Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Evennett]

My hon. and learned Friend will be well aware that the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to get involved in sport from a young age, provided that it is made available within a safe environment. The Department for Education is responsible for sport in schools. Rugby and many other sports always carry an element of risk, and we expect those supervising sport at that level to ensure the safety of all participants. He will be interested to note that as part of our strategy on sport and physical activity, a full review of the duty of care in sport is to be carried out, chaired by Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson.

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

T7. Local authority budgets are now under extreme pressure, and the Treasury is urging councils to liquidate all extraneous assets. Will the Secretary of State confirm from the Dispatch Box that that should not include the antiquities, paintings and artefacts in local authority museums and galleries? None of us wants to see a fire sale of our national heritage on the back of this Government’s stumbling economic policy.

[Mr Vaizey]

One treasure that I hope will not be liquidated is the hon. Gentleman. I hope he will not be liquidated by the Momentum campaign in Stoke and that he will be reselected. We are all praying for him on this side of the House. In answer to his question, it is obviously up to individual local authorities, but they must adhere to the code of ethics of the Museums Association. I take a very dim view of local authorities getting rid of their heritage assets, particularly those that have been left to them by prominent members of the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I welcome that contribution from my hon. Friend. That is indeed part of the proposal in our call for views, and I am sure he can write in to that formally to add weight to that argument.

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

5. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the introduction of procedures on English votes for English laws.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)]

We have fulfilled our manifesto commitment to introduce English votes for English laws, which I believe will strengthen the Union. We have undertaken two Legislative Grand Committees, and several statutory instruments have been passed without Division. There have been some technical issues, but they relate also to the introduction of electronic counting in this House using iPads, which is routine in the other place now and which the House authorities are working on. Clearly, we would not wish to be left behind by the other House in the technologies that it uses. We will undertake a review of English votes for English laws procedure later this year.

[Tristram Hunt]

Does the Leader of the House not agree that the current Gilbert and Sullivan system for EVEL is simply unsustainable? It is confusing, haphazard and totally incomprehensible to the public. Will he therefore join my call for a referendum on an English Parliament so that the voice of England has clarity in our representative democracy? After all, we know how much he enjoys a referendum.

[Chris Grayling]

I am not necessarily certain that that is the Labour party’s policy. It is an interesting concept, but the Government were elected on a manifesto to deliver English votes for English laws in this place. It is set out in detail how we will do that, and we have implemented our commitment, as the electorate would have expected.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Angie Bray]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, one well understood by those who have had some experience of the lobbying industry.

This aspect of the Bill will affect only “consultant lobbyists”; it will not affect in-house lobbyists, trade associations, charities, trade unions, accountants or lawyers. But that is not all, as it will not even affect all consultant lobbyists; it will affect just those for whom lobbying is a substantial part of their businesses. There must be a number of large companies for which lobbying is a substantial part of their business, but they can reasonably claim it is subsumed into all the other connected areas that they work in.

Fewer companies would be registered under this Bill than currently register voluntarily. The point at which registrable activities would be triggered would actually mean that less lobbying activity is declared. No light would be shed on the numerous companies and organisations that lobby us daily but do so using an in-house lobbyist. Again, there are some large companies whose business encompasses a wide variety of interests, but we will not know, thanks to this Bill, which bit they are pushing at any meeting at any given time. Far from bringing transparency to lobbying, the Bill defines lobbying so tightly and so unrealistically as to become almost meaningless.

Let us remind ourselves of why this Bill, so long in gestation, has been brought forward now. It is because of a raft of allegations in the media in recent months that pointed towards misconduct by parliamentarians, but let us be clear that no actual lobbying company was involved in those episodes and that, in any case, rules are already in place. More importantly, the activities uncovered by the media would not have been registrable under this Bill, because none of the protagonists were either Ministers or permanent secretaries. I am afraid that in seeking to clear up the lobbying scandals we should perhaps look closer to home.

