HM Passport Office Backlog

Debate between Christopher Chope and Kevin Foster

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Well, what I am happy to keep confirming is about the massive output, the hard work of HMPO, and the plans, which, I must say, were put in place long before Labour Members showed any interest in the subject at all—[Interruption.]. They shout, “It was predictable,” but they did not predict it.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

To let others speak, I need to come towards winding up, but I will give way briefly to my hon. Friend.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has described the current situation. Will he accept that some people, through no fault of their own, have been suffering as a result of the chaos? Will he apologise to those people unreservedly?

[Kevin Foster]

Look, no one wants to be in a situation where we have a service level of 10 weeks. We would much rather be back at our traditional service level. However, we have had literally millions of additional applications coming in this year, and I have seen the service and the teams nearly quadrupling output in a couple of months—my hon. Friend and I could probably think of some examples of where we would love to see output quadrupled in a public service—so it is difficult to stand here and say that that is all wrong. We appreciate that there are issues and that work is needed to ensure that people do not go over the 10 weeks—unless there is an issue, such as someone making an application when they are not entitled to a British passport. In some cases, we will need to establish that the person is who they say they are—it is their photo, and they are a British citizen—which will inevitably take longer, but I hope my hon. Friend will accept that a lot of work is being, done and has been done for many months. Yes, in individual cases there will of course be difficult circumstances, but we will attempt to respond where we can.

I feel sorry for those on the Labour Front Bench in some ways. They were told to come up with something on passports. Having said “Yes, captain” to the request, the shadow Home Secretary got her team together to come up with some ideas. First, they tried to think of a better way of delivering the service, but had no alternative to what we have done already. Then they looked to see what ideas they had put forward last year, but realised they had not said a word—the claim that it was predictable rather contrasted with their own lack of prediction. Perhaps they wondered whether they could demand that passport staff be in the office, but then remembered that they already are and what they said when the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) suggested that about other public services. Perhaps they could have demanded that the contractor who prints the passports be nationalised, but realised that that sounded a bit too much like Jeremy. Maybe they could have pointed to output being higher under Labour, but then they realised it was not, due to the record outputs now being achieved. Then, with a deflated sigh, one of them must have said, “How about we just have a pop at the Minister?” which they all agreed was the only thing they could come up with, hence their motion today.

The role of Immigration Minister is never an easy one. It brings challenges. It is certainly a role where you cannot please everyone. But it speaks volumes when Labour Members have so little to offer that they resort to a motion attacking the person not the policy. That is not uncommon. We see it on a raft of issues in my brief, where the Labour party has no policy, only political points. From the immigration health surcharge to our migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda, it has no clear view. On the changes needed to tackle abuse of our immigration system and evil people-smuggling gangs, it offers nothing but criticism. For all the Labour shadows I have had since December 2019, and there have been a few, we have not seen one coherent plan come forward. [Interruption.] There have been four choices to change. In short, they are only left with the personal, in the absence of any policy alternative.

Members might wonder why I look happy in the face of today’s motion. It is because I am reminded of a quote by our greatest post-war Prime Minister:

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

How right she was.

Ukraine Refugee Visas

Debate between Christopher Chope and Kevin Foster

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The experience that I have had in Christchurch, where we have already welcomed some Ukrainians who have arrived, has been much more positive. I thank the Minister and his team for being so accommodating towards MPs who raise particular issues. Will he encourage individuals and families who want to take advantage of the schemes and are finding bureaucratic problems to contact their MPs? Everyone who has contacted me has had a satisfactory result.

[Kevin Foster]

I am pleased to hear of the results that my hon. Friend has been able to achieve for his constituents, as he always does. It is good to see people arrive and to see communities such as Christchurch stepping up and doing their bit. It is encouraging that we have seen offers coming in from throughout the UK, rather than just from areas that have had, let us say, more of a tradition of taking part in the local government-based resettlement schemes. It is very good to hear of my hon. Friend’s experience. I have had constituent contact, as I am sure other colleagues have. MPs from all parties are doing their bit to advance cases when they are contacted.

