Business of the House

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

There are many different views about how all our constitutional arrangements should work. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is engaged on such matters at the moment. Its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), is hard at work looking at our constitutional arrangements, and I am sure that the Select Committee will come forward with interesting ideas in due course.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, the credentials of the current UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe expire next week. As the membership of the new delegation is the responsibility of Parliament, not of the Government, will my right hon. Friend make time next week for the House to express its opinion?

[Chris Grayling]

I am obviously aware of the motion on the Order Paper. I would say to my hon. Friend that I have no doubt the House will give this matter careful consideration. The point of having a Backbench Business Committee is of course to ensure that time is available to Members who are not in the Government to allocate time for debate. I am sure that he would be able to make his point to the Committee.

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Let us look at the House of Commons membership of the Joint Committee. We have no representation as the third party in the House of Commons, although we are represented on practically every other Committee in the House. We have 56 of the 59 Scottish seats in Parliament, but no attempt has been made to reflect a geographical spread in securing membership of the Joint Committee.

Let me suggest a couple of ways in which we might be able to rectify the situation. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will listen carefully. She, or someone, will have to tell me why there must be parity with the House of Lords. The House of Lords has never been held in such contempt as it is now among the British people, who see it as nothing other than an affront to democracy and a repository for donors and cronies in the United Kingdom parties.

I need to know this, Mr Speaker. Why does the Joint Committee have to have six members from this House and six from that House? Surely we could come up with an arithmetical formulation that would allow an input from the Lords? I want to hear from them, because I think that they have a contribution to make. Why can we not have eight members from this House and nine members from that House, and cut the number from the House of Lords correspondingly? Is there anyone in the Chamber now—and I look to the Deputy Leader of the House—who can tell me why that cannot happen? Surely it is up to this House, as the predominant and the elected House, to set the rules and parameters for the Joint Committee.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that that is what is provided for by the Standing Orders currently in place. If we wish to change the Standing Orders, why do we not seek to refer this matter to the Procedure Committee? The Standing Orders are under our control, but we cannot change them tonight.

[Pete Wishart]

That is actually quite a reasonable suggestion from the hon. Gentleman, who, I know, studies these issues very closely and carefully. Why do we not change the Standing Orders? Will someone tell me why we cannot do that? Why is the third party in the United Kingdom excluded because of a binding commitment to the Standing Orders of the House? Let us change them. I am with the hon. Gentleman on that. If he tables a motion, he will have the support of members of the Scottish National party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

That is another helpful suggestion. I sense I am getting a bit of support. Would that be fair? I am looking at my Labour colleagues. No, we are not; well, what do we expect from Labour? At least the Conservatives are beginning to see there is something profoundly wrong with what is being proposed. I think the Labour Front Bench would rather have unelected Liberals on this Joint Committee than the third party of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Chope]

It is unfortunate that the SNP did not table an amendment to include one of its Members instead of one of the Labour representatives—that might have made for an interesting debate and vote afterwards. At the moment, however, the SNP proposal is to vote down this Committee proposal completely, which is surely absurd because it means the Joint Committee on Human Rights will not be established in good time.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Following the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), may I also pay tribute to Michael Meacher? The work he did, particularly in my experience with Parliament First, is a lasting legacy and demonstrated his great commitment to this place. One of the great things about the proposals before us tonight is that many of those being chosen to serve on this Joint Committee are people like Michael Meacher, who have independent minds. That is what this House needs on such Committees.

I suggest that we pass this motion tonight, because if we do not we will be unable to set up the Joint Committee. It is a matter of regret, given that their lordships’ House named its people back in July, that we are only now naming ours. Once the Committee is set up, the Procedure Committee could look into the issues and I am sure that it could produce a report in due course. It would be unfortunate if this situation were to be used as a stick with which to beat the rest of the United Kingdom. I say that as a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee; I have the privilege of serving under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and we had a successful visit to Dundee earlier this week.

I want to thank the Scottish National party for ensuring that we have had a debate on this important issue. We debate human rights, and the parliamentary scrutiny of human rights, all too rarely. I have had the privilege of serving in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for some 10 years, during which I spent two years as chairman of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee. During that time, the United Kingdom had the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and a lot of work was done jointly with the Joint Committee on Human Rights to spread the good word across the other 47 member states of the Council of Europe on how Parliaments can scrutinise work of their Governments in relation to human rights. It is fair to say that this Parliament is an exemplar for the Parliaments in those other member countries. I have spoken about this at seminars. It is important that, when the Joint Committee on Human Rights looks at the convention, it should do so in an independent way. One consequence of that happening can be a significant reduction in the number of cases that end up in the European Court of Human Rights. I suggest that that is really important.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend does himself a disservice. Not only has he served as a distinguished chairman of the migration and legal affairs committees of the Council of Europe but he is also the chairman of the European Conservatives group. He has done sterling work on keeping that group together. He mentioned that some time has passed since this Committee was set up in July. I presume that he has now heard that he has been reappointed, in the light of his great and distinguished work in the Council of Europe.

