Mark Todd, MP for South Derbyshire

The government has announced that a basic rate taxpayer's
personal allowance for this year will be raised by £600. This has
the effect of removing a significant number of people from tax
altogether and reducing the tax paid by anyone paying only the basic
rate by varying amounts averaging £120 a year. It is reckoned that
80% of those who would lose by the abolition of the 10p rate would
now either gain or maintain their income, while the minority who
would continue to lose would lose only marginally. Higher rate
taxpayers gain nothing from this change.It is also worth bearing in
mind that those in households with someone over 60 gain £50 tax free
from the increased fuel allowance.
As I am retiring at the next election I can comment slightly more
freely than some colleagues. This was an approach which I suggested
when the original proposal to remove the 10p rate and cut the basic
rate was announced. It is regrettable that it wasn't incorporated in
the original Budget. Its cost (£2.7 billion this year) could then
have been better managed. However the change of tack does show that
a combination of public pressure and Labour backbench action can be
effective and that the government does listen.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill attempts to modernise
the law covering embryo research covering possibilities which were
not imagined in the current law (dating from the early 1990s). It
has also been used as a vehicle to debate the law relating to
abortion although that was not its purpose. There are several issues
within the bill and in amendments proposed which raise strong
feelings. First it is proposed that research using a combination of
an animal egg and human DNA be permitted within a period of 14 days.
The rationale behind this is that animal eggs, stripped of genetic
material, are more acceptable and easier to obtain than human eggs
(which arise through in vitro fertilisation surpluses). Scientists
and groups associated with genetic diseases strongly endorse this
approach as providing additional avenues for research. I agree with
them and this has now been passed. Secondly, it is proposed to
sanction so-called saviour siblings – a child engineered to match an
ill child so that cord blood, bone marrow and small extracts may be
used to assist the ill child. I object to the use of invasive
procedures on a child when that child receives no benefit and when
no individual consent has been obtained (the parents give consent by
proxy). I am also concerned at the psychological impact on a child
particularly if they "fail" in their mission to help their sibling
(as is quite possible). I spoke and voted against this part of the
bill, but it nevertheless passed. Thirdly, there is dispute over
whether a father's name is required when assistance is obtained for
IVF. This concern relates to single-sex couples seeking help. I take
the view that the provision of a male figure on a document is of
little value to a child if that person will have no role in the
child's development. I thus endorse the bill in sanctioning the use
of the names of those who will actually perform parental roles.
Finally there will be proposals to reduce the time limit for seeking
an abortion below 24 weeks. The overwhelming proportion of abortions
takes place well before then so an amendment to reduce to 20 or 23
weeks would affect a small minority. Those who seek abortions this
late are often very young and have not grasped their condition.
Medical advice currently is that only 18 per cent of deliveries at
23 weeks survive – one of the principles in the law now is that it
should be linked to a point where the foetus is viable. On balance I
favour retaining the existing limit.

There were no local elections in South Derbyshire district this year although there were in the small part of Derby that I represent. No even the most skilled spinmaster could present the results as anything other than very poor. A number of good councillors have lost their seats through no fault of their own.

I wrote last week on the 10p tax issue. That had some effect. There is greater economic uncertainty which has made some people anxious about their mortgages and house values, and potentially their jobs although, as yet, the economy continues to grow. Tiredness also has an effect. Labour has never experienced nearly so long in government before – the previous record was six years. To be fair, the Conservatives have sought recently to move out of their comfort zone of issues which resonate strongly with their own supporters toward more common concerns shared by a wider community.

As I am not a candidate at the next election I can be a little more objective than some. Labour needs to do two things to win again. First, it needs to re-establish basic competences. Some of the recent problems have been very avoidable. It needs to focus on a smaller group of achievable goals and apply resources to make them happen (and that isn’t about money – that’s putting the right people in the right jobs with the correct support). Some obvious beartraps need to be dismantled – there are policies which carry large risk of failure. And the policies we focus on must have coherence as a whole – which brings me to the second need.

Secondly Labour needs to restate clearly and concisely what its government is for. The 10p issue perhaps highlighted a confusion over purpose. I’ve been a Labour Party member since I was 19 – I joined well before Tony Blair. I joined because I believed in fairness and working together as a society on common tasks. I believed we had a duty to the poorest in our world and to those less advantaged in our own society. I believed that power in Britain was too narrowly concentrated. I also believed that unfairness, a concentration of power in a few hands, and a failure to devise ways of sharing problems and solutions made our economy less efficient and our country poorer. In the interval between then and now – 34 years – much has changed, mostly for the better. Yet I still believe there is more to be done in all these areas.

I have decided to oppose an extension of the terror laws from
28 days to 42. As you might know I previously backed ex-Prime
Minister Tony Blair's - unsuccessful - bid to push through new terror
laws, which would have enabled police to detain suspects for 90 days
without charge.

But in the past three years, the limit has been extended from 14 to
28 days and two things have happened which should tighten up the
process considerably. Firstly, the Government has proposed bringing
in the ability to question people after they have been charged. Until
now, the law has prevented that from happening.
Secondly, there is the proposal that the use in court of intercept
evidence, which is basically bugging and so on, be permitted. I would
prefer to see these measures tested before we agree to a further
change in the ability to detain someone.

What is more, since the length of detention without charge was
extended from 14 days to 28, there has been no evidence to suggest a
further increase is necessary. The Director of Public Prosecutions
has made clear that there have been no instances where the 28 day
period has seemed inadequate.
I can imagine circumstances in which we might need more time - when
analysing computer data or working with security authorities in
another country for example - so it's a judgment one must also keep
under review.

