Points of Order

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was going to raise the issue you have just spoken about as a point of order. My concern is that, for the first time ever in my experience within this House, the list of Members participating in a Division has not been published in the hard copy of Hansard. I ask you to insist that Hansard publishes the list in hard copy, rather than relying upon its being put online. Can I also ask how it came about? This is to do with new technology, and when I inquired about this matter earlier today, the list was still not available at 11.30 this morning. Why was it not?

[Mr Speaker]

Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s main point. I can assure him that we will get it printed, even if it is on a separate sheet, to make sure that who voted what way is available in hard copy. That is the key thing. On his other point, this was human error. It is not about technology; it is nothing to do with technology. Sometimes mistakes are made. I do not want to go on a witch hunt over a mistake made by human error. What I will say is that we will put something in place to ensure that this does not happen again. I am sure he would agree that that is the best way to deal with this matter.

Pet Abduction Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, after “if” insert “without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that an offence is only committed if the acts complained of are shown to have been made without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse, so that it is not necessary for the person alleged to have committed the offence to prove their innocence.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 3, after “to” insert “permanently”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that only acts where the dog is permanently removed from lawful control would fall under the offence.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 3, leave out “any person” and insert “its keeper”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that only where a dog is removed from the lawful control of its registered keeper falls under the offence, rather than removal from any person.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 5, after “to” insert “permanently”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that only acts where the dog is detained so as to permanently keep it would fall under the offence.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 5, leave out from “of” to end of line 6 and insert “its keeper”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that only where a dog is detained so as to keep it from its registered keeper falls under the offence.

Amendment 6, page 1, leave out lines 21 to 23.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 16, leave out “(3)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 30, at end insert—

“(aa) references to a dog are only to a dog which—

(i) has been implanted with a microchip pursuant to the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023; or

(ii) has been certified as exempt from such an implant under those Regulations”.

The above Regulations provide for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database. This amendment ensures that the offence of dog abduction can only be made in respect of dogs which have been microchipped (or are certified as exempt) in accordance with those Regulations and will thereby incentivise keepers to comply with the rules about microchipping.

Amendment 9, page 2, line 34, at end insert—

“(aa) “keeper” has the meaning given to it under the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023”.

This amendment ensures that “keeper” is intended to have the same meaning as under the specified Regulations.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 39, leave out clause 2.

This amendment removes the offence of cat abduction.

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 3, line 36, leave out “or 2”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 12, page 4, line 5, leave out “or 2”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 13, page 4, line 8, leave out “or 2(5)”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 38, leave out “or 2”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 15, page 5, line 6, leave out “and 2”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 19, page 5, line 6, leave out

“come into force in relation to England”.

and insert

“, so far as they extend to England and Wales, come into force”.

This is a technical amendment to ensure that it is clear how the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 operates in so far as those clauses extend to England and Wales (rather than just in relation to England).

Amendment 21, page 5, line 7, at end insert

“provided that the Secretary of State has fulfilled the requirement to publish the guidance required by section [Guidance]”.

Amendment 16, page 5, line 11, leave out “and 2”.

This amendment is consequential on the removal of clause 2 from the Bill.

Amendment 20, page 5, line 11, leave out “in relation” and insert

“so far as they extend”.

This is a technical amendment to ensure that the commencement of clauses 1 and 2 is dealt with in the same way throughout clause 6.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Before I begin to address the issues, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I, on behalf of myself and many others, express our condolences to Mr Speaker, who I know is unable to be present today because he is attending his father’s funeral? I had the privilege of serving with Doug Hoyle in this House from 1983 until 1992, and he was an exemplar for Back-Bench activity during that time. Our sympathies are very much with Mr Speaker.

Turning to the amendments, and particularly new clause 1, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, with whom I was privileged to have a meeting last week to discuss my amendments. They will have a better understanding of the way I work than quite a lot of other colleagues. I am pleased that as a result of that meeting there was essentially an agreement—an acceptance—that we must try to link communications about the appalling incidents of pet abduction or theft to the need for people to microchip their loved animals, particularly dogs and cats. In the course of that discussion, it was pointed out by the Minister of State that before the Bill is to become law, it will be necessary for guidance to be discussed with the Crown Prosecution Service regarding exactly what the enforcement provisions would be. I hope that in responding to this debate, my right hon. Friend will expand on that point.

Following that discussion, I thought I would table a new clause about guidance, so that any references in the debate could include references to the specific issue of guidance that would be issued following the enactment of the Bill. I would like that guidance to set out clearly the position for people who do not microchip their cats and dogs. Microchipping of dogs is mandatory and has been since 2010, but we know that something between 5% and 10% of the 9.5 million dogs in this country are not microchipped. In early June, it will be mandatory for all cats to be microchipped, and probably about 70% have been microchipped by now.

I hope that we can send out a message, in discussing this important legislation, that if someone does not have their cat or dog microchipped, they should not expect the law to rush to their assistance in the event of their cat or dog being abducted. Apart from anything else, if they complain to the police that their dog or cat has been abducted and it has not been microchipped, it is all the more difficult to identify it, search for it and so on. On that great principle of English equity, it seems to me that if someone seeks the protection of the law, they should come with clean hands. In this context, that means they should be able to say that they have complied with the law in respect of the pets for which they have responsibility and have microchipped them. I hope people will realise that if they do not—I hope that the Government will point this out in the guidance—have their pets microchipped, they will not be able to take advantage of the benefits and special provisions in this legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently say to the Secretary of State, which Back Bencher does he not want me to take? He can point them out and it will make my job much easier, if we are going to take so long.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

When the Secretary of State made his remarks earlier about the sudden resignation of the chief executive of HS2 from his £660,000 a year job, did he take into account the fact that the project is delayed by at least five years and that the costs have quadrupled? Will he also take into account the fact that the cost plus basis of contracts is now one of the main reasons for the increased costs?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is topicals. You know better than anyone, Sir Christopher, as an experienced gentleman.

Point of Order

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You were in the Chair yesterday when the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities expressed his enthusiasm for the publication of impact assessments for new legislation. The Renters (Reform) Bill is awaiting Second Reading, and there are two impact assessments, neither of which have yet been made available to Members of the House. What can be done to ensure that they are made available before we have Second Reading?

[Mr Speaker]

The good thing is that you have certainly put that on the record. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench are listening carefully, and will be knocking at your door when you get back. I would expect those impact studies to be made available.

Bill Presented

Pets (Theft and Importation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Tim Farron, supported by Richard Foord, Ed Davey, Wendy Chamberlain, Sarah Olney, Munira Wilson, Christine Jardine and Wera Hobhouse, presented a Bill to prevent and punish the theft of dogs and to deter the unlawful importation of certain animals into Great Britain; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 317).

Prayers

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you please clarify this position for me? As I understand it, our right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) is likely to take the Chair during proceedings later today. Can you confirm that he will not be able to take the Chair until we have disposed of the first Bill on the Order Paper, because he spoke in quite vehement terms in that Bill’s Second Reading debate?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sit down, Sir Christopher. Don’t worry; I have got the point—you do not need to labour it. The answer is that anybody who takes this Chair is completely neutral and independent. Like all hon. Members, I have faith and trust in anybody who sits in this Chair—I cannot believe that some people question that—in the same way that we have faith and trust in the Panel of Chairs. I know that you have faith and trust and that, on that basis, you would not want to proceed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Christopher Chope for his second verse.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T3. Can my hon. Friend assure me that all branches of the Ministry of Truth, which was exposed in the Big Brother Watch report in January, have now been disbanded, so that we no longer have Government and taxpayer-funded activity discrediting MPs who hold the Government to account? In answer to the earlier point that was made, can my hon. Friend explain why, in answer to parliamentary question 148802, which requested information on whether or not the Government were monitoring MPs, no answer was forthcoming? If it was so innocent, why was no answer forthcoming?

[Mr Speaker]

May I remind the hon. Member that this is topical questions?

Business of the House

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope all of us would.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Leave aside sitting through the night, because so far this week—Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday—this House should have been sitting for 24 hours, but in fact seven hours and 47 minutes of that time was lost. I hope my right hon. Friend shares my concern about this, because so often the Government say we cannot debate things because we have not got any time. Will she ask the Procedure Committee to look again at the issue of second Adjournment debates, which used to be commonplace in this Chamber? That would ensure that this time was not wasted, and if the business was going to go short, it would be possible for people to come forward with a second, third or even, sometimes, a fourth Adjournment debate. We would thereby avoid getting a reputation as a part-time Parliament.

Points of Order

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Points of Order

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

It might be easier if I could try to answer the first point of order. Let me just say that I was not aware of that. If the hon. Member was there, and I am not convinced that he was because that is not the report that I received about the incident—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, we do not respond to papers. Come on, Sir Christopher Chope.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Mr Speaker, I am glad that I was present in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman made that ridiculous allegation. He was not present in Westminster Hall for that debate. I was present and there were many people in the Public Gallery, one or two of whom may have been, as he put it, anti-vaxxers, but most of the people present in the Public Gallery were those who were vaccine injured—people who had suffered as a result of having covid-19 vaccines and who are seeking compensation.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think we will carry on the debate. You have certainly got your point across and corrected the position of what happened on the day, so I am not going to continue with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is another NHS treatment disaster in the making, in that there may be 10,000 or more people who have suffered serious injury or even death as a result of adverse reactions to the covid-19 vaccinations? Will he give an assurance that those people will get justice immediately rather than have to wait for decades?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is a very weak link. Sir Christopher is usually better than that. I think that is a poor effort from him. Let us move on to Kate Osamor.

Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Report stage
Friday 14th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment

1, page 1, after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) In subsection (4)(c), omit “the person giving it considers”.”

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, page 1, leave out subsection (5).

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Let me put the amendment in context, for colleagues who have not looked at the text of section 42A of the Education Act 1997. Under section 42A(4)(c), the Act states:

“The responsible authorities must secure that careers guidance provided under subsection (1)…is guidance that the person giving it considers will promote the best interests of the pupils to whom it is given.”

In other words, the test is a subjective one on the part of the provider, rather than an objective test. My amendment would remove the words

“the person giving it considers”

thereby making it an objective test for the responsible authorities when securing the careers guidance required by the Act.

