Caught in the middle

Here's one I wrote earlier.... but for some reason forgot to post.

Interesting article in the Sunday Times about a massive increase in whales and dolphins being caught in fishermen's nets off Cornwall. Apparently the British Government was allowed to ban British fishing boats from a 12 mile zone around Cornwall by way of response, but EU rules meant it couldn't ban foreign boats. There's also a quote from Barrie Deas, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations: “Dolphins are an iconic species and no one likes to see them being killed but it’s a question of proportion. Why don’t you stop motor cars because of the death of hedgehogs?" This is one of those analogies so beloved of special interest groups which is self-evidently ridiculous, but does the job of diverting attention away from the original issue, at least momentarily. As you say Barrie, "it's a question of proportion".

Shot by both sides

Was going to go to St Pauls carnival today, but forgot I'd promised my friend Stan I'd see him on his birthday and go to Pride with him. (And no, I'm not, but I'm not going to do a Jason Donovan about it).

In Trafalgar Square I got into conversation (incognito) with the guys staffing the Liberal Democrat LGBT stall. I asked whether, given the Tories' abysmal record on gay rights, they'd want their party to go into coalition with them. Cue lots of waffling. One said he personally wouldn't want it. I said it looked as if Clegg was preparing the ground, doing a deal with David Davis over his by-election stunt. How could they square DD's posturing as a 'champion of civil liberties' with his opposition to Section 28, civil partnerships and lesbians/ gay men serving in the armed forces? They insisted the by-election was about 42 days, and only about 42 days. (I don't think that's what DD said).

Then they started saying it was a numbers game, and they couldn't predict the terms of any coalition deal until after an election. (This is the standard Lib Dem line when you try to pin them down over whether they'd get into bed with Cameron and chums). But would gay rights, I asked, be a deal breaker? They said the Tories might change their stance if they needed Lib Dem support; they changed their mind over Scottish devolution when they realised it gave them 14% of MSPs, so they might change their mind and decide to support PR. (Why is it totally impossible to discuss any issue with the Lib Dems for more than 5 minutes before they start talking about PR?) But surely, I said, you can't shift position on gay rights as a purely tactical move; the underlying attitudes won't change. They started slagging off the Tories' record on gay rights, saying the party was full of homophobes. But I left with the impression that if the Tories offered a deal on PR, everything else would go out the window. (And no, this is not in any way an indication of how I think the next election would go; it's just fun prodding Lib Dems and watching them wobble as they try not to fall off their fence).

Eat y'self fitter (2)

The Jaffa cake - is it a cake, is it a biscuit - saga is well-known, with its makers desperate to prove it was in fact a biscuit, so that it wouldn't be subject to VAT. (Cakes are, biscuits aren't; don't ask me why). Now the Daily Mail brings up the important story that Pringles have been declared to be biscuits not crisps. In a High Court judgment a QC successfully argued that 'A Pringle does not taste like a crisp, or otherwise behave like one. It is totally different.'

So if someone eats their way through half a tube of Pringles while watching the football, does that mean they've eaten 50 biscuits in one go?

Eat y'self fitter

Just in case vegetarians were becoming far too pleased with themselves.

Money money money

OK, MPs pay and expenses... Can I start by saying, as I've said so many times before, that I think it's absolutely ridiculous that MPs get to vote on their own pay, and I hope that we've now found a formula so that it doesn't happen in future. I voted against the above inflation pay rise, and 'catch up' proposals (designed to compensate for previous non-rises). I think the PM is right in saying we need to set an example at a time of inflationary pressures and public sector pay restraint.

I also voted to keep the addresses of MPs' second homes private. Having been burgled twice last year, and also been accosted on the doorstep of my London flat late at night by someone wearing a hood pulled tightly round his face and very dark sunglasses (he didn't say anything, just stood waiting for me to open my door), I'd rather not flag up to anyone that here's a property where a woman lives by herself, arrives home very late at night, and isn't there half the week. And most MPs feel the same.

The expenses vote was much trickier. I felt we were somewhat being rushed into reaching a decision on changes. I don't think the various alternative options were debated enough, and the motion that was put on the table was deeply flawed (e.g. the £30 per day attendance allowance, no proposals to remove staff wages from the MPs' allowances system, abuse of second homes allowance, employing of relatives, etc, etc). I didn't think the new package would do anything to address the serious concerns of voters about MPs 'fleecing the system', or having their 'snouts in the trough'. And believe me, even if we'd voted for the new package, the headlines would have been exactly the same the next day. (As Anne Widdecombe put it most eloquently - there were cries of disappointment when she was cut off in full flow at the end of the debate).

