The Right Hon. Baroness Thatcher LG OM PC FRS

So another chapter is closed in the history of this island race. Tomorrow, Parliament is recalled; a solemn day but also perhaps a celebration of the life of our greatest peacetime leader.

Sometimes this type of day can end up being a bit of a damp squib in the Lords, but I suspect this will not be the case tomorrow. I have just done a rough count up of former Secretaries of State and ministers/whips in the Lords who served under Margaret Thatcher - 27 Secretaries of state and 45 ministers/whips one of whom now sits on the labour benches.

I never really knew her, though our paths crossed twice. The first time was when both Houses of Parliament debated the Scott Report in February 1996. Ian Lang was putting the governments case in the Commons where the Prime Minister had made the vote a matter of confidence. In the Lords, Peter Fraser was leading and having some sport over public interest immunity certificates with Roy Jenkins who was critising us for using them - in fact he introduced them in the first place as Home Secretary! But anyway, as a very junior Government whip, The Chief Whip asked me to help entertain Lady Thatcher and Sir Denis in his office. The Chief Whip's office in the Lords did have a certain reputation as a place where you met interesting people and were usually entertained with conversation and also a drop of whisky. Apart from the fact that the government won both votes that night, I wont forget, when watching the Commons' vote on the monitor, Lady Thatcher saying how strange it was after all those years, actually watching the vote as opposed to taking part! Sir Denis' response was along the lines of it was hardly a new experience for him!

On another occasion after 1997, now as an opposition whip, we were debating Commons' reasons for not agreeing to opposition amendments to a certain bill. This might appear quite straight forward to the uninitiated, but sometimes voting on commons amendments can be confusing and Lady Thatcher asked me which lobby we would be voting in. With great confidence, I suggested she made her way up to the content lobby to prepare for the vote. Unfortunately this was not the correct information and luckily she was saved from voting in the wrong lobby by, I think, Lord Forsyth.

It will be one of those House of Lords days when seeing who chooses to speak will be as fascinating as the contributions themselves. As an aside to illustrate just how important this day is, one conservative peer is travelling half way round the world to attend the Recall of Parliament on April 10th 2013

Beer and who pays for the visit to the pub.

I have always been partial to a pint of ale and I particularly welcomed the action of My Right Honourable Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he reduced the tax on beer. Something I hope will allow moderate enjoyment for many and also help the pubs and inns that are finding life tricky at the moment. The piece below, with thanks to Professor David K Kamerschen Phd and Professor of Economics, links beer drinking with higher rate tax payers.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the
bill for all ten comes to £100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this..

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite
happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused
them a little problem. "Since you are all such good
customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your
weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our
taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would
still drink for free but what about the other six men? The
paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so
that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that
£20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from
everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be
drinking for free but the fifth  and sixth man would each end up
being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to
reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided
to follow the principle of the tax system they had been
using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested
that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the
first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their
savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the
sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10"

"Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved
£1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me"

"That's true" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get
£10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the
breaks"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we
didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the
poor" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so
the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when
it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important - they didn't have enough money between all of
them to pay for even half of the bill.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government
ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who
already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is
somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Frustration in the Chamber

Thursdays with the House sitting at 11.00am means a slightly earlier setting off time from the Cotswolds, but today there were two questions that I felt moved to contribute to.

The second question on the Order Paper was about the proposed Severn Barrage and it soon became apparent that the promoters of this project had been doing some briefing on the Opposition Benches. With exMPs from the Principality keen to make their points I was unable to get my question in, not helped either by some rather lengthy questions from other Peers. I think without exception all the questions were centred on Wales, I may be wrong but mile for mile I am pretty sure that England has a longer coastline on the Estuary than Wales.

