During my first degree course, I studied medical ethics in the Law Department at King’s College in London. At the time, one could describe me as somewhat idealistic. I was firmly in what was described then as the ‘Rights-Based’ group. To me, a woman’s right to choose was paramount. Later on, as part of my medical training at St. Mary’s Hospital in London, I opted to attend a TOP (Termination of Pregnancy) list. I say opted as it was not a requirement of the medical course. I did so because I felt it was appropriate to see first-hand the realities of the abortion service. Appropriate because in the future it was to be my signature on the ‘blue form’ referring my ‘patient’ for an abortion. Not only did I closely observe the actual procedures, I also watched the staff. I asked questions of them throughout. I did not attend a further list after that.

Most GP’s undertake a six-month Obstetrics & Gynaecology attachment as part of their post-graduate training. I chose not to take part in the abortion service provided by the District General hospital I worked at. I did this because of both my previous experience at St. Mary’s, and further contemplation of my own moral framework within which I worked as a doctor. I now work as a GP and do not sign the forms required for abortion. I do, however, see it as my professional responsibility to inform my patients immediately of where they can seek an abortion. I recognise the implicit moral inconsistencies of that approach.

I have outlined the above so as to give some sense of how I have arrived at my view on abortion and its provision.

Today, Nadine Dorries is introducing a Ten Minute Rule Bill in which a reduction in the legal limit of abortion from 24 weeks gestation to 21 weeks is proposed. Fortunately, in this country such questions of conscience are left to each individual MP to make a decision. I would not want abortion, or indeed any other moral dilemma, to become a political issue. Hence, it is the responsibility of politicians to legislate sensitively on these issues.

There are approximately 200,000 abortions each year in this country. Relatively few of these occur after 20 weeks gestation. The majority occur before 12 weeks. Since the introduction of the abortion service in 1967, there have been annual increases in its rates year on year. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of women involved are not teenage girls on sink estates. Over 50% of abortions are to women over 24 years old. They are often women who have either already had children or feel that it is not the right time for them to be starting a family. I have professionally encountered a number of cases of women having abortions between pregnancies they choose to continue. Another statistic that I encountered in my training was the ‘repeat factor’, that is the number of women having more than one abortion. To my knowledge, this figure is also increasing. This is a worrying development, as it suggests an ‘acceptance’ of abortion as a form of contraception. Clearly, we are now have ‘abortion-on-demand’ in this country. To suggest otherwise would be disingenuous.

How does the country feel about this?

I still believe that the majority feel that an abortion service is necessary. We can all think of appalling situations where for the woman (or girl) to be forced to carry the baby to term would be wrong. If I had a teenage daughter and she had been raped I would not want her to continue that pregnancy. For this reason, in this context I do not believe in a moral absolute. In saying all this, however, it does not mean I agree with the way in which abortion is provided in this country.

With further inprovements in reproductive and neonatal techniques, babies are living from earlier gestations. This throws up problems of determining viability. I am fully aware of the morally inconsistency of choosing a time limit for abortion. How can a baby have a different moral value depending upon the decade in which it was conceived? This is where the strength of the ‘Pro-Life’ argument resonates most. By drawing the line at conception, they have a position that is defensible through the ages. Those of us wrestling with our own morals within the imperfect world in which we live are less fortunate. I wish abortion was not necessary, but as I have outlined above, for me to support that position would require at least a world without rapists and paedophiles. That, rather sadly, is not going to happen anytime soon. What I do believe, however, is that one measure of our society is the way in which we value life. Consequently, to have increasing abortion rates does not reflect well on our society. Change is needed.

What are we then to do? What would be acceptable in Britain today?

Ms Dorries’ Bill is a step in the right direction. She has presented it in terms of viability and highlighted the recent advances in 3D imagery made by Professor Campbell at UCH in London. Personally, I would lower the limit further, perhaps even to twelve weeks. Three months should be enough time for any woman to come to a decision. Exceptions could be made where rare congenital malformations present late, however determining the degree of malformation needed to warrant termination would be a difficult area to supervise.

If I was an MP I would be voting to support the Bill. In order to take the issue further and successfully reduce abortion rates in this country we are left with education and social stigma. Evidence of education’s effectiveness is thin on the ground and social stigmatisation is not an area politicians should get into. I suspect this is a problem society and government will have to re-visit every decade.

I guess it comes as no surprise that senior members of the Labour government have started taking environmental issues more seriously. The polls have spoken. Today the Prime Minister is on the stump accompanied by his ‘close friend’ the Chancellor. The topic that has drawn out the ‘Big Beasts’ is the Stern Report (a review is here).

