,898 votes
• Lib Dem MP -119,788 votes

It gets worse, not only are votes not equal but the system favours the larger parties. In Wales:

• Labour got 36.2% of vote and 65% of seats
• Conservatives got 26.1% of vote and 20% of seats
• Lib Dems got 20.1% of vote and 7.5% of seats
• Plaid got 11.3% of vote and 7.5% of seats

While this questionable result might suit Peter Hain (a great defender of 'our democracy' as long as it serves the Labour Party's interests rather than the peoples interests), it should not suit the rest of us. If we are serious about having a working representative democracy where all votes have equal value then we need Single Transferable Vote (STV), with multi member constituencies.

I personally would add one extra refinement, by having open rather than closed lists so that the public can vote for the representatives of the party it prefers. This will retain the link with geographical constituencies and ensure that our representatives have to work to earn their re-election - no more safe seats and easy rides.  Additionally this would put more power in the hands of the electorate by giving then the opportunity to purge the system of the slackers and party hacks and still vote for the party of their choice. 

I would go a little further and make sure that Westminster parliament's to have fixed terms 4 years. This is the controversial bit, I would include a limit to the number of consecutive terms that elected members can serve, say no more than 3 terms ( or 12 years), if they want to serve a fourth, go away and get a real job for 4 years and try your luck again. If we are serious about our democracy then this should also apply to Local councils at county and community level as well.

Elective public service, for that's what is is should not be a job for life and neither should it be a path for personal enrichment, the same rules that apply to senior civil servants should be adapted to prevent former politicians from cashing acquire knowledge for tidy jobs immediately after their term in office ends. 

A SORRY BUSINESS - THE HOUSING LCO

If the Housing LCO had an obituary, it could read killed of by an unholy alliance of self-serving New and Old Labour and Conservative MP's in Westminster, who put their self-interest before the needs of their constituents in Wales. There appears to be little chance that said MP's will even have the decency to appear somewhat shamefaced as a result of their actions and the company that they keep.

Both New and Old Labour and Conservative MP's have delayed for a combination of political point scoring and self interest throughout the long and tortuous three year process that it took to develop the Housing LCO (Legislative competence order) which reached its final stages and had it been passed would have meant devolving powers over housing in Wales to the One Wales Government.

Despite the delaying tactics, Plaid Cymru doggedly persevered in both the National Assembly and the Palace of Westminster over the crucial piece of Housing legislation, which was publicly backed by several leading Housing organisations. Earlier this week Welsh Secretary Peter Hain urged all parties to support the measure before Parliament was dissolved, he said that it would be "a huge blow for homeless and vulnerable people" in Wales if the LCO was not passed.

Yet ironically it was the Tories' who (busy doing New Labours dirty work) made the running in the last successful attempt to block the passage of the LCO which has not only served to undermine the devolution system (and the devolution settlement) but showed that the current LCO system is clearly not fit for purpose as it had not worked to the advantage of the Welsh Assembly Government and the people of Wales.

There may be a faint degree of irony, that even during the dying days of this unloved New Labour Government, that new Labour was prepared to pout its needs and the needs of the Tories in advance of the needs of Welsh constituents. A combination of the farcical LCO system itself allowed the Tories - an opposition party in Westminster - to block the democratic will of the National Assembly.

Moreover the process had been full of contradictions with the Tories supporting the transfer of these powers to Wales in a future Referendum but not through this current Legislative Competence Order.

Plaid’s Hywel Williams MP, commenting on the sorry business last week, said:

“Neither the Tories nor Labour are free from blame in allowing this situation to arise. Let’s not forget that both parties in Westminster blocked the first piece of legislation. The second was denied to the Assembly by a cabal of Conservative MPs.

"This Order would have allowed the Assembly Government to address the shortage of affordable housing as well as provide housing support for the most vulnerable. The London parties should be ashamed.

“When this LCO system came into being it was said that MPs would not be able to block the Assembly from having powers on ideological or political grounds but these events have shown that the system is clearly not fit for purpose.

“And today we see the Tories – the same old ‘nasty party’ – scoring petty political points rather than helping those who are in need of Government support.

"There were of course opportunities to propose amendments during committee scrutiny in both Westminster and the National Assembly but the Conservatives did not do so on either occasion.

