G20 Summit

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. I assure him that what he asks will, indeed, be taken into account. One of the benefits of bringing energy and climate change policy into the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is that energy policy can be seen alongside the requirements of business and our industrial strategy as it develops.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

First things first: I believe in free trade. Indeed, Josiah Wedgwood, an early constituent of mine, negotiated one of the first free trade pacts with France in the 1770s, but now many of my constituents are employed at the nearby Toyota plant in Derby and they were very concerned by the Japanese Government’s comments about investment in the UK if we did not have access to the single market. What conversations did the Prime Minister have with the Japanese about their concerns? May I ask her to take control of the Brexit negotiations and make sure that jobs and prosperity in north Staffordshire are not put at risk?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman must be the oldest and most long-serving Member in the history of the House of Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 May.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting the United States for meetings with President Obama, making the case for a transatlantic trade agreement between the United States and the European Union and chairing the high-level panel on development in New York today. This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer. If Conservative Members of Parliament do not have to support the Government on Europe, why do Liberal Democrat MPs have to support the Government on tripling tuition fees, top-down reorganisation of the NHS, the bedroom tax and all the other wretched policies of this Government?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Liberal Democrats, and indeed Conservatives, are working together to clear up the mess left by the hon. Gentleman’s party. It is this Government who are delivering more apprenticeships than ever before, delivering a cap on social care costs, delivering a decent state pension for everybody and clearing up the mess in the banking system left by that man there—the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)—and so many other people on the Labour Benches.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

That is exactly right. I can confirm that there has been minimal impact on public services and that the public will have been inconvenienced to a very small extent by today’s strike. The borders at the airports and ports have been properly manned, queues have been minimal and I am delighted to say that at Birmingham airport alone, there have been significant seizures of illegal drugs to the benefit of protecting the public.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

T4. Today’s shambolic, reactionary Budget will put the Labour party another step closer to government. Now that we have a fixed-term Parliament, will the Minister lay out a proper timetable for Opposition access to the civil service so that we can clear the mess up?

[Mr Maude]

I am afraid that I did not hear a single word that the hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption.]

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (Inquiry)

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes two points. First, I agree that we need clear lines of accountability so we can see who is responsible for standards of care on the ward and in the hospital, and they must be held to account for that. Secondly, I have a lot of sympathy with the point that sometimes people making a compliant are not seeking financial redress, and I think all constituency MPs would agree with that, too. They just want to be taken seriously. They want to be listened to; they want an acknowledgement. They will not go off and hire lawyers. They want an acknowledgement that their elderly relative was not treated properly, and they want it soon. I hope this report launches a debate in the NHS about how we can deliver that.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

There remains real trauma and anguish in Stoke-on-Trent about the abuse, poor treatment and unnecessary deaths of relatives and friends in Stafford hospital. I welcome the focus on delivering a culture of care in the management of hospitals and on the accountability of boards, and I also welcome the questioning of nursing and medical bodies about the absence of accountability. I have two questions, however. What elements of the new NHS reforms make it less likely that a Mid Staffs will occur again, and are we absolutely sure that HealthWatch will be fit for purpose in April? On the north Staffordshire health care economy, the University hospital of North Staffordshire is taking a lot of slack from Mid Staffordshire. Can we ensure that the Department of Health supports North Staffordshire in addressing any problems?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me go directly to the important question about the reforms, the status quo once they are in place and how that will help deliver what Francis talks about. As I said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, Francis says he is content this can be delivered:

“it requires changes which can largely be implemented within the system that has now been created by the new reforms.”

I hope the reforms will help in a number of ways. I hope HealthWatch can be created as a robust independent organisation that is taken seriously by those in the health service and more widely. I hope that having clinical leadership of the clinical commissioning groups, with local GPs and others in charge, will mean they will reach further into their hospital and perhaps ask better questions than the primary care trust put. As I said at Prime Minister’s questions, I also hope that the Department of Health sets a mandate for the national Commissioning Board and that we put quality and care for patients at the heart of it. While I accept that we need some process targets because things such as waits in A and E matter, I hope that the move towards judging outcomes rather than processes will reinforce the importance of quality, because if we do not get quality care, we will not get quality outcomes.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping me out by confirming that the clause was not considered by the Joint Committee.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

In answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), the Deputy Prime Minister said there could be some kind of referendum or investigation after the election of the first tranche of peers. That shows that we need a more detailed investigation of the Bill, because the rules are changing as we go along.

