It is a common myth that MPs have ludicrously long holidays. Parliament went into recess last week. With the exception of two weeks in September, MPs will not return for two and a half months.

But, Parliament not sitting is not the same thing as MPs not working.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not taking any time off in August. I will be cracking on with a range of things relating to my responsibilities outside of Westminster, including:

• Working on a paper to submit to the local government finance review relating to the funding formula - making the case for a fairer deal in Elmbridge and Surrey, given the level of taxes we pay.


• Liaising with councillors, GPs and schools about implementation of the government's NHS and schools reforms.


• Preparing a pamphlet on counter-terrorism strategy for a think-tank.


• Erika and I are liaising with local charities to see what we can do to help deliver the 'Big Society' agenda.


• And I will be speaking at six open, town-hall style, public meetings across the constituency - so residents have an opportunity to grill me on anything they like.

As I came through the general anaesthetic last week (from key-hole surgery to repair some hip cartilage), I gazed through bleary eyes at the TV screen for some news. The Sky News ticker read: "North Korea threatens to invade South Korea". Next item: "Conservative MP criticises Coalition in Pub". It was a typical illustration of the media putting Westminster village tittle tattle on a par with a major international development.

Of course, the new Coalition Government is an endless source of fascination to journos and commentators. But as Parliament breaks, after the government's first two and a half months in office, what has it achieved of significance, and will it stand the test of time?

First off, ignore the tittle-tattle. No-one knows if the coalition will last a full 5 years. Selective pub snippets about the 'Brokeback coalition' leave me cold. Of course, MPs on both sides let off a bit of steam in private. That is reasonably healthy, within limits. But, as The Economist notes this week, the 'Big Picture' analysis shows a radical government making a solid start.

For me, the key moments since the election include George Osborne's ground-breaking - deficit cutting - budget, Eric Pickles firing off a gatling-gun volley of proposals to strengthen local democracy over planning, plus progress in delivering the Conservative manifesto commitments to overhaul welfare and pioneer schools reform.

No, it has not all been great - I believe the government made a mistake in opting into the European Investigation Order. And, sure, it is early days - the autumn spending review and proposals on constitutional reform will test the coalition and the country. But, overall, the coalition has made a positive start, evincing the three things the country needs most: vision, leadership and competence.

This week started with the second reading of the Academies Bill, the new government's first educational reform. The aim is to free local teachers, parents and community groups from state bureaucracy, allowing them to apply for academy status for their local school. With that status comes a range of freedoms - to tailor the curriculum to the needs of children (not Whitehall), to set pay and terms for teachers to attract the best talent, and to draw in local charities and businesses as sponsors. The strategy is to drive innovation - to improve teaching standards, and widen the choice of good local schools for parents. Three schools in Elmbridge have registered their interest in becoming academies. You can read my speech in the debate, in support of these pioneering reforms, here.

Later in the week, the government announced changes to UK war crimes legislation, to prevent NGOs or individuals from obtaining arrest warrants against foreign officials or politicians on spurious charges or flimsy evidence that would never stand up in court. The plans are controversial, but necessary - I wrote an article on Con Home, supporting the government's decision here.

Next, we had the announcement on compensation for the victims of Equitable Life. The last government's treatment of the victims of this long saga was shabby. The new government has acted swiftly, bringing forward the time-frame for compensation. Still, the level of compensation announced is well below what the victims had hoped for. The main reason is the poor state of the public finances - the victims should have been compensated years ago, when the money was available. You can read the debate in Parliament - and my contribution - here.

Meanwhile, I have been continuing to call for a proper debate, in the House of Commons, before Britain 'opts in' to the European Investigation Order. I blogged on this a week ago, here, and The Spectator led on the story this week.

In addition, in response to a letter from a disappointed constituent, I wrote to the FCO, requesting a review of their work experience schemes - open exclusively to ethnic minority, female, disabled or low income candidates. I am all for encouraging applications from a wide range of backgrounds - but I oppose positive discrimination in recruitment as a matter of principle. This political correctness at the FCO is a hangover from the last government. I welcome the response of the new FCO Ministers - immediately putting the current schemes under review. The Mail on Sunday reported the story here.

