Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between David Heath and Thomas Docherty

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I have three brief points to make. The first echoes the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about clause 18(1)(b). I do not think it satisfactory in this instance to have something decided by further regulation. This is a sufficiently important part of the procedure to be built directly into the Bill, so I ask the Minister to look at that.

My second point relates to clause 18(3)(c). If we are to maintain the position that we have a limited number of designated places, it is not satisfactory for people to be allocated to a specific designated place. If there are only four places in my constituency where people can go to sign this petition, people should not be told which one is the most convenient because it might be the wrong choice given where people work or whatever. I would prefer clause 18(3)(c) to disappear.

Thirdly, on clause 19, the Minister has proposed three explanatory amendments, but I have to ask why on earth the Speaker should be able to appoint a person to perform his functions. We have a system here whereby we elect four special Members: the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means and the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. If the Speaker is not able to carry out his functions, those responsibilities will fall naturally to the Chairman of Ways and Means and so on down the chain of command, as it were, in the Speaker’s Office. It is not appropriate for the Speaker to magic somebody else out of thin air to perform his duties when that person is not supported by the election of this House. This is a throwback to the old system whereby a Speaker was elected and everybody else was appointed by the Speaker. That is not appropriate. I ask the Minister to rewrite clause 19 to make it quite clear that in the absence of the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers will take on this responsibility.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I have just three or four brief points and one substantive one. Let me begin with the substantive one.

As the Minister knows, clause 18 is the one about which Opposition Members have the most trepidation—and not just because of experiences in Scotland, but because of the recall petitions in the United States and elsewhere, and indeed because of the events that occurred in Oldham, East and Saddleworth in 2010 and the subsequent conviction in the elections court. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has pressed diligently on this matter —today, in Committee last week and, if my memory serves me correctly, on Second Reading, too. Labour Members have some genuine concerns about the material that might be issued during the recall petition campaign. It does not appear to us to be absolutely clear at this stage that both accredited and unaccredited campaigners are required to abide by PPERA. The Minister’s stock reply throughout the evening has been, “We will cover this by means of regulation.” We seek a specific guarantee that the Government intend to ensure that all campaigners are covered by the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between David Heath and Thomas Docherty

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

If a Member of Parliament is elected and fails to carry out even the basic duties of a Member of Parliament, that Member of Parliament will, in my subjective view, be guilty of a dereliction of duty. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the number of Irish constituencies represented by Members who have not taken their seats, I think, judging by the electoral history, that a recall procedure would be unlikely to succeed in the long run, simply because people would elect those Members again in the full knowledge that they would not take their seats.

There was a famous Member of Parliament who decided to go and run a pub in Northern Ireland, and did not attend the House of Commons for a very long time. I think that he was eventually persuaded to do so by inducements offered by the then Government, who were rather short of voting power at the time. It may be that his constituents were perfectly content with that position, but I think that it should at least have been argued that he was failing in his duties to the electorate and to the House.

[Thomas Docherty]

I intervene merely to seek more information. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the scale of the costs of the election court is likely to be, and who he expects to meet them?

[Mr Heath]

So many Members have now referred to me as a member of the Privy Council that I think I must have received that status by acclamation. Will someone please tell the Deputy Prime Minister that I obviously behave as though I were a member of that august club, although I am not?

I assure the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife that the arrangements would be identical to those that currently govern election courts and election petitions. However, if someone were clearly initiating vexatious proceedings, as is the case with the present election courts, the court could, if it wished, award costs against the petitioner, and might well do so if it felt that the process was being abused.

I hope that I have answered all the questions that have been asked. I am sorry to have spoken at such great length, Mr Amess, but I have done so mainly in response to interventions, which seems to be par for the course this evening. Let me end by saying that I think that my new clause is objective, and that it fulfils some of what Members on both sides of the Committee want to achieve. I do not claim that the drafting is perfect and cannot be improved, but I hope that the new clause will begin a process of discussion which may reach a conclusion allowing for many of the things that the hon. Member for Richmond Park and some of his supporters want to see achieved without opening the door to what some people equally adamantly do not want to see achieved, which is Members of Parliament being in constant fear of recall on the basis that they have voted to the displeasure of someone very rich in their constituency.

Amendments to Bills (Explanatory Statements)

Debate between David Heath and Thomas Docherty

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in what I am sure will be a short debate. It is perhaps worth clarifying one point for the benefit of the Chair of the Procedure Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve. He referred to those who had signed the motion and I think he perhaps inadvertently suggested that I was the shadow Deputy Leader of the House. I do not have that great privilege; that more august position is held by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). I think that reference was probably an oversight on his behalf.