[Mr Chope]

The House is anticipating that this matter will be decided soon. I hope that it will be, because six months after a general election, the right of this Parliament to be represented in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will expire. I hope that our new members of the Parliamentary Assembly will be chosen soon and presented to the House. I understand that that is normally done through a written statement from the Prime Minister. I also hope that that statement will include the names of some Scottish National party Members, because even if they cannot at present participate in the work of the Joint Committee, they could play an important role in the Parliamentary Assembly—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have indulged the hon. Gentleman a tad. He is indeed a distinguished member of the Council of Europe, a fact that has been commented on not only in the House but in many European capitals that I have visited. That said, it is not a matter for the motion tonight. I hope that the matter to which he refers will shortly be resolved in a satisfactory way, but it does not touch upon the question of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a fact of which I think the hon. Gentleman is intimately conscious.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, Mr Speaker, and I am sorry that I was led down the wrong route by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who has also been a distinguished member of the Parliamentary Assembly. I have made my point briefly: I hope that this matter can be resolved amicably and that the Joint Committee is able to function with all parts of the United Kingdom being properly represented on it.

The first purpose of the Joint Committee is

“to examine matters relating to human rights within the United Kingdom.”

I hope that that will be borne in mind by the Deputy Leader of the House and that she will respond with a big heart to the suggestion that this matter be referred to the Procedure Committee—but after the motion has been passed tonight.

Business of the House

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Let me reciprocate and say that although we will have lively debates across the Floor of the House, I have found initial relations between myself, my colleagues and the new SNP Members at Westminster to be pleasant and congenial. I return the hon. Gentleman’s wishes and I hope that all SNP Members—indeed, all Members of the House—have a pleasant recess. Having gone through an election period when everybody works immensely hard, although lots of us have constituency work during the summer, I think that everybody deserves a short break as well. I wish everybody the best for the summer recess.

Perhaps over the summer, as the hon. Gentleman relaxes on the beach or wherever he is, he might consider whether he really wants to pursue the policy of reversing what he rightly said when he gave evidence to the McKay commission about the need for the Scottish National party to stay outside matters that do not affect it. That has been a policy of principle for the SNP over many years, and it is a shame that he has walked away from that. If anybody is U-turning at the moment, it is him. He is a man of principle, and I am sure that he will reflect again and perhaps take a different approach in the future.

I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman about the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, because I suspect that the Scottish National party’s view on that will not change many opinions on the Government Benches. This is a Bill on behalf of working people, and I am certain that it commands support among working people in Scotland who—like everyone else in the country—want a welfare system that is fair, and also fair to those who pay for it. That is what the Bill will do.

On the Scotland Bill, I say simply that there will be a further day of debate in the House and the conclusion of proceedings. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table amendments and debate them with the Scottish Secretary, he will of course have the chance to do so as normal.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

With the news this week that the promise that the European Union made to our Prime Minister has been reneged on, may we have an early debate on how we can hold the European Union to account so that it complies with its word? For example, can we bring forward a breach of promise action against the European Union?

[Chris Grayling]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point and I have every sympathy with what he says. We have been clear that we in this country will not allow taxpayers’ money to be put on the line for a bail-out. We are also clear that the political agreement reached between member states must be adhered to. That is a matter for the eurozone and for its members to resolve. We cannot be in a position where countries outside the eurozone have their taxpayers’ money put at risk in circumstances such as this. We are clear about that, and sympathetic to, my hon. Friend’s point, and there will be a number of opportunities next week for him to raise a point about which he is absolutely correct.

English Votes for English Laws

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

In the interests of fairness, I will allow two more interventions and then I shall wrap up.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that this issue is not just about votes on legislation, but about debates? Surely it would be reasonable for us, as a UK Parliament, to be able to debate issues affecting all parts of the United Kingdom, thereby removing the restriction on debating devolved matters. This morning in Westminster Hall, SNP Members were speaking about housing supply in London.

[Chris Grayling]

That may be a current issue for one or two of them, having moved down from Scotland to be here, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. We do have an odd imbalance, yet no one on the SNP Benches has been able to explain to me—nor have those on the Labour Benches now lining themselves up against these proposals—why it is right and proper to continue with a situation in which an MP from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can vote on education in my constituency but not in their own constituency. That seems to me to be a flaw.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was asked—

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

1. What estimate he has made of the value of the public stake in Channel 4.

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

This Government have not made any estimate of the value of the public stake in Channel 4.

