Business without Debate

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible to take all 17 Bills that the Government are objecting to together so that we do not have to go through them seriatim? There are some very worthy Bills among them, but if the Government want to object to all of them, why not just say so now?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not know the Government’s opinion or decision on these Bills and the Government cannot state their position until I have put the question. I will do so properly and in normal order.

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (Amendment) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I detect a little irritation in the hon. Gentleman’s tone because this is a somewhat repetitive procedure, but I remind the House and the hon. Gentleman that the Bills are all his. We are going through this procedure because he has submitted 17 Bills, which he has every right to do. When he submits his 17 Bills, I will deal with each of them in turn properly, according to the rules.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that my frustration is not with you, Madam Deputy Speaker? My irritation is with the Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am glad for that clarity. I suspected it might be the case. It is not for me to say whether anybody has any irritation with the hon. Gentleman and his 17 Bills, because I will treat them fairly and reasonably, as I do all Bills.

Exemption from Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The Opposition spokesman was telepathic in the way in which she picked up on my right hon. Friend’s phrase. I am not quite sure whether the Opposition spokesman really appreciated the connectivity between the two. The issue about “safe and effective” is this. I can remember that when I got my first vaccine, the little piece of paper we got said, without any qualification, that it was safe and effective. Exactly the same thing has been identified in Germany. It has only been subsequently that we have been getting the qualifications so that people are now able to make a more informed judgment about whether—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that he is now speaking for a second time with the leave of the House. This is not a speech, but just a short wind-up. I have indulged other Members here in order to facilitate the debate, but we must stick to the rules.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I certainly would not want to talk myself out of further business today.

May I conclude by saying that I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for being co-sponsors of the Bill and for their contributions today? I also politely thank the Minister for what she has said and for her willingness to continue engaging with the all-party parliamentary group. She came along to a meeting and answered lots of questions, and she has volunteered to take forward individual cases of people who feel that their questions have not been properly answered in good time.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this debate could go on for ever.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let me make this absolutely clear. I am in the Chair: this debate cannot go on for ever. I know that the hon. Gentleman is soon going to conclude.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Exactly. I meant that the debate could go on in the sense that it will still be going in July next year, when module 4 is discussed. In the meantime, I think it would be best if I sought the adjournment of this debate so that there is scope to take it further on another occasion.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Mr Mohindra.)

Debate to be resumed on Friday 27 October.

BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. It was only because I sometimes believe in salami slicing. I thought that we would start off with the over-75s—that is without declaring any personal interest in this. As with the previous debates, this is a subject that will continue to be of interest to Members, and for that reason I will ask that this debate be adjourned.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann.)

Debate to be resumed on Friday 27 October.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am sure that the Minister has that date firmly in his diary.

Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

2nd reading
Friday 18th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

For the benefit of the House as a whole, can the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) confirm his wish that all proceedings in Committee take place today without debate?

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Yes.

Considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Three minutes and 11 seconds!

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I thank everybody for facilitating this? I think it is the first time since 1998 that a private Member’s Bill has gone through all its stages at one sitting.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I believe that to be correct: it is the first time. Many a worthy Bill has appeared to have support of all Members but one. [Laughter.] It is noticeable that this particular Bill is brought by that very Member and its worthiness has therefore outweighed its procedural position. Interesting and notable.

Covid-19 Vaccine Diagnosis and Treatment Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Thursday the Minister responsible—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove)—assured us that the Passport Office service would be set up in Portcullis House so that Members of Parliament and their staff could get quick and easy access to deal with urgent passport cases. That service has been set up, but I wish to raise the issue of the number of people staffing that service. Today, there was a very long queue of people waiting to access the service, and some people were having to wait for over two hours before they could get their questions dealt with by the officials there.

The issue is compounded by the fact that the Passport Office nationally is still failing to deal with telephone inquiries in a timely fashion. I have a constituent who has written to me today saying that they have spent 25 hours of their life on hold trying to get through to the Passport Office. They wish to get a passport to enable them to go to a family funeral overseas. The only reason they need a new passport is that their old one was cancelled by the Passport Office in error because it incorrectly transposed information from somebody saying they wished to cancel their passport and the information of my constituent, so unfortunately the other applicant’s passport was not cancelled but my constituent’s was. This is intolerable—what can be done about it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Sadly, it is not a matter for the Chair. I say “sadly” because we are all aware of how difficult it is to do any business with the Passport Office. We all have large numbers of constituents who are waiting for passports and have been waiting for far too long.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. Mr Speaker would be very concerned that undertakings had been given here in this House and then not followed up. All I can do is facilitate the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, explain that it is not a matter for the Chair, and express my earnest hope that those on the Treasury Bench have heard what he has said and will take the necessary action soon.

Points of Order

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your assistance, because Mr Speaker has generously granted me the end of day Adjournment debate tomorrow on the effectiveness of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. In anticipation of that debate, I tabled a series of named day questions. As of today, seven of those have been outstanding for more than one week and one of them, which names the 1979 Act, has been outstanding for more than six weeks. That seriously inhibits my ability to properly hold the Government to account, because I need answers to those questions before the debate begins. What can you do to ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care delivers?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. What I can do is repeat yet again what Mr Speaker has said so often from this Chair, which is that when Members submit questions, they ought to be answered on time. There is simply no excuse for them not to be answered. I repeat most emphatically what Mr Speaker has said many times before, as indeed have all his predecessors and mine, which is that it is simply not acceptable that Departments, which have hundreds and hundreds of civil servants to do that job, do not answer the questions of Members of Parliament.

Business without Debate

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 4th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not normally whinge about the Government objecting to my private Member’s Bills, but I wish to on this occasion because on 28 January I tabled a question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities asking why the Government’s policy is to object to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill having a Second Reading. The Minister replied on 2 February; I will not read out the first part of his answer, which is not relevant:

“The Bill printed on 24 January 2022 set out a new proposal to change the pitch fee review inflationary index from the Retail Price Index to the Consumer Price Index.”