Anyway my major beef about the proposed Barrage is environmental, though I was sent a useful brief by John Stevenson of Bristol Port which amongst other matters pointed out the possible detrimental effect of the Barrage on business's in Gloucester, Sharpness and Bristol. Throughout the questions on Thursday on this issue peers were going on about environmental mitigation.  But how on earth do you carry out works on such a scale to mitigate the proposed vandalism of such an important environmental area. The last thing I heard we were still signatories to the Berne Convention, there are also a number of SSSIs in this area as well as Slimbridge one of the worlds most important wildfowl research stations.

So this is meant to provide 5% of the UK's energy needs from a renewable source. Great intentions, but do we have the technology to do this? And before the proposers go on about jobs and how good for the environment this will be, How many tonnes of concrete will have to be poured to construct this project bearing in mind that cement industry is one of our more power hungry activities and also releases 5% of mankind's carbon dioxide emissions. This industry to quote the Guardian, a paper I do not usually read, is not about to go carbon neutral.

As I live in Gloucestershire the Severn Estuary is a very special place for me and it worries me enormously that this area of such environmental importance could be vandalised.

The last question on the Order Paper was on food waste, something that at home we have been trying to cut down on. I had noticed though that the big supermarkets were now selling food in slightly smaller portions something I am pleased to see. But this does mean that we have additional packaging to deal with, and I despair with the amount of plastic and other materials that we have in our recycling bins and also going to landfill.

End of one era and start of another

For the last 18 years The House of Lords has debatably been dominated by either a Cecil or a Galbraith. If this is not so for the whole House, it certainly is true for the Conservative benches.

I am of course referring to the former Lord Privy Seal. now the Marquis of Salisbury and the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Lord Strathclyde, whose retirement from front bench duty was announced today. Robert and Tom were an unbeatable duo in the mid 90s from 1994 when Robert became leader of the House until his sacking by William Hague in 1999. Robert came to the Lords in 1992 by a method called a writ of acceleration, something that seems to be only ever done for a Cecil such is their family's influence on British politics over hundreds of years. As leader, he charmed his opponents and was given unquestioned loyalty by his front bench colleagues. I am immensely proud to have served under him. Thomas was on the front bench for much longer from 1988 through to 2013 a long spell in anybodies book. He was made Chief Whip in 1994 and was quite an operator and always good fun to be around. He was a great judge of what was important and what in his own words were 'minor potatoes'.

We, of course, lost the election in 1997 and went into opposition. The double act stayed in the same positions but from the other side of the chamber. Political life continued with the Conservative party not making a great deal of headway though we did have some opportunities. As expected we eventually had Lords reform in the Queens Speech and a bill was produced. I can't quite remember whether it was committee stage or report when we had that day of exposure when the Deal over reform was announced, but in the afternoon after PMQs Robert Cranborne decided to sell the idea to the ACP - the Lords equivalent of the 1922. The ACP had though agreed to let the Leader of the Opposition address the ACP after Robert had had his opportunity, and this is when it all started to go a bit wrong. Robert had hardly got into the swing of it when William Hague and his senior Shadow Cabinet Colleagues strode into the Moses Room half an hour early. At this point Thomas looked at me and said "we're f---ed now" and of course the rest of it is quite well documented.

He took over as leader and did this continually through opposition until the Coalition was formed and the Prime Minister appointed him Leader and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He had some tricky bits to deal with, not least being Leader of a House that was much changed but also leading a coalition in the Lords and having to promote Lords Reform, a subject not dear to many of his Tory colleagues. He did this very well, not showing the House what he actually thought of the whole affair. He did not have the light touch of a Cecil but was still a much respected politician.

He was not everyones cup of tea but he has served the House well for many years. I will miss his air of confidence and I always felt the House was in good hands with him as its Leader.