The context of the amendment is very much about quality. I was delighted that in the debate that took place in Westminster Hall on Tuesday there was much emphasis on quality in careers guidance, and a lot of reference to what the Gatsby rules set out. Let me briefly tell the House about some of the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who introduced that debate. She said how important it is that children know what they want to do when they leave school, but that they will not be able to do that if they are not told about all the career opportunities available to them, the qualifications they will need, and the different educational paths they can take.

For example, when my daughter was at school she aspired to become a member of the veterinary profession, and I am proud to say that that is what she is. However, it was difficult because her teachers said, “Well, I’m not sure you’re going to be suitable for science A-levels”, and obviously without them she would never have been able to get the qualifications to go to veterinary school and attain the qualification that she has. The good advice she got from a teacher at the school meant that she could embark on science A-levels. That is a personal example from my own experience of the importance of quality. I do not doubt that some people at the school would have taken the view that the best thing was for her not to do science A-levels, but on any objective assessment it was the right decision. I therefore agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton.

My right hon. Friend went to say:

“The latest report from the Centre for Social Justice says that there is a growing need for tailored, innovative and inspiring career guidance with links to role models and employers.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 211WH.]

I think everybody agrees that that is so, but it is a concern that there is no single place where a young person can get comprehensive Government-backed careers information. The Centre for Social Justice also found that schools are not consistently delivering good quality careers advice. About one in five schools does not meet any of the eight Gatsby benchmarks, a series of internationally respected benchmarks that help the Government to quality assure careers advice in schools. That is very serious.

Everybody seems to agree that the Gatsby benchmarks should be the standard, yet we know that only one in five schools meet any of them. The question I want to pose, in moving the amendment, is this: what are the Government doing to ensure that we get not just careers guidance, but good quality careers guidance? I remind the House of the eight Gatsby benchmarks of good careers guidance: a stable careers programme; learning from career and labour market information; addressing the needs of each pupil; linking curriculum learning to careers; encounters with employers and employees; experiences of work places; encounters with further and higher education; and personal guidance. The fact that so many schools do not even comply with any of them should raise significant alarm bells. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, in concluding her remarks in the Westminster Hall debate, said:

“How do the Government plan to ensure that careers guidance is of a high quality for all pupils, irrespective of where they come from?”—[Official Report, 11 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 212WH.]

That is the issue.

I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who was not able to attend the Westminster Hall debate, on the Front Bench. In welcoming him to the debate, may I say how much I appreciate his decision to give Ferndown Upper School in my constituency a significant capital grant for its T-levels programme, which was announced just before Christmas? That is much appreciated. Ferndown Upper School has made enormous progress over recent years under excellent leadership and has expanded its numbers accordingly. If we were able to see an equivalent increase in the quality of careers guidance in schools across the country, we would all be absolutely delighted.

Let me turn to the response to the Westminster Hall debate from the Minister for Higher and Further Education. She said:

“The foundation of making that a reality is careers guidance in our secondary schools.”

She went on to say:

“That is why we are strengthening the legal framework so that every secondary pupil is guaranteed access to high-quality, independent careers guidance. Careers guidance, in itself, is not the panacea; the quality is absolutely crucial.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 224WH.]

How will we ensure that we have that quality, which we are told will increasingly be assessed by Ofsted, if it is going to be constrained? If Ofsted goes to a school and says, “Your provision is not of sufficiently good quality”, the school will be able to say, “Under the guidance—under the existing legislation—we think, or the person giving the advice thinks, that that is the right advice to be given for this child,” and there is no objective test. If the provider thinks that what it has done is correct, there is no possible way of criticising that or exercising any sanctions against it. That is why removing these words is of absolute importance if the Government want to deliver much better quality careers guidance in our schools. That is a small but important point, and I hope that we will get a constructive response from the Minister. If there is resistance to accepting the amendment in this place, perhaps it can be considered in the other place. However, we need to have more than just words about the importance of good quality; we need to ensure that the legislation facilitates it.

Points of Order

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No, I am not even going to enter into that. If you look at yesterday’s proceedings, you will find that someone from the other side did the same. It was in passing and not part of the debate.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the points made about the need for the Government to come to the House if they have anything to announce today, would you exceptionally permit the use of the urgent question procedure if a statement were not offered, so that we could put down an urgent question this afternoon for answer today?

[Mr Speaker]

I would be very willing to look, if it is at all feasible, to see whether we could use a UQ, if there is a way around the rules, because I would be more than willing to accept one if the Government were not willing to come forward with a statement. I totally agree that a statement would be beneficial. As I say, I am sure Downing Street would not let the Members of this House down.

Committee on Standards

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give way, he will give way. I think his slight indication was that he does not wish to give way to Mr Harper. [Interruption.] Well, whether he is right or wrong is totally different to the rules of the House.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that some people find this rather an issue of sensitivity.

I raised a related aspect of this with the Leader of the House because a previous report of the Committee on Standards had decided, where colleagues had disputed the decision of the Commissioner for Standards, that that was, in itself, an aggravating factor in their penalty. That is completely at odds with the principles of natural justice in our country. In our country you can defend yourself in a forum—a court of law or an inquiry—and that cannot be regarded as an aggravating factor. If you admit your guilt, that can be a mitigating factor, but to defend yourself against charges cannot be regarded as an aggravating factor. The former right hon. Member for North Shropshire referred in his evidence to the Committee to the impact of the inquiry upon himself and his family. I cannot see how that could have been, in itself, an aggravating factor when it came to sentence. The Leader of the House referred to that issue on 3 November and I think it struck a chord with many of us.

It is so important that natural justice should be allowed to take its course and be applied in our proceedings, and that we should not allow ourselves to be pushed into positions of almost being subject to mob rule and mob justice. That is why I welcome this debate and the opportunity to hear people’s views about the—

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

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

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 5, after “must” insert

“within six months of this Act coming into force”

This amendment will ensure that the guidance has to be issued within a specific time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 9, leave out

“the Secretary of State considers”

and insert “are”

This amendment will introduce an objective test of relevance in place of a subjective test.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 10, at end insert

“including price, quality, design, place of manufacture and country of origin.”

This amendment will ensure that these aspects bearing upon costs are addressed in any guidance.

Amendment 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

‘(2A) But guidance issued under this section must include guidance on—

(a) ensuring there is an adequate market for second-hand uniform where that uniform is provided new by a single supplier, and

(b) establishing a hardship fund for the parents or guardians who struggle to meet the cost of providing uniform for their children.”

Amendment 5, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

‘(2A) Any guidance issued under this section must include advice on ways of minimising the payment of Value Added Tax as a component of the cost of school uniforms.”

Amendment 6, page 1, line 11, leave out “must” and insert “may”

This amendment will enable the appropriate authority to exercise its discretion as to whether or not to have regard to the guidance.

Amendment 7, page 1, line 12, leave out “developing and”

This amendment will restrict the guidance to policy implementation.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 12, after “developing”, insert “, publishing”

This amendment will require appropriate authorities to have regard to publishing requirements in the guidance about costs of school uniforms.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 14, leave out “from time to time” and insert

“, no sooner than five years after the first guidance is issued under this section,”

This amendment will ensure that any guidance remains in place for at least five years.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 18, leave out paragraph (b)

This amendment would exclude an alternative-provision Academy from the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 21, leave out paragraph (d)

This amendment would exclude a non-maintained special school from the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment 12, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (e)

This amendment would exclude a pupil referral unit from the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment 13, page 2, line 3, leave out from “school” to “the proprietor” in line 4

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 10 and 11.

Amendment 14, page 2, line 6, leave out paragraph (c)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 12.

Amendment 15, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

‘(7) Before issuing any guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the National Governors Association, the Parent Teacher Association UK and representatives of the different categories of relevant school.”

Amendment 16, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out “two” and insert “six”

This amendment will ensure that any guidance under this Act will not apply to the 2021/22 academic year.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My opening remarks will, as ever, be brief. First, let me say how wonderful it is that we have Friday sittings back, and I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Leader of the House for having facilitated that. I understand that Her Majesty’s official Opposition were keen that we abandon Friday sittings, so I hope they have now realised that there is a virtue in this, not least because some of the Bills on today’s Order Paper are being promoted by Opposition Members. Let us welcome that and put it on the record.

I wish to speak to the amendments standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), and to amendment 1, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. The essence of this Bill is something that everybody in the House supports; after all, who wants the cost of school uniforms to be higher than it needs to be? I support the idea that we should have good-quality school uniforms at a competitive price, available throughout schools in England. That is the purpose of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and I are ad idem on that.

The hon. Gentleman will probably therefore agree with my amendment 2, which is designed to put an end date on what appears to be the Government’s prevarication in getting on with the job. They were first talking about introducing statutory guidance on the cost of school uniform many years ago—back in 2015, if I recall correctly. Since then, not must progress has been made and we are now relying on the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. Again, I congratulate him on having brought it before the House.

The purpose of this amendment is to try to ensure that we get on with it, which is why the amendment proposes that the Secretary of State “must” issue guidance

“within six months of this Act coming into force”.

It is a pity that we have not had the draft guidance already. It was exactly one year ago tomorrow that the Bill was debated on Second Reading, and almost six months after that it had its Committee stage. A further six months on from that, so one year after it was first debated, the Government are still saying that they are intent on bringing forward statutory guidance but have not yet produced even a draft. When this issue was raised in Committee, the Minister for School Standards said that it was his intention to get on with it and that he would be consulting people as soon as possible about it. I interpreted that to mean he would be getting on with consulting on the draft statutory guidance, as that is often the norm in this House. While the House is considering—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. An hon. Member should not walk in front of another Member who is speaking. Please, let us show courtesy to each other.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am all in favour of that. Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is another example of why we need to get back to normal sittings in this Chamber, so that people become more familiar with the way we normally work.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think we need to debate that.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am going to re-emphasise my frustration, which I am sure is shared by the promoter of the Bill, about the fact that we have not yet seen the draft guidance. Once the draft guidance is produced, it will need to be the subject of consultation, and the Minister has committed to doing that, with the various stakeholders.