The debate so far has been fascinating and great passion has been expressed about clarity and resources. Like other colleagues, I have the highest admiration for the House and the House service. I am always in bewildered awe at the great education that our Clerks have had compared with ours. As colleagues who have tabled amendments over the years will know, we are often up against tight timetables. There are archaic rules about when amendments must be tabled by and I think it places an undue burden on the House service to expect that when someone comes in up against the deadline—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) chunters from a sedentary position, as ever, about short deadlines. I cannot help but recall the number of amendments he tabled at the very last minute when he was a Minister, yet he criticises those colleagues who are forced to wait until the very last minute. The notion that we would rule out a perfectly reasonable and well thought-out amendment because it did not have an accompanying explanatory statement is anti-democratic. I am disappointed—I genuinely have great respect for the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Heath]

I am puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he saying that the procedures of the House really do not matter, and that we do not have to be in accordance with them when tabling an amendment, provided that it is a really important amendment, or does he accept the fact that the rules are there to aid debate, and that there is a back-stop provision, as the Chair can always rule something in order, as they do frequently with manuscript amendments?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which leads me nicely to the point that I was going to make about “Erskine May” and the discretion of the Chair. You are a wonderful Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, held in the greatest regard by Members on both sides of the House. The whole House has the highest regard for your observations and the way in which you guide us through difficult debates. “Erskine May” makes it clear that colleagues should not read out speeches, but with great discretion, Mr Deputy Speaker, you allowed the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to read her speech. The House rules would say, following the intervention of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, that that would not be allowed. The notion, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we would expect you to overrule the consensus of the House is probably unfair on you, and the hon. Gentleman has therefore placed too great a burden on your august shoulders. It is wrong to place the Chair in that position.

Horsemeat (Supermarket Products)

Debate between David Heath and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am the Minister of State for agriculture and food.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Mr Jeff Rooker, the chairman of the FSA, is due to stand down in just a few months’ time. Will the Minister ensure that the Department of Health fills the post before June? [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. I understand people’s consternation on this matter, but let us hear Mr Docherty’s question and then the Minister can answer it.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker. Mr Jeff Rooker, who is the chairman of the FSA, is due to stand down in just a few months’ time. Will the Minister of State ensure that the Department of Health fills that important role before June?

[Mr Heath]

He is actually Lord Rooker—and somebody who in the past has filled the position that I currently occupy. He is standing down—that is absolutely right. Of course the post will be filled, because it is an extremely important one, and I have no doubt that the timetable will be consonant with the time of his departure.

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Debate between David Heath and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Thomas Docherty]

We all seem to be on the same side of the argument. Does the Minister agree that if we went for a blanket ban on exports, it would affect not just slaughter and circuses, but the racehorse industry and its involvement with the great French races? Our colleagues in Ireland would also suffer immensely.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We must be careful what we wish for because there are sometimes unforeseen consequences. Coming from an area where we have lots of excellent stables producing first-class racehorses, I have to say that the way racehorses are transported is very different from the way the average sheep is transported. Let us understand that as a basic rule of thumb. However, it is not unreasonable to expect every animal that is transported to be transported in proper and appropriate transport. That is what I am determined to ensure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Yes, he is right to read out that article. The legal requirements that the EU sets down for transport have to be in compliance with it. I believe—I will always look to see whether we are right in this belief—that if the legal requirements laid down in the EU welfare and transport legislation are observed, there is a satisfactory level of protection for the animals being transported. It is a highly regulated trade, subject to multiple levels of official controls. There are significant and specific, but I think justified, requirements on the farming and haulage industries. The EU Commission estimates that on average it costs nearly €12,000 to upgrade a vehicle for long journeys, and there are other significant costs.

There is already a regulatory framework. My task is to make sure that movements within this country comply with those regulations, and that we have the framework to make sure that that is the case each and every time. Where it is not the case, as it would appear may have happened recently—I have to couch what I say in careful terms—we take the appropriate actions.

Those controls include the need for all commercial transporters of animals to be authorised. For long journeys, vehicles must be inspected and approved. Drivers must pass a competency test. For long journeys of more than eight hours between member states, transporters must apply for a journey log providing details of the proposed route from point of departure to point of destination. The timings of the journey must be realistic and in line with the maximum journey times and with the compulsory rest periods laid down in the legislation. Once the journey has been completed, the journey log has to be returned and the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which has been mentioned many times in the debate, checks to make sure that there have been no infringements of the legislation during the course of the completed journey. If there have been infringements, AHVLA will take the appropriate enforcement action.

Somebody—I am afraid I do not remember who—suggested that that was a passive arrangement. It is not. I do not have the power to order my inspectors to inspect French vehicles on French roads or Spanish vehicles on Spanish roads. What I can do is make sure that the UK legislation, which is consistent with European legislation, is enforced rigorously. It must be observed.

One of the first situations I faced after taking up this post was the regrettable events of 12 September at the port of Ramsgate. There were serious consequences, as has been well reported, with 40 animals having to be humanely killed. That led me to look very closely at what could be done to ensure the most rigorous and robust enforcement of the existing legislation in this country, and I am absolutely committed to doing that.