Registers of Births and Deaths Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Kevin Foster

2nd reading
Friday 26th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

To be absolutely clear, that is not the Government’s intent. The law will still provide for hard-copy birth certificates.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

What my hon. Friend is referring to is like saying, “When I print off an email, it’s a hard copy.” It is not a hard copy; it is emailed and printed off. The Minister is talking about an electric record that can be reproduced in hard copy form. If we are talking about hard-hard copies, then, as I asked earlier, how does that fit in with the Forgery Act? Obviously, hard copies depend on having holograph signatures, and we hear that in this Bill there is the power for people to be able to register births without having to provide any signature at all unless they can send their signature by electronic means to the registration district. This is a very serious issue.

Without dwelling any more on the history of the Act, let me just say that throughout the mid-19th century, the only blip on issues relating to birth registrations, which were increasing the whole time, was the Vaccination Act 1853, which tied compulsory vaccination of all infants to their registration and gave powers for parents to be fined for non-compliance. As always happens with the law of good intentions, it ended out quite differently because as it was the local registrar who informed parents of their legal obligation to vaccinate their children, parents who feared vaccination avoided the registrar. Plus ça change, as they might say, in the context of today’s attempts to try to require compulsory vaccination for everybody in this country even if it means depriving them of their right to work in a care home or in the national health service.

The Bill itself contains a number of provisions about which I raised concerns with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he brought it forward originally. One of those is the fact that there are lots of regulation-making powers in the Bill. I said to him that I thought it was desirable that those regulations or orders should be available in draft at Committee stage so that they could be properly examined in Committee. He said that he thought that was a really good idea. However, when we got to Committee, no such draft regulations were available.

I presume, because the Government attach urgency to this Bill and more than a year has elapsed, that those regulations and draft orders are available. I look forward to the Minister confirming that they are, but if they are not, why not? When will they be available? Why can we not see them before the Bill goes into Committee? These draconian measures give great power to the Government to set out regulations and change the existing law. It seems bad practice that people should be expected to go through a detailed Bill such as this in Committee without having any inkling of what the Government are hiding away in the regulations that are held in the relevant Department and are not being openly disclosed. I fear that that total lack of transparency is almost endemic in so much of what the Government do.

My next concern about the Bill is that under clause 1(3), section 28 of the 1953 Act, in relation to the custody of registers, would be repealed. That would remove any requirement for registration officers to hold registers. As a consequence, the hard copies that so many people look at when they examine their family history would not be available and accessible. Clause 4 states that such a repeal of section 28 would not affect the requirement that every superintendent registrar should keep records that were already in existence, provided that that did not cover records issued between 2009 and the day when this Bill comes into effect.

I was assured by my right hon. Friend and the Minister, who responded to the debate on the previous Bill, which is on identical terms, that the requirement to keep existing—or what might be described as old—records would not be affected in any way. However, when one looks at clause 6 of this Bill, one sees that the Government are taking the power to make further consequential provisions on any provision of this Act, including clause 4, which is meant to be a safeguard. That power

“is exercisable by statutory instrument”.

It includes the powers

“to make different provision for different purposes”

and

“to make transitional, transitory or saving provision”,

and it

“may, in particular, be exercised by amending, repealing or revoking any provision made by or under primary legislation”—

in other words, this is a Henry VIII clause writ large—

“passed or made before, or in the same Session as, this Act.”

Under the powers in clause 6, all the assurances and guarantees on the operation of clause 4 and the safeguards under what is now section 28 of the 1953 Act are completely worthless. We, as a sovereign Parliament, do not have the power to bind our successors, but we do have the power, if we so choose, not to make it too easy for our successors to change the rules against the wishes of the people. That is why I think it is outrageous that the Government should be taking powers to change by regulation the guarantees that they say are in existence in clause 4 of this Bill. That is just the sort of issue I would like to address in Committee, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden will be able to give me some indication that he will accept amendments facilitating those safeguards for existing registers and records.

