Business of the House (13 May)

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

On the previous intervention, I do not know how many rape, sexual violence or violence arrests the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) have handled, but an arrest does not happen on the basis of “flimsy” allegations; it takes weeks. I just put that on the record, as someone who deals with this week in, week out. The idea that somebody gets arrested just on someone’s say-so is for the birds.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before we resume this debate, I point out that the motion before us is incredibly narrow. I fear that we may be having the debate that we will have on Monday, and we do not want that. This is just about the amount of time that will be allocated. The debate that we are sort of having now is really for Monday.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I take that point absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think we have already had a taste, from the couple of interventions, of the fact that this is a controversial subject, for which two hours of debate on Monday is inadequate. The purpose of this debate is to decide whether we believe that a motion limiting debate on Monday to two hours is the right or wrong course, and I would suggest that it is the wrong course.

Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

2nd reading
Friday 26th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

This is the Bill’s first outing in debate, because although it was presented in the 2022 Session, unfortunately the House was unable to debate it. It relates directly to the beginning of the pandemic and the emergency measures that were taken by the Government and Parliament in implementing the Coronavirus Act 2020. At the time, a lot of concern was expressed about insufficient scope for parliamentary scrutiny under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, and how the level of scrutiny available under that Act compared unfavourably to that available under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Since that time, a number of academic and other articles have been written, and speeches given, in which the concern has been expressed that the Government used the wrong tool to implement restrictions on individual liberty during that pandemic, resulting in this House having an insufficient role in scrutinising that important legislation.

This issue was raised, very ably, by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) during the original debate on the Bill that became the Coronavirus Act 2020. He said:

“the whole purpose of the 30-day provision in the Civil Contingencies Act was for the Executive to be accountable to Parliament.”

The Leader of the House, however, responded to a point that he had made earlier by saying:

“we cannot use the Civil Contingencies Act…If we have time to bring forward legislation, it is proper that we do that, and anything we did under the powers of the 2004 Act would apply for only 30 days.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2023; Vol. 674, c. 132.]

Well, that is exactly what the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 is there to do. It was implemented to deal with emergencies even graver than that caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

The Civil Contingencies Act was the subject of detailed discussion before its enactment. Section 28 is entitled

“ Parliamentary scrutiny: prorogation and adjournment”,

while section 27 provides for “Parliamentary scrutiny” in other circumstances, stating that

“Where emergency regulations are made”

under the Act,

“a senior Minister of the Crown shall as soon as is reasonably practicable lay the regulations before Parliament, and…the regulations shall lapse at the end of the period of seven days beginning with the date of laying unless during that period each House of Parliament passes a resolution approving them… If each House of Parliament passes a resolution that emergency regulations shall cease to have effect, the regulations shall cease to have effect…at such time, after the passing of the resolutions, as may be specified in them, or…no time is specified in the resolutions, at the beginning of the day after that on which the resolutions are passed… If each House of Parliament passes a resolution that emergency regulations shall have effect with a specified amendment, the regulations shall have effect as amended”.

The Civil Contingencies Act therefore enables the regulations introduced under its provisions to be amended, unlike the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. The Government took advantage of that during the pandemic, and I am trying to put it right by including in my Bill provisions to ensure that there is scrutiny so that there will no longer be a perverse incentive for the Government, when faced with a pandemic or similar emergency, to resort to the use of the 1984 Act rather than the Civil Contingencies Act, on the basis that it would suit them to use the former rather than the latter because it would be subject to less scrutiny.

Clause 1 of my Bill provides that section 45D of the 1984 Act should be amended so that

“the appropriate Minister must lay before Parliament a statement that the restriction or requirement is proportionate under subsection (1)”,

and that

“In the case of English regulations, that proportionality must be demonstrated by a regulatory impact assessment that has been laid before Parliament.”

The importance of such a regulatory impact assessment cannot be overstated. We now look back on that period three years ago, and consider the consequences that flowed from the over-zealous restrictions that were introduced by the Government. Almost every day we hear of the adverse consequences for a whole cohort of young people who were excluded from school for extensive periods. As a result, not only has their education been damaged but their health, welfare and, particularly, their mental health. In my view, that is a direct consequence of this House not having had the opportunity to consider the costs and benefits of introducing such draconian restrictions on people’s ability to participate in their school education.

A similar point can be made about businesses being able to carry on what they were doing normally. I visited a garden centre a few weeks ago. In the height of the pandemic it was verboten that people could visit garden centres. For a time people were not even allowed to go to the refuse disposal points to get rid of their rubbish. They were not allowed to venture out and meet their loved ones, even in open spaces. As a result, a whole mass of people lost their loved ones without really being able to say goodbye to them, because they were incarcerated in care homes. We must never allow such a situation to be repeated in another health or other type of emergency without the proper scrutiny.