The first thing I did was ask AHVLA to undertake a review of its existing procedures with a view to making the necessary improvements to ensure that, as far as possible—I was asked earlier to give this commitment—the events of 12 September would not be repeated. I have been given the review and accepted its conclusions, the vast majority of which, I am pleased to say, have already been implemented. As I have made plain publicly, and as other Members have said today, essentially I am asking for zero tolerance of lapses in animal welfare standards and rigorous checks on all journeys where there is a risk that we can identify.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked about a fit and proper person test—[Interruption.] She is looking dubious, so obviously I have misrepresented her. I apologise and will let her have the credit anyway, even though it was my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet who raised the matter. I think that it is crucial to our understanding of what is and is not within the powers. There is no test in those precise terms, but article 10 of the regulation sets out the circumstances in which the competent authority can refuse to grant authorisation. Basically, that is when the applicant has a recent record of serious infringements of laws relating to the protection of animals, and that includes proving that the applicant has appropriate facilities.

If, after authorisation, a transporter authorised in the UK commits offences, we can withdraw their authorisation. With regard to transporters authorised in other member states, we can report them to the equivalent competent authority and it should take action. Independently of that, we can prevent a transporter authorised by another competent authority operating here, but we obviously cannot stop them operating elsewhere. Those are important provisions that will come into effect, and I will use them when someone has been convicted of animal welfare infringements, but I make the point that they have to be convicted in a court of law; I cannot do it on the basis of suspicion or anecdotal evidence.

[Thomas Docherty]

I would like to take the Minister back to the report he has received. He will be aware that the NFU, the RSPCA and indeed this House are keen to see the contents of the report, so can he confirm when he will place a copy in the Library and whether he will sent one to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee?

[Mr Heath]

I was just about to come to that. The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. Nothing would have pleased me more than to have immediately published the report, which I was keen should be made public. However, on advice from lawyers in the Department, and having received a specific request from Kent trading standards department, which is pursuing criminal investigations, I reluctantly had to agree to withhold publication until those investigations and possible prosecution actions have been completed. There is a view that release of the document might prejudice those proceedings, which I am simply not prepared to do.

Following Thanet district council’s decision on 29 November unilaterally to lift its temporary ban on the movement of live animal exports out of the port of Ramsgate, and the High Court hearing on Tuesday this week, I can explain the changes made to existing procedures by the AHVLA to help to prevent a recurrence of the events of 12 September. That is why I made a statement yesterday, at the earliest opportunity, so that the House was at least aware of the changes that we have made.

Let me focus on the most important of those changes. The AHVLA has always undertaken a proportion of its inspections at the point of loading based on an assessment of risk. On the basis of the risk that I perceive following the Ramsgate incident, I have asked it to inspect 100% of loadings at the point of loading in order to make sure that the risk at that point is properly assessed. Those inspections are much better, in some ways, than inspections undertaken at the roadside or at points of rest or transfer such as ports. They enable the AHVLA inspectors to undertake over 30 different checks—there is a list—on the welfare of the animals and the facilities on board the vehicle. I want to make it plain that I will maintain that 100% inspection regime for transporters using Ramsgate for as long as I believe that the risk is high. I hope that it is helpful for the House to understand the approach taken.

Earlier we heard reference to inspecting at the port itself. There is a good reason not to offload animals at the port if it can be avoided—doing so distresses the animals. It is better to have a visual inspection on-vehicle following the loading inspection, with veterinary controls at the point of loading. In everything we do, we are trying to make sure that we reduce the stress and improve the welfare of the animals as far as possible.

There is a particular issue at the port of Ramsgate, which, it is fair to say, is not the ideal port for this purpose. I understand exactly why Thanet district council has concerns, as there are other ports that might be better equipped. Having said that, there are problems associated with trying to undertake this very difficult work with live animals when a substantial protest is going on. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse touched on this when he referred to perverse consequences. The protesters are people who care passionately about the welfare of animals, and I ask them to think about whether they are enhancing their welfare by exacerbating the job of the inspectors employed by the Department, who are already doing a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances; I thank them for the care that they take in protecting these animals. People will have to search their consciences in this regard, but I make that plea to them.

I will not go into the other changes to the existing procedures because all those details are in the DEFRA press release and Members can look at them for themselves.

Let me move on to the enforcement of the legislation by the AHVLA. The number of statutory notices served by the AHVLA on transporters using Ramsgate is clearly unacceptably high. Approximately 95% of transporters using Ramsgate are not authorised in Great Britain. All 30 statutory notices served by the AHVLA have been served on transporters who are authorised in other member states and whose vehicles are inspected and approved there or elsewhere. This is a significant issue. It is not about British livestock transporters using vehicles that have been licensed in this country; it is about overseas operators. When we make complaints about conduct, they go back to the authorising authority. In the case of one major operator registered in the Netherlands, we can send reports to the Dutch authorities, and I have been in touch with them. In fact, however, he does not operate in the Netherlands but is merely authorised by the Dutch Government, and that poses problems in terms of enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. The EU Commission itself notes that the level of enforcement varies significantly between member states. Taking regulatory or enforcement action against transporters based abroad presents legal and technical challenges that do not exist in relation to British-based transporters.

