Debate on the Address

Debate between Christopher Chope and Roger Gale

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by adding my congratulations to both the hon. Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on their speeches earlier this afternoon. I suspect that you and I have heard quite a number of such speeches, and I think we can probably agree that those were two of the very best we have ever heard.

May I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), who spoke movingly of his football team and of his town, in which he quite clearly has great pride. I have not visited Wolverhampton for over 60 years, and I do not know whether the Ambassador bowling alley is still there, but I recall that Berry Gordy brought the Motortown revue to Wolverhampton, and I actually watched Stevie Wonder playing ten pin bowls in the Wolverhampton bowling alley—think about that.

It is 41 years since I was first elected to this House as the then youngest Member of Parliament for the new seat of North Thanet, and I am delighted that, 41 years later, I find myself elected as the youngest Member of Parliament for Herne Bay and Sandwich. New colleagues on both sides of the House who have not heard these types of speeches before—you and I both know this very well indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker—will find that they will make great friendships right across the House over the coming weeks and months, and that is as it should be. Out there, in the real world, people do not understand that we work so closely together, but we do, and so we should. Jo Cox was absolutely right when she memorably said that there is much more that unites us than divides us. And so it is with this speech today.

I should also place on record my thanks and, I hope, the thanks of the whole House to the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister for the way in which they have managed with great dignity the transfer of power. This country does state openings rather well, and it does democracy even better. There are many who envy us for that, and it is a precious jewel that we should never lose.

This King’s Speech has much in it that I trust we can all applaud. It makes clear reference to defence of the realm, which is so vital to our country, and a commitment to NATO. It also commits us to support Ukraine in what is not just their war but our war—a war to defend democracy. There is also a commitment—although not everybody will agree with this—to a two-state settlement in the middle east. Those are all laudable aims, and I trust we can all support them. There are other areas that are greyer and that we shall have to take some issue with. That is the job of the Opposition, as the Prime Minister would expect. The Opposition will hold his feet to the fire and hold him to account when we think that he has got it wrong.

There are three issues that I want to raise very briefly this afternoon. I have grave concerns about the proposed reforms of planning law. Like Many Government Members, I represent a rural constituency and I fear for the loss of farmland. I am not sure—this is a genuine confusion and concern—whether it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Housing who is driving the proposed planning reform policy. I have a very real concern that local democracy will be removed, and that we shall find ourselves with a slash-and-burn policy that will destroy yet more of not only the green belt, but of the land we need to grow the food to feed our country. I trust that the Government will address that issue very clearly and very seriously indeed.

The new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has moved very fast indeed to grant planning consents that give me cause for concern. I find it wholly unnecessary that East Anglia and Thanet should have to place solar farms on prime agricultural land—grade 1 land—that generates wheat of bread-making quality. We have acres of rooftops and car parks in public ownership that could and should be used to protect the land that we need.

I have a particular concern about a project that two colleagues from East Anglia referred to earlier. The Sea Link project is designed to run a power cable from East Anglia under the Thames and around the coast to make landfall close to Sandwich. The proposal is to build on marshland immediately next to a site of special scientific interest, having crossed the Pegwell bay nature reserve, a 90-foot high structure the size of about four football pitches. National Grid has got this so horribly wrong that it only now realises that marshland is wet, which means it will have to pour thousands of tonnes of concrete into the land, drill down and pile before it can even begin to build its structure. Viable alternatives have been suggested, so I hope that the new Secretary of State will take this concern on board and use his powers to instruct National Grid to go back to the drawing board and get it right. We all want clean energy and renewable energy, and we all want to hit the net zero target, but not at any price. If we rush into this, we will get it wrong. We owe it to the grandchildren of every Member present to get it right.

Finally, I am concerned about an omission from the King’s Speech. Given the comments and publicity, I am sad that the speech makes no mention of animal welfare. I would hope that, at the very least, His Majesty’s new Government will reintroduce and ram through the trophy hunting bill that two Members of Parliament—one Labour and one Tory—tried but failed to get through the last Parliament.

With that, in the interests of this United Kingdom, I wish the Government and their programme well. We will hold feet to the fire where necessary, but I trust, as the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, that we will not be obstructive. A Government have a right to get their business through.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Patrick Hurley to make his maiden speech.

Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Roger Gale

Report stage
Friday 19th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call Sir Christopher Chope to move amendment 1.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Not moved, sir.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you. Consideration is complete. [Interruption.] I understand that King’s consent will need to be signified for Third Reading.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can we move on to the next business, please?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Technically, no—not at this moment.