When one looks back over the course of this Parliament, it is possible to say that if we had been able to scrutinise the social distancing regulations to a greater extent, the Prime Minister in office at the time of the pandemic would still be in office today. The regulations and restrictions of which he fell foul would not have been in place, because somebody would have asked some sensible questions. The Government would have been persuaded that the workplace regulations should have enabled people working during the emergency to try to deliver benefits for the public to be allowed have a cup of tea or a bun together without falling foul of the law.

The use of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 may well have had the direct consequence—unintentionally, obviously—of depriving the former Prime Minister of his post. When the history books come to be written, these restrictions may be seen as a much more significant decision by the Government, though as the head of the Government, the Prime Minister himself at that time decided to use the 1984 Act rather than the 2004 Act regulations.

My Bill would ensure that we not only have proper parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations under section 45D of the 1984 Act, but that under section 45Q we introduce a provision that

“before such regulations may be made, a draft of the statutory instrument containing them shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty days on which that House has sat, and, if either House before the expiration of that period presents an address to Her Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon (but without prejudice to the making of a new draft statutory instrument) and that part of the draft shall not have effect unless both Houses by resolution approve it, or, if any modifications in that part are agreed to by both Houses, except as so modified.”

The consequence of that would be that there would be no incentive for a Government to introduce restrictions on freedom under the 1984 Act; instead, they would use the Civil Contingencies Act, which was of course set up for that very purpose.

I referred earlier to the public commentary about this issue. Most significantly perhaps, the noble Lord Sumption gave a lecture in which he expressed doubt about the legal basis for the draconian measures and argued strongly that we need proper parliamentary scrutiny. Another commentator, Tom Hickman KC, made the case not for using the 2004 Act but for having bespoke legislation to deal with such situations in the future.

The public health regulations that came into effect on 26 March 2020 set out criminal laws that required each person or household to remain in their homes until further notice. There were very narrow grounds on which people were able to leave their homes. The guidance that the Government issued was, as we eventually discovered through the courts, often over-claimed and overused by the enforcement authorities. We also found that those regulations essentially set up a system of false imprisonment, completely in breach of all principles of English common law. There were tremendous restrictions on people’s ability to go out and earn a living, and the reasonable excuses available to them to avoid the lockdown requirements were strictly limited.

Let us not forget the consequences for individual liberty, and for a whole generation of young and old people, who were particularly affected by these draconian laws, brought in by the Government under the wrong piece of legislation and insufficiently scrutinised by this House. Let that never happen again. Let us hope that Baroness Hallett, when she looks at this issue in the public inquiry, reaches the conclusion that the Government did indeed go too far in locking down, restricting freedom and preventing people from accessing education or seeing their loved ones in care homes. That inquiry will reach a conclusion in perhaps five or 10 years’ time—who knows?—but I hope that, if the Government do not support my Bill today, a future Government will be persuaded by Baroness Hallett’s report to do exactly the same thing and ensure the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 contains proper scrutiny provisions as safeguards.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The shadow Minister has indicated that she would like to make a very short contribution.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I thank the Minister and everybody who has participated in the debate. On the last point about plying for hire, it seems as though Transport for London is actively contemplating a situation in which no pedicabs will be able to ply for hire. Page 8 of the consultation states, “If, following consultation, pedicabs are allowed to continue to ply for hire”. That envisages a situation in which they might not be allowed to ply for hire. Unless they can ply for hire, that is the end of pedicabs as we know them.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating on this matter. I have seen over the years in London how we had a Greater London Council that interfered and acted against the wishes of the people. We now see Transport for London alienating a lot of people over the ultra low emission zone extension and its proliferation of 20 mph limits. I suppose we must trust Transport for London to ensure that it actually does what it says it will do, but I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that he and I are ad idem in our determination to ensure that there is a vibrant, lively and continuing pedicab industry in London. In those circumstances, I will withdraw my amendments because there is no need to take the matter any further, but I look forward to the consultations that will flow on those regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just for the record, Sir Roger told me that you were gloriously within order throughout speaking to the amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Short title

Amendment made: 20, page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (2).—(Guy Opperman.)

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Third Reading

Business without Debate

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Friday 24th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think I have ever heard such an inappropriate comment from a senior Member of this House. He knows jolly well what the rules are. He only printed his Bill on Thursday, there are no explanatory notes in relation to it, and he is expecting his Bill to take priority over all the other Bills just because he thinks a lot of himself and he thinks he has a good cause. Lots of us have good causes, but we do not argue the toss with the rules.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are not going to allow further debate on this particular matter; the fact is that both points of order now stand on the record. We are going to move on to another point of order on a separate issue.

Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Friday 28th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am not going to move the Second Reading.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is not moved.