I do not like picking fights with those who argue strongly for animal welfare, but it is wrong for some welfare activists to claim that my Department and the AHVLA have been reluctant to take action against transporters when necessary. Since exports of livestock commenced from the port of Ramsgate, the AHVLA has inspected 113 vehicles at the port and supervised the loading of a further 68 vehicles at its premises of departure and three vehicles at control posts—that is 60% of the total number of vehicles presented for export via the ship, Joline—carrying more than 41,000 farm animals out of a total of 120,471 animals exported from Ramsgate.

As a result of those inspections, the AHVLA has taken regulatory action on 41 occasions, serving 30 statutory notices and issuing 11 verbal warnings. Regulatory action by the AHVLA has resulted in four vehicles being prohibited from continuing their journeys. In addition, 10 vehicles approved and certified in another member state have been temporarily suspended from operating in Great Britain until the necessary modifications have been made to them. Three incidents have been referred to a local authority for investigation with a view to possible prosecution.

I repeat and make clear that I will not tolerate the use of sub-standard or faulty vehicles that, in the view of the AHVLA, are not fit for purpose. I am confident that the AHVLA will continue to take robust action against any transporter using poorly equipped or designed vehicles in the future.

I, the hon. Member for Ogmore and others have mentioned the EU Commission’s recent report on the impact of transport legislation. The EU has competence in the area of animal welfare during transport, so we cannot take any unilateral action. That would be contrary to the requirements of Council regulation 1/2005, which has been mentioned many times. This is an important legal point and it is essential that people understand it. Although article 1 of the legislation permits member states to take stricter national measures, they can only apply to transport taking place entirely in their own territory or during sea transport involving trade outside the EU. Stricter national measures do not apply to intra-Community trade, so we are not in a position take unilateral action.

A point that has not been raised much today, but that has been raised outside the Chamber, is lairage at Ramsgate port. It has been claimed that Ramsgate port requires lairage facilities at or close to the port so that the requirements of the EU welfare in transport legislation can be properly enforced. That is not correct on two counts. First, there is no legal requirement for such facilities at a port that operates a roll-on/roll-off ferry service, such as the MV Joline. Those who claim that such facilities are needed at the port appear to have confused the legal requirements for livestock vessels, which animals are physically loaded on and off, with those for roll-on/roll-off vessels that do not require the loading or unloading of animals at a port.

It must be remembered that the EU legislation places a legal responsibility on transporters to minimise the length of the journey. There is also a requirement that the competent authority must not detain animals in transport, unless it is strictly necessary for the welfare of the animals or for reasons of public safety. I have touched on the point that the routine unloading of animals is also wrong from the animal welfare perspective. The EU legislation acknowledges that the unloading of livestock during transport is stressful for the animals, can lead to injury and increases the risk of animal diseases.

As a result, the AHVLA will unload animals only when it is absolutely necessary. Should it need to do so, because other options are not practical in the circumstances or because it is in the best interests of the welfare of the consignment as a whole, two farm-based facilities are available within one hour’s drive of the port. Those facilities have been used by the AHVLA on four occasions in the recent past. We believe that their existence continues to fulfil the legal obligations on DEFRA as the competent authority under the EU welfare and transport legislation.

Some Members have pointed to the fact that the last audit inspection by the food and veterinary office, which is part of the European Commission, engendered exchanges concerning emergency unloading facilities close to the port of Dover. The facilities that we now have were not available when that report was written, so it is not directly relevant.

The issues that the Commission has identified in the enforcement of the EU welfare and transport legislation are crucial to our understanding of this subject. This is where we all share common ground, even those who feel that we should not be exporting animals beyond our shores. The welfare of animals in transit is what we all want to achieve.

Sadly, there are still cases in which severe animal welfare issues persist. The Commission has identified key areas of concern, not within the UK, but across the EU. Those are the transport of unfit animals, the overstocking of vehicles, the transport of animals in vehicles in which the internal height of the compartments is inappropriate, animals not receiving enough water during the journey, and animals being transported for longer than the maximum permitted journey time. Having identified those issues, I am disappointed that the Commission is not taking decisive action to address them. We will push hard for it to do so.

This matter has not been raised when I have attended the Agriculture Council, but it was raised at the Council in June. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), while supporting the Commission’s desire for better enforcement, recorded his desire to see improvements to the legislation, particularly through a review of the journey time rules in the light of more recent scientific evidence. That point has been raised by several Members in this debate. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government could not support the demand for a maximum limit of eight hours on all journeys involving livestock because the scientific evidence does not support such a limit for all major species of livestock.

The committee on agriculture and rural development of the European Parliament appears to support that view in its recent report on the protection of animals during transport. The report recognises, among other things, that such a demand alone has no scientific basis, and considers that animal welfare during transport in some instances depends more on proper vehicle facilities and on the proper handling of animals, as documented in the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority of December 2010, than on the overall length of the journey.