There has been much controversy over the abolition of the 10p tax
band. As I sit on the Treasury Select Committee I had the opportunity
to question the Chancellor on this. See Questions 385 and 386 on the
attached link:

http://www.publicat ions.parliament. uk/pa/cm200708/ cmselect/ cmtreasy/ 43
0/8031907.htm

Here is the link to the Select Committee report on the Budget (see
pages 44-45 in particular):

http://www.publicat ions.parliament. uk/pa/cm200708/ cmselect/ cmtreasy/ 43
0/430.pdf

I wrote the section which attracted publicity. The government is
required to respond to this.

There are other measures which have benefited those on low incomes:
the minimum wage, tax credits, the introduction and increase in the
Winter Fuel Allowance, and, of course, the 10p rate itself which was
introduced by Labour – tax started at the much higher standard rate
before. It's also the case that the 10p rate is retained for income
from savings. For those who are over 65 the increase in personal
allowances comfortably cancels out the effect of the 10p rate cut.

As a result of the Select Committee report (and, no doubt, other
comments) the Chancellor has written to the Select Committee chair
pledging amendments particularly for those between 60 and 64 and
lower-paid workers . The committee will be running its own inquiry on
this matter over the next few weeks in which I'll be a keen
participant. It is unlikely, in my view, that the government's
actions will precisely replace the effect of the 10p rate (which of
course was applied to every taxpayer not just those on low incomes
and thus was arguably inefficient as a tool against poverty). It is
encouraging that the government has responded so promptly to the
initiative I took.

Dear all,

  

  Earlier this month it was announced that ministers have rejected plans to build

 the "Grovewood" eco-town in South Derbyshire. As you may know, I have

 been campaigning against this since the plans were announced last year.

 This is a common-sense move. While the concept of a large community both

 designed to be less dependent on cars and producing less carbon dioxide

 for heating is good, this was a very poor scheme. There was no

 sustainable transport plan. It involved cutting down a part of the National

 Forest. One of its stated justifications was the construction of a large

 new road across currently open farmland. The Government seems to have

 listened.

  

  I was also able to ask a question at Prime Ministers Questions. It was

 the day that Harriet Harman was deputising for Gordon Brown - the first time

 a woman has done it since Margaret Thatcher. My question was about

 free fruit in schools. As I have mentioned before I am keen to get the

 scheme - which currently caters for infant children - extended.  Harriet

 commended the scheme but made no promises!

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has just completed its passage through the House of Lords. Before that it had substantial scrutiny in draft before select committees with expert witnesses and lengthy consultation. By starting the bill in the Lords the government deliberately subjected it to both intense scrutiny by senior lawyers and scientists (who are peers) and faith leaders. I have therefore been surprised that the issues raised in the Bill are only now being raised by the Catholic Church in any public process. I can, of course, appreciate that opponents of the original legislation which permitted human embryology research may well see a debate on this bill as a means to reconsider those decisions. 
The bill seeks to clarify issues on which the original legislation was silent. Stem cell research has advanced substantially and the opportunities for different approaches were not predicted in the original bill. The centre of controversy focuses on one of these - the combination of an animal egg (from which animal genetic material has been extracted) with human DNA. Why do this? There are insufficient surplus human eggs for researchers. An animal egg effectively provides a receptacle for a few days development of cells. This would be entirely a laboratory process - no hybrid living thing could be produced legally. The embryo would have to be destroyed after 14 days.

I will carefully reflect on this and other proposals in the bill. I have always supported controlled research in these fields seeing them as the best hope for progress in addressing some of the major diseases our world still faces. The bill has strong support from most of the medical charities for exactly that reason.

I have, however, considerable respect for the views of others on this and have urged the government whips to permit free votes in the most contentious aspects of the Bill. Some ground has now been given on that. It would have been wiser if that had been done earlier.

This Budget reminded us that the UK economy remains in better shape than that of most of our competitors – in 2007, even with the uncertainties caused by the credit crunch in the last half of the year, there was 3% growth, higher than in any of the advanced western economies. Government borrowing was slightly lower than expected. Business start-ups remain high and we’ve maintained growth in higher level manufacturing – particularly important in an area like South Derbyshire where manufacturing employs far more than the national average.

The Budget included no radical measures – there were a variety of modest, but valuable changes. The Winter Fuel Allowance for households with someone over 60 increased by £50 and where someone is over 80 by £100 – useful help in meeting today’s higher fuel bills. Alcohol taxation increases, reflecting increased concern at consumption levels. Child Benefit increases for 2009 were also announced together with a major change to housing benefits which will make it much easier for families on very low incomes to work without losing out. There are also some useful green measures increasing the motivation to buy more efficient cars, again from next year.

Most economic commentators urged a modest, neutral budget. That’s what they got.

Q and A
What changes are there for families?

Plans to increase child benefit for your first child by £20 a week have been brought forward a year (from April 2009 rather than 2010). Also from April 2009, the child element of the child tax credit for families on low and middle income will rise by £50 a year above inflation.

What about pensioners?

The winter fuel payment for the over-60s will go up from £200 to £250 and for the over-80s it will rise from £300 to £400. The Chancellor also said he might change the law to force utility companies to give a "fairer deal" to the five million customers who use pre-payment meters for their gas or electricity bills.

How about the working population?