Also unchecked by this Bill will be all those with parliamentary passes and free access to Parliament whose ultimate paymasters are not the MP or peer whose name appears on the pass, but a raft of special interest groups or trade unions. We will learn nothing more about their activities in Parliament because these people will also not be covered by the Bill—so much for transparency.

I wish to focus my closing remarks on the effect of the Bill on charitable and other non-party campaigning. On that aspect, I am pleased to say that I am more supportive of the Bill. It seems iniquitous that candidates are limited by the amount they can spend during an election period on setting out their arguments, but that a third party can lavish many more thousands of pounds to make a political case that could have a direct influence on the outcome of a local or national result.

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

Is there any academic evidence of the effect of third-party campaigning in changing the result of an election to Parliament?

[Angie Bray]

I cannot imagine that anybody would waste their money if they did not think that there was a desirable outcome.

If we are to limit election expenditure, then limit it we should without fear or favour to any political party or special interest group. I find it hard to believe that many members of the public who happily chuck a couple of quid into a bucket rattled for a charity in a supermarket on a Saturday morning fervently wish their money to go into political campaigning rather than to the cause that has appealed to their generosity in the first place. That is why I do not believe that the Bill will affect charitable activity; I do not believe that charities, on the whole, tend to do politics.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I will, of course, always look to the hon. Gentleman to keep me right on these things. He is absolutely right that there is a part two to the inquiry and, as I think we have already made clear, the Government will make a statement on part two when part one has concluded. It is important that we take these things at the proper pace and that we have time to consider the initial report before we consider further work.

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

4. What recent estimate she has made of the financial contribution of the heritage sector to the tourism industry.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

Heritage tourism in the United Kingdom accounts for £4.3 billion in gross domestic product, rising to £7.4 billion if heritage green spaces are included. The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games and torch relay have provided a major opportunity to highlight our heritage assets.

[Tristram Hunt]

Given that, only a Government of such awesome incompetence as this one could follow up the Olympics, when the eyes of the world were on Britain, by abolishing the post of Minister for tourism and heritage. We know that the Tory party did not like Danny Boyle’s wonderfully progressive vision of British history, but did it really have to seek revenge by scrapping the post? Why will the Government not support our national heritage and tourism industry, rather than abandon it?

[Hugh Robertson]

That is the silliest question I have heard in two and half years. Let me make it absolutely clear that I loved the opening ceremony and that, far from the tourism Minister being abolished, he is standing before you.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I would be delighted to do that. In fact, that is one of the central aims of the campaign. We will use the torch relay, which I believe will go to my hon. Friend’s constituency on 7 July, as a way of promoting the different parts of the country that it will visit and all the things that can be done there, including, in her case, the Lee valley white water centre, as well as the Waltham Abbey church and its links with King Harold.

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

One of the great tourist attractions for 2012 visitors to the west midlands and north Staffordshire is the Wedgwood museum. It is facing the loss of its UNESCO-listed collection because of loopholes in pension protection fund legislation. The museum has had great assistance from the arts Minister, so will the heritage Minister now commit the Government to do everything possible to save this world-class museum?

[John Penrose]

I agree completely that it is a world-class museum. I am pleased to say that my colleague the culture Minister has already had close, detailed meetings with the administrators, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been closely involved as well. We will continue to help in any way we can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I absolutely agree. We have quadrupled the amount of money going into superfast broadband roll-out. When £530 million became available following the BBC licence fee settlement, we could have signed one big contract with BT for a national roll-out. Instead, we parcelled it up into 40 lots, and made it available to councils so they can take ownership of solving broadband problems in their areas. The response has been superb and there is enormous enthusiasm, so that was a good localist solution.

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

Many of those in rural communities who use superfast broadband will log on to Amazon to buy books and other artefacts, but does the Secretary of State agree that Amazon needs no help from the British Library? Will he look into the worrying development that the British Library is allowing users browsing its online catalogue to click through to Amazon, which will potentially have a major effect on the book retail market?