Points of Order

Debate between Christopher Chope and Roger Gale

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to reveal the identity of the person concerned? I notice that that did not happen yesterday, but it is well known who that person is and how well qualified he is for the post for which he has been recommended.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I thank both hon. Gentlemen for their points of order, and I thank the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) for giving notice of his. While the House Administration does take the lead—

Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Christopher Chope and Roger Gale

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

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 9, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“(2A) When making or exercising its functions under pedicab regulations, Transport for London must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 7(1).”

This amendment requires Transport for London to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the making of pedicab regulations and exercising TfL’s functions under those regulations.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, page 1, line 9, after “must” insert

“carry out a public consultation including details of the proposed licensing framework and”.

This amendment would require Transport for London to carry out a public consultation before making pedicab regulations and would require that consultation to include details of the proposed licensing framework.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 10, leave out “whoever” and insert

“the London Pedicab Operators Association, Cycling UK and whoever else”.

This amendment would ensure that the London Pedicab Operators Association and Cycling UK would be consulted by Transport for London before TfL makes pedicab regulations.

Amendment 21, page 1, line 10, leave out “whoever” and insert

“local authorities, elected representatives, and whoever else”.

This amendment would require Transport for London to consult with local authorities and elected representatives as well as anyone else it considers appropriate before making pedicab regulations.

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

“(4) Transport for London shall not make provision for regulating pedicabs in public places in Greater London until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under the provisions of section 7.”

This amendment would ensure that no regulation could be introduced by Transport for London until the Secretary of State for Transport had issued guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert

“or at a level that enables investment in pedicab infrastructure in Greater London”.

This amendment would allow pedicab licence fees to be set at a level that enables investment in pedicab infrastructure in Greater London.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 29, at end insert —

“(d) designate sites to be used as pedicab ranks.”

This amendment would allow Transport for London to use pedicab regulations to designate sites as pedicab ranks.

Amendment 12, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(d) make provision for the designation by traffic authorities of places where pedicabs may stand for hire.”

This amendment allows for the regulations to make provision for the designation by traffic authorities of pedicab stands.

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, at end insert—

“(2A) The regulations may only create offences relating to the use of a pedicab for any of the following purposes—

(a) carrying passengers for hire or reward;

(b) travelling to carry a passenger or passengers for hire or reward;

(c) returning from carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward; or

(d) plying for hire.”

This amendment ensures that offences created by pedicab regulations only apply when the pedicab is being used to carry passengers, when travelling to or from carrying passengers, or when plying for hire.

Amendment 14, page 3, line 20, at end insert

“, provided that equivalent conduct committed by the driver or rider of a motor vehicle is subject to a civil penalty.”

This amendment provides that civil penalties relating to pedicab drivers may only be used if equivalent conduct committed by a driver or rider of a motor vehicle would be subject to a civil penalty.

Amendment 15, page 3, line 22, leave out from “immobilisation” to end of line 24 and insert

“and seizure by a constable in uniform or by a civil enforcement officer of any pedicab that—

(a) is being used in a manner that is causing alarm or distress to members of the public, or

(b) is being driven in a manner that—

(i) contravenes section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861,

(ii) contravenes sections 29 to 32 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or

(iii) in the case of a mechanically propelled pedicab, would amount to a contravention of sections 29 to 32 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 if committed on a pedal cycle without mechanical propulsion, if the driver has been given warning on a prior occasion by a constable in uniform or a civil enforcement officer that the driver is using or driving the pedicab in a manner described in this paragraph or paragraph (a).”

This amendment ensures that the powers to immobilise and seize pedicabs are assigned to police constables in uniform or to traffic officers duly authorised by local authorities, and that they are proportionate to the powers to immobilise and seize motor vehicles in section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

Clause 3 stand part.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 18, in clause 5, page 4, line 17, leave out from “means” to the end of line 21 and insert

“a pedicab, as defined in section 1(2), which conforms to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983;”.

This amendment defines “power-assisted pedicab” as a pedicab which conforms to the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983.

Clause 5 stand part.

Clause 6 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations.

Amendment 19, page 4, line 32, leave out “may” and insert

“must, within six months of the passage of this Act,”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to Transport for London about the exercise of their functions under pedicab regulations within six months of the passage of this Act.

Amendment 10, page 4, line 32, leave out “the exercise of” and insert

“making pedicab regulations and exercising”.

