All-party Parliamentary Groups

Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bottomley

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I agree, and I hope others have heard what my hon. Friend said.

I refer again to pages 55 to 74 of the guide to the rules. It may or may not surprise colleagues that that is appendix 5, on data protection and APPGs—page after page after page of MPs who run groups telling MPs who may be members of the group, or who may be on a mailing list, how we handle their data. That is one of those things where we move ten places across, from one thing to another, without anybody on the Standards Committee understanding at all what was being put forward.

I do not know whether the Chair of the Standards Committee has experience of trying to administer all-party groups. Getting the detail right is important. We try to get it right, and we make some mistakes, but to add in an extra 20 pages for each group that we may be involved in, even if we are limited to six groups, gives us more than 100 pages to fill in. It is bureaucracy. If the only people who can be members of those groups are Members of Parliament, what on earth are we trying to do? That should not be there, and I hope that it is taken out.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Another unintended consequence is that, if a group is allowed only four officers, and one of those officers is appointed to the Government, or falls under a bus, the group will be unable to operate until it has had a formal meeting to elect a replacement. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is so rigid as to be unworkable?

Park Home Residents: Legal Protection

Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bottomley

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I am advised that it is in order to give injury time for time missed.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered legal protection for residents of park homes.

Thank you for starting the debate, Sir Christopher. I hope I will soon be able to resume my place and that you—you were originally going to move the motion—will be able to pick up and give the speech the House is looking forward to.

May I first pay tribute to you, Sir Christopher, for leading the all-party group on park homes? This is one of those areas where, for far too long, there was too little publicity and too little Government action.

I pay tribute to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which looks after park homes, for the way it has picked up the initiative by Nat Slade, an officer in Arun District Council, and his colleagues, who have worked with the Ministry to get the Government to come forward with measures to deal with some of the appalling abuses. If I were a tougher Member of Parliament, I would name some of the rogues and crooks—some have left the park home business, but others continue. My belief is that, with publicity, they will be shamed into stopping the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.

Few people choose to live in a park home as their permanent residence if they have better options, but the fact is that many do not. Too often, people have taken on a home that is, in theory, licensed only for holiday use, but everyone, including the freeholder and owner and the operator, knows that they are there to make permanent use of it. If, by chance, the operator manages to get the licence changed to permanent, the innocent park home owners and residents are then told to pay a fortune to convert what was, in effect, a permanent residence into another permanent residence.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely. That is important. In that context, the Government have given new responsibility to the Leasehold Advisory Service to advise potential purchasers of park homes. I, and indeed the all-party parliamentary group, had a meeting with Anthony Essien, its chief executive. The trouble is that although it can give advice someone must approach it for advice before it can do so, and many people do not because they are seduced by the sort of information that I have referred to.

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am sorry that a pre-existing commitment prevents me from staying for the rest of the debate.

It seems to me that the Advertising Standards Authority should get a complaint, and should quickly adjudicate, rule out of order and condemn the advertisements that my hon. Friend refers to. May I point out that Sonia McColl, the champion of park home owners, had her 40 foot, 10-tonnes mobile home stolen? My hon. Friend might join me in appealing to Devon and Cornwall police to find it and to find the people who stole it. Death threats are one thing; having your home stolen is another.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That last point is really important because Sonia McColl did an enormous amount of good work on behalf of park home residents across the country. She was the victim of a vendetta and a serious crime and I have seen recent correspondence suggesting strong evidence against two potential perpetrators, but the prosecuting authorities are not taking the action they should be taking in that respect. As always, my hon. Friend makes a very good point.

May I refer to another site in my constituency that is now called New Forest Glen but is better known as Tall Trees, in Matchams Lane? No application has been received by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council for a caravan licence, despite more than 100 of my constituents living and having their permanent homes in Tall Trees park. I have been told by the council that officers from both planning enforcement and environmental health have met the site owners to try to regularise the situation on several occasions, but without success. They are now advising the site owners that they are considering formal action to secure the necessary permissions for both planning and site licensing. Although such promises of action are welcome, they must be considered in the context of many years of inaction during which residents of Tall Trees have been denied the rights and protection that would be available if they lived on a licensed park home site. These rights include the ability to form a recognised residents association and restrictions on the amount by which ground rents can be increased, and on service charges being imposed.

Silver Mists, New Forest Glades and New Forest Glen are owned by one organisation, RoyaleLife. In March this year, I requested through the representative of Mr Bull, the chief executive of Royale Parks, that he address the problem, especially on Tall Trees. I referred to the fact that despite being recognised by Christchurch Council as enjoying residential status for 12 months of the year, many of the residents of Tall Trees were still paying site fees of £4,750 per year as well as council tax. If they had the benefit of formal residential status through a site licence, their fees would be £1,900 rather than £4,750. By not even applying for a site licence, Royale Parks is benefiting by being able to charge much higher fees. Residents also suffer because they must pay VAT on those fees. That situation should have been brought to a head by the council taking enforcement action against Royale Parks for not having a licence, thereby forcing the company to comply with the law. In my letter to Royale, I suggested that a meeting between Royale and the residents—who have been trying to have such a meeting for many months—would be useful, and I hope that such a meeting will now take place on 11 October.