At the end of the week, I was nominated to serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights - the cross Commons and Lords committee, which scrutinises government legislation and policy. And ... finally ... I spent the weekend in hospital, having key-hole surgery on my hip. For those who have noticed me hobbling, I had damaged the cartilage. The op went well, but I will be on crutches for at least a month!

Erika and I have been visiting local fairs and shows whilst the good weather holds. Today, we enjoyed lunch and the opening of the brilliant Claygate Flower Show (below, with President Susanne Tunnicliff and her husband Kenny) ....

Britain has until the end of the month to decide whether or not to sign up to the European Investigation Order. We have not had an opportunity to debate the matter in the House of Commons. So, I raised the matter in the Chamber this week.

In the Order's current form, it would allow European police to instruct British forces to collect and hand over evidence in relation to foreign investigations. There are no proper limits on the nature of the crimes involved - so they could be trivial, or not even offences under UK law. Do we really want hard-pressed UK forces having to prioritise investigations in other countries, unless they relate to serious crimes? In addition, there are no proper safeguards to protect personal information or bodily samples from British citizens carted off for use in foreign investigations. And the Order even provides legal authority for European police to carry out investigations on British soil.

The Order is a dog's dinner. I will be pressing for clarification that Britain will not sign up to it in its current form. The issue was covered today in the Daily Telegraph here, and Daily Mail here.

The House of Commons today debated whether to continue the temporary - and emergency - measure of extending pre-charge detention to 28 days. You can watch the debate here (with my contribution at 49mins in the debate).

Sky News' Joey Jones interviews myself and some of the other new MPs. You can read his blog post, and watch the interview here.

Today, The Independent ran an interesting article on the true scale of the debt inherited from the last government. It points out that, if you include all public sector liabilities, total debt is £3.8 trillion - around four times higher than the official measure. For policy wonks and bean counters, the article is based on ONS data, available here.

That means total UK government debt over five times the cost to Britain of World War 2 (in today's money). The Indy article also estimates that a failure to cut the budget deficit now would leave the next generation with an additional tax bill equivalent to £200,000 (over a lifetime) just to enjoy the same level of public services as current and previous generations.

Public debate on the size of the state, public spending and taxes has tended to focus on the 'fairness' between different sections of our society. The scale of the debt legacy will increasingly re-focus attention on fairness between different generations of our society. It poses a very basic, human, question: will we leave our children a country that is a better or worse place to live ?

I was delighted to hear this week that capital grant funding for Princess Alice Hospice has been confirmed despite the parlous state of the public finances. The hospice does incredible work for those with terminal illness - and their families - and Ministers have now confirmed to me that a £40k tranche of capital funding, held in the pipeline, has now been approved.

Last week, the opposition seized on selective Treasury figures suggesting the government's emergency budget would lead to 1.3 million job losses - ignoring the 2.5 million expected to be created. It is a sign of the shrill, partisan and selective politics we can expect in the months ahead. What surprises me most is the sheer denial - on opposition benches - not just of the debt legacy Gordon Brown left behind, but also the basic economics of how jobs are created in a market economy.

Of course, the state can spend taxpayer's money employing more and more people. Of course, public sector cuts will not automatically create new jobs in the private sector. But, strengthening economic competitiveness, increasing productivity and creating new jobs can only come from private sector growth. And that is suffering because of the high taxes and high debt that inevitably follows the reckless spending spree of the last decade. Consider the big picture.

According to OECD figures, the amount of national income consumed by the British state increased by 13% between 1999 and 2009 - as state spending rose from 38% to 51% of GDP. During that period, UK economic competitiveness dropped on the international rankings, our tax competitiveness plummeted, whilst productivity lags behind our major competitors. We have slowly but surely shifted from being a liberal economy - more akin to the US, Australia or Canada - to a continental-style welfare state. It has done real damage to our economy.

Research for the Institute for Economic Affairs this month shows the scale of that damage. Between 2000 and 2008, European governments that spent less than 42% of GDP created jobs growth of 27%. Governments spending 42% or more saw jobs growth of a paltry 6%.