This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State’s guidance to TfL encompasses the making of pedicab regulations, as well as the exercise of its functions under those regulations.

Amendment 11, page 4, line 37, at end insert—

“(3A) In preparing guidance to be issued under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—

(a) the benefits to the environment, economic vitality and the health and quality of life that properly regulated pedicab services can provide;

(b) the safety of pedicab drivers and passengers;

(c) the need to minimise danger, disruption and disturbance to the public;

(d) the reasonableness of pedicab fares for the passengers, riders and operators of pedicabs;

(e) the designation of places where pedicabs may stand for hire;

(f) the need for licensing and other charges or requirements imposed on pedicab riders and operators, and the penalties for contraventions of offences created by pedicab regulations, to be reasonable and proportionate to the risks that pedicabs pose to their riders, passengers and the wider public.”

This amendment defines the objectives that the Secretary of State must have regard to when drawing up guidance on pedicab regulations, including to take into account the benefits that properly regulated pedicabs can provide.

Amendment 5, page 5, line 6, leave out “whoever” and insert

“the London Pedicab Operators Association, Cycling UK and whoever else”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the London Pedicab Operators Association and Cycling UK as well as anyone the Secretary of State considers appropriate before issuing guidance.

Amendment 7, page 5, line 6, leave out “whoever” and insert

“with local authorities, elected representatives, and whoever else”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities and elected representatives as well as anyone the Secretary of State considers appropriate before issuing guidance.

Clause 7 stand part.

Amendment 16, in clause 8, page 5, line 8, at end insert—

“‘civil enforcement officer’ has the meaning given by section 76 of the Traffic Management Act 2004;”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 15.

Amendment 13, page 5, line 17, at end insert—

“‘traffic authority’ has the same meaning as in section 121A(1A) and (2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 12.

Clause 8 stand part.

Clause 9 stand part.

Clause 10 stand part.

Government amendment 20.

Clause 11 stand part.

New clause 1—Protection of children and vulnerable adults—

“(1) The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 177, in subsection (6), at end insert—

(g) the Pedicabs (London) Act 2024”

This new clause includes this Bill in the definition of “taxi and private hire vehicle legislation” for the purposes of section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017. This permits the Secretary of State to issue guidance to public authorities exercising licensing functions so as to protect children and vulnerable adults.

New clause 2—Licensing functions under pedicab regulations: protection of children and vulnerable adults—

“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to Transport for London under the provisions of section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 as to how its licensing functions under pedicab regulations may be exercised so as to protect children, and vulnerable individuals who are 18 or over, from harm.

(2) The guidance must include a requirement for enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks to be a condition of licensing.

(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued under this section, and any revision of it, to be published.”

This new clause is linked to NC1. It would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to TfL as to how its licensing functions under pedicab regulations may be exercised so as to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm, including compulsory DBS checks.

New clause 3—Conditions of licensing: Disclosure and Barring Service check—

“(1) Any provision related to conditions of licences under section (1)(a) may include a requirement for pedicab drivers or operators to have enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.

(3) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made until they are approved by both Houses of Parliament.

(4) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under any legislation passed before this Act.”

This new clause enables TfL to include DBS checks as a condition of licensing for pedicab drivers or operators in any licensing provision made by Transport for London. It also permits the Secretary of State to make regulations to make any consequential provision.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I begin by putting on record my appreciation for the positive way in which the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), has engaged with our deliberations on this Bill.

As discussed on Second Reading, the differences of opinion on the Bill centre around whether its consequence, deliberate or otherwise, will be to legislate pedicabs out of existence. Pedicabs are to London what gondolas are to Venice. They are an essential part of the colour and vibrancy of our capital city. The Evening Standard recently warned of the damage being done to London’s nightlife and the night-time economy, and pedicabs are an essential part of that economy. I am sure we would not want to do anything to further undermine the viability of that night-time economy.

Is this Bill the equivalent of a morphine syringe driver to kill off pedicabs, or is it a necessary protector of responsible pedicab operators? Both I and, I think, the Minister want it to be the latter, and so does Cycling UK, which has a membership of some 70,000 cyclists—it is quite a large organisation—as well as the London Pedicab Operators Association.

I expressed my concern about over-regulation on Second Reading, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who asked the Minister for an assurance that

“when this regulation comes into force, it will be light touch and not onerous, so that we do not kill this young and perfectly acceptable industry?”