The guidance needs to be produced within six months of the Act coming into force. My right hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee that he did not want to be tied down to a particular date because he thought that would be too constraining. I can understand that, but unfortunately the worst fears that lay behind the questions put to him now seem to be being realised. We assumed that getting on and producing the guidance was a top priority of my right hon. Friend’s Department. In Committee, he referred to some of the key ingredients that he expected to be in the draft guidance—namely, exactly the same provisions as are in the current non-statutory guidance, which was last issued in 2013. It does not seem as though an exacting demand was being placed on him by the Committee or, indeed, that he was placing one on the shoulders of his officials, so it is disappointing that that has not yet happened. It is therefore important to put in the Bill an end date or a timescale within which the guidance must be issued. That is the purport of amendment 2.

I hope it will be convenient for Members if, instead of going through all the amendments one by one in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper, I jump ahead and go straight to amendment 5, which goes to the heart of one of the issues that I raised on Second Reading a year ago, for which I got a lot of support from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and others.

Amendment 5 says:

“Any guidance issued under this section must include advice on ways of minimising the payment of Value Added Tax as a component of the cost of school uniforms.”

The issue of VAT is solely within the remit of the Government, and VAT is adding 20% to the cost of a heck of a lot of school uniforms. Although we are going to issue guidance to governing bodies, which we say is very important, on the price and quality of school uniforms, the Government have the ability to reduce, at a stroke, the cost of school uniforms by 20% for all those people adversely affected by the current VAT rules. That would not have been possible before we were liberated as a legislature by our leaving the European Union.

I introduced a private Member’s Bill—I cannot remember whether it was in this Session or the previous one—to reduce value added tax. Although it was a financial Bill, I was delighted that, because it would have reduced the burden of taxation, it was within scope for private Members’ legislation. I would have tabled an amendment to this Bill along similar lines, had that been in scope, but unfortunately it would not have been, because it has a very narrow title about guidance to schools. Had the scope of this Bill been slightly wider, I would have tabled an amendment that would have removed VAT from all specific school uniforms, and I am sure that it would have received almost unanimous support in the House. As I cannot do that, I have engendered this debate by saying that included in the guidance should be a reference from the Minister to how schools and governing bodies can minimise the impact of VAT.

I will refer briefly to a BBC reality check. I do not know whether you look at these things, Mr Speaker, but this is a very helpful one. It asks:

“Why is VAT charged on school uniform?”

It goes on to say:

“For older children—or those who are taller than average—”

I will come on to the issue of waist size in a minute—

“school uniforms, as well as all other clothing and shoes, attract the full standard VAT rate of 20%. Reality Check explores why these families are paying more and why successive governments haven’t acted.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Sir Christopher, I hate to interrupt. I recognise the theme, but I think we can both say that Beavers would never be of an adult size. We are not comparing like with like, because there is an age where children go to the next stage in Brownies and Guides—it is the same with Scouts and the Cubs movement—so they cannot be of a size where that would be applicable. As you rightly say, that is applicable to school uniforms that are of an adult size. We would agree—you are absolutely right—that the theme is about the size that uniform comes in, but I worry about trying to compare with something that could never happen.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I understand the point that you are making, Mr Speaker. I am drawing attention to this because it actually does happen at the moment. As long as their uniforms are for those up to the age of 14, Beavers and Brownies are able to provide those uniforms free of value added tax, irrespective of the size—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I must not have explained it correctly. I think that at the age of seven, eight or nine, children cannot continue, and they go to the next stage within the branch of the organisation. It is a bit like infant school, junior school and high school. That is all I am trying to say. We are getting bogged down in something that would not be applicable.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My final line of defence is that this is taken from the BBC’s reality check, and it sounds as though that needs to be revised in the light of your helpful and constructive comments, Mr Speaker.

The final point I want to make on this aspect is that there was recently a survey—it was highlighted in The Guardian, of all newspapers, but the reference I have is from the Press Association—that showed the waistline spread of UK children. I will not go into the whole detail of it, but the survey found that back in 2011, an average 11-year-old girl was 148.78 cm tall compared with 146.03 cm in 1978—an increase of 2.75 cm over that time—but her waistline was 70.2 cm on average, compared with 59.96 cm in 1978. We are talking about an average 11-year-old girl, and the average has probably gone up since 2011, but the limit beyond which the waistline of a garment is subject to VAT is only 69 cm, which shows that the current VAT limit for the waistline measurement of a piece of clothing is well below the average waistline of an 11-year-old girl. That is another example of the way in which the current VAT rules have introduced a sort of stealth tax upon parents who are trying to pay for school uniform.

This amendment is designed to ensure that these issues are addressed by the Minister when he puts out statutory guidance, with advice included in that guidance to schools on how to get around it. Obviously that advice to schools might change if the Government were to accept my advice—and, I am sure, the advice of the whole House—and intervene now to take away the burden of value added tax on school uniforms, thereby reducing the price of school uniforms for everybody affected. I put that in at the beginning of my remarks because I thought it was sensible to set it in context. Obviously, we want to maximise the quality and minimise the price. Everything that follows in relation to this guidance and this Bill is in a sense subordinate to the point I have made, because the issue of VAT is solely within the control of the Government, and I think if the Government acted on it, that would be very popular.

Sittings in Westminster Hall (Suspension) (No. 2)

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment (a), in line 3, leave out from “until” to end and insert “Monday 22 February”.

May I first thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting the two amendments in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and for facilitating this debate? It is a pity, in my view, that this debate was not volunteered by the Government and that it had to be forced on them by us objecting to the motions that were put down on the Order Paper for yesterday. One consequence of that is that at least we were able to have debates in Westminster Hall today, which otherwise would have been curtailed by the Government.

This is an important issue because we are talking principally about Back-Bench scrutiny. The Leader of the House, in his opening remarks, which I thought were very reasonable, said that he recognises the importance of Back-Bench scrutiny. What we have on the Order Paper at the moment is a proposal that will remove 21 hours a week of scrutiny of the Government—16 hours in Westminster Hall and five hours in private Members’ Bills each week. My right hon. Friend is reluctant to do that and he has said that he will come back to the House as soon as he can to bring forward alternative proposals. What I would like him to do tonight is to guarantee that the Standing Order that requires that there should be 13 sitting Fridays where private Members’ business takes precedence will be complied with in any event in this Session, and that if it cannot be complied with in this Session, the Government will honour the spirit of the Standing Order and allow for the carry-over of those Bills that are set down for days that are not able to be used.

If my right hon. Friend gives me that guarantee, in a sense, it will negate the need for amendment (a) to the second motion, because that amendment is designed to ensure that we can carry on with private Members’ Bills between the period after half-term and the end of April, and it is modelled on the previous motions brought forward by him, most recently on 30 December, when he arranged for the Friday sitting scheduled for 8 January to be moved to 15 January. That system was working perfectly all right and my question is, why, in one week, has it not been possible to replicate the same motions that were put forward previously?

The Prime Minister said today that he will be reviewing, for example, what happens in our schools after half-term. Surely it is appropriate that we should, in any event, have a guarantee that these issues will be revisited by the Leader of the House after half-term. We are talking about no fewer than 151 private Members’ Bills. I have received stick from the Government and colleagues in the past for having insisted that individual private Members’ Bills are debated, but never did I think I would be in the Chamber when the Government put down on the Order Paper a proposal that has the effect for the time being —unless it is ever amended—of depriving 151 private Members’ Bills of any opportunity to be heard and discussed in this Chamber.

I wait to hear from my right hon. Friend—I am happy for him to intervene to give me this guarantee, because I am concerned that we will get to the end of this debate and there will not be an opportunity for him to respond, and this question will go unanswered. I hope that it will not.

[Mr Speaker]

I might be able to help to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that, because I will be bringing the Leader of the House in at 7.50 pm, so whoever may be speaking I would expect to sit down. Let us go to the Chair of the Petitions Committee, Catherine McKinnell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Christopher Chope to move his amendment (a) to motion 4.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

In the light of this debate, I am going to put my trust in the Leader of the House; if that trust is not well founded, I will behave like the late Sir Alan Herbert. Having said that, I will not move my amendment.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we will leave it that the amendment will not be moved.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall) and the order of this House on 23 September 2020, there shall be no sittings in Westminster Hall with effect from Thursday 14 January until the House otherwise orders.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to motion 5. Sir Christopher, I take it that you will not move your amendment (a), so I will put the Question, with your agreement.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

indicated assent.

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

Ordered,

That the Order of the House of 16 January 2020 (Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)), as amended by the Orders of the House of 25 March, 22 April, 12 May, 10 June, 1 July, 3 November and 30 December 2020, is further amended as follows:

leave out “15 January 2021, 22 January 2021, 29 January 2021, 5 February 2021, 26 February 2021, 5 March 2021, 12 March 2021 and 26 March 2021”.—(Mr Rees-Mogg.)

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say to everyone that the Commission of this House takes seriously its role as an employer and its duty of care to all who work here? At its most recent meeting, as has been the case many times before, we have been guided by Public Health England’s advice. We want to do everything in our power to make our workplace as safe as possible for both Members and staff alike, even if at times that means we have to put some limits on our activities, which goes against all our instincts as parliamentarians.

I am thinking of the tragic loss of one of those people who serve this House, so at this time my thoughts are with their family and their colleagues. All I can say is that it is not a great time for this country—it is a sad time—and as soon as we can, I want this House back to normal. That is an assurance from myself, as well as from the Leader of the House.

Points of Order

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but this is not a point of order for me; it is a continuation of the debate. I cannot take it as a point of order.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that on 19 November you were kind enough to grant me an urgent question on the performance of the Department of Health and Social Care in answering written questions. The Minister, in responding, said:

“We have instituted a parliamentary questions performance recovery plan”.—[Official Report, 19 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 461.]

I then put down a question asking for that plan to be put in the House of Commons Library, so that we could all see it. Late last night, I received a reply saying that it was not possible to answer that question yet. Surely this now means that the whole issue of stonewalling has become farcical, particularly when we take into account that a lot of the other outstanding questions are highly relevant to the debate we will be having this afternoon.

[Mr Speaker]

I have a lot of sympathy with Members. All Members are answerable to their constituents, and if they cannot get answers their constituents are not getting the service that should be provided. I do not think that that was a satisfactory answer, and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt wish to put in for another urgent question if the situation does not improve later today.