Anonymity of Suspects Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Friday 28th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to respond. I simply point out that I made it clear when speaking in favour of my Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Amendment) Bill that I was talking about increasing the access from 8% of English land to 30%. I am sure that there will be plenty of space for all that wonderful nature to flourish, as it should.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Pass on.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Yes, we must pass on to the important subject of the anonymity of suspects. My interest in this subject arose because I attended a meeting of a relatively new organisation called Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform at about the time that I was preparing the private Members’ Bills that I might put forward for this Session. I was impressed by what was said at that gathering because, essentially, it is a campaign by people who have been falsely accused and whose lives have been completely wrecked as a consequence.

I will read what Sir Cliff Richard said to the meeting. As hon. Members will recall, he is Britain’s all-time biggest selling male artist with, I think, 22 million singles sold. He said:

“I am pleased to support the new pressure group Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform... Being falsely accused myself and having that exposed in the media was the worst thing that has happened to me in my entire life. Even though untrue, the stigma is almost impossible to eradicate. Hence the importance of FAIR’s campaign to change the law to provide for anonymity before charge in sexual allegations and hence my continued work with FAIR in the future. Had this proposed change in the law been enacted when the police decided to raid my apartment following the allegations of a fantasist, the BBC would not have been able to film this event, name me, (even though the South Yorkshire Police had decided not to) and so plunge my life and those close to me into fear and misery.”

Business without Debate

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Friday 18th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for giving me notice of it. I know which Minister she was speaking about, and I know that she is a doughty fighter for the cause of not only those who have been affected by the Hillsborough disaster, but others in the future. If she were to seek a meeting with the Minister, I should be amazed if he did not readily agree to such a meeting to see how progress can be made in this matter. I wish her well.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As we are almost at the end of the 13th and last Friday sitting for private Members’ Bills in this Session, I wonder if it would be in order for us to collectively thank the Clerk in charge in private Members’ Bills, who has done such a great job in encouraging us to participate in this important process, and, more important, giving us cogent advice. Adam Mellows-Facer has been doing this job for several years, and I think that we all owe him a great debt of gratitude.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I think it is pertinent to ask for proper recognition of the amazing work that is done on private Members’ Bills, and also of the incredible service that we receive from the Clerks’ department. We are extremely grateful for it, and it is good for that to be said publicly now and again, so I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his point of order.

National Health Service

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I raised a point of order earlier this afternoon about the lack of an impact assessment before the House, despite it having been referred to on 22 June as having been made available. I was informed during the course of that point of order that pressure was going to be put on the Government to explain why there was no impact assessment. It is therefore a source of great disappointment that the Minister has not started off her speech with such an apology and explanation.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for that point of order, Sir Christopher. The Minister is on her feet and she looks as if she may respond to that point of order herself, as it is not a point for the Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I asked the House of Commons Library to inquire of the Department where this impact assessment was, and the Department informed the Library that it was about to present the impact assessment. It did not say that the assessment was still under preparation. The implication was that it was ready to be given to the House and it was just a matter of time—they said they would do it as soon as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Again, I can only say what I have heard during the debate and apparently the impact assessment is simply not available. This is clearly not the best situation. We can see exactly what it is, but it is what it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I said earlier, it is a totally unsatisfactory situation, irrespective of whether anybody has been misled by the statement in one of the official documents. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point of order and will make absolutely certain that it gets through to the Department. I will, as the hon. Gentleman has asked, raise it with Mr Speaker at the prayer meeting tomorrow morning.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It always used to be the convention in this place that if a Minister was unable to answer all the questions raised in a debate, they would offer to write to hon. and right hon. Members whose questions had not been answered in the time available. Bearing in mind the cavalier way in which Ministers seem to be treating the conventions of the House, I wonder whether it is within your offices to be able to put pressure on the Government to restore that convention as a matter of courtesy.

I look particularly at my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), who had a pertinent question that could have been answered in two words. It was not answered and I am sure his constituents, on behalf of whom he speaks, will feel aggrieved about that. Why cannot this place restore some sense of reasonableness and good manners?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have been a Member of Parliament for 29 years and many times, at the end of a debate, Ministers have said they cannot deal with each point that has been raised. We were under time pressure today, as has been pointed out by a number of Members, and therefore a number of questions have gone unanswered. Again, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point of order and will bring it to the attention of the Minister in order that she is able to answer the questions that went unanswered in her summing up.

Coronavirus

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). I thank him for his leadership in the campaign that so many of us support, trying to ensure that some common sense and proportionality are brought to this debate and that we have our freedoms back, because we should not have them taken away from us unless there is the most compelling justification.

