Health Service Commissioner for England (Complaint Handling) Bill

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Friday 27th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, after ‘Commissioner’ insert—

‘before the end of that period’.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘together with an estimate of the target date for completion of the investigation.’

Amendment 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘(b) The Commissioner shall subsequently keep the complainant informed, as far as reasonably practicable, as to the progress of the investigation.’

Amendment 5, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘( ) If the reason for the delay specified in Section 2HA is lack of financial resources it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to set out the action which is being taken to remedy that lack of financial resource’.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 15, leave out ‘, and’ and insert—

‘(ba) the reasons for each of those delays, and’.

European Parliament Elections Bill

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Friday 9th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

With the leave of the House, may I respond to the very encouraging words from my hon. Friend the Minister? It looks as though this is the revelation of a new part of the Conservative party manifesto. I certainly hope so. It is also good that we have so much support from the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), because if such a measure is going to make progress it is best that it does so on a cross-party basis. There is cross-party support for the idea of increasing voter engagement in elections, whether one is a Eurosceptic or a Europhile, as it is in the interests of democracy and of the European Union that there should be maximum participation in the elections to the European Parliament. I should have tabled the Bill much earlier in this Parliament, but I will take it away and hope that I see it reflected in the Conservative party manifesto.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. It has been brought to my attention that due to a misunderstanding the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) on the calendar of business for Friday 27 March for Second Reading of the Pavement Parking Bill did not appear on today’s Order Paper. I will therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to move his motion at the appropriate time, as I am reinstating it in the Order Paper after motion 5.

Tenancies (Reform) Bill

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Friday 28th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I was not trying to be mischievous.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Chope, I know that you were not trying to be mischievous and the Minister also knows that. We should put that on the record and you can proceed with your comments.

[Mr Chope]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Having heard the Minister say that a local authority “ought to” be able to do this in two months, I could not agree with him more, but my concern is what happens when a local authority does not do what Members think it ought to do. We have already heard many examples of areas in which local authorities are already falling down on their statutory duties. Nothing in the Bill sets out a timescale within which a local authority has to act in response to the requirements set out in the Bill. If the Minister thinks that two months is reasonable for the whole process, we should be able to incorporate that time scale in the Bill, perhaps through amendments in Committee. Perhaps such amendments will be tabled by the Government.

In each paragraph in clause 1(4), we should specify that the relevant local housing authority must decide within, say, two weeks. There are four parts to the process, so if the Minister thinks that two months is a reasonable time for those four activities, two weeks for each would equal eight weeks. Each of those decisions by the relevant housing authority would therefore have to be taken within the two-week period or be deemed to be a negative decision. That would be a necessary protection for the landlord and, if the tenant has a genuine concern, it would be an opportunity for him to be assured that if something is wrong in the house that he is occupying it can be put right in a reasonably short time. I would be happy to give way to the Minister if he thinks that my interpretation of the need for such an assurance to be included in the Bill is reasonable and the Government would be willing to take it on board to meet the concerns that I have expressed. I note that the Minister has not responded.

The hon. Member for Brent Central said—and I agree with her—that a heck of a lot of people are tenants in properties whose landlord is falling down on the responsibility to keep the property in good repair. Those responsibilities can already be enforced by the existing law, especially the provisions of the Housing Act 2004. That Act deals with the enforcement of housing standards. It defines two categories of hazard. In section 5, the local authority is under a statutory duty with regard to category 1 hazards. Under the title “Category 1 hazards: general duty to take enforcement action”, the Act states:

“If a local housing authority consider that a category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, they must take the appropriate enforcement action in relation to the hazard.”

For category 2 hazards, local authorities have the power to take enforcement action. We know that in many cases local authorities are not exercising those powers. That is par for the course and there is nothing that we can do about it.

