Tomorrow, Parliament will debate a Statutory Instrument (SI) amending the 2004 Hunting Act. There are several changes, but the key one removes the current limit of two dogs that can be used to flush out foxes (and certain other animals) for the purposes of pest control.

This ninety-minute debate will be followed by a free vote. I will vote against the SI, because I believe it would effectively reverse the ban on hunting foxes with packs of dogs by the backdoor. I should say, at the outset, that there are strong views on all sides of this debate - which I respect. I have instinctive sympathy with groups like the Countryside Alliance, but I just don't agree with them on this issue. I would also point out that the SI does not purport to repeal the entire Hunting Act - so it (quite rightly, in my view) does not seek to revise things like the ban on hunting deer with dogs or hare coursing.

In fairness, it focuses in on a genuinely contentious question, namely: what is the means of controlling foxes as a pest, which subjects them to the least unnecessary suffering? I am no expert on what is quite a technical issue. So, since becoming an MP in 2010, I have proactively asked both sides of the debate to send me the various evidence on this issue. And my conclusion is based on an honest assessment of the evidence I have looked at.

It is clear that hunting foxes with dogs causes acute suffering to the fox. There is reasonable debate around other ways to effectively control foxes - by snares, shooting or other means. One aspect of the current debate has focused on whether shooting foxes might be both less effective and cause more suffering, because farmers and gamekeepers pursuing the fox cannot always kill it cleanly - which risks leaving a wounded animal to escape and/or die slowly under even worse conditions than being hunted by a pack of dogs. This is particularly germane to hilly terrain, where shooting can be less reliable.

Having looked again at this point, I have to say that I am not convinced that hunting foxes with a pack of dogs is substantially more effective or inflicts less suffering on the fox than shooting. The evidence - including the often cited study by the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs - does not, in my view, bear this conclusion out. When the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs assessed that study in 2013, they were similarly unconvinced.

Equally, if the aim of the SI were really to make fox control more effective and more humane, why not propose raising the cap on the number of dogs that can be deployed to, say, ten rather than removing it altogether? I have had numerous conversations on all of these aspects over the last couple of months. In reality, the aim of the SI - which many of its supporters candidly concede - is to return to hunting foxes with packs of dogs as sport, rather than for pest control purposes. And I can't vote for that.

Update: The debate/ vote on the SI has been postponed - as reported here.

Residents in Molesey and Walton will recall the surge in flight noise from Heathrow last year. Working with local councillor Steve Bax, we secured the early suspension of that trial before Christmas, and officials from Heathrow and air traffic control addressed a full public meeting on 5 March, to hear local concerns.

There were two follow up actions. First, Heathrow took on board the very serious concerns raised about the impact on our quality of life. As a result, Heathrow set up a Community Noise Forum so that residents' views could be fed into the ongoing design of flight trial paths. Councillor Steve Bax (Molesey East) serves as our local representative.

Second, I agreed to follow up with Heathrow on any further issues raised by residents which were not covered at the meeting on 5 March. I wrote on 26 March to Heathrow raising the three points that had been emailed or written into me by various constituents. I have now received a response from the relevant Director at Heathrow, Matt Gorman. Rather than paraphrase, I have set out the letter in full below.

In sum, this is clearly an issue Steve Bax and I will want to monitor with you very closely. However, we have made progress, not least in establishing a proper dialogue with Heathrow that I hope will ensure we resolve the outstanding concerns, and can deal with any new issues as they arise.




Dear Mr Raab,
Thank you for your letter following the meeting in East Molesey on 5th March, please accept my apologies for the delay in responding. Thank you for also taking the time to chair the meeting, my colleagues and I found it to very useful to hear about the issues being raised.

You raised three separate points in your letter on behalf of your constituents which I will answer in turn.

1) The modernisation of airspace is happening regardless of whether Heathrow expands or not. It is a Government plan to update the UK airspace, called the Future Airspace Strategy (FAS). It applies to Heathrow and all other airports within the UK. The plan is to modernise the UK skies by 2020.
Heathrow operates at full capacity and is legally capped at 480,000 flights per year and so cannot increase the number of flights using the airport, without Government permission. Regardless of whether Heathrow expands or not, the demand for flying is set to grow in the south East and in developing its Future Airspace Strategy, the Government has set out a number of objectives that will bring benefits to passengers, the environment and local communities. One of these is to ensure a more efficient airspace and manage future demand for flying.

2) At this stage we do not know what changes to flight paths may occur as a result of airspace modernisation. Now that the airspace trials are finished, aircraft have returned to using the pre-trial departure routes. Any changes to existing flight paths as a result of future airspace redesign will be subject to public consultation and ultimately it will be for the Government to approve these. I would like to assure residents that even with expansion, Heathrow's noise footprint will shrink as aircraft continue to get quieter. The Airports Commission assessment of our plans confirms this. One of the opportunities of airspace modernisation will also be to explore opportunities for providing respite for people living under the departure routes, which is not possible at the moment.