As my hon. Friend said, this is also an issue of trust. The Government are using the slogan “data not dates”, but the data is either being withheld or ignored. I have been regularly looking at the so-called coronavirus dashboard. Suddenly, when the data got rather good from my perspective but bad from the Government’s perspective, it disappeared. The latest data on the dashboard for hospital admissions in Dorset goes back to 11 March, so I had to make my own inquiries, and I found out that within the last week, there have only been three hospital admissions in all the hospitals throughout Dorset. We have 1,200 beds in our hospitals, and we have a population of over three quarters of a million people. That data does not tell me that it is reasonable that we should continue to have a lockdown and that people should be deprived of their social and economic liberty. One of my constituents who is very good on these things wrote to me saying that 5,000 cases from 1.9 million tests shows that 99.993% of the population were unaffected. That is what we are talking about in terms of proportionality.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 extend to 94 pages. How do the Government believe that we can support the regulations when there is not even an impact assessment for them? If there was an impact assessment, it would point out that every day those regulations remain in place is costing the economy about £1 billion—£1 billion a day. We can get a lot of for £1 billion, and if a cost of £1 billion a day is being incurred, there certainly needs to be a lot more justification than the Government have so far adduced during this debate.

I expect that people will increasingly take the law into their own hands as they see that there is no risk in going out and meeting in the open, as was confirmed in evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, and that there are very few risks associated with social mixing with people who are already vaccinated. The Government have got it completely wrong on risk assessment. My advice to the Minister would be to go and get some risk assessment therapy during the Easter break and then come back with some new ideas in April. He should reflect on the adage that the welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. That, in essence, is what this debate is about, and that is why I shall be voting against these measures.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

After Greg Clark’s four-minute contribution, there are seven Members left to speak. To get everybody in, we will reduce the time limit to three minutes, and the winding-up speeches will start no later than 4.44 pm.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to raise the issue of the inconsistency between quite a few of these remaining orders. Because of the delay in introducing these orders, some of them amend orders that are earlier on the Order Paper. We know that members of the public find it increasingly difficult to comprehend the changing scene of regulation on criminality and restriction of liberty. Surely if a regulation is amended by a subsequent statutory instrument, there should not be a need for the original statutory instrument to be approved by the House. For example, there are two separate statutory instruments relating to the north of England, one dated 25 August and one dated 2 September, and they are inconsistent with each other. Can you explain the reason for this confusion? Would it not be much better if—as I thought the Government had already promised—every regulation brought forward was debated at the earliest opportunity, before the Government had a chance to change their mind?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Sir Christopher, you have made your point very well, and my advice is the same as I gave to Sir Desmond: if there are any of these orders that you are opposed to, please feel free to shout “Object”, and I will take the objection and there will be a deferred Division tomorrow. I have absolutely no doubt whatever that in this very fast moving situation that we find ourselves in—we had a statement today—there will be other statements made in this House over the coming days, weeks and months that will give opportunities for Members to question Ministers, Secretaries of State and, indeed, the Prime Minister, as they had the opportunity to do today. I have no hesitation about that happening whatever. I will put the motions on public health now, and then, as I say, I will take any deferred Divisions and objections.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Friday 1st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Mr Chope.

[Mr Chope]

I am obviously happy to congratulate anybody who has been elected to this House, and I hope in due course to have an opportunity to meet the new Member representing Eastleigh. That does not mean, however, that we should ignore the importance of the issue before us today, and I suspect that a majority of the people who went out to vote yesterday would have been in favour of the Bill on the grounds that something has to be done about abuses of human rights legislation and the Court’s perverse judgments.

The Brighton declaration is being carried forward by means of draft protocol 15 to the European convention on human rights. From my perspective, one of the most important parts of that draft protocol will be its amendment to the convention’s preamble, emphasising the importance of having a system that introduces proportionality as well as subsidiarity into the Court’s decisions. But if I look at the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights on draft protocol 15, I detect a lack of enthusiasm for the part of the protocol that will mean changing the wording of the preamble. I hope I am not being unduly sceptical in wondering how keen the Court is on the principle of emphasising the subsidiarity and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation, as reflected in the outcome of the Brighton conference.

In that context, some people believe—I have heard judges of the Court themselves expressing this opinion—that it does not make a ha’porth of difference what is in the preamble, as it is only the actual text of the treaty that makes a difference. That reminds me of the importance of how these treaties are interpreted. One problem at the moment is that the treaties are being interpreted by the Court in a way that is out of tune with the specific wording in the Vienna convention, which says that there should be a strict interpretation of treaties rather than allowing them to be interpreted in an expansive way over time.

The way to change the wording of a treaty, as is now being proposed, is to introduce a protocol to that treaty. The way to introduce a requirement that there should be prisoner voting would be to amend article 3 of protocol 1 rather than to try to do it by the back door by using judicial legislation—effectively what the Court has been doing. This is where the great frustration arises among the public when they see human rights that they all believe in—the right to life, the right not to be tortured and so forth—losing direction under the Court. The universality of human rights is important, as reflected in the debate between two Old Etonian Members earlier. We should be talking about the universal declaration of human rights, rather than trying to use the European convention and the EU legislation that incorporates it as a means of trying to impose on individual sovereign Governments and Parliaments a set of rules that do not accord with the culture of those individual countries.

