Ed Vaizey

The UEFA spokesman, William Gaillard, has hardly covered himself in glory this morning on Radio Five Live.  Responding to questioning about what seems to have been chaotic arrangements at the Champions League Final in Athens last night, and in particular to the comments of Michael Howard who was at the game, he responded he wasn’t going to take any lessons from “the man who invented the poll tax”.

Now I agree with Nicky Campbell that this shows an impressive knowledge, from a Frenchman, of British domestic politics.  But I also feel it is completely out of order for an official spokesman to launch a personal attack like that, as well as a strong indication that he had lost the argument comprehensively.  I just wish they had gone head to head.  Michael would have demolished him.

I paid a visit to HSBC’s archives the other day.  It doesn’t sound like one’s idea of an enthralling visit, but it was.  Many of our oldest and largest firms have huge archives, including those from companies they have taken over along the way.   What I didn’t realise of course is that they are a rich source of historical material.  Managers posted overseas had ringside seats at some of history’s great events, and reported back to head office.  Sara Kinsey, the keeper of the archive, showed me some fascinating letters from one manager who reported daily on the progress of the Russian revolution.  Archives are proving more and more popular as local and family history take off, and it was fascinating to see such a fine example. 

I made a speech today to the Heritage of London Trust, in which I draw attention to the astonishing fact that two of our country’s World Heritage Sites, Westminster and the Tower of London, could be put on the endangered list by UNESCO, the first in the developed world to suffer this ignominy.

This is the text:

“The preservation of our heritage is not simply about more money. There is one thing we could do for no cost which would have a dramatic impact in the battle for our heritage. 

Next month, UNESCO, the cultural organisation of the United Nations, will meet to discuss whether to put two World Heritage sites on their “endangered” list.  If you asked the average person where these two sites are, they would assume they were in places like Afghanistan or Iraq.   They would be astonished to learn that they are actually both in London - Westminster and the Tower of London. 

They would be right to be astonished.  There are 830 world heritage sites.  Of these, only 31 - about a three per cent - are currently on the endangered list.  They are indeed in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and the Congo.  It is, therefore, a cause for national humiliation and shame that UNESCO should even be considering putting Westminster and the Tower of London on the same list, the first such sites in the developed world.   

How did this astonishing situation come about?  

Westminster and the Tower of London have been World Heritage Sites since the late 1980s.  To maintain their status, UNESCO has called for a buffer zone to be put around each to protect their views from being damaged by tall buildings. 

Simon Milton, the leader of Westminster Council, and Tony Arbour the Conservative planning spokesman on the GLA, have vigorously supported this proposal.  Ken Livingstone, London’s Mayor, and the Government have refused to agree to the establishment of buffer zones.  It is not hard to see why. 

They are in thrall to the skyscraper.  The Tower of London’s views would already have been damaged by the Minerva Tower, which is only not now going ahead because of financial problems.  The London Bridge Tower (the Shard of Glass) remains a danger.  A substantial tower at Vauxhall has been already been given planning permission which will damage views of Parliament.   A number of other tall buildings have also been proposed or talked about which would have a devastating impact on the views around the Palace of Westminster.  Two tall buildings have been proposed by Victoria; there is a risk of development in Waterloo and Blackfriars; there is a proposal for a tower at

There are two objections to my position, one aesthetic and one commercial.  

The aesthetic objection is this: any one who argues for a buffer zone is secretly against modern architecture.  London, say those who put forward this argument, should not be set in aspic.  Every generation should leave its mark.  Quite so.  I am a huge supporter of modern architecture, but it should always be in the right context.  As an example, even those that support the buffer zone backed the London Eye.  Its delicate and perforated silhouette compliments the area and does not crowd out the historic views, as a skyscraper would. 

The second argument is that a buffer zone would stifle London’s commercial development.  This argument has been rejected by the London Planning Advisory Committee and a House of Commons Select Committee, and those rejections have been endorsed by the Government.  In particular, the Select Committee concluded that no company had been put off locating in London because of lack of office space, and that there was in any case plenty of other areas suitable for development.  

Indeed, Canary Wharf and the NatWest Tower were both supported by the previous Conservative Government, so one can be both pro-heritage and pro-development.  In any case, if development is the be all and end all, one might as well argue that we should build in Hyde Park.  We don’t of course, because we recognise that commerce depends on quality of life as much as any citizen.  And these important views are part of our quality of life in the capital city. 

The Government has given a small nod to UNESCO’s concerns in its Heritage White Paper, published in March.  But it is no more than that. It has stopped far short of calling for the buffer zone that is essential if we are to preserve these views not only for ourselves, but for the generation to come.” 

On the day Tony Blair announced his resignation:

• The Government announced that the cost of ID cards had risen by £600 million.  This announcement was a month later than due.
• A report that admitted that 28 NHS Trusts are still having problems with mixed sex wards was also published.
• A Written Answer showed half a million under 16s are on the DNA database.

Just thought you should know. 

Not a lot from Gordon Brown this week, but frenetic activity last week.  You may have forgotten the policy initiatives he announced.  Here’s a reminder.

• Numeracy day to make British maths standards comparable with the rest of the world.  Also announced in the 2007 Budget; by the Schools Minister in Spetember 2006; by Ruth Kelly in October 2005.  Also announced by Brown in 1998 and 2000 (launch of national numeracy strategy and Maths Year).
• Eco-towns.  First announced in 1997, when 10,000 new homes were planned.  Fewer than a thousand have been built.  One specific site mentioned by the Chancellor, in Cambridgeshire, was announced in 2003. 
• Restoring power to Parliament.  Gordon first talked about subjecting public appointments to Parliamentary scrutiny in 1992.  Nothing seems to have happened since. 

Another day, another tough visit for the Shadow Culture spokesman, this time to Pinewood, the home of British film.  Or perhaps, more accurately, the central focus for the British Film industry (along with its sister sites at Shepperton and Teddington).  It is an extraordinary place, typically british, with an eclectic mix of buildings spanning the nineteenth and twentieth centuries from the original manor house to the 007 stage, newly rebuilt.   It has the best underwater studio in the world, and probably one of the best sound mixing ones as well.  Eighteen of the top twenty grossing films had some part of their production at Pinewood.  Although Pinewood is a private company, we need to do more to make it a more prominent symbol of our success, especially as global film making becomes more competitive.  I suggested huge letters spelling out “pinewood”, visible from the M25, but I’m sure the local MP, Dominic Grieve, would kill me.