Points of Order

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As I know the hon. Member will expect me to say, that is not a point of order, but of course it is important that she has raised the issue. I hope that the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and the Ministers who now have that responsibility, have been listening to what she said. If there is going to be a policy change, I would expect the House—not the media—to hear it first, as we keep emphasising. It is media speculation at this time. The hon. Member has some good avenues through which to pursue the matter; some named day questions would be a good start. However, I am sure that it is only media speculation. Surely a Government would not use this House as a secondary vehicle, when it should be the primary one.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following on from your reference to named day questions, may I ask what can be done to ensure that we get timely responses to those questions? I have 12 outstanding named day questions to the Department of Health and Social Care, one of which is over six months late. Others are over a month late, including questions the answers to which I think might be of interest to the Prime Minister—for example, about policy relating to those who are immune through antibodies. I have also raised one matter not just as a named day question, but twice during debates on the Floor of the House, when I have asked the Department, and the Secretary of State in particular, for the evidence in support of the assertion made to the House on 1 October that

“hundreds of thousands of deaths…would follow”

if the Government

“just let the virus rip”.—[Official Report, 1 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 503.]

Where is the answer to the very reasonable question that I submitted?

[Mr Speaker]

I know that the hon. Gentleman—as a person of long standing in this House, and great knowledge —knows that there are other avenues to pursue. Let me say once again that it is totally unacceptable for Members of Parliament not to get responses within the named time. The Procedure Committee will be listening to what we have already said, and I know that the Leader of the House is very concerned. The title is “named day questions”, and those questions should therefore be answered as such. It is completely unacceptable for questions not to be answered after six months. I am tempted to say that if there were an urgent question to be asked on the subject of named day questions, one could be tempted.

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 25th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I think my hon. Friend has missed his calling: his forensic examination of these documents is to be admired. During the course of the debate I will seek an answer to the question that he raises; I do not have it at the moment. In response to an earlier point that he raised, it is not just the police who are the users of forensic services; very often defence will use them. Having a consistent regulatory environment that is observed by all means that we will get greater consistency in courts, and therefore there will presumably be less time lost—and a saving—in trials that are broken, cracked or have to be delayed because of differences in forensic evidence.

[Mr Speaker]

Just to say the hon. Gentleman’s calling is Friday.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of his further enquiries. His strategy seems to be to supress my scepticism by using charm and flattery, which I am sure are important weapons in his armoury.

I am conscious that lots of people want to participate in this debate. I hope we will be able to get on to some of the later debates on the Order Paper, so having expressed some of my scepticism, I will now sit down.

Point of Order

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise me how I can ensure that the record is corrected in relation to Division No. 94 yesterday? I spoke in support of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill on Second Reading and I voted on all three occasions, but one of my votes has not been recorded. I suspect that the circumstances relate to the fact that there was a Government Whip there who said he could not see whether my vote had been properly recorded, but he did not give me any advice as to what would happen if there was a problem. I falsely, and quite wrongly, relied upon the Whips, and I hope that you will remind hon. Members that there is no point in relying on the Whips in the Division Lobbies.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has now put that point on the record and it will be investigated. All the Whips Office are now being sent to Specsavers to have their eyes tested.

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been looking at today’s Order Paper and particularly at the remaining orders, where I had expected to see the statutory instrument that the Government must lay for the draconian new rules they are bringing in on Monday to be lawful. It does not appear to have been laid, despite the Prime Minister making an announcement about it on Wednesday and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care having made a statement yesterday. I am very concerned about the lack of opportunity for the public to see the text of these new regulations and about the Government’s continuing reluctance to give any opportunity to Members to debate this. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) asked when we could have a debate on it, and he was told that he could apply for a Backbench Business debate. That hardly fits in with the sense of urgency about all this. When my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) then raised the matter with the Secretary of State yesterday, he was told that the Secretary of State would take it away and think about it. That is not satisfactory, as we are talking about the most draconian introduction of new restrictions on our liberty, with criminal sanctions. We need to be aware of what is happening and given the opportunity to debate it.

[Mr Speaker]

May I say that I share your disappointment? I think that we should all be informed and the country should also know what is going on. The laying of this instrument is a matter for the Government, but I would say that you know and I know that other avenues could be taken on Monday to tickle this little item out, if required. So I will leave it with you to ponder what you want to do next. The Clerk has made a note, and we will come back with further information.

Coronavirus and Care Homes

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now go to birthday boy Sir Christopher Chope.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con) [V]]

Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the owners and managers of care homes who put the safety of their residents first and refused to admit any of the 15,000 hospital patients who had been exposed to covid-19, whom the Government were forcing to be discharged from hospitals at the end of March?

Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 15th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Some people looking at today’s proceedings may say that my hon. Friend has been speaking for a long time, but we need to remember that when Bills are considered, the amendments are often grouped so that we do not consider all amendments in one discussion. Today, we are considering all the amendments to the Bill in one group, which I think explains why he has spoken for a bit longer than he might sometimes do.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just say that we do not need to be reminded of how long the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has spoken? All that does is use up precious time, and I know you would not want to do that, Sir Christopher.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

If it goes wrong, it is obviously going to come back on me. In the end the right hon. Gentleman must make the decision, but overall I would say yes; my view is that the actions he mentioned would lead to more time for a better debate.

If there are no further points of order, I call Sir Christopher Chope to speak—briefly, I presume, because I know that he wants to get on with the amendments.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

There is only a bare hour left, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Twenty-five minutes will do you, then. Come on, Sir Christopher!

Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill (Money)

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

We have just allowed a money resolution to go through on the nod in relation to the Tenant Fees Bill and I think the sums involved are much higher than £700,000, yet under Standing Orders we were not allowed any separate debate on that. Can my hon. Friend explain why his Bill for £700,000 has 45 minutes but a much more expensive Bill has nothing?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do not think we need to consider that.

Local Government Funding

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jack Lopresti]

With pleasure.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just one second. We are not going to be able to get Members in. Members have had six minutes each and I have now dropped the limit to four minutes. We are in danger of being self-indulgent if we are not careful. Some people will not get in and that is unfair when this issue matters to every constituency.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I withdraw my intervention.

Middle Level Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

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

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had intended to make this point of order when the hon. Gentleman stopped speaking, but I feel that he might be in the middle of a “Stackhouse filibuster”. Earlier today, Toys“R”Us announced that the company has gone into administration. That has ramifications for the store in Parkhead in my constituency. I have spent the majority of today trying to get in touch with the administrators of Toys“R”Us, with no success. Have you been given advance notice of any ministerial statement tomorrow? How can Members of Parliament do their job if they cannot get in touch with the company to seek security for the staff who work for it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Normally I would not take a point of order at this stage, but as Sir Christopher has only just cleared his throat in making his speech, I recognise that it would be frustrating for the hon. Gentleman not to get in. The matter is on the record now. I have been given no notice of a ministerial statement about the serious issue at Toys“R”Us. I do recognise that you are representing your constituents. I hope that the message has gone out loud and clear that Toys“R”Us should be linking up with the Member of Parliament to ensure that you can represent the rights of the workers there.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Unfortunately my children and I are so old that they do not benefit from visits to Toys“R”Us, but it is very sad when any long-established business goes into administration.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

If I may say so, that is a more plausible explanation than the one being put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, but I think we have said enough about that. We will hear what he thinks when he responds to the debate.

I turn to amendments 6, 7 and 8 to clause 3. The petitioners are concerned that the requirement that the commissioners must take the committee’s views into consideration has limited use, because the commissioners could say that they have taken those views into consideration but found them to be of no value. The only remedy for any such failure to take the committee’s views properly into account would then be judicial review, which is strictly time-limited, expensive and hugely unreliable, with historical bias, they think, in favour of authorities. I do not know about that, but certainly they are right in saying that judicial review is a long-winded and potentially expensive way of seeking redress.

In the light of those concerns, I have tabled amendment 7 to clause 3(6), which would mean that instead of the commissioners being required to “take into consideration” any matter, they must “give full” consideration. There is a difference between taking into consideration and giving consideration. If the commissioners gave full consideration to any matter, that would be useful.

To reinforce that point, amendment 8 would add a sentence to the end of subsection (6), which would then say that the commissioners give full consideration to any matter, recommendation or representation which may from time to time be referred or made to them by the committee

“and in the event of not accepting such a recommendation or representation give full reasons for that decision.”

That would provide the sort of protection that the petitioners seek and would strengthen clause 3 and make it an even more effective addition to the Bill.

Amendment 9 to clause 4 would leave out subsection (2). It is in essence a probing amendment, to draw attention to the whole issue of charges and constraints upon the way in which charges can be made, which, as has been said, is a useful amendment to the Bill. I am suggesting that it could be linked more specifically with each of the different uses for which charges will be recoverable.

Amendment 10 would mean that in exercising the power under clause 4(1)(a), rather than the whole of subsection (1),

“the Commissioners must aim to secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from charges under that subsection does not exceed the annualised costs incurred by the Commissioners in exercising their functions in respect of navigation under the navigation Acts.”

It seems that that relates to the use of any waterway by any vessel. Those would be the charges for the use of the waterway, and they would link in directly with the functions in respect of navigation under the navigation Acts.

I am much more dubious about linking in the reasonable charges for the provision of services and facilities in respect of the waterways and their banks, because they are not separated out from the more general, nor is the requirement for registration of any vessel under navigation byelaws. Those charges should be separately identified and accounted for, and they should undergo this test: taking one financial year with another, the charges under those subsections should not exceed the annualised costs. This is a refinement of clause 4, and I think that it would improve the clause significantly.

Amendment 11 also deals with the annualised issue. The effect of amendment 12 would be as follows:

“The Commissioners may revise, waive or remove any charge fixed under subsection (1)(a), and different charges may be fixed for different cases or classes of case.”

The amendment would extend the commissioners’ discretion, while making sure that it was specific to the different categories of activity for which they can recover charges.

Amendment 13, which is a probing amendment, would leave out subsection (4). I hope that we will hear further explanation of why the commissioners want to

“make the use of the services and facilities referred in subsection (1)(b) subject to such terms and conditions as the Commissioners may specify in writing.”

The most radical amendment that I have tabled to clause 4 is amendment 14, which I hope will find favour with Members from across the House. The amendment would add, at the end of the clause:

“No charge shall be payable in respect of the use of a waterway by a vessel being used by a person who is registered disabled”.

