Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I wish to say a little about what the new board members are going to do in terms of getting trained and educated about what we do in this House. Their statutory responsibility is to determine Members’ pay and allowances—I emphasise the word “allowances” because that is the expression in the statute, although that is not how it has been interpreted by the current board and its chairman.

It is surely important that anybody who is looking at terms of pay and conditions should understand a bit about the job of the people whose pay and conditions they are sitting in judgment over. As you may know, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the morning of 22 November this year the current chairman of IPSA, who sat on the board that selected the four candidates whose names are before the House tonight, told the “Today” programme that he knew a lot about what Members of Parliament did in their constituencies, but admitted to ignorance about what they did in this great House of Commons. That is after three years in the position, which he holds for only five years. In other words, after 66% of his time in post, he still admits that he is ignorant. He said that the only thing he knew about what Members of Parliament did was that they attended, as he put it, “a zoo” on a Wednesday. Later that day, I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he would organise a programme of education for Sir Ian Kennedy. He assured me that Sir Ian had always shown a willingness and desire to learn more about the work of the House, and obviously put him in a strong position to be able to show leadership to the new members of the board.

Pursuant to that, I wrote to Sir Ian on the following day, 23 November, setting out in detail everything that I had done in this House on Thursday 22 November, including asking a question about him. That covered the time between about 8.30 am and after 10 o’clock at night, when I returned to my constituency home. In the letter, which I said I was quite prepared to have treated as an open letter, I invited him to come along and shadow me for a day in the House so that I could show him exactly what we do here because he is so ignorant of it. I had assumed that by now, in the knowledge that we were having this debate, which my right hon. Friend flagged up when he responded to my business question, the chairman of IPSA would have responded to me, but he has not yet done so. I therefore wonder whether he really is interested in finding out what we do here. I hope that other members of the board will have a greater appetite for learning about it before they feel able to comment on our pay, allowances and pensions.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On the subject of pay and conditions, and the transparency and probity that IPSA is responsible for upholding in this place, does my hon. Friend deprecate, as I do, the fact that despite a very strong lead from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Government, IPSA set its face against that policy in paying its interim chief executive, through a tax-avoiding personal service company, the sum of £39,000?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to you for challenging the order of the Chair. I said that it was outside the scope of the motion, and it is.

[Mr Chope]

May I invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to address the issue of whether there is going to be an induction programme for the new members of the board? As a modernising House, we have induction programmes for new Members of Parliament and I think that they have been well received. I see that my right hon. Friend is nodding. Although I know that it is strictly outside the scope of the motion to say that the existing chairman should be invited to attend such an induction programme, perhaps he could be invited—even though it is three years late—so that those who sit on the independent board can be informed about our work.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Earlier the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the importance of the word “allowances”. Does he agree that the new board members should address IPSA’s use of the phrase “business costs,” because Members of Parliament are not businesses?

[Mr Chope]

That is correct. Indeed, ironically that point was made to me, unsolicited, by a senior colleague in the Tea Room on Thursday 22 November. I sat down in the Tea Room at 7.15 pm after realising that I had not had any lunch that day, and the first thing that this colleague said to me was the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. I have included that in my letter to Sir Ian.

I do not often do this, but I told the House that I was concerned about the quality of the existing board members when we debated their appointment some three years ago. Indeed, I tabled an amendment proposing that we should exclude one particular member from the board—the former Member of Parliament for Taunton—on the basis that she had only been a Member of this House between 1997 and 2001 and I was sceptical about whether she would be able to contribute fully. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that I was right to be sceptical, but I have to point out that on that occasion the Liberal Democrats used a procedural device to ensure that my amendment was not voted on and the main motion was then passed.

I continue to take an interest in this matter and hope that next time we debate the issues I will be able to report back on how Sir Ian’s day of induction with me went.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Sir Ian may well have been reflecting the public’s perception. They understand much more about what we do as constituency Members of Parliament and, frankly, they value it more. I know from conversations with Sir Ian that that is something that he, as well as we in this House, hopes to remedy. One of the substantial number of criteria in the person and role specification that was agreed between Mr Speaker and Ian Kennedy, which would have been reflected in the panel’s judgments, was a candidate’s understanding and awareness of the role of Members of Parliament.