Having mulled over Thomas's retirement overnight, two things really come to mind. Firstly, what a great job he has done over the years he has represented both the Conservatives and the House as a whole through arguably its most turbulent modern history. This included two attempts at reforming the House, one of which had to be abandoned, the change of the House in the last say five years from one that concentrated on line by line scrutiny of Bills to a House that has become more overtly political, and leading a Coalition with one party having a different agenda to the other. It has not been the easiest of times and having watched Thomas from my position on the Back benches I can quite understand why he has decided to call it a day. The second matter that got me thinking last night was the enormous loss of experience that has left government. I would say that without doubt, he is the most politically experienced member of the House and his retirement will leave an enormous gap on the front bench and, sorry Thomas, that is both literally and metaphorically.

So we now have a new Leader, Lord Hill of Oareford, somebody I am afraid I don't know very well. He has done a great job in Education, and just to see the Oppositions reaction when he stood in the House as leader for the first time, shows that they respect him as well. He is quieter than Thomas and we will have to wait and see if he has the required hard edge as well. He has a long political history, having been in No. 10 in the early 90s, so as well as having the experience, he also knows many colleagues from that era, a number of whom are now in the House.

So there has also been a bit of a mini reshuffle in the Lords. Lord Sassoon's planned retirement from the Front Bench is now complete with Lord Deighton, ex LOCOG taking over his role at the Treasury. Lord Marland has also decided to call it a day and his place has been taken by Lord Younger, who moves from the Whips Office to Bis. We have a new peer, John Nash, coming to be a minister in Education and Lord Popat has left his role as a Party Whip to become a Government Whip.  And finally, blow me over with a feather, the powers that be, eg the Chief Whip, has asked me to become a Party Whip. Somewhat surprised, as I was pretty sure the rest of my career in the Lords would be destined to be Committees and back bench speeches. This is pretty low down the pecking order, in fact there is nothing lower, but it's all about communication with other Tory Peers like myself on the back benches - something I was always quite good at and it's great to help, if only in a very minor way.

House of Lords Freedom of Information requests

I received one of those emails from the House Authorities headed FoI request. Immediate thoughts were along the lines of Ohh dear what's going on now? (Or words to that affect) Anyway, having opened the message and found out that it referred to peers who had received iPads from our IT allowance I felt it would be good to explain a bit how it all works.

We are able to have two items of electrical equipment. I have a lap top that stays on my desk in Millbank (I chose this instead of a desk top) and now I have an iPad. The House also lets me have a blackberry with a set usage allowance, over which I pay for myself.

So am I playing Angry Birds in Committee or in the Chamber? No I'm not. Do I play Patience on the train home? Yes I do. The real benefit of the iPad is for my committee work. I'm a member of EU Sub Committee D which scrutinises items from the EU or to put it simply matters affecting Defra and Decc. We receive every week around 150 pages of briefing which also includes stuff for our present investigation into EU Energy policy: Decarbonisation and economic competitiveness. An excellent subject with the report being published next year.

My main point, is that there are 12 members of our committee plus clerks and advisers etc. For this one committee alone, the tax payer is picking up the bill for about 20 sets of papers (each 150 pages in length) for every week the House sits (not including the price of ink, copier and maintenance costs). So say the House sits for 20 weeks that is in the region of 60,000 sheets of paper a year, a conservative estimate in my view. With the iPad, or similar portable technology, the need for such vast quantities of paper is almost eliminated. Across industries, research has been done on this very area. The iPad has consistently been associated with overall cost savings and reductions in waste.

As someone who does care about the environment I think that everything the individual can do to reduce ones carbon footprint has to be a win win situation. In my view, the more members who actually take up the offer of iPads the better, so we can stop cutting down forests and also reduce the manufacturing of paper to a minimum.

Creating gardens for the long term; disease free; growing into the landscape; proud; organic; British.

I responded the other day to a tweet from Louise Gray, environment correspondent for the Telegraph, on Buying British in the garden,  A really good line to take, something that we should all strive to do. Her link was to yesterday's Daily Telegraph . My response though was that it would be great to solely use UK sourced plants and trees but in reality it was impossible.

So we had a quick chat on the phone and the results, in today's Telegraph, can be seen here: Louise Gray's piece on disease spread in trees and plants .

