Richard Harrington MP: No, direct election won't boost the legitimacy of the Lords. We don't need more professional politicians.

I am very much in favour of reforming the second chamber. It is impossible to justify the current system of appointment, which under the guise of rewards for 'services' effectively means appointments are at the discretion of the political elite.

It would be easy, and convenient to argue that the solution to this is electing the majority of members of the Upper House. It fits in with the consensus view - which I, of course, hold too - that the cross on the ballot paper is the proper way to choose our leaders.

However, having given the matter much thought I believe that the current proposals for reform simply perpetuate the monopoly that the political parties have over our democratic process, and miss a fantastic opportunity to attract the type of talented people with a lot to contribute towards making legislation better, who would never dream of standing for election.

Richard Harrington MP: Giving overseas aid is in Britain's interests

Richard Harrington is the Member of Parliament for Watford.

Andrew Mitchell, Secretary of State for International Development appeared on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday to, yet again, defend the UK's overseas aid efforts. In the interview he revealed the new logo that DFID are using to publicise and brand the projects we are involved in. The logo is simple and cheap to create, comprising a Union Jack flag and a sentence advising all who read it, that the project is funded by the British taxpayer.

This is excellent news and something that I have been calling for for some time. As I wrote in an article on this website, exactly a year ago, following a visit to the DRC, Rwanda and Burundi, (there was)," a complete lack of branding of the fact that it was the UK that was giving Aid.". .....In nine days, seeing aid projects over thousands of miles I saw no signage indicating that it was the UK's taxpayers who provided the funding, whilst EU and American flags were abundant. The Union Jack was conspicuous by its absence; Indeed the previous Labour government had spent £100000 on a logo for DFID which had omitted the flag!

Questioning this upon my return I was given a number of seemingly spurious reasons for this. For example, a fear of accusations of 'tied aid', being accused of us 'blowing our own trumpet', and allegations of our aid programmes being neo-colonial.

Richard Harrington MP: Avoiding tax through charitable donations denies money to institutions all of society benefits from

Richard Harrington is the Member of Parliament for Watford.

Tax avoidance has dominated the news in recent weeks and people are understandably outraged to read about the ways in which the wealthiest find ways in which not to contribute to the Exchequer. However, when avoidance comes under the umbrella of charitable donations, the mood changes and the general population would seem to support it. This raises the question, is tax avoidance acceptable as long as it’s for a good cause?

In my former role as Chairman of Fundraising for a large children’s charity, I was able to raise several millions of pounds for the cause.  In my experience, the overwhelming motive for donations was to help the charity rather than receive tax relief as a result. Britain has a strong tradition on philanthropic giving. Indeed, amongst developed nations, we are the third highest in the world, after the USA and Israel, in terms of the amount per head of GNP that we give to charitable organisations.

Interestingly enough, the countries with the biggest tax breaks are not necessarily those with the largest donations per head. For example, France gives amongst the lowest donations in Europe, but has some of the best tax breaks.

In the early 1980s, there were many methods of tax deduction available to shelter income from tax. For example, employees could pay as much as they liked into a pension fund. Whilst these measures were legal, successive governments have decided that caps on tax deductibility were needed to increase government revenue. I would argue that it is right that we continue with these steps, and the current deductions for charitable giving should be scrutinised and capped in the same way. Everyone knows that the public sector is short of money, and needs it for many socially beneficial purposes such as the NHS, education and social services. It is also important to note that many charities themselves are predominantly dependant on state funding, and much taxpayers money is funnelled through them.

Richard Harrington MP: Aid to India is in everyone's interests

Richard Harrington is MP for Watford and a Member of the DFID Select Committee.

It's rarely easy to be a defender of British aid - particularly to India and the last fortnight has proved especially hard. But neither the negative headlines and stories over our aid relations with India, nor even debating them with Rod Liddle in his video for the Sunday Times, could make me waver in my views that this Government is doing the right thing; in the interest of both British and Indian people.

The remarks being reported from the Government of India are out of date and were made during a parliamentary debate in 2010. To understand the value of aid, rather than reading the negative newspaper headlines and old quotes, we should listen to the views of people like B K Patnaik, Chief Secretary of Odisha, where UK aid is working, who said: "I have seen for myself how DFID support has reached thousands of children, women and men in Odisha. DFID has provided us solid support across a range of sectors - public sector governance, public finance, power, health, nutrition and education - all of which have helped us to grow and reduce poverty in the state. However, our job is by no means over. We need DFID's continued support to help us to change the lives of thousands more people for the better."