Another concern I have about the Bill, which my hon. Friend alluded to in introducing it, is the way regulations could be amended to change the requirement to actually sign the register. Those provisions, set out in clause 3 of the Bill, amend the 1953 Act by inserting a new section 38B after section 38A. An extraordinary lack of information is attached to what the Government intend here. It has been alluded to in the speeches of some of my hon. Friends, who seem to think it is really desirable that we should simplify what has been a solemn and historic process of registering births; I will come on later to the issue of registering deaths.

The proposed new section says:

“Where any register of births or register of deaths is required to be kept…otherwise than in hard copy form, the Minister may by regulations provide that—

(a) a person’s duty…to sign the register at any time is to have effect as a duty to comply with specified requirements at that time, and

(b) a person who complies with those requirements is to be treated…as having signed the register”.

In other words, somebody who has not actually signed the register will be treated as having signed it. Are we seriously going to legislate to create the pretence that somebody who has not signed the register has signed it and is deemed to have signed it, that, in the case of a duty to sign the register in the presence of the registrar, they are deemed to have done so in the presence of the registrar, and that accordingly in such a case the entry in the register is to be taken for the purposes of the Act as having been signed by the person when it has not been? Why are we allowing that?

What is one of the biggest safeguards of the integrity of our births register and our deaths register? It is the sanction against forgery. A sanction against forgery is nugatory if we do not require holograph signatures. My hon. Friend who so ably introduced the discussion on the Bill seems to be slightly poleaxed—I think that might be the expression—by the references to that. We have not yet had any help from the Minister on how the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act fits into this, but maybe the regulation-making powers under clause 6 of this Bill will be able to change the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act so that it applies not to actual forgery as we would know it, with people using pen and ink to change something, but to something that is deemed to be pen and ink.

Value Added Tax Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Kevin Foster

Friday 8th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

If we look at things in a dynamic way, what is the extent of the burden on the health service and social services of having people who are unnecessarily cold in their own homes because they cannot afford the cost of heating? I give that as an example of why we need to consider the wider picture, rather than just focusing on the accountants and the numbers. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is an accountant, but if he is, I had not intended any criticism of him specifically. As the public’s representatives, we should be examining such things on the basis of what is in their interest. If there ever was a demonstration of how hostile people are to the idea of being taxed on domestic fuel or power, it was apparent during the Christchurch by-election to which I referred earlier.

I presume that the only reason why my hon. Friend would be in favour of some of the items in clause 2(2) is that there would hardly be any significant cost associated with them. However, if one thinks about repairs and improvements to historic buildings, for example, is it not important that there should be an incentive? There certainly should not be a disincentive for people to repair and improve historic buildings—the heritage of our great nation. As for insulating materials for home improvement, surely it is sensible that if people are to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, they should not be subject to a disincentive tax.

I shall now turn to clause 2(2)(b). Fitness is something of which we speak frequently in in this House, and it is directly linked with the health service, the obesity agenda and so on. Why are we charging VAT on a whole range of fitness services? How can that be consistent with the public policy objective of encouraging people to get fit and thereby not only improve their quality of life, but relieve the burden on the health service?

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

As always, my hon. Friend is giving a detailed explanation of his proposals. On the topic of fitness, how would he deal with the fact that while a computer console can run fitness games that allow for physical movement, people may just buy one to sit in front of TV and play games? How would that be defined under this Bill?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am glad that my hon. Friend made that intervention, because if he looks at clause 4, he will see that I am saying that the Treasury may by regulations define “fitness equipment”. If and when the Bill gets on the statute book, he should engage in discussions with the Treasury about what he believes to be the best definition of fitness equipment, so that the measure achieves the objective that I just articulated and does not enable people to avoid paying VAT.