That is, of course, Government policy.

“We will consider the proposal in detail and make a statement at the Bill’s Second Reading.”

Well, we have had the Bill’s Second Reading today. I proposed the Second Reading of the Bill and, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to hear from the Government as to what statement there is. Having seen that answer to my question, I assumed that the statement was going to be, effectively, no objection and that the Bill was then going to be able to get its Second Reading. That has not materialised.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am not sure he is factually correct. The Bill has not had its Second Reading. He introduced the Bill and said, “Now.” The Government Minister objected. I accepted the objection and asked the hon. Gentleman to name a date for the Second Reading of the Bill, which he did. I think he said 25 February. I might be wrong on that date, but my recollection is that he said 25 February. It is therefore quite clear to me that the Bill will come forward for Second Reading on 25 February.

I must also say, however, that some Members might not quite, due to their inexperience, understand the concept of an objection to a Bill under the private Members’ Bill process. That does not apply to the hon. Gentleman because he has probably objected to more Bills than any other Member in history.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think I have also had more Bills to which an objection has been made than any other Member, but I will leave that on one side. When Second Reading today was blocked, I moved that the Second Reading be put over to 25 February. Normally, no Bill receives a Second Reading, if there is a debate, until after the Government have spoken and after there has been an opportunity for a vote on it. So I had assumed, from the answer I received from the Minister, that the Government were going to make a statement at the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and I have to correct him. I do not think for one moment that he assumed anything of the kind because he knows this process better than anyone. I will not entertain his point of order any further as it is now 2.38 on a Friday afternoon. The hon. Gentleman has made his point more than once. It will have been heard. We will come back to this matter on 25 February.

Glue Traps (Offences) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 19th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I can assure my hon. Friend that licensed pest controllers have been very active on this housing estate. I have spoken to them, and they have said that it is fantastic; it is money for old rope, because nothing that they do has any lasting impact, which is one of the problems.

Some people—this happens with farmers and people who keep chickens and so on—say, “To deal with rats, I am going to get a cat as a ratting cat”, but what do cats do? They do not only attack rats; they also attack birds and wildlife, so much so that that is a real crisis in our country. Rats themselves often attack small birds, and they certainly take birds’ eggs. We would be going down a very slippery slope if we tried to treat one of these areas of the whole balance of nature in isolation. Basically, nobody likes the idea that glue traps will result in suffering for other animals, any more than I like the idea that as a result of the behaviour of cats, a lot of birds are dying needlessly. We have got to have a balance.

The Bill sets out the offences and so on in clause 1, but it does not require the Secretary of State to issue any licences in clause 2. It just says that the Secretary of State “may” grant a licence, so there is no connection between the creation of the offences and ensuring that the Secretary of State has to issue licences to try to counteract the consequences of outlawing glue traps used by unlicensed people.

I am concerned about this Bill, and I do not think my constituents will understand it at all. I hope we can have stronger confirmation from the Government that we are going to eliminate rats before we start dealing with eliminating the means by which we may be able to control rats. As I said at the beginning, rats and rodents are dangerous to public health, and we ignore that at our peril.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you. I call Cherilyn Mackrory.

Domestic Building Works (Consumer Protection) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 19th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Very briefly, may I say that I very much welcome the proportionate response from my hon. Friend the Minister? He says that this issue goes back many years. I remember raising an Adjournment debate entitled “Cowboy Builders” in the 1983 Parliament. In the 1987 Parliament, I was rewarded by becoming the Minister for the construction industry. I remember the representations then, and I remember working with the Federation of Master Builders and others.

As a lawyer, one of the most difficult questions I ever had to answer was, “Can you recommend a good solicitor?” That is also a really big challenge for those who are engaged in or thinking about having building work done. I hope that, as a result of today’s debate, people will realise that they should look at organisations such as the Federation of Master Builders and Checkatrade, and go for people who have a reputation locally. It may be a little more expensive, but otherwise they could get into all sorts of difficulties. When I worked for Ernst and Young, my boss there, who I thought had the wisdom of Solomon, ended up getting a rogue cowboy to redo his driveway. He then came to me, as a non-practising lawyer, asking for legal advice about it, and I said that it was too late.

Anyway, that is enough from me. I am pleased by the Government’s proportionate response. The Bill does not seek to define “domestic building works”, which must obviously be the starting point for any regulations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Mark Garnier.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I have to say I was not quite sure about that. I thought that the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) had finished, but the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) nevertheless managed to make his intervention. He may indeed have wanted more, but the hon. Member for Leeds East read the mood of the House very well.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). He talked about alternatives, and perhaps I can throw out a possible alternative that he might think reasonable. Why should the very rich have unrestricted access to a free NHS?



Whenever that is raised by Conservative Members, Opposition Members object to the idea and say that it would undermine the principles of the NHS. I do not expect him to answer that question, but I throw it out there because it is another alternative that could be considered.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Harper]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In intending to be helpful to those on the Treasury Bench, I have noticed, looking at the said regulations, that they do not actually come into force until 16 weeks after they are approved by the House. It seems to me that in four months there is plenty of time for the Government to produce the relevant information for the House and for the House to take a decision, with no detriment at all to the health and safety of anyone in our care homes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank both hon. and right hon. Gentlemen for their points of order. I am sure the House is well aware that it is not a matter for the Chair. I will not spring it on the Secretary of State for him to give an answer on this operational matter, but Mr Speaker usually observes that it is helpful to the House for Members to have as much information as possible before them when a matter of importance is to be considered.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The explanatory memorandum falsely asserted that the full impact assessment is available. Why was the House misled in that way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot answer that question, because what is said by Ministers and their Departments is not a matter for the Chair. However, if it were to be the case that a spokesman for a Minister had suggested that something had happened that had not happened, and on which Members were trying to rely and could not rely, Mr Speaker would take a very dim view of that. It is better if Ministers make sure that their Departments give as much information as possible to Members ahead of discussions.