We know also that in many areas local housing authorities are not exercising their statutory duties, which means that they are letting down the tenants whom they purport to want to assist. Because local authorities are failing to exercise their responsibilities, they are permitting—through their lack of intervention—a larger number of properties to be in disrepair than should be the case. That is unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Thornton, I am afraid that the rules, and fairness of debate, mean you at least have to stay to hear the answer from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), having put that point to him.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to you for trying to restore some decorum, Madam Deputy Speaker,. I know the hon. Gentleman is new and forgive him that, but he asked me if I would give way; I gave way to him, and then he took the opportunity to insult me. I do not mind: I have been insulted by Liberal Democrats before, and I am sure Liberal Democrats will continue to insult me in the future, but we should not engage in ad hominem arguments, neither should we ignore the fact that this Bill is controversial. It may be supported by 60 Members who are present today, but it is not supported by a lot of other people. I think it is important when considering legislation such as this that we think through the full implications, so that it does not result in a diminution of the private rented sector, as was the case when I first came into Parliament in 1983.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) is grateful for that clarification, but I would be grateful, Mr Chope, if we could return to debating this Bill and not other Bills. I know that you probably still have more to say.

Local Growth Deals

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I wonder whether we could make slightly faster progress, because many Members wish to speak and this statement will run to about a quarter to 6 in order to make room for today’s business. Short questions and short answers would be very helpful.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

What is in this announcement for Dorset, and will the Minister answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about how much money we could get if we abandoned HS2? If we did so, we would have a lot more money for these schemes.

Business of the House (2 December)

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. That depends on the debate staying in order. Its subjects are the length of the debate proposed—an hour and a half—and its timing, which, as Mr Chope has said, is next Monday.

[Mr Chope]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, I tried to limit my remarks to those two issues: the length of the debate and its timing next Monday. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Leader of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With respect, I would prefer the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) not to answer that point. The purpose of the debate is to discuss only the date and the allocation of time. Nothing else is relevant to the specifics that we are dealing with.

[Mr Chope]

I shall not answer my hon. Friend, but I invite him to intervene on me again.

[Mr Bone]

With regard to the date and time of the debate in question, why does my hon. Friend think so many Members will be present?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Because they are good Members of Parliament.

[Mr Chope]

Madam Deputy Speaker, the sooner you are able to participate fully in our debates, the better. I invite you to come down and join the throng.

Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Friday 13th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am rather surprised to see the hon. Gentleman standing. He has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate and he did not seek to speak before the Minister gave his response—in detail and at length—to the questions that were raised. As a member of the Panel of Chairs, the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the courtesies of the House, so I am sure he will agree with me that we should now give the concluding remarks to the Member who moved the Second Reading motion on this private Member’s Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) would not want to show any discourtesy to the House, would he?

[Mr Chope]

If you are inviting me to comment on what you just said—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am not inviting you, Mr Chope. My question was rhetorical in its nature. I am nudging you gently, as a member of the Panel, to agree with me that the courtesies of the House should stand.

[Mr Chope]

I did speak to you in your position in the Chair to indicate that I would seek to catch your eye in order to make a short contribution after the Minister had spoken. If you had said to me at that stage that you would not call me at this point, I would have sought to make my contribution earlier. I was here at the very beginning of the debate, and I have made a lot of interventions. I have been here for almost all of the Minister’s response. It is a matter for your discretion whether you call me to make a short contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall leave that with you. I put it on record that I would not wish any discourtesy to the House, even if I were not a member of the Panel of Chairs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Indeed, and I am sure that you would not wish any discourtesy to me as the occupant of the Chair by assuming that your notification that you intended to follow an unusual procedure would result in my consenting to that, because it does not. We all know the rules, don’t we Mr Chope? This is the last day, however, and if you will make only a very few comments—I shall be timing you, Mr Chope, and shall not hesitate to intervene—you may have a few minutes to make your contribution before I call Mr Lord. But this will be the one and only time that you will be able to do this.

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

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendments 2 to 9 and 20.

[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.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

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

[Mr Chope]

That was an unnecessarily impertinent and provocative intervention by my hon. Friend.

As we were deprived of a speech from the Minister on the last group of amendments on Report and because the Government abstained from the vote on clause 9, everybody is gagging to hear from the Minister what the Government’s approach is to the full contents of the Bill, now that it has been amended. When we reflect on what has happened this evening, we will inevitably regret that we did not hear from the Minister, who has been sitting in his place for the best part of three hours and who, from my recollection, has not uttered a word.

Park Homes (Site Owner Licensing)

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I just want to put down a marker. Not everybody in the House thinks that the solution to this problem, which the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) rightly identifies, is the one that he proposes.