3) While airlines are required to follow one of the six designated departure routes, the choice of which departure route and the sorts of aircraft that use these routes is a decision for the airline. There may therefore be variances regarding these two factors. Regarding height, there are a number of noise abatement procedures set down by the government that airlines have to adhere to, namely that they must be 1,000ft at 6.5km from Heathrow and must achieve a climb gradient of not less than 4%. The wind speed on the day and the type of aircraft (i.e. heavy versus light aircraft) are just some of the factors that may alter the height of aircraft on the day.

We are aware that some residents feel that aircraft are lower and through the Community Noise Forum we are working with members to carry out analysis that will show whether there has been a change of overall heights and flight patterns, and if so why.
Since the public meeting on the 5th March, we have hosted two Community Noise Forum meetings,
with the next one planned for May. Cllr Bax and Cllr Luxton are representatives for Elmbridge. I would like to assure you that we are eager to build trust in the information we provide to local communities and I hope you will agree that the establishment of the Community Noise Forum is a positive step towards this.

I will keep in touch with your office as we move through this process.

Yours sincerely,

Matt Gorman
Sustainability & Environment Director,
Heathrow

Given the surge in support for small parties at the forthcoming election, I have been looking at the policy agendas of UKIP and the Green Party.

While I recognise widespread frustration with the political system, I don't think the small parties should escape the kind of scrutiny that the main parties receive.

With this in mind, I have penned a couple of recent blog-posts, on UKIP here and Green Party policy here, to make people more aware of what they stand for on the substance.

Today, I met with senior officials from Heathrow and NATS (ie UK traffic control), pursuant to the many concerns raised by residents in East Molesey and Walton about the new flight path trials from Heathrow. I blogged about the issue, following my local public meeting in Molesey on 24th September, here.

We had a productive meeting at which Heathrow expressed regret about the level of noise experienced by our local community. I fed in the scale and scope of concerns expressed to me in correspondence, and at the local meeting on the 24th September.

The key points I can now feed back to the local community include:

• The trials over Molesey and Walton will finish no later than 12 November, possibly earlier.
• When trials re-commence in October 2015, there may be other paths tested in the borough, but it is highly unlikely we'd see the same level of concentration along the same path as felt recently. Heathrow and NATS were at pains to convey that they had heard loud and clear - and appreciated - the level of concern felt locally.
• The reason these trials are being conducted is to design a new system that takes advantage of satellite technology to run flights on a tighter line in and out of airports. This new system is being tried and tested across all our airports, and indeed across the world. The potential gains from the new system include: better use of airspace, less emissions, less noise pollution for residents (because flights ascend quicker), and fewer bottlenecks on the ground.
• These trials would be going on whether or not there was ongoing debate about the 3rd runway at Heathrow. So, this is not some softening up exercise as a precursor to a 'done deal' on airport expansion at Heathrow.
• Heathrow, government officials and Ministers are now increasingly conscious - and data from these trials has reinforced the view - that it is unfair to concentrate flights (and noise) too heavily along one very narrow path. Whilst it may minimise the number of residents affected, it maximises the noise pollution they are subject to.
• The new system will be designed using data from all of the regional trials, and put in place by 2020. Before then, it will be subject to local consultation and approval will be required from the Secretary of State for Transport. So, the democratic process will ensure local views on the future proposals are properly fed in.

I appreciate the disruption and anxiety caused by the recent trials. However, I hope residents can now feel reassured that their concerns have been heard, and that we won't see a return to anything like those noise levels along this route. Long term, the aim of the new system is to reduce overall noise pollution, recognising the legitimate concerns of the neighbourhoods beneath the flight paths. Of course, if anyone has further concerns, please just drop me a line.

Elmbridge has been hit by the flooding caused by unprecedented weather conditions. Whilst damage has been done across the borough, properties near the River Thames - including Walton, Molesey and Thames Ditton - have been worst hit. Living in Thames Ditton, I have seen the rising river levels first-hand. I will be visiting some of the worst affected areas tomorrow.

It is difficult to give a precise number, but dozens of families have temporarily left their homes to avoid being either trapped and isolated, or inundated. There is a joint agency response, including by the Environment Agency (monitoring flood levels and issuing alerts), Elmbridge borough council (leafleting neighbourhoods at risk, calling the vulnerable, laying sandbags, setting up a relief centre in Walton) and the emergency services (especially Fire and Rescue) where evacuation is required.

For emergency contact details click here. The key numbers are:

• Environment Agency flood helpline:  0845 988 1188
• Elmbridge Borough Council helpline: 01372 474 474 (Out of hours service: 01372 466 114)

If you are affected and are struggling to get help, please don't hesitate to get in contact with me.

More broadly, these floods will inevitably now spark a wider debate about priorities within UK environmental policy. As I argued back in 2012, here, I believe we need to recognise that climate change will make extreme weather events more likely, and put more of a focus into adaptation and resilience.

It's always good to get advice from local experts. James Ringshall in Claygate is the Managing Director of Oroco Utilities, which run a free website service that compares energy deals to help find the best one.  You can check out the website here.

It chimes with a wider policy initiative I am engaged with, namely promoting 'group switching' of customers between energy firms, to maximise consumer leverage. You can read about it from page 4 of Capitalism for the Little Guy, a paper I published for the Centre for Policy Studies.

