Ian Murray

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate, which clearly is about whether we revive this Bill, not the internals of the Bill itself. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for sponsoring the Bill and for his speech. I also acknowledge the work of the Bill Committee in scrutinising the Bill in the last Session, and ensuring it is proportionate and meets the aims of the hall, which has included making sure that the hall’s new ticket income declaration policy is sufficiently robust. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), raised a whole host of interesting questions about whether we should still take primary legislation through this House for institutions set up over 160 years ago. I would be more than happy to discuss that with him. I would have thought he was more interested in reviving the Conservative party than in reviving this Bill, but we could discuss his point about such institutions. I acknowledge the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She is not alone; the Charity Commission itself and several commentators, many of whom she mentioned, have long expressed the view that there is a strong conflict of interest in the majority of the hall’s trustees being seat holders, because they are sometimes acting in their own financial interests instead of the charity’s best interests, which is against the rules and regulations of the Charity Commission. The Bill drew strong opposition in the other place for not tackling this conflict of interest, and it is disappointing that it has not tackled it—for all the reasons that have been raised this evening. The Charity Commission maintains its concerns that the Bill does not fully address the hall’s long-standing conflict of interest, especially the make-up of the board of trustees, despite the new declaration policy. The hall’s position is that it is willing to discuss concerns about other matters with interested parties, but that these should not obstruct the passage of the Bill. Perhaps what the shadow Minister has said about primary legislation should be part of this discussion. I understand that the Bill will come back to this place on Report and Third Reading, and I encourage Members, if they have concerns, to table amendments on Report. I am not alone in raising this criticism. Baroness Twycross, who spoke on behalf of the Government in the other place, has expressed the same disappointment, as did my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant). There are few institutions that hold as distinctive a place in British public life as the Royal Albert Hall, and it is fitting to be discussing the Bill in Parliament now, given that the Proms start next month; I am sure many hon. Members, myself included, are looking forward to this time-honoured event in the British cultural calendar. However, this motion is only about reviving the Bill, and the provisions of the Royal Albert Hall Bill are not considered contrary to public policy. I would point my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury to our draft ticket tout ban Bill, which was announced in the King’s Speech, which will deal with some practices of selling tickets at an extortionate price.