Although we will continue to press the EU Commission to update EU legislation on welfare in transport in line with available scientific evidence, it has decided to take a more strategic approach by tying the rules on transport more closely to requirements in the official food and feed controls legislation—regulation 882/2004—which is currently being re-written. Although it is possible that such a move could help to solve some of the problems with enforcement mentioned by the EU Commission in its report, it is too early to form a judgment on whether that is the most appropriate method of doing so.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister is doing an excellent job of setting out a complex set of arguments. He will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) suggested that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee look at this issue, given its complexity. I know that the Minister has covered a lot of topics, but before he concludes his remarks will he tell the House his observations on the merits of that suggestion, and say what issues could be looked at? Would he welcome an opportunity to give evidence to that Committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that and this is probably an appropriate place to begin drawing my comments to a close. Some of what I have said has been a little complex and dry, but it is important to set out the legal background to some of the issues and I hope that I have answered in main the points raised by hon. Members.

I want to thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate, including the hon. Members for South Thanet, for Bristol East, for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). Although the speech by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) was brief, it was beautifully formed in a pre-Christmas spirit that somehow seemed so appropriate. All those Members have practical experience in this area.

I also thank those Members with a genuine interest, concern and expertise in this area such as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, for whom I have a great deal of respect, as well as the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Southend West (Mr Amess).

[Thomas Docherty]

What about the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)?

[Mr Heath]

I have mentioned the hon. Member for Ogmore many times and covered what he said almost word for word. It is unnecessary for me to say again that he and I agree on this issue to a large extent, and that is as it should be because this matter ought to transcend party labels.

I said that I do not want a formal review on this issue, and I do not see any great attraction for one in the Department at the moment. I will, however, continue to consider whether I should change my view on that. However, I want to review all our animal welfare issues, and live exports is just one among many. Whatever we do, I want to ensure that this country has the highest levels of animal welfare and protection—I hope I have given a flavour of that to the House—and that regulations and laws are enforced rigorously. I want an environment in which people understand that they must carry out that duty if they look after animals, whether a domestic pet, flock of sheep, herd of cows or killer whale. Whatever animal people look after, they must do so properly as it is their responsibility and we will enforce that.

If the Committee wants to undertake a review—it is not for me to tell it whether it should or not—I would be delighted for it to do so and happy to provide any evidence and support it needs to do its work properly. That is a matter for the Committee to decide. The Government welcome this debate and the opportunity to put on the record some of the things we have done and will do to ensure that what happened at Ramsgate on 12 September does not happen again. Wherever possible we must maintain the highest possible levels of animal protection in this country, which is what the House wants us to do.

Dairy Industry

Debate between David Heath and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 13th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Heath]

I think it can make a contribution. All of these things are cumulative, but we should encourage collaboration within our dairy industry because it would make a significant difference.

The biggest single factor, and many Members have talked about this, is the voluntary code of conduct. This is the dairy industry’s first code of practice on contracts and it is a significant step from the beginning of the chain. I congratulate the industry, and I congratulate my predecessor on bringing the industry together. The agreement on the code’s detail is potentially momentous and provides all parties with greater clarity on contractual terms and conditions, particularly on farm-gate prices. I hope the code will start to open trusting relationships between the parties, because they need each other. We cannot have war within a mutually dependent industry.

I have been asked many times what happens if the code does not work. That is the wrong question; I want to ask what happens when the code does work, because I am strongly optimistic that this is the best way forward for securing a sustainable arrangement. Under the EU dairy package, we have the option of legislating on contracts. I make it clear that I will seriously consider making contracts compulsory if the code fails to deliver the necessary changes. I have already announced that we will be consulting so that, if such changes are necessary, we can make swift progress. Having said that, it is vital that the industry gives the code its full support and the time needed to take effect.

I confirm that additional funds are being made available to dairy farmers. We are opening the skills and knowledge transfer framework specifically to provide workshop events for dairy farmers from late autumn this year. That should help dairy farmers identify and access emerging market opportunities such as exports; strengthen their position in the supply chain through more effective co-operation and collaboration; develop new products and add value; and establish benchmarking.

The £5 million rural economy grant scheme for high-quality projects in the dairy industry should continue that focus and add, in the new year, the development of a capital investment programme to target infrastructure projects. That is a significant advance in Government support to the industry, which should reap dividends.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Heath]

I will, but this is possibly the last time.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to the Minister. Will he clarify whether the two funds will be open only to English farmers or will all four nations be able to benefit?

[Mr Heath]

I am responsible only for farming in England. However, I have already contacted the analogous post holders in the devolved Administrations. I am keen to work with them to establish, as far as possible, common practice across the nations of the United Kingdom to ensure we do the best for our farmers.

I will continue the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire in the dairy supply chain forum, which is a crucial element in keeping a secure domestic market as a strong base from which to innovate, explore and expand the horizons. There are opportunities for replacing imported goods with British dairy products. I am glad that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) has done such work in his constituency.

There are clear openings for sending out British dairy products for the world to enjoy. I have already started that process. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are committed to opening those markets, which I hope will expand the interests and reach of the British dairy industry to all parts of the world, including emerging markets.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between David Heath and Thomas Docherty

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

They were certainly not here for the tuition fees debate, and they were certainly not here to support the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport either, when that issue was discussed just a few weeks ago.