[Mr Chope]

Is it not correct that in that radio interview, Sir Ian Kennedy had the opportunity to explain to the public who were listening what we do here? He could have told them about his understanding of what Members of Parliament do, but instead he chose to use a cheap jibe, pandering to public prejudice.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand what my hon. Friend says. Sir Ian must speak for himself as this is his responsibility. The shadow Leader of the House and I were just reflecting our own conversations with him. He would have wanted to reflect his desire for the public to know more about what we do here and his belief that IPSA should fully understand the nature of the work that we do. If he did not reflect that in his interview on the “Today” programme, he will no doubt have an opportunity to remedy that in future.

I am grateful to Members for the points that they have made in this debate. I hope, along with other Members, that the members nominated in the motion take forward the important work that IPSA has to do in the years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response, particularly on the arrangements for a debate, provisionally set for Monday 3 December, on the Leveson inquiry. We now have a date for the publication of its report, and she asked further about that. The House will have heard what the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said. As the report will be published in just a few days, it is absolutely right that we should wait and see what Lord Leveson says in it, and very shortly thereafter the House will have an opportunity to express its views.

The hon. Lady asked about the situation in the middle east. The Foreign Secretary made a statement on that, and there were further questions at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary will want to keep the House fully informed. The Prime Minister said yesterday what we made clear last year at the United Nations General Assembly: that it would not be helpful for the question of observer status for the Palestinian people to be brought to a vote. None the less, if that question is brought to a vote, the Foreign Secretary will, of course, want to tell the House about our judgment on it.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the progress of the Justice and Security Bill in another place. I and my colleagues will make it clear during the passage of the Bill in another place how we propose to respond to the progress of the Bill. We will look carefully at the votes and think carefully about them, but there is an important principle, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio and others have made clear: that in cases before civil courts the judge should have access to all the evidence. That is also a principle of justice that it is important to seek to maintain.

I am very tempted to have a debate on police and crime commissioners, not least because it would allow us an opportunity to set out clearly how, under this coalition Government, crime across the country is falling. Police and crime commissioners will be democratically elected and democratically accountable to enable us not only to sustain that reduction in crime, but to translate the priorities of the people directly into the priorities of policing in their areas. I do not understand why Labour Members now want a debate about this. The Labour party did not seem to be able to work out whether it wanted to debate it, deny it, support it, oppose it, say it was the wrong thing to do and then stand candidates for it. A debate would give us the opportunity to debate the position not of the current Deputy Prime Minister, but of the former Deputy Prime Minister.

I was interested in what the hon. Lady said about Mr Winston Roddick as the police and crime commissioner elected in north Wales. As it happened, my wife met him in Menai Bridge during the fair. He came up to her and asked, “Do you know anything about the police and crime commissioner elections?” She said, “As it happens, I do.” Curiously—I have checked with her— Mr Winston Roddick did not disclose any party affiliation whatever. So there we have it.

I share with the House our admiration for many of those who were the recipients of awards from The Spectator last night, but especially so for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, who is an inspiration to all of us.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to debate a motion next week setting up a Committee of MPs who could educate the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority about the work of the House? Did my right hon. Friend hear the admission by that gentleman on this morning’s “Today” programme that although he understood a lot about what MPs do in their constituencies, he was totally ignorant about what they did in the House, other than, as he put it, attend a zoo for one hour every Wednesday? In the light of that amazing demonstration of his ignorance, if he is to continue in his post is it not essential that he gets educated properly?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know from the statement that I made about forthcoming business that my expectation is that in the week after next we will be able to debate the appointment of Members to the board of IPSA—not the chair of the board of IPSA, whose tenure continues. In my conversations with Ian Kennedy he has made it clear to me that one of the things that he regards as most important is that there is a better understanding of the work of Members of Parliament. I will further encourage him in that process.