And the Minister replied:

“The answer is yes and yes.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 375.]

That clear and unambiguous response is extremely welcome.

It is important that we are able to deliver on that commitment. The question often arises of whether we can trust Transport for London. Those of us who live in London during the week, and others who are resident in London throughout the year, are quite concerned about Transport for London’s failure to listen on issues such as the ultra low emission zone extension and the proliferation of 20 mph zones.

Transport for London produced an outline of how it will use the process of regulation, which it will be given under this Bill, in January 2022, and it was updated in February 2024. The Minister made arrangements for the new draft to be circulated to all interested Members. Unfortunately, and I know it was not his fault, the draft was circulated not with his letter but late on Thursday, about half an hour after the House had risen and the deadline for tabling amendments had passed. My amendments therefore take no account of that document. Had I seen it before the deadline, I might well have tabled additional amendments.

Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Roger Gale

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call Sir Christopher Chope.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I had already finished speaking, and I think the Minister’s predecessor was in the middle of responding.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is entirely my error. I did not have the pleasure of being here for the first part of the debate. I call the Minister.

Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Roger Gale

2nd reading
Friday 3rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

This is a potentially useful Bill, but my concern is that it does not specify exactly what is going to be done. In introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) referred repeatedly to the plight of Asian elephants. When the Government introduced their action plan for animal welfare in May 2021, they said:

“We will legislate to ban the advertising and offering for sale here of specific, unacceptable practices abroad.”

With the exception of the reference to Asian elephants, we do not know what those “specific, unacceptable practices abroad” are, the advertising of which will be banned under the Bill. There should be a lot more specificity on the face of the Bill.

At the moment, the Bill could cover any matter that is already illegal under UK legislation or legislation in the devolved Administrations. For example, on the basis of its current wording, it could outlaw the advertising or promotion of hunting wild animals abroad, essentially trying to give extraterritorial application to our hunting legislation. If that is the intention of the Bill, then that should be spelled out openly, instead of being hidden away in the Bill’s regulation-making powers.

My main point concerns an omission. The Bill is based on the Government’s commitment to improving animal welfare—who could be against that? However, there remains a gap in that programme: the prevalence of the use of non-stun slaughter for animals in this country. I declare an interest as my daughter is a vet. The British Veterinary Association and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, of which I think you are a patron, Mr Deputy Speaker, are at the forefront of trying to ensure that the non-stun method of slaughtering livestock is removed, or certainly mitigated, so that it is done only when there is strict evidence that it is necessary for religious purposes.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. Whatever private sympathies I may have with what the hon. Gentleman says, he has been in the House almost as long as I have, which is long enough to know that he has to talk about what is in the Bill and not what is not in it. He is stretching a point, if I may say so.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Mr Deputy Speaker, we are both looking forward to celebrating, in June, the 40th anniversary of our first being elected to this House. Unlike me, you have been here continuously since then. Obviously, those missing years have impacted on my failure to follow the procedures today.

On Second Reading, one is entitled to look at things that are not included in the Bill. What I seek to find out from my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford is how this Bill will apply to what we know is already going on within our own country, where the non-stunned slaughter of animals can take place. It does not take place in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, but it does take place in England. Could this Bill create a situation where we would be able to outlaw the advertising of hunting trips abroad but we would not be able to take action if in Northern Ireland or Wales an attempt was made to ensure that the same rules for the slaughter of animals through not being stunned in advance were applied?

There is a potentially a big gap in this Bill and I hope that for that reason when it gets into Committee we will have a chance to look at these issues in more detail. I hope we will be able to find out a bit more about why the Government have said that they were going to act in relation to the non-stunned animals being slaughtered, and the fact that a large proportion of all halal meat is actually already pre-stunned but a lot of the non-stunned meat is going to places that are not part of the religious community. I look forward to being able to discuss those issues in Committee or on Report if this Bill gets its Second Reading, as I hope it does.

Covid-19 Vaccines: Safety

Debate between Christopher Chope and Roger Gale

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the United States, they changed the definition of a vaccine. We have always understood a vaccine to mean someone receiving into their system something containing a small element of that which they were being vaccinated against, so that their system could react against it and protect them if they were later exposed to a large amount. But unlike those old vaccines, these vaccines do not use the raw material, so in many senses it is a misnomer to describe them as vaccines at all. That information is not really out there among the public any more than the fact that the booster vaccines have not been tested on humans at all during studies; they were tested only on mice. People are being used as victims for experimentation, and that is why they are getting worried.