The hard reality is that this is a bad Bill. However, I intend to vote for it on Second Reading this evening, because I believe that the situation can be salvaged. There are some measures that I hope the very reasonable Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) will take back to his boss, the Deputy Prime Minister. One, for example, concerns those who may stand for election. The Government have said, quite reasonably, that no one can serve as a Member of Parliament and stand for the senate, or whatever it will be called—

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

The House of Lords.

[Thomas Docherty]

Sorry, the House of Lords. However, there is no such provision to stop Members of the senate/House of Lords standing for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly or, indeed, a local authority, or vice versa. That will lead, inevitably, to examples of what we have already seen in Scotland, where list MSPs have perched on the shoulders of constituency MSPs, cherry-picking casework and local issues. That will inevitably lead to a challenge to the authority of MSPs, Assembly Members and local authorities. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and make the appropriate changes when we reach the Committee stage, hopefully in the autumn.

The other thing that has been raised which genuinely needs to be addressed is the issue of Church of England bishops. I do not believe that the Church of England should sit in the House of Lords or the senate.

Traveller Sites (Dorset)

Debate between David Heath and Thomas Docherty

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

How many councillors will that £50,000 provide training for?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

Lots.

Business of the House

Debate between David Heath and Thomas Docherty

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

I am always tempted to see the worst in this Government, but on this occasion I think it is probably a genuine oversight. They did not think things through and realise that, if the Procedure Committee simply had an informal session on this issue, it would not be able to share the wisdom of its thoughts. The Deputy Leader of the House shakes his head; perhaps there was some Machiavellian motive that he wishes to outline to the Committee. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, but apparently it was a deliberate attempt not to have to reveal something.

[Mr Heath]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the procedures of, and publication of documents by, Select Committees are matters for them, not for Government. It would quite improper for the Government even to begin to suggest how a Select Committee should do its business.

[Thomas Docherty]

I can assure the Deputy Leader of the House that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee would not respond favourably to such a suggestion, such is his independence of thought. However, why have the Government made it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) that they do not believe it appropriate to pause slightly, so that the Committee can carry out a public, transparent and short inquiry in the new year? Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House’s diary is so busy in the new year that he cannot do that.

The Government seem to be assuming that we will prorogue in the spring, and I look to the Treasury Bench for some clarity on that. My understanding is that all their Bills are currently jammed up in the House of Lords and there is absolutely no sign of their making any substantive progress on clearing the backlog. That is why, with the greatest of respect, we are having a series of Opposition debates and one-line Whips—because the Government have no business in the House of Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Heath and Thomas Docherty

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The Committee itself made it clear in its first special report that in determining what business should be taken, it would consider

“public petitions recently submitted to the House and petitions published on the Downing Street website—until such time as a system for electronic petitions to the House is implemented”.

We very much welcome the Committee’s continued interest in e-petitions as a source of debate, and we will work with it and with the Procedure Committee in making sure that we have a proper procedure for linking petitions to Parliament.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am very surprised that the Deputy Leader of the House has not followed the Scottish Parliament system for public petitions, given that that has been widely praised both by his predecessor and by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will he briefly outline why there is such a divergence between the 10-year-plus Scottish Parliament system and this system?

[Mr Heath]

I do not think that there is a huge divergence. We looked at the Scottish system and at whether it was applicable. The Procedure Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has also looked at the issue. We have the Directgov site in place, and we are keen for people to be able to put petitions before the House at the earliest opportunity—and this provides the earliest opportunity. As I said, I hope we can get it up and running before the summer. If the Procedure Committee has further views on how the system could be changed in the future, we would certainly be open to its suggestions.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between David Heath and Thomas Docherty

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman highlights a crucial element, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle mentioned earlier—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that was an Adjournment debate and was not even a formal resolution. That shows exactly the problem with the Bill as it is worded. It accepts the principle that there is no requirement for a formal vote of no confidence, but it does not accept those nuances that are part of the argument that, even if a Government win but do not meet a threshold that they have set beforehand, they have in effect fallen.

I can think of another example from our devolved Administrations. It was clear in 2001 that the then First Minister of Scotland, Henry McLeish, had lost the confidence of the Scottish Parliament and of his party. On the morning of the no-confidence debate he resigned as First Minister. That did not lead to the proroguing of the Scottish Parliament. It was an unprecedented event in the short history of the Scottish Parliament, but it survived. I hope that the Minister will, even at this late stage, take on board the fact that, as far as Oppositions ever are, we are seeking to be helpful to the Government, and certainly to the House, by providing some technical amendments to tidy up the Bill.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) referred to France and the United States. I was not aware that he was such a Francophile, but perhaps that is the result of the new coalition spirit. My understanding—I am happy to be corrected—is that the French President has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister summarily, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is not advocating that we adopt the same position in this country.