Last Thursday I received the latest word from the council’s corporate director for environment and community in response to the concerns that I have expressed on behalf of residents. It is not wholly reassuring. Although she says that she hopes the requirement for Royale Parks to regularise the situation and obtain the appropriate site licences or face formal action will provide some comfort to the residents, she could take action now to ensure that all those park homes for which residential use is recognised benefit from a residential site licence. I do not understand why the council has been so slow in acting against a site owner who is refusing to apply for a site licence. The site owner, unreasonably, is refusing to obtain a licence for the existing residential park homes, instead choosing to put pressure on residents to support his appeal in respect of other park homes on the Tall Trees development that do not currently have certificates of lawfulness or valid planning consent for residential use. Residents have been told that the site owner will address the issue only if the appeal against the refusal of certificates of lawfulness on other parts of the site are successful. In other words, residents are being held to ransom. Those appeals have been delayed inordinately, not least because the appellants want a full hearing.

I then got involved in writing to the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate to see whether we could bring this matter forward. We now have an appeal fixed for 10 December, which is good news, but in the meantime, there can be no justification for denying Tall Trees residents, who are lawful occupiers of their caravans, the protection of a site licence.

People in Tall Trees who wish to sell their home are unable to get full price for it because of the constraints to which I referred. One constituent estimates that the value of his home has been depressed by £100,000 as a result of the site owner’s actions and the council’s refusal to take enforcement action.

So far, I have concentrated on cases where no site licence has been issued, but even where licences are issued they are often not enforced, leaving residents exposed to exploitation. One such site, in Ferndown in my constituency, is Lone Pine Park, which is owned by Premier Park Homes Ltd. Two of my constituents there have been harassed because their park home is old and regarded by the new owners as being out of keeping with the new image of Lone Pine Park, which is described in a brochure as offering

“bespoke homes…nestled within Millionaires’ Row in Ferndown …Dorset.”

My efforts to engage with Dorset Council on the concerns expressed by my constituents have largely fallen on deaf ears. I wrote to its chief executive, Mr Prosser, on 5 August, but despite repeated requests for a reply I received a response only very late yesterday evening. In my letter, I referred to: the failure of the owner to deposit new site rules; residents and the emergency services having restricted access to estate roads because of the construction of new homes; rodent infestation; the dumping of rubbish and waste; and the proliferation of potholes, which prevent the local general practitioner car service from accessing the site. The chief executive says in his answer that he understands

“that a new site licence has been issued”,

which provides the site operator with a number of permitted rights. He goes on to say:

“There are some outstanding matters which would require planning permission that are not covered by the terms of the site licence, and for this reason there is an open enforcement case on the site until such matters are regularised.”

Despite having had my letter for two months, he goes on to say:

“planning/enforcement officers will visit the site again to check the situation to ensure the site is not being operated in a manner that would breach the permitted rights under the provision of the site licence or the permitted development order”,

and that

“the enforcement file will remain open until the site has been regularised.”

I refer to that letter at some length because it seems to show that the council has a very relaxed attitude to these important issues, which directly affect so many residents.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bottomley

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) on another brilliant contribution to this debate. I particularly enjoyed his peroration, which was a paean of praise for liberty. It is appropriate that the people who support liberty are well represented in the Chamber tonight, whereas those who have always been in favour of restricting liberty are not well represented.

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, this group of amendments was first debated on the occasion of our Prime Minister’s visit to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It was the first time that a Prime Minister had visited the Parliamentary Assembly for some 30 years. As a member of the Parliamentary Assembly, I was in Strasbourg rather than here. That is why I was unable to introduce the group of amendments and to move amendment 22. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has done so with tremendous expertise. He has kept his remarks succinct and to the point, and has given us an example of how we should deal with such matters in this Chamber.

Amendment 22 goes to the root of the Bill and is likely to be the one in this group upon which we will have a Division, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) has accepted amendment 26, and I hope that in due course I will have the chance to move it formally and that the House will support it.

Amendment 22 suggests leaving out clause 9, entitled “Street trading: vehicles and the internet”. The way in which the promoters of the Bill have described the purpose of the clause is slightly disingenuous, because they state that it

“would amend the street trading provisions of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 so as to clarify that vehicles which are for sale in the course of a business on the internet and which are parked on the street fall within the licensing regime.”

That implies that they believe such vehicles may already be covered by that Act. Why do they not have the courage of their convictions and say that the purpose of the clause is to extend the current provisions to bring the sale of vehicles on the internet in the course of business within the ambit of that Act? They say that it

“would not apply to residents or other individuals selling their own vehicle on an occasional basis.”

We must be grateful for small mercies such as that and the fact that amendment 26 is to be incorporated into clause 10, so that it will carry a similar caveat.

I have always believed that we need to examine carefully the text of Bills such as this, to ensure that they have apparent clarity. We are discussing the creation of new offences, and if people are to be charged with those offences, or find themselves losing their trade and livelihood or being otherwise punished, it is vital that they should know exactly where they stand. The exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) illustrated vividly the misunderstandings that can arise when there is ambiguous wording. Clause 9 does not state where the street in question has to be. It states that the motor vehicle has to be

“kept on a street during the period when it is so exposed or offered for sale”.

There is ambiguity about the location at which an offence will be committed. Will it be where the vehicle is kept or where the owner resides? That is a significant question, because if there is a problem in Castle Point—I accept what my hon. Friend said about that—it will inevitably be made worse if we interpret clause 9 as prohibiting people who are resident in London from keeping their cars on a street in London when they are exposed or offered for sale on the internet.