Parking (Code of Practice) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Kevin Foster

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Is my right hon. Friend saying that he himself will undertake to harass the Minister? I am afraid that in the past my efforts at harassing the Government have proved manifestly unsuccessful. Of course, my right hon. Friend carries with him the distinction of being a former Deputy Chief Whip, so perhaps he has more influence than I have.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend should not be so dismissive of his own impact. As he will know, I was a sponsor of the Middle Level Bill, which is now the Middle Level Act 2018. His dutiful use of the procedures of the House ensured that it was a changed Bill. We do not necessarily need this at the moment, because we can rely on him being a dutiful parliamentarian, scrutinising constantly and ensuring that the House holds the Government to account for implementing the law that is passed.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Gosh, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being flattered into submission. Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to say that the Government have also conceded on the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I tabled saying that we need more Fridays on which to consider private Members’ Bills. That amendment has been accepted by the Government, and I understand that they are going to put forward a motion for debate on Monday that incorporates it. I can accept—

Middle Level Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Kevin Foster

Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The background to new clause 1 is the principle of quid pro quo, because the petitioners are concerned that new charges and obligations are being brought in without their getting anything in return. Before I expand on that, I should say that all the new clauses and amendments are grouped as one, so we are effectively discussing the Bill as a whole. I think that every part of the Bill is included in one or other of the amendments.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that that is the situation. It would therefore be apposite for me to make a few introductory remarks by saying that I, the petitioners and others much appreciate how the Bill’s promoters have responded positively to many of the points that have been made. A series of good points are set out in the promoters’ statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who was an assiduous member of the Committee, is present, and everybody agrees that it is a credit to the House that the Bill has been considered in such detail.

Several points were made on Second Reading, the commissioners responded to them, and some of those responses were reflected in amendments in Committee. When the petitioners had the chance to be heard—I think over three days—many of their points were also accepted. The stage that we are at now is the consideration of the amendments that were proposed as a result of those representations. There are questions over whether the amendments go far enough, whether they could be tweaked in some way and about what signals could be sent to the other place, which has yet to consider the Bill. When the Bill goes to the other place, I am sure that there will be petitions against it.

We will be able to see the extent to which the petitioners’ arguments are accepted today, because it is obviously open to the Bill’s promoters to say at any stage, “Well, I think that’s a good point. We hadn’t thought of that.” My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who is sponsoring the Bill on the promoters’ behalf, is a good listener, and I sure that things will go well in the future. If the Bill had never been objected to, it would have gone through as it was originally, but it is now much better. However, “much better” does not mean that it is not capable of being improved further. That is the whole purpose of putting forward these new clauses and other amendments this afternoon.

Paragraph 2.3 of the statement on behalf of the promoter, the Middle Level Commissioners, in support of the Bill makes it clear that

“the Commissioners currently do not receive any income from navigation of the waterways.”

With the passage of the Bill, they will receive such income. New clause 1 is designed to ensure that the quid pro quo is that if the waterway is not navigable, those charges should not apply. The petitioners believe that under case law in the case of Brett v. Beale and others, the commissioners must provide something beyond what is already provided in return for making additional charges. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay will accept that that is a reasonable proposition.

The March Cruising Club is of the opinion that if boaters can be charged to use the system for navigation, it is essential that boater facilities are maintained and that an adequate depth of water is introduced as a minimum standard. Where that does not apply, any requirement to pay charges should be waived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

We have not yet reached that stage. That might be my fault, because I have not sat down with the Bill’s promoters to discuss these issues in detail. I understand that there was quite a lot of discussion of such issues in Committee. For the reasons that I have set out, the petitioners are still unhappy and feel that there should be a new clause to incorporate this provision.