Let me end by reiterating my thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. Unlike many Members who present private Members’ Bills, he put a great deal of personal effort into the drafting of his Bill. Presenting legislation, especially private Members’ legislation, is an iterative process, and I hope that in the next Session of Parliament, either my hon. Friend or a colleague who is successful in the ballot will present the Bill again—perhaps taking into account some of the points made by the Minister—so that by the time of the next general election, Conservative Members are clear about where we want to go and what legislative change we want to make. We shall then be able to respond to public concern, rather than saying that it is far too early to do anything and giving every reason under the sun for not being able to make up our minds. My hon. Friend has done a great service to the House and the country in concentrating minds on this important issue.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Nevertheless, I think Mr Chope has got the gist.

[Mr Chope]

Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was tempted to ask to intervene on my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for expanding on that important point, and I am grateful to you for your indulgence in enabling the point to be made. I accept that the City of London is in a separate position from that of other local authorities.

I want to move away from the generalities and turn to the specifics of the Bill. The power in clause 3 relating to temporary street trading is effectively a liberating provision when compared with the current regime. It will enable street trading to be carried out over a limited period and, as the explanatory memorandum makes clear, it represents a relaxation of the restrictive code. I am not going to argue against that, because to do so would be to argue against the principles that I have fought hard for in many similar Bills in the House. I would not quibble with the detailed contents of the measures on temporary street trading.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 4, leave out ‘decisions’ and insert ‘decision’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 5, leave out ‘are’ and insert ‘is’.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).

[Mr Chope]

It is a pleasure to move amendment 1, and to consider amendments 2 and 3 with it. As hon. Members who are following the Bill closely will realise, the substance of the amendments lies in amendment 3, which proposes to leave out paragraph (b) of clause 1(2). That would have the effect of making the Bill apply only to subsections (1) and (2)(a). It would no longer include any reference to

“the draft decision to establish a Multiannual Framework for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for 2013-2017 (document number 10449/12).”

On Second Reading, the Minister expressed the view that we would be able to go into the issue of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in more detail in Committee, and the amendment gives us the opportunity to do just that. I want to reassert the concern that I expressed last week on Second Reading that, although this Government and this country were always against having such an agency, we are tremendously relaxed about extending its budget and its range of activities now that it has been established. There must come a time when we say to the European Union, “Enough is enough. You have gone too far already and we want to rein back the range of activities of the Agency for Fundamental Rights in the coming five-year period.” I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some words of encouragement on the action that our Government are taking to rein back the activities of the agency and, in particular, to prevent it from encroaching on the competences and activities of the Council of Europe, which covers 47 member countries, including the 27 members of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 1, line 18, at end insert

‘subject to a condition that the staff and resources available to members of the European Commission shall not be increased but redistributed for any number of EU Commissioners in excess of 27.’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

[Mr Chope]

The background to this, as right hon. and hon. Members will know, is that a reduction in the number of EU Commissioners was proposed, but the Irish—among others—said that that would potentially be very unfair on them. They wanted to be guaranteed the right to have a Commissioner and, as part of the compromise deal that was done to try to win the support of the Irish people in a referendum, the concession was made. They were told, “Don’t worry, every country can have an EU Commissioner.” We are now being asked to give approval to the decision relating to the number of EU Commissioners.

Business of the House (6 February)

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

That puts a slightly different complexion on it. It means that if we approve this motion, all my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will be free immediately after the Opposition day business and will not need to stay for the private business. Following my hon. Friend’s useful contribution, I hope that the Whip will be altered accordingly to reflect the fact that people on this side of the House will be free to leave at 4 o’clock at the latest on Wednesday and that we can then have the private business in our time and under our own rules, with those who are interested in participating present in the House and others who are not so interested absent. On that basis—that the Government are changing the whipping, so that private business is not whipped business—I shall not push this matter to a vote.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will be staying for the private business, Mr Chope, and I can barely wait.

Question put and agreed to.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to you for challenging the order of the Chair. I said that it was outside the scope of the motion, and it is.