Business of the House

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

How true!

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Right on cue—Sir Christopher Chope.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Can I ask my right hon. Friend whether it will be possible to amend the business of the House motion to facilitate the deferral of the debate on the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021?

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 12th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not rise in my place to speak on Third Reading because I understood that, as I was on the call list, I would be called, but the Minister is after me on the call list.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Well, that is an interesting point of order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the order of the call list is a matter for me. Yes, things are written down and these are unusual proceedings, but the order in which Members are called to speak is still a matter for the Chair. He will of course have his turn in due course.

[Nick Gibb]

I also thank the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy).

Uniform helps to promote the ethos of a school and set an appropriate tone. Moreover, by creating a common identity among pupils, a school uniform can act as a social leveller. The Bill will protect and reinforce that role.

I know that many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, will want to know the intended contents of the statutory guidance, so I will take this opportunity to set out briefly our proposed approach to the key issues raised in the debate. In developing and implementing their school uniform policy, schools should consider the total cost of all items of uniform or clothing that parents will need to provide while the pupil is at the school.

On the question of branded items, the current non-statutory guidance states that compulsory branded items should be kept to a minimum. We plan to keep that approach in the statutory guidance and, additionally, specify that their use should be limited to low-cost or long-lasting items. We will provide guidance about ways to reap the benefits of a branded item while also keeping costs low. The Government believe that this approach will set a clear expectation on schools not to overuse branded items, while allowing schools to take sensible decisions in their own contexts.

On sole-supplier arrangements, schools should be able to demonstrate that they have obtained best value for money in their supply arrangements, but we do not intend to ban sole-supplier contracts. To ensure that there is competition and transparency, we want schools to tender their school uniform contracts regularly—at least every five years. To support schools to carry out good tenders, we will provide information on the key areas to consider when tendering their uniform contracts. The Bill will not punish good suppliers; far from it. Their emphasis on quality and value for money will be rewarded as standards across the industry increase due to competition.

I believe that second-hand uniform can play a valuable role in keeping costs reasonable for all parents, and I know that many Members share that view. I would like every school to ensure that arrangements are in place to make second-hand school uniform available for parents to acquire. I myself had a second-hand rugby shirt at school, and I can confirm that when I grew out of it, after a few years, it remained in the same pristine condition it had been in when my parents purchased it.

British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 12th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, page 1, line 3, clause 1, leave out from “powers” to end of the section and insert

‘at the end, insert “in excess of £1 million in any calendar year”.’

This amendment would limit the British Library Board’s power to borrow money to £1 million per year.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

New clause 1 provides that the Act expires at the end of a period of five years beginning from the day on which it is passed, otherwise known as a sunset clause. I have tabled this new clause because I think it is particularly apposite in relation to this subject.

When the Government, or the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, first contemplated the idea that the British Library might be given the power to borrow, which it does not have at the moment, the report said that there would be an opportunity to have a full debate about the pros and cons of so doing, and I am not sure that that debate has ever really taken place. I am also not sure that the British Library board is that keen to exercise these powers. The reason for that may well be associated with the fact that borrowing incurs future costs, and those costs then have to be budgeted for from a grant in aid. It is well established that many of what are described as “arm’s length authorities”, which are the subject of grant in aid from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, believe that it is better to rely on grant in aid, where they know where they stand, than to go down the route of borrowing.

My concern is that the Bill could be used as a means whereby the Government cut their grant in aid to the British Library board and, if the board whinges, tell it to borrow the money instead. Given that our national debts are at record levels, it seems to me that such an attitude would be completely out of place. If the Bill becomes law, however, there is no guarantee that that will not happen—that it will not be used as an excuse to ramp up costs for future generations: “Spend now, pay later”. The grant in aid process is designed to ensure that the British Library board can receive funding sufficient to enable it to do its work during the course of the year.

My background interest in this comes from the fact that I was the Minister responsible for the Property Services Agency. One of the biggest projects on its books was the construction of the new British Library. That whole process and the way in which it was funded should be the subject of a treatise.

The grant in aid process was used to fund the construction project each year; there would be an agreement between the Government, the Department and the British Library about how much money could be spent on it in any given year. But no limit was put on the overall costs. It was only when the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher got to hear about that that she decided that we could not carry on just funding the capital project of the British Library on a year-by-year, hand-to-mouth basis. We needed to say that that could not go on indefinitely and that there should be a finite sum of money for the project—and that would be that.

I do not know whether you have been round the British Library, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is almost in two halves: part of it is adorned with fantastic panelling and money-no-object interiors, but I can only describe the second part as rather more utilitarian. That is a direct consequence of the then Prime Minister’s having said that there had been an abuse of the grant in aid process. I still have the trowel used in the British Library topping-out ceremony—as we would expect for such an extravagant project, it is made of finest silver and came from Garrard, I think. But that is by the by.

Just as the grant in aid was abused before Margaret Thatcher got a grip on it, I fear that the power to borrow could also be abused if we do not keep a tight rein on it. A five-year sunset clause would enable that assessment to be made, so that at the end of five years, if it had been a great success, it could be renewed, and if not, there would not be any need to renew it. Effectively, it would give this House the opportunity of policing what had actually happened under the powers being granted in this primary legislation. I go back to the point that we are not even sure that the British Library really wants these powers, and certainly it does not want these powers if the consequence is a reduction in its grant in aid.

Amendment 1 is designed to limit the amount of borrowing in any calendar year to £1 million. That is an off-the-cuff, arbitrary sum of money, but it seemed to be a reasonable sum for starters, in the absence of any other evidence as to what the British Library needs to borrow and for what purpose it needs to carry out those borrowings. I have tabled this more as a probing amendment, rather than one that I expect to be accepted just like that by the Government. This is quite a short point—and, indeed, it is a short Bill—but in the context of the national situation of public borrowing, it takes on a totemic significance greater than it might have had when the Bill was introduced last year.