[Kevin Foster]

I am finding my hon. Friend’s speech of some interest. He might be interested to know that clause 4 was amended in Committee to make it clear that revenue from navigation would be spent only for navigation purposes. That was done specifically in response to the petitioners’ concerns, to ensure that they could be confident that, although they are currently getting something for nothing, they will get something for what they pay—the navigation fees will go on navigation facilities and costs.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. We will come to clause 4 and the amendments to it later. I shall say nothing other than that the petitioners and I were pleased that clause 4 was introduced in Committee in response to the concerns that were expressed. As I mentioned at the outset, just because it was introduced at that stage, that does not mean that it is perfect, which is why we are dealing with these new clauses and the amendments to clause 4, to which I shall come in due course and in order, because it is much easier for people to follow proceedings if people start at the beginning and go through clause by clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for the points that he is making. However, does he agree that the slight danger with this amendment is that it would say that the persons are representative of all the interests, when the whole point of a representative committee would be to have people who represent different interests, just as we in this House all represent different constituencies even though we have the same duty as Members?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point, but it is nothing to do with this. It is not a question of what the persons are representative of, because that is spelled out, but a question of whether they are representative of the groups listed or appear to the commissioners to be representative of them. It should be quite easy to establish whether somebody is representative of these interests rather than appearing to the commissioners to be representative of them.

Middle Level Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Kevin Foster

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

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

It might be helpful for the House if I give some background to the Bill and set out the reasons why it is before us. The first point—

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kevin Foster]

I will make some progress and then I will happily give way.

For those not familiar with the Bill, the first thing is to ask, “What is the Middle Level?” The Middle Level is the central and largest section of the Great Level of the fens, which was reclaimed by drainage during the mid-17th century. The area is bounded to the north-west and east by the Nene and the Ouse washes, to the north by the previously drained marshland silts, and to the south and west by low clay hills. The Middle Level river system consists of over 120 miles of watercourses, approximately 100 miles of which are statutory navigations, and has a catchment of just over 170,000 acres. Virtually all the fenland within the Middle Level catchment lies below mean sea level.

The Middle Level Commissioners, together with the local internal drainage boards, therefore operate a highly complex flood protection and water level management system to balance the various water uses and requirements, and to alleviate the risk of flooding of land and properties. The efficient operation of this system is vital to the safety and prosperity of the 100,000-plus people who live and work in the area and the 26,000 properties that depend on it. But for the operations of the commissioners and the local boards, much of the fenland would be underwater for a lot of the year, access from higher ground would be cut off, and many of the current land uses would be impossible.

[Kevin Foster]

My understanding from the promoters of the Bill is that it is about the framework for the management of the levels and the waterways, rather than specific developments or projects. If the commissioners decided to pursue such things, they would have to go through the usual process to get permission. Given the historical nature of some of these sites, that could involve an extensive consideration of archaeological impact.

[Mr Chope]

Now that my hon. Friend is taking interventions, may I ask him what his status is? He is telling us about the Bill and the location with which it deals, but his constituency is nowhere near the affected area. Why has it not been possible for the promoters of the Bill to find a local MP who is sympathetic to it?

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend is a doughty scrutiniser of Bills, even if they do not relate to Christchurch. I know that he, like me, takes his duties as a Member of the House very seriously when it comes to promoting and debating legislation. He rightly champions the point that there is no restriction on our debating legislation even if it does not directly affect our constituencies. Private Bills must be sponsored by Back-Bench Members, for obvious reasons, and some of the MPs directly affected by the Bill are Ministers. Given the interest that I have expressed in waterways and their consistent management, I think that it is appropriate for me to sponsor this Bill. Of course, all Members will have the opportunity to participate in the debate, and I hope that we will hear from at least one local Member who is directly affected. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also share his insights into the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend shows his exceptional knowledge of his constituency and the assets that support it. He is right. Fundamentally, as I will come on to say when I talk about the regulatory framework, the waterways in question were built as a drainage system, but they have gone on to be used by pleasure boats and other vessels. One of the reasons why the Bill is necessary is because some of the uses were not envisaged at the time of the 1862 Act. Clearly motorboats did not exist at the time, and the concept of canal usage was very different.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I will respond to those comments when I come on to the petitions. However, I agree with my hon. Friend: clearly nobody wants to pay extra charges for the same facilities, but if we do not change the legal framework, those using the Middle Level for drainage are being asked to pay for facilities for those using it for navigation, making it very unlikely that facilities will ever be developed. These things need to go hand in hand. When I move on to the petitions, I will say a bit more about the commissioners’ views about the facilities that people who are required to pay should expect in exchange.