Changes in this area were announced in last year's Budget statement. From 6 April this year, the low 10% "starter" rate for income tax is being abolished, while the "basic" rate will come down from 22% to 20%. People aged over 65 will benefit from a substantial rise in their annual tax-free allowance, which goes up from £7,550 to £9,030. Meanwhile the "upper earnings limit" for national insurance contributions goes up by £100 a week to £770 a week. So an extra £100 of earnings per week will have National Insurance levied at 11% rather than 1%.

What about the tax changes the chancellor announced last year?

The changes to capital gains tax already proposed, including the new entrepreneurs' relief, and the standard rate of 18%, will start this April. The new regime for the "non-domicile" tax payers, which has already been announced, will come in during April as planned, but there will be no further changes in either this Parliament or the next one.

How about home-owners?

Where people buy their homes through the government's shared-ownership scheme, stamp duty on these homes will not be charged until the buyer owns 80% of the equity in the home.

What about the environment?

From 2009, there will be major reform of the vehicle excise duty. For new cars from 2010, the lowest-polluting cars will pay no road tax in the first year, with the highest-polluting cars paying £950. The 2p increase in fuel duty is postponed until October this year. Also, if retailers do not take steps themselves to cut back on the use of plastic bags, then legislation may be brought in next year that could force them to charge for them.

Cigarettes and alcohol 

Excise duty on tobacco goes up from 6pm today and will put 11p on the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes and add 4p to the price of five cigars. And from midnight on Sunday, alcohol duty rates will go up by 6% above inflation. That means beer will rise by 4p a pint, cider by 3p a litre, wine will be 14p a bottle more expensive and spirits will cost 55p a bottle more. However these alcohol duties will increase by 2% above the rate of inflation, each year, for the next four years.

I am a member of the Treasury Select Committee in Parliament. The
committee's work covers a huge range of subjects. The most high-
profile activity recently has been to examine the reasons for the
failure of Northern Rock, the appropriateness of government and
regulatory action since, and the possible policy options for the
future. The first of a two-stage report appeared recently: 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtreasy/56/5602.htm

Today, the government announced that it will introduce emergency
legislation to temporarily nationalise the bank. This is the least
bad option based on what we know of the private sector bids for the
bank. These offered a slow repayment of the monies given to the bank,
and a delayed withdrawal of the state guarantees given when the bank
started to run short of short-term money. They also offered minimal
payment for the support given by the taxpayer which is critical to
the bank's success. The taxpayer continued to take most of the risk,
but received little of the return when the bank returned to health.

The nationalisation option is also unattractive. While the taxpayer
would control the entire asset base of the company we do not know for
sure its quality – we are told that the bank's loans were good but
that is based on past data. The taxpayer will also have to contend
with shareholders demanding better terms for their shares, probably
through the courts. The government will have to own the task of
cutting staff – hard enough in any circumstances but more so still in
a political climate which state ownership brings. Competitors will
argue that the terms under which the bank operates are fundamentally
advantageous and complain about the attractiveness of products being
effectively subsidised by taxpayer support. We will need to persuade
observers overseas that this step neither indicates a more active
government role in banking nor weaknesses in our financial services
sector – the word nationalisation has that suggestion. We will also
have to run a bank in a tough climate – all banking stocks have
fallen over the last month. This will require considerable skill
which state control doesn't always bring. So there are plenty of
things that can go wrong. The person appointed to lead the bank is
credible and experienced – he'd have to be. His initial remarks have
been sensible. My committee will, I am sure, wish to interview him
early in his tenure and then as the job develops.

It has been suggested to me that we should have let the bank fail. It
isn't possible to know the harm that might have done. However it is
reasonable to think that savings confidence would have been damaged.
Since only the first £35,000 of deposits was guaranteed some would
have lost significant sums while all savers would have had their
money tied up for months. Savers in other banks would have at least
wished to reorganise their assets if not withdraw them. Some other
banks which had business models which heavily relied on raising short-
term money to finance long-term loans were already being scrutinised –
it is quite likely that runs would have started elsewhere. It's also
suggested that we should have nationalised immediately. That
substantially underplays the disadvantages I have listed above – a
good private sector solution would have been far better.

Yesterday I was among several MPs featured in an article in the Mail on Sunday (Feb 10) about how much we claim for our London homes under the Additional Cost Allowance (ASA).

The  money can be used for the mortgage interest on home purchases - but not for repayments on capital -  and for a large number of purchases for its
 content. There are informal cost limits on some items and repair
 costs.
 
The article, which follows a lot of media interest in MPs' allowances and expenses following the revelations surrounding Derek Conway MP, features several MPs who own property in London.

Although the article says that I have abided by the rules, it implies that I have been helped by the taxpayer to build a property portfolio because I receive rental from a flat which was originally used as my London home when I first became an MP.
  
I used the flat until 2003. But as my son Peter got bigger it became hard for my family to stay together when down in London. We decided to buy a two bedroom flat and sell the other one.

Of course the money required was provided by my wife and I - only mortgage interest is chargeable, but its running costs were higher. I
 transferred the mortgage costs to the other flat so the costs of the first were and are entirely my responsibility. However that proved hard to sell -
 it's in a block with a  relatively short lease - about 50 years. After about six months on the  market we took it off and decided to rent it out while the lease was extended. In the meantime the block owners had collectively decided to pursue a lease extension - that still hasn't been finalised.

So I had one flat with financial support from the taxpayer and another
 paid for by me available for let.