I hope that those introductory remarks in support of my new clause will engender not only a debate but an opportunity for the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who I am pleased to see in his place, to respond and to share with the House his vision for the British Library and how much he thinks that vision is dependent upon the British Library Board having the borrowing powers set out in the Bill.

I would be interested to know whether the Minister has any idea of how much the British Library Board is thinking of borrowing. The explanatory notes make it clear that the board would not just be able to borrow willy-nilly; it would have to get approval for so doing from the Department. My understanding is that, at the moment, there is a sum of £60 million available for borrowing for all the arm’s length bodies that the Department sponsors. Would the British Library Board’s borrowings be subject to that limit, or would they be in addition to it? In the spirit of the need to ensure that we scrutinise these proposed pieces of legislation, I would be grateful if we could get some response on those issues.

Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 12th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 3, line 29, leave out clause 5.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, leave out from “force” to end of subsection and insert “on 1 October 2021”.

This amendment will incorporate into the Bill the guidance for policy makers issued in August 2010 that there should be two common commencement dates each year, one of which is 1st October, for the introduction of changes to regulations affecting businesses.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Amendment 1 stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Shipley (Philip Davies).

The purpose of amendments 1 and 2 is to try to address the quality of the legislation that we produce in this House. Using clauses as a means of giving the power to change a whole mass of other legislation has long been a bugbear of mine and is exactly what clause 5 does, which is why the Bill would be better without it. I know that, inevitably, the response from the Government on these issues is always, “Oh, well, this is belt and braces and it will save time in the future because we won’t have to bring forward fresh legislation or statutory instruments in order to cover scenarios that we have not yet thought about.” It seems to me that the case has not been made, which is why I have moved amendment 1.

Amendment 2 is a similar provision to the one on which I was briefly trying to engage the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), when we were discussing the Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill. The Minister would not engage with me because she felt that that Bill was a deregulatory Bill—she was probably right—and that, therefore, this provision did not really apply. None the less, the purpose of this is to try to ensure that there should be two common commencement dates each year for regulations that impact on businesses, and that one of those should be 1 October, because that seems to be closest to the time when this Bill will be implemented, so that is the date that I have chosen. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give me an assurance that it is indeed the Government’s policy to deregulate and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and individuals, and to reassert that the Government accept the virtue of having two days each year that might be described as regulatory days, because that will not only facilitate the effectiveness of our legislative process, but make it much easier for those who are impacted on by our legislation to respond and prepare for it. That is why I moved amendment 1 and have spoken to amendment 2.

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 12th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Expiry—

“This Act expires at the end of a period of 3 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”

[Sir Christopher Chope]

New clause 1, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), replicates, almost exactly, a new clause that was moved in Committee to try to ensure that there is a proper assessment of the Bill.

The new—temporary; perhaps permanent—prisons Minister had the courtesy to phone me yesterday to discuss the reasons why he believed the new clause was unnecessary. I was able to exchange with him an actual case in my constituency that is causing me concern, which he said he would take away and act upon. I will summarise that case, which shows how important the issue of drugs in prisons is.

The case concerns a constituent whose husband was convicted of murder and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. Within a short time of his arrival in prison, never having taken drugs before, he became addicted to drugs, and he was then trying to get off those drugs. Ultimately, it resulted in him and his family being subject to payments of extortion amounting to no less than £60,000. Despite him and his parents and family reporting the matter, none of the people to whom the £60,000 was paid have been brought to justice. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the new Minister has assured me that he is going to investigate the matter and take care of other issues relating to the welfare of my constituent’s husband.

I tabled the new clause in order to raise that issue. I am not very familiar with procedures in the House, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, but as we need to resolve this Report stage so that the Bill can be given its Third Reading, would it be in order for me not to speak any longer about new clauses 1 or 2 but to seek the leave of the House to withdraw them both?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I take it that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to press his new clauses, for which the House will be grateful.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

Registers of Births and Deaths Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Report stage
Friday 12th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning of line 6 to end of line 4 on page 2 and insert—

“(1) Registers of live births, still births and deaths must be kept in paper form and must be retained in hard copy by local registrars.

(2) Copies of information in registers kept under subsection (1) must be transferred to the Registrar General in electronic form on a regular basis and no less frequently than every three months.”

This amendment requires that registers are retained in paper form in hard copy by local registrars but with provision that electronic copies of such information can be transferred on a regular basis to the Registrar General.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “also”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, page 2, leave out line 12.

This amendment removes from the Bill the repeal of section 28 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which makes provision about the custody of registers.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 27, leave out clause 3.

Amendment 5, page 3, line 13, leave out clause 4.

Amendment 6, page 4, line 22, leave out clause 5.

Amendment 7, page 4, line 25, leave out clause 6.

Amendment 8, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) This Act extends to England and Wales only.”

Amendment 9, page 5, line 8, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

Amendment 10, page 5, line 19, leave out subsection (6).

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Amendment 1 is designed to ensure that we still have physical, hard copy registers alongside e-registers, so that we do not facilitate fraud and corruption in our registration service. I will not have time to go into detail—

Business of the House (Private Members' Bills) (No. 9) Motion

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Object!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to object. As I explained with motion 5, Mr Speaker has selected a manuscript amendment to the motion in the name of the hon. Gentleman. Again, copies of that amendment are available in the Vote Office and electronically. As I explained in relation to motion 5, under the practice of the House under current arrangements, a selected amendment to a motion that cannot be proceeded with after the moment of interruption constitutes an objection, so the motion cannot be taken.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Arising from the decision on motion 5, can you confirm that Westminster Hall will now still sit tomorrow to hear debates on, among other things, support for pupils’ education during school closures, online anonymity, desecration of war memorials, and discharge into rivers—all debates that the Government sought, by motion 5, not to allow to take place tomorrow?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I can confirm that those debates will go ahead tomorrow in Westminster Hall.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you help Back Benchers, please? A number of Back Benchers who wanted to come into the Chamber for this part of tonight’s business were prevented from coming in, and we now have a scenario in which almost the only people in the Chamber are members of the Government and Whips. As I understand it, their plan is to try to distort the votes that may take place on some of the remaining orders, which were originally going to be the subject of deferred Divisions. It seems that, as the business has finished early, the Government are intent on preventing our having a physical Division on some of the remaining orders.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Perhaps I have a better view of the Chamber than he has because I have the advantage of being in the Chair, but it would appear to me that there are several spaces in which Members could sit on the Government Benches and a great many in which Members could sit on the Opposition Benches. I point out to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House, that if there were too many members of the Government party on the Government Benches, I would not stop Government Members sitting on the Opposition Benches, given the unusual circumstances under which we are now operating.