[Mr Chope]

May I invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to address the issue of whether there is going to be an induction programme for the new members of the board? As a modernising House, we have induction programmes for new Members of Parliament and I think that they have been well received. I see that my right hon. Friend is nodding. Although I know that it is strictly outside the scope of the motion to say that the existing chairman should be invited to attend such an induction programme, perhaps he could be invited—even though it is three years late—so that those who sit on the independent board can be informed about our work.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

It depends. It is unacceptable to me but it is probably acceptable to the majority of Members of the House if one has regard to the debates and votes that have taken place. As with much legislation, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. When people in London find that they cannot go to the public toilet they used to go to without going through a turnstile they might ask, “Where’s that come from? What happened to the private Member’s legislation that outlawed turnstiles in public lavatories right across the country? Why do we now have a separate regime being introduced in London?” I wonder what will happen when they are accused of trying to sell their car on the internet and are deemed to be engaging in street trading by reason of a substantial extension of the definition of street trading. In fact, we have been able to restrict that, through an amendment, so that it will not affect ordinary individual householders as it would have originally affected such individuals in Westminster. People who try to sell their cars on the internet will be adversely affected by this legislation and perhaps when they suffer significant penalties they will contact their local MP.

I still have significant concerns about the Bill, but there have been many Bills before the House that I have had concerns about, not all of which one has been able to amend. If one is fair-minded, one must accept that progress has been made and that there has been a willingness on the part of the promoters and particularly on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, who has taken the matter forward on their behalf, to listen. That is an important lesson for people who want to bring forward private Bills. There is a lot to be said for a bit of jaw-jaw and discussion and for trying to reach a reasonable compromise. That is probably quite a long answer to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), but I feel that after this length of time not much more can be said either in summary or in detail. That is why I am going to resume my place.

First, though, let me say that I am very grateful to all those colleagues who have participated in these debates, not least my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who has made quite a name for himself. In one debate he broke through the one-hour barrier. That is not a novelty for my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who I think will catch your eye shortly, Mr Deputy Speaker, but for those of our colleagues who have not yet broken the one-hour barrier, this type of legislation is fertile ground for doing so. I commend that process to my hon. Friends.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Yes, but not on Third Reading, Mr Chope.

Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is ahead of the game. I was interested in his earlier intervention declaring his knowledge and experience of one particular insurance company—a company from which we sought a quote but which was extremely reluctant even to consider providing insurance cover at a reasonable price. The reason was that it did not want to engage in this market and had recently changed its policy. It is a pity that this mutual insurance company has decided that the pressures are such that, even for long-standing customers, it is not prepared to take on, at a reasonable price, the sort of risk to which I have referred.

It is easy to go unnecessarily wide on such an issue—perhaps I was led astray by the hon. Member for Nottingham East because of the width with which he introduced his new clause. However, I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to the idea of post-legislative scrutiny. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, if she could fit that point into the scope of her response to this short debate, she will say whether it might become Government policy to make post-legislative scrutiny the norm rather than the exception. I hope, at least, that she will come forward with some strong and persuasive arguments so that I do not have to join the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby in support of new clause 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That probably goes too wide for this particular debate. I call Chloe Smith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has now gone eight o’clock. In an act of indulgence, a number of us allowed the Government to remove the normal constraints on private business so that the three hours allotted to it could begin later than 7 pm. However, it seems to me that, given the prospect of a reasonably lengthy debate on Third Reading of the Bill that we have been discussing, it is open to the Government to adjourn the Third Reading debate until another day, so that the three hours allotted to the private business can proceed immediately.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not a matter on which the Chair can intervene. It is a matter for the Government’s business managers to consider.

Third Reading

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 5.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments 6, 8, 7, 9 to 14, 21 and 35 to 39.

[Mr Chope]

This Bill has been before the House for four years. Earlier this year, it went through an Opposed Bill Committee and as a result of the diligent work of its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and its members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and the hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), some of the clauses that were a cause of concern on Second Reading were removed. Many of those clauses were the subject of petitions.

Sadly, however—this is no criticism of the Opposed Bill Committee—sufficient consideration was not given to the clauses that were unopposed in the sense that they were not the subject of petitions. It is incumbent on us as legislators to assure ourselves that we are satisfied with the contents of these private Bills and that those contents are consistent with the principles that we apply to our law in general. What the Bill tries to do—this is why it is a private Bill—is to create a separate legal regime among the 33 London authorities or in certain circumstances just within the City of Westminster. As I say, it is incumbent on us to pay careful attention to the detail. That applies particularly to the powers relating to penalty charges, enforcement and recovery of costs—the powers that are dealt with in this group of amendments.

Amendment 5 to clause 3 would insert after “payable” in line 14 of page 3

“by the person being served”.

The fact that that phrase is omitted from the Bill exemplifies what I would describe as the sloppy, haphazard drafting, which often happens with private Bills. I think that when a private Bill has been before Parliament for four years, it should have been tidied up. Clause 3(1) reads at the moment:

“Where a designation order under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 applies paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to that Act…to any person, that person shall have the power of a borough council to serve a penalty charge notice…where he has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable to the borough council”.

