Horsemeat (Supermarket Products)

Debate between Fiona Mactaggart and David Heath

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Producer-led and processor-led quality assurance schemes are a valuable tool for consumers, enabling them to know exactly the provenance of what they are eating, and the welfare conditions under which the animals, in the case of meat, have been kept. That is to be recommended to the industry and the consumer.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

This scandal illustrates the failure of one of our largest companies to ensure that its supply chain reflects the values it purports to uphold. I sponsored the Transparency in UK Company Supply Chains (Eradication of Slavery) Bill as a ten-minute rule Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) is the promoter of its Second Reading on Friday. It provides a tool for the companies themselves to ensure that their supply chains reflect the values they purport to uphold and do not include such criminal practices. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Whips Office to ensure that the Government do not prevent the Bill going through, so that we can change this situation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Fiona Mactaggart and David Heath

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I think it would be entirely improper for me to answer on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, but let me make it clear that we have provided a way for the public to engage with Parliament. What the petitioners want, presumably, is for the topic they have raised either to be dealt with effectively by the Government or to be debated in due course by the House when the opportunity arises. The idea that when a petition reached the threshold there would be an immediate debate is not the purpose of the site, but it does mean that proper consideration is given to whether the matter has been debated or will be debated in another form or whether the Government have changed their policy to meet the concerns, which may be the case in relation to at least one of the petitions that has already reached the required threshold.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

But does the Minister agree with the Daily Mail, which says that this amounts to an e-petition con? The Government said to the public, “If 100,000 of you sign one of these petitions, there’ll be a debate.” What discussion did the Government have with the Backbench Business Committee about how the time for those debates would be allocated?

[Mr Heath]

May I caution the hon. Lady, first against reading the Daily Mail, and secondly against agreeing with what it says? The Government have never said that when a petition reaches the threshold it will have an automatic right of debate. It will be considered with a view to seeing whether the matter raised has already been debated or is already going to be debated in a different context or whether the request has already been met by the Government. If there is then a need to debate something that the public have registered as an interest, the Backbench Business Committee will respond to that request. That seems to me an entirely proper way of doing things and it is a huge improvement on the old No. 10 petition site on which the petitions went precisely nowhere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Fiona Mactaggart and David Heath

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I know that the business managers sometimes give advice on voting, and that they sometimes express a degree of eagerness that hon. Members might attend on a particular day and vote in a particular way. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has never felt desperately constrained by that, although I am impressed that on no fewer than eight out of 10 occasions during this Parliament, he has supported the Government, which may come as some surprise to those on the Treasury Bench. He obviously takes very seriously the advice he receives, but I am not sure that placing such matters on the Order Paper adds value to it.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

5. How many questions for oral answer printed in the Questions Book Departments have subsequently transferred during the present Session of Parliament.

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

Information extracted from the House’s Parliamentary Information Management Services database indicates that a total of 46 oral questions have been transferred this Session.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House look at a particular oral question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) for answer by the Minister for Women and Equality? He asked about the equality impact of pensions policy and how men and women are treated differently in that respect. The question was selected for oral answer and was transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury. However, the equalities impact element of the question has, as far as I can see, never been answered.

[Mr Heath]

I am obviously concerned if the hon. Lady feels that a question has not been answered. It is for Ministers and Departments to determine which Department has responsibility for a particular question. As she knows, the transfer of questions has happened for a very long time. It is important that when a question is transferred, it is done promptly—an oral question should be transferred within 24 hours of it appearing in the notice paper, not of the day for answer, and it is a discourtesy to the House and hon. Members if they are not notified of that transfer. However, if she would like to give me further details of a question that she feels has simply not been answered, I will happily look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Fiona Mactaggart and David Heath

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I agree entirely. If we can make sure that plenty of days are allocated for, for instance, the Committee and Report stages of Bills, which the Government have been committed to doing, and if we can ensure that the House uses that time sensibly and adopts a rational approach to the important things that need to be debated at length and those that may not need to be debated at quite such length, the House can start to look like a grown-up legislature able to do its job effectively.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

But is it not the case that even in the timetable that has been announced, we still have an extremely long summer recess in which Ministers will not be held to account in the House? Would it not be sensible if, instead of running days on unpredictably until late at night, we used more days during the summer to hold the Government to account, rather than holding them to account between 10 o’clock and 11 o’clock at night?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady has expressed that view before. I do not entirely agree that we have an overlong summer recess, with the September sittings. That makes a huge difference to the way in which the House does its business. I also do not entirely agree that sittings are unpredictable. Where we have provided additional time, it has been in response to expected statements, to make sure that the House has protected time to do its business. We are constantly responding to the hon. Lady’s Front-Bench team demanding more time and longer sittings to scrutinise Bills effectively. We must get the right balance. We will look at the matter in more detail. The Procedure Committee has said that it will look at the calendar in the round, and she may want to give evidence to the Committee on her views.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Fiona Mactaggart and David Heath

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) for moving the amendment. I give my best wishes—and, I am sure, those of the whole Committee—to the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who would normally have been here to speak about its proposals.

We have had a short and helpful debate. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has told us about the derivation of the word “gerrymander” again; hopefully, we will hear that each day this Committee sits. It worries me when the hon. Gentleman talks about due process: the more he talks about it—and it is not the issue before us at this stage—the more I think he does not know what it means. We will come back to that later.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) assumed a position on the part of the Government without knowing what it was. I suggest to her that that is not a sensible way to go forward; that is meant to be helpful. We are grateful to her.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) got the tone exactly right. There is an issue, and we understand that. The amendment would allow the Order in Council laid before Parliament to give effect to the boundary commissions’ recommendations with modifications only if the commissions were content with the changes made. As we have heard, the existing legislation does not have a restriction on modification such as that proposed by the amendment. The Bill simply preserves that power.