Business of the House

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on the lack of accountability of NHS foundation trusts? The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals Foundation Trust is proposing to merge with the Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The Office of Fair Trading has given a two-week opportunity for public comment, but the trust has refused to supply me, under the Freedom of Information Act, with the 50-page document purporting to set out the public benefits. Without that document, it is very difficult for a Member of Parliament to comment constructively on the merits or otherwise of such a proposed merger. Is this not an outrage?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that the arrangements reducing the accountability of NHS foundation trusts to this House were established in legislation passed under the last Government, but in the future the NHS competition provisions will be transferred from the OFT to Monitor, which should enhance accountability. He raises an important point, however, about the application of the Freedom of Information Act to NHS foundation trusts, and I will ask my colleagues in the Department of Health to respond to that matter.

Business of the House (11 July)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Listening to the Deputy Leader of the House took me back some 24 years to the time when I was on the Front Bench having to do a similar job—winding up the first day of a two-day debate—although in my case it was on the community charge legislation. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is turning around, because he was a participant in that debate, and was very much against the community charge. I remember how difficult it was to argue from the Front Bench, given the atmosphere in the House. A lot of Government Members, including my right hon. Friend, were against the community charge, as well as Opposition Members of course. I therefore sympathise enormously with what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) has had to do in the last few minutes. He should take the message that I should have taken on that occasion: when he can see that everything is loaded against him, it is better to call it a day now and abandon the Bill rather than persist with it.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the lesson that we all learned at that time was that the Government should sometimes listen carefully to the advice of their close friends?

[Mr Chope]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. His speech today made the case that the Government should think again, withdraw the Bill and make a fresh start.

The business before us relates to our discussions on Wednesday, and I want to make sure that Members who might wish to debate Wednesday’s business on the sitting hours of the House recognise that if they support this motion, they will be limiting the time for discussion to two hours. If they want to do that, that is fine, but I think it is right and proper that Members should have the opportunity to consider whether they wish to limit that debate to two hours.

My other point is that it has been a long-standing tradition and convention in this House that a specific period of time is set aside for the consideration of private business: three hours, between 4 pm and 7 pm on a Wednesday or between 7 pm and 10 pm on a Tuesday. Nowadays, however, the Government almost invariably seek to introduce a motion undermining that principle. The consequence is that Members are left in doubt as to what the order of business will be and, if they are concerned about private business, whether they will have their special three-hour slot allocated to them, or whether it will be interfered with by the business managers. There are some important principles at stake, therefore.

What I am saying is: when it comes to discussing these issues on Wednesday why can we not say that between 4 pm and 7 pm, if it takes that long, we should be able to discuss the private business, as set down under Standing Order No. 20? Why do we need to say that the business of the House starting with the September sittings motion and followed by the debate on VAT on ambulance services should be able to force the private business much later on in the agenda, perhaps until 11 pm or later?

The consequence of that is that some hon. Members will stay behind because they are told that, although it is private business, it is very important and the Government want them to be here. They feel that they have to hang on in there late because the Government have told them to do so. The Government then blame me or somebody else; they say, “The reason you are staying late is that the hon. Member for Christchurch has required that you should stay late by talking this business long.” All I am saying is that we have a three-hour slot on Wednesday, so can we not keep that for private business?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being very unfair to the Government. The suggestion that this Government would try to whip private business is absolutely outrageous; they would not require Members to stay behind.

[Mr Chope]

Of course my hon. Friend is right to say that ultimately it is for hon. Members to decide whether they are willing to be whipped by the Government into supporting or opposing private business and whether we should allow some things in this House—private business—to be decided by Members on an individual basis, using their own judgment. So be it.

I can recall strongly opposing a private Bill that would have resulted in a substantial destruction of the amenities and environment in Southampton. I was grateful that a lot of then Government Members, including the then Home Secretary, supported me in the Lobby against the Bill; he wondered afterwards what he had been voting for, but I explained that it was in a really good cause.

I admit that there are precedents, but why should we want to oppose having a proper discussion of why we should be carrying on with certain private legislation that has been hanging around in this House for not just one or two years, but for two Sessions or more—for two Parliaments or more? I believe that one of the motions we will be debating on Wednesday goes back to 2007, when it was first introduced in the House.

I need elaborate my remarks no further. All I need to say is that, having raised this debate, it is right and proper that the Deputy Leader of the House should try to make a better job of responding to this debate than he did to the previous one.

