Westminster Hall

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. I will take one more point of order, from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick).

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Chope. I am grateful for the opportunity to make an additional point of order. You explained your interpretation of the rules in response to the Minister, and you are obviously in sole charge. You said that it would be an abuse for other colleagues to raise points of order, but the fact that the Speaker’s Office allowed a 90-minute debate indicates quite clearly that this matter is not of interest to just a single Member. Other colleagues bid for a similar subject to be debated. For the Speaker’s Office to determine that this issue is exclusively an interest of the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), because he was the lucky one who was drawn in the ballot and secured time for the debate, seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the rules, in that—

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. I will interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he seems to be challenging my interpretation of the rules. If he wishes to have the rules changed, I suggest that he refers the matter to the Procedure Committee. The rules are quite clear. There have been occasions on which a Member has arrived a minute or two late and I have suspended the sitting. The rules are quite clear, and it would be wrong to try to rewrite them. If we were going to rewrite the rules, I would be tempted to allow an emergency debate on the state of the Northern line, but I will not do that. The sitting is suspended until 11 am.

Tenancies (Reform) Bill

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Christopher Chope

Friday 28th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I do not know whether the Minister is being intentionally disingenuous, but if the Government introduced this legislation it would be a Government Bill in Government time. The Government are now trying effectively to usurp private Members’ time for Government business, and that is what the Minister has just admitted. This has taken up the whole of a Friday that should be given over to genuine Back-Bench debates on issues of concern to Back Benchers. If the Government think this is such an important Bill and want to get it on the statute book, they could get some of its provisions on the statute book by amending the legislation that is currently going through the other place.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It will be no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I am here to support this Bill. However, his position is legitimate. If the Bill is as important as many of us believe, we should have had 100 colleagues here to support it. I do not think it is fair to blame the hon. Gentleman who, with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and others, has been blocking one of my Bills for the past five Fridays. I respect their ability to do that. It is our job to persuade people to come to the House and support the legislation that we think is important.

[Mr Chope]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who knows that although that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and I have been preventing his Bill from going through without debate, I have written to my constituents and others to say that I believe his Bill should also be a Government Bill, as it was promised by the Government—

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

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

It gives me great pleasure to move amendment 1 and to discuss the other amendments in the group. I begin by paying tribute to the promoters, who said earlier today that two of my amendments in a subsequent group will be accepted, and I think that is a perfect answer to all those people who look askance at Members of this House who force debates on issues such as this and table amendments. The promoters have, by their actions, demonstrated the worthwhile nature of that behaviour.

The concerns of my hon. Friends lie in trying to find out more about the proposals before us and ensuring that the same standards of high-quality legislation are applied to private legislation as are applied to normal public legislation. I shall refer to some examples later and I hope that the House will agree that there are examples of legislative provisions that are too woolly or imprecise to deserve to be put on the statute book.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The critics to whom the hon. Gentleman refers have obviously never had the opportunity of being in the Chamber and listening to the amendments that he and his colleagues have tabled. They have clearly demonstrated their worth over many, many years.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to crow, other than to say that it is important that just because a Bill is a private Bill it should not be subject to less scrutiny than a public Bill. As was said on Second Reading, why should a local authority impose a statutory regime in its area different from the national regime?

I am delighted to see the Minister, who will be able to respond to some of the concerns about why a regime for dealing with skips different from the regime that applies elsewhere in the country that has to be introduced private legislation rather than through a public Bill promoted by the Government.

Before I get too distracted from the subject matter of the amendments, I should say that amendments 1 and 2, which can be considered together, are an example of why the Bill is unnecessarily complex. The Bill applies to the whole of London other than the City of London, yet it is proposed that its provisions should be brought in at different times in different areas. If we are to have a regime for skips, for example, in London, surely the changes should apply to the whole of London at the same time rather than piecemeal. Yet clause 3(2) states:

“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purpose of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to different areas.”

Likewise, clause 3(3) states:

“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purpose of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to an area.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Exactly. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

Clause 5(5) falls into the “ludicrous and superfluous” category. It says:

“This section shall not be taken to exclude the employment of any method of service not expressly provided for by it”,

but of course the clause is only permissive; subsection (1) says that a notice

“may be served by post.”

What does clause 5(5) add to the statute book, other than completely superfluous wording? I would have thought it a statement of the obvious. Do we really need to include on the statute book lots of statements of the obvious, like this one? Amendment 6 would therefore leave it out.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong argument for the amendment. If I heard him correctly, he said that he had received an indication that some of his amendments may be accepted by the sponsor. Is this amendment one of those that he anticipates being acceptable to the sponsor?