Finally, Oracle Films’ film, “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion”, is available on YouTube—I make no apology for the fact that I participate in that film—and sets out a different view on the safety of these vaccines. I am not saying we should ban all covid-19 vaccines and have a complete halt. What I am saying is that there is an urgent need for the Government to get to grips with this issue before more people are duped into having vaccines that they probably do not need, that will not do them any good and that will present risks to their health.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Could I ask Mr Bridgen and Mrs Elphicke to confine their remarks to six minutes?

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Roger Gale

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

In essence, the Agency for Fundamental Rights tries to deal with collective rights, rather than individual rights, whereas the European Court of Human Rights deals with individual rights. That is a moot point, however. As with so many things, the European Union comes along and confuses the issue by giving a new institution a very similar name to that of an existing body. We have a Council of Europe, and, although we do not have a council of the European Union, we have a European Union Council. We also have a Commission of the European Union. The European Union has stolen the flag that was originally the flag of the Council of Europe. It has even stolen the anthem of the Council of Europe, and it is now intent on stealing the main part of the Council of Europe’s activities—namely, looking after human rights under the European convention on human rights.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

This is part of a creeping sickness, is it not? The European Union is trying to claim rights over trans-frontier broadcasting so that it can tell the whole of Europe what we may and may not broadcast. Upstairs, the House heard this afternoon that the European Union is trying to take over the European Space Agency, which of course goes much wider than the European Union; and now we have this, this evening. Where does my hon. Friend think this might stop?

[Mr Chope]

I know my hon. Friend has been doing very valuable work in scrutinising trans-frontier broadcasting —he is, I believe, a rapporteur on that subject for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Trans-frontier broadcasting exemplifies the problem we have. The Council of Europe set up a convention on trans-frontier broadcasting which has been signed up to not just by its 47 member countries, but by a lot of other countries as well; it is a very important convention. However, the European Union has come along and said that the convention cannot be brought up to date because it cuts across a fundamental competence of the Union. Therefore, the Council of Europe has been prevented, amazingly, from updating the convention because the European Union has said it cannot do so. Of course, because the Union has 27 of the 47 member countries of the Council, if it says, “You cant’ do that”, the Council’s member states collectively have no option but to obey the Union. This is an example, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) rightly says, of the European Union’s plan to encroach further upon the territory and responsibilities of the Council of Europe, to the extent that ultimately, it wishes to take over the whole organisation. That is what is so sinister about this measure.

If this were for free, we could all be relatively relaxed about it and deal with it as an academic abstraction, but it is costing us serious money: some €83 million at the moment, as we heard on Second Reading. The Agency for Fundamental Rights was set up fewer than 10 years ago with a budget of virtually nothing; now, it already has accrued that amount of expenditure, and the plans for 2013-17 are to expand it much further.

As we heard in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s brilliant statement today, he and colleagues in the European Union are saying, “Enough is enough: we’ve got to rein back on the European Union’s expansionist programme”. When people put forward the challenge, “What are we going to rein back?”, my view is that this is a good starting point. We never wanted this in the first place, and I hope we are going to hear from the Government what we are doing to push back in the opposite direction.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Roger Gale

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

My hon. Friend refers to a past review but he knows the figures and he knows perfectly well that it demonstrated conclusively that there was a reduction in the number of road traffic accidents.

[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?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Roger Gale

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

Order. With great respect, we have moved an extremely long way from the purpose of the original amendment.

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry, Mr Gale. I was trying to give a full answer to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

My feeling is that the first-past-the-post system is best. I understand that the system in the Bill is similar to that used to decide the winner of the Eurovision song contest. If the Eurovision song contest voting system is the one contained in the Bill, I am sure it will find a lot of support with the people out there.

For my part, I think it would be better to withdraw the amendment and for us to think again about whether we want to bring forward an amendment on Report to introduce an alternative identical to the system used in London, for the sake of consistency. In any event, we should reflect on the pertinent points that have been made in this debate and seek to consider further whether we wish to adopt what used to be the old Labour party policy. That is the Achilles heel, I would be the first to admit, of my proposal, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. Ms Primarolo has said that there will be a stand part debate, but she and I are agreed—and I have followed the debate very carefully—that the clause is very narrow in its remit. It sets out how votes are to given, how votes are to be counted and what information is to be given at each stage and no more. I trust that the stand part debate will address those issues and no others.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.