Backbench Business Committee

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for introducing the debate and the Leader of the House for facilitating it, albeit through gritted teeth. It also gives us an opportunity to congratulate all the Back-Bench Members who have been elected to serve on the Backbench Business Committee this Session. My purpose this evening is certainly not to criticise any of those elections, but to point out that they are elections for one year and that this time next year we will be electing not a Backbench Business Committee, but a House business committee, because the coalition agreement specifically states:

“A House Business Committee, to consider government business, will be established by the third year of the Parliament.”

We are already in the third year of the Parliament, so if a House business committee is not established before the next Queen’s Speech, the coalition agreement will not have been complied with. Given that the powers that be might think it much more convenient to start those new arrangements from the beginning of a new Session, I presume that arrangements will have to be made to ensure that the House business committee can start at the very beginning of the next Session and that we will not have the sort of delay we got this year between the Loyal Address and the Government’s response on what the business of the House would be.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend therefore assume that the formation of the House business committee in due course will automatically mean an end to the Backbench Business Committee? It could be that both could continue.

[Mr Chope]

Perhaps that is possible, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The debate gives the Deputy Leader of the House the opportunity to confirm for the avoidance of doubt, as lawyers would say, that the commitment in the coalition agreement will be complied with, and when he gives that commitment perhaps he would also answer my hon. Friend’s question on whether there will be a House business committee and the Backbench Business Committee or just one covering both important subjects.

It would also be wrong if the Members present tonight did not pay tribute to the work of the Backbench Business Committee in the previous Session, which was a very long Session and the Committee’s inaugural one. Its members were effectively pioneers and I think that they served the interests of fellow Back Benchers with dedication and distinction. I would like to mention three Members in particular: my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Shipley (Philip Davies). They are not on the list of Members to be reappointed to the Committee, and I think that when hon. Members look back on its work over the previous Session they will realise what an enormous contribution those three hon. Members made.

In the previous Session the Backbench Business Committee ensured that Back-Bench debates, to a large extent, reflected the priorities of Back Benchers and our constituents, rather than those of the Government, which I think was a very refreshing change from our previous procedures. Notable highlights included the debates on prisoner voting and on the case for a referendum on our relationship with the European Union. It should be noted that both debates were on substantive motions on which the House was able to express a clear view. I think that the Government certainly found the expression of a view on prisoner voting helpful, although perhaps they did not find the expression of a view by 81 Conservative Back Benchers on an EU referendum quite so helpful. Nevertheless it was an opportunity for the Government to hear what Back Benchers thought on those subjects.

I would urge the new members of the Committee whom we will appoint tonight not to be intimidated by the Whips into always selecting for debate bland subjects that do not have substantive motions with teeth, because if we always did that, we would not be serving the best interests of Back Benchers and our constituents. I urge those Members to ensure that we have some substantive motions.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

One of the best things about the Backbench Business Committee is that it includes votable motions, and Back Benchers should be able to table motions and have them debated and voted on to ensure that if the Government or, indeed, the Opposition of the day are going off kilter the temperature and viewpoint of the House can be taken.

[Mr Chope]

I agree absolutely.

I raise this little subject because, immediately after the election and certainly on the Conservative side, one of those who was successful sent out a circular, saying that he would try to ensure that there were no motions on which we could vote on Thursdays. If the Government and the Whips decide that the only day to be allocated for Back-Bench business is going to be a Thursday, and Backbench Business Committee members throw in the towel early on and say, “We’re not going to have any substantive motions on which we can vote on Thursdays,” we will be in a rather sorry state of affairs, so I hope that those people who are on the Committee, and who may aspire to be on the House business committee in due course, realise that Back Benchers want some substantive motions. That does not mean every time—but quite often.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I should like to defend the idea that votable motions on a Thursday are not in the interests of Back Benchers, because the danger is that the Government will simply impose a one-line Whip and any vote held on a Thursday will be rather meaningless, as people will not attend in sufficient numbers. I believe that my wish to have a votable debate on the renewal of Trident has been shortlisted and is somewhere in the queue for future debate, and I hope that that votable debate, which would not be worth having if it were not votable, will be held on an evening other than a Thursday so that people are present and the temperature within and across parties can be measured accurately.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I am with him all the way on his campaign to have a debate about that all-important issue of renewing our nuclear deterrent.