[Mr Chope]

Is it right to say that the consultation took place at the same time as the EU referendum, the outcome of which we are celebrating today? Is it also right to say that, for example, the March cruising club, whose headquarters is almost opposite the commissioners’ offices, was not consulted, and that other petitioners were not consulted either?

[Kevin Foster]

I know that my hon. Friend would agree with me that people are more than able to deal with two issues at the same time. The EU referendum was very important and many hon. Members engaged with it—I know that he engaged passionately and put his side of the argument—but they can also deal with other things, as was true today, when hon. Members have had various items on the agenda. I would not say immediately that the fact that the consultation coincided with the referendum meant that nobody took part in it. Petitions against the Bill have been deposited, and if the Bill is read a Second time, the petitioners can be heard before an Opposed Private Bill Committee, which will scrutinise the Bill in more depth. I hope that my hon. Friend will support the Bill on Second Reading so that those points can be made, the petitioners can come along and we can consider how to work constructively and appropriately to create a modern framework of regulation, rather than continue with a framework based on the needs of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

This debate would not be taking place if I had not blocked the Bill from going through on the nod on Second Reading. We have already heard about the benefits of having a proper Second Reading debate on a private Bill. Having spoken to some of the petitioners on the telephone, I point out that the Bill’s promoters have a serious responsibility to engage with those who take a different view or have concerns about its contents. One petitioner told me there has been no contact whatever from the authorities.

It is easy to talk about the Bill going to an Opposed Private Bill Committee. I have no objection to the Bill having a Second Reading, but it is important that it goes to an Opposed Private Bill Committee after there has been an exhaustive discussion between the petitioners and the promoters, rather than the Committee being used as the forum for that discussion, because the private Bill procedure in Committee is expensive and potentially adversarial. I wish that there had been more discussion between the promotors and the objectors.

[Kevin Foster]

When he intervened on my speech, my hon. Friend cited the example of the March cruising club. I have asked for clarification, and I am advised that the club was written to and telephoned but, sadly, there was no reply. A petition would allow further communication, but I have been advised that there was no reply to the consultation. I fully agree that there needs to be such engagement, as well as a formal Committee session.

[Mr Chope]

I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with the need for informal engagement before the Bill goes to an Opposed Private Bill Committee, because apart from anything else, some of the petitioners are not well funded. If the Committee is prolonged and the petitioners have to be represented by counsel, the costs will be disproportionately high.

The National Audit Office published an illuminating report on internal drainage boards on 21 March—basically we are talking about a collection of drains, not canals. The report expresses concern about conflicts of interest and the need for proper oversight and assurance that the internal drainage boards will not engage where there are conflicts of interest.

I notice that there are 33 independent internal drainage districts within the Middle Level, each of which is responsible for the local drainage of its area. When we talk about giving more powers to the Middle Level Commissioners, we need to be circumspect about the checks and balances on the exercise of those powers, which I hope the Committee will be able to investigate when it meets to consider the proposals and the petitions against them.

One of the petitions is from Nigel Moore, who says that he is

“a boat owner and manager of other people’s boats on various navigations, is an adviser on nationwide legal issues relating to boating, and is currently an approved lay advocate for a boater in a High Court action wherein issues arise over the interpretation of similar clauses to that proposed in this Bill.”

He objects to the Bill because it

“entails clear abolition of private and public rights to no justifiable purpose, and will lead to unnecessary future litigation over ambiguities.”