For how long must a vehicle be kept on a street? The clause states that it must be

“during the period when it is so exposed or offered for sale.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, it is possible to put something on the internet and leave it there for some time. Sometimes, one looks at a property on the internet and says, “Gosh, that’s a really well priced property”, but when one looks at it in more detail, one finds that it was actually being offered at that price about five years ago and has long since been either sold or withdrawn from the market. Things can be advertised for sale on the internet without anybody being sure whether that exposure or offer for sale is current and up to date.

The expression

“exposed or offered for sale”

is used in the Bill. What is the difference between being exposed for sale and offered for sale on the internet? I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green responds to the debate he will be able to explain why it was thought necessary to include both those expressions.

A lot of people buy and sell vehicles, and it is hard to know when they cross the dividing line between a purely private sale and a sale in the course of a business. How will that be defined and policed? If a person sells one vehicle on the internet, will that mean he is doing so in the course of a business, or will there need to be evidence that he has sold other vehicles on the internet, or that the internet site or advertisement used contains more than one vehicle registered in his name?

Nor do we know whether the person exposing a motor vehicle for sale on the internet will have to be its owner. Many people have agents acting on their behalf who sell things without ownership having passed to them. If a sale is made, a commission payment may be due to them. We do not know whether it is intended that the clause will apply to anybody whose vehicle is advertised whether or not they are selling it in the course of a business. For example, if I were to use an intermediary to advertise my vehicle on the internet on my behalf, although I would be exposing it for sale as a private individual, the intermediary would be doing so as a business proposition. Would that mean that my private sale would contradict the provisions of clause 9? It is disingenuous in the extreme for the promoters to say that it is a clause of clarification, because it significantly extends the restrictions upon street trading by widening enormously the definition of street trading in London.

A point that has already been made in the debate, but is worth making again, is that we are talking about London local authorities. If there is a real problem such as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point described, it should surely be dealt with in a public Bill rather than in piecemeal, incremental legislation such as the Bill. Clause 9 relates specifically to the whole of London; clauses 10, 11 and 12 relate specifically to the City of Westminster; and clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16 relate to Camden. That follows a pattern that we have seen with a number of private Bills whereby the City of Westminster goes ahead first, and then the legislation that they get through is applied for by the London local authorities collectively, or perhaps by the London borough of Camden or another London authority—the idea being, I think, that nobody will take much notice if just one borough is doing it. Then the precedent is set and other boroughs follow suit, and before we know it we have a whole series of pieces of private legislation that come together and act significantly to restrict the liberties of the individual.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

When I have had responsibility, I have always found that if one tries something out and it works, other people want to copy it. Local authorities will need to promote their own legislation in order to have the same powers as those in places where it has worked elsewhere. Surely the critical thing is whether the powers have had a beneficial effect on the public.

[Mr Chope]

That is a very potent intervention, because it covers several different issues. My hon. Friend is basically saying that it should be open to an individual local authority to be able to carry out an experiment. I do not think that anybody disputes the advantages that certain experiments can have, but there is no reason why an experiment cannot be contained in a public Bill or have a sunset clause. I am not sure that he has dealt with the concerns that we have been expressing.

As for whether the Bill is in the public interest, it is obviously important that any legislation that goes on to the statute book is in the public interest, but what do we mean by “public”? A private Bill operates differently as between one part of the country and another. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green may say that the Bill is arguably in the interests of the public in London, but is it also in the interests of the public in boroughs adjacent to London that will not be covered by it and where there may well be a spill-over effect that is adverse to their interests?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, is my hon. Friend arguing that we should not allow local authorities to apply for powers to try something out, or that because it might be suitable for one local authority, every local authority should have the same powers at the same time? One has to decide whether one is a conservative or a socialist, and I think that my hon. Friend is trespassing slightly from our side of the House.

[Mr Chope]

If my hon. Friend’s intention is to provoke me by describing me as a socialist, he has certainly succeeded. I have always been a great believer in enabling legislation. There is nothing to prevent the Government from introducing a public Bill that enables local authorities to carry out an experiment if they want to, and then, if they do not like what they are doing, to amend the laws locally. A public Bill with enabling powers is a much better way of meeting my hon. Friend’s concerns.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

indicated assent.

[Mr Chope]

I note from my hon. Friend’s gestures that he accepts that that would be a better way forward. I hope that the Minister will also be able to endorse that line of argument when he expresses his views about why local authorities should not be encouraged to bring forward these private Bills, which seem to be taking up an inordinate amount of debating time in the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I think that it would be an objective remark to say that the amount of time taken up is determined by those who speak, not by the amount of legislation.

[Mr Chope]

Again, I differ with my hon. Friend. It is a function of the quality of the legislation. A good Bill that is well drafted and commands popular support will go through very quickly, as we saw earlier in this Session with the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord). He hardly had a chance to get a word in edgeways on his own Bill—his maiden Bill—because it sped through all its stages, and that is because it was well drafted, pertinent and met a need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

If it is a residents’ parking place, to occupy it lawfully there has to be a residents’ parking permit. The local authority issues such permits, and there are ways of dealing with the abuse of those regulations short of doing what is in the Bill.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I think that my hon. Friend has taken our hon. Friend’s words too precisely. If these are places where residents park, rather than places restricted to residents parking, and if, in effect, it becomes a street market for cars, why should there not be the same regulations as for street markets of stalls? Will he address his mind to that issue? A local authority does not tolerate street markets without local byelaws. The same thing applies to the sale of cars in places where residents park.

[Mr Chope]

I understand the distinction between the points made by my two hon. Friends. Surely the solution to the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is for the local authority to create a residents’ parking regime on the road that is being used, to the annoyance of local residents, by a lot of vehicles not based in that area.

