Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between William Cash and Tristram Hunt

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

It is called proper scrutiny.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman corrects me by saying that it is proper scrutiny.

The Committee stated:

“Whilst acknowledging the case made by the Deputy Prime Minister for a five year term”—

it is so nice when the authors of such reports use expressions like “whilst acknowledging the case” and “with respect to”—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) knows what is in my mind. The Committee continued:

“nonetheless the majority of the Committee consider that a four year term should be adopted for any fixed-term Parliamentary arrangement at Westminster. In the view of the majority, the shift from a five year maximum to a five year norm would be inconsistent with the Government’s stated aim of making the legislature more accountable, inconsistent with existing constitutional practice and inconsistent with the practice of the devolved institutions and the clear majority of international legislatures.”

That is quite a condemnation.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between William Cash and Tristram Hunt

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

The Chamber is very empty, considering the significance of what is being done by clause 2. In a way, that reflects the decline of this Parliament, which some of us believe strongly needs to be rejuvenated, not on the basis of protestations of power being returned to the House, as we read in our manifesto, but in the reality of how legislation is introduced.

The clause is the turn of the screw by the coalition into our democratic system of government, which, at its essence, is about the individuality and votes of conscience of MPs, irrespective of the Whips and the patronage system. It creates a permanent constitutional change through a passive, silent revolution—the most silent revolution since our Parliament began. It is being done without a mandate of any kind for any party, in any manifesto, in any part of the political system.

[Tristram Hunt]

Is the hon. Gentleman as shocked as I am by the new constitutional principle that we are hearing from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills—that the manifestos upon which individual Members of Parliament were elected no longer mean anything, because the coalition agreement somehow supersedes everything that they were elected to stand for?

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. That is not part of the amendments before us, so Mr Cash, could you restrict yourself to the amendments, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle. That proves my point—the areas where we cannot go because they are before judges are increasing.

In his written statement, the Minister simply cites article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, and leaves it at that. It provides that

“proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court”,

and he said he could see

“no reason why the courts would not continue to defer to them”.

The comity between Parliament and the courts has relied on the fact that the internal proceedings were entirely matters for the House’s jurisdiction. Its procedures arising from Standing Orders or resolutions cannot be legally challenged, but statute law can. That is the extraordinary development in the Bill.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman is dealing with amendments to come and amendment 6. I take his point, but there is a huge body of law, and statements are being made by members of the Supreme Court that are causing great concern and are being considered by my European Scrutiny Committee’s inquiry into parliamentary sovereignty in the context of law making in this House.

[Tristram Hunt]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, and I will come to the Supreme Court in a moment. I do not want to interfere with his amendments on the Speaker’s certificate, which are absolutely correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) referred to the Digital Economy Act 2010, and the Hunting Act 2004 was also reviewed in court. Yes, the court ruled that it could not interfere with the Act, but it had to go to the Law Lords for that supposedly self-evident truth to be confirmed. Even there, the judgment was hardly a ringing endorsement of parliamentary sovereignty, which is what amendment 33 seeks to retain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and his knowledge of the Hunting Act is second to none. I am hinting at the adventurism of justices in critiquing and opening up to judicial review not only the Parliament Act but the proceedings of this place. The fear is that putting these measures into statute will open up the calling of elections from this place. That is what amendment 33 seeks to address.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman is relentlessly hunting out the provisions that will be referred to shortly. The problem with the Parliament Act 1911 is that the phrase

“shall not be questioned in any court of law”

follows the words stating that the certificate

“shall be conclusive for all purposes”.

When the courts come to interpret these questions, they will say, “ Well, that’s what it says in the Parliament Act.” So if the words were left out, there may have been an intention to include the courts of law in this instance. That is why my amendment 6 makes it absolutely clear that there shall be no presentation of such a certificate to the courts, let alone any possibility of their adjudicating on such matters.

[Tristram Hunt]

rose—

Wedgwood Museum

Debate between William Cash and Tristram Hunt

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Tristram Hunt]

I absolutely agree. As I hope to point out, the interrelationship between the past and the present is enormously important, drawing on history not simply for archaic reasons but as an economic and cultural motor for the city of Stoke-on-Trent and the county of Staffordshire. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the collection is as much commercial as aesthetic. We see in the museum guides to earthenware and creamware, and to jasper and basalt production.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has only half an hour but, as I said in a message I left in his office, I would be grateful for the opportunity to make a short intervention on the subject. As he well knows, the museum, because of the configuration of boundaries, is actually in my constituency. I just wanted to say a few words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and wholly concur with her.

The future of the Wedgwood museum collection now rests on a court decision expected in January—though it would be good to have some clarity on dates from the Minister—as to whether the collection is alienable. Former Wedgwood employees, local Stoke and Staffordshire enthusiasts, Wedgwood family members and leading historians, curators, artists and ceramicists are appalled by the situation. Sir Neil Cossons, chairman of the Royal College of Art, puts it well:

“If the court case goes against the museum it will not only be catastrophic for one of the finest museums in the country but blow a hole through all our assumptions about the inalienability of collections held by trusts.”

The case could have major implications for other museum trusts across the UK. Which museum linked to a pension deficit of a local authority, university or company might be in difficulties after a poor judgment?

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Tristram Hunt]

I ought to give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he wants to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

If the hon. Gentleman finishes his speech, perhaps I could give a short speech after him.

[Tristram Hunt]

If that is the format, that is okay.

As ever, the Minister has listened attentively. We seek some commitment from the Government that they are doing more than simply watching this car crash take place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North asked, what are the Government’s plans for the Wedgwood museum if the case goes against it? Do the Government have plans to amend legislation, to ensure that such a crazy outcome never befalls another museum? Will they put pressure on the Pension Protection Fund so that if the case goes against the museum, there will not be a quick-fire sale of historic assets?

The pottery industry of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent is far more than a museum piece, as last week’s Ceramics 2010 exhibition proved. However, the industry values its heritage and continues to draw inspiration from the designs and craftsmanship that the Wedgwood museum embodies. It would be a monstrous act of cultural self-destruction and a betrayal of those very people who have made objects of great beauty from the soils of Staffordshire if the museum was allowed to collapse, and with it a vital component of the meaning and memory of the potteries.