Ed Vaizey

It’s a common complaint of both the public and MPs that there is not enough time for proper and free debate in Parliament.  It’s true, and it is a shame.  This week and last, Parliament debated international development (about 2 hours); lowering the limit on abortion (20 minutes); and an inquiry into the conduct of the war in Iraq (3 1/2 hours).  I attended all these debates, and they were fierce and passionate - Parliament at its best, as they say.  BUt sadly none was long enough.

On the substantive issues, I backed Nadine Dorries’ attempt to lower the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 21 weeks.  I really do think 24 weeks is far too high, given the advance in medical techniques.  I sponsored her Bill, as I think this is a debate Parliament must have, soon.

I also backed the Nationalists in calling for an inquiry into Iraq.  You know the Government is in trouble when it starts saying a vote for an inquiry would undermine the morale of the troops.  Really?  The only MP to have served in Iraq, Desmond Swayne, also voted for an inquiry.  It is frankly insulting to suggest our troops, who read papers and the internet, would find a public enquiry into the conduct of the war sapping to morale.  Anyway, they know that they are not being blamed.

The Government also suggested that, as there have been four enquiries already, there shouldn’t be another.  So - an inquiry would damage morale, but we’ve already had four so we don’t need another.  Go figure.

Downing Street, who read this blog, have just informed me that the Prime Minister is going to auction his tie.  This is clearly an escalation, and now David must auction his tie as well.  It will obviously raise more.  But a dangerous precedent has now been set.  Presumably every charity in the country will now be sending ties to TB and DC and asking them to wear them and auction them.  And also, why wasn’t Ming included?

Today, a major Government announcement impacted on my constituency, when David Miliband announced he was abolishing Nirex, the nuclear waste advisory body, and handing its functions over to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

The Government did not discuss the announcement with Nirex, or bother to brief me beforehand, so I do not know what will hapen to the 70 jobs at Nirex, or what the timetable is.  That is maddening and unhelpful.

But of equal concern is the principle of what the Government is doing.  During his statement Miliband indicated that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which is taking over Nirex, is already doing Nirex’s job.  At the same time, he said Nirex has a huge body of expertise which he doesn’t want to lose.  The two statements are incompatible.

What is at stake is the independence of Nirex, which is in a position to give robust advice on how to dispose of high level nuclear waste.  That independent cannot be lost. 

Eagle eyed PMQ (Prime Minister’s Questions) watchers will have noticed that David Cameron and Tony Blair were wearing the same tie today.  No doubt this is grist to the mill of fulminating columnists who say Cameron is just like Blair.  The reason is more prosaic - they were both wearing Breakthrough Breast Cancer ties as this is the organisation’s “campaign day”.  Next week: matching poppies.

Last week, Alan Milburn asked me to stop being nice about him on my blog.  I will meet him halfway.  I have just read his speech on healthcare that he gave yesterday in Washington DC.  The first half, where he defends Labour’s record, is crap (is that OK Alan?).  The second half, I’m afraid, is rather interesting and thought provoking (sorry, Alan). 

Milburn makes it clear that his agenda was to turn the NHS from being a monolpoly provider into being “values-based system” - Labour speak for a regulator.  Yesterday’s speech shows that Milburn has got, at last, to the point the Tories understood years ago.  It is patients, not bureaucrats, who will make the Health Service work, and it is they who should be empowered. 

I do not agree with one of his new proposals - electing the heads of Primary Care Trusts directly.  You would get some very odd results.  But I do agree there should be some local democratic accountability of healthcare by way of local councils.

But his proposal for an NHS Credit for patients is effectively a call for a voucher scheme.  It excludes co-payment (it’s therefore not the patient’s passport) but it does not exclude specifically a patient using the Credit to pay for private treatment, assuming it is at the same cost as the NHS tariff.

How Blair and Milburn must wish the Tories had won the 1997 election.  Then we might today have the public services they say they now want to create.  

At the last election, Labour rubbished our immigration policy as racist.  Now, Labour is changing its policy.  Why?

Frank Field, the Labour MP and former Labour welfare minister pointed out on today’s Daily Politics that even Labour cannot now ignore the growing concern in the country about the large levels of immigration.   A column by Martin Wolf in last month’s Financial Times made the most compelling case about the need to discuss immigration and come up with a credible policy.

So Labour have come up with a “tough” immigration policy, with quotas and work permits.  But sadly they have not done their homework, as a superb briefing note from Open Europe points out.  Sadly, this is another case of Labour talking tough but acting soft.

Jack Straw seems to be setting the policy agenda.  First, the veil.  Now Lords reform.  Up until now, people have assumed it’s because Jack wants to be Deputy Leader.  The new thinking is he wants to be Lord Chancellor.  The thinking goes like this.  Jack has always looked after his muslim constituents.  See how he reacted during the muslim cartoon row.  There is no way he would have risked the controversy of the veil debate, unless he was planning to stand down.  But stand down to do what?  Step forward, Lords reform, which Jack could push through in the next two years in time for the next election.

Of course, this is just tea room gossip.  What is more certain is that Straw’s proposals are not that popular.  Most people now have a settled view that an elected Lords is the only way forward.  Any room for crony appointments just won’t wash any more.  Further, people are saying that Jack is starting from the wrong end.  We should start with a debate about what the Lords is for, and how (if at all) its functions can be improved.  And this leads one to conclude that Lords reform is part of a much wider debate about reforming our entire constitution.

So Jack’s proposals are half-baked.  But they are serious enough to fill out a job application.    

A wonderful moment in the Chamber from my wonderful colleague, Anne Main.  Who would have thought John Hutton could have that effect?

In today’s Evening Standard:

“A Balkan war criminal on the run for 15 years has been found…He is said to have been a member of a Serbian parliamentary gang…”

 Now, I know politicians are unpopular, but really, calling us war criminals… 

The first question on Qi tonight (the game show hosted by Stephen Fry) was what the volume The Long Years of Obscurity was about.  I knew it was familiar, and assumed it was the memoirs of some Labour politician from the seventies.

In fact, Rory Bremner got the answer - it is of course, the first volume of B F Lingham’s magisterial three volume history of Didcot, covering the years to 1841.  Bremner is a constituent, and Didcot is his local station.  He also pointed out that Didcot got the station because Abingdon didn’t want it, which I knew, and that Didcot has the second-oldest yew tree in the world, which I didn’t, but should have.

If you’re wondering why the work reached the heady heights of a mention on Qi, I suspect it is because the producer lives just outside Didcot.  In fact, I think I just got an e-mail from his wife offering me a Stephen Fry alarm clock.