Even in my constituency, which is semi-rural, people are taking literally the idea that the Government are encouraging them to park and ride. They think that they can park on any piece of highway, even if it causes lots of problems. I have an issue involving a residential school for disabled children where the staff can no longer park on the highway by the school because people commuting to London are parking there earlier in the morning—about 7 o’clock—and teaming up for lifts to places such as Southampton Parkway station. That is creating a problem.

The solution is not, however, for East Dorset district council to promote a private Bill; the solution is for it to use the powers it already has to regulate parking in that area. From my experience as a London borough councillor, I would suggest that where a lot of people are parking in residential streets close to rail termini or underground stations, the solution is for the local authority to introduce a parking restriction between, say, 8 am and 10 am, making it impossible for a commuter to park in that space over the period and leaving it available for longer-term residents or people who wish to use the space for legitimate residential purposes.

If there is a mischief here, it applies not just to parts of London but right across the country, and it can be resolved by local authorities exercising their powers sensibly under the principle of localism without having to introduce heavy-handed private legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Either that or there are too many cars—that might be another interpretation. Or, there are too many people—I should perhaps plead guilty to this myself—who aspire to sort out the car that is firing on only two cylinders, but in the meantime they get another car and keep the car that is not working very well, thinking that at some stage it will be useful to them, so they end up with more cars than they really need. The Government are dealing with that problem by increasing car tax well beyond the rate of inflation.

However, I return to the point that if there is a scarcity of on-road parking space, that is for the local authority to deal with. If somebody has a lot of cars on a space, they can remain there provided they are licensed. However, if the local authority introduces a rule saying that a resident can have only one parking permit, for example—I am sure that is the situation in quite a lot of London boroughs, and certainly Lambeth, which I know for these purposes—that means that each resident in a household can have only one car with a residents’ parking permit. Therefore, introducing a residential control zone will sort out the problem of vehicles being sold on the internet for street trading purposes.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

In the last 30 minutes I have failed to distinguish whether my hon. Friend, in his clever way, is saying that he is against local authorities having the powers in question or whether he thinks that they should not have them under this Bill. Could he please clear up the confusion?

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry that there is any confusion, but I am happy to try to clear it up. I am speaking to the proposals in this Bill that local authorities should have the powers, because I am against cluttering up the statute book with unnecessary legislation, particularly that which purports to be necessary to address a particular mischief, when that mischief can be addressed in another way, without using public or private legislation. In answer to my hon. Friend’s point, my objection is to this particular Bill and the way it is being used to try to deal with a mischief that, if there be that mischief, could be dealt with another way, without the use of these draconian powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I understand the scenario that my hon. Friend is describing, but could not that problem be resolved by introducing a residents’ parking regime, such as the one that already exists in Westminster, under which no resident may have more than one parking permit? That mischief would not exist under such a regime.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I hesitate to suggest a practical answer to the problem, but there are plenty of people living in Westminster who like to park on the single yellow lines after 6.30 and at weekends, and it is also possible for their friends and family members to do so. If they were to discover that some business was taking up all that parking space, and not paying rates as most conventional sellers of cars do, they would want that problem to be solved. When my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was a distinguished local councillor in London, he and his council occasionally used the kind of legislation that is being proposed here to the great advantage of his local residents, and I suspect that those who are promoting this Bill would like it to allow them to do the same.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the latter part of his intervention. I like to think that, when I was the leader of Wandsworth council, we did not waste a lot of money on promoting private Bills to try to oppress our residents. Our policy was very much the reverse of that. If Westminster can deal with this problem, I do not see why other councils cannot do so. My hon. Friend talks about there being a problem after hours, but what would happen to the cars during the day? Would they suddenly appear after hours?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I think that may well be so. Indeed, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because in the course of this Bill’s progress the promoters have accepted a lot of the ideas and criticism put forward by me and my parliamentary colleagues. That vindicates the whole process of giving such Bills detailed scrutiny.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

There is a distinction between vindication and the reason for something happening, is there not?

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry, but I could not hear the last word that my hon. Friend uttered.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

At the risk of repeating myself, there is a distinction between vindication and the result of certain people’s activities.

[Mr Chope]

I do not understand that, because what happened was that the wisdom of a lot of the amendments that we tabled immediately commended itself to the promoters of the Bill. That is why we have just agreed to a group of amendments that will make the Bill much better than it would have been. Fortunately, some of the most pernicious parts of the Bill were taken out in Committee. Therefore, the Bill that we will be considering when we resume our Third Reading debate will be very different from the Bill that was presented to this House after it had gone through the other place.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are times in Committee when an amendment has been discussed at length and then the Chair can decide that there has been sufficient debate on the issues and the question is put. Would it be acceptable to move that the question now be put that the Bill be read a third time, on the grounds that during the discussions on the various amendments we have had sufficient discussion of the purpose of the Bill, and if so, may I move that the question now be put?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

No. It would not be proper, and no, the Question cannot be put, as a second point of order.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bottomley

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

As a lawyer, my hon. Friend will know from having read my amendments that they do not rule out a review. Indeed, they support the idea, but would confine it to the issue of extending British summer time while leaving Greenwich mean time as it is at the moment.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the debates on the matter in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England ought to be based on the research of Mayer Hillman, whose booklet “Time for Change” points out that some of those who would gain the most are in Scotland?