“Indeed, the Conservatives gave their full support to the proposed LCO during the Committee stage in the National Assembly. This sudden turn around is political game playing. We urge them to put this to one side on such an important issue as people’s homes, tackling the pressing issue of a shortage of affordable housing as well as housing support for the most vulnerable.”

AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT?

With a possible referendum on further powers for the National Assembly at some point in the near future, it is interesting to note that support is growing for an English parliament. Whether this is motivated as the Daily Telegraph (2nd March 2010), has suggested as English voters increasingly feel shortchanged by the amount of public money sent to Scotland, or because the Westminster Parliament is mired and tainted with sleaze, has lost its focus or seems particularly distant to English voters is open to question. A report, published by the think tank IPPR with NatCen, a social research institute, on attitudes 10 years on from devolution in Scotland and Wales suggests that support is growing for an English parliament similar to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh

The reports findings have revealed that 40 per cent of people in England feel that Scotland receives more than its fair share of public funds - an increase from 22 per cent in 2003. With just under half of those asked believing that England's laws should continue to be made at Westminster and 29 per cent now back a new parliament for the country. The number of people supporting an English parliament increased from 18 per cent to 29 per cent in 10 years. The report interestingly enough, shows that support was strongest among those who described themselves as English rather than British. The findings were based on interviews between June and November last year among 980 people living in England.

A CASE OF QUALITY NOT QUANTITY

Plaid MP's have always punched above it weight at Westminster, a real case of quality rather than quantity, something that the Independent (Wednesday 10th February 2010) amongst others has noticed. It was Plaid who drew attention to Blair and Mittal's £2m, and Plaid who began to the process of shining some light in relation to the Cash for Honours scandal. Not to mention the attempt to impeach Tony Blair. The 3 Plaid MP's (Elfyn Llwyd, Adam Price and Hwyel Williams ) have, the Independent noted have had more effect on Parliament than the entire Liberal Democrats, all 62 of them. It will be interesting to see what happens when Plaid doubles it's number of MP's!

WHEN THE WIND BLOWS...

On Friday 9th January, the Westminster Government revealed the nine locations chosen to develop off-shore wind energy. Two of the nine chosen locations for developing off-shore wind farms lie between Anglesey and the Isle of Man, and between the south Wales coast and Devon and Cornwall.

These proposed developments are going to be on a much larger more ambitious scale than anything previously attempted. According to the UK Westminster Government, these schemes as well as trying to solve the on-going problem of energy security, will also be a lot cleaner in terms of emissions.

The Bristol Channel zone 1.5GW windfarm will be called the Atlantic Array and will be developed by RWE Npower Renewables, part of RWE Innogy. For the record the current rules governing planning that relate to energy developments ensure that energy schemes over 50 MW's lie under the remit of Westminster rather than the National Assembly.

Two other proposed development sites lie off Scotland, where things are different. There is a distinct possibility that Scotland (as Alex Salmond believes) may well have hit the energy jackpot for the second time. Originally with North Sea oil and now with Scotland's abundance of potential wind and water power.

While some onshore wind farms have been and are likely to remain controversial - off-shore may well prove to be a whole different ball game. With the renewable energy industry in Scotlandis now turning its attention to offshore wind farms, as well as the technology that may harness and deliver the power of the tides and the waves.

Scotland's renewable energy resources are concentrated in the north of the country, while most Scots live in the south, hence the hugely controversy around the new Beauly to Denny power line. One significant difference between Wales and Scotland is the fact that the discussion and the decision is being made in Scotland - we in Wales, despite our National Assembly might well find that similar decisions are made in Whitehall and Westminster not in Wales.

One thing is true, it comes down to a matter of scale, major renewable energy projects can and do have major impacts on our land and seascapes. When it comes to the environmental benefits of large-scale renewable power generation they will always have to be judged against their own environmental impact.

One thing is certain, the Scots have set themselves some tough climate change targets and the current and future Scottish governments will have many more tough decisions to make in the years ahead if those targets are to be met. It is only fair and just that we in Wales should have the powers to make similar decisions about our future energy needs rather than merely ending up dealing with a combination of either decisions made in Westminster or the consequences of Westminster's indifference.

HERE WE GO AGAIN...

Here we go again - collective parliamentary noses in the trough. The Westminster Parliament's website has published hundreds of thousands of pages of new claims from 2008-09 totalling more than £10 million. It may come as little surprise to more cynical observers that many soon to be retiring MPs have continued to squeeze the system despite pretty vocal public displeasure at the widespread abuse of the second-home allowance.