This coming year offers an opportunity for the Backbench Business Committee to work with the Government more closely on developing what will eventually become the House business committee, and that work must mean looking at opportunities for such debates and at fitting them in throughout the whole week, rather than thinking of them as something to be held on a Thursday. I hope that that is one thing the first-class Chairman of the Committee takes forward during this Session.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend will recall that, when it suited the Government, on the occasion of the debate about whether there should be a referendum on our membership of the European Union, the debate was moved from a Thursday to a Monday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The debate was moved because the Government took the view that they had to get their Ministers and payroll involved in the vote, but I am not sure that that is the right approach for the Government to take. They should be quite prepared to say, “This is the view of Back Benchers, and we, the Government, will listen to the views of Back Benchers.” Back Benchers should vote on a substantive motion, and, if they agree on something that is not Government policy, the Government should not regard it as an issue of confidence in them; they should listen to what has been said. Up to now, one difficulty has been the Government’s interpretation of any motion by Back Benchers in Backbench Business Committee time as a potential attack on their integrity.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the debate and vote on holding a referendum on our membership of the EU, there has been some potential for change in the Government’s position? The Chancellor is talking about a vote on any reshaped relationship with the EU, and even yesterday we had a written ministerial statement entitled, “Post-EU Competitiveness Council”.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such circumstances show that, although some of us may think that the Government do not listen enough, they certainly do sometimes, and we must be grateful for that. Indeed, we know that they have listened on prisoner voting. Then yesterday the Home Secretary came here and said that she wanted us to express a view on an important issue so that we could, in effect, try to influence the interpretation of the judges on article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Although the Government certainly did not enjoy the experience of the vote on a referendum on Europe, might they not, taking a broader view over time, come to reflect on the fact that Parliament as a whole was a definite gainer from that vote and that a lot more interest in, and respect for, Parliament resulted from it?

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that that is absolutely right. We should accept that the Government have done Parliament and Back-Benchers a good turn in facilitating the work of the Backbench Business Committee. Nothing that I have said so far is intended to pour cold water on that radical reform of our procedures in this House.

My final point concerns the problems that are caused when there is a delay in setting up a Committee. Some Members were surprised when on 24 May, at column 1285 of Hansard, the Leader of the House announced that there would a debate on mental health and that the subject was “previously suggested” by the Backbench Business Committee. That debate is scheduled to take place this Thursday. The use of the word “suggested” contrasts strongly with the provisions of Standing Order No. 14(3D), which says that such business shall be “determined” by the Backbench Business Committee. It is a pity that the Leader of the House did not spell out that, notwithstanding that expression of intention, the debate would need to be confirmed by the Committee after it had been formed and was essentially only provisional business if it was to count as Back-Bench rather than Government business. Perhaps the Government will want the Committee to meet them tomorrow to give the green light to Thursday’s business being Back-Bench business—in effect, one of the 27 days allocated for Back-Bench business—rather than Government business on a Government motion.

That shows why some of us are rather sceptical about the Government’s use of words in what they put down on the Order Paper. I, for one, will be looking closely at how they prepare to deliver on their commitment in the coalition agreement to set up the House business committee in the third year—not the third Session—of this Parliament.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Let me once again put on record my tribute to the work already done by the Backbench Business Committee in the first Session, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said. We had some very good debates, including debates on Hillsborough and on wild animals in circuses, the resolution of which issue we still await.

Labour Members are happy with the process undertaken to elect the new Backbench Business Committee. The parliamentary Labour party has run its election to the Committee and is more than happy—in fact, proud—to put forward my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). I am sure that they will be fine members of this new institution as they join its wonderful Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who has shown real leadership in taking the Committee’s work forward.

As for the House business committee, Labour Members await with interest developments on that front. In particular, we will be looking to see whether we get U-turn No. 35, or perhaps No. 36, when we do not see the committee materialise over the next year or two. That would be one of the biggest U-turns of all, as this commitment goes straight back to the coalition agreement.

[Mr Chope]

On what basis can the hon. Lady possibly suggest that the coalition agreement will be breached in that fundamental respect?

[Angela Smith]

Perhaps we will see tomorrow one of the reasons why.