I have to say that I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. No one can be prevented from coming into this Chamber and—I will say this quite loudly—if there is anyone who feels prevented from coming into the Chamber right now, they should come and see me. People can come into the Chamber right now.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am not sure that there can be anything further to that point of order, but out of courtesy and given the hon. Gentleman’s seniority in the House, I will take his point of order.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

First, there was an attempt physically to stop me coming into the Chamber. When I said that I wished to come into the Chamber to shout “Object”, I was allowed in.

You just said, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are spaces in the Chamber, and so there are, but that was not my point. My point is that while Back Benchers were discouraged or have been kept out of the Chamber, I can count the Government Whips—there are one, two, three on this Bench and four, five, six, seven, eight—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

There are about a dozen Government Whips here—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. How many people with particular duties in the House there are sitting in the Chamber is not a point of order. Any Member can sit in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman’s presence in the Chamber is itself evidence of the impracticality and impossibility of any Member—be they a Whip, a Minister or anything else—trying to prevent any Member, but especially a Member with the hon. Gentleman’s seniority, from entering the Chamber. I have just said it and will say it again: if there is any Member out there who feels prevented from coming into the Chamber and wishes to come in, let him or her come in now and I will protect them.

Let us proceed.

Business without Debate

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are thousands—in fact, tens of thousands—of people who will be observing these proceedings and will have noticed that the Government have contrived to prevent this House of Commons from being able to have a substantive vote on some of the most repressive legislation we have ever seen in our democracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and I are but two among many Members who object to what is going on, and all I can say is that revenge is a dish best served cold.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

This really is a point of order for the Chair, because it is incumbent on the occupant of the Chair at any particular given time to decide whether there has to be a physical Division or whether the opinion of the House can be taken on the voices. I decided that the opinion of the House on motion 4 could be taken on the voices, because I could hear a great many more Ayes than Noes. That is my decision, and I will stand by it. If the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in this House had wished to make sure that a deferred Division took place, which would have happened had we reached this point in the proceedings after 7 o’clock, it was open to the hon. Gentleman—who, I know from many years of past experience, is quite capable of keeping the House from discussing a particular subject for many hours—and any other Member to make sure that the previous business did not finish before 7 o’clock.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. He has just solved his problem; let it be known that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) oppose motion 4. I note that there are two of them, and that there are a great many others who do not oppose it. I have just explained in my answer to the point of order from the hon. Member for Christchurch that there were very obvious ways in which he and the right hon. Member for New Forest West could have ensured that a vote on motion 4 was taken by way of a deferred Division.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not think there can be any more on this, but I will be fair to the hon. Gentleman and take his point of order.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are absolutely correct in saying that, in normal circumstances, there would have been ways in which we would have been able to ensure that business continued until 7 o’clock, but unfortunately that facility is not available in call list system unless one is on the call list.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am afraid that he is completely wrong. It would have been perfectly in order for Members not on the call list to participate in the proceedings that have just concluded by way of interventions and so on. There are ways in which that could have been done, and I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman, who is more expert than almost any other Member on the use of procedure in this House, could have used the procedure to his advantage had he decided to do so. However, I have taken the decision on the Division on motion 4, so we come to motion 5.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Police

That the draft Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matters) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 9 July, be approved.—(David Duguid.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rehabilitation of Offenders

That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 9 July, be approved.—(David Duguid.)

Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 15th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a member of the Procedure Committee, I confirm that that is exactly what is happening: the Procedure Committee is looking into this issue. I sympathise with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said about so many days in this House having been wasted—not in the last week, but in previous weeks, when the House rose early and important Bills could have been discussed. We know that where there is a will, there is a way and that on two occasions during this Session, the Government have taken on Bills that they regard as important from private Members’ business. The Government have adopted those Bills and enabled them to get on to the statute book, so I urge my right hon. Friend to make her representations to the Government, because they have oodles of time on their hands and could easily take over her Bill and ensure that it reaches the statute book in the way that she wishes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, which requires no further clarification from me.

Tenant Fees Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That motion would have given us some certainty that this House would be sitting on Friday week, for example, to consider private Members’ Bills. Is it not extraordinary that we now have no certainty about that? The presumption now is that we will not be sitting on Friday 1 February. At one stage we were told that we would be sitting on Friday 25 January. My point of order relates to the amendment that I tabled to the business in motion 4. Prior to hearing that the motion was not going to be moved, I sought to find out whether my amendment had been selected. It is the convention of this House that if someone has tabled an amendment, they get advance notice prior to the debate as to whether it has been selected. We often get printed papers telling us which amendments have been selected and in what order. Can you tell us, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether my amendment and/or the one tabled in the name of the Labour environment spokesman, amendment (b), were selected for debate, subject of course to the debate starting at the behest of the Government? The other point I would like to make is to ask whether I am correct in saying that the only way in which we can avoid this sort of scenario is for Back Benchers on both sides to sign Government motions so that they cannot be withdrawn?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I beg the House to be a little quieter because, as a matter of practicality, I could not hear the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I am politely asking for a little bit of quiet. Just talk quietly among yourselves.