As for external audit, which was included as an element of the new package - I wasn't necessarily opposed to the idea, but very little detail was given as to how it would work and I think MPs should be given the chance to put their own house in order. Internal audit systems haven't been very robust, and if they are tightened substantially, that would do the same job but at a much lower cost and less disruption to the everyday running of MPs offices. There is no suggestion of collusion between MPs and internal audit; it's inconsistency and a lack of robustness that's the problem. That can be sorted. For example, we ought to be made to sit down with them at least once each parliamentary session and explain exactly why we've claimed what we've claimed, why we're paying each member of staff what we're paying them, etc, etc.

So I voted to stick with the status quo, in the hope that better plans can be brought back at a later date. With hindsight, an abstention might have sent a better signal - but people would probably have just assumed I'd decided to clear off early for the night. All in all, an opportunity missed, I'd say.

P.S. Of course this has been portrayed in the press as MPs' voting for the 'John Lewis list'. I'm not going to be claiming anything from that. But again, it shows up the unsatisfactory nature of the current system - someone like me, once they've got a sofa and a bed and some storage, simply wouldn't have room, even if they did want to buy more. Yet another MP could have a family-sized house in both the constituency and London, and kit one of them out in full at the taxpayer's expense. Also, someone like David Cameron can choose to have a top-of-the-market second home, and blow his entire allowance on paying interest on the mortgage - and then be given credit for not claiming for his TV licence or electric bills. It doesn't mean he's claiming any less than the rest of us; he isn't. It just means he's got lots of his own money to add to the pot too.

Everything's gone green

Alarming report in yesterday's Guardian about the World Bank's report impact of biofuels on world food prices,which took me, at least, by surprise with its conclusion that the rush to biofuels has pushed prices up by 75%. (The Americans are sticking to 3% at the moment).

The Government is due to publish the results of its own inquiry, the Gallagher report, very soon - although it has of course already been widely leaked and, if the leaks are accurate, also concludes that biofuels have had a 'significant' impact on food prices.

It looks as if the brakes will have to be put on biofuels. So what's the alternative? Biomass? More wind turbines? Tidal power? Solar power? Do opponents of nuclear power believe that these can alone fill the gap? (By the way, my question about the Severn Barrage's impact on Bristol Port at last week's DBERR session.... not to be interpreted as in any way opposing plans for the Barrage. OK? But we do need to look at its impact on the future of Bristol as a deep-sea container port, as well as the environmental consequences. Locks could be put into the barrage, but it would be costly and delay ships by a couple of hours, making the port less competitive. The Port Authority therefore prefers the tidal lagoons option, if there has to be a tidal power scheme at all. Me, I'm reserving judgment on what's the best option until the Feasibility Study is concluded, as that's the point of conducting a feasibility study, isn't it?)

There was also this report that UK voters believe that taking action on climate change is more important than tackling the global economic downturn, and that 63% of them support more green taxes. Traditionally voters tend to say that kind of thing to pollsters but then vote for lower taxes when it comes to an election; but it does offer hope that the battle of ideas is slowly being won.

As it is when it was

I’m genuinely disappointed that Boris Johnson’s appointment of Ray Lewis as Deputy Mayor didn’t work out. From the little I knew, it seemed he was to be commended for his work with disaffected black youth; this week’s revelations don’t necessarily negate that either. He could have been a great role model, if he’d been all he seemed, and a breath of fresh air. But it now appears that Boris didn’t know enough about him either – and perhaps was in rather too much of a rush to appoint him to office.

This calls to mind a story I was told this week, about a recent visit by a Tory MP to the Vassall Centre in Fishponds. He was lobbied pretty hard by a guy in a wheelchair, who is involved in running the Centre and is on the board of the Spinal Injuries Association. He wanted to know what the Conservative policies were on issues affecting people with disabilities.

The MP was clearly impressed, and told him: ‘You’re exactly the sort of person we need in the Conservative Party; here’s my card’. I am pleased to report that Kelvin Blake, ex-Labour councillor and the guy who ran my 2005 election campaign, who came off his motorbike in 2006 and severed his spinal cord, hasn’t taken him up on his offer!