[Mr Chope]

In that case, is it not about time they did? Channel 4 has a turnover of about £1 billion a year, and assets of roughly half a billion. Surely the taxpayer stake in it could be sold and would help the Chancellor with his agenda.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am told that my hon. Friend has withdrawn his annual private Member’s Bill to abolish the BBC licence fee. Perhaps his attention has now turned to Channel 4. I note what he says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

Opinion polls are a gauging of opinion. One opinion poll happened on 7 May—it was called the general election. Our proposals were in the manifesto, and they were voted for.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The proposals in the manifesto covered public Bills. Why do the Government’s current proposals not cover private Members’ Bills, which are of course public Bills?

[Dr Coffey]

The Government have taken a modest step in addressing what is covered. If my hon. Friend wants to make further representations to the review, I am sure that the Procedure Committee and the Government will listen to his proposals.

Business of the House

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

There will be four days of debate on the Budget to raise such issues. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the Government’s goal to create 3 million apprenticeships during this Parliament. We have seen over the past five years how well different parts of the public sector have adapted to the straitened financial times, while managing to deliver improved services.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

As someone who is looking forward to serving on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, may I seek my right hon. Friend’s assurance that the deliberations and recommendations of the Committee will always receive responses from the Government? In the last Session, none of them did. For example, may we have a guarantee that, were the Committee to consider the role of the House of Lords on Scottish affairs, the Government would respond to the recommendations?

[Chris Grayling]

It is always important that the Government respond to reports from any Select Committee and, during this Parliament, I will certainly expect Ministers to ensure that that takes place.

Today’s Business of the House

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I do not think that anything the hon. Gentleman said would ever bother me.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend remember that he and I were the only participants in the debate on the business motion on Tuesday? Will he explain why he did not take that opportunity to say that he would bring forward changes to Standing Orders, bearing in mind that, in the absence of a written constitution, our Standing Orders are effectively our freedom and democracy—our unwritten constitution. The proposals before the House today would effectively change that constitution without proper notice. Why is my right hon. Friend going along with that?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend and I did indeed debate that issue on Tuesday. As I have explained, the decision to table the motions was taken on Wednesday, so I would not have been able to explain it to him on Tuesday afternoon.

Business of the House (24, 25 and 26 March)

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has not chosen to speak to this very important motion.

We are in a fixed-term Parliament. The Government have known for the best part of five years the date of Dissolution, yet this motion is expressed in terms that suggest there is some sort of emergency requiring the Finance Bill to be considered tomorrow in all its stages in a maximum of six hours.

It may well be that Opposition Members are indifferent to this, but having seen the Finance Bill, which was printed only today for the first time, I notice that the explanatory notes extend to some 258 pages. There are some 127 clauses covering 121 pages, and 21 schedules covering a further 220 pages. It does not seem possible to do justice to those provisions on behalf of all the people who could be affected by the Bill by considering it for only six hours and at relatively short notice. Given that we knew that we were approaching Dissolution, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will explain why the arrangements were made in such a way as to allow so little time for the Bill.

In the past, as I recall, a shorter Finance Bill has been introduced at this stage, with provision for a second Bill to be introduced after the general election to deal with matters in more detail. In that way, it has been possible to scrutinise the important changes that affect businesses and individuals up and down the country. I fear that we shall have no such opportunity this time.

I should also like to tease out what my right hon. Friend has in mind in paragraph 1(c) of the motion, which states:

“At today’s sitting and the sittings on Wednesday 25 March and Thursday 26 March…no notice shall be required of any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown and any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption and shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House”.

Does one of the motions that he intends to bring forward under these provisions relate to the commitments he made to me and to the House in recent weeks? On 5 February, I asked him:

“When will my right hon. Friend publish the draft changes to Standing Orders that will be necessary to implement English votes on English issues?”

He replied:

“That is a party matter, rather than a Government matter, since there are different policies among the coalition parties. However, it is important to show the detail, so I intend later this month to set out how the proposal that I made earlier this week can be implemented in Standing Orders.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2015; Vol. 592, c. 426.]

I was very pleased with that response. Unfortunately, nothing had happened by the end of February, so I returned to the issue on 12 March, again during business questions. I said to my right hon. Friend:

“On 5 February at column 426 of Hansard, my right hon. Friend told me that he intended ‘later’ in February to set out the draft changes to Standing Orders to implement English votes for English laws. Why was he not able to meet his own target deadline of the end of February? May I seek an assurance from him that he will meet it before his final departure from this place?”

He responded:

“My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young)”—

who I am pleased to see is in his place—

“asked about this last week. It is true that February has stretched into March, and I am conscious of the commitment that was made to my hon. Friend, so I do intend to publish the proposed Standing Order changes.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 413.]