[Mr Hunt]

We obviously want to support the retail book market, but as a Government we have to be neutral about whether people obtain their books through the internet or by going to bookshops. However, I will certainly look into the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises. The reality is that companies such as Amazon are doing a great deal to promote reading. I think that partnerships with organisations such as the British Library can have a positive impact. I will happily look at what he says.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Commons Chamber

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

13. What discussions he has had with the BBC Trust on the future of local radio.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

15. What discussions he has had with the BBC Trust on the future of local radio.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

No discussions have been held with the BBC Trust on the future of local radio, and nor are we planning any such discussions. However, this issue was the subject of a recent lengthy debate in the House, and we urge the BBC to take account of the views raised by many hon. Members.

[Tristram Hunt]

It is absolutely right that BBC operational independence remains, but the BBC Trust needs to understand that when so much money is spent on over-inflated BBC manager and presenter salaries, particularly those imposing super-injunctions, cutting excellent local radio stations, such as BBC Stoke, which are so vital to community identity, is simply not acceptable.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Had that statement been made by a Conservative, it would have been seen as an unwarranted attack on the BBC. However, I am glad that there is cross-party agreement on concerns about the level of BBC salaries, even if he has ruled out further appearances on the Andrew Marr programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern on behalf of his constituents, and it is good that he has raised it. There has never been universal television coverage. About 90% of television viewers get the full range of Freeview channels, and about 98.5% get the basic 15. I will be happy to have discussions with him. This is a commercial decision for the operators, but it is worth having a dialogue.

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

Among the great cultural gems of this country are the regional museums of England, such as the People’s History museum in Manchester, so why is this most philistine of Governments withdrawing funding from these great museums, given that they know that local authorities cannot pick up the tab?

[Mr Vaizey]

I object to the Government being described as a philistine Government, particularly by one of the country’s leading television historians. He and I are working extremely closely on preserving the Wedgwood collections, and I hope he is not thinking, “Philistine, philistine” as we sit down for our discussions. Funding is tight because his philistine Government bankrupted the country.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Are not the proposed changes as significant as the Robbins report and the transformation of universities during the second half of the 20th century? To put through the marketisation of our entire university structure within five hours is absolutely shameful.

[Hilary Benn]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an extremely powerful point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

I shall make a little progress and give way later.

The Government of the day would normally have published a White Paper before asking us to vote on such proposals. I have inquired at the Vote Office, but it does not have a White Paper, because the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary has not yet published one. On reflection, that is quite extraordinary. We will be asked in a few hours—less than 21 hours—to take a decision that will pre-empt the whole of the Government’s policy on higher education without our having a chance to find out what that is. It is interesting that the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010 states:

“The Regulations raising the basic and higher amounts are the first elements in the reform package to be presented for Parliamentary approval. Without prejudice to their subsequent proper Parliamentary consideration, the Government believes it is appropriate to refer in this Memorandum to the other elements of the funding and finance package in the context of which the new basic and higher amounts are made.”

These are not the first elements: these statutory instruments are the consequences of other decisions that the Government have already made.

[Tristram Hunt]

Is not that very much the point, because what we face tomorrow is a bridgehead for an extraordinary revolution in higher education on which we deserve a full debate about the consequences? Five and a half hours will not begin to do justice to the issue.

[Hilary Benn]

It certainly will not, which is why we need more time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

The importance and the power of a university education is indeed to give people the chance to understand where we come from. If we do not understand where we come from, it is difficult to work out where we should be going.

[Tristram Hunt]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

Speaking of an understanding of history, I shall gladly give way to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No. Mr Tristram Hunt was about to make an intervention.

[Tristram Hunt]

As a new Member of the House, I am finding the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) a complete tour de force. We are learning a great deal from him tonight, and it would ill behove him to rush. On the broader point of the time limit for tomorrow’s debate, is he aware of the numerous protestations that I have received from academics, students and postgraduates in the humanities community, who are worried not only about the situation facing history and modern politics but about what could happen to classics, divinity, theology, social anthropology, archaeology, anthropology and many other subjects? We could not possibly deal with all those concerns in five hours.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman a third time, if he does not mind. We have very little time for this debate.

