Ed Vaizey

I was sad to see Angela Browning has announced that she will be retiring from the House of Commons.  She was elected in 1992, but I knew her before then as she was a very effective spokesman for the Small Business Bureau.  And it is thanks to her that I have taken up the cause of mental health in Parliament - it was she who alerted me to the closure of the Park Hospital in Oxford and encouraged me to campaign to keep it open.  Angela will definitely be a loss to the Commons. 

Last week, the Speaker gave up his apartment for the evening so that Eileen Wright could have a party.  Secretaries, posties, door keepers and MPs crowded in to celebrate what must be a unique event - the wonderful Eileen was celebrating her sixtieth year in the House of Commons.  As Matthew Parris pointed out in his speech (she works for him and for Patrick McLoughlin, as well as Betty Boothroyd and Jack Weatherill), Eileen arrived when Clem Attlee was prime minister and our current PM was not even born.  She had already notched up a third of a century by the time Margaret Thatcher entered Downing Street.

I mentioned Eileen’s achievement to the BBC’s political editor, Nick Robinson.  He told me that on his last visit to the White House, a familair figure, a lady called Mary who herds the press around the place, announced that she thought it was time to move on.  Apparently she has notched up 64 years.  Come on, Eileen.  We need another ten from you to be sure of the record! 

Well, there is only one thing that matters today - the Queen’s Speech.  You can read my comment on it on The Guardian’s website HERE, as well as the even more amusing comments posted by Grauniad readers.

As well as being a fantastic occasion, there is something mildly surreal about the opening of Parliament.  As I came down from my office, I found myself among assorted Life Guards and beefeaters waiting for the ceremony to begin.  It felt very like the set of Extras.

I was on a panel with Shirley Williams, who duffed up Peter Hain pretty well.  Afterwards, she told me a great story about Tony Crosland.  Apparently, he held a salon every Sunday at his house, when people would go round and intense and heated arguments were had on education.  On the stroke of ten, Crosland would end the discussion, pour himself a beer, put on his beret (he was a para who parachuted into France during D-Day) and watch Match of the Day.  Then discussion would resume.

I was in the Chamber for the debate.   Traditionally, the opening speeches, from two backbenchers, are witty and light.  New Labour has abandoned this tradition.  Last year with vera Baird, and this year with Alun Michael, the speeches have been highly partisan, very tedious, and consequently completely ineffective.  That is very sad.  Alun Michael claimed credit for all sorts of things started by the Tories and carried on in a similar vein.  In the circumstances, David Cameron was incredibly charitable towards him, I thought. 

The trade minister, Ian McCartney, has apparently called on MPs to donate a day’s pay to help those who have lost out because of the collapse of Farepak.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for those that have lost out.  I heard a lady today saying that her son was serving in Iraq and still didn’t know that they had lost their money.  So I applaud what is being done to help.  But I won’t be making a donation.  Here’s why.

First, and most obviously, why single out Farepak?  Where do you draw the line?  As an extremely articulate caller said on Five Live this morning, every Christmas is a Farepak Christmas if you have lost your pension.  But the Government won’t bale those people out.

Secondly, McCartney’s call is typically Blairite, implying that one is somehow heartless if you don’t give to Farepak.  I thought long and hard about what I should do for charity, precisely because I realised there would be many calls on me to support local and national organisations and charities.  I have come up with the following modus operandi which I think is completely fair.

- I donate annually (significantly more than a day’s salary) to the Oxfordshire Community Foundation, a local charity that supports chairites and organisations large and small in my constituency

- I raise money for them, and also donate any earnings I receive from filling out questionnaires, taking part in surveys etc. to them

- I offer any organisation raising money in my constituency a lunch, tea or drink in the House of Commons as an auction or raffle prize.

So I don’t feel guilty in refusing Mr McCartney’s call.