I raise that because there is quite an issue about disability, the use of waterways and the use of powers similar to those sought by the promoters of the Bill. Such powers have been abused on occasions, and disabled people have been severely pilloried and discriminated against. Why should it not be possible to exempt disabled people from these charges?

I have been sent a press cutting dated April 2015 from Wiltshire, where a disabled boat owner who lived on the Kennet and Avon canal faced costs of up to £76,000 as a result of action that was taken against him by the Canal and River Trust. The individual was living on incapacity benefit and disability living allowance. Instead of allowing him to repair his boat over a period of time, the trust strictly imposed the conditions of his licence and required him to vacate his boat, which was also his home. Insult was added to injury by the fact that he was denied legal aid, and he was instead represented by the legal officer of the National Bargee Travellers Association.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Sir Christopher, I am just waiting to see how this links in with the Bill.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It links in with my amendment 14, Mr Deputy Speaker, because amendment 14 would exempt—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am more bothered that this is about the Avon canal and that particular individual, who is not actually on the Middle Level or affected by it. I understand you making a reference, but not in detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very informative speech. He will recognise that other Members are affected, other than just those from the fens, because the River Nene—or “Nen”, depending on which part of my constituency someone is from—flows into the Middle Level. So this issue is wider than just a local area.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

This is the Middle Level Bill!

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It is very important that my hon. Friend has been able to put his interest in this subject matter on the record.

Amendment 17 relates to clause 9, which addresses stranded, grounded and sunken vessels and vehicles. The amendment would remove the subsection 3, which states:

“Whenever any vessel is, without lawful authority, left or moored in any waterway the Commissioners may after serving not less than 28 days’ notice on the owner of the vessel, unless it is not practicable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the name and address of the owner, raise and remove the vessel.”

As set out in the rest of clause 9, it is perfectly reasonable for a vessel that is stranded or abandoned in a waterway and is interfering with navigation to be removed quickly. However, when one takes into account the very wide definition of “waterway”, the inclusion of subsection 3 is potentially oppressive. It could mean that the commissioners could, for example, go into a marina and raise and remove a vessel at considerable cost after no more than 28 days’ notice. The amendment would therefore remove that power from the Bill.

Clause 11 relates to the requirements for registration and incorporates a very important amendment promoted by the March Cruising Club and others on the charges and the amount by which they could be increased in any one year. It introduces a requirement that such charges should not increase above the rate of inflation as defined by the consumer prices index. Many boaters—some may be represented by my hon. Friends here this evening—are not very well-off in financial terms and need to be able to plan their budgets ahead. When they work out the costs of having a vessel on the waterway, they need to have the certainty that the charges levied cannot be increased by more than the rate of the CPI each year. By analogy, the Government have said that council tax should not increase by more than the CPI. They have made some exceptions to that recently, but the general proposition is that they cannot be increased by more than the CPI.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Much as I would like to agree with my hon. Friend, there has to be some discretion, because the fees needs to relate to the powers and duties that will be carried out and funded by them. One of the clauses that we looked at earlier specified that the money for the fees had to be spent on various things, particularly, for example, on navigation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Can I just help a little? In fairness to Mr Bone, he was not here, but you do not need to explain what we have already discussed and we do not need to go back over it. I know that you were not attempting to do so—come on, Sir Christopher!

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Okay, amendment 26 is to clause 15, line 38. The clause, on the protocol of removal of vessels, states:

“The Commissioners must, in consultation with the Navigation Advisory Committee, prepare, publish and maintain a protocol on the use of powers under or by virtue of this Act to remove vessels.”

My amendment proposes to change “in consultation with” to “in conjunction with”, because it seems to me that the Navigation Advisory Committee should work jointly with the commissioners rather than just in consultation with them on this important matter. Again, amendment 25 tries to reduce the powers conferred upon the commissioners under clause 14(4) and how they can be exercised.

As I said at the beginning, this is a much improved Bill, compared with how it was. It has now reached the stage where, because all the amendments have been grouped together, it would not be sensible to test the will of the House on each one—I am glad that you agree with me on that proposition, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, the Bill’s promoters are worried about whether the fact that we are discussing these things in the House today means that they cannot be discussed further when the Bill gets to the other place. My understanding is that when it goes to the other place, there is a fresh opportunity for people to put in petitions, in which they can include whatever they wish to, and I am sure that the other place will build upon the discussions that we are having this evening and have had prior to it, so that eventually, the Bill will be even better than it is now.

Licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I have several concerns about the Bill. As with many Bills that were drafted with good intentions, the proposed remedy is disproportionate to the problem. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) accepts in his explanatory notes to the Bill that to obtain a licence to drive private hire vehicles or taxis, people have to show that they are of good character and that they are fit and proper persons. I have no problem with that, and I would have no problem with requiring all 293 licensing authorities to use the same test to ensure that an applicant was a fit and proper person and had not been ruled out by another licensing authority.

The key to my concern is apparent in the long title, which talks about making

“provision about the exercise of taxi and private hire vehicle licensing functions in relation to persons about whom there are safeguarding or road safety concerns”.

What do we mean by “concerns”? Concerns may be irrational. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) has been waiting for three months to find out the nature of the concerns about his conduct. Would the Bill prevent him from applying for a private hire licence?

Clause 1 states:

“In this Act “relevant information”, in relation to a person, means information indicating that the person…has committed a sexual offence.”

“Indicating” is a very weak word; if the word was “proving” or “showing”, I would be much happier. Why should the relevant information include an indication that that person has committed a sexual offence, when that can be established without any difficulty?

Then we get on to an indication that an applicant “has harassed another person”. That is incredibly wide, and we are not talking about a court appearance or any sort of offence. It means that somebody simply could allege to the licensing authority that they or somebody else had been harassed by the applicant. That licensing authority and others could use that indication as grounds for refusing the applicant a licence, thereby preventing him from becoming, or continuing as, a taxi driver or private hire driver. We are talking about depriving licensed drivers of their livelihood or preventing others from taking up the profession. If we are going to introduce a rule book, it needs to contain rules rather than rumour or smear. I would be interested to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge explain why he has chosen to use such a wide expression.

I am equally unhappy about clause 1(1)(c), which concerns an indication that an applicant

“has caused physical or psychological harm to another person”.

What will be the test for that? There is no requirement for it to be proven, either beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities; there simply has to be an indication that it has happened. An indication can come from someone who makes an anonymous telephone call. That is open to massive abuse by people who, for reasons best known to themselves, may have a grudge against somebody who is already a taxi driver or licensed private hire vehicle driver, or they may wish somebody else not to come into that competitive profession. That provision really must be tightened up if the Bill is to get on to the statute book.

We then get to clause 1(1)(d). The “relevant information” would be an indication that a person

“has committed an offence that involves a risk of causing physical or psychological harm to another person (whether or not the person was charged with, prosecuted for or convicted of the offence)”.

That is so widely drawn as to be downright oppressive. Why do we need to include that in the Bill at all? An indication that a person “has committed an offence”—I think there should be proof that they have. It goes on to say that the consequence of that offence involves not actual physical or psychological harm, but a risk of physical or psychological harm. That is so ludicrously widely drawn that is unfit to be the subject of legislation in this place.

Clause 1(1)(e) is equally wide. There has to be an indication that somebody

“has done anything that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, constitutes unlawful discrimination against”

someone. If there has been “unlawful discrimination” in breach of the Equality Act, let it be established, but let us not have a smear that something may have happened or that there is an indication that it happened. Let us require proof of all this before we take away the livelihood of a driver or deprive somebody else of the ability to become one.

Clause 1(1)(f) talks about an indication that a person

“has threatened, abused or insulted another person”.

I think that would rule out anybody who has been in the Whips Office, either in opposition or government. I speak as somebody who has never been granted such a privilege, but what person who has served in the Whips Office can say hand on heart that they have never threatened, abused or insulted another person?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we are drifting a bit from where we should be in talking about the Whips Office. I do not want to concentrate too much on the Whips. They are getting rather perplexed down here.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will not press the point about the Whips, because there is actually no requirement of proof. All one needs is an indication.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend has given me an idea. We should bring forward, perhaps in the next Session of Parliament, a private Member’s Bill that would outlaw any legislation that is purely gesture politics.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure, Mr Davies, you are not going to go down that route.

[Philip Davies]

My word, Mr Deputy Speaker! If we were to abolish Bills that were just about gesture politics, that would abolish private Member’s Bill Fridays altogether. However, that is a debate for another day. I do not want to be sidetracked down that line today.

Amendment 29 would delete paragraph (d). The provision says that the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on

“the measures to be taken and legislation required to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul Convention”.

Surely it is clear what legislation is required to enable the UK to ratify the convention. Why on earth do we need an annual report for the Government to tell us what legislation is required to ratify the convention?

Overseas Voters Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 26th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise. The Government are keen to ensure that we have individual voter registration so that there is less identity fraud at polling stations and through postal votes. I supported that when I was a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the previous Parliament.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are not debating UK domestic issues. I know the hon. Gentleman would not want to drift away from his point.

[Mr Chope]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 30th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

If there is increased demand for car parking spaces at hospitals and it is desirable that those hospitals provide extra provision, that has to be paid for. How will it be paid for?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I do not think that is our worry for today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he address clause 7(2) which states that the Act extends to England only? Does he think that, as with free school meals, there will be Barnett consequentials?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are not going to open that can of worms today. Philip Davies, I know that you want to get beyond clause 7 and to your conclusion.

House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 27th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

My new clause 3 is in the same grouping. As it is well precedented in the 2012 Bill, which did not make much progress, I wish, if it is possible, to test the will of the House on it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The new clause will have to be moved formally.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Code of conduct

“(1) Standing Orders of the House of Lords may provide for the adoption of a code of conduct.

(2) A resolution passed by virtue of section 1(4) must include a reference to the relevant provision of any code of conduct which the House of Lords may have adopted and which has not been superseded by a subsequent decision of the House.”— (Mr Chope.)

This Clause allows the House of Lords to adopt a code of conduct and also requires the application of penalties under this Bill to be linked to that code, if there is one.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 4, leave out paragraph (a).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss 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, in the title, line 1, leave out “expel or”.

[Mr Chope]

Effectively, amendment 1 seeks to remove from the Bill any reference to the expulsion of Members of the House of Lords, which means that the Bill would relate only to their suspension. The reason why I wish to circumscribe the Bill in that way is that the main point of the Bill is to make the House of Lords’ powers relating to Members’ suspension more consistent. On that, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Where I disagree with him is over the use of the expulsion power.