It remains for me to congratulate all those who have been elected. I hope that this Committee will be as successful as the previous one in the forthcoming Session.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I am perfectly happy to take credit on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for implementing what was clearly set out in the Wright Committee report. I thought it was a great shame that the report was not implemented by the previous Government, but it has been and will be by this Government. I commend the Wright Committee’s report to everybody who wants to see the way forward on some of the relevant issues.

[Mr Chope]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Heath]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who seems to misunderstand some elements of the Wright Committee’s report, would do well to revisit it. I will let him intervene and explain what I have got wrong.

[Mr Chope]

Well, I do not think I have long enough to be able to do that in an intervention.

There have been references to a House business committee, to consider Government business, being established by the third year of this Parliament. Is that going to happen?

[Mr Heath]

Again, I commend the Wright Committee report to the hon. Gentleman. He will find that he was simply wrong in some of the points that he made earlier about the Committee’s suggested structure for determining House business.

I move on to the last substantive point that needs to be made. The hon. Gentleman seemed to take exception to the fact that the Government had attempted to facilitate the Backbench Business Committee’s procedures for this week.

Business of the House

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Acting is a proper job, and many Members in the House prove that on a day-to-day basis. I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s concern to the attention of the Home Secretary, who will be at this Dispatch Box on Monday. I pay tribute to the acting profession, which is an important invisible earner of foreign exchange. This country leads the world in providing high-quality actors, and, indeed, some of them have been Members of this House.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on the Government’s perverse and bizarre definition of equality? Why are they saying that same-sex partners should be able to have access to marriage while denying the opportunity for heterosexuals to have access to civil partnerships?

[Sir George Young]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have just published a consultation document with the proposition that access to marriage should be available to same-sex couples. We have already made some changes to civil partnerships; there is now access to services in church. During the course of the consultation on that document, my hon. Friend will be able to develop his argument for extending the opportunities in the way that he has just outlined, but the debate has just been launched by the consultation document and the written ministerial statement published a few moments ago.

Points of Order

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I received no advance notification of the Government’s intentions beyond that which was on offer to, and could be seen by, Members of the House as a whole. The Government did give notice of their intentions on the Order Paper today.

I note, however, the hon. Gentleman’s further inquiry, namely whether I have had any indication of any Government intention to make an oral statement on either or both matters to which he refers, and my answer to that is no.

The wider response to the hon. Gentleman is that nothing disorderly has occurred. It is helpful to the House to have the maximum possible notice, and I can understand his disappointment that some of those matters appeared in the Vote Office, in the form of documentation, only at the time when Business, Innovation and Skills questions were taking place. He may think that that is unseemly or disappointing, and it may be something that he would not himself be inclined to do, I do not know, but nothing disorderly has taken place.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House, in responding to my question about the Government’s definition of equality, said that the issue of extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples was part of the consultation being launched today, but I refer you to paragraph 1.5 of the consultation document’s executive summary, which states:

“The consultation therefore, does not look at reforms to civil partnerships, for example opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.”

May we have a statement from the Government either adopting the policy endorsed by my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, for which I would be very grateful, or putting him right so that he has to correct the record?

This is a very important issue, because you will recall, Mr Speaker, that when people served on the Standing Committee on the Civil Partnerships Bill, some of us, particularly myself, moved amendments stating that civil partnerships should be available to heterosexual couples, and we were told then that civil partnerships were the exclusive domain of same-sex couples because there was no such thing as gay marriage. Now the situation seems to be changing, but there needs to be some equality-consistency on the part of the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

My response to the hon. Gentleman is as follows. First, he has a beady eye and is a keen student of detail, and I am not in any way surprised that he is familiar with the detail of the consultation document and has studied the various numbered paragraphs. He has made his point, and it is open to the Leader of the House to respond if he wishes, and perhaps to accept that on that factual point the hon. Gentleman is correct.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman refers to the Standing Committee on the Civil Partnerships Bill and suggests that I might remember that experience. That experience is etched upon my mind and is likely to remain so permanently, because I remember serving on the said Standing Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and it was—shall we say?—an immensely stimulating and, some might think, a protracted experience.