My final point is very important. The proposed reduction in the number of Members of Parliament will have the effect of increasing the electoral quota in all four countries, even England, where it will go up from 71,537 to roughly 75,800. Just 204 current constituencies have electorates within 5% of that number. The knock-on effects, however, mean that it is likely that barely a handful of seats will remain untouched. That was confirmed by the heads of the boundary commissions, who told the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform that the change would result in a complete redrawing of constituency boundaries.

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

Is my hon. Friend aware that because of the totalising nature of the reforms, Professor Johnston said in his evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that this was exactly the wrong point at which to abolish public inquiries?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend, who is on the Committee, makes a very valuable point. It was made very clear to the Committee, even in the short time that was allowed it to produce its report, that it would be ludicrous to get rid of public inquiries at this time, when so many changes would be coming up.

The complete redrawing of virtually every seat in the land will mean not just reselections but new selections for candidates around the country. More than one Conservative MP has already told me that the Conservative Whips have made it absolutely clear to them that if they do not toe the line, the party leadership will make it impossible for them to be selected under the new boundaries. What price accountability then? What price new politics, eh?

That is why our amendment 9 would provide that the vast majority of constituencies would indeed fall within the 5% rule, but that the boundary commissions should be allowed a wider degree of latitude where they believe there to be an overriding concern, up to a fixed limit of 10%. That 10% is actually the difference between the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary and that of the Deputy Leader of the House.

Our amendment 13 would make explicit provision for a whole number of seats for Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, for Anglesey and for the Isle of Wight. Amendment 11 would determine that wards could not be split between constituencies, and amendment 12 would mean that factors such as local boundaries could be considered without subordination to the 5% rule, but not going further than the 10% rule.

This country is not a Rubik’s cube devised by a mathematician, it is a complex jumble of communities. Some live in inconvenient numbers in inconvenient places that cannot be readily and symmetrically delineated in equal numbers. I am not defending the right of the Rhondda or anywhere else to its own seat in perpetuity. We need greater parity, and that will mean the amalgamation of seats in many areas, but let us not create so crude a system that 383 voters have to be found for the Forest of Dean or 59 expelled from Warrington. Let us not create such a centralised system that the idiosyncrasies of the towns, villages, islands and cities of this land cannot find their voice in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

Is the hon. Gentleman more and more surprised, when he reads into the Bill, that this proposal comes from the Conservative party? He understands the Conservative party and its traditions, customs and inheritance, yet this utilitarian Bill undermines all that.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Reading his piece in the Financial Times, which made a similar point, I did not understand why he was not on the Conservative Benches. His views and outlook seem similar to those of what I might call a high Tory. I am delighted that there are others in the House who might be so described.

I do not want to make a long speech. I just want to make the simple point that we have these great historic traditions, within which we can adopt what the Government are trying to do. My suggestion would not run a coach and horses through the Bill; it would broadly accept most of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that racing is an important part of our tourism industry. Race meetings all round the country bring in many people from the domestic tourism market, but they are rightly internationally famed for bringing in foreign visitors too. She is right to point out that any changes to the levy will need to ensure that the existing important symbiotic relationship between racing and bookmaking is maintained, and that a fair solution is achieved for all. I am sure that we will endeavour to achieve just that.

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

This Government have little feel for the history and heritage of this country, although they are among the drivers of the tourism sector. Will the Minister explain why the Government are seeking to protect the overpaid panjandrums of the Olympic Development Agency while cutting English Heritage by 30%?

[John Penrose]

I think that that last comment was extraordinarily rich, coming from a member of a party that, within living memory, was going on about cool Britannia and that completely failed to fund heritage in the way that it should have been funded over the past 10 or 15 years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that the entire heritage sector feels that it has been undervalued and underfunded for a very long time, in stark contrast to what is now happening under the new Government. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, if we take into account the changes in the lottery, we can see that the total cut to heritage funding is minus 4%, and that is all.