[Mr Chope]

It is easy for people to assert, in a rather patronising way, that a particular measure will benefit people in Scotland, but on Second Reading some hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies expressed a completely different view. I would prefer to trust their assessment of their constituents’ wishes than rely upon some academic treatise, which I am afraid to tell my hon. Friend I have not yet had the opportunity to look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Lady’s words are very wise. My experience as road safety Minister in the Department for Transport leads me to believe that we must be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions from experiments. My view is that a stronger law on drug-driving would have a significant impact on road safety in our country. But that is not a debate for this morning.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) is right to say that the number of road deaths fell from 5,600 a year in 1986 to 1,850 in Great Britain last year. The point is that when we change our clocks back, the number of deaths rises—that happens regardless of the underlying level. If we are seriously interested in cutting the number of unnecessary deaths, we have to go for this review, including for the winter, but, as I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is suggesting that we do not include winter in the review.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend’s reading of my amendment is absolutely right. We have already had a review of the winter, in the ’60s and early ’70s, but we never had a review of what happens in the summer. I therefore think that the priority should be to have a review of the summer.

[Mr Chope]

In that case, why was the outcome of that review overwhelmingly rejected by Members of the House, who decided not to proceed with the experiment?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The answer is simple: the politicians lost their nerve. The small increase in the morning was heavily outweighed by the reduction in the afternoons and evenings, yet the minority effect was taken as the majority one. That is the kind of thing that can happen outside the House, but it should not happen inside. We should pay attention to the majority arguments. Had we accepted the review, we would never have gone back to what we have now, which has cost us 20,000 deaths and injuries in the past 30 years.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend states that the politicians lost their nerve. I do not know whether that is correct, but surely the important thing is that the House, with the combined political wisdom of all its Members, ultimately takes the decision. Instead of leaving it, as the Bill does, to the Government to introduce an order—albeit one that would have to be approved by the affirmative procedure —the Government should introduce a Bill having first gathered the evidence. That way we could vote on the Bill in an informed way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I will not be seduced by her generous comments. A review to collect, examine and analyse the evidence can be undertaken by the Government now, without the need for any legislation. If she thinks that that should be done—I agree that it would be extremely helpful—it could be done without the Bill, if the Government had the will to do something about it. That is why I have other concerns about how the Bill is drafted.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We understand your response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), but my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) now appears to be saying that we do not need the Bill. In my experience, that is not properly a matter for debate on an amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I shall come on to the other amendments seriatim, but I doubt whether I shall speak at such length as my hon. Friend suggests.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because the attitude of the latter was the kind of thing that helped to delay the abolition of slavery for generations and stopped Samuel Plimsoll from getting a white line painted on ships to make sure that they did not turn over because they were overladen. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right; he should get on.

[Mr Chope]

Let me summarise what I think is the strength of the argument for amendment 59. It would ensure that the change applied only to seven months of the year, so it would take less time and cost less to prepare and publish a report, for which clause 1 provides. The straight pro rata saving would be, on my calculation, about 40% in time and cost—well worth while in an age of austerity. The savings should be even greater, because the most contentious area of inquiry would not have to be addressed—namely, the costs and benefits of advancing GMT by one hour in the winter across the whole of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about that.

Amendment 64 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Gainsborough. It proposes to omit subsection (4) from clause 2—this is the subsection that, above all, constrains the activities of the so-called “Independent Oversight Group”. From the Government’s perspective, the group can be independent, provided that it does as the Government say—I shall try to illustrate that with two specific examples. Under this subsection, the Secretary of State could prevent the group from examining separately the issues of whether to have experiments advancing the clocks by one hour: in the summer alone, in the winter alone, or across the whole year. Why do the Government insist on holding the whip hand? Another example of what could happen unless subsection (4) is removed is that the Government could prevent the publication of any minority report from the group. They could suppress dissent, because although the group might contain people who took a different view from the majority, the Government would be able to use their powers to say, “You are not allowed to produce a minority report.”

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I often think that I understand what is going on. I thought that the oversight group was supposed to look at methodologies—the sort of thing for dry statisticians, rather than for people with strong personal views about what the outcome should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining the thinking behind amendment 25.

On the amendments relating to clause 4, amendment 60, is consequential on amendment 59. Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order advancing the time in the United Kingdom throughout the year by one hour. Following on from my lead amendment 59, amendment 60 would restrict that power to advancing summer time alone by one hour.

Amendment 67, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Gainsborough, would change the name of such an order from a “daylight saving” order to a “summertime extension” order. That wording would promote both accuracy and transparency. Frankly, I object strongly to the expression “daylight saving” because it is against nature to be able to save daylight. I think the Bill’s promoter is effectively committing daylight robbery of the English language in using that expression.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Was it not the expression that Sir Winston Churchill used when he brought in daylight saving during the war?

[Mr Chope]

The expression might have been used by that distinguished former leader of our country during wartime, but we know that in a wartime atmosphere people sometimes use expressions that are designed to raise morale but that might not be 100% in line with the English language. If that was what happened, and I have no reason to doubt my hon. Friend, that is probably what caused Sir Winston Churchill to lapse into that sort of language, which is not appropriate in legislation. I do not think my hon. Friend is suggesting that Sir Winston Churchill had that language incorporated in a piece of legislation.

That brings me to a group of 11 amendments that are identical to amendment 67, but I would be trying the patience of the House if I did anything other than say that those amendments—to lines 23, 28, 32, 36 and 40 of clause 4, to line 10 of clause 5, to lines 12 and 19 of clause 6, to line 34 of clause 8, to line 25 of clause 11 and to line 2 of clause 14—all change the wording from “daylight saving” to “summertime extension”.

