Animal Welfare (Exports)

Debate between David Heath and Peter Bottomley

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I have just given way to the hon. Gentleman and he cannot really have two bites in the same sentence. We are working on proposals to tackle irresponsible dog ownership and to protect the welfare of animals in slaughterhouses; and we have demanded in Europe better protection for animals being transported for long distances, especially horses and unweaned calves—that comes back to a point to which we will return.

Having set out that broad framework, let me move on to the topic that most of this debate is about: live animal exports. I am going to use phrases that are uncannily similar to those used by the hon. Member for Ogmore in expressing the Government’s position and my personal position. I want to see animals slaughtered as near as possible to their point of production, and I would prefer to see a trade in meat or germ plasm to a trade based on live animals, particularly where journeys may result in livestock travelling very long distances across Europe. There are a number of reasons for that. Quite apart from animal welfare, it helps to support our domestic slaughter industry and is simply more sustainable. We should bear that in mind, too.

Local abattoirs, which are a very important issue, were mentioned, as was the fact that we have lost so many. In opposition under the last Government, I was critical of the fact that we lost so many abattoirs under them. The hon. Member for Ogmore is nodding; he probably remembers me saying that. If he does not, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) probably does.

The lack of abattoirs is becoming a major issue in many areas. I was on the Isle of Wight the other week and the island does not have an abattoir, so any animals that go to slaughter have to cross the Solent. People on the Isle of Wight would like to have an abattoir on the island. They are right to want one and we need to find ways in which we can support a viable alternative to ensure that they have. If we are talking about never moving animals across any waterways, the Isle of Wight will have a problem. Let us bear that in mind when we talk about what constitutes the export of live animals.

Again, I do not want merely to echo the hon. Member for Ogmore—that is a very bad practice—but I must say, in similar terms to those that he used, that the trade in live animals is lawful and we must remember that. There were a number of legal challenges by local and port authorities in the early to mid-1990s, but none was successful. In fact, some of those authorities have had to pay significant damages to exporters as a direct result of their failed attempt to block the trade by direct or indirect means. That is why, although I understand the sentiment expressed, I have a little difficulty dealing with writing campaigns that use postcards, e-mails and the rest of it to tell me that I must ban the live trade when I have no power to do so. It would fundamentally change the basis of free trade within the European Union area if we were to do so. We might want to do that and consensus might form in the EU at some stage, but it is not there at the moment and it is therefore not within my power to make that change.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am sorry that I have not been in the Chamber for the whole debate, but I have been here for quite some time and speak as someone who was a Minister for agriculture for a time 22 years ago. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we cannot say that something is illegal when it is not, but I think the test is the degree of reasonableness or unreasonableness that should bring the law in. I think we can agree that unnecessary journeys in bad conditions are undesirable, but we need to draw a line so that we can say when they should become illegal. Clearly, we cannot make them illegal just because they cross a national boundary. Sometimes, journeys are necessary, such as in the cases we have heard about from the Isle of Wight, the western isles, and highland farmers. We need to understand that the public’s understanding and acceptance matter. When circumstances are unacceptable because we care for the welfare of food and farm animals, if the law is not good enough we need to be prepared to change the law.

[Mr Heath]

I think we need to do two things. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I shall discuss the circumstances over recent months that were, let us be clear, totally unacceptable. We certainly need regulation and law that are fit for purpose and satisfy the requirements, but we need to enforce them rigorously. My view is that in areas of animal welfare, there should not be ifs and buts—we simply need rigorous enforcement. People need to understand that.

People need to understand that if they are looking after animals, they have a duty that is set out in law and we will hold them to it. If they fail in that duty, there will be consequences. That is the message I want to express and I think it would be supported by every good stockman, male or female, in the country who understands that the care of the animals in their protection is of paramount importance.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between David Heath and Peter Bottomley

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I did indeed think that the hon. Gentleman intended to make further mischief, and he may have done so, marginally. May I reassure him that there is not the slightest intention of my party standing joint candidates with the Conservative party? We come together as a coalition of principle in this Government but at the next general election—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not keep up with the news if he believes that there are not divergent opinions developing on policies after the next election. We will see what happens.

The clause deals with a simple anomaly that affects the hon. Gentleman’s own party at every election where there are Labour/Co-op candidates and they cannot use a symbol that relates to their joint candidacy. It is not only the Labour party that is affected. Some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), may remember Cynog Dafis, formerly a Member of the House. He was elected on a Plaid Cymru/Green ticket. The problem did not arise then, because at that time we did not have party emblems on the ballot paper, but were he or another candidate to stand on the same basis today, he would not be able to have a joint emblem to denote his candidature. It is a small discrepancy, and the clause amends rule 19 of the parliamentary election rules in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to enable a candidate who is standing on behalf of two or more registered political parties to use a single emblem on the ballot paper.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I do not claim to be expert in this and I can see that the clause allows a candidate to use one emblem of one party. Does it disallow the use of an authorised combined emblem of two parties?