It does not say that he has to believe that the penalty charge notice is payable by the person on whom the notice is being served. It seems to me that that is pretty basic material, and that we should not have people going around serving penalty charge notices on people they do not believe to be the persons to whom the penalty charge applies.

Points of Order

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not a point of order for the Chair. It seems to be an extension of the statement that we have just had, but Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. “Erskine May”, at page 412, says:

“The Speaker has deprecated as ‘unparliamentary’ the practice of voting in both lobbies as a demonstration of a ‘third’ position.”

Last night, in Division 189 on the Government’s amendment to the Opposition’s motion, 17 Liberal Democrats abstained or did not vote and a further six voted both for and against—and four of them had voted for and against the main motion a few minutes earlier. Will you, Mr Deputy Speaker, repeat the ruling that it is unparliamentary for hon. Members, whether Liberal Democrats or from any other party, to behave in that way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

While such action is not out of order, Mr Speaker and his predecessors have deemed it unparliamentary. The hon. Gentleman’s point will have been heard on both sides of the House, and Mr Speaker will reflect upon the matter.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I do not have much to add to my response to Thomas Docherty. As the hon. Lady knows, there are other avenues whereby she can raise the issue—in Adjournment debates, Westminster Hall and in questions to the Department, when they arise.

Debate resumed.

[Mr Chope]

Clause 1(3) has the requirement that

“The Secretary of State must ensure that policies in relation to negotiations and other activities at international level, including at the European Union, are consistent with sections 1(1) and 1(2).”

As the Minister said, he would not be in a position to ensure that. I submit that it is not open to anybody in the Government or the House to ensure that various policies are consistent with what is going on in the European Union on matters about which we do not have the final say and are subject to qualified majority voting. As I understand it, there is a discussion at this very time on whether the EU budget should increase by 2.9% or more next year, but the House has no final control of that. Clause 1(3) is rather like saying, “The Prime Minister shall ensure that the UK contribution to the EU budget does not increase.” We do not have the power to do that, just as my hon. Friend the Minister has no power to ensure that EU agriculture policy is as we would wish it to be.

It is relevant in that context to mention a very helpful report by Friends of the Earth that shows how EU subsidies currently encourage unsustainable practices, which is obviously at odds with the Bill. Friends of the Earth has calculated that some £700 million of English taxpayers’ money was spent on propping up factory farming through the common agricultural policy in 2008. Its report states:

“Small farms are losing out to factory farms—the most damaging link in a chain that connects the food on our plates to forest destruction…UK factory farms also contribute significantly to the UK greenhouse gas emissions and undermine rural livelihoods.”

The Friends of the Earth figure of £700 million is

“based on the best available information and calculated on the basis of subsidies”—

British taxpayers’ money that goes to the EU and is then recycled for the purpose of subsidising parts of agriculture—

“for cereal production…Export subsidies which largely go to companies and processing industries…Untargeted direct payments which are increasing money being received by the intensive pig and poultry sectors…Historical payments that award the biggest payments to the farms that produced intensively in the past…Dairy payments that are based on historical production quotas”

and

“Lowland grazing livestock untargeted subsidies that do not support extensive models adequately and therefore continue to support the increasing tendency to intensify or exit the farming sector”.

The CAP was last reformed in 2003. We hope that a more substantial reform is about to take place, but I will believe it when I see it. The reform is the one we were promised when Mr Blair gave away a large part of our rebate on the basis that the CAP would be reformed. The next few months will be decisive in determining whether we will get anything significant in return for giving up that rebate, but the early suggestions are that we will not get anything like what we are looking for in that revision of the CAP.

I predict that because the word “sustainable” is rather trendy at the moment, there will be a lot of guff about sustainable this and sustainable that in the CAP reforms, but economic sustainability, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North and others mentioned, will probably be omitted. A proper recognition of, and reference to, economic sustainability has been missing in this debate. I take the view that the CAP is not only environmentally unsustainable—indeed, it undermines environmental sustainability—but economically unsustainable. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will make those points in his typically tough and uncompromising fashion when he goes to negotiate CAP reform. I am sure he will tell the French that although we agree on certain aspects of defence, we need to go a lot further before we agree on support for the agricultural sector.

Interestingly, the Bill contains quite a lot of material that is relevant, or could be relevant, to the second Bill on the Order Paper—the Public Bodies (Sustainable Food) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who has a long-standing interest in improving the quality of food available in this country. Last night she introduced me to somebody from “The Food Programme,” and we were talking about that Bill. I am sure that if the hon. Lady were to seek to participate in this debate, there would be sufficient scope for her to make some of the points relevant to her Bill under the umbrella of—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Mr Chope, could you restrict your comments to the Bill that we are discussing now? Let us not move on to the second Bill. Clearly, if you are keen for the hon. Lady to speak to her Bill, you would resume your seat and we could move on.

