In recent weeks I have been making visits to quite a number of schools across Gordon and will be visiting more in the coming weeks as a result of UNICEF's Put it to your MP initiative.

The idea is to encourage children to be aware of their rights under the UN Charter and create an opportunity to meet MP's, learn more about their jobs and ask questions on any topic they want.

I have been most impressed by the range and liveliness of many of the sessions. The visits include primary and secondary schools and children of all ages.

Questions not surprisingly range from "Do you earn a lot of money?" through "Do you know or what do you think of Tony Blair?" "Have you met the Queen?" to more serious issues such as asylum seekers, possible war in Iraq and the fire-fighters' strike.

Some of the pupils are taking Modern Studies for which the opportunity to get answers from their own MP makes their syllabus more live. Their questions tend to focus on voter apathy, the role of the media, the importance of image and the lack of sharp ideology in modern politics.

From these sessions, I suspect that some of our youngsters may be more politically aware than more mature adults. When people say they are not interested in politics what they usually mean is that they do not like party politics. Politics affects us all. Man is a political animal and people who claim they are not interested in talking politics do so all the time when they engage in commenting on health, education, transport, taxes, the future of post offices. etc.

The days of the old style of political meeting are over. People will understandably turn out in numbers to protest at closures or other contentious decisions but will not engage in general discussion and questioning about how political priorities are approached.

In my first election in West Aberdeenshire in 1979, I guess about 1500 came to my meetings. At the last election the number was less than a tenth of that. Politicians have a duty to find out their constituent views but we genuinely welcome hearing from our constituents and discussing our approach to often difficult or complex issues. Even if we cannot always agree it helps remove misunderstandings.

Over the next few weeks Parliament will be grappling with the vexed issues of the future of the House of Lords. The Government have started a process which it does not know how to complete.

Having done a deal to phase out hereditary peers we are now considering the future composition of the House.

My own view is fairly simple. Once you have challenged the legitimacy of the hereditary principle you raise the question of whether an appointed house is no better and might even be worse.

We need a second chamber to revise and on occasions and subject to agreed criteria even to delay legislation to encourage the House of Commons and the Government to think again.

In my view, now that the traditional House of Lords mix of hereditary and life peers has effectively been swept away, the only logical conclusion is to have a fully elected chamber.

The suggestion that this will make it a rival to the House of Commons is I believe simply nonsense as the powers and role of the second chamber will be clearly defined in law.

Trying to have it partly elected and partly appointed is indefensible - so being British that is probably what we will finish up with.

The trouble is you have to consider what term we should elect members of the Upper House for. 12 years seems to me excessive. The second problem is how you should elect them. My preference is to elect them on a regional basis - equal numbers for each region regardless of varying population - and by a proportional system - preferably one where the voters decide between candidates not party caucuses.

Stand by for a lot of navel gazing.

The development of broadband telecommunications could become quite contentious in our region in the coming months if there is not a significant development of Government policy.

Looking at a map of broadband proposals we see a commitment to provide complete coverage in the Highlands and Islands; major developments in the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway; a major initiative in Ayrshire. The major cities are all nearly fully covered already or soon will be.

North East Scotland is a great big blank. True there are plans for a demonstration project in Huntly but as Huntly is miles away from anywhere that has an imminent prospect of receiving broadband it is not clear what this will achieve other than frustration.

Although, private individuals may well sign up for broadband in due course to access entertainment, and this could be the major revenue stream it is the needs of rural businesses that most concerns me.

I know many businesses in our area would sign up now if it were available. For many transmitting drawings, detailed and complicated documents, publishing material etc would be transformed by broadband. More limited technology is too slow making data post a better alternative but that is a disadvantage compared with broadband-accessed competitors.

To try and increase the pressure for action in the rural North East, I and my Parliamentary colleagues, Nora Radcliffe, Sir Robert Smith and Mike Rumbles are arranging a meeting on Monday 17 February in Inverurie to identify the problems and the demand and see what can be done to give us clear possibilities of getting broadband.

If Newtonmore can have it then why can't Inverurie - or for that matter, Keith, Huntly, Turriff, Ellon and smaller communities?

As the possibility of war with Iraq looms closer public concern grows. I have had no letter in support of military action but many opposed.

Will there be a war in Iraq? The Prime Minister says the pressure must be maintained and be credible. Fair enough. He says inspectors must be given time and he wants a second UN resolution. Seems reasonable.

The President says it is a re-run of a movie he doesn't want to watch and implies he is impatient for action.

My impression is that the British people do not favour a pre-emptive strike without clear evidence of an immediate and real threat. Even if the military outcome proves swift and decisive with minimal civilian casualties, there are legitimate worries about a move away from deterrence.

What will be the implications for the Middle East with long term policing by Western troops leading to resentment in neighbouring states? What will be the effects on Kurdish aspirations? What will happen in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey to say nothing of Israel and Palestine?

How will this lower the tensions between Islam and the West and how will it reduce the threat of terrorist reprisals from fundamentalist groups finding a new recruiting ground from accusations of Western imperialism?

These are serious questions, but they are not ones the Scottish Parliament can answer. I hope voters will discount opposition parties who seek to make this an election issue when what is needed are imaginative ideas as to how we can use the powers the Scottish Parliament does have to make the country more successful and deliver the quality services we need.

There appears to be a bunching up of planning applications for wind farms in the North East that raises a number of questions as to where the nation's energy policy is heading.

I firmly believe that wind energy has a significant contribution to make to reduce our dependence on depleting and environmentally damaging fossil fuels and nuclear power.

However, the Government has not put this in context nor does it have any coherent policy. Nuclear power has failed. It is massively, prohibitively expensive and it creates intractable waste problems. Nevertheless, instead of letting British Energy go bust as it should, the Government pumps £650 million of taxpayers' money it will never see again into bailing it out.

If wind energy projects are to go ahead it requires a number of things. First there should be a reliable market for the electricity. Second the local communities and the Scottish economy should have a clear and direct stake. Thirdly there should be clear planning guidelines so that they do not proliferate willy nilly in an unco-ordinated and unbalanced way.

Combined heat and power is one of the best technologies for ensuring efficient energy use and reducing environmental impact. Yet, in spite of support in principle from ministers, it has collapsed. 75 per cent of CHP investment in not producing and companies have lost hundreds of millions of pounds of investment and cancelled over £3 billion that was planned.

There is little confidence among energy producers in Government policy, which will go on hold while we fight a war. Environmental campaigners are in despair. With this contradictory shambles there is no chance of meeting our Kyoto targets.