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. As to whether it is extraordinary, I cannot possibly comment from the Chair. However, he has asked me, as a point of order, whether his amendment (a) to motion 4 was selected and, indeed, whether amendment (b) was selected, and I can tell him that I do not know the answer to his question. The selection of amendments is entirely a matter for Mr Speaker, and the Deputy Speakers have no part in the consideration or discussion of whether an amendment should be selected. I do not know whether either amendment was selected, but I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept your ruling in relation to the prerogative of the Speaker to decide which amendments are selected and which are not, but what I was really concerned about was the fact that the Member who tabled the amendment was not notified as to whether it had been selected. Is there now a new convention in this place that a Member does not know whether their amendment has been selected until the debate starts? If that is a new convention, let us all be clear about it, but my understanding, after more than 30 years in this place, is that if a Member moves an amendment, they normally get advance notice of whether it has been selected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman again makes a perfectly reasonable point about his experience over the past 30 years, but we live in ever-changing times, and I genuinely do not know the answer to his question.

Parking (Code of Practice) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 23rd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am not going to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you. It is very good to have clarity for the Chair.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 6

Delegation of functions

Amendments made: 1, page 3, line 14, leave out from “may” to “functions” in line 20 and insert “—

(a) enter into an agreement with a public authority authorising the authority to perform any functions of the Secretary of State under sections1 to4 (other than the function of laying a code or alteration before Parliament);

(b) enter into an agreement with a person authorising that person to perform any”.

This amendment enables the Secretary of State to delegate functions relating to the investigation of breaches of the parking code to bodies that are not public authorities.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 28, leave out “public authority which is” and insert “person”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, page 3, line 34, leave out “the final version of”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 5.

Amendment 4, page 3, line 35, at end insert “for approval”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 5.

Amendment 5, page 3, line 36, leave out “The” and insert

“Once the Secretary of State has approved the code or alteration, the” .—(Sir Greg Knight.)

Amendments 3 to 5 make clear that, where the Secretary of State has delegated the function of preparing the parking code, the Secretary of State must approve the final version of the parking code (or any alteration to it) before it is laid before Parliament.

Clause 7

Levy for recovery of administrative and investigation costs

Amendment made: 6, page 4, line 3, at end insert—

“() where the Secretary of State has entered into an agreement with a person under section (Appeals against parking charges) (appeals against parking charges), the establishment and maintenance by the person of a service for dealing with parking appeals (within the meaning of that section).” —(Sir Greg Knight.)

The effect of this amendment is that, where the Secretary of State enters into an agreement with a person for the person to deal with appeals against parking charges (see NC1), the costs of establishing and maintaining that parking appeals service may be defrayed out of the proceeds of the levy imposed on accredited parking associations.

Third Reading

Queen’s consent signified.

Bat Habitats Regulation (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to cut off my hon. Friend in full flow. This is further to my point of order earlier this morning about the security risk this country faces from a European Court of Justice decision to stop the UK kicking out of this country a Moroccan national whom the Home Office believes to be a severe threat to national security. It now appears that the person concerned is Abu Hamza’s daughter-in-law. Whoever it is, this is a very serious matter, and this country and this House should be aware of it. What can be done to get a Home Office Minister to come to the Chamber as a matter of urgency to tell the House about this matter and about what threat this country faces?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for bringing this matter, which is indeed important, to the attention of the House again. As he knows, I have no power to require a Minister to come to the House, but I am quite certain, now that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter on the Floor of the House, that those who ought to take note of what he has said will do so. I trust that the matter will be brought before the House in due course, and the hon. Gentleman is of course well aware of the many methods that he can use next week to ensure that it is brought before the House.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for what you have said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I share his concern that this is a very important issue, particularly in the light of what has been said about the need for us to be able, as a result of the current EU renegotiations, to improve our own national security.

The EU is of course a significant issue in relation to the regulation of bat habitats. The only way in which my Bill, as currently drafted, can be put on the statute book is either for the Government to agree to exclude it from the application of the European Communities Act 1972 or for us to leave the European Union. If the Bill does not reach the statute book, the need for such a Bill may be significantly reduced if we can leave the European Union. I do not know whether I will be able to draw out the Minister on that matter in this debate. Last year, I described him as one of the leading Eurosceptics. I hope that in the course of the next few weeks or days, he will re-establish his credentials in that respect.

This morning, I received a written answer to my question. I asked:

“what progress has been made…on developing a toolkit for effective and safe management of bats in churches as recommended in the University of Bristol report on Management of bats in churches, a pilot, published in January 2015.”

The Minister referred to that report when he responded to the debate in January 2015.

The answer that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), stated:

“The Government has invested significant resources into research and development to assess how we can reduce the impact caused by bats in churches. This has included a three year research project that concluded in 2013, as well as a pilot project led by Historic England that focused on churches with significant bat issues. Natural England is currently creating a licensing framework to provide the mechanism through which the impact of bats will be controlled in churches.”

I will pause at that point. Natural England seems to be taking an inordinately long time to create the licensing framework. One can only assume that either the matter is incredibly complex or Natural England is not investing sufficient resources in that objective. I hope that the Minister will put more pressure on Natural England to come forward with the licensing framework sooner rather than later.

The second paragraph of the ministerial response to my written question causes me concern. It states:

“A partnership of five organisations, including the Church of England and Natural England, is seeking Heritage Lottery Funding for a five year project to support the creation of a national support network for churches that have bat related issues. The outcome of the bid for funding will be known in March.”

That is an incredibly long timescale. Why can the funding not be provided directly by the Government now? Why do we need to go to the Heritage Lottery Fund to try to get it? Why will it take a similar length of time to the duration of the last world war to come up with a solution, if indeed that funding is available? Why, for all the talk, are we not able to do more, more quickly, to resolve what is for many churches and places of worship a really serious issue?

The seriousness of the issue is recognised in the material that has been produced by the Bat Conservation Trust and the University of Bristol. The Bat Conservation Trust has identified a number of case studies of churches where the problems with bats have been mitigated, rather than resolved. It also sets out in detail all the problems that bats can cause in churches, such as droppings and urine, health concerns, what happens when they fly inside churches and the problems that they can cause when building and conservation projects are under way in churches.

