Responsible Dog Ownership

Debate between David Heath and Michael Connarty

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Heath]

The databases are already in place. They are available; they are being used and will continue. We do not propose to establish new databases. They will be available to the police and local authorities to access. There will be a single portal, which we are working on, so that no one has to worry about whether they use one database or another. Those databases will be used.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

I have very little time to answer the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), because I want to move on to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which is extremely important.

The second key element of our proposals is to address the scourge of dog attacks on people. I will not repeat the statistics but simply say that regular attacks by dogs on people are totally unacceptable. We need to toughen up the law, and we propose to do so. Many hon. Members have asked when we will introduce the changes. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) was kind enough to accept that there are conventions in Government, with which he is familiar, whereby I cannot possibly commit to a particular time for the introduction of legislation. It will not happen this Session, because we are only a couple of months away from its end. Introducing new legislation at this point will simply not happen.

I will be equally clear and say that it is certainly our intention to introduce legislation in the next Session of Parliament—not before the end of this Session, but in the next Session. That is our intention. [Interruption.] A shadow business manager—the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)—is cheering, but she knows the constraints under which I make that statement. I simply say that we intend to do so, because, subject to parliamentary approval, we want the proposals to be in place during the next year. I hope that answers the major question that hon. Members asked.

Other matters were raised about whether the Law Commission ought to deal with the legislation. I do not think that this is a case for the Law Commission; it is not complex law and there are no legal ambiguities. It is of course always better to consolidate legislation, but I am not sure whether it is necessary in this case. Look at what the Home Office is proposing on dog control orders and the antisocial behaviour proposals being introduced. They will provide a very firm vehicle for the control of dogs and the anticipation of such offences, which the Home Affairs Committee has been looking at—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Heath and Michael Connarty

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I understand the argument for amending draft orders. The difficulty is that, if the two Houses of Parliament amend matters differently, we will then need a reconciliation process, and, instead of an order-making process, we will effectively have a small Bill going through the procedures of Parliament. There are some difficulties with the hon. Lady’s proposal, but I will of course pass on her concerns to the Minister for Europe.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

During the final two years of the previous Parliament, the then Opposition railed against the fact that the structure of the European Standing Committees collapsed into basically random Committees. There used to 39 Members on three Committees who debated regularly the issues coming from Europe, and it was promised that they would be reinstated. The level of ignorance about European business in this House has gone through the roof, however, and it is time that the Government put people back on those Committees in order that they learn the business of Europe before they stand up and open their mouths.

[Mr Heath]

I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman’s final observations, but he is right to say that we need to ensure that the House is able to scrutinise European business appropriately and fully. That is why I am sure the Minister for Europe is very much engaged in talking to him and his colleagues to make sure that we get the parliamentary structures right—and as soon as possible.

Members’ Salaries

Debate between David Heath and Michael Connarty

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but I think that the House has been given the opportunity to decide whether it wants that 1% pay increase, and it must make that decision.

[Michael Connarty]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is approaching a response to the point that I made. Has it not come to everyone’s notice recently that there might be a problem with public sector expenditure? It has been parroted in every speech in the House since the election. Why did the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House not introduce something to free the SSRB from the formula in which it was trapped, enabling it to make an independent recommendation on our salaries and on which we would not have to vote? Where has the hon. Gentleman been sleeping?

[Mr Heath]

There are two answers to that. First, I am not a member of the SSRB, so I did not know what recommendation it was going to make. If we tried to adjust the so-called independent formula, would we not be having precisely the same debate about the Executive interfering with the will of the House, which had decided to give to that independent body the right to set our pay? It would be said that we were coming in with a formula of our own. I can just imagine the speeches that would be made, and they would be very similar to the ones that have been made this evening.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster talked about animal intelligence. It occurs to me that if there were a lemmings review body that independently came to the view that a headlong dash into a freezing fjord would be for the best, lemmings ought at least to have an opinion on the matter. What we are providing this evening is an opportunity for Members to consider the consequences before complying with the decision.

In this case, the review body has made it plain that it would not have made the recommendation that it did unless it was constrained to do so. It would have independently come to a view that there should be no increase in our pay this year. I find it difficult to believe that any Member of the House thinks we should be treated differently and significantly better than others working in the public sector.