Those changes to Standing Orders could be introduced in the form of a motion, no notice of which would be required, under the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of the business of the House motion that we are now considering. I hope that I am not being unduly optimistic in asking my right hon. Friend to confirm that that is indeed his intention, and that that is why he has included in the motion a reference to motions being able to be brought forward by Ministers of the Crown without notice. I have not yet seen any record in the Official Report of a ministerial statement altering the commitments that my right hon. Friend has already made on English votes for English laws, so I hope he will take this opportunity to introduce the changes today.

This matter is topical, not least because a series of public petitions is due to be presented later today by a host of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the issue of English votes for English laws. It would be a big mistake if we were to enter the general election campaign without having this matter properly clarified, at the very least in the form of a draft Standing Order attached to a motion brought forward by the Government without notice.

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

The type of motion before the House is usual in the run-up to the end of a Parliament, and this motion facilitates the effective and efficient use of the time of the House in bringing this Session, and this Parliament, to a satisfactory conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is quite right to say that this Parliament is different from its predecessors in being a fixed-term Parliament. That is why there are so few Bills left to consider, and so few Bills moving between this House and the other place, at this stage. As is set out in the motion, we will go on to consider Lords amendments to two Bills, including the Modern Slavery Bill, which is still before the other place, but they represent a small proportion of the legislative programme and there is no reason why this should not come to an orderly conclusion. The motion provides for it to do so.

The one exception to the Bills that have been able to make such progress is of course the Finance Bill, to which my hon. Friend has referred. We have known for a long time that the Budget would take place six days ago on 18 March, which it duly did, and that a Finance Bill would therefore have to be considered in fairly short order between then and the Dissolution of Parliament. This is not an uncommon development. Those of us who were here in 1992 will remember the Budget being delivered only a couple of days before the Dissolution of Parliament, and that has happened on a number of other occasions as well. That has often led to substantial Finance Acts being introduced immediately after the Budget, as is the case here. I do not see any difference in principle between those occasions and this one.

[Mr Chope]

If my memory serves me correctly, a very short Finance Act followed the Budget in 1992, with the main, substantive Finance Bill being brought forward after the general election.

[Mr Hague]

It is true that there was a further Finance Act, but it is also true that many provisions were included in the initial Finance Act, as far as could be agreed with the Opposition. The present Opposition have not opposed—let us put it that way—the great majority of the measures in this year’s Budget, and we have therefore been able to include a greater proportion of it in the Finance Bill. As with any Bill, however, it will be for the House to reach its judgment in the normal way on the Finance Bill when we debate it tomorrow. My hon. Friend will be able to take part in those debates. We are providing the time that is available for the Finance Bill before the Dissolution of Parliament, which must by law take place on 30 March, which is next Monday, so the time available to debate the Bill is tomorrow. If my hon. Friend wants to tell Treasury Ministers that he wishes it was a smaller Finance Bill, he will of course be able to do so during those debates.

On my hon. Friend’s final question about paragraph 1(c) of the motion, the answer is a fairly comprehensive no. As I pointed out in my first answer that he read out on a change to Standing Orders relating to English votes on English laws, this is a party matter. It would be possible to lay a Government motion under the provisions of paragraph 1(c) only if such a motion had been agreed across the whole coalition. My hon. Friend is well versed in these matters, and he will know that the policy on this issue is not agreed across the coalition and that it therefore remains a party matter. It is therefore not for me, as Leader of the House in the Government, to publish any such proposed changes to Standing Orders; I could do so only as a Conservative party spokesman. It remains my intention to do so, but not as Leader of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Who opens which day of the Budget debate will, of course, be decided. Indeed, the Opposition often have a major influence on the decision. During the Budget debate there will be an opportunity to raise all those issues, and many others. I think that the everyday theme of the Budget debate will be that there are nearly 2 million more jobs in this country than there were five years ago. That is really the dominant theme of the British economy at the moment.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On 5 February at column 426 of Hansard, my right hon. Friend told me that he intended “later” in February to set out the draft changes to Standing Orders to implement English votes for English laws. Why was he not able to meet his own target deadline of the end of February? May I seek an assurance from him that he will meet it before his final departure from this place?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) asked about this last week. It is true that February has stretched into March, and I am conscious of the commitment that was made to my hon. Friend, so I do intend to publish the proposed Standing Order changes.

Business of the House

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support. I absolutely hope that the debate will take place. He and I have discussed it a number of times. There are a number of outstanding Committee reports to address in the remaining weeks of this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) talked about a European Scrutiny Committee report, there are important reports from the Procedure Committee and there is this important report from the Standards Committee. I will do my best to accommodate these things in the coming weeks, with the right hon. Gentleman’s support.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

When will my right hon. Friend publish the draft changes to Standing Orders that will be necessary to implement English votes on English issues?

[Mr Hague]

That is a party matter, rather than a Government matter, since there are different policies among the coalition parties. However, it is important to show the detail, so I intend later this month to set out how the proposal that I made earlier this week can be implemented in Standing Orders.