I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will find further opportunities to develop his points—on that issue, on the issue as a whole and on particular points that are of concern to him today—in the weeks and months ahead, in the Chamber and possibly elsewhere. If the Leader of the House wants to respond, he can—[Interruption.] But he does not wish to do so.

Sittings of the House (20 and 23 March)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I shall make a short contribution to this debate. In so doing, I very much welcome the Government motion, particularly the part that states

“this House shall sit on Friday 23 March.”

By putting forward the motion, the Government have reinforced the case for the House working a five-day week. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that many years ago we used to work many more Fridays, which were not just the exclusive domain of private Members’ Bills. Indeed, I remember whole-day debates on Fridays about issues such as road safety. If that precedent operated now, instead of the debate about cycling taking place in Westminster Hall as we speak, it could take place on the Floor of the House, in the main Chamber, on a Friday.

By re-establishing the principle that it is perfectly reasonable and, indeed, desirable for the House to work a five-day week, the Government will, I hope, think more in terms of sitting on other Fridays when private Members’ business will not have precedence—Fridays, for example, during the debate on the Queen’s Speech, when there would not be any votes but when many Members would want to participate, as they will on the Friday during the Budget debate. That important precedent should be welcomed.

Amendment (c) would make the motion even stronger, as sitting on Wednesdays is important, not least because we have the chance to hear the Prime Minister responding to questions. Sadly, the contribution by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) from the Opposition Front Bench, was designed almost to turn us off the idea of supporting the amendment. We do not need the amendment to hold the Prime Minister to account; it reminds us of how we got into this situation in the first place.

We used to have the Budget on a Tuesday. It would inevitably unravel—this was a Labour party Budget—during the course of the afternoon, and then the Prime Minister would have to answer for the Chancellor’s failings on the Wednesday. The former Prime Minister Mr Blair decided that that was all far too embarrassing, and moved the Budget to a Wednesday so that he had a whole week before having to answer to the House for the unravelling of his right hon. Friend’s Budget. We cannot go back this year, because Her Majesty is coming to Westminster Hall, but in future years the Budget should go back to a Tuesday, with the opportunity for the Prime Minister then to make telling points about it on the Wednesday.

Notwithstanding the specious justification put forward by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for supporting amendment (c), I shall support it for different and more reasonable reasons.

Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to debate this matter, as the Government were intent on putting it through without debate. The Deputy Leader of the House has just said he regards this motion as provisional, which rather concerns me. I was hoping to congratulate the Government on having endorsed the principle that the traditional 13 Friday sittings for private Members’ Bills would have precedence in the next Session. The hon. Gentleman has told us that that is what he is doing, but that it could be subject to change later on. When he responds to this short debate, I hope he can assure us that if there is any recommendation for change, it would apply only to subsequent Sessions rather than to the next Session, whose Fridays have been allocated for private Members’ business in the motion.

It is important that we have had this much notice of the allotted Fridays, which should enable greater attendance than has been evident on some Fridays in this past long Session. The minimum notice given by the Deputy Leader of the House is five months and the maximum is more than 12 months. It should be possible for Members of all parties to arrange their diaries to make their constituency business subordinate to the business in the Chamber of the House of Commons on these Fridays. As I say, this debate provides an opportunity to remind colleagues of the importance of putting these dates in their dairies. Then, if they have been successful in the private Members’ ballot, they can avoid being embarrassed because they have committed themselves to some other activity on one of the key Fridays.

That said, I hope that the Government can be deemed to have endorsed the principle that they support Friday sittings, and the previous debate showed that they believe in in principle. I hope that these Friday sittings will definitely happen during the next Session and that this motion is not in any way provisional.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Let us make a comparison on dithering. We have brought before the House, within 18 months, firm proposals in a consultation paper with draft clauses. In 13 years, the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported did nothing whatsoever, despite being asked several times by Committees of the House to bring forward a statutory register of lobbyists. I think that we are making progress where his Government did not.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Why have the Government not been able to provide a concise definition of a lobbyist?

[Mr Heath]

Because, believe it or not, it is rather a difficult thing to define, which is why the consultation paper invites responses on precisely that issue. Some people would take an all-encompassing definition, which would require every one of our constituents who comes to see us in an advice surgery to register as a lobbyist before attending. I think that that would be an over-extensive definition.