Business of the House

Debate between David Heath and Michael Connarty

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I, too, yesterday met constituents who either had Huntington’s disease or who were caring for people with Huntington’s disease. It brought home to all Members of the House who had contact with those people how difficult the disease is to manage. It is a degenerative disease with a genetic component that imposes a great deal of stress both on those who contract it and those who care for them. I know that there are clear issues about future research and the sort of support that can be given at the point of diagnosis and the point of management in GP practices and elsewhere in order to help. I understand that an all-party parliamentary group on Huntington’s disease has been established and that is a welcome step forward. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the next two weeks, I am afraid, but he might care to apply for an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate on this important subject.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

May I press the Deputy Leader of the House to get his master, the Leader of the House, to come to the House and give the statement that he promised two weeks ago on progress on setting up the European Scrutiny Committee, and to scotch the rumour that is going about that Ministers intend to vote in the 1922 committee’s election of the Conservative chair of that committee? I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will say that even the gelded Liberals would not stand for the Government’s trying to elect a Back-Bench committee’s chairman.

[Mr Heath]

Happily, I have no responsibility whatsoever for what happens in the 1922 committee and that is no doubt a situation that will continue. The important issue is the setting up of the Select Committees, including the European Scrutiny Committee, and I understand the urgency of that. I was very pleased that the motion was passed by the House last night to make the small amendments to the number of members on Committees. That means that the Committee of Selection can now proceed in good order to make appointments to Committees. We should have all the Committees of the House up and running as soon as possible.

Dissolution of Parliament

Debate between David Heath and Michael Connarty

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

It is a clear commitment on the part of this Government that we wish to maintain this Parliament and the Government over a five-year period. That is our determination, and I have no difficulty in saying that.

I return to what will happen in the event of a vote of no confidence, because it is crucial. There would then be two possible outcomes. If the Government lost a vote of confidence, they would no longer be the Government—under our conventions in this House and in common with other political systems around the country. Then another party or coalition of parties might be able to form a Government from within the existing House of Commons. That is not the most unusual thing in the world, because it happens in many other systems that have a fixed-term Parliament. It also happens within our present system if the Government lose a vote of no confidence and it is apparent to the monarch that there is an alternative Government or coalition in the House.

If no one can form a Government that has the confidence of the House, Parliament will be dissolved. Irrespective of other circumstances, if the Government lose a vote of confidence and there is no prospect of stable government, another election is inevitable.

[Michael Connarty]

My problem is that, in the situation that the hon. Gentleman is describing, he is relying on conventions and an unwritten constitution. He is about to introduce a part of a written constitution for the first time stating that a 55% majority is required to dissolve Parliament. The parallel with Scotland is quite clear. A minority Government in Scotland can lose confidence votes and remain, because they cannot be dissolved if they do not wish to go, unless 66% of Members vote for it. That was discussed over decades and is legislation in the Scotland Act 1998. Unless he is proposing to introduce more written constitutional elements stating what he has just said about convention, his word is worth nothing.

[Mr Heath]

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. This will be legislation, and he will have the opportunity to make the points that he wishes to make when he sees the text of the legislation. He does not have that in front of him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I was in the same Lobby voting against those guillotine motions. That is why it is our clear intention not to apply automatic guillotines or automatic programme motions, because we do not believe that to be in the interests of proper consideration in this House. This is the new politics—the new way that we are going to run this House of Commons.

Returning to where a vote of no confidence has taken place, it is extraordinary to suggest that there would be circumstances in which this House would refuse to vote for a Dissolution when it was clear that a Dissolution and a new general election were the only way forward. However, even given that, we are putting forward the automatic Dissolution proposal, as a safeguard that we will make part of the legislation, if no new Prime Minister can be appointed within a certain number of days. It seems to me that that is appropriate.

I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has said that we cannot make any read-across to the Scottish legislation, but I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with him. One thing in the Scottish legislation is that although a two-thirds majority is required for an early Dissolution, there is a fall-back position, with which he will be familiar, which provides for automatic Dissolution if the First Minister resigns and the successor is not appointed within 28 days. That seems an entirely proper constitutional safeguard, and I am very happy to propose something of that kind for our legislation.

[Michael Connarty]

The hon. Gentleman is correct on the point about resignation, which I did know about, but when a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence—for example, the First Minister in Scotland—he need not resign. That is the point that I am making. Unless the hon. Gentleman puts it in his Bill that after a vote of confidence is lost the Prime Minister must resign, it is worth nothing.

[Mr Heath]

Let me respectfully suggest that that is the situation at the moment. I am quite prepared to argue on the details of the new legislation, but what I am not prepared to do is argue about the present constitutional position, which is that it is unprecedented for a Prime Minister who has lost a vote of no confidence to fail to resign. We must be absolutely clear that creating constitutional difficulties, which are inherent in our present unwritten constitution, is not a sensible way of debating the new position.

Let us deal with the 55% threshold, because I am not so foolish as not to understand that this is the difficulty that many right hon. and hon. Members have. The Prime Minister has set out the Government’s position clearly—it is there in black and white in the coalition document. We believe that 55% is the right threshold, but it is perfectly open to hon. Members to argue that a different threshold is appropriate.