Promoting switching is a good consumer-driven way to expand competition, without resorting to Labour's economically damaging gimmicks like price controls. I will be meeting up with expeerts from consumer magazine Which? in the weeks ahead, to see how we can take this forward.

The UK has a major shortage of affordable homes. The parlous state of the public finances has made filling the gap more difficult - although, it has to be said, more affordable homes have been built in each year under the coalition, than in any of the thirteen under Labour. At a local level, the need for new homes runs in tension with planning restrictions, and the understandable local desire to check urban sprawl and protect our open spaces. It's a fine balance. But, that doesn't mean we can't make progress.

On Friday, I opened a new block of affordable homes at Imber Cross, in Thames Ditton (pictured below with Alistair Court-Smith Chairman of Rosemary Simmons and Cllr James Browne of Elmbridge Borough Council).

The new appartments are energy-efficient, affordable homes built by the Rosemary Simmonds Housing Association in close collaboration with Elmbridge borough council. They look great - outside and in - and are just what we need to give young families and key workers an opportunity to live in the borough.

I just discovered one of the most amazing places I have come across in Elmbridge - I am kicking myself it took so long! Green fingers, Paul Studholme, created the Medicine Garden out of the old overgrown kitchen garden at Cobham Park.

It is an incredible mix of things: a zen place to pause, forget about your cares or contemplate the meaning of life; an eco-site with a garden centre and beautiful surroundings, where local groups practise yoga, tai chi and circuit training; a business centre with an intriguing array of small businesses from curtain design to massage therapy; and a café brimming with atmosphere. Paul also set up a not-for-profit foundation to maintain the site as a community hub. You can find out more here.

On top of all that, with the drive of Bernadette Keane, the Medicine Garden is 'crowdfunding' to pay for a path linking the compass points that make up the design of the courtyard - with a tree symbolising a particular value at each point. Crowdfunding is an innovative way to raise money for good causes, setting a target to reach by a deadline, with each donor receiving a gift, and all donations returned if the target is not met. Sound interesting? Check out the website here, and support it if you feel able. Better still, visit the Medicine Garden and check out what's going on for yourselves. I guarantee you will love it.

Today, I have written a column for City AM, looking at Ed Miliband's Wonga approach to economic policy - especially his promise to control energy prices.

Whilst, I argue his pledge is economically damaging and retrograde, he is right about one thing. You can read the article here.

With border officials detaining the partner of an investigative journalist at Heathrow for nine hours, and the arrest of 25 anti-fracking protesters at Balcombe, there is renewed debate over the balance between state power and personal freedom in Britain.

One of Britain's foremost thinkers on freedom, John Stuart Mill, argued in 1859 that we should adopt the 'harm to others' principle - curtailing state interference with the exercise freedom, unless it hurts, harms of interferes with others' enjoyment of their freedoms. I have written a column for the Daily Telegraph tomorrow, applying Mill's test to the Miranda case and the arrests in Balcombe. You can read the column here.

Last week, the British Geological Survey published new estimates on UK deposits of shale gas. At a time when we face a real pinch on energy supplies, this is a lifeline for Britain.

I have written a column for City AM today, explaining why shale can help us forge an energy policy that makes economic and environmental sense. You can read it here.

On Friday, I visited EPI Group in Cobham. It is an innovative global consultancy that coordinates seismic testing in the energy sector, covering oil and gas, shale extraction, carbon capture and storage and various other new technologies. Tucked away on the high street, it is a global leader advising many of the big multinational energy firms.

Co-chairmen Brian and Jenny Goddard invited me in for a briefing on their business growth with their brilliant team. Peter Knox and Richard Thompson explained their land and marine operations from Africa to the Middle East. It was a terrific opportunity for me to pick their brains about energy security, UK shale gas reserves, the prospects for nuclear rejuvenation and renewable technologies.

With increasing expectation that UK shale gas reserves may now be capable of helping plug the UK's energy demand over the medium and longer term, it is great to be able to tap into local expertise on the subject. EPI recently received the Queen's Award for Enterprise in International Trade. It is another example of a truly world-beating local firm based here in Elmbridge.

Today, I am leading a cross-party backbench debate in the House of Commons on flood risk and flood insurance. The government and the insurance industry have until the end of June to agree a new 'deal' to ensure flood insurance is available to small businesses and families owning properties at high risk of flooding. This issue affects us locally in Elmbridge, but has wider implications for national policy as well.

The debate also shines a light on the direction of UK environmemtal policy - and the balance between reducing emissions and adapting to climate change. I wrote an article for Politics Home on the issue here.

I have just seen Surrey County Council's 'switch and save' scheme, which aims to use the collective bargaining power of local residents to encourage energy supplies of gas and electricity to give us a better rate on our bills.

For chapter and verse, click here. Which? ran a similar scheme and saved homes an average of over £200 per year. Surrey are aiming to do the same - a great practical idea given the financial pressures we are all facing!

Today, Parliament debates the Energy Bill. I have written an article for City AM, setting out what I believe we need to develop to achieve an environmental policy that makes broader economic sense.

You can read it here.