So, cutting the deficit is not just about avoiding default on sovereign debt, or wider market confidence in Britain. It is also about re-calibrating an economy overloaded by a bloated state apparatus, which the private sector cannot continue to carry. Or, to put it another way - it is like putting an 8 stone ruck sack on Kelly Holmes, and expecting her to go out and win the 800 meters.

The reality is that the British economy is now in a poor position to compete with its traditional competitors, let alone the rising economic powers in an increasingly competitive global economy. If we do not reduce the size of the state, we will not fulfil our economic potential. If we fail to clean up the economic mess, made over the last 13 years, the future consequences will be grave. It would mean less jobs and less opportunity - not to mention less tax revenue - for the next generation. That is why the socialist attacks on the emergency budget are so selfish. Why should our children suffer for the economic mess made over the last 13 years?

I have written the following open letter to Andrew Flanagan, Chief Executive of the NSPCC:

Dear Mr Flanagan

CLOSURE OF SURREY BRANCH OF THE NSPCC

I am writing in relation to the planned closure of the Surrey Branch of the NSPCC in Leatherhead. I have spoken to Julie Cole, NSPCC Regional head of Services in South London and the South East, in an effort to better understand the rationale. I have also met with local campaigners opposed to the closure, who have raised concerns about the loss of the witness support and therapeutic services for victims of child abuse.

I understand that the re-designing of services is an attempt to target areas of highest deprivation. Or in the words of Wes Cuell, NSPCC director of children services:

‘We want to reach the areas of highest deprivation. That means moving to bigger urban areas. ’
The Guardian, 15 February 2010

I would be interested to know what data the NSPCC have used to determine the re-allocation of services in accordance with this strategy. There is widespread scepticism about politicised priorities that underlay the last government’s reliance on deprivation indices, including their tendency to measure median deprivation which ignores acute pockets of deprivation in affluent areas.

In relation to Surrey, I would also draw your attention to the Hidden Surrey Report, by Dr Helen Bowcock for the Surrey Community Foundation, which makes this point very clearly. I attach a copy. You will see from Appendix 1 that seven wards in Surrey have double the national average level of child poverty. I hope there is still an opportunity to save the Surrey branch, and I would urge you to look below the surface to ensure that, in determining your strategy, you are relying on a truly objective assessment of local needs.

Yours sincerely,

Dominic Raab

In his first keynote speech on foreign policy the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has laid down some important markers.

The Foreign Secretary talks about delivering 'a distinctive British Foreign Policy that extends our global reach and influence, that is agile and energetic in a networked world'. In contrast to the last Labour Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, who thought British influence must be exercised via the decision-making of a G3 of US, China and the EU, Hague's approach understands that increasingly fragmented international relations cannot be viewed through the dogmatic strait-jacket of a G3. We need a global foreign policy, with the agility - and self-confidence - to tailor diplomacy to build fluid partnerships that serve British interests. I believe we should strengthen the transatlantic alliance and cooperate with our European partners - but be tied to the hip of neither.

The Foreign Secretary also emphasises the 'primary' duty of foreign policy to 'serve and protect the interests and needs of the British people', anchored in reality. Hague is not calling for a selfish foreign policy and this is not a return to a cynical and introverted realism in foreign policy - Britain must discharge her responsibilities as (what I call) a 'global good citizen'. But Hague is right to recognise that Tony Blair's grand schemes for nation-building in inhospitable climates, or European political integration, require a firm reality check. Too often they failed to serve British interests. We need a foreign policy grounded in tangible interests and policy, not abstract ideological agendas.

Hague's analysis puts a renewed emphasis on economic diplomacy, bilateral relations and developing policy through the Commonwealth - all neglected under the last government. This is welcome. Britain should be a global champion for free trade. And it is astonishing that - even in prosperous times - we downgraded our diplomatic representation in key areas like Latin America, and neglected our invaluable Commonwealth links with nations across the globe.

These are just a few of the themes. You can read, or listen to, the speech here.

I have written a piece for Con Home on yesterday's human rights ruling by the new Supreme Court - relating to the scope of human rights on the battlefield.

One of the advantages I see in a Supreme Court, is that it have the final say on human rights matters. There is no reason - legal or otherwise - why the Law Lords should abdicate decisions to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

You can read the piece here.