Amendment 72 in clause 9, line 4, would delete “time” and insert “summertime”. Clause 9 addresses what happens at the end of any trial period, and the amendment would give the Secretary of State the option of advancing summer time by one hour permanently.

Amendment 61, in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Gainsborough, in clause 12, page 4, line 35, would leave out subsection (1). Clause 12 is the interpretation clause and subsection (1) defines what is meant by the expression

“advancing the time for general purposes in the United Kingdom”.

That is an extraordinary expression to incorporate in a piece of legislation. Clause 12 says that it means adding one hour to Greenwich mean time in the winter and one hour to summer time in the summer. As I hope is apparent from my introductory remarks, I regard adding an hour to Greenwich mean time in the winter as unacceptable—hence my amendment.

Amendment 79 is the last amendment to which I need to speak in the Chamber. [Interruption.] I hear people saying, “Hear, Hear,” and I agree. It has taken much longer to discuss this group of amendments than I expected, but that is because of the lively interest that so many Members have shown in the content of the various amendments in the group. Amendment 79 would leave out subsection (8) of clause 12. In a sense, this is a completely different topic from anything I have spoken about hitherto. I do not know whether everybody has looked at subsection (8), but it provides that

“A duty under this Act to publish a document may be complied with by publishing it on an internet site.”

I think that is wholly unsatisfactory. The issues raised in the Bill are far too important not to be the subject of physical, hard copy documents. Indeed, we have such documents before us today and they enable us to consider these issues and the amendments. I therefore think that hard copy documents relating to this very important issue should be available to individuals, organisations and businesses the length and breadth of the United Kingdom and that to publish such documents merely on an internet site would be a false economy.

Employment Opportunities Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bottomley

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is here, because the Bill incorporates the Training Wage Bill, which he has expressed support for, and he has expressed concern in the House that on a previous Friday I chose not to put that Bill forward for debate, which I did because I was anticipating this occasion today. I am grateful for his presence and support, as I am grateful for the presence and support of other hon. Members. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is particularly enthusiastic about clause 1, if not about the whole of the Bill. Obviously, the message to all those who like parts of it but not the whole is that the Bill should be given a Second Reading so that it can be filleted as appropriate in Committee.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

My hon. Friend refers to clause 3, which I am sure he will get to, but as I have to leave the Chamber to meet some young people, I hope he will allow me to make a point now. I do not think that the clause is broad enough. Clearly a training wage matters, but when I was a teenager and often taking casual work, it was not the training I was after, it was the work experience, being with people and earning money instead of spending money. I hope he will think of broadening the Bill in Committee so that it allows people to take worthwhile work, whether or not there is training, with a wage. That work should also be worthwhile to the employer and the customer.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point, and I hope very much that he will be willing to serve on the Committee when that occasion arises. I am sorry that he will not be able to participate fully in the debate, but I understand that he is seeing constituents. His long-standing interest in common sense applies particularly to work opportunities for young people and is well known and respected across the House.

Members of the House are so conditioned to the advances of state socialism by stealth that the Bill may come as a bit of a shock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is second to nobody in his knowledge of parliamentary history and, in particular, of the Liberal Democrats, and I am grateful to him for reminding us of that and for putting it fairly and squarely on the record. I saw that at the same time as he was doing so the Deputy Leader of the House moved from his place to chat to Mr Deputy Speaker—perhaps so that he might feel absolved from the requirement to intervene.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

We recognise that the Deputy Leader of the House is still here as an invigilator and monitor, but has my hon. Friend noticed that the hon. Gentleman’s Liberal Democrat Back Benchers—our allies—have kindly trusted my hon. Friend to do what he wants? He should do what he wants and not hold back.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend again makes a good point, and I shall try not to be too inhibited or, as we said earlier during Prayers, too eager to find favour in what I try to do today.

Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bottomley

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that this story is correct. The reports in the New Milton Advertiser and Lymington Times have a reputation locally for always being very accurate. Its editor, Charles Curry MBE, is over 90. I think he is one of the oldest newspaper editors in the country and I know he is conscientious in ensuring that everything that appears in the paper is fully in accordance with the truth.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

May I say how sorry I am that my hon. Friend did not move his Training Wage Bill? I would have voted for it, as I did for his sovereignty Bill, even though that needed some improvement. His second Bill did not need any improvement at all; I would have voted for it wholeheartedly.

On the present Bill, my hon. Friend has usefully drawn our attention to questions that need to be raised about local councils. We know that the Health and Safety Executive has tried to dispel the myths that have developed, and I pay tribute to the organisation. The conker incident was one it dealt with. As for local councils, however, my hon. Friend might want to turn his attention to the chilling effect of the questions that are raised. Too often, people ask whether there is a question that needs to be answered, but because they do not get an answer, they blame the local authority, which might not have taken any action and might not have been consulted. I hope that, whatever happens to the Bill, any local authority people reading our debate will agree to provide easy access to information and will try to let things happen rather than block them—unless there is an overwhelming reason why the organisers of an event need to be hindered.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his indication of support for the Bill I did not move. I did not move it because the Government indicated that they would not support it, whereas they have expressed—informally, at any rate—some support for this Bill. It is important for Bills to make progress as well as be subject to debate, so I thought it would be better to move straight on to my Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill. I am sure that the issues raised in the Training Wage Bill can be debated on another occasion, as they are fundamental to our current record level of youth unemployment.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

May I, through my hon. Friend, invite every employer—public, private or voluntary—to ask how many young people they employ and why the numbers are so few? If the numbers are few because the cost is too great and the effect of employing them not great enough, we can raise their effectiveness, lower the cost or both.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The message from it is that we need to do more preparation to ensure that the next time my Training Wage Bill or similar provision is brought forward, the Government have to face the pressure from employers and from youth organisations, which should help to see it carried through.

