I have often criticised US government institutions in this column. So it is nice to be able to redress the balance by stating that this week, I was full of admiration for the members of the Senate Commerce Committee investigating the Enron scandal.

Kenneth Lay, the former chairman and chief executive of the collapsed energy company appeared before the committee this week, and exercised his legal right, under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, to decline to testify on the grounds that, if he did so, he might incriminate himself. Speaking in a strikingly expressionless voice, Lay claimed that he'd have loved to answer all the committee's questions. Unfortunately, his mean old killjoy of a lawyer had told him not to do so.

Then in the same robotic tone, he added a killer punchline:
'I am deeply troubled about asserting these rights. It may be perceived by some that I have something to hide.'

Well, that one had me in fits. But I had to hand it to the committee. Not one of them seemed to crack up laughing - or offer an appropriate response, such as 'Surely not!', or 'Heaven forbid!'.

After all, the undisputed facts about the Enron affair don't exactly smell good. There's no argument about the fact that Enron lied about its profits in order to attract investors. Former employees have been left destitute because their pensions scheme was invested heavily in Enron stock, and they weren't allowed to cash in their holdings when the company's share price fell. The company now stands accused of a long list further deceptions and misdeeds, including somehow forgetting to list some of its debts in the company's published accounts. The FBI have been called in to guard the Enron offices after one former employee said that some of the failed company's key players had been busily shredding incriminating evidence.

The hearing can't have been a very pleasant experience for Mr Lay - and considering how many lives have been messed up by the collapse of Enron, I can't say that I regret his discomfort. Senator Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois called Lay '...a most accomplished confidence trickster', and told Lay:
'I'd say you were a carnival barker, except it wouldn't be fair to carnival barkers.'

Meanwhile, the silence from the White House about the whole affair remains curious. After all, Enron were the biggest single donors to President Bush's election campaign, giving half a million dollars to the Republican cause. And they have had value for money: the Bush administration has done just about everything an energy corporation could wish for, such as deregulating utilities, and limiting compensation awards against companies like Enron, and favouring more oil exploration and drilling in spite of opposition from environmentalists.

And given the Republican Party's great enthusiasm for cutting tax and reducing public spending, you might expect that Bush would have been annoyed by the refusal of Lay and other Enron executives to testify. After all, that means that the continuing investigation into how their company ended up at the centre of America's biggest-ever bankruptcy case is now expected to drag on for years, employing a huge number of investigators and costing a fortune in taxpayers' money.

There is also the uncomfortable fact that Vice-President Dick Cheney is alleged to have met Enron executives four times last year to discuss energy policy. We don't know exactly what aspects of US government policy were discussed, because Cheney won't say. The General Accounting Office, the investigative section of Congress, has demanded that the vice president release documents revealing how current policies were arrived at - but Cheney won't oblige.

'What we've told the General Accounting Office is we won't do anything to make it impossible for me or future vice presidents to ever have a conversation in confidence with anybody without having, ultimately, to tell a member of Congress what we talked about,'

Cheney has said.

What he hasn't explained is what might be discussed by a vice-president and a major commercial corporation that the public cannot be permitted to know about.

If security issues were involved, Cheney could say so and, in the present climate, most people would leave it at that. As it stands, we're left with a situation in which a new US administration has changed laws to the detriment of the environment and the great benefit of one of its main financial backers - a company which was, it now turns out, close to collapse.

And the leading members of that government won't say why. Bush seems to have gone terribly quiet on the subject of his former benefactor - the man he once called 'Kenny Boy'.

This is, inevitably, leading some to draw their own conclusions. Fritz Hollings, the chairman of the Senate committee that Lay refused to talk to, remarked:
'There's no better example of cash-and-carry government than Kenny Boy.'

But still Lay remained silent - and so has Bush.

I suppose it just goes to prove an old political adage: greater love hath no man than this, than he lay down his friends for his life.

I am beginning to feel as if I live in the least civilised section of Great Britain. I always supported devolved government, and the setting up of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. What I didn't anticipate was the extent to which those bodies would start to show England the way to go.

Just this week, there have been two great moves from the devolved assemblies that have left England looking relatively backward. First there came the news that, from September, less well-off students will be eligible to receive grants from a £41 million fund being set up by the Assembly. Welsh students will receive up to £1,500 in public funding. This gives them a considerable advantage over English students, who must rely on loans, and so start their working lives heavily in debt.

The Welsh Assembly's decision follows similar moves to help students in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and should put pressure on the national government to improve the lot of students in England.

Owain James, the president of the National Union of Students, has said:
'This is a great victory for Welsh students. Maintenance grants are crucial to keep students in education. Much more must be done if the government is serious about widening participation and allowing all students to compete on a level playing field.'

'The government has a golden opportunity to get funding right for all students. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have all made positive changes. The question remains: when is Whitehall going to listen?'

I couldn't agree more. But the response from the Department for Education and Skills has been somewhat vague, with their spokesperson cautiously commenting:
'The future of the overall student support system in England and Wales is being considered by the student funding review which will report soon.'

I hope that promise will be kept, and that the report includes some good news for English students.

But it isn't just English students who are going to be worse off than their counterparts elsewhere in Britain. English foxes will soon be at a disadvantage compared to Scottish foxes!

The Scottish Parliament has voted to outlaw hunting with hounds. Fox hunting and hare coursing will no longer take place in the Scottish glens. Well done to all concerned with this move against a barbaric, horrific 'sport' - but again, it leaves me looking on a little enviously as civilisation moves forward across the border, and England is left behind.

In fairness, this time the Blair administration can't be blamed for England falling behind. It has done its best to get anti-hunting legislation for the whole UK through Parliament, only to be thwarted by that ongoing affront to democracy, the House of Lords. But now it must try again.

Public opinion on both the student grant issue and the hunting issue is solidly behind the moves that have just been made by the devolved assemblies in Wales and Scotland. The difference is that, thanks to those assemblies, the majority has a better chance of being listened to in Wales and Scotland than in England.

Finally, a heartwarming story for Valentine's Day. Marie Stopes International, an organisation dedicated to supporting family planning, is making a special Valentine offer this week. Until February 18, you can download a voucher from the MSI website entitling the bearer to £65 off the price of a vasectomy at one of the organisation's clinics. Usually £265, the operation will cost a mere £200 with one of the vouchers.

Julie Douglas, marketing manager for Marie Stopes International, explains:
'Vasectomy is a safe and very effective method of contraception for couples whose families are complete. Offering to have a vasectomy really is the supreme romantic gesture a man can make.'

'Most women tend to shoulder the burden of responsibility for contraception within a partnership. However, there are risks involved for women over the age of 35 who continue to use hormonal forms of contraception, like the Pill, particularly if they are overweight or smokers.'

'Once the family is complete, by agreeing to a vasectomy a man can demonstrate that he truly cares for the welfare of his partner.'

Fair brings tears to your eyes, doesn't it? Especially if you're a man...

Ormondroyd

14.02.02. Front Page

Back Issue Page