As the Minister knows, I am something of a bore on the subject of the United States’ constitution. When the founding fathers of the United States were considering the peculiarities of their arrangements in the constitutional convention, one thing they desperately tried to avoid was over-lengthy terms of office. That is why they have elections every two years in their states. Votes for Congress, the Senate and the Presidency are staggered. Although I accept that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire is trying gallantly to defend the Minister’s position, I fear that it is not a straightforward example to apply in this case. I have spoken in favour of the amendments, but I am conscious that the Prime Minister will be rushing to the House and that the Minister wishes to reply, so I will end my comments.

[Mr Heath]

I do not think that the House has had as elegant and extensive a debate on Prorogation since the legislation was passed in 1867. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for opening the debate and to the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for their contributions. I must say, however, that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife blotted his escutcheon as a political anorak by being four editions of “Erskine May” off the pace. To quote the 19th edition when we are now up to the 23rd is really beyond the pale.

[Thomas Docherty]

For the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the House and of the Official Report, my point was that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred to the fact that up until the 19th edition of “Erskine May” the word “shame” was not allowed. My point was that we have moved on, and I have the 23rd edition in my hand.

[Mr Heath]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for restoring my faith in his credentials, although he has destroyed those of the hon. Member for Rhondda.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford put his finger on what was wrong with the debate once we had prised him from his views on reasonably priced white wine, because he made the point, which I think was backed up by the hon. Member for Foyle, who mentioned an Urquhart-like Prime Minister, that many of the rather apocalyptic views of what an evil denizen of No. 10 might do seem to be founded on fancy, rather than on experience or expectation. We have been asked repeatedly to assume that every convention that applies has applied and will apply, whether the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, or not. All those conventions would be summarily set aside.

It has been suggested that there would be confidence motions that no Member of the House, not even Mr Speaker, would recognise as confidence motions. It has been suggested that Prime Ministers who lose a vote of confidence might refuse to resign and remain in office despite the fact that they had lost the vote, or that if once they resign they might somehow give posthumous advice from beyond the political grave to Her Majesty to prorogue and therefore frustrate the intentions of the House and of the legislation. It is then suggested that Her Majesty, in a way that has never been the experience of any Member of this House or our predecessors, would be so forgetful of her constitutional duty that she would not ask another leader capable of commanding the confidence of the House to form a Government and end any temporary Prorogation.

I believe that those are fanciful concerns. I accept that they are theoretically possible, but I ask the House to consider whether any of those things have happened. Almost all of them are included in the conventions that cover our political system and our current constitutional arrangements and will persist after the passage of the Bill. I am indebted to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which someone casually looking at our debate might imagine had been critical of the provisions in this part of the Bill, but far from it. It examined the matter in some detail, and the witnesses were unanimous in their view. Paragraph 147 states:

“Professor Bradley agreed that such a possibility, while theoretically possible, ‘would be very unsatisfactory and British politics would have sunk to a new low.’”

Professor Bogdanor was mentioned earlier, and the confidences of the tutorials between him and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) might or might not have been breached, but he suggested that the situation could reasonably

“be left to the discretion of a ‘wise constitutional monarch’”,

which is indeed what we have,

“who would not prorogue at the request of a Prime Minister who no longer had the confidence of the House.”

The Committee, having heard the evidence rather than the conjecture, concluded:

“We agree that the risk of abuse of the power of prorogation is very small. We therefore conclude that Her Majesty’s power to prorogue Parliament should remain.”

So, there was very clear advice from the noble members of that Lords Committee, and I am sure that it will colour their consideration of the matter.

We have heard from lots of people who profess to know what happened in Canada, but, just in case there are lingering concerns about the extraordinary situation of the Prorogation that apparently saved the Canadian Government, I note that the Lords Committee took evidence from an academic who probably knows a little more than any of us in this House about the Canadian political system. Professor Henry Milner, from l’université de Montréal, stated in his evidence:

“The Canadian case was unique because prorogation saved the government, which it normally should not. ... [The] circumstances [were] so unusual that you could not imagine them. I would have to give you each of the steps in the Canadian case, all of which were unlikely and all of which fitted together. Frankly, I would not worry about it.”

That is probably a safe conclusion for this House.

On the proposed changes before us, I shall deal, first, with new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda, and the consequential amendments 2, 3 and 4, which would give the House a new and exclusive power to prorogue Parliament. Most contributors to the debate were clear about this, but we need to make a clear distinction between Dissolution and Prorogation, because they are very different things, and the Government believe it important that the Bill provides the House with the power to decide when there should be a Dissolution of Parliament.

It is legitimate to give the House control over early Dissolution, because that will take place only in circumstances where the Government of the day have lost the confidence of the House and can therefore no longer lead the country effectively, or where a two-thirds majority of elected MPs has passed a motion calling for an early election. Those are matters directly concerned with the choice of Government and the election of Members, and it is right that this elected House should have primacy.