The cream of the current crop (so far) appears to be one Quentin Davies, the Labour MP for Grantham & Stamford, who slipped in an invoice in February for repairs to a bell tower and roof at Frampton Hall, his castle / mansion in Lincolnshire. The defence minister, who previously defected from the Tories (in 2007), was only reimbursed for 25% of his claim after it was ruled that he had exceeded the £24,006 annual maximum.

The Times points out that his claim would have exceeded the average pay of an army private, which is £20,449.

Some three months later (according to the Times) he then wrote to the authorities claiming that he had never intended to use public money to maintain the bell tower. Oddly enough this letter was sent some ten days after newspapers began to print (leaked) details of expenses.

The hopefully soon to be former MP was quoted as saying that it was "unfortunate" that a single invoice was issued for repairs to both his roof, which he regarded as a legitimate claim, and the bell tower, which he now says was not.

The Times reveals that claims, for April 2008 to June 2009, showed some 60 MPs had claimed the annual maximum of £24,006, including the Shadow Chancellor (George Osborne), whose submitted claims accidentally exceeded the upper limit, with the average MPs claim under the second-home allowance was £18,270.58.

Roll on Poling Day...

PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES

The news that the Police investigation into the allegations of abuse of parliamentary expenses (by both MPs and Peers) will soon be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service is welcome news. Hopefully the 3 MPs and 3 Peers who may be charged are only the start of the investigation, especially as some 27 members of Parliament were allegedly under investigation.

The Police investigation follows the exposure of MPs (and Peers) questionable claims in The Daily Telegraph which exposed the fact that MPs had claims (which covered everything from a duck house to cleaning the moat at a country home etc) stoked public fury.

At the end of the day or even the Parliamentary session - the bottom line in all of this is that fraud is fraud is fraud and anyone who has made fraudulent claims should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and any monies fraudulently obtained should duly reclaimed - failure to pursue this will result in a further potentially damaging loss of confidence in our democratic system.

FEEDING YOUR WALLET!

For the first time full details of MPs' outside earnings have been released under new rules that now require them to reveal how much time they spend on their second jobs. Despite the raised eyebrows, there is no suggestion they have broken any rules.

It has been revealed that some former ministers are raking it in, pulling in hundreds of pounds an hour by holding down lucrative second jobs outside of the Westminster Parliament. The new House of Commons register of interests exposes the fact that dozens of MPS have nice little sidelines with private companies, and that some former cabinet members making best use of their have used their former positions, expertise and contacts are some of the biggest earners.

John Gummer, the former Tory environment secretary, who submitted parliamentary expenses for mole removal from his country estate. He has pulled in £1,666 for 20 minutes on the telephone making a contribution to a board meeting of Sovereign Reversions. That works out at some £83.33 a minute from a business that helps elderly people to refinance their homes. Citizen Gummer also earned £3,562 for two hours' work for Veolia, a waste management company, and £2,083 for three hours chairing meetings for the Association of Independent Financial Advisers. Nice if you can get it!

Patricia Hewitt, the former health secretary, earned £31,175 for 86 hours' work during July and August as an adviser to BT and Boots.

The former defence minister Adam Ingram, was paid £1,150 for three hours' work advising the International School for Security and Explosives Education.

Last month, the former Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, was paid some £8,500 in payments from Beachcroft LLP, a commercial law firm for 36 hours work.

The Times has more interesting details. Snouts in troughs or what! Roll on the Westminster General Election...

SAVING THE FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE LABS IN CHEPSTOW

The threat to the Forensic Science Service (FSS) Laboratory in Chepstow, which is the only facility of it’s kind in Wales, does little to help with the fight against crime and threatens 168 well paid very skilled jobs.

Every effort must be made in the National Assembly and at Westminster to fight to retain the unique services and skills and the jobs in Wales. The jobs loses at the FSS Laboratory on Usk Road, in Chepstow would be a real blow to Chepstow and the surrounding area, as would the loss of FSS services be to Wales.

The restructured new service would be based in London, Cambridgeshire, the Midlands and North Yorkshire, which may benefit the FSS in the short term it, will not bring any extra degree of efficiency or savings to the fight against crime in Wales.

The changes to the FSS have been driven and justified by the introduction of competitive tendering for forensic services within the UK, which is madness especially at a time when it makes more sense to retain the skills in house.