Being boiled

Well the good news yesterday was that my modem at home wasn't working, so unfortunately I couldn't spend the twilight hours reading comments from angry smokers.

Today's good news will no doubt lead to a convoy of combine harvesters congregating on parliament, with dairy farmers throwing cows off the ramparts onto the heads of treacherous MPs.* (And yes, I do know combine harvesters are nothing to do with milk production). The Government has announced that it's not going to authorise a badger cull. Pretty sure I've blogged before as to why I think this is the right decision, and it's not just because - to quote the really, really tall MP with the Polish name - 'badgers are sweet'. In fact it's not because of that at all.

Obviously the last 24 hours or so has been a lesson in the perils of the Google alert. How many times have I blogged about the smoking ban before without attracting a single comment? But ridicule a certain organisation for holding a champagne tea party...

When I posted on the Canadian seal hunt earlier this year I got a few negative comments from Canadians; next time I'll actually mention Bash the Seal, Inc. by name and watch my comments count go through the roof. (Someone is going to Google that now and tell me there really is a company of that name, or at least an online game. And someone else is going to comment on this post that clubbing seals is not remotely funny. Yes, I know).

(In future I'm just going to put "yes I know" in brackets whenever I make a flippant comment.)

On the subject of being lobbied en masse, I got an irate email from someone the other day. I'd sent his elderly father a letter explaining why I wasn't able to sign the EDM on post office accounts (because I don't sign any EDMs) . The son's email basically said, what's the point of telling my father you're not going to sign the EDM when you don't even tell him what the EDM is about? I replied saying that seeing as his father had sent me a postcard urging me to sign the EDM it was, I thought, a reasonable assumption on my part that he would actually know what he was asking for....

This was, I suppose, a little disingenuous on my part. Last year I got more than 600 postcards about the double-taxation of bingo profits, and dutifully forwarded a reply from the Treasury to them all, probably to their complete bafflement. The front of the postcard said "Save our Bingo" and I don't think it's being patronising to assume that was what motivated most of them to write in. (Although by all means accuse me of it, as seems par for the course at the moment). On the other hand, most of the people who write in on individual issues are incredibly well-informed.

* I should point out this is a reference to a comment left on a previous post, about a certain episode of Alan Partridge. Included for an audience of one.

Just the two of us

Des Browne might be hoping the next reshuffle comes sooner rather than later.

At PMQs today Gordon Brown suggested that the almost surreally pompous Sir Peter Tapsell should accompany the Defence Secretary on his next visit to Afghanistan, to see for himself the contribution our troops are making on the ground. Cue much hilarity from the rest of the Cabinet, and a rather unsuccessful attempt by Des not to look completely horrified.

The drugs don't work

Or do they?

Not difficult to think of a good news story today. Those of you who saw yesterday's Evening Post will have read about the case of Gary Humphries and his battle to get the PCT to give him the drug he hopes will help him fight kidney cancer. Gary came to see me at my surgery a few weeks ago, and has just emailed to tell me that today's appeal was successful! Great news, and I hope he responds well to treatment.

Also worth reminding people that earlier this week the Government announced a fundamental review of the way NICE works, and an end to the postcode lottery. Would have been too late for Gary, but the PCT's decision today may well have been made with that in mind.

Wherever I lay my hat...

I'm sure David Drew MP won't mind me including this picture, showing his sterling efforts to support Save the Children's knitting appeal. We're holding a knitting session in Parliament next Wednesday. I sent out the invitations, and now I keep being accosted by MPs who seem to think this means I'm a knitting fanatic. I can't knit! But having seen David's marvellous effort, I'm going to have to give it a try.

There is power in a union

I didn't get time to post Monday's good news (although the turtles being set free was quite heart-warming, wasn't it?) Anyway, I launched a new APPG on Credit Unions and the Minister, Kitty Ussher, used the occasion to announce fundamental changes in credit union law. This was what we were being set up to lobby for, so it left us in a bit of a quandary as to whether or not to disband immediately, mission accomplished. But we have decided to trudge on, ploughing our not very difficult furrow, which will mostly involve talking to the Treasury about the detail of the proposed new laws.

To get a bit anoraky on you for a moment... The idea of a 'common bond' is to be revised, which will basically mean that if, for example, First Bus decided it wanted an employees' credit union, it wouldn't need to have separate ones in each geographical location where the company operates; it could have a company wide one. (And some big companies are very interested in that, which could hugely boost the credit union's coffers). The bit I'm really excited about though is the fact that groups, as well as individuals, will soon be allowed to open credit union accounts. This opens the door for Bristol's huge number of voluntary sector organisations to start supporting the credit union - and for the credit union to support them when they hit cash flow problems towards the end of the financial year and are waiting for new funding to come on stream.