There is no record of that power ever having been used. There was an instance in which a Government urged Parliament to reject boundary commission proposals in toto rather than modify them, and some would suggest that that in itself was an abuse, but a Government have never urged Parliament to modify such proposals, so there is no history on the issue. However, I entirely understand the desire expressed by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to ensure the independence of the boundary commissions and see that their work is not modified for partisan reasons by any Government.

I say to the hon. Member for Epping Forest that the Government would like to consider the matter in more detail. There might be a situation in which, for the timely implementation of the boundary commission’s recommendations, any unintended errors in the reports would need to be corrected in the Order in Council. We would want to consider carefully how any such restriction on the power to include modifications in the Order in Council might work.

There may be a technical defect in what the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has brought forward. That is not a criticism of its work. The amendment appears to require all four boundary commissions to agree to any modification, rather than the relevant commission or commissions for the part or parts of the United Kingdom where the modification is being made. We may have to look at how the amendment is cast.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I did not jump into the trap that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) jumped into. However, I want to intervene to say that I would feel quite differently if the hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking that if he found some technical concern about the wording, he would bring back an amendment that made sure that no changes could be made to boundaries by a Minister without the consent of the boundary commission for the relevant region.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady has been in government so she knows the constraints within which we work.

I am very sympathetic to the views expressed in the amendment, and we will have to look at it further. That is not an attempt to fob off the hon. Member for Epping Forest or the Select Committee. It raises an important issue. I do not want there to be any circumstances in which a Government can apply a partisan consideration to a modification for a boundary commission response. I give a clear undertaking that the Government will consider the matter in detail and come back with a response in due course. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment on the basis that we will look at the matter further and that we are grateful to the Committee for having brought it to our attention.

Dissolution of Parliament

Debate between Fiona Mactaggart and David Heath

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by not only acknowledging the number of hon. Members who are present for the Adjournment, which signifies that it is a matter of interest, but congratulating the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing the debate. The irony is not lost on me that the first Adjournment debate of the Parliament is about how we might remove the Parliament. However, it is well timed.

I have two further reasons for thanking the hon. Gentleman. The first is personal. Without wishing to sound too much like Mr. Pooter, I want to record the fact that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to be the first Liberal Minister to speak from the Dispatch Box since Sir Archibald Sinclair on 16 May 1945. Secondly, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his approach to the debate. He has asked many serious questions about the policy and it is right that we have the opportunity to discuss them and that Parliament should have its say.

I want to make it clear on behalf of the Government that the principles of the policy are firmly settled—that is our view—but that some of the detail is still to be fully worked through. Although I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions faithfully, I cannot answer some simply because they have not yet been decided. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that, although this proposition comes from the Government, it is for Parliament to decide. That is the right way to do things: we must not force things through Parliament, but debate them and hear what people have to say.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right that it is for Parliament to decide, but the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made it clear that, when a constitutional matter of this importance is proposed, there is usually a process of pre-legislative scrutiny and extended reflection. Is the hon. Gentleman going to provide the House with a description of how that process will be conducted for this major constitutional change?

[Mr Heath]

First of all, the experience of those of us who have been in the House for the last 13 years is that that is not how constitutional matters have been dealt with. However, I assure the hon. Lady that there will be a full process. The House has a very early opportunity this evening to debate the proposition, but we will have at least two further opportunities to look at it in detail. The first will come when we debate the motion that will be put forward. That is a serious matter, but the second opportunity will arise when we consider the constitutional legislation, and I give the assurance that that constitutional Bill will be dealt with on the Floor of the House. Unlike what happened under the previous Administration, it will not be guillotined. People will be able to have their say on the legislation, and we will have the opportunity to hear them and to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

No. I am being very generous, but this is not the hon. Lady’s Adjournment debate and I want to hear more from others.

I repeat what the Prime Minister has said already, which has been quoted. He has said that the country wants strong and stable government, and we are determined to deliver that stability with a lasting coalition. A fixed-term Parliament is part of that process, and I shall quote what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said in his speech of 19 May:

“This is a new right for Parliament, additional to the existing powers of no confidence. We are not taking away Parliament's right to throw out government. We are taking away government's right to throw out Parliament.”

It seems to me that that is a worthy objective.

There are real problems with—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) can chunter from a sedentary position, but I am going to continue to set out the problems with the current system. The most obvious is that it gives an unfair advantage to the Prime Minister of the day and the party in power. We have seen it time after time, with Prime Ministers choosing the moment for the Dissolution of Parliament not for the good of the country but for the good of their own party interests. That cannot be the right way to do it—

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

None of this will work if the Prime Minister of the day maintains the power to pick the election date, and that is what is being addressed by the proposal for fixed-term Parliaments.

Much of the debate in the Chamber and outside has been predicated on a misunderstanding—I do not say that it is deliberate—and a confusion between a vote of confidence and a dissolution vote. I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch does not share that confusion—he is very clear—but much of the comment in the press and some of the interventions this evening and earlier today suggest such confusion. The hon. Gentleman postulates the distinction between a strong Parliament and a strong Government. A strong Parliament is able to remove the Government of the day. A strong Government should not be able to remove the Parliament. That is the distinction that we are trying to address.

The Government will still have to resign if they lose the confidence of the House, and that will still be on a simple majority. There is no ambiguity about that. If the Government lose a vote of confidence, they are no longer the Government of the day.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give the House a commitment that this Government will not use their 55% to call an election earlier than five years?

[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.