Like other petitioners, he refers to the Bill’s wide interpretation of the term “waterways”. Schedule 1 will extend the term to a lot of areas that are not even navigable. The Bill will also extend the commissioners’ powers to adjacent waters, including private waters that are not currently within their jurisdiction. Apparently that, so Mr Moore says, has been

“a contentious point in related litigation.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Again, that is a good point, and it has been raised in several of the petitions.

Mr Moore expresses another concern, in stating that he

“objects to Clause 8(3) because the wording follows that of the contentious British Waterways Act of 1983, section (8), which has led to years of litigation as to its effect, whereas the wording of the similar clause in the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2012 section (16) is far superior, and allows for no such ambiguity and potential attempted and unwarranted extension of powers. The wording ‘without lawful authority’ is also wholly inapplicable to refer to boats on public navigable waters, when the right to be on the waterways derives from the public right, and the proposed provisions for registration of boats does not change that. This was the burden of Environment Agency submissions in a recent case on the Thames, which was, in my submission, correct”.

So he thinks that as worded, clause 8(3) would not only be against the expressed policy of the Environment Agency, but

“would be unenforceable and ineffectual in law, contrary to the expectation of the Commissioners, and prejudicial to the rights of boaters.”

I hope that even if nothing else is sorted out in Committee, those issues raised by Mr Moore will be.

As we have heard, a petition has also come from the March cruising club, which has been submitted by Mr Harwood, the club harbourmaster. Apart from complaining about the inadequate consultation, he raises a number of issues. Following on from the history that has been outlined by a number of the participants in this debate, he says:

“Pleasure boats have had free navigational access to the Old River Nene, which forms a large navigational section of the Middle Level, from before 1215 protected by Magna Carta and many subsequent statutes and Royal Commissions. There are even Roman transcripts describing navigation along the Old River Nene as early as the 4th Century during the Roman occupation. The Old River Nene is a natural river and a Public Right of Navigation has existed since Time Immemorial and was first codified in the Magna Carta of 1215.”

[Kevin Foster]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware of the preamble to the Nene Navigation Act 1753, which describes the ancient navigation as

“being, at all times, extremely tedious, difficult and dangerous, and very frequently altogether impracticable”.

[Mr Chope]

I do not quite know what point my hon. Friend is making, because he is referring to a preamble to a piece of legislation—of course that is not an Act of Parliament. I am not sure that what he says undermines anything I have been saying in citing the submission of the March cruising club. I am sure that when the promoters engage properly with that club, they will be able to explore that issue further.

One other point made by the cruising club, which contradicts a number of assertions made in this debate, is that the commissioners already have the power to charge boats for the use of their waterways, but what they do not have is the power to charge pleasure boats. If there is a shortfall of £178,000 of unfunded expenditure, as has been alleged, there is nothing to prevent the commissioners from charging vessels that are not pleasure boats, or indeed charging for other activities. That would be consistent with the historical rights of pleasure boat owners to use the navigation without charge. The club goes on to say that the Middle Level is basically a “network of navigable drains”, so it is in a completely different category from some of the comparators that have been cited in support of the Bill by its promoters.

The club makes several other points in its submission, one of which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). It objects because

“the Bill contains no obligations under which the Commissioners would be duty bound to provide an adequate depth of water for navigation; dredging; maintenance or any facilities to boaters. Essentially, boaters would notice nothing positive, but would be subject to legislation that would: force them to pay a fee to register; pay annual licence fees; be a criminal offence to use the navigation without a licence; be forced to display a registration number; restrict access during certain times of the year; have the risk of being refused a licence and appealing the decision in a Magistrates Court. There are no advantages for boaters in return. This will destroy the Middle Level navigation and the boating community.”

There are several other detailed points in the submission, but I shall not cite them all.

Unless the issues I have described are resolved amicably between the petitioners and the promoters, the Bill will have a pretty slow passage through the House, because I am sure Members will not wish to impinge on the rights that individuals have enjoyed for many years unless there is strong justification.

Another petition comes from Mr John Hodges, who describes himself as a “member of the public” and a

“homeowner with mooring on the banks of the Middle Level”.