We should also listen to the dignitaries and business people who added their name to a letter to the Telegraph on Monday calling for aid to continue. People from William Cash MP to Pradip Dhamecha, CEO of Dhamecha Cash & Carry.

More compellingly, look at the number of individuals who British aid has helped in India; 2.3 million people out of poverty in rural areas in the last 5 years and more than 30,000 lives saved through TB treatment. DFID support over the past decade has helped India achieve zero polio transmissions in the last one year.

Richard Harrington MP and Mark Garnier MP: The economy needs a new generation of new entrepreneurs to set up their own businesses

Richard Harrington is the Member of Parliament for Watford and Mark Garnier is the Member of Parliament for Wyre Forest.

Our Westminster Hall Debate on Self-Employment arose from a discussion on how few of our contemporaries had gone into business following graduation, and in speaking to schools in our constituencies that little has changed. The economy, local and national, depends on a new generation of entrepreneurs looking to set up their own business, therefore we seriously need to address the reasons as to why they are not.

The debate was attended by around 30 Conservative MPs, all of whom had been in business before their election, showing that this is a real concern for many colleagues and needs further attention from the Government. On looking into this issue we found two main areas of discussion; how do we change the attitudes that prevent people from considering setting up a business and how do we create the right of environment to allow such business to prosper?

The current school curriculum for business studies, studied by around 60,000 pupils at GCSE, provides abstract understandings rather than practical experience of the realities of business. It is only through schemes such as Young Enterprise that students can achieve real experience. Not only are the current education courses irrelevant to the challenges and rewards of business, it’s also disengaging.

Richard Harrington MP: UK manufacturing: is there hope for small and medium businesses?

Richard Harrington is MP for Watford.

Last Thursday I attended the Backbench Business Debate on Manufacturing. During the lengthy debate many members of both sides lamented Governments both past and present on the way they allowed British Manufacturing to fail. 

Whilst these points were well intended they ignored what I believe to be one of the main contributing factors to the decline in manufacturing; the negative attitude of Britain, both in terms of capital markets and the status in society of  manufacturing industry. These factors led to a lack of capital to reinvest, poor management and an uncommitted labour force.

I speak on this matter from experience, as the son of a manufacturer. My father had a small clothing factory in Leeds that eventually failed, due to the cheap price of imports meaning it was no longer financially viable. Like many of his generation, he found that the value of his factory as a property rescued him. The last thing he ever wanted was for mw or my siblings to go into his business. This is a familiar story for manufacturing businesses in the UK.

Richard Harrington MP: An EU debate amounts to a "kneejerk indulgence" for Eurosceptics

Richard Harrington, Tory MP for Watford, says the EU vote equals a folly for Conservative Eurosceptics and an unnecessary diversion for Government.

The talk of the tea room has been whether members are voting for or against the referendum motion now to be debated on Monday. I believe the motion is naive and over simplistic. It is asking the wrong question at the wrong time and I think it should be resisted by all who wish to reform Europe. It plays into the hands of our political opponents who wish to see us divided and dysfunctional about an issue that we have plenty of time to deal with whilst we are in Government, which I hope will be for many years to come.

Like many Conservatives I welcome the strengths of our partnership in terms of trade and security with Europe but recognise there is a strong need for reform. There is no one answer to addressing the issues posed by our membership of the EU, and there is certainly no one question to be asked about our position.

The issue of referendum was clearly addressed in our manifesto and programme for Government; that this is not the time.

Richard Harrington MP: The Coalition is still protecting green Britain but it's making development less bureaucratic

Richard Harrington is MP for Watford.

There has been some hysterical and highly misleading material in the press about the Government's new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The scaremongers suggest it is set to create a free-for-all for developers, and paint a lurid picture of uncontrolled urban sprawl.

Those who write this material are seizing upon some of the more eye-catching headline items, without reading the more mundane - but in many respects, far more important - pages that lie behind them.

For example, the NPPF restates Green Belt policy, heritage policy, town centre protection policy, and many other 'protective' policies in a very familiar form, even if the language is a little simpler.

Furthermore, the NPPF will not change the Conservation Areas, areas of special character, protected views, Sites of Special Scientific Interest etc that fill the local development plans of England and Wales.  Indeed, it positively re-asserts the primacy of those development plans, and further encourages local community involvement in their preparation.

It also introduces a new designation of Local Green Space, and the concept of areas of tranquility, to give local communities yet more weapons to use to resist inappropriate development.