Yesterday I was appointed Shadow Arts Minister.  Today, I scraped through my first test - just.  I had agreed to go on The Daily Politics, and I knew damn well they would ask me some artsy questions.  So I mugged up on who the Booker Prize Winner was (I did know, but I had forgotten); and my researcher told me who was number one (the Arctic Monkeys are not on my iRiver, but I did buy the CD to see what all the fuss was about, but I have only listened to it once).  Both came up, and I got them right.  But I was pleased as punch to get Chris Ofili bang on on my visual arts test.

So far so good… 

Tony Blair writes on ID cards in today’s Telegraph.  As a master class in how the PM spins a case, it cannot be bettered.  IN the future, political scientists will no doubt use this article as a fine example of how Blair’s doublespeak misled people on such a regular basis.

Let’s take the first paragraph, to show you what I mean:

“On any list of public concerns, illegal immigration, crime, terrorism and identity fraud would figure towards the top”.

Quite true, PM.  Therefore, if you are concerned about these issues, you must support ID cards.  And if you don’t support ID cards, you don’t care about these issues. 

“In each, identity abuse is a crucial component”.

Is it?  What about Labour’s abolition of immigration controls, militant Islam, the growth of yob culture?   In fact, given illegal immigrants won’t have them, why are they relevant?  And ID cards don’t stop terrorists, as the Home Office has admitted (and Spain has learned); how will it cut crime unless we all have to carry them compulsorily, which you have said we won’t have to?  And won’t it make it easier to commit ID fraud - are you really saying your ID card system will be tamper proof??

“It is all part of a changing world”

Oh I see, ID cards are the future, not the past.  But didn’t we abolish them in 1951?

“global mass migration; easier travel; new services and new technologies constantly being accessed”.

And how exactly will ID cards work in this world?  By definition, any Government scheme will cost loads and be out of date by the time it is ready. 

“The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world”.

Phew.  We can just ignore civil liberty arguments then.  And while you’re about, why not just lock everyone up, and cut crime in the process.  After all, civil liberties are irrelevant.  What matters is what works.

“Biometrics give us the chance to have secure identity and the bulk of the ID cards’ cost will have to be spent on the new biometric passports in any event”. 

So why do we need ID cards?  Silly question.  The rest of thsi article will be about biometrics (we have the technology) and, because civil liberties don’t matter, you will be convinced by the end that we are just introducing a new passport. 

This article is Blair in a nutshell.  He tells you he’s in favour of motherhood and apple pie.  Then he tells any one who disagrees with his policy that they are against motherhood and apple pie. And then he doesn’t defend the policy, but only a small part of it which is hard to argue against.

Brilliant.  But it ain’t leadership.

After Alan Milburn’s interesting speech on health and other matters last week (see a previous post) I asked a number of Government departments what they thought of his ideas.  Sadly, the Deaprtment of Health has confirmed it has “no plans to extend the direct payments scheme to healthcare provision”.   I’ll keep you up-dated on what other Government departments think of his proposals. 

Geoof Hoon was famously prevented from answering questions on Europe by his boss Margaret Beckett last week.  So you may wonder what he does for a living.  Last week I asked all Government departments about their use of energy saving lightbulbs.  Geoff Hoon replied to me on behalf of the Foreign Office.  Perhaps he used his spare time to count every one.  Incidentally, the DTI, which covers the energy portfolio, uses the fewest amount of energy saving bulbs of any department (27%). 

A group of Greenpeace protestors have “occupied” Didcot power station in my constituency.  You might expect me to applaud people who unfurl a banner saying “Blair’s legacy”, highlighting Blair’s woeful record on the environment.  But I don’t.  First of all, sit ins, chaining yourself to things etc etc are just so last century.  I am sure they can stay there for weeks, as the human rights act will force the Police to supply them with McDonald’s until they get bored.  But I also think they have completely missed the point.  They normally do - remember Brent Spar, when it turns out sinking it was the best thing to do all along?  But for the record - Didcot has an ash reprocessing plant and a biofuel plant, representing millions of pounds of investment in renewable energy.  Coal power generation will stop there in less than a decade.  The environmental message has got through.  Greenpeace is no longer necessary.