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on mobile homes, I am well aware of the problems with park homes, particularly regarding their sale. Indeed, I introduced the Sale of Park Homes Bill, which sadly has not yet received a Second Reading. Not only that, but it has not even been printed, because I have been waiting until I have seen the consultation paper that the Government said they would publish last year. The Minister for Housing and Local Government is sitting on the Front Bench, and I hope that that consultation paper, which he has promised, will be published very soon. When it is, I anticipate that it will show that the solution—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Chope, are you speaking in opposition to the ten-minute rule Bill?

[Mr Chope]

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am speaking against the Bill because the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay does not have the right solution to the problem. He has identified a problem that exists in many hon. Members’ constituencies, but that does not mean that any legislation that purports to address it will deliver. That is why I am speaking against the Bill. I am putting down a marker on the Bill, but at the same time encouraging the Minister to produce the consultation paper.

My feeling is that the problem would be better addressed by focusing on the sale of park homes rather than by introducing an inevitably bureaucratic and heavy-handed licensing system. As the hon. Gentleman said, a very large proportion of park home site owners are reasonable and supported by local residents. Why should those good park home site owners be put through that hoop? Why should they have an extra bureaucratic burden placed upon them, which ultimately must be paid for by the hard-pressed residents to whom he referred?

I suggest that, like many ideas that come before the House, this idea would mean introducing disproportionate and heavy-handed regulation to address a problem. How would the idea of a fit and proper person test, which is at the core of the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, work in practice? Are we saying that only people with criminal records would be excluded from becoming park home site owners, or would exclusion be extended more widely? How will we deal with corporate bodies and companies? We know that many rogue directors run companies up and down the country. How would we deal with them? Would his solution of a fit and proper person test address that?

I am urging on the hon. Gentleman the idea that there might be better ways to address the problem than having the knee-jerk reaction of saying, “Let’s have more regulation, and a new fit and proper person test that everybody must go through.” In my submission, that test has not been properly analysed. I shall not press the motion to a Division tonight, but the Bill might be printed, and then he might see that the consultation paper has a better solution, along the lines I have suggested. That could be the way forward.

I will not speak any longer, because there is a lot of pressure on the time of the House, but I thought it would be wrong to allow this proposal to go through on the nod just because everybody agrees that there is a problem to be addressed. Hon. Members must be assured in their own minds that the solution proposed is the right one.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Stephen Gilbert, Mr Robert Buckland, Andrew George, Stephen Lloyd, Tessa Munt, Sheryll Murray, Caroline Nokes, Dan Rogerson, Mr Adrian Sanders, Heather Wheeler, Dr Sarah Wollaston and Gordon Banks present the Bill.

Stephen Gilbert accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed (Bill 268).

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With the leave of the House—[Interruption.] I know it is exciting, Mr Percy, being a Teller, but perhaps if Members took their seats it would make the business easier. With the leave of the House we will take amendments 10 to 12 and 14 together.

Amendments made: 10 to 12 and 14.—(Mr Chope.)

Clause 5

Street litter control notices

[Mr Chope]

I beg to move amendment 15.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to consider amendments 16 to 20, 3 and 4.

[Mr Chope]

It is a great pleasure to speak to this group of amendments. The lead amendment would remove clause 5 from the Bill and I tabled it because the clause extends significantly the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to street litter. It offends against the principle that we were discussing on the previous group of amendments by making this extension apply merely in Greater London, rather than across the country as a whole. It is implicit in the fact that this is being brought forward in a private Bill that the Government would not support such an extension across the whole country. My argument is that in a unitary state we should have the same laws on street litter control in London as apply in the rest of the country.

The effect of clause 5 is summarised on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, which states:

“Street litter control notices are notices served under section 93 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They can be served by the principal litter authority (in London, the borough council) imposing requirements on occupiers of premises with a view to the prevention of accumulations of litter or refuse in and around any street or open land adjacent to any street. Under section 94 of the 1990 Act, the Secretary of State is given power to prescribe the descriptions of commercial or retail premises in respect of which a street litter control notice may be issued, amongst other things.”

The 1990 Act deals with commercial or retail premises. It gives the power to the Secretary of State to prescribe the descriptions of commercial or retail premises—in other words, to limit the application so that it extends not to all commercial or retail premises, but only to some of them. The effect of clause 5 would be to extend the type of premises that the Secretary of State can prescribe under section 94 so that it includes all premises in Greater London, except for what are described as dwellings, which most of us would call houses. This will bring into the scope of the street litter control notice procedures public buildings and other buildings that are not commercial or retail premises.

