Points of Order

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is a matter of opinion, but I really do recommend that Members are very careful in the language they use. It is important that we show tolerance and, more importantly, that we show respect to each other. Nothing should inflame the tensions that will already be running high. I thank the hon. Member for raising that point with me. I say to all Members: please, think long and hard before you speak, because messages that you give in this House can be reflected in a way that I do not wish to see.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a relatively trivial point of order compared with the previous ones. Nevertheless, it relates to the procedures in this House. You were in the Chair during topical questions today, and you will have heard the Minister for Energy and Climate seemingly criticise me for not having given prior notice of the topical question that I chose to ask. I had it originally in mind to ask a different question, but because that question had already been answered, I thought it would be perfectly reasonable to choose another topical subject. I was disappointed that my right hon. Friend did not know the answer, because a lot of evidence has come out recently that there was a fifteenfold increase in the number of household fires caused by solar panels in 2022, and I am surprised that the Minister did not know anything about it.

[Mr Speaker]

If the Minister does not want to respond, I will answer it for him. Of course, you can ask any question. That is the whole idea of topicals—to keep the Minister alive and on his feet. It is not for me to apologise when a Minister cannot answer. Let us leave it at that.

Public Finances: Scotland

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

If the hon. Lady is new to this debate, she will be able to find many detailed discussions about all the mechanisms. Under the new proposals, the Scottish Government would benefit from good decisions that they take which produce additional revenue for them, but they would bear some of the risk if they take decisions that lead to less revenue than had been anticipated. That is what I think is at the heart of fairness in the proposals being debated.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Following on from what my right hon. Friend has just said, does he therefore confirm that the per capita indexed deduction is not the right way forward?

[David Mundell]

I do not think even my hon. Friend would expect me to express a view because I am not going to negotiate the arrangement on the Floor of the House. I am happy to comment on a number of aspects of the negotiation, but the Deputy First Minister of Scotland has made it abundantly clear to the United Kingdom Government that it is he who is negotiating these arrangements on behalf of the Scottish Government, not MPs, not the First Minister and not members of the Scottish National party. I have confidence in his wish to reach an agreement and to conduct those negotiations, as we have done so far, on the basis that we committed to—that is, by not giving a detailed running commentary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), but I cannot agree with him that the principles of per capita indexed deduction, which he and the Labour party support, are consistent with the Smith commission. That commission had two “no detriment” principles, and that system of indexation and deduction does not comply with both those principles. It will be difficult for the rest of the United Kingdom to accept any deal that is premised on such a biased indexation system.

Professor Gallagher stated in his article “Algebra and the Constitution” that, under per capita indexation, Scotland’s devolved tax yield would be increased each year by roughly the growth in the rest of the United Kingdom population, and that would be on top of Barnett. Although he concedes that that might be to Scotland’s advantage, he stated that

“it hardly seems fair to the rest of the UK, which will carry the spending burden created by the new taxpayers”.

When I look again at the article by Professor Gallagher, I see that public expenditure per head on devolved services in Scotland is £1,400 per person higher than it is on average for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is 24% higher than in the rest of the UK. The proportion of spending is enormously higher. We—the English and the rest of the UK taxpayers—are contributing to that, and we have not heard much thanks for that from the Scottish National party this evening.

This is an important issue. When the Minister replies, will he tell the House who is representing the rest of the United Kingdom in these negotiations? The Joint Exchequer Committee contains somebody from the United Kingdom Government and from the Scottish Government, but there is nobody who represents the rest of the United Kingdom.

Scotland Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

No, as I am about to finish.

My hon. Friend made the point about the rest of the United Kingdom and there is a need for that convention. If we do not get that, we will have this patchwork quilt of so-called devolution which will not be in the interests not only of all of our constituents but of the UK as a whole.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The last two and a half hours have been fascinating, and show what this Chamber should be about. The Government and the Opposition Front Benches have come in with their own ideas and during the course of the debate it has become apparent that the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has captured the imagination of the Committee and has superseded amendment 89 proposed by the Scottish nationalist party, and I say to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie)—[Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for Dundee East that I think he has made a very wise decision in saying he is going to bring the full weight of his party in Parliament behind my hon. Friend’s new clause. It is much clearer than his party’s amendment. The hon. Gentleman should get credit for that. Governments and official Oppositions are often reluctant to change the line they have taken when faced with strong arguments against it.

In the course of this debate, my hon. Friend has shown that new clause 3 finds favour with a large number of Members across this Committee. I support it because it would do what is stated in the explanatory statement:

“entirely remove the remaining reservations over financial and economic matters, home affairs, trade and industry, energy, transport, social security, regulation of the professions, employment, health and medicines, media and culture and other miscellaneous matters. The consent of the Treasury would be needed for any changes in old age pensions which would affect the liabilities of the National Insurance Fund.”