[Sadiq Khan]

It is worrying that the Deputy Prime Minister has today decided to pull a rabbit out of the hat by suggesting the idea of a referendum once we have some peers appointed or elected in the way that he wants.

We also need to be clear that the model is not quite as simple as the 80:20 split that has been portrayed. The Bill permits the Prime Minister of the day to appoint eight additional Ministers to sit in the Chamber. That will mean that, once again, patronage will lead to a place in the second Chamber—so much for accountability and the end of patronage! Over the period of a Government, that could accumulate, and result in a fair number of partisan ex-Ministers with full voting rights being members of the legislature for 15-year terms by appointment via patronage. This, again, is against the advice of the Joint Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage). I am in the rather curious position of supporting the coalition Bill, in contrast to the hon. Lady. I am in favour of reform of the House of Lords. The tide of time—[Interruption.] No, I am in favour of it now, which is why I will vote for its Second Reading. The tide of time is in favour of democracy and we need to accept that.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, considering the interest that all three of us have, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has told his father about his view?

[Tristram Hunt]

I should declare an interest. My father sits in the House of Lords, as do the fathers of other Labour Members of Parliament. He, too, is in favour of reform of the House of Lords, and in favour of democracy in relation to it.

The tide of time is in favour of democracy. Many in the Chamber might find that an uncomfortable reality, but we cannot go around the world preaching democracy to developing and other nations without having that in the second Chamber. I entirely accept that legislative wisdom comes in many forms, and I acknowledge the expertise in the unelected second Chamber, as the hon. Member for Gosport suggested. That is why I am in favour of an 80% elected, 20% appointed upper House. My perfect model would be 75% elected, 25% appointed because when one drills down into the absolute expertise in the upper House, one would probably get to about 25%.

[Rory Stewart]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that before it goes round preaching about democracy to the rest of the world, Britain should take the example of the rest of the world by not introducing major constitutional change without either a two-thirds vote or a referendum?

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I wholly agree; I shall come on to that. I am in favour of the referendum, as the Labour party rightly proposes, on this major piece of constitutional change.

I served on the Joint Committee, and a number of points emerged from our investigation. This is a serious, problematic reform, as the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) suggested, throwing up detailed problems about the interrelationship between the Houses, the fundamental change to Parliament, the role of bishops and the established Church, and the dual mandate between the other place and this place. That is why we need proper, detailed investigation of the Bill. The programme motion will not allow for that. If the change is to last down the centuries, does it matter if we have another five, seven, eight, 10 or 15 days to look at it? If the Government are serious about major constitutional reform, they should allow us the time and space to consider it.

There is also, as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) suggested, the need for a referendum. We are beginning to move towards different forms of democracy, and whether we like it or not in this place, referendums play an increasingly powerful part in that. So if, as has been noted, we have had referendums on city Mayors and on voting systems, and we are having the farce of elections for police commissioners in the depths of November, why do we not have a referendum on a major piece of legislative change which will affect the governance of the entire country? It is right that the people have a say on that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) suggested.

The Bill contains numerous problems. The 15-year term is very difficult to accept as a democrat. Personally, I am in favour of two 10-year terms, but that throws up equal problems in terms of electioneering.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Could the hon. Gentleman point to the occasion on which there was a referendum on removing the hereditary peers from the House of Lords, which one might concede was a big constitutional change?

[Tristram Hunt]

I think that removing the hereditary peers was so obvious a change that we did not need a referendum, but this is not an obvious change. There are major complexities, as we have just teased out, with regard to justiciability between the two Houses and composition. All sorts of questions need to be answered.

I also agree with the change from 300 to 450 Members, because I think that the initial proposal for a wholly professionalised and salaried body of 300 was incorrect. However, if Ministers think that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will simply allow them to decide who is paid what, it is clear that they have not looked at the evidence its representatives gave to the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill. I think that Ministers will find that IPSA will take a great deal more control of what happens to Members of the other place than they believe. I am in favour of keeping the bishops and the established Church, and the appointment of Ministers seems exactly right.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is deliberately provoking me. Only this afternoon the Church of England decided that it cannot even decide when it will decide on whether to have women bishops. Surely we should at least say that the bishops are allowed to remain in the House of Lords only if there are to be women bishops.

[Tristram Hunt]

That might be a successful way through the current difficulties in the Synod, so my hon. Friend should put that forward.