This sweeping power was brought in to deal with the problem that many of us experience with premises occupied by takeaway food shops. For example, people go into the takeaway food shop, collect their food in a container, then think it best to deposit their container on the public highway or on the pavement after they have consumed its contents, and sometimes before they have consumed all of its contents. That causes a nuisance.

Similarly, where there are retail banking premises with cash tills, people often ask for a receipt, take their money, and as soon as the receipt is issued, they throw it on to the ground. That is the sort of litter nuisance which the existing provisions of the Environmental Protection Act are designed to address.

What has obviously come to the notice of the officers of Westminster city council and other councils in London is that people sometimes hang around in the porches of offices smoking, because they are not allowed to smoke inside the offices. It is said that as a result of that, enormously increased powers are needed under the provisions of clause 5 in order to extend to every single building in London, other than a dwelling, the ability of the council to impose a litter requirement on the occupiers of those premises. That could involve them having to regularly sweep or maintain areas well beyond their own premises, in effect duplicating the role of the public street sweeper.

It seems that this, like so much in the Bill, is a sweeping provision to deal with what is, according to any view, a relatively small issue. If people stand outside a building to smoke and deposit their litter on the street, they are already guilty of an offence that can be enforced, but if the litter falls on private land it is the responsibility of the owner of the land to clear up the detritus and debris. Sensibly, containers are often provided outside buildings so that people can stub out their cigarettes and throw away their fag packets. I am not a smoker, but I know that that is what happens in the designated smoking area on Speaker’s Green, where people working on the premises can put their smoking litter in a receptacle.

Considering the pretext set out in the Bill’s preamble, one wonders why this enormously wide power is being taken. If this is a problem in London, it is obviously not unique to the city and applies in every town and city across the land. Many people think that the councils have a hidden agenda to transfer responsibility for cleaning public highways to adjacent landowners. For example, almost every office on Victoria street could have a litter control notice issued to it, the consequence of which would be that their owners would have collective responsibility for cleaning the pavement along the entire length of the street. That would be true of almost every street in central London, which on the whole are occupied by commercial premises and Government buildings, rather than residential accommodation.

There is a concern that this provision is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is far too extensive. Indeed, one of the petitions initially put forward against the Bill noted the objections of the society of theatre managers, which could see that it was effectively another stealth tax on their activities. People leaving the theatre might drop their tickets or cigarette butts, but that is not the fault of the theatre. If those people drop their litter, surely it should be the responsibility of the local authority to collect it as part of its normal street sweeping exercises.

A large number of people are very concerned about Westminster city council’s plans to raise vast sums of additional income by extending on-street parking restrictions until midnight on weekdays and introducing them for the first time on Sundays. The council’s income will increase significantly, yet this provision in the Bill allows the council the opportunity to absolve itself of responsibility for keeping the streets clean and to pass the cost of doing so on to office owners. There is a complete difference between a takeaway food shop, which makes its profits out of giving customers food in packages that they can take out of the shop and dispose of, and an office or public building, where people congregate outside the front door to have a discussion over a cigarette.

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Before I call the Minister, I wish to inform the House of an issue that will need to be dealt with. I understand that amendments to the Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on Tuesday evening did not appear on the amendment paper. The reasons for this, which are currently unknown, are being urgently investigated. As this oversight has been discovered at such a late stage, I do not consider it appropriate to select the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. However, he can be confident that he will be able to raise his substantive concerns about the Bill during this afternoon’s proceedings.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that statement, human error has obviously intervened in the matter, and it is the first time in 28 years—since I was first elected—that amendments which I have tabled have not been translated on to the amendment paper. It is a pity that I was on parliamentary business abroad yesterday and did not realise that there was a problem until first thing this morning, but I am happy that we will be able to discuss at least the substance of my amendments under the debate on new clause 2. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for making that indication.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his co-operation, but as he has said, although this is a very rare occurrence, it is none the less of a nature that needs to be taken seriously and urgently investigated, and I am sure that the Table Office will inform him of exactly why it occurred.

New Clause 1

Goods vehicle operator licences

After section 16D of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, insert—

“16E Goods vehicle operator licences: waiver of procedural requirements

(1) This section applies in a case where, on an application to vary an operator’s licence under section 17 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”), a traffic commissioner is satisfied that—

(a) the variation applied for has a