As far as local authority issues are concerned, I share my hon. Friend’s point that we must not tar all local authorities with the same brush. Indeed, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health showed its sense of humour and commitment to the game of conkers by sponsoring the conker championships after the incident mentioned earlier. It wanted to shrug off the spoilsport image and dispel the myth that it makes children wear protective goggles for a playground game. It also entered a team in the world conker championships held in Ashton, Northamptonshire back in 2008.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Is it possible that that team used plastic protective gloves when dipping conkers in vinegar to harden the outside in order to get a better chance of winning?

[Mr Chope]

I do not have that sort of information. Since this is all mythical, I am sure that could not have happened in any case, any more than people would have put their conkers in the oven without using protective oven gloves. Obviously, my hon. Friend has great experience in dealing with conkers. One of the most dangerous aspects is using the skewer to make a hole through the centre of the conker, as people need to make sure that they do not puncture themselves at the same time. This all goes down to experience, and why should we not allow people to gain experience in the normal way in the hurly-burly of everyday life and have a bit of fun at the same time? Why are we creating a health and safety culture in which people over-react or fail to act responsibly?

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Peter Bottomley

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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

I am delighted to see in the Chamber distinguished colleagues who are members of the European Scrutiny Committee and others who have kindly agreed to support the Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) are two such Members.

I am delighted that, pursuant to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, at 11 o’clock the Prime Minister is going to come along and tell Parliament about the implications of the European Security Council resolution last night.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

UN, not European.

[Mr Chope]

The UN—I thought I said that.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

No, you said “European”.

[Mr Chope]

That just shows how they’ve got at me, doesn’t it? I am going to tell the House later about some of my discussions earlier in the week in, dare one say it, Brussels.

The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the UK Parliament can enact any law whatsoever on any subject whatsoever, and can do so by ordinary legislation. That means that if the people want to change the law, their representatives elected to Parliament can do so. Likewise, if the people do not want the law to be changed, their parliamentary representatives can ensure that it is not. If the courts interpret laws that we have passed in a way that Parliament does not wish, it can change those laws.

This is still a hot topic, despite the lengthy discussions about it in this place when we debated the European Union Bill. To give a flavour of it, I shall give examples of the regular correspondence that I get from constituents on it. I have a letter dated 10 March, an old-fashioned holograph from a lady from Christchurch. She says that she is fed up with the way in which the British people are being overridden by the EU and disappointed by what the Prime Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about a referendum. She thinks that the sooner we get the British people a say in the issue, the better.

I have another letter, which came this Monday, which talks about the people’s pledge and the desire for the voters of the UK to decide once and for all whether we should remain in the EU or leave it. In a sense, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we do not have to go through that process, because we in this elected House would be able to decide what we wanted and what we did not want in relation to EU legislation.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and indebted to him for the work that he has done on this subject. This is but the latest in a series of Bills, many of which he has drafted. Of course, he knows the answer to his question, which is that if the Bill were passed, it would have the effect that he has described. I think the House and the country would be a better place as a result.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I may be anticipating a point that my hon. Friend will make later—he may just be clearing his throat and will turn to the contents of the Bill in a moment. May I take him to the last word of clause 1, which is “reaffirmed”? If the Bill is enacted with the words:

“The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament is hereby reaffirmed”,

will that change the current situation or leave it as it is?

[Mr Chope]

Arguably, it would leave it as it is. There was a debate on the European Union Bill about whether we needed to reaffirm our sovereignty. My concern, which I think was first expressed in the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), is: “If you don’t use it, you lose it.” The monarch—the Queen—is sovereign, but because she has not exercised her sovereignty for a period of time and is exercising it less and less, there comes a stage when people say, “You have given it up.”

The concern that I and a lot of other Members have is that if we do not keep reasserting our sovereignty, we might suddenly find that an external body or court interprets that as meaning that, by default, we have conceded that Parliament no longer has sovereignty in various aspects of our country’s affairs. That is why clause 1 is in the Bill. It may seem bizarre that we have to reassert that, but I believe that we need to do so because our Parliament is under continual assault from external organisations that are trying to interfere with our right to decide our own affairs.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I do not want to detain my hon. Friend, but it was not the beginning of clause 1 that I was questioning; it was the word “reaffirmed”. I wonder whether the word “affirmed” or “exists” would have done.

In 1948, or sometime about then, when NATO was created, we agreed to give our sovereignty on starting a war to people who were then at Fontainebleau and later moved to Brussels. I do not mean that as an argument against my hon. Friend, and I am not opposing what he is trying to do, I am just trying to clear up what clause 1 actually means and why its last word matters.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend asks why use the word “reaffirmed” rather than “exists”. I have chosen that particular word, but other words could be substituted for it. I am not saying that it is the only word that could be used in clause 1 to convey the meaning that I wish to get across. I think it is a good word, and unless and until somebody comes up with an amendment that they think is better, I would like to keep it in the Bill. If my hon. Friend would like to join me in considering the Bill in Committee in due course, I am sure he will have the chance to move amendments and speak to them to explain why he thinks his choice of words is better than the words in the Bill.