He says that the proposals will “directly and specially affect” his rights. That is an indication of another category of objector.

There is also a petition against the Bill from somebody called Derek Paice, whose submission describes him as living

“on a narrowboat (which, since it is not a ‘commercial boat’, most fits the description of ‘pleasure boat’ in the Nene Navigation Act 1684) on the Middle Level and this has been his home since 2011. This was the only available and affordable option after losing his home of eight years when his father died.”

His submission alleges that

“the proposals contained in the Bill will directly and specially affect his rights and interests, including allowing the commissioners new powers to seize his home and sell it on for less than its value, effectively making him homeless, destitute and an additional cost to the state.”

Mr Paice’s submission goes on to say that the Bill

“contains no protection for the homes of people who, like him, live on their boats.”

Indeed, that theme was picked up by Pamela Smith from the National Bargee Travellers Association, who said that people who have lived and worked on boats for many years but who do not have moorings feel threatened by the proposals. She estimated that between 10,000 and 25,000 people—not just in the area of the Middle Level, but throughout the United Kingdom—live on boats but not at a fixed mooring. They are a different sort of itinerant community, and she feels that they will be very much discriminated against by many of the proposals in the Bill. Those concerns are echoed by other petitioners.

Clause 9 proposes giving the commissioners more powers to make byelaws, but those commissioners already have adequate byelaw-making powers under the Middle Level Act 1874. Under the clause, the commissioners are seeking the authority to examine people’s homes, which, in most cases, amounts to an unwarranted, unnecessary invasion of personal space. There are statutory bodies, including the police, with the authority to enter people’s homes under appropriate circumstances. Requiring boaters to surrender their right to privacy as a condition of being granted a licence to navigate is unreasonable and intrusive.

There are quite significant attempts in the Bill to impose on the rights of individuals. I noticed that when the Minister gave her certification in relation to the Bill’s compliance with the European convention on human rights, all she said was that she had no reason to suppose that the assertions made by the promoters were incorrect. I am not sure whether we can be satisfied that the Government have yet explored the issues relating to human rights for their own purposes so that they can assure us that, in their own view—not just the view of the promoters—the Bill is fully compliant with the law on human rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough has already referred to the petition from his constituent, Christopher Taylor, so I will not refer to it again. I have referred briefly to what Pamela Smith has said on behalf of the National Bargee Travellers Association. That organisation has put in a major objection to much of the Bill. It has more than 700 members and four local groups and represents the interests of an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 bargee travellers in the United Kingdom. A significant number of members of the association either live permanently on the Middle Levels or use the waterways regularly. It is therefore a matter of great regret that there has been no proper discussion with the bargee travellers on the very important issues in the Bill, and I hope that that will remedied sooner rather than later. The association says that many bargee travellers use the Middle Levels as a transit route between the East Anglian waterways, such as the River Cam, the Great Ouse, or the Wissey, and the rest of the inland waterways. There is no other inland waterway route, and there would be no choice for them but to be bound by the proposed terms and conditions and to pay the proposed charges.

I am not very familiar with this part of the fens, and, apart from having visited other people who have a narrow boat, I am not familiar with this type of recreational boating. However, I am familiar with the sort of recreational boating that happens in my own constituency of Christchurch. All I can say is that if my constituents were faced with some of the regulations and powers to invade their privacy that are proposed in relation to the Middle Level of the fens, they would be outraged indeed. We have a large number of boats moored on the River Stour in Christchurch, and they do not all have names on them. People certainly do not have to give their name and address to some passing enforcement officer.

It seems to me that a lot of the Bill should be removed before it comes back for further consideration on Report. I hope that detailed discussion, consideration and scrutiny in Committee will have that consequence and that we will be able to look back and say, “This has been a worthwhile exercise, because a not very good Bill has been much improved as a result of proper scrutiny.”

I am not going to speak at length on this occasion, but I and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough are concerned that the rights of the petitioners should be heard in this great home of democracy.