Speaking of the voluntary sector, today - Tuesday - the Government announced another £500m for New Deal for Communities , which includes Bristol. It's been a year since the smoking ban was introduced on 1st July 2007 and the results are pretty good (98% compliance and 76% public support, but I've already blogged about that). And the sun was shining at Wimbledon. But it's going to rain tomorrow.

Home and dry

I was up first in topical questions for Communities and Local Government today, and asked about the way in which councils treat applications for rehousing from the homeless, or soon to be homeless. My concern is that councils tell people that they have to hang on until the bitter end and fight legal proceedings they have no chance of winning, before they will be considered homeless. It's not enough for a landlord to serve a notice to quit, or a mortgagee to gain a repossession order. They're meant to hang on until the bailiffs are virtually knocking down the door, and then the Council will swing into action and rehouse them, at very short notice. You can imagine the stress and anxiety that causes families, especially ones with young kids, when they don't know if they'll have a roof over their head in 24 hours time. Or whether it will be a B&B, or somewhere the other side of Bristol, far from the kids' schools. I try to reassure them that the Council will step in, in the end - but I find it hard to explain why they can't do so as soon as the problem arises.

This case study in the Guardian is about a family who were told that because they didn't fight a repossession by their mortgage company they were "intentionally homeless" and the council had no duty to house them. (Although I think I'm right in saying that in families with young children, the housing department might not have a responsibility in such circumstances, but social services do - and they end up stepping in, with much the same outcome as if housing had accepted them).

And I've had people come to see me, whose landlords have a perfectly good reason for wanting them to vacate the property - e.g. if they're selling it - and yet they're told they have to stay put until the landlord takes legal proceedings against them. Sometimes the landlord might even be a personal friend, and neither party wants to go down this route, or incur the costs involved, but the council will treat them as intentionally homeless if they don't put up a show of resistance.

The Minister replied that as soon as the local authority is satisfied that homelessness "is likely within 28 days", it must take steps to ensure that the applicant and his or her household will continue to have somewhere to live. That doesn't quite tie in with what happens in practice, but it gives me a bit of leverage to take this up with the Council.

Smoke it

My recent post about the success of the smoking ban mentioned a reception by Forest, the pro-smoking group at a private members club in Belgravia. And today they're having a champagne tea party for MPs in the Commons. Kind of bears out what Libby Brooks is saying in today's Guardian.

The article on Amsterdam's smoking ban, and its impact on coffee shops, is quite entertaining, especially this quote: "It's absurd. In other countries they look to see whether you have marijuana in your cigarette, here they'll look to see if you've got cigarette in your marijuana."

Harvest for the world

Spent quite an interesting two-and-a-half hours in the Chamber yesterday for the Food Security debate. Made a couple of interventions: the first I don't think I put very well, but at least the pont was made; that why, when we can grow apples in this country, do we import them from New Zealand, with all the environmental costs that incurs (not to mention the financial costs - which I didn't). I was roundly rebuked for this later by the Tory MP, David Curry, who said that we'd built this country on trade and if we didn't buy their apples, they wouldn't buy our whiskey. But where does it stop? Do we just carry on with an endless cycle of goods being unnecessarily transported halfway round the world? The Secretary of State's response was along the lines of people being able to exercise free choice. In other words, don't buy New Zealand apples if you're bothered about food miles.

My second intervention - on the Lib Dem frontbencher who is, I gather, a hill farmer in Wales - was to reiterate the 7kg of grain = 1 kg of beef point, as no-one else seemed willing to mention increased meat and dairy consumption as a factor affecting food security. I was somewhat chilled by his response. To quote: "The ruminants do not have a good conversion factor in converting corn and soya into meat, but species such as pigs and chickens are relatively efficient." This reminds me of the recent article in the Observer, which said that chickens are referred to as 'units' on intensive farms. They make it sound as if animals are machines, where you input feed at one end and meat is produced at the other.

For those who say that there's little difference between political parties these days, it's worth reading the debate. Although the Tories had called for a debate on food security, it should really have been entitled "Protecting the livelihood of British farmers". (Which included most of them, it seemed). Hilary Benn's response, by way of contrast, scanned the global horizon, talked about developing countries, and put things into their rightful international context.