The Bat Conservation Trust has a helpful brief entitled “Solutions to bat issues in churches”, and it answers certain questions such as “Why can’t I get rid of bats in my church? What can I do about bat droppings in my church? Why do churches have to foot the bill for bat conservation? What help is available to churches with bats?”, and so on. It is clear from the way that those questions are asked that we are a long way short of finding a solution to this intractable problem that is causing an enormous amount of concern to churches.

In the previous debate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley referred to the fact that it is not just churches that are affected by this issue. The Bat Conservation Trust took up my response to that intervention, in which I said that we should perhaps start with just one small area, such as churches. The fact that I then contemplated the possibility that we might extend that provision to other buildings caused an enormous amount of angst among members of the Bat Conservation Trust, and it placed a riposte on its website. My point is that we have to start somewhere and try to get some urgency into the matter.

School Funding Model

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)

- Hansard -

I apologise for having missed my place in the queue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it gives me great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of residents of Christchurch. It is written in terms identical to those of the petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. I know that my constituents are confident, as I am, that the Government will honour their commitment to introducing fairer school funding.

The Petition of the residents of Christchurch.

[P001656]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I have been given no notice that any further petitions are about to be presented.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 7, page 1, line 17, at beginning insert “in relation either to an expulsion or to a suspension”.

This is linked to the amendment below which prevents retrospective judgement of behaviour leading to a final expulsion of a member of the House of Lords.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 17, after “Act”, insert “and any Standing Orders made under subsection (1)”

Amendment 19, page 1, line 17, after “Act” insert

“and any Standing Orders made under this section”.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).

This removes all reference to previous conduct that was not public knowledge.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 18, at beginning insert

“in relation only to a suspension”.

This removes the power of expulsion in respect of previous conduct that was not public knowledge.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 18, leave out from “Act” to end of line 19 and insert

“but since 1 January 2015”.

This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge to just the current year.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 18, leave out from “Act” to end of line 19 and insert

“but since 1 January 2000”.

This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge in the past 15 years only.

Amendment 12, page 1, line 18, leave out from “Act” to end of line 19 and insert

“but since 1 January 1985”.

This limits the application of the Bill’s sanctions to previous conduct that was not public knowledge in the past 30 years only.

Amendment 13,  page 1, line 19, after “knowledge”, insert “in the United Kingdom”.

This limits the scope of public knowledge of previous conduct to what was not known in this country.

Amendment 14, page 1, line 19, at end insert—

‘(4A) A resolution under subsection 4(b) may not relate to expulsion”.

This is an alternative approach to removing the power of expulsion in respect of previous conduct that was not public knowledge.

Amendment 15, page 1, line 19, at end insert—

‘(4A) Standing Orders of the House of Lords set out guidance on what constitutes public knowledge under subsection 4(b)”.

This allows for some certainty as to what might constitute public knowledge of previous conduct.

Amendment 20, page 1, line 19, at end add—

‘(5) nothing in this section shall authorise the expulsion or suspension of members of the House of Lords on the grounds of age, health or length of service”

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out “Expulsion and”.

Amendment 4,  page 2, line 4, leave out clause 3.

Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 2, line 9, leave out “Expulsion and”.

Amendment 16, line 1, leave out “expel or”.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

We were discussing these amendments last Friday. There was a Division and, because the House was not quorate, under the relevant Standing Order we have, in effect, gone back to the start. That does not mean that it is necessary for me to repeat everything that I said last week, because that is on the record. However, I will repeat the point that the Bill is a very serious piece of legislation, because it provides not only for the suspension from service of Members of the other place, but for their expulsion on the basis of breaches of conduct. My amendments are designed to ensure that the code of conduct in the House of Lords is linked specifically with the Bill, so that expulsions and suspensions can take place only for breaches of the code of conduct, rather than just for conduct, as currently set out in the Bill.

The precedent for my approach is none other than the contents of the 2012 House of Lords Reform Bill, which did not make progress because the Government were unwilling to allow the Bill to proceed to a full debate and wanted to control it by a guillotine process. That Government Bill specifically linked the code of conduct in the other place and powers to suspend or expel.

Last week, in the interests of brevity, I did not address amendments 6 and 19. To freshen our proceedings, it might be worth referring to those. They amount to the same thing. How do those two amendments fit into the Bill? The Bill provides in clause 1(4) that

“A resolution passed by virtue of subsection (1) must state that, in the opinion of the House of Lords, the conduct giving rise to the resolution—

(a) occurred after the coming into force of this Act”.

That is a proviso to ensure that the legislation cannot be retrospective and is limited by clause 1(4)(b), which says:

“or

(b) occurred before the coming into force of this Act and was not public knowledge before that time.”

We had some discussion of that last week. The issue is addressed in some of the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry).

After the words

“occurred after the coming into force of this Act”,

my amendment 6 would add the words

“and any Standing Orders made under subsection(1)”.

Without the amendment the following could happen. A Member of the other House could behave in a way that people found embarrassing, although their conduct was not in breach of the relevant Standing Orders and code of conduct of the House, but the code of conduct and the Standing Orders were subsequently changed in order to cover that scenario. In other words, without the safeguards set out in amendment 6 and/or amendment 19, it would be possible for the conduct giving rise to the expulsion or suspension to be conduct which, prior to the change in Standing Orders, would not have been in breach of them.

This is a straightforward issue of whether we support the principles of prospective rather than retrospective legislation. In the 800th anniversary year of Magna Carta, I would have thought that we would be very much against introducing more scope for retrospection in our legislation. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is promoting the Bill in this place, he said, when I raised this issue in the Public Bill Committee:

“Serious issues have been raised. I will take advice on the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised about the issue of retrospectivity between the time that the Act comes into force and the Standing Orders being changed. I cannot promise any amendments, but I will see whether I can get some assurances that shed some light on that.”––[Official Report, House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Public Bill Committee, 4 February 2015; c. 13.]