[Mr Chope]

I hope so, but I have not yet received formal notice about this amendment. The two amendments about which I have received formal notice are in the second group, and I will not go into those now. From the hon. Gentleman’s comments, it seems that he is supportive of the amendment—I am not sure whether he is referring to amendment 5 or 6; perhaps he could indicate that more clearly.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I was not indicating whether we supported or opposed the amendment; all I was saying was that the hon. Gentleman was making a strong argument.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman suddenly seems rather nervous about committing himself. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the strength of the argument, even if that is not carried forward into support in the Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

When the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was initially moving his amendments in a self-deprecating fashion, saying that he is sometimes criticised for the role he plays in private Business, I said in an intervention that that is not the view on the Opposition Benches. We value the service he provides, ably assisted by his hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley. I sometimes query whether the length of time taken is necessary, but I do not in any way, shape or form challenge, question or criticise the right to table amendments and make sure that legislation such as this is scrutinised.

Having listened to the arguments from the hon. Member for Christchurch and his hon. Friends and the explanations from the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I regret to inform the hon. Member for Christchurch that should he press any of the amendments in this group to a vote, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not be joining him in the Lobby.

[Mr Chope]

With your encouragement, Mr Speaker, this has been a very civilised debate and we have covered the ground. As I said, this is the first opportunity we have had to look at much of the detail of the Bill. I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for having responded to the points that were made. I have been convinced by many of the arguments, and he produced answers to many of my concerns.

With regard to the two amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) identified as being worthy of further consideration by testing the will of the House, my inclination is not to press amendment 5, because my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said that clause 5, to which the amendment relates, is a complete replication of the existing law set out in section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972, in which case to divide the House would probably be to seek its indulgence in a way that I would prefer not to do. I hope that it will be possible in due course to seek the House’s view on amendment 20, which would mean having a Division after we consider the next group of amendments.

Having listened to the debate, it seems to me that the issue of gated roads has national application, rather than being confined to London. If we are to create a completely new offence, as both my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) have said, we must ensure that the legislation is as plain as a pikestaff so that everybody knows where they stand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, we cannot be in the business of passing laws that are a matter of interpretation.

I think that it would be wrong to create through legislation a new criminal offence that could have the effect of penalising a good Samaritan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, it is idiotic that a person who closes a gate after him, when it had been open, could find himself on the wrong side of the criminal law. There is too much control by political correctness. We now have a situation in which firemen are not prepared to go and rescue somebody because that might be against health and safety regulations. We do not want a situation in which a person does not close a gate in their neighbourhood that is normally closed because they fear that to do so might be to commit a criminal offence. For those reasons, and thanking everybody who has contributed to the debate, I seek the leave of the House, at the appropriate moment, to test its opinion on amendment 20.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

That is almost a commentary on regulation. We regulate, and to deregulate we have to create provisions that are a lot more complicated than the original regulation. Reverting to the brilliant lecture that I attended last night, one of the representatives from a large City firm said that we must be alert to the danger of “comfort in complexity”. That is a good thing to bear in mind. My hon. Friend says that we introduce powers to seize and then we have to set out at even greater length the exemptions to the seizure regime. How complicated is that? It is unnecessarily complicated, regulatory and burdensome on people who might want to start a new enterprise that could result in their becoming multimillionaires and working for people in the City, whom Opposition Members so despise but we realise are important to the British economy. That is by the by.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I did not quite catch what the hon. Gentleman said. I apologise that I was not here from the start of the debate, but I was watching from my office. Did he say that Opposition Members despise the City of London?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. I said in an intervention that I had been watching the debate from my office, and I apologised to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) for missing his speech. I congratulate him on bringing the Bill to the House. I will speak briefly, because I am in the Chamber principally to lead for the Opposition on the Humber Bridge Bill, which is next on the Order Paper, and which a number of colleagues are keen to get on to.

I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) described the attitude of Opposition Members towards the City of London as “hostile”. There is no doubt that some Opposition Members are hostile to the City, but they are not here tonight and I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the Front Bench as he is in favour of the Bill. I do so for several reasons. I acknowledge the contribution that the City makes to the UK economy. I am a constituency MP in the neighbouring borough of Tower Hamlets, and we benefit greatly from the generosity and support of the City. We appreciate the partnership with the Corporation of London. On a personal basis, as a member of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, I have had the honour of participating in a ceremony at which I was granted the freedom of the City, although it was pointed out that I do not have the right to drive my sheep across London bridge, were I to have any.