Of the Tories, Michael Jack, chair of the DEFRA select committee, actually made quite a thoughtful and well-argued contribution, which he only slightly spoilt by admitting that he talks to slugs and snails in his garden. (He tells them to go away, and they ignore him). He also talked about a field of leeks that had "effectively melted" after being hit by a severe cold spell. I'm no horticulturalist, but even I know that leeks don't melt. Not even if you put them in a wok.

Disappointingly the Lib Dem chair of the APPG for Cheese made no mention of cheese in his intervention. The chair of the APPG for Dairy Farmers (aka that really, really tall bloke with the Polish name) blamed global insecurity of food supplies on badgers spreading bovine TB; the sooner we cull them the better. One farmer in his constituency is particularly suffering. (See earlier point re the importance of having an international perspective on this issue).

The Labour MP Ian Gibson spoke about "the Haber-Bosch process of making ammonia from gaseous nitrogen and hydrogen". He also told us that "In Norwich, we have groups working on the prospect of transferring to other crop plants, such as wheat, the genetic capacity of legumes, which fix their own nitrogen through associated bacteria" and that "radiant energy for photosynthesis is all about latitude. We cannot do too much about that, but through molecular genetics it is possible to make photosynthesis more efficient and therefore fix more carbon for growth". Couldn't have put it better myself. As the Tory frontbencher quipped at the end, he should probably do a Powerpoint presentation next time.

Parliament's only UKIP MP made us laugh by inadvertently referring to CAP as the 'Common Agricultural Problem', and a Tory got very indignant about the fact that smoked bacon doesn't even have to be smoked anymore; it's all chemicals these days! And another Tory complained that only 13% of the lamb fed to our very own armed forces was British. (So presumably he doesn't buy into his colleague's argument about having to buy lamb from NZ so they buy our whiskey?)

All in all, quite a fun way to spend a few hours.

Another turtle picture

One day I'm going to go diving somewhere like Oman and watch the baby turtles hatching on the beach.

Adopt-a-turtle

Given that turtles are in the news today (and what a stroke of genius to name a turtle James!) I thought I'd take the opportunity to publicise the Marine Conservation Society's Adopt-a-Turtle campaign. I picked up a leaflet in Betterfoods in Bristol a couple of months ago, and have been meaning to sign up ever since. And today I have. I think that as an occasional diver I ought to be contributing something to marine conservation. And they are very cute.

Monday morning

I don't know who decided it was a good idea for me to attend a breakfast meeting tomorrow morning. I suppose it was me. So I'd better stop blogging.

The meeting is about the rise in global food prices and no, I'm not expecting to get fed.

There is also an Opposition day debate tomorrow evening on food security. (The second of two; the first one is on energy security). No doubt they will spend most of their allotted time explaining exactly what they would do about these issues if they were in power, rather than just banging on about how it is all the fault of the current Government. But I may be wrong on that.

The smoking ban one year on

I have decided that, in the face of the media witch hunt going on at the moment (and from looking at today's Sundays, I don't think there's any other word for it), I am going to have a daily 'good news' item. Again, this is from today's Observer, but I'll summarise some of it here.

Since the smoking ban was introduced, there has been a record rise in the number of people giving up smoking. The figures for April to December 2007 (only 9 months) were up 22% on the previous year. 80% of people think the ban is a good thing. And fears that more people would smoke at home instead haven't been realised. There is also good news about people with lung conditions now being able to socialise without harming their health, and a predicted fall in the number of heart attacks (as happened in Scotland after they introduced their ban).

As someone who voted for the full ban, this makes me feel good.

The report ends by saying that the ban contributed to the closure of 1,409 pubs in 2007, compared with just 216 in 2006. I'd like to see more evidence of this. Has the number of people drinking in pubs gone down since the ban? Or have they switched to pubs where it's easier to smoke outside? I know a few pubs have closed down recently in east Bristol; some have been empty for a while and locals are concerned they're going to be sold off to property developers and turned into flats. But they tend to be in areas which are already well-served by pubs, and I suspect there may just be too much competition for them all to make a profit.

Conservative Future

Also from today's Observer. It struck a chord as we see so many of these characters around Westminster. We have a little game when researchers get into the lift, of trying to guess who they work for (or rather, which party the MP is from) before checking out their passes. It's very easy to spot a Tory.