The amendments are designed to ensure that we have the opportunity to put into the Bill the safeguards that my right hon. Friend, in fairness, accepted were reasonable. I therefore hope that they can be put into the Bill and that he will accept, in particular, amendment 6. I look forward to hearing from him all the reasons why the amendment is technically defective or in some other way falls short of the high standards that he has brought to legislation in this place throughout his very long career. Unless or until I hear what those technical objections are, it would be much better for us to insist that the other place deals with issues relating to discipline on a prospective basis rather than a retrospective basis.

We have had similar issues in our own House. The Standards Committee, on which I have the privilege of serving, dealt with the case of one of our right hon. Friends who was being sanctioned by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the basis of a fresh interpretation of the rule book which, prior to that, had never been thought to be fair or reasonable. The Standards Committee said that if there was to be a reinterpretation of our code of conduct, it should be prospective rather than retrospective, and that we could not start condemning people for acts that they had had no reason to believe were in breach of the code.

The issue was whether someone should make a declaration of interest to the House—to a Committee—when they did not have an interest but might be thought by somebody to have an interest. Until now, it has always been thought that that referred to other knowledgeable people sitting in the Chamber or in a Committee. The commissioner interpreted it as meaning that it could apply to anybody—the person on the Clapham omnibus—such that if they heard somebody talk about a particular subject, even though that person did not have an interest that should be declared, it might seem as though they ought to have one, and that if the other person thought they might have an interest, there was a need to declare that. That is now being incorporated into the new code of conduct, but we took the view that it should not be incorporated with retrospective effect.

That is why amendment 6 is not a mere academic exercise; it goes to the heart of what is fair and reasonable in a rules-based organisation. Before people are accused of breaking the rules, they should know what those rules are, and the rules should not be changed after the conduct takes place just so the person can be brought to book for something embarrassing. That is the brief but fundamental point.

It is clear from the discussions I have had with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that he has sympathy for the amendment, but he may feel inhibited in accepting it, because the Bill is not his Bill. It does not even belong to its promoter in the other place; it is, essentially, like every Bill that comes here on a Friday, a proxy Bill for the Government, who have a veto over all such Bills.

I hope that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) will accept that amendment 6 would be a valuable addition to the Bill, rather than detract from it. If he has not had the chance to clear it with the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, I am sure he should not feel inhibited by that and he should feel able to express his view on behalf of the Government today.

The Medical Innovation Bill is also on today’s Order Paper. It was promoted in the House of Lords by my noble friend Lord Saatchi, who was led to believe, as the Bill was going through the other place, that it had the support of the whole Government, but then we read in the Sunday papers that apparently at no stage did it have the support of the Liberal Democrats, although they were not prepared to say so openly. I assume that the Bill being steered through the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire does have the support of the Liberal Democrats and that they support the principle that we should not legislate retrospectively in relation to conduct that could give rise to expulsion or suspension from the House.

On that basis, I have talked myself into quite an optimistic frame of mind, thinking that the amendment is so compelling that it is likely to be accepted not only by my right hon. Friend, but by my hon. Friend the Minister on behalf of the Government.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 5th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I am very much in favour of increasing our expenditure on defence. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood said that this Bill set an important precedent. I agree, and it is that it opens the way for my Defence Expenditure (NATO Target) Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman well knows that this Bill is a narrow one. I appreciate that he is answering the point made by the hon. Gentleman, and it is perfectly reasonable for him to do so, but I am sure that he will not stray into discussing any other Bills whether in his name or that of any other Members.

[Mr Chope]

I certainly shall not do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to put it on record that there is a threat of us falling below the 2% threshold of defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP. That is a bad thing, and we should be legislating against that possibility.

Business without Debate

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 7th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On my Order Paper, we have next the EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman’s point of order has been noted. The Clerk will now read Bill No. 8 on the Order Paper.

EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Perhaps we will get a chance to discuss the Employment Opportunities Bill later. As the name suggests, it gives employment opportunities to people who would not otherwise have them. I hope that my hon. Friend has looked at the Bill. To assert, as he has, that the minimum wage cannot have any impact on jobs is to ignore the level at which the minimum wage is set. That is why the Low Pay Commission was set up to look at the level and make recommendations on the minimum wage. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be concerned if we start discussing the Employment Opportunities Bill in detail at this stage—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is accustomed to making long speeches in this Chamber on a Friday. I am listening very carefully to the content of his speech and to the information he provides to make sure that what he says is entirely related to the Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill. I would be surprised to discover that the hon. Gentleman wished to talk out his own Bill, so I am sure that he will stick very strictly to the matter in hand.

[Mr Chope]

You know as well as anyone, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, ultimately, each Member of Parliament has to be held accountable for his own actions. If I am still speaking at 2.30, I will obviously not expect this Bill to get its Second Reading.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will be very surprised if the hon. Gentleman is still speaking and in order at 2.30.

[Mr Chope]

Apart from anything else, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to exclude my hon. Friends from speaking in support of the Bill.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and my amendment attempts to mitigate the terms of the Bill, under which some people might have three, four, five or six votes. For example, somebody might put the BNP first and the UK Independence party second, and then vote for some other nationalist party or whatever. All those candidates would never get anywhere near the top of the poll, thereby making it possible for that person to cast a large number of votes. Thus, some people will get a large number of votes, whereas others will not; indeed, they will get only the one vote. One way of explaining the virtues of the first-past-the-post system is to say that it is one person, one vote, which is something that everybody understands.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made a good point about some people effectively having three, four or five votes. However, is it not the case that the meaning of the word “alternative” is “one of two”, from its true Latin derivation, “alter”? My hon. Friend’s amendment is therefore technically and linguistically absolutely correct. If the system is to be called the alternative vote system, the sense of “one of two” must come into it somewhere, not the sense of “one of four or five”.