Semi-urbanites like me who enjoy visiting the countryside, particularly those areas of outstanding natural beauty such as that found in Northumberland, Cumbria and the Yorkshire Dales, are often ignorant of the reality of how such stunning rural landscapes are protected and nurtured. After the Second World War, it was widely accepted that certain parts of the British countryside needed protection, not just for those people who visited for holidays from urban areas, but more importantly, to secure the nation’s rural economy. Many small farmers, particularly those in upland areas, struggle to make their businesses a success. As a free marketeer at heart, I would admit that for the government to step in to subsidise these small farming businesses would be anathema to me, however, I have recently been persuaded by farming friends that for the free market to exist in sheep farming, in particular, all of the players in the global field (so to speak!) need to be playing by the same rules. And this is where it comes becomes more complicated. Standards of animal husbandry in this country are rightly of great importance. The problem is, however, that it comes at a financial cost to the farmer. In other parts of the world, animal welfare practices are less stringent, of a lower standard, and consequently, cost less. Hence, the British farmer looks after his livestock ‘better’ but, therefore, cannot compete with the lower prices from abroad. Of particular frustration to the British farmer is that if cheap meat was all that was imported from abroad it would be just annoying. For infectious diseases such as ‘foot and mouth’ to come in as well, puts ‘salt in the wound’ (I gather that Brazil is thought to be the likely original source country for the F&M outbreak in Heddon-on-the-Wall in 2001).

Clearly, even if there was a level playing field, small upland sheep farmers would still struggle to make a profit in competition with large sheep operations in New Zealand. It then becomes more of an issue about calculating the additional income that the ‘classic rural landscape’ of upland England brings to the tourist trade. For it is in tourism that the rural economy now has such a great investment and in which the security of its long-term, economic viability resides. Helping create such a viable future for the rural economy of England is a challenge that all politicians should meet. I would be very happy to defend and, where necessary, sanction financial support for the protection of the English countryside in the short to medium term, if it meant it would have a secure future for generations to come.

Semi-urbanites like me who enjoy visiting the countryside, particular those areas of outstanding natural beauty such as that found in Northumberland, Cumbria and the Yorkshire Dales, are often ignorant of the reality of how such stunning rural landscapes are protected and nurtured. After the Second World War, it was widely accepted that certain parts of the British countryside needed protection, not just for those people who visited for holidays from urban areas, but more importantly, to secure the nation’s rural economy. Many small farmers, particularly those in upland areas, struggle to make their businesses a success. As a free marketeer at heart, I would admit that for the government to step in to subsidise these small farming businesses would be anathema to me, however, I have recently been persuaded by farming friends that for the free market to exist in sheep farming, in particular, all of the players in the global field (so to speak!) need to be playing by the same rules. And this is where it comes becomes more complicated. Standards of animal husbandry in this country are rightly of great importance. The problem is, however, that it comes at a financial cost to the farmer. In other parts of the world, animal welfare practices are less stringent, of a lower standard, and consequently, cost less. Hence, the British farmer looks after his livestock ‘better’ but, therefore, cannot compete with the lower prices from abroad. Of particular frustration to the British farmer is that if cheap meat was all that was imported from abroad it would be just annoying. For infectious diseases such as ‘foot and mouth’ to come in as well, puts ‘salt in the wound’ (I gather that Brazil is thought to be the likely original source country for the F&M outbreak in Heddon-on-the-Wall in 2001).

Clearly, even if there was a level playing field, small upland sheep farmers would still struggle to make a profit in competition with large sheep operations in New Zealand. It then becomes more of an issue about calculating the additional income that the ‘classic rural landscape’ of upland England brings to the tourist trade. For it is in tourism that the rural economy now has such a great investment and in which the security of its long-term, economic viability resides. Helping create such a viable future for the rural economy of England is a challenge that all politicians should meet. I would be very happy to defend and, where necessary, financially support the protection of the English countryside in the medium term, if it meant it would have a secure future for future generations to enjoy.

Over ten years I have watched energy policy go from being a relatively quiet backwater to something taking on a strategic importance that could be as crucial to our country’s future as defence. – Tony Blair

In today’s Times, the Prime Minister argues the case for a new energy plan. It is a persuasive case. What is clear is that Britain’s future energy security has become a major issue. Indeed, I believe that energy security has become the single most important strategic challenge for the British government. Get it wrong, and we can all kiss goodbye to long-term prosperity and influence in the world.

Putting the debate on climate change to one side, for me the key question is how Britain can move towards energy independence. If one looks at a table of ownership of known oil reserves, only one country in the top ten is a stable democracy – Canada. Gas reserve ownership is little better, with only the USA featuring. Clearly, Britain needs to start now to make plans for more energy independence as The Middle East and the former Soviet Union are hardly showing signs of imminent stable democracy. In particular, Russia has recently shown an intent to use energy supply as an instrument to bully its neighbours (and the rest of the world). Britain needs to build immunity to such intimidatory tactics.

Building nuclear power station should be part of our plan for energy independence. In contrast to hydrococarbons, uranium supplies come predominantly from stable democracies that are close friends of Britain. Canada is the world’s leading uranium producer, accounting for a third of global production and 15% of global reserves. Australia is the next largest producer, with one quarter of global production and 27% of global reserves. Our relationships with both countries are strong. We once lead the way in nuclear energy technology and hence I see no reason why we cannot do so again.

It is a tough decision to commission more nuclear power stations. Hard choices are what being in government is all about. There are undeniably issues regards cost and the disposal of nuclear waste. I believe, however, that these understandable concerns are more than outweighed by the strategic benefits of ‘owning’ our own power supplies. Clearly, we must concentrate on renewable energy resources and furthermore, address the amount of energy that each Briton uses. However, to rely on those two approaches alone would still leave Britain exposed to the vagaries of global politics. I would rather have nuclear power stations than ‘go cap in hand’ to despots and autocrats.