There are of course an awful lot of reservations about the Bill. We have touched on the issue of justiciability between the Commons and the Lords, a point to which the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire also referred, and convention versus statute. It also seems to me that there is no reason why a democratically elected second Chamber will not intervene on Finance Bills. If they are elected by taxpayers, why should they not have their say on Finance Bills? We do not seem to have sorted out the conflict resolution procedures that will be needed between the Houses.

The bigger problem relates to what happens in Scotland. If there is a vote in favour of an independent Scotland, the entire premise of this Bill will be undone, because the role of the House of Lords will have to take on a far more federal nature with regard to the interrelationship between the kingdoms of the Crown under the Crown in Parliament in the House of Lords, but perhaps the timeline will allow for all that.

On a broader point, when there is major constitutional reform there is always fear of the unknown. The Second Reform Act was described as a leap in the dark, and Thomas Carlyle wrote lurid pamphlets about its consequences. Actually, it resulted in a strengthening of Parliament and of the democratic process. Britain did not fall apart, and the same was true of the Third Reform Act and votes for women. It comes down to whether we believe in the purifying effects of democracy. Do Members believe in what we on the Labour side used to call “the good old cause”, which goes right back to Lilburne, Rainsborough, Paine and all the rest? The Bill has many problems but, ultimately, if we believe in democracy we have to support it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for that enthusiastic endorsement. I believe that we should go ahead with HS2. It is important for the country’s economy, and it is important that we get on board this high-speed rail revolution. It links to the question asked by my hon. Friend’s neighbour, as it were, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), about Heathrow. Many flights could be avoided if we had a network of high-speed rail in our country, and I am keen to press ahead.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Q9. Before the last general election, the Prime Minister made an important speech condemning crony capitalism, “with money buying power, power fishing for money, and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest.”Is that not a pitch-perfect description of the undignified courting of News Corporation by the Culture Secretary? When will the Prime Minister show some judgment on this?

[The Prime Minister]

If they are looking for volunteers for the Olympic team for hypocrisy, I think we might have the decathlete. We had 13 years of pyjama parties, christenings, changing the law and sucking up to the Murdochs. Honestly, what a lot of brass neck!

Diamond Jubilee

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

I support the very gracious words of the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

It seems to me that if we were political scientists creating a state, as we did after the second world war, we would not begin with a monarchy in this day and age. It is an irrational, arbitrary, often deranged institution that depends upon the luck of genes, and it does not always work out well for the country, but not in this case. We must also, it seems, be careful about aligning too closely the history and identity of Britain with the history and identity of monarchy. Royal families come and go; some have very strong connections with the nation, others very weak ones—indeed, some do not even speak the same language as we do.

But there is no doubt that in the post-war years the monarchy of Queen Elizabeth II closely aligned itself with the changing history and identity of Britain, and often for the most curious reasons. On the one hand, Her Majesty was lucky. History is clear that those who do not wait around for the throne—those who have it thrust upon them at an early age—often prove to be among the most successful of our monarchs. In terms of longevity and achievement, being a queen rather than a king also plays well, particularly for the history of England. Added to that have been the remarkable personal virtues that have been spelled out so effectively by right hon. and hon. Members: patience, dignity, resolve, discretion, duty.

What has been so remarkable in Her Majesty’s reign has been the ability to let the monarchy assist in the transformation of post-war Britain. On her watch, Britain has changed from a predominantly Protestant, white and hierarchical society to a multi-cultural, mixed-race, secular nation inherently hostile towards privilege and inherited position. And yet, through all these extraordinary social and cultural upheavals, which have seen monarchies come and go on the continent, Her Majesty has managed to retain the nation’s abiding affection and provided some sense of the unity of values that we have discussed.

This is partly the product of the nature of monarchy, which is non-sectarian, imperial and then Commonwealth in its reach, curiously suited for the identities of a diffuse, globalised age. Similarly, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) suggested, one of the ironies of the Queen’s strength is her sense of faith in a multi-religious age, a deep commitment to the Church of England and its teachings; providing that official sanction for faith provides space for other faiths to express themselves. At times of repeated difficulties, the Queen has wisely kept the monarchy outside politics and stuck to the old royal aphorism that Ministers are king in this country.