When this Bill was originally put forward, it was said to be very minor and technical, but as one of their lordships said, the expulsion power was certainly not about routine housekeeping. The power to expel Members from the other place is a fundamental interference in the constitutional arrangements of our country; people are appointed to the other House for life, or they are elected as part of the cohort of elected peers. To expel such a person is an extreme measure.

Following the House of Lords Reform (No.2) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) and passed into law, the House of Lords and this House effectively have the same powers of expulsion. That includes ensuring that anyone who is convicted of an offence that results in imprisonment for more than one year is expelled. In this House, we have not expelled anyone for a very long time. A number of people, following critical newspaper reports, have chosen not to stand again, or even in extremis to resign their seat, but expulsion is a draconian sanction. Introducing it in this Bill is unnecessary; it is over-egging the pudding. That is why I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire will accept my amendment. Essentially, all the amendments in the group deal with the same issue, which is the conduct that gives rise to potential expulsion from the House.

Amendments 2, 7, 6, 19, 8, 9 and the others are worth considering because they tighten up the Bill and bring it more into line with what would be regarded as fair and reasonable. Rather than spending a lot of time going through them, I would prefer to see whether we can persuade my right hon. Friend, the promoter of this Bill, to drop the expulsion power. As was said on Second Reading and Report in the other place, this is a power that the Lords hope that they will never have to use, but the danger is that if it is available and can be used in relation to a wide range of conduct, people might be expelled from the Lords in circumstances in which they would not be expelled from this House.

Let us consider the interaction between this Bill and the recall Bill. The recall Bill gives electors the power to vote when a Member’s conduct falls short of what is expected but would not give rise to a sentence of imprisonment of more than one year. If we are to link in with that, it would be best to do away with the expulsion provisions and rely on the suspension provisions instead. Under the suspension powers in this Bill, the other place would be able to suspend Members for five years or more. If a Member was suspended for that length of time and felt that justice had been done, they might well choose to resign. That is a different issue, but given the constitutional implications, it would be a step too far to give the other House the power to override our constitution by expelling somebody who has been appointed a peer of the realm for life, or an elected hereditary peer. If we want to go down that route, we should not do so on a Friday through a private Member’s Bill.

As with so many powers that have been taken, people say that they will never have to use these powers. We were told, when certain legislation was originally introduced, that it would be used only to proceed against terrorists, but as the years went by we found that the rules became rather different. People forget the basis on which the law was introduced. The lack of safeguards in this Bill about the conduct that would give rise to expulsion means that it would be much cleaner to remove references to expulsion from it. Some of my amendments would therefore ensure that the Bill was called not the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill, but the House of Lords (Suspension) Bill.

Tenancies (Reform) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 28th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not the custom that a Member who has spoken in a debate should be in his place to listen to the Minister’s response?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That normally happens for the wind-up speeches, but as we did not know when they would happen, I do not think that we need to worry.

[Stephen Williams]

I forgive them for not being here. I am sure that they will diligently read Hansard to see how I responded to the points that they made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East asked what would happen if a landlord was obliged to make repairs but then tried to evict the tenants in order to get vacant possession. I am advised that the council can issue a prohibition order prohibiting use of the dwelling by someone else while repairs are taking place—

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

We have up to three hours in which we could debate the Third Reading of this Bill—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. As we all know, Third Readings never drag on for that long, and I would be tempted to put the Question way before then, so he ought to get his points in and not detain the House for too long. I know that he is desperate to get on to the Second Reading of the next Bill.

[Mr Chope]

As always, you anticipate my remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The whole process of private legislation should perhaps by revisited by the Procedure Committee, because this Bill shows that too often Bills are brought to this House and presented without being sufficiently thought through in advance. Great chunks of the Bill have been removed as a result of the scrutiny that this House has given to it. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that on Third Reading we do not talk about what is not in a Bill but only what is left in it. However, it is important to put it on record that all the provisions relating to pedicabs, for example, which were very controversial, have been completely removed. As I indicated in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), a Bill that originally had 39 clauses now has only 20, so it is much tighter.

There have also been a significant number of amendments. I commend my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which he has dealt with the points that have been raised. Obviously he and I have not agreed about everything, but where we have been able to agree we have amended the Bill accordingly.

House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 18th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is another issue on which there might be amendments. I am concerned about how the Bill will proceed, assuming that it gets its Second Reading today, because if it does not go to a Committee of the whole House, it is quite likely that there will be so many amendments that people will want to move and debate that the Bill could end up taking up all the time available for discussion on Fridays; that is another good reason why it should go to a Committee of the whole House.

I should not sit down before commenting on what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said about the potentially ageist nature of the reference to retirement in the legislation. I have the privilege of representing the constituency with the largest proportion of residents aged over 65; the proportion is just over 35%. Obviously, that means that a much higher proportion than that are able to vote in elections, because those under 18 are excluded from doing so. I therefore have a particular reason for saying that it is important that the older generation be properly represented in this House and the other place.

Quite a lot of people see it as their objective in life to try to bring in, directly or indirectly, a restriction on the age until which people can participate in our democracy in a representative capacity. We should be hostile to those moves. That is another reason why I have always been against the idea of a retirement scheme for their lordships that is based just on age. The proposal in the House of Lords (Maximum Membership) Bill, to which I referred earlier, would not require people to retire based on their age; retirement would relate to the date when they first became Members, which can be a completely different kettle of fish.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire said, the Bill is, on any view, a modest measure, but many modest measures have been brought before the House. Some of the Bills in my name further down the Order Paper are very modest measures—two clauses at most—but that does not mean that they will find favour with the Government Front Benchers.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just to help, if the hon. Gentleman were to finish speaking now, we might be able to get to those modest measures.

[Mr Chope]

I am not that naive; there are two Bills after this one before we get to any of mine. The Government have already indicated that, although the House of Lords (Maximum Membership) Bill has received the Queen’s consent, that does not mean that it has their support. I live in hope, but as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), who is in charge of the next Bill to be discussed, nobody’s performance or career in this House should be judged on how many private Members’ Bills they have been able to get on the statute book.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I stand corrected by my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Procedure Committee. My understanding has always been that if there were not enough Members voting in a Division, we went straight on to the next business.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Shall we test it?

[Mr Chope]

We can test it in due course.

The Bill, albeit modest, would need a great deal of change before it would be worthy to go on to the statute book. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire on introducing it. This debate sends out a warning shot to those in the other place that if they send to this House Bills relating to their own House which they want us to endorse, we will not do so unless we have had a chance to consider them fully.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In light of the fact that so many issues could not be debated in Committee, have you had any notice from the Government that they intend to give House more time on Report so that those issues may be debated properly?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have had absolutely no notice of that. However, as he is well aware, it is up to the Government to make the timetable.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I remind the House that with this we are considering amendments 11 to 19.

When the debate was in train on 10 July, I believe that Mr Chope was about to sum up—within minutes—and end his speech on the group of amendments.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Your recollection is impeccable, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although more than two months have elapsed since we last debated the amendments, I do not think that it is necessary for me to remind the House of the issues at stake, given that there are further important matters to discuss.

During the course of the debate, there was considerable discussion regarding which of the commendable amendments in the group we should seek to test the opinion of the House. Having listened to the helpful advice of my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), the balance of opinion is that the best choice would be amendment 14, which would provide that people could not be prosecuted for having unlit skips if they had taken reasonable steps to ensure that they were lit. In other words, the amendment would mean that there would have to be a lack of responsibility before a criminal act could be committed. There was acceptance across the House that such an amendment would be reasonable, so while I shall not press amendment 10 to a Division, I will seek the opinion of the House on amendment 14.

Earlier in the debate, we heard the good news that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, will accept amendment 11, which should interest those who think that such occasions are rather a pointless exercise. It is clear that the promoters of this Bill are much more willing to accept amendments than the promoter of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill—the Government. The Government should learn a lesson from how we conduct private business, during which if it is thought that the arguments being made about amendments are reasonable, the amendments are accepted without anyone feeling that they are losing face. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Bill’s promoters on being broad-minded enough to accept not only amendment 11, but amendment 30, which we shall reach in due course. Without further ado, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 11.—(Mr Chope.)

Clause 9

Builders’ skips: penalty charge provisions

Amendment proposed: 14—(Mr Chope.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I beg to move amendment 21.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider amendments 22 to 40.

[Mr Chope]

The amendment relates to part 5 of the Bill, which deals with charging points for electric vehicles. Many moons ago, perhaps even more than two years ago, I was told that the reason the Government were so keen to ensure that the Bill got on the statute book was its provisions on charging points for electric vehicles. The fact that the Bill has been on a very slow curve since is indicative of the many practical problems that are being experienced by people who want to promote electric vehicles and a green economy. That is why the issue of charging points has not been as significant as the Government at one stage thought it would be.

I declare my enthusiasm for the idea that there should be electric vehicles. Obviously, if one has an electric vehicle, one needs to have somewhere to charge it. On the whole, batteries that are long-lasting are heavy and large, so it is much easier if one has a smaller, more efficient unit that can be charged at a charging point.

I was therefore disappointed to see that part 5, which gives powers to London local authorities to

“provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles”,

does not require those local authorities to provide and operate such charging apparatus. What a missed opportunity, one might say. I am not suggesting that local authorities should provide and operate charging apparatus in any place. What I am suggesting in amendments 21 and 22 is that the clause should state that London local authorities “shall”, rather than “may”,

“provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles”

in every

“public off-street car park under the management and control of the authority”.

We know that London local authorities make an enormous amount of money from car parking charges, both for on-street and off-street parking. We also know that off-street car parking charges often discourage shoppers from going to local shopping centres. However, if local authorities believe they can charge a lot for the use of off-street car parks, surely, in a society in which we support the principle of having and promoting the use of electric vehicles, they should be required to provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered vehicles rather than just have the opportunity to do so if they wish to take it up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I recognise that the unleaded debate was such a long time ago that Mr Davies may struggle to remember it, but Mr Chope definitely wants to talk about electric points, and not to get bogged down in leaded or unleaded fuel. I know he dealt with that as a Minister and that he wants to deal only with electric points now—he does not want to upset the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. As so often, you are spot on in reading the language not necessarily expressed between my hon. Friend and me.