I am a great admirer of the traditions, history and heritage of the Corporation of London. I am pleased to support the Bill, which will now go into Committee. I am also pleased to correct the record in relation to what was said about Opposition Members earlier. I also hope that we will be able to deal with—

[Mr Chope]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Perhaps. That might be because the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse did not want to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the issue of pedicabs was raised when his party was in government and the House was considering the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill 2004-05 to 2007-08. I think that I am right in saying that he was a member of the Government at the time. On that occasion, the Government said:

“The clauses relating to pedicabs did not address the concerns the Government had about passenger safety. The clauses made no provision for any minimum standards to be applied to or for any checks to be carried out on pedicabs, their riders, or their operators, nor for any training to be required or for a registration to be refused, suspended or revoked. The Government pointed out that the registration of pedicabs under these clauses could be mistakenly viewed by the public as an endorsement of the vehicle's basic roadworthiness and the character of the rider.”

The then Government took the view that there was a serious problem that needed to be addressed and that the private legislation was not going far enough. Tonight, the Opposition seem to be taking the line that it is probably a good idea to withdraw even the proposals in this Bill relating to pedicabs.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

In my very brief comments, I said, as I did in my intervention on the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), that I was disappointed that the issue of pedicabs was not being addressed. There is a challenge here. Were pedicabs to be endorsed by the legislation, people might feel them to be safe, but were they to be scrutinised through the legislation, people would have every expectation that that would make them safe.

[Mr Chope]

I am trying to interpret what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know that he is probably walking a proverbial tightrope, but he seems to be saying that he would like the provisions on pedicabs to remain in the Bill and objects to their being taken out in Committee. Is that the right interpretation, or would he like the different interest groups, whether they be pedicab supporters or taxi drivers, to interpret his remarks as neutral?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I think that what I said was that we look forward to the Bill going into Committee so that we can look at these matters in some detail.

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Debate between Jim Fitzpatrick and Christopher Chope

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I do not know, but I think my hon. Friend is perhaps a bit harsh. I hope that all Conservatives in this Parliament, who were elected on that manifesto, are trying their hardest to ensure that its words are implemented. My hon. Friend is in the forefront of trying to achieve that objective.

We were also promised in an informal meeting of the Conservative parliamentary party that there were red lines around our policy on Europe in the coalition agreement. We therefore believed that the words that I have just read out would not only remain part of the Conservative party manifesto but be inherent in the coalition manifesto.

I do not want to go back over the European Union Bill because we had long discussions about it, but recent events have brought home to me the fact that the gradual erosion of our sovereignty remains a live issue. We had a debate on Wednesday evening, which is, in a sense, unfinished business, because the Division is deferred to next Wednesday, about the fact that the Government have decided to use section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 so that the Prime Minister can agree to amend article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union next weekend to establish a permanent stability mechanism for the euro.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made one of the most interesting interventions in that short debate when he asked:

“Would it not be more appropriate for an intergovernmental agreement to be reached among the member states of the eurozone, rather than have some change to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union?”

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe replied:

“It would have been possible for the member states of the eurozone to have come to such an intergovernmental agreement, but they chose not to do so.”

Surely if member states want to set up intergovernmental arrangements centred around the euro and the eurozone, they should be allowed to do so. There is no reason for the Government, controlled by Parliament, to be dragged into that process. It then became apparent that Parliament was being asked to give the Government authority to negotiate away some of our powers because it was thought sensible for us to be party to an unnecessary treaty amendment. If it is not necessary, why are we doing it? How is that consistent with what was said in our manifesto?

Later in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said:

“Should there be any suggestion of amending the draft decision at the European Council—there is no such suggestion from any quarter at present—”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 422-24.]

However, as I said, I was in Brussels for three days at the beginning of this week and I picked up a copy of European Voice, a newspaper that circulates there. An article on page seven, under the headline “MEPs confident of getting say on bail-out mechanism”, states:

“MEPs expressed optimism on…8 March that EU member states will accept their demands to link a permanent bail-out mechanism for the eurozone more closely to the EU institutions.”

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am curious about who publishes European Voice. Is it a paid periodical, something that the Commission publishes or something that circulates among MEPs?

[Mr Chope]

It may be all those—I do not know. However, I suspect that the people who ultimately pay for it are the hon. Gentleman and I through our taxes. Interestingly, on the same page, without comment or criticism, a paragraph states:

“MEPs vote to increase their own office allowances”

to €225 a year. Since that news item is included without any adverse comment, I suspect that the publication is associated with the European Parliament.