Cleverly leaked in yesterday’s papers, this report has drawn attention to the economic consequences of global warming. The consequences being economic is key. To date, the adverse effects of climate change have been presented in ‘natural’ terms: rising sea levels, extinction of species, adverse weather events, to name but a few. The Stern Report has now highlighted the financial implications of our polluting behaviour. Hence, action will now be more likely taken. The Chinese, Indians and Americans need a vibrant world economy to continue their economic advance. It is now appears proven to be in all of their long-term interests to reduce carbon emissions.

David Cameron has lead on the environment since his election as leader. He has been consistent and repeated the concerns of many. At Conference this year I went to view Al Gore’s film – whether you fully accepted the conclusions or not, the impact of that movie was unquestionable. David Cameron spoke after the film and made some good comments. It is clearly a subject that matters to him personally. And that is the difference. When I see Gordon Brown (and David Milliband) coming to the party late I am suspicious. Are they recent converts? Their party’s environmental record to date has been far from impressive. What about Mr Prescott’s Transport plan?

I am pleased that the government has started going green. I am pleased it is taking climate change seriously. I am particularly pleased that environmental policy is now at the centre of British politics. David Cameron has put it there.

Today is the 20^th anniversary of the ‘Big Bang’ in the City of London. In recent days many have gathered in London to celebrate its anniversary. It was an event, which, in the words of the Guardian, had “colossal and still unfolding financial, cultural and political consequences”. It swept away the restrictive practices of the London Stock Exchange in one fell swoop. Overnight, the LSE went from being a cosy club for those in the know to a cut-throat, financial powerhouse.

The economic consequences were numerous. Only 31 companies in the FTSE100 at the time remain in existence. Mergers and increased competition and funding from abroad have lead to the disappearance of the others. This very competition has reduced the cost of trading. The foreign money has funded the technological change that has allowed London to keep ahead of its competitors. The financial success brought about by the ‘Big Bang’ is borne out by the facts. In 1984 the companies of the FTSE100 were valued at £92bn. Today, three companies individually have values higher than that: BP, Shell and HSBC.

The wealth and dynamism generated by the ‘Big Bang’ have transformed London. It is a genuinely cosmopolitan and vibrant city. Talent from abroad is drawn by its pace, fashion and culture. Not only have the wealthy benefited. Look to East London and one sees the regeneration of some of London’s poorest areas. With this structural improvement have come thousands of jobs.

The financial sector is a large and vital part of the world economy. It is growing and London retains a remarkable position, far above that which the British economy should warrant. The Conservative Party should be proud of its role in bringing about this position. Cecil Parkinson and the then LSE Chairman, Nicholas Goodison, should be remembered for their great contribution to the ‘Big Bang’ process. There was opposition from both within the Party and (obviously) from the Labour Opposition. Despite this, the policy was pushed through and the rest is history.

Our position, however, is not secure. Gordon Brown’s complex taxation laws and overall increased taxation are threatening London’s pre-eminence. It is important that the next government of Britain legislates to aid the City of London, not hinder it. That is one reason why Britain needs the next government to be a Conservative one.

“The king should govern lawfully for the good of his people” – Magna Carta 1215

Many Conservatives feel that the BBC is biased. The very mention of the organisation at a Conservative event usually elicits a negative response from at least one person. It appears an accepted fact within Conservative circles that the BBC is politically left-leaning. There are even blogs that chart ‘evidence’ of such bias.

Tonight on the BBC Six O’Clock News I watched a report from America. In it Matt Frei told the story of a Democratic candidate running in Chicago who had been wounded in action in Iraq. She is standing in a Republican-held seat. The report was not balanced. The Republican candidate was ridiculed by the correspondent throughout. In contrast, the Democratic candidate was lauded, continually shown in a positive light. Now I am no big supporter of Bush’s Republicans, however, to suggest that this BBC report was balanced would be pushing it somewhat.

Yesterday, I found this post written by the BBC Director of News. It makes for interesting reading. I believe that it is encouraging that this meeting on supposed BBC bias was convened. Whether this was in response to the increased availability of information via the internet (i.e. competition),or a genuine desire to strengthen the impartiality of the BBC is open to question; however, for the BBC to be discussing these issues can only be a good thing.

My opinion has always been that Conservatives should stop carping about BBC Bias and get on with working hard to get their message over to the populace through other media outlets. This is one of the main reasons why I am so excited about the creation of 18 Doughty Street. The BBC does not necessarily set the agenda anymore. It will have to follow stories if the people (and other TV channels) ask the questions. We have as much responsibility (and opportunity) to inform Britain as the BBC does.