In my hon. Friend’s most recent intervention, he asked why local authorities are being given this responsibility. The Bill does not leave it to the private sector to provide charging points for electric vehicles; it gives powers to London local authorities to provide and operate charging apparatus. In my submission, that is acceptable only if there is a requirement for them to provide that. What is the point of giving them a power without any certainty about whether they will exercise it? My hon. Friend paints a scenario in which the public sector can be kept out of this completely. Indeed, I could support that where there are no public sector London local authority-owned car parks. However, if London local authorities wish to take powers to establish charging points for electric vehicles, my point, and the point of these two amendments, is that they should provide them in all their car parks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

That is a good point. I hope we will hear from the Minister in due course, because it is no exaggeration to say that there is nobody in the House with a better or more consistent record of wanting to promote electric vehicles than him.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my advice and help. We are discussing the London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill, and I do not want to get into a national debate. As much as Mr Nuttall is trying to tempt you, Mr Chope—he is very good at tempting Members away—I know that you do not want to be distracted from the amendments before us.

[Mr Chope]

Thank you for that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously it means that when the Minister responds, he should address his remarks to the issue of charging points for electric vehicles in London, without straying into whether there should be charging points for electric vehicles beyond London. I am glad that you have effectively given him that warning in advance of him making his contribution, and I am sorry if I was going to lead him down the wrong path.

[Philip Davies]

The Government have set out their position in “Driving the Future Today”, as published by the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, which has been given money to provide such points. My concern is that if my hon. Friend’s amendments are accepted, that could lead to the national budget for this issue being used up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I know that you wanted to make a short intervention, Mr Davies, and I know that you may wish to speak later, in which case I would not want you to use your speech up now, but instead to recognise that we need to continue with the amendments before us, rather than causing further distractions.

[Mr Chope]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Amendment 23 would introduce the words “on a discretionary basis” into clause 16, amending the provision that:

“A London authority may grant a person permission to provide or operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles…on any highway for which they are responsible as highway authority.”

That discretion would be necessary as a consequence of amendments 21 and 22 being accepted. Amendments 24 and 25 propose leaving out references to authorised persons, which would result in the London authorities having to exercise the responsibility themselves, rather than through authorised people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. That brings us back to the question of whom we are trying to encourage to use electric vehicles, and hence to use electric vehicle charging points. If using a charging point can make someone liable at law for events for which that person would not have been responsible but for the provisions of this statute, that in itself will deter people from using electric vehicles. I know of no legislation that provides for someone who fills up his tank at a petrol station to be automatically liable, as the person in charge of the vehicle, irrespective of whether he or she is at fault. I assume that normally, whether the petrol station was owned by a private sector company or by a local authority, its owner would, could or should be responsible.

Important issues of principle underlie these provisions. The danger, as always, is that if they are passed without adverse comment, it will be possible for them to be replicated in other Bills. We have observed that iterative process for many years. Throughout the country, we have encountered more and more—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let us not worry about other Bills. Let us deal with the Bill before us, and, in particular, with the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we have got the reasons, and I know Mr Chope wants to get on. I have not even had a chance to call other speakers yet. I would be delighted to hear the views of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I will therefore be grateful if you move on through the amendments as you were doing, Mr Chope.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I am making an intervention.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Minister is getting carried away. He cannot intervene on someone who is already intervening. I think we have got the message for Bob Blackman to respond.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend anticipates the argument that I am going to put. I was in discussion about whether an amendment referring only to “outside the United Kingdom” would be in order and selectable. On advice—obviously, I am responsible for deciding whether to act on advice—I decided that my new clause was much more likely to be selected if, instead of referring to the United Kingdom, I referred to the European Union. That is because of single market and European Union rules. Obviously, I wanted to ensure as far as possible that my new clause would be selectable, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. He is saying that the whole public debate is about why cannot we buy British—buy UK food and thereby avoid the risk associated—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I gently remind Parliamentary Private Secretaries —[Interruption.] Order. A Member is speaking, and unfortunately every time a PPS walks past, it is at eye-level of the camera. The first time it is not too bad, but it is happening constantly. We all want to hear Mr Chope, and I am sure the PPSs would like to hear a little more from him.

[Mr Chope]

The only comfort that I take is that my remarks are evidently creating such confusion on the Front Bench that Ministers need an enormous number of messages sent to them from the Box. I take some consolation from that.

It is incumbent upon the Minister when she replies to explain how the Bill will help UK producers while not giving benefits and privileges to producers from the rest of the European Union, let alone from outside the European Union. I should like to give the Minister the maximum amount of time to respond to the debate.

Amendment 27 seemed to be warmly endorsed from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not understand why the Opposition did not table such an amendment themselves in Committee or on Report. The amendment proposes that the Bill come into force two months after Royal Assent. Then it would be clear on the face of the Bill when it would come into force. If this is such fantastic legislation, why do we not bring it in in the normal way—the whole Bill, two months after Royal Assent? I hope the Minister will respond to those points and particularly to the powerful argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in relation to new clause 2.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I am not going to accuse the hon. Gentleman of despising the City of London. If he wants to put on record his support for the City, I am sure that he will have an opportunity to do so in the debate. But I am sure he recognises that quite a lot of Opposition Members make statements that give the impression that they are hostile to the City.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that the ice cream van is waiting for you to deliver a fresh flake rather than take us somewhere we do not want to be. It is not like Mr Chope to wander away and be tempted in other directions. Let us get back to where we should be.

[Mr Chope]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite right to have a go at the victim, which is me. I was led astray by that intervention, and I accept full responsibility.

If a product is perishable, the consequences of having it seized may be that it loses all its value. That is important. I am not sure that the provisions relating to perishable items in clause 16E are sufficient. The clause says:

“No article or thing which is of a perishable nature … shall be seized under the provisions of section 16A … unless the Corporation gives a notice in writing under subsection (2) to the person from whom the article or thing is seized.”

I would have thought it best to say that nothing perishable should be seized. Ice-cream could be removed and, if necessary, the van seized. The seizure of perishable articles is quite an oppressive power.

Proposed new section 16E(2) states:

“Where a perishable article or thing is seized…the person from whom it is seized shall be given a notice in writing…giving the address from which the article or thing may be collected; and…stating that if that person is not the owner of the article or thing, then that person should give the owner the information referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).”

On the face of it, one would think that that would ensure that perishable articles were not seized, but when one looks at the small print one sees that they will be seized, and that is unfair and unjust. Indeed, such provisions have been removed from similar Bills because Members on the Government Benches—I cannot speak for Opposition Members—thought that they were disproportionately heavy in their application to ordinary people.

I have some grave concerns about the powers of seizure, especially when dealing with items of greater value than the maximum penalties under the Bill. A specific provision provides that it is open to the authorities to seize equipment, including motor vehicles, of a value higher than the maximum fine that could be imposed under any circumstances. That, in effect, deprives people of their assets, perhaps temporarily, in a disproportionately heavy manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I have already done so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Chope has rightly pointed out that he has already congratulated the Minister on that speech, and I am sure that he was coming to the end of where he needs to be—on the Bill, rather than on the ability of someone speaking last night in the library.

[Mr Chope]

I think it was a question not of whether congratulations had been offered, but of whether they had been communicated and whether my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench had received the notice.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will not waste the time of the House on that matter.

[Mr Chope]

I will not do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not want to cross you on this or any other matter.

I am delighted that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), is on the Front Bench to listen to the next part of the debate, as this is the issue that concerns his own Department—clause 9 on trading outside business premises. For reasons that I can understand, the City of London says that in order to bring a little more vibrancy to life in the City of London, particularly at weekends and particularly for tourists, why not allow people to sell ice creams off the street, rather than just from fixed locations in shops and cafes? It says that people should be able to sell ice creams from a receptacle, which could include an ice cream van, located within 15 metres of business premises.

Listening to the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, I was not sure whether the definition of business premises included St Paul’s cathedral chapter or not, and whether St Paul’s cathedral itself would be covered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not going to be tempted either way any more, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse has now come to the end of his speech. I am going to bring in Mark Field.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

When the debate was adjourned last Thursday, we were considering the second group of Lords amendments and the amendments to them. Mr Chope was speaking on Lords amendment C6 to the Canterbury City Council Bill. With this amendment, we were also considering the following:

Lords amendments C7 and C8, and C9 and amendments (a) to (h) thereto to the Canterbury City Council Bill.

Lords amendments L3 and L4, and L5 and amendments (a) to (h) thereto to the Leeds City Council Bill.

Lords amendments N3 to N5, and N6 and amendments (a) to (i) thereto to the Nottingham City Council Bill.

Lords amendments R4 to R7, and R8 and amendments (a) to (i) thereto to the Reading Borough Council Bill.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

When we adjourned proceedings at 3.27 pm last Thursday, we were less than an hour into the debate on these amendments.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. He had just said:

“I do not need to speak any longer on this group of amendments”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 1120.]

I hope that remains the case.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I can assure him he hasn’t.

[Mr Chope]

I have no intention, Mr Deputy Speaker, of trying your patience. Given, however, that a few parliamentary colleagues are still hanging around, I thought that I would put on the record an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the deputy Chief Whip during Monday’s proceedings, when it was made clear that, although it was possible this debate might start at 4 o’clock and continue until 7 o’clock, if it ran late, it would not be of any significance, because there would be a one-line Whip and no interference in our affairs, whether from the Government or anybody else. I want to make it clear to anybody who thinks that they have to still hang around in the Chamber because this is whipped business, that it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Nuttall, I was waiting, but you did not jump up as quickly as you normally do. I do not want to stop you from having at least a minute.

[Mr Chope]

We want the Minister to speak as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Shame!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Shame it may be, but I think the time has come. I enjoy hearing the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), but I do not think there is anything new in what he says, so I will accept the closure.

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is a point of order, and the answer is that it is up to the Member in charge whether he wishes to speak to the amendments or not, and obviously he did not. Does anybody wish to speak to them?

[Mr Chope]

I wish to speak to them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Well, Mr Chope, I am desperate to hear from you.