[Mr Heath]

I believe I am right in saying that the clause would allow that if the emblem were registered as the emblem of those two parties in combination. I imagine the Labour and Co-operative party will wish to register an emblem to indicate that their candidates will be taking on that joint sponsorship.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. If his interpretation is not right, perhaps we can be written to and the matter considered before the Bill makes progress in another place. It would be useful if the Government said whether they intend a candidate standing with the agreement of more than one party to be able to use a symbol combining elements of the symbols of both parties. If the intention is to disallow that, it would be interesting to hear that. If the intention is to allow it, it would be nice to know that explicitly.

[Mr Heath]

For the avoidance of any doubt, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. The emblem would have to be registered by one of the political parties, but it could be an emblem that indicates the cross-sponsorship.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It may be that that would have to allow for the possibility that a party would register two emblems, one by themselves and one with another party. It does seem to be a slightly more complicated issue than we understand at the moment.

[Mr Heath]

It does seem to be a much more complicated issue than I expected when I stood at the Dispatch Box. My understanding is that under the present arrangements parties can register more than one emblem, for example to demonstrate regional or national differences within a single party, so I do not think that that is a problem. That is my understanding, unless I have completely misunderstood the intention behind this. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that point.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to other elections. This applies only to parliamentary elections because we have already made the necessary changes in secondary legislation to address the issue for most other elections that are affected by the change. We cannot do that for UK parliamentary elections without primary legislation, and that is why it is in the Bill today. It will complete the process, so that we no longer have that discrepancy. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



New Clause 1

Personation

‘In section 60 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Personation) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State shall introduce regulations by statutory instrument to facilitate actions by electoral registration officers, their agents and others, including candidates and their agents in elections, to—

(a) prevent, and

(b) detect personation.”.’. —(John Hemming.)

This Clause would enable action to be taken to prevent or deter personation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I respect the hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to develop a slightly different approach. I will do so very briefly.

First, there should be a one in 100 check on postal vote applications. Secondly, there should be a retrospective check on whether postal votes have been used by the elector themselves. Thirdly, there should be a place where people who think that postal votes have been stolen—literally and physically stolen—can report it, and there should be a way to check those reports. Lastly, the police should be asked what it is they lack that would make it possible for them to investigate complaints and suggestions of impropriety properly. I think that that approach would solve the problem.

[Mr Heath]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this Committee, Ms Clark.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has raised an important point about impersonation and other electoral fraud offences. He was very fair in what he said at the beginning of his remarks. First, he said that this is a probing new clause. I therefore do not intend to dissect the wording of his new clauses to any great extent, because I do not think that he intends to press for a Division. Secondly, he was fair in saying that electoral malpractice is not confined to one party. We all need to be aware of it, to be on our guard against it and to take all appropriate steps to ensure that it does not happen, either in our own parties or in the wider electoral process. He, of course, recounts what he has experienced in Birmingham, and it is perfectly proper for other hon. Members to raise issues that reflect the experience in their areas.

We have traditionally been extraordinarily complacent in this country about our electoral administration arrangements. We have assumed that most people play the game according to the rules, and most people do. However, in making that big assumption, we have sometimes omitted to take elementary steps that would be considered perfectly normal in other jurisdictions to prevent the possibility of those who do not want to play by the rules doing things that we would not consider to be normal.

As I indicated earlier in the passage of the Bill, I have considerable experience of monitoring elections overseas as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Indeed, I have led international monitoring missions in a number of countries. The things that I have seen done in other countries, which we say in international forums are the things that we would like to see, are completely omitted in our country. Some of the things to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley referred, such as the use of transparent boxes to avoid ballot stuffing, are normal in most new democracies. It is normal in most new democracies for representatives of parties to act as observers in polling stations as a trust-building measure. Indeed, it is common in a lot of countries to have a method of indicating that somebody has voted, such as the use of dye. Those are not measures that we should or need to take in this country, but it is important that we do not have a complacent view of fraud, or an old-fashioned view that such things cannot happen in the United Kingdom—they can, and we should be on our guard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I mentioned in the debate on an earlier group of amendments the extraordinarily valuable work that has been done between the Electoral Commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers. That work, which has involved comparing notes and finding best practice, has brought it home to local police officers that electoral fraud is their responsibility, and that attempting to undermine our democratic process by doing things incorrectly is a serious offence and should be taken seriously.

That has not always been the case—Governments, too, have not always taken electoral fraud seriously. I give credit to the previous Government because they started to take it seriously latterly in legislation, but I emphasise on behalf of this Government that we take electoral fraud very seriously indeed and regard the integrity of the ballot as a top priority. That is precisely why we introduced the Bill and measures such as individual elector registration.

We need returning officers and their staff to work closely with local police forces, candidates and agents to raise awareness of voting offences and the proper procedure for reporting concerns. The joint guidance from ACPO and the Electoral Commission in advance of a poll, for which the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) asked, will give examples of best practice on detecting malpractice. It will be enormously valuable. For example, polling station staff will be issued with guidance notes routinely on how to identify individuals they suspect of committing a voting offence, and on what to do if they are not satisfied that a person is a genuine or eligible voter.