[Mr Chope]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether I am in a position to be able to say that the hon. Lady can introduce her Bill. All I am saying is that there is quite a lot of common ground between what is in her Bill and what is in the Bill before us, and that because she has not participated in this debate so far—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It is up to the hon. Lady whether she wishes to participate in the debate on this Bill or not. Please will you now confine your remarks to the Bill before us?

[Mr Chope]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have made the offer—made the point—and as you rightly say, it is a matter for the hon. Lady whether she wishes to take up the suggestion.

On the issue of the further duties being placed on the Secretary of State to ensure that there is no increase in the proportion of meat consumed in the United Kingdom that is imported, as my hon. Friend the Minister said that is prima facie contrary to World Trade Organisation rules, and it is probably against EU rules as well, and yet somehow it has found its way into the Bill.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman]

We now come to schedule 3.

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Evans.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Does this relate directly to schedule 3, Mr Chope?

[Mr Chope]

Yes, it does. Under the motion of the House, schedules 3 and 4, clause 4, schedule 5, and clauses 5 and 6 were to be debated this evening before 11pm. We now know that there is no time for debate on any of those parts of the Bill. May I refer you, Mr Evans, to the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary when he addressed the House—

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. I intend to call Mr Chope, Mr Bryant and the Minister, and then that is it, and we will have fully exhausted the point of order.

[Mr Chope]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. In discussing the programme motion on 12 October, the Parliamentary Secretary said that

“we have taken steps…in the programme motion”

to ensure that

“the House will be able to debate and vote on the key issues raised by the Bill.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 183.]

On Second Reading he also made it quite clear that we would have the opportunity to debate and vote on the key issues. Nobody is suggesting that the threshold is anything other than a key issue in the Bill. Even at this late stage, it is open to the Minister to tell the Committee that he will come forward tomorrow with an amendment to the programme order to ensure that we can start the business tomorrow with a debate on clause 6, rather than closing down debate on that clause, which seems to be the Government’s intent. I should also point out that unless we have a debate, it will not be possible for the Committee to take a view on the relative merits of amendment 3 as compared with my amendments 64, 65 and 66. In the European debate the other night the Chair was able to decide which amendments were more worthy of being put to the vote on the basis of the debate. Without a debate, we will not be able to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I have listened carefully to the several points of order that Members have made. What the Government propose is orderly under Standing Order No. 83D(2), although it is, as some hon. Members have observed, somewhat unusual. I am sure that hon. Members will also have noted the opportunities open to them, as has been remarked, on Report. I should just remind Members of the rule on voice and vote. It is possible to vote against one’s own amendment, but one cannot shout “Aye” and then vote “No”. We now move on to clause 6.



Clause 6

Commencement or repeal of amending provisions

Amendment proposed: 3, page 4, line 28, after ‘“No”’, insert

‘and the number of electors casting a vote in the referendum is equal to or greater than fifty per cent. of those entitled to cast such a vote,’.—(Mr Harper.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Question negatived.

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Evans.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. It is getting very late and I suspect that Members will now wish to see the conclusion of our proceedings.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 12 October).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Finance Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Nigel Evans

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 18, page 2, line 23, leave out ‘“6 per cent”’ and insert ‘“5 per cent in the case of personal health insurance, and 6 per cent in any other case”’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 19, page 2, line 23, leave out ‘“6 per cent”’ and insert ‘“5 per cent in the case of motor insurance, and 6 per cent in any other case”’.

Amendment 15, page 2, line 26, at end add ‘, subject to a report having been laid by the Secretary of State containing an assessment of the consequences of the changes in subsection (1) on consumers and the insurance industry.’.

Amendment 48, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4).

[Mr Chope]

The amendments aim to tease out from the coalition Government and, in particular, the Exchequer Secretary, who is responding to this debate, what the Government’s attitude is towards people who do the right thing and try to relieve the burden on the public sector and the national taxpayer. Although it would be wrong to suggest that the inspiration for the amendments came from the Secretary of State for Transport, he was on to an important principle recently when he said that if a pensioner has a bus pass but can afford to pay their fare, they should not use the pass but pay the fare themselves and thereby relieve the local taxpayer of the costs consequent upon the use of that subsidised bus pass. It is a subsidy of general application—it goes to people irrespective of their means and ability to pay.

We know that quite a lot of people choose to buy medical and personal health care in the private sector without burdening the state and the taxpayer. If those people choose to do that through personal health insurance, this Budget will increase the financial penalty on them. In other words, it will be a disincentive to people taking responsibility for their own personal health care through personal health insurance. Many years ago, it was the policy of the then Conservative Government that those who subscribed to personal health care insurance should have their subscriptions tax deductible. That was based on the worthy principle that, if we did that, we would encourage more people to take responsibility for their own health care. We have moved a long way from that now.