May I take the House back briefly to the “Invitation to Join the Government of Britain”, which was the title given to the Conservative party manifesto at the last general election? On page 114, under the subtitle “Promote our national interest—an open and democratic Europe”, it is stated:

“The steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far. A Conservative government will negotiate for three specific guarantees—on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation—with our European partners to return powers that we believe should reside with the UK, not the EU. We seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these powers from the EU to the UK.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Perhaps we will explore those points of difference, but I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Having listened to the exchange between you, Mr Speaker, and my hon. Friend, I think it would be in order for him to refer again to a proposal in his Bill. Clause 3, “Judicial notice”—a heading that might be explained—mentions “any rule of international law” in subsection (b). The first debate this morning was a debate on the Wreck Removal Convention Bill. If enacted, that will bring a convention—a piece of international law—into domestic law. How do we avoid a referendum on that under the terms of the United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill?

[Mr Chope]

Under this Bill, we would not need to have a referendum on the international convention on wrecks any more than we would on any other convention. Clause 2 says that referendums will apply to the implementation of legal instruments that increase the function of the European Union affecting the United Kingdom.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

That is the assertion that I am sure is in my hon. Friend’s mind, and not one with which I would necessarily disagree, but the Bill does not say that. It reaffirms

“the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament; and for connected purposes”.

Clause 1, which we have discussed, states:

“The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament is hereby reaffirmed”

for one reason or another. However, clause 2 states:

“No Minister…shall make or implement any legal instrument which…is inconsistent with this Act”—

alternatively, not additionally—

“without requiring it to be approved in a referendum of the electorate in the United Kingdom.”

It was clearly explained earlier—I think my hon. Friend was in the Chamber—that if the Wreck Removal Convention Bill becomes an Act and the convention becomes international law, ratifying the convention will make international law apply to us without our Parliament having done anything more. I leave that question with him. If he does not have the answer today, perhaps he will write to me afterwards.

[Mr Chope]

Perhaps we will deal with that in Committee. I admit to being present during the fantastic speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) in support of her Bill, but I must admit that I was not following every iota of its content, so I am not sure whether what has been said on her behalf by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is a valid objection to or criticism of my Bill.

Despite my hon. Friend’s intervention, I will not be diverted from finishing expressing my concerns about the proposals for the admission of the EU to the European convention on human rights. Fortunately, my understanding is that our Government have a veto, and its details are being discussed at intergovernmental level—certainly by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe this week. I hope that the Minister will realise after this debate that we need to be alert and concerned about the implications of what is happening.

I say that because on 19 May 2010, the European Parliament passed a resolution on what it described as

“the institutional aspects of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.

Like most such resolutions, it is rather too long for most of us to bother to read—it runs to several pages—but I want to draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to paragraph K on page 2. It states that the European Parliament stresses that

“the main arguments in favour of accession of the Union”—

the European Union—

“to the ECHR…may be summarised as follows: accession constitutes a move forward in the process of European integration and involves one further step towards political Union”.

If that is the interpretation put on it by the European Parliament, we need go no further than getting a commitment from the Government today that they will not support this, and that in discussions on it they will play hardball, rather than the softball they have been playing up to now over EU powers.

The resolution also states that

“while the Union’s system for the protection of fundamental rights will be supplemented and enhanced by the incorporation…into its primary law, its accession to the ECHR will send a strong signal concerning the coherence between the Union and the countries belonging to the Council of Europe”.

It is actually nothing short of an attempted takeover. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will probably be alert to the point at which the resolution states that

“accession will also compensate to some extent for the fact that the scope of the Court of Justice of the European Union is somewhat constrained in the matters of foreign and security policy and police and security policy by providing useful external judicial supervision of all EU activities”.

This is all part of the creep and incrementalism of the EU as it tries to put its finger into everybody’s pies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

But is our hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) right? I am not sure that if we read the Bill from beginning to end, which is the way that I normally try to read Bills, we find that it says that. If my hon. Friend thought that he ought to curtail his speech—we thought he had just been clearing his throat—because others want to speak, or because he wants the Government to explain, I am sure we ought to stick by our normal conventions. I know that it is a rule but not a convention. My hon. Friend normally keeps the House going for quite some time when a private Member’s Bill is being promoted, and the Minister does not always have time to complete his speech. I do not see why he should change the convention simply because my hon. Friend is promoting a Bill himself.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend has failed to look at today’s Order Paper and failed to notice that I do not have one Bill but several, and therefore I have a conflict of interest. If I speak too long on one Bill, I may jeopardise the chance of being able to speak on my next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I have been accused of many things, but not greed. People who are frustrated legislators and willing to spend a couple of nights sleeping in the Palace of Westminster to queue up for their tickets may have the opportunity of having their Bills brought before the House. I hope that some of my other Bills on the Order Paper will be debated, not least my Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill. When I first put that title down last June, I had not anticipated that I would read in my local paper last Friday that the Hampshire county council health and safety people had interfered in the Beaulieu pancake race, so that it is now the Beaulieu pancake walk rather than race. I had not realised that my third Bill would be so relevant to a local story, but now it has a relevance above all else. I hope that we get a chance to discuss it.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I do not think that my hon. Friend should have taken the words of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—who is speaking for the whole of his party, I see—too seriously, partly because we should not accuse someone of greed during Lent, but also because the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the Bills along together. It is no different from a group of MPs sharing a taxi: it is simply combining things. My hon. Friend is now talking about his third Bill. What about his second one?

[Mr Chope]

I will not talk about my second Bill yet. I hope that we will get a chance to have a proper debate on that.