[Mr Chope]

This Lords amendment deals with touting. A whole lot of other consequential amendments are included in the group. Mr Deputy Speaker, you in your wisdom—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Can we have a little silence? As we wish to hear Mr Chope, will Members be quiet if they are leaving the Chamber?

[Mr Chope]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you in your wisdom accepted that these Lords amendments, which relate to touting, should be dealt with in a separate group, and that is what we are discussing. The lead amendment would remove clause 11, and the subsequent amendments deal with consequential matters relating to the touting provision. When we discussed this previously, I cannot remember how many years ago, a lot of concern was expressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

We now have, after a bit of pressure, an admission from my hon. Friend that he has done exactly what he said he would do by ensuring that the amendments would be moved successfully in their lordships House. I and my parliamentary colleagues who have fought so valiantly to remove the most pernicious parts of these Bills can now say that, because of the work that we have been doing in this House over many years, the Bills are much improved as a result of these Lords amendments.

As my hon. Friend has said, he promised Lords amendment C15 to this House when these Bills were given their Third Reading. He has honoured that undertaking by ensuring that it was tabled in the other place. It is fair to say that we both think that the other place’s debate took a lot longer than expected. On the basis of the proposed amendments, we had expected the Bills to go through the other place relatively quickly but they did not because their lordships decided to look at them in a lot more detail. As a result, we received a series of Lords amendments, some of which we discussed earlier, that made a significant difference to the Bills—not just to the touting provision, but to the definition of pedlars. Therefore, when I seek the indulgence of the House, it is in order to ensure that my hon. and right hon. Friends and the Opposition realise that this has been a very worthwhile exercise. Although a lot of colleagues have consistently voted against the ideas that I and a number of my hon. Friends have suggested—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think it is very interesting to hear Mr Chope and I hope that other Members will take notice, because a lot of conversations are going on and we are struggling to hear.

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If there is going to be a Division on any of the amendments in this group, will you give Members notice of it so that if they do not wish to participate in this debate and want to carry on their conversations outside they can do so, and that, in due course, if there is a Division the Division bell will ring in the usual way? Could you make that clear, Mr Deputy Speaker?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I just did make it clear that we do not want any more private conversations. We will stick to the business in hand. I and other Members obviously wish to hear you, so please continue.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Sometimes during the course of discussing these pedlars Bills, we who have been on the side of the pedlars have, in a sense, been given an insight into what it must be like to be a pedlar, against whom there is a lot of prejudice among ordinary members of the public. Similarly, quite a lot of prejudice has been generated against those Members of this House who have stood up for the interests of pedlars. It is helpful for us to reflect on the real changes that we in this House, collectively, have made to the Bills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Is there not something ironic about the European Union coming to the rescue of my hon. Friend to sort this matter out?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have had a good round-up of the Bill and I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is now desperate to get back to discussing the amendments.

[Mr Chope]

I detect that all good things must come to an end, and in the light of the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has behaved, and in tribute to work done by their lordships in the other place and their thorough examination of the Bill, it would be churlish of me to say that I will vote against the amendments in this group. I must, however, have a caveat to that, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. He may persuade me that I am incorrect. Subject to anything that he says, I am—to use an expression from the other place—“content” to allow the Lords amendments to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Does this not present a perfect opportunity for the Minister to make her maiden contribution to our discussions on the Bills?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It might help if I say that the Minister will come in when Mr Davies sits down. If he wants to give way now, there will be no more, but I would sooner hear a little more.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sitting so close to my hon. Friend that it seems as if we are having a private conversation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We could always continue the debate in the Tea Room if we are getting frustrated with the rest of the Chamber. I am sure that is not the case.

[Mr Chope]

In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall raise my voice to make it obvious that this is not a private conversation. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) would like to have this conversation on the record—it certainly would not be on the record if it took place in the Tea Room. The short answer to his question is that we have a great opportunity, because the FRA has its multi-annual framework approved every five years. If we believe it has the wrong priorities, this is the moment to change it. The Bill could be amended to reflect the concerns of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I assure my hon. Friend 100% that, if this House, in its sovereign right, decides to repeal the European Communities Act 1972—we entered on a voluntary basis in that year—or any provision that emanates from section 2, by, for example, using the “notwithstanding” formula, we are entitled to do so. Nobody can do anything to stop us doing so. Whether the Whips would allow it is another thing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have been very generous in allowing hon. Members to drift all over, but I am not going back to 1972. I want us to stick to Second Reading. We have a bit of time and a bit of latitude has been given, but I do not want to go to the complete ends of it.

[Mr Chope]

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the fact that time is available does not mean we have to use it all. Other hon. Members may wish to participate in the debate. Some might regret that they missed the opportunity to participate when they look at the record. Some of us hope we will catch Mr Speaker’s eye in tomorrow’s debate, and might do our prospects some damage if we speak in extenso this evening.

This is a worthwhile debate and it is fantastic that we have the opportunity to discuss the Bill. I disagree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who is no longer in his place. He said that the relatively low attendance shows a lack of interest, but many hon. Members have looked at the issue and we are discussing it, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

Obviously, most Europe debates from now on—for the next several years—will be preparatory to that great referendum. I would like the Government to start work on drawing up an audit of the costs and benefits of our EU membership. In the context of the Bill, they could do a lot worse than draw up an audit of the costs and benefits to this country of the work of the FRA compared with the work that is already being done in the Council of Europe—the Council of Europe’s work is being duplicated by the FRA.

I will not vote against the Bill, but I hope that, in due course, we have the opportunity to discuss amendments to it.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was about to bring my remarks to a quick conclusion because I had already discussed all the amendments, but I can tell all those who supported the motion that I do not hold any animus against them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Mr. Chope, you are such a magnanimous Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me whether it is in accordance with the traditions and courtesies of the House for the Minister to refuse to give way to the proposer of the amendment under discussion?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Mr Chope, as a long-serving Member of the House, you know, as I do, that it is up to the Minister whether he gives way or not.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Does Mr Chope wish to move his amendment?

[Mr Chope]

With the leave of the House, I will not seek to move my amendment, because the Government have said that they agree with everything that I and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) have said, so it seems sensible to move on to the next business as soon as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say Aye—[Hon. Members: “Aye”]—to the contrary No—

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The Minister refers to this being very complex. Why, therefore, did the Government not set up this commission a year ago? Will he apologise to the House for the fact that the Government did not set it up a year ago, and will he confirm that the reason why it was not set up was because it was blocked by the Liberal Democrats?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As Mr Chope should know, we must keep our powder dry on that point until Third Reading. I ask the Minister not to be tempted.

Further and Higher Education (Access) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 4th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman obviously wants to put it on the record that they came sixth in the Barnsley by-election.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we should get back to the subject, rather than discus the Barnsley results.

[Mr Chope]

Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. It would ill-behove either you or me to bask in any glory as a result of that by-election result. It is a pity, however, that there is no Liberal Democrat representative in today’s debate to discuss these very important issues.

I turn to the measures being taken already to improve access. There is going to be a measurement system under the proposals for assessing the ability or willingness of OFFA to allow universities to charge higher fees. The system for measuring the success in improving access needs to include—it does not at the moment—access to other institutions as a result of the work carried out by a particular university. The Russell group welcomed

“the Government’s guidance that institutions should set their own targets and measures of progress”,

but was concerned that

“existing…widening participation benchmarks are unsuitable as targets against which institutions’ progress can be meaningfully measured.”

It quotes Lord Browne—the guru on this issue, who produced his report last year—who found that

“the benchmarks do not provide a sophisticated enough picture of the student population actually qualified to meet the entry requirements of many courses. For example, they take no account of the fact that someone with 4 A*s at A-level might have a high tariff score but would not have a strong chance of being accepted on a Medicine course if these A-levels are in the wrong subjects…Moreover, financial penalties for not meeting these targets would be unfair and unhelpful to our aim of investing in ways to help poorer students win a place at our universities.”

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Such an experienced Member will know that the referendum is not quite part of this group of amendments. I am sure that he would like to get back to the amendment.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, Mr Hoyle. I am sorry, but the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who is a former Home Secretary and holder of many other important national offices, drew me down that road of speculation.

To sum up, the Government have a motive to cover either outcome of the AV referendum. It suits both parties in the coalition to prevent an early general election, which is why they want a fixed-term Parliament—they want to assure themselves of a longer period in office. I say only this: good luck to them, but they should not expect me to vote for the Bill tonight.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend the Minister said the legislation that had been introduced nationally since the Bill was first produced covers the national picture. I am sure it takes properly into account the concerns that have been expressed, and to which my hon. Friend has referred.

I want to refer back to an earlier part of the Bill. Clause 7 deals with access to public lavatories. I have the privilege of representing a constituency with one of the highest proportions of elderly people in the country, and we in Christchurch are proud to have been the winner of the loo of the year awards on many occasions. Ours is a prudent council, and it has now reached the stage where the councillor and the officers responsible for winning those accolades do not attend the awards ceremony because they cannot afford the cost of the travel, but they are grateful recipients of the awards.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is going to flush out the subject a little more, but we are dealing with a London Bill, rather than toilets in his constituency. I know that there is a connection, but I would like to try to keep it a little tighter if we can.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. The great joy for people in Christchurch is that even when they reach a certain age they can travel. They travel outside their constituency to places such as London, and they expect that in London they will find facilities similar to those that they enjoy in Christchurch. Sometimes they are disappointed, and that is where the relevance of all this lies. As they have such high standards at home, they seek them elsewhere.

I am concerned that it would be a retrograde move to allow local authorities in London to reintroduce turnstiles. Not long ago, a short debate was held in the other place in which Baroness Greengross asked Baroness Andrews, who was then an Under-Secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government, about extending the provisions of the Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act 1963 to railway premises. The answer was that it would not be desirable because a lot of railway premises were having their loos and the access to them modernised. However, it was implicit in the answer that the then Government did not believe that the law needed to be changed and that they thought it desirable that we should not need turnstiles in order to gain access to public toilet facilities. This is a particular issue for disabled people, because they find it most difficult, although others may wish to gain access to a public toilet as quickly as possible and they do not want to have their progress impeded. I do not think that we need to spell out the point at any greater length, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Finance Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. It seems as though right hon. and hon. Members in the Opposition did not realise that it was open to them to object to the withdrawal of an amendment if they wished to vote on it.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is too late to object now, so let us proceed.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 5

Power to repeal high income excess relief charge