So, by giving full fiscal autonomy to the Scottish Parliament, we would also be giving it full fiscal responsibility. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in an intervention, that is an important and worthwhile matter.

My constituents are worried about the mix and match approach, however. When I had the privilege of being a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, we took evidence in Scotland. One of the most telling pieces of evidence came from an academic—I cannot remember which university he came from—who said that shared responsibility would be a recipe for conflict. That has been the problem: for too long, we have been sharing these responsibilities between one part of the United Kingdom and another, with one part being played off against the other. That has meant that those wanting to promote a particular agenda have been given ammunition, because they have been able to argue that the sharing of the responsibility has been ill defined. It is almost invariably ill defined and open to interpretation. Indeed, some of the evidence we heard suggested that such disputes would ultimately have to be determined by the courts. It was suggested that the courts in the United Kingdom would determine what Parliament had decided on a particular split or shared responsibility. What a recipe for conflict and division!

The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has great clarity and takes the debate forward by leapfrogging other proposals. Obviously it could not be implemented instantly, but it would not leave the matter of when to introduce full fiscal autonomy to the discretion of the Scottish Parliament, as amendment 89 proposes. Instead, new clause 3 would ensure that this Parliament would agree now on full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament. That would be a good way for this Parliament to say to the Scottish people that we respect their decision in the recent general election and that we respect the decision of their elected representatives, as enunciated by the hon. Member for Dundee East, to support this new clause.

I hope that new clause 3 will also find favour with the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I am delighted to see sitting on the Front Bench preparing to respond to the debate. He gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on several occasions during the last Parliament. At that stage, only some members of the Committee—I included myself among the optimists—thought that it would not be long before he became a fully fledged Secretary of State for Scotland. It is wonderful that that has come to pass.

This is an important debate, not least because it will sort out the problem of the Barnett formula by effectively abolishing the need for it. The formula is very unpopular with my constituents because, whenever they argue for free prescriptions, free long-term care for the elderly or free university tuition, they are told that these things cannot be afforded in England, yet they somehow can be afforded in Scotland. At the same time, however, they point out that they are paying £1,600 a head to Scotland, so it cannot be a matter of those things being unaffordable in England; rather, it is something to do with the Barnett formula. The new clause would resolve that issue and help to bring the United Kingdom back together with less conflict than there would be if we allowed the “too little, too late” agenda to be perpetuated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

7. What public consultation his Department is carrying out in Scotland on the draft clauses published following the recommendations of the Smith commission.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)]

The Scotland Office is holding a series of events across Scotland to enable stakeholders to provide feedback on the draft clauses and how the new powers might be used. I can announce to the House today that the Government will now begin a public information campaign to enable people in Scotland to learn more about the devolution settlement and how it is changing. [Interruption.] This campaign will use social media, local media and an information booklet for every house in Scotland. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. The House and perhaps the nation should hear Mr Christopher Chope.

[Mr Chope]

The nation would be interested to know that draft clause 1 has been widely condemned as legally vacuous. What is the Secretary of State going to do to ensure that the people of Scotland realise that it is legally vacuous and that if they support it, they will be supporting a meaningless constitutional proposal?

[Mr Carmichael]

I absolutely refute that suggestion and the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of that analysis as being widespread.

Smith Commission

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

Today’s publication and the agreement we have offer us a range of opportunities in Scotland. In particular, we can do the things for the Scottish economy that will produce the growth that will expand that tax base. The important point is that, having made this decision, we should get on and implement it and then start using the powers, rather than constantly talking about our constitutional position.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

How does today’s report fit in with the promise made by the Prime Minister on 19 September that any change giving more devolution in Scotland would go in tandem with, and at the same pace as, changes in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Carmichael]

No. I have to contradict my hon. Friend. It has been made perfectly clear all along, and the Prime Minister himself has said, that the change that was promised to Scotland will go ahead according to the timetable that was given to the people of Scotland. It is not contingent on other changes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) has got his answer on Liu Xiaobo and will doubtless be content.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Q11. In the cause of deficit reduction, the Government are reducing police funding by 20% in real terms over four years. Can my right hon. Friend therefore assure me that, also in the cause of deficit reduction, he will insist on a reduction in our contribution to the European Union budget of more than 20%?

[Mr Hague]

Highly desirable though that would be, my hon. Friend is aware that that contribution is not determined by a single decision of Government; it is the balance between two large figures determined in other ways. However, he can rest assured that we will be far better at negotiating on this than were Opposition Members. When the shadow Foreign Secretary was Minister for Europe, the Labour party gave away £7 billion of the British rebate, for nothing in return—an abject failure of negotiation and leadership that we will not repeat.