But the work goes on. The monarchy and Her Majesty’s Government are going to have to deal very deftly with the growing calls for republican autonomy in former colonies, as we heard so recently in Jamaica and, inevitably, in Australia. The House of Windsor will also have to confront the challenge of separatism within the UK and perhaps the return to a fully federal vision of monarchy. There is certainly more to be done on both physical and intellectual access to the royal estates, their archives and their histories, but none of this should be an insurmountable challenge.

Finally, I am always wary when the House is too reverential towards monarchy. We should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who has departed, suggested, also speak to our different traditions. We should have a healthy respect but also a critical eye on the actions of the sovereign and on the sovereign’s finances, power and estate. We have our own history and identity in this place, a democratic rather than monarchical heritage that Britain also speaks to. As such, we can all pay deep respects to the enormous personal contribution of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

I can say that particularly from my constituency, Stoke-on-Trent, where the order books are strong and employment is up on the back of this summer’s celebrations. In the Potteries the kilns are hot for the diamond jubilee and, on behalf of my constituents, I am delighted to add my support to the Humble Address.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

4. If he will publish an implementation plan alongside the introduction of legislative proposals for individual electoral registration.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

We will indeed be publishing an implementation timeline with our response to the Select Committee’s report. In it, we will consider implementing individual registration from the point of view of the elector, the administrators and the Government.

[Tristram Hunt]

The truth is that this is one of the most anti-democratic Governments of modern Britain. They are having the longest parliamentary term in the world outside Rwanda, and their rushed plans for voter registration now threaten to disfranchise Britain. As well as committing himself to publishing an implementation plan, will the Deputy Prime Minister commit himself to a phased introduction of voter registration, an end to the opt-out clause, and a full household canvass in 2014?

[Mr Harper]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman received the memo from his Front Benchers, who took a much more sensible position during the debate the other day. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said:

“I welcome the process that the Government have adopted and how they are acting on this matter. We have had a draft Bill and a White Paper with pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Deputy Prime Minister has said twice on the Floor of the House that the Government are willing to listen to concerns”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 475.]

I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to check what his party’s position is.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I should like to make it clear that I am proposing that the House disagrees with their lordships on amendments 1, 2 and 9, and I shall set out the reasons for that. For the benefit of Members who have not had the chance to study the amendments in detail, they provide that the provisions in this excellent Bill be subject to a sunset clause after the next general election. Each subsequent Parliament would have the choice of whether to be a fixed-term Parliament or not. The Government want to oppose the amendments because we think that they fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill, which was welcomed by, among others, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of this House. I see a member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) sort of agreeing with me on the Opposition Benches.

In bringing forward the Bill, we are seeking to put in place a provision that we hope will become an established part of our constitutional arrangements—namely, that fixed-term Parliaments for this UK Parliament become the norm, just as they are for local government, for the devolved legislatures and for the European Parliament. Two of the most important things in the Bill—in the form that the Government would like it to take—are, first, the proposal for an ability to deny the Executive the ability to choose a date for a general election to suit their own ends and to ensure that the Prime Minister gives up that power for the first time, and, secondly, to deliver certainty on how long a Parliament will last, which will benefit not only parliamentarians but the public.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Was the Minister disappointed, as I was, that their lordships did not seek to alter the limit for the fixed-term Parliament from five years to four years, which seems to be what the majority of the British public would like?

[Mr Harper]

I was not in the slightest disappointed that this House and the House of Lords—

House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said, in the draft Bill we have proposed one system—the single transferable vote—primarily because it seems to be the system that gives the fullest individual mandate to elected Members rather than casting them in a party political light. It is the individual independence of spirit in the other place that everyone agrees should be preserved, but there are alternatives. In the White Paper—I know that Opposition Members feel particularly strongly about this—there is the alternative of a party list system, which we have said is available to us, as explained in the White Paper. If that is where the debate takes us, we are very open to those alternatives.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Does the Deputy Prime Minister share the views of his hon. Friend the Liberal Democrat president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), that Members elected in a different Chamber by STV will have greater legitimacy than Members of this House? Does he still believe that Members elected in another Chamber will be banned from then standing for election to this Chamber, and is that concordant with the Human Rights Act 1998?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We have looked into the latter point and it is consistent with the Human Rights Act. The draft Bill envisages—this enjoyed cross-party support on the Committee I chaired—that someone from the other place would not be able to stand for election to this place unless they had completed a cooling-off period of one term. Clearly, we do not want to transform the other place into a sort of launch pad for people’s careers in this place. The reverse, however, would not be the case.