Neither the NPPF nor the Localism Bill currently going through Parliament will change the fundamental way the planning system works.  Planning decisions will continue to be about weighing competing considerations - the need to protect importance open space, the need for new and affordable homes, the accessibility of the site, the design of the proposed buildings, the contribution the development could make to local infrastructure, etc, etc. Sometimes the balance will end up in favour of development; other times it will not. 

Richard Harrington MP: I have seen the benefits of UK foreign aid in Africa - but recipients should know where it originated and British companies should be more involved in the tendering process for DFID-funded contracts

Richard Harrington is MP for Watford and a member of the International Development Select Committee.

I have just returned from visiting three of the world’s most fragile states, Rwanda, which is recovering from the well publicised genocide in the 1990s, when nearly a million people died; the DRC, known generally as the Congo, geographically bigger than Europe, where death, mass rapes and violence have been widespread, and Burundi, the world’s poorest country.

Following a recent policy review, DFID has prioritised fragile states, and certainly Rwanda and the DRC are regarded as priorities with both being budgeted for significant increases in the next few years. The policy review, however, announced the closure of the DFID office in Burundi, largely on the grounds that our operation was sub scale, and the existing programme has been sub-contracted to a non-profit making entity which helps facilitate the normalisation of trade in East Africa.

Many people in the UK are cynical about our efforts in the foreign aid and development field - criticism varies from the 'charity begins at home' argument, which criticises the decision to spend money abroad when we are facing cuts at home, to a cynical view based on the fear that our money in certain countries is going to corrupt dictators and their cohorts, and not to the poor in those countries.

Richard Harrington MP: We must ensure that the Localism Bill does not allow "Nimbys" and the disaffected to block all local development

Richard Harrington is MP for Watford.

For those people who are scrambling to get on the first rung of the property ladder, the dream of home ownership has never seemed so elusive. The national rise in house prices is well documented; something the Government is looking to rectify with initiatives included in the Localism Bill. Whilst I welcome progress on this issue, I do not believe decentralisation to be the only answer to remedying this far reaching problem.

There was a 220% increase in house prices between 1996 and 2009 in my constituency of Watford. This is an astounding increase, of which the crippling recession was only a partial factor. The largest problem has been consistent both prior to and following the recession; a demand for housing which greatly outstrips the supply. It is only an increase in this supply that will ease demand and create greater opportunities for first time buyers.

It is with this in mind that I welcome change. The Localism Bill will liberate our local communities from stifling Labour targets; especially the well-intentioned but misdirected Regional Spatial Strategies. These have patently not worked. New homes are being built at the slowest rate since the war. Watford, like a number of constituencies in the East and South East, is badly in need of housing supply.  If development does not come to these regions soon, a whole generation of people may find themselves priced out of the market for years to come.

There is much scope in the Localism Bill for increased development. Allowing each community to look closely at its own needs and to proceed accordingly is admirable.  Yet, as someone with over 25 years of experience in the property world, I believe that the Bill fails to address a serious issue with regards to policy on planning.

Richard Harrington MP: We must do all we can to encourage large-scale investment in the British film industry

Richard Harrington has been MP for Watford since the general election.

Whilst Britain’s great number of talented actors, directors and movie blockbusters are always popular topics of conversation, there has been precious little discussion of late on our approach to investing in the future of the UK film industry.

The British film trade has defied the recession with stunning success, emerging strong and healthy. In 2009 the industry contributed over £4.5 billion to our economy, employing over 36,000 people directly. We should take great pride in this; few other industries have managed to weather the difficult financial climate with such aplomb.   

A central reason for this success can be explained by Britain’s sustained favour as one of the most attractive locations for overseas producers and investors. This owes much to the Film Tax Relief system, a financial incentive allowing films with a British thread to receive accelerated tax benefits. Globally, it is accepted as one the best systems of its kind, and is the primary reason that features made in this country but funded by inward investment totalled £753 million in 2009.

I have particular reason to celebrate this system. The Leavesden studios - in my constituency of Watford - have been home to the Harry Potter series for the past ten years. The series is one of the greatest British exports of this generation and produced in the UK largely due to the Film Tax Relief. 

Yet despite the successes that inward investment has brought to the economy, our domestic films - often funded by independent producers - are suffering. There has been a year-on-year decline since 2008 in both the number and value of these features, which are made with British investment, often on shoestring budgets.

We desperately need to encourage and help British producers to make films.