Prorogation, however, is a different matter. Hon. Members will know that it is a mechanism to bring to an end a Session of Parliament. It determines, subject to the carry-over procedure, when Bills must have completed their passage through both Houses so that they become law. That relates to the point that several hon. Members made, whereby, if we prorogue while Bills are still in process, they are lost. Sometimes, an incoming Government will wish that; sometimes, they will not, particularly if they are of a similar political complexion to the previous Administration.

The hon. Gentleman’s new clause places no obligation to consult or agree with the other place on the timing or length of Prorogation, even though it affects that House equally. The new clause would therefore give this House a controlling hand over the conduct of business in the other place by providing us with the power to dictate when the other House must have completed its business. That would be a significant departure from the current situation in the wash-up, and some might view it as an unwelcome extension of this House’s powers.

As I said in earlier debates, through this Bill the Government seek to make only those changes to the constitution necessary to facilitate the principle of fixed-term Parliaments. The proposed new clause seems to fall wide of that intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I have listened attentively to the Minister’s remarks. Notwithstanding his reluctance to support our reasoned amendment, will he outline where he has got to, therefore, in discussions with the devolved Administrations about how the elections will work, and outline when we will see proposed legislation? Clearly, there is a significant knock-on effect for devolved elections.

[Mr Heath]

I would do so, but that would impinge on the following group of amendments, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), will be able to respond to that point during the debate about them. It would be unwise for me to leap ahead, so, although I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point, I hope that he accepts my response.

I shall address other issues that have been raised in relation to the Prime Minister’s existing power to prorogue Parliament, because, as I stressed at the beginning of my response and stress again, many of the arguments are based on the theoretical mischief that, somehow, a Prime Minister might prorogue Parliament for his or her own purposes, without accepting the fact that they can do so equally today. They can do so, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Rhondda, to prevent a vote of confidence that they feel likely to lose. So, with the Bill we are not strengthening the hand of the Prime Minister; far from it. We are taking away one critical element, but Prorogation will remain exactly as it is.

The conventions of this House are sufficiently strong. For instance, there is no obligation in law for the business managers to find time to debate an Opposition motion of no confidence, but the strong convention is that time will always be found for that purpose, because it is a convention that has worked well over the years. I do not believe that there is any reason why it should not work well in the future. I cannot accept that the artificial process that has been described is a real danger.

Let us consider the circumstances. There are two basic scenarios during the 14-day period in the Bill. In the first, political factors mean that a no-confidence motion passes, and there is no obvious alternative Government, so the Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of the House remains in place to fight the election. There would be no need, or indeed point, for the Prime Minister to prorogue the House. The alternative is that the Prime Minister resigns after the no-confidence motion and Her Majesty appoints a new Prime Minister. Even if the new Prime Minister took office and found the House prorogued, he or she would, under the current arrangements, ask the Queen to recall Parliament. Although I acknowledge the principle behind new clause 4 and amendments 2, 3 and 4, I hope that I have demonstrated that it would be unwise and unnecessary to make them.

On amendment 9, clause 3(4) specifically preserves Her Majesty’s power to set the first day for the meeting of a new Parliament by royal proclamation. As it stands, the date of the first meeting of a new Parliament is set by proclamation and is usually agreed with the House authorities and the palace. The date is conventionally set out in the proclamation that dissolves the old Parliament. The Bill retains as much as possible of that approach by providing for the Queen to issue the proclamation summoning the new Parliament once the old Parliament has dissolved, rather than after the new Parliament has been elected. Following the last election, a date was chosen that allowed sufficient time for the large number of new Members to be inducted. It is important that such flexibility is preserved.

The purpose of amendment 9 appears to be to require Her Majesty to set a date for the first meeting of a Parliament that is within 15 working days of the general election. Again, I have a quibble over drafting, because it is not entirely clear whether the intention behind the amendment is that Her Majesty should issue the proclamation within 15 working days, or whether the first meeting of Parliament should take place within 15 working days. The hon. Member for Rhondda made it clear that his intention was the latter, but that is not clear in the drafting of the amendment. Our primary purpose in the Bill has been to establish fixed terms and set out the procedures for initiating an early election. We have made only the necessary consequential changes to the Queen’s powers. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 9.

Amendments 14 and 15, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, suggest that if the House votes for an early Dissolution under clause 2, it should be able to choose the date of the ensuing general election. The Bill provides that if there is to be an early general election, the date will be set by Her Majesty the Queen in a royal proclamation on the advice of the Prime Minister. That is to ensure that an appropriate date can be found, for instance so that the poll can be held on a Thursday, as has become standard practice.

Although amendment 14 provides that the date of an early general election would be set out in the Speaker’s certificate, that would be the case only if the House of Commons had specified such a date in the Dissolution motion. That is a genuine concern with the amendment because a two-thirds majority is required to agree that there should be an early Dissolution. Under the amendment, two thirds of the House would also have to agree to the date of the election. It is quite possible that Members would agree to the one proposition and not the other. Alternative dates and amendments could therefore be tabled. That would muddy the water of what should be a clear-cut process. That is a concern about the operation of the Bill, if it is enacted, which perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not considered.