Under existing law and under the Bill, polling station staff can ask voters certain prescribed questions before issuing them with a ballot paper, including asking whether they are the person named on the register under the relevant entry and whether they have already voted in that election. Staff can withhold a ballot paper from those attempting to vote more than once. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley that the process of a tendered ballot is not well understood, but it ought to be in such circumstances. Staff must also mark each voter’s name on the register before they are issued with a ballot paper to prevent people from voting several times.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Marking prevents the person who should be casting the vote from doing so, because someone will have used their name before.

[Mr Heath]

That is precisely the point about the tendered vote. The person who subsequently arrives at the polling station can vote—whether a personation has occurred is determined at a later stage.

Similarly, measures are already in place to prevent postal voting fraud. All postal voters must supply postal vote identifiers—a signature and a date of birth—both when they apply for and when they return a postal vote. Anyone seeking to abuse a postal vote that is addressed to someone who has moved out of a property would have to replicate a signature and know the date of birth to pass the rigorous checking system. In addition, the Government will introduce secondary legislation to make it mandatory—this deals with an issue raised by the hon. Member for Worthing West—for returning officers to check 100% of postal vote identifiers on return postal vote statements. Taken together, those measures will make it very difficult for a third person to intercept a postal ballot and commit personation.

The evidence is that the number of instances of personation remains relatively low. That is not complacent—in certain areas under certain circumstances, there is a higher number, but overall the rate is relatively low. The encouraging thing is that the joint report by the Electoral Commission and ACPO shows a reduction in the proportion of reported cases following the 2011 referendum compared with previous ballots. The existing safeguards in legislation and practice perhaps are beginning to have an effect, but we are introducing further safeguards in the Bill.

As I said, I shall not dissect the new clauses, but the concern we have with the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley is that they are vague—unidentified measures could be taken by delegated powers, of which hon. Members have traditionally taken a dim view because they allow Ministers a freer rein to introduce new measures. If we were to take additional powers to deal with such problems, we would want to do so in primary legislation.

Early-day Motions

Debate between David Heath and Peter Bottomley

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I will return to that point in a moment. Yes, the Backbench Business Committee considers any matter brought forward by Back-Bench Members, but it has shown its willingness to enable EDMs to be debated. It demonstrated that by providing time for a debate, on 10 March last year, on an EDM concerning the work of UN Women.

Drawing on a Procedure Committee recommendation in 2007 that was endorsed by the House on 25 October 2007, the Committee also enabled an EDM to be tagged as “relevant” to the debate on parliamentary reform, which took place in Westminster Hall just over a year ago, on 3 February 2011. The Committee can also draw on EDMs to provide evidence of the breadth of support among Members for a subject of debate, as it did in the case of the Fish Fight campaign. Were they to be named something else, their effectiveness at introducing subjects, with the support of Members, for the Committee to consider would not be reduced. It is a fact that EDMs have that function.

Although the Committee has fundamentally changed how business in the House is determined—and changed it for the better, in my view—some myths about EDMs linger on, although the hon. Member for Weaver Vale exploded some of them this evening. We are concerned about the propensity of pressure groups effectively to mislead our constituents into thinking that EDMs are something that they are not—an avenue to a procedure in the House—and to suggest that there is a magical number of signatories on an EDM that will cause it to be debated, which of course there is not.

That notion has persisted over the years, despite the absence of evidence to support it. It might be expedient for some pressure groups and lobbyists to perpetuate that myth and to raise false expectations among our constituents. We have all received e-mails stating that such-and-such an EDM is of critical importance and that we must sign them—I, as a Minister, cannot sign them any more, so I have a ready excuse, but I know that other Members sometimes feel pressurised by that sort of campaign.

The new House, selected in 2010, seems to have many more Members sceptical about the value of adding their names to EDMs. The average number of new signatories per week fell from 3,704 in the last financial year of the previous Parliament, to 1,965 in the first financial year of this Parliament. More Members have decided to adopt a policy of not signing early-day motions—I think we heard an example earlier. Indeed, I understand that Members can record that view with the Table Office. Above all, the Backbench Business Committee has demonstrated through its work that the link between early-day motions and debates is not a crude numbers game. For those reasons, I hope that all Members agree that the myth of a magical number of signatories should be confined to the dustbin, where it belongs.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale identified a further problem—others have amplified it—in the triviality of some early-day motions. He referred to what he saw as some examples of early-day motions that devalued the currency. I certainly do not want to comment on any individual cases, but I agree with him that it seems highly questionable whether some early-day motions are appropriate, and that Members should pause for thought about the reputational and cost implications of their actions.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Might not the same thing have applied to William Wilberforce when he first had the rather revolutionary idea of abolishing the slave trade, or Samuel Plimsoll and his idea of painting a white line on the side of ships so that they would not be overladen with sailors who would otherwise go down to Davy Jones’s locker?

[Mr Heath]

If I may gently say so, I think there is a difference of kind between those causes, which I think most people would consider to be serious causes, and the fortunes of the local football club on a Saturday afternoon. I think there is a difference, perhaps, in scale of import between those topics.