However, this does not tell the whole story.  I got thinking about why we need to import from the continent. Here in the UK we are very good at growing whips so I don't see any real need to import such from abroad. So why do we look outside our shores for planting material? The answer, of course, is that it's not available from our own nurseries or not at a price that will allow for competitive tendering.

Having helped in the running of a landscape contracting SME for a number of years, I only remember too well pricing lists from landscape architects and garden designers that contained tree specifications that we knew would be of good quality and available from the continent and not grown in the UK. The continental nurseries are very good at providing the more exotic as well as the more unusual specified trees  - architectural trees grown and trained into different shapes and sizes - from pleached trees to spirals and panels and much in between, often seen at Chelsea.

So why is this happening? Why are gardens and parks being specified with large semi mature trees and exotic species? Well the simple answer is that they are available. But actually, this trend comes from the fact that wherever you live whether in a Cotswold country house or the suburban family home, everybody wants an instant garden. People have become less patient with the growing cycles and want to have the big effect in their gardens. It is not just the private householder that has become fixated with "big". When did you last see a new housing estate planted with any trees smaller than 20ft high?

So getting back to what started this all off - diseases, who is to blame?  Diseases have to come from somewhere, imported from overseas, wind borne or perhaps something that has developed here in the UK. So no, I am not against instant gardens, but perhaps our nurseries should be looking at what home grown material they can supply.

I am as guilty as the next person, planting imported Hornbeam hedging troughs as well as Yew and goodness knows what else. We should plant, at the very biggest, feathered whips either bare root or in small containers; they would establish themselves quickly and will grow fast and are cheap.  Our nurseries must be encouraged to supply this material, not just our native species, but some of the more exotic types for which we would normally look for overseas.

Birds in the Garden

Seem to have been feeding the birds throughout the summer and whilst our Long tailed tits have disappeared we have lots of Goldfinches and have just welcomed for the first time a Nuthatch which I have never seen in the garden since we moved here nearly 14 years ago.

There are I think two real reasons for this - what we are doing in the garden and the fact that we have had a variety of bird feeds available hanging from the Mulberry for the past 10 months.

Since we really started to get to grips with the outside we have planted both Yew and Hornbeam hedges. The yew we planted 7 years ago and they were root balls at about 110 cm. These we bought from Dingles Nursery at Welshpool. They now stand 8ft tall and still growing. I was going to stop them at 6ft but having paid attention to Lady C we decided to go for it and eventually aim to have a hedge  of 10 -12 ft in height. My eldest wants me to finish it off with a brace of Topiary Scotties galloping along the top, to remind us and the village of the days when our Scotties terrorised everybody from the Vicar to the local riding stables. But of course this fine yew hedge is also providing excellent nesting opportunities, though maintenance could end up as a bit of a chore.

The first picture, which no doubt my eldest will be thrilled about, shows the hedge not long after planting in 2006. The second picture, showing the House and hedge from a different angle, was taken earlier this year.

The hornbeam hedge which stretches another 35 m came from that classy establishment of Readyhedge based near Pershore, these were about 90 cm high and came pre-formed in troughs and now provide  a beautiful green boundary along one side, as well as this year, for the first time, some nesting cover. This has also grown really well, the only problem being from mice which in the early years would have a go at the roots and base of the stems.

For the last couple of years I have also left some of the areas of the paddock un-mown, two parts are made up of Iris, it's quite wet and low lying and in another part I have just left it but will probably knock it down and rake it up in a few weeks time. But this action is I am sure the reason why after some years absence we now see grass snakes again.

But what has made these wild birds more visible has been the feeding - we have done the nuts, of course, as well as a wild bird mix and also some niger seeds that the Goldfinches can't leave alone. We get the feed from Well Fed Birds a company which supplies good quality bird feed at a not unreasonable price (at least I think so).

I hasten to add that I have absolutely no commercial relationship with any of the above suppliers . They are just good companies that supplied what we were looking for.