It took a while to let it but we've had tenants on and off for the last  three years or so. The other flat has been maintained and improved mostly at my own cost (the rules rightly prevent public payment toward
 something that would raise the property's value), but with payments toward some repairs (for example the block decided to repair the plumbing
 system and this went over budget) from the ACA and with invoices produced for works and items bought.

Once the lease of the first flat is settled it will be marketed once again

I was entirely open to the Mail on Sunday. I answered all questions as factually as I could since unlike some others in the story I do see this as a legitimate matter of public interest. As I have commented in my blog recently, I am open minded on how the rules might change suggesting that we needed an open debate on the full terms and conditions of MPs - not just this allowance but all the allowances, pay and pensions, and if a housing allowance is retained any capital gain that brings. It would be much better if there a clear and simple system that was understood by the public as being reasonable.

Today (Friday) I will back a Private Members' Bill that seeks to boost better quality information and action about children with special educational needs (SEN).

It has been introduced by my colleague Sharon Hodgson, MP for Gateshead East and Washington West, who has a lot of experience of the issue - her son is dyslexic. Called Special Education (Information) Bill, it is likely to receive Government support. I know that major education charities are backing it because they feel that there is currently a "patchwork quilt" of SEN provision. The data collected will reveal this.

The crucial element of the legislation is that the Government has to publish information on SEN every year including data on pupil perfomrmance.

I have asked Derbyshire County Council to outline its current policy. Here is the response:

"In accordance with the existing SEN Information regulations (2001), Derbyshire County Council publishes extensive information about its special educational provision on the council's website and in hard copy form, for example, in parents
information booklets and a wide range of leaflets.This includes details
of the provision that the authority expects its schools to make from
their budget shares for pupils at School Action and School Action Plus, that is, before the point at which it is felt the authority should issue a
Statement of SEN. There is comprehensive information about our extensive
support services too and a brochure for our 10 special schools is currently
in preparation.

"We also provide as public information details of overall pupil
attainments at the end of National Curriculum Key Stages (ages 7,11 & 14)  and for
public examinations. Data is available for vulnerable pupils including
those with SEN, both with and without statements, compared with national
averages and also averages for statistical neighbouring authorities."

It seems that Derbyshire does provide a lot of information but I support the move to create a uniform policy throughout the country. As always I’d be interested in local experiences. It will be interesting to see how much of a difference this new legislation will make.

Hello,

Some of you will be following the programme of primaries to select candidates to contest the presidency of the United States. Since it’s undoubtedly the most important job in the world and its holder’s actions have the most profound impact on all our lives you don’t have to be either an American or a political enthusiast to be interested. So what’s going on?

First, it’s a reminder that the USA is a federation of states. Each state conducts the process differently. In some cases a caucus is held where supporters of candidates must attend a meeting (sometimes in someone’s house) to participate. In others there is a simple vote. In some cases only registered party supporters can vote in each party’s election. In others registered “independents” can vote. In some states the winner takes all the delegates selected, in others they are allocated proportionately.

Secondly, a lot of money is being spent. Any campaign seeking to win the nomination will require spending aimed at reaching the mass of voters. An ill-funded candidate can do well in a small state using the caucus system voting on its own (Mike Huckabee in Iowa this time) but is likely to struggle in big, populous states voting at the same time as other states thus stretching a candidate’s organisation and money. Wealthy men (Mitt Romney, a Republican candidate) have a major advantage, but highly professional fundraising (with all the predictable hostages to fortune) can bridge the gap.

Thirdly, core party supporters can have a disproportionate impact, because they are highly motivated. Fundamentalist Christians particularly identify with the Republicans. Organised labour backs the Democrats. However in high turnouts these effects are diluted.

Fourthly, the policy distinctions between candidates are normally modest and voter choice often focuses on likeability and perceived character.

Finally, party supporters aren’t always the best judges of the strengths of candidates as seen by more independent voters. There have been cases of parties choosing candidates of very narrow appeal. Again a high turnout in primaries and the participation of independents tends to prevent that happening.

It’s very early days for this contest. None of the big states have voted yet and the campaigns are still evolving – what normally happens is that the field of choices thins out as the costs become too high and a candidate’s success too minimal. Frontrunners attract tougher scrutiny and the campaigns of their opponents tend to sharpen toward their perceived weak points – “attack advertising”. It’s likely that the Democrat contest will be between Clinton and Obama, but Edwards’s strength is probably in southern states (which have yet to vote) and Democrats tend to believe that if they choose southerners they win. For the Republicans it’s a wide open race. One major candidate, Giuliani, has (riskily) opted out of the initial contests so we know little of his appeal. Turnouts are high making results more representative of voters at large than they often are (but turnouts in US elections, even presidential contests, tend to be low by our standards so mobilising the relatively committed remains important). We should have a clear picture by February 5, when a group of major states vote.

It has been revealed that two major options over the future of secondary schooling in the Swadlincote area have been drawn up to fit in with the Government's Building Schools for the Future programme.

Both proposals would involve the closure of Newhall's William Allitt School, while one option would see the closure of Granville Community School, in
Woodville. The first option is to build a new school on the Newhall side of the Nadin's site, in Swadlincote, near the town's Pingle school. Granville
and William Allitt would both close. The second option under consideration is to keep Granville and expand its facilities. No new school would be built in the district, and William Allitt would still shut.

Here are some of the issues which need to be taken into account:

1. All three schools have aging buildings. Of these William Allitt's are
the least satisfactory.

2. The only school currently offering post-16 education is The Pingle.
We know that there'll be more demand for places in the future, but it
isn't economic for relatively small schools to offer post-16 education
(nor is that education normally very good, as choices are necessarily
limited). This suggests that, if we are to have a second post-16
provision, it needs to be in a larger school than either William Allitt or
Granville.

3. Of the three schools The Pingle is much the largest with William
Allitt being larger than Granville.

4. The population of the Swadlincote area has been growing sharply and
is expected to grow further over the next 10 years or so. Additional
school places will be needed.

5. The three sites have varying amounts of space for expansion. William
Allitt (partly because it shares a site with two other schools) has
the least. It would not be possible to build a larger secondary school
there.

6. The government has set aside a substantial budget to invest in new
facilities in Swadlincote.

7. Access to the Granville site is unsatisfactory (straight off the
A511).

8. Any school reorganisation will need to build in the quality that we
have.

9. The owners of much of the Nadin's site have other ideas for its use
and so, it seems, do the district council.

The opportunity is there to very substantially improve our secondary
buildings, offer better sport facilities, extend the range of options for
post-16 and offer a wider range of subjects pre-16 through sharing
resources. There are huge challenges to be overcome. There is also a
danger, if we don't manage the process well, of losing some strong elements of what we already have. I'll be focusing on all of those things.

I would welcome your thoughts on this.

Around this time of year, the media covers how much MPs cost. In the last 10 years there have been several changes. When I started details were not published at all. The cost of staying in London was then left entirely to the honesty of an MP - no invoices needed to be produced up to the set limit. Travel costs were likewise never checked.

Coming from a business background I was startled, and indeed had to double check the rules. I recall ringing the Inland Revenue to ask whether it was really correct that claims for the cost of staying in London, tax free, couldn't be checked. They confirmed it, with an understandable remark that they had long wanted to pursue this.

There has been a gradual tightening, prompted by the passage of Freedom of Information legislation and by at least one scandal (where the costs of a London home were claimed for that didn't exist) which suggested that the word of an MP was not necessarily to be relied on. Invoices do have to be produced for the costs of staying in London, but only for items over £250. There's an upper limit (of 350 miles a month) on mileage claims which can be submitted without checks. There's more that could and should be done on these.

Generally allowances are there for a reasonable purpose. Nowadays MPs must employ staff to help handle the volume of calls and correspondence they must deal with. Those staff need somewhere to work. Sending replies to correspondence costs money. Any MP representing an area beyond the home counties will have to stay in London two or three nights a week when Parliament is sitting (but there is a legitimate question whether the allowance paid should be able to pay toward a mortgage (as now) or whether renting or hotels are the right option). Travelling to and from London costs money and, if you represent a large constituency (mine is 120 square miles) travelling within it has a cost. There are also some issues of overlap between parliamentary provision and "grace and favour" properties which some ministers have when in office.

Some costs reflect modern politics - this year a communications allowance was introduced (which I didn't vote for) to fund non-political questionnaires and annual reports. Until then the use of the (unlimited) postal provision produced both some startling costs from some MPs and some apparent abuse, with political mail shots snuggling in among more normal correspondence. This area will now be more tightly controlled.

The other elements are salaries and pensions. The salary, at just over £60,000, is set based on civil service comparators. It's rather lower than the level of MPs in most other European countries, but then true comparisons are virtually impossible. It remains comfortably less than what I earned in the private sector (in money terms let alone allowing for inflation) in my last job. I'd say it's broadly reasonable bearing in mind the responsibilities borne, which aren't managerial but do require, if you are to do the job properly, a range of skills. The pension scheme (which is contributory - it costs 10% of salary) is better than the one my company offered to ordinary staff, but inferior to the scheme I was part of when leaving the private sector in 1996-7. However the last 10 years have wrought huge changes in pensions and I doubt I'd get the same scheme I was in 10 years ago now. MPs' pensions have moved the other way, improving 6 years ago (again, without my support). It's a relatively generous scheme which few outside the most senior levels in the private sector (and some special cases) would enjoy.

So there's been quite a bit of welcome reform over the last 10 years. There's an argument for an honest debate on how much this aspect of democracy is worth. It's undoubtedly right that there should be greater openness so that people can make their own judgements on a reasonably informed basis.

I am going to object to plans to cut the twice-daily train services linking Willington to London.

The cuts are due to come into effect next year under plans by the operator East Midlands Trains, the Stagecoach subsidiary, which has taken over the East Midlands-London rail franchise from Midland Mainline.

I understand that the more regular local services from Willington - operated by Arriva - will continue but this is still a reduction in services for my constituents.

I appreciate that the London service is not popular at the moment. It is slow and the parking facilities are not great. But I believe that it should have been promoted properly and the company could have been more creative in attracting people to use it.

I have already raised my concerns at a meeting at Westminster and I will now write to Stagecoach. I am pleased, though, that the new East Midlands Parkway station, which was due to open a few years ago, is now on schedule for later next year. It is now being constructed by Network Rail (previously Midland Mainline was supposed to build it)

It will certainly be more convenient for many of my constituents.

Today (Tuesday October 16), I took part in three very different
events in Parliament. I first attended a hearing of Northern Rock's
directors on the events leading to the first run on a UK bank in 100
years. I was particularly concerned about the inherent risks in their
reliance on short-term credit to fund very sharp growth in their
mortgage business and asked them questions about that. They claimed
that the crisis they faced was both unpredicted and unpredictable.
However they are the only business of any substance to have faced the
calamity of seeking emergency funding from the Bank of England. Some
of the decisions they made seemed hard to justify to an inexpert eye
(and experts have criticized them too). They have undoubtedly
damaged, probably beyond repair, a trusted brand name on many high
streets.

I also spoke at an inquiry into the medical effects of nuclear tests
in the 50s and led a debate on a very worthy local project.

The inquiry focuses on the tests that took place on Christmas Island
in the South Pacific. Veterans claim they were not given proper
protection during the programme, and they or their children have
become ill as a result.

I became interested in the subject because one of my constituents
Archie Ross was an instrument fitter with RAF Transport Command when
he witnessed one of the bombs.

I led an adjournment debate on the subject five years ago and today I
argued that while concrete evidence of precise linkages between
exposure to radiation and subsequent illnesses in either the veteran
or their offspring remains elusive there are strong arguments for a
review of the Ministry of Defence's position – which has been to
allow claims for war pensions for sufferers of a small group of
conditions. This contrasts with the position in the USA (where
similar tests were carried out involving service personnel). If a
person can demonstrate that they were involved in a particular test
and developed one of 15 illnesses, there is a presumption, which does
not require a test in court, that they should be compensated for that
experience. I don't understand why we chose not to follow a similar
path. The Australian Government has also, to a lesser extent, adopted
a presumed cause approach. In New Zealand the government has grant-
aided research carried out on behalf of veterans.

I also led a half-hour adjournment debate on the subject of the
Midlands Engineering Industries Redeployment Group (MEIRG), which is
a multi-agency group that aims to re-train workers and give
engineering businesses the skills they need to remain competitive.
Since South Derbyshire has twice the national average of workers in
manufacturing, how we support manufacturers facing change is
important to our local economy.
The group, which is funded by the East Midlands Development Agency
and Advantage West Midlands and was set up two years ago, may lose
its funding at the end of this year. Members of the group want to
extend the project and roll it out to other areas of the country.
In the past two years, MEIRG has supported nearly 3,000 people, 800
of them through skills development. Take GGS Engineering Ltd, a rail
machining and fabrications company with 22 employees and based in
Litchurch Lane , Derby. The company used a particular piece of
equipment but only one employee was trained to use it. MEIRG arranged
and funded training for all the shop floor employees. This meant the
company was no longer dependent on one employee for programming and
operating the machinery. I will do everything I can to make sure that
this project is extended.

I didn't attend my party's conference and so missed the fevered
atmosphere which stoked the idea of holding an early election. I
looked on with surprise, and some alarm. My alarm largely concerned
the possibility that my retirement as an MP would mean a rushed
selection of a candidate for South Derbyshire to succeed me – exactly
what I hadn't wanted to happen. My surprise stemmed from two
perspectives. First, there was clearly no need for an election – the
government had a comfortable majority and was only around half way
through its term. While the Prime Minister had changed I am
sufficiently traditional to still believe that elections decide which
MPs are returned and thus which party leads a government. We don't
elect a president.

There was no crisis or critical issue which would prompt a need to
obtain a new mandate (although some have argued the new European
treaty might count as that, I don't agree). I couldn't even see an
obvious party advantage. While Labour held a reasonable lead in
opinion polls, I have a long enough memory to go back only five
months to when we didn't. Public opinion seems relatively unstable –
initial impressions of Gordon Brown's handling of crises had been
good, and he'd taken some interesting steps to widen his government,
but I didn't think people had firmly concluded their voting choices.
I suspect what started as an attempt to flush out some clear policies
from our opponents acquired its own momentum as opinion polls turned
more favourable (as they do during any well-run party conference).
Public speculation about the idea from senior members of the
government allowed the idea to seem both more likely and more
justifiable. That was unwise (to put it gently).

At the end of this episode I can look forward (and I mean that) to
probably at least another 18 months as the MP for South Derbyshire.
During the speculation I've got on with the job (which has been
unusually busy over the summer – correspondence and calls normally
drop in the holiday period). There's plenty to do.

The outbreak of foot and mouth in Surrey would bring back unhappy and
unpleasant memories of 2001 to many farmers in this area. I can recall the period well - the outbreak in our area centred around Marston on Dove and adjacent areas with stock destroyed and intense restrictions. Footpaths across South Derbyshire were shut and many rural businesses and attractions (like Calke Abbey) were shut. I was in contact with farmers, councils (who controlled movements) and the ministry as the crisis developed and was finally brought under control.

Much was learned from what happened then. The two key messages were to restrict movement of stock straight away, and to get scientific and
veterinary teams working immediately to identify the strain and the
likely path of infection. The consequences of getting the early steps
wrong (and the appalling neglect of the individual farmers thought to
be at the origin of the 2001 outbreak) were the multi-billion pound cost to the wider rural economy and to our treasury.

So far the news is as encouraging as one could hope from a very
unwelcome event. The test will be over the next week when any spread of the virus will be detected. If the disease can be confined to one very small area we can all breathe a sigh of relief, and then move on to consider the outbreak's origin and how to prevent any repetition

The last day of parliament sitting before the summer break is largely
spent on a lengthy debate on matters MPs choose to raise. There are no
votes so most MPs depart the night before. I don't always stay on but
I did this time because I wanted to raise several issues.

First, SouthDerbyshire has faced many applications for privately owned traveller sites. The area has two council-run sites as well, at Foston and
Lullington.

Most travellers who have bought land here and settled on it have
brought no more problems than any other resident. However their
planning applications are almost always controversial. The sites
chosen tend to be on the edge of villages facing open country. No
householder would get planning consent for a home in these spots, and
many residents object to what can be an unattractive visual intrusion
in open countryside. There are other objections which can be
legitimate - about drainage or safe access to the road system.What is
required is clearer guidance to councils both on establishing
where these sites should be permitted and on their own duties to offer
sites. This should be balanced by stronger powers to remove
unauthorised camping and resist inappropriate development. The
government's new housing bill coming in the next parliamentary
session may offer an opportunity to raise this.

Secondly, South Derbyshire, in spite of receiving a significant boost
in money help with adaptations for the disabled living in their own
homes, has found it impossible to meet demand. I am asking the
government to offer more help in both the short-term (this year) and
the longer term (because demand certainly won't fall).

Finally, I've received a number of complaints about British Gas
billing errors. On investigation they've had major problems with a new
customer service IT system. While we've made good progress in sorting
out the problems raised with my team, it made me look again at how we
help people in dispute with energy companies. The law is about to
change to arguably weaken the bodies which help consumers, leaving
people to rely on the quality of the company's response. My
experience suggests this isn't enough and I've suggested tighter
obligations on energy companies to cover the experiences my
constituents have had.

So my family saw me 24 hours later than expected, but a couple of
speeches together with follow-up correspondence could do some good on
these local concerns.

NB. To read the debates visit www.workforyou.com/debates. The
travellers' sites item was mentioned in the debate called Modernisation
of the House Draft Legislation Programme (July 25) and I talked about
energy companies and disability grants in the Summer Adjournment debate
(July 26).

As you know, we have a new Cabinet and ministerial team. It largely promotes known younger talent and would surprise few.

There are small, token, rewards for long-term loyalty to the new Prime Minister. The main headline news has been the addition to government of a range of people not identified with the Labour party, including a recent
head of the Confederation of British Industry and a recently retired Admiral.

There is a history (but a slim one) of non-party appointments. They
often end in disappointment as the person, unused to Parliament and
party government, finds the slow processes and being dragged into
matters of little personal interest frustrating. Since the Prime Minister has had several weeks to prepare his team he will, I'm sure, have had frank conversations with them about this.

The idea is to bring more expertise into government. Having been an
MP for 10 years I can say what is pretty obvious to most. MPs do not have to know much about how to make big organisations work to get
their job. They bring useful skills in presenting ideas and (normally) some
experience in listening to the public. But that doesn't make them
well-suited to making complicated decisions. Outside knowledge is
valuable. While appointing someone as a minister is only one way to
obtain that, it is worth trying.

The Prime Minister has also announced welcome proposals to reduce his
own powers (using what is called the Royal Prerogative). Declaring war,
making major treaties, calling elections and appointing bishops
shouldn't be in his hands alone. Strengthening the powers of Parliament
may help increase interest in its work (although some other changes in
how we behave and work would do more!).

I haven't mentioned the terrorist attacks which have thankfully, so
far,failed. We all have these tasks: to get on with our lives; to be
observant; to help our security services.

With Tony Blair standing down as Prime Minister and Gordon Brown succeeding him it seems as good a time as any to reflect on the last 10
years.

There have been great successes - our economy has remained strong throughout while others have faltered. The placing of monetary policy in the Bank of England's hands has been one foundation of this achievement. We continue to attract more inward investment than any other European state demonstrating the continuing attractiveness of operating a business
here.

Our schools have seen huge investment - new buildings, extra teachers -and those have produced better results. Our health services has also received massive investment and that has fed through into lower waiting times and better outcomes for major illnesses.  But some money has not produced evident gains - many health professionals earn more than they did, but this has made recruitment easier.

The commonest crimes have been reduced - car crime and burglary. We
have yet to find ways to reduce the much rarer, but more alarming, violent
crimes.

Tony Blair will probably be remembered for the decision to attack Iraq.
History will judge that, and will place it in the context of other more consensual actions, in Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Afghanistan motivated
by the same belief that armed action must be a supplement to our diplomacy when facing dictatorship or failed states.

Brown has already produced some surprises - job offers to people in other parties and a defection by a Tory MP. These suggest a more inclusive style.

While all this drama is unfolding in London, my work in South Derbyshire carries on.

One of the most effective aspects of my job is my right to ask questions in Parliament and sometimes this tool can produce surprising results.

Recently, I asked a question about the school fruit and vegetable scheme which provides free fruit to school children aged from four to six. I asked if the scheme would be extended to older and younger children and the answer was negative. This is something I aim to pursue; giving free fruit is a key way of keeping youngsters healthy so why should it be confined to one
age group?

Tony Blair's departure should prompt reflection.

The big achievements nationally are considerable - an almost unbelievable peace settlement in Northern Ireland, major constitutional change in Scotland and Wales, a minimum wage, stronger protection of the rights of those at work, the winter fuel payment for pensioners … locally the extra spending on schools and the NHS is visible everywhere in the form of new buildings. Our police force has never been larger and our local economy has never employed more people.

 However we have also seen the negative impact of other policies. Two local young men have lost their lives in Iraq. Our local primary health care system has been reorganised three times. I continue to receive complaints about the flawed implementation of some policies - tax credits for example. Net, it's a very positive record, but the experience suggests that making seemingly good ideas work and understanding their consequences has sometimes been a failing..

Last year, the village of Walton on Trent was chosen as the pilot in South Derbyshire for reducing a community's carbon footprint. Footprint is a way of working out how much greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide each person uses. I sampled the questionnaire given to residents which asked about car use, air travel and domestic consumption of fuel and water.
  
I'm afraid my household performs poorly at the moment. My wife travels abroad frequently on business. Both of us are reasonably significant car users. We don't use alternative energy sources.

Some of this is unavoidable. I can't see how I could do my job without using a car fairly heavily. My wife's business requires her to travel frequently. However an exercise like this should prompt us all to see what we can do to reduce our carbon emissions. The impact of climate change and the role of human activity in accelerating those changes is generally accepted. In parts of South Derbyshire local impacts are likely with increasing flood risk.

I'd much prefer that people take their own steps helped by local and central government rather than government forcing the pace. I'd be interested to hear from residents on their reactions, experiences and any personal changes they take. 

For more information about the footprint project see
www.south-derbys.gov.uk/Environment/Energy.

Following the Stone case in which a person with a serious personality disorder, but who was said to be untreatable, murdered a mother and child, there's been much debate on whether such people should be detained if judged a genuine risk to others.

There are several issues to consider: Has the person committed an offence? Who makes the judgement? Does the person have any way to reverse the decision? If no treatment is effective how does this approach differ from life imprisonment?

The Government's Mental Health Bill seeks to make it easier to detain people with severe disorder even when they've committed no crime.

Some people will make their mind up based on what they know about a few appalling cases. But this bill is an excellent example of how difficult it is to balance individual rights and public safety.

I welcome it in principle but will want to be sure that this is not a way to confine "strange people" whose behaviour is considered disturbing.

Parliament is now in recess. There is a view that that means MPs disappear on holiday. Some do.

Sad creature that I am I normally try to catch up with work, fit in some local meetings (a couple with the police, a business visit for example) that can't be held on Fridays when I'm normally free and fit in some bits and pieces of leisure time - in this case visiting my Dad over part of the Easter weekend and spending some time in art galleries in London (which I can can never get to otherwise).

With local election campaigns starting it's also my duty (and largely my pleasure..) to help Labour candidates win their elections. So there's a risk of meeting me on your doorstep.

Problems with tax credits are still pretty frequent.

They aren't as common as when the system came in four years ago, but they still cause anger and, when progress can be made, take a lot of time.

The commonest complaints are about overpayments. When someone's life changes - a break-up or a new relationship - it isn't necessarily their first thought to tell the taxman. And even when they do mistakes are made.

The Treasury Select Committee that I serve on recently held a debate covering how things go wrong and what can be done to improve the system. My speech covered (anonymously) some of the more difficult cases I've seen.

It's practical work like this which occupies most of an MP's time.

To read the debate, which took place on March 15, click here. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2007-03-15a.141.1&s=speaker%3A10598#g153.0

Parliament is voting on whether to build a replacement fleet of nuclear powered and armed submarines.

I am part of a generation that lived through the Cold War and the accompanying arguments over the possession of nuclear weapons in principle and, in particular, Britain’s independent deterrent.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of that debate it’s clear that the country decided then that we should retain a nuclear capability.

Some argue that, with the Soviet Union gone, there’s no need for these weapons. But nuclear capability is spreading and is likely to spread further.

Our retaining some capability is an insurance policy against unknown and unpredictable threats. But if we need some capability should it be essentially a repeat of the system we bought to deter a known threat – the Soviet Union ?

A group of huge submarines with multiple warhead missiles is both costly and inflexible. Will such a capability help us in tackling rogue states harbouring terrorists? Probably not.

But can we rule out the emergence of a potentially hostile nuclear armed major power over the next 40 years (these boats will not be build until the early 2020s and last for 25-30 years)? My instinct is that we need to retain a nuclear capability but not in the form we have it now.

What should happen to the House of Lords?

The Lords is a revising and scrutiny chamber - it checks laws in detail. It doesn't initiate significant legislation and its powers on financial matters are very limited.

What's needed there are people who can patiently examine proposals bringing genuine knowledge to bear.

To be blunt few MPs have the expertise for such a job, and few people with such expertise would want to stand for election.

However to have legitimacy in the public eye the Lords should at least partly be elected.

I personally favoured a non-voting expert membership with rights to speak and a democratically elected majority of voting members.

But maybe that's too complicated. Of the options we had I favoured a largely elected house but would accept some independently appointed peers with genuine expertise.

Members of Parliament normally spend Fridays in their constituencies. But Parliament actually sits on some Fridays to consider bills proposed by individual members.

As I was lucky enough once to have a private bill pass into law I know how hard it is to get MPs to stay in London to debate and pass one of these. 

On March 2 I was there because two bills which I know South Derbyshire people would like to see passed were being debated. One proposed the registration of off-road bikes and mini-motos at sale. This would tighten the controls on use of these machines. They are a frequent nuisance in our area when driven on pavements, footpaths and roads, and most of us can remember the terrible accident involving one in Newhall. Using these vehicles on the highway is actually an offence, but getting the police to catch them is tough. The law would make it harder to buy them, make it easier to remove them from users and should reduce the nuisance and could prevent tragedies such as this occurring.

The other bill proposed giving temporary workers the same rights to sick pay and holiday pay as permanent members of staff. Some employers choose to use temps on a long-term basis but without the same rights they give their own staff. There are nearly two million agency workers in Britain today. The world of my youth when someone worked most of their working life for one business has largely gone, and many people move between jobs frequently with temporary work in between. Some even prefer the variety temporary work can give. What isn’t right, and I know happens in this area, is for a temporary worker to get minimal holiday entitlements and sickness protection.

The first bill made it through to the next stage of Parliamentary examination. The second had enough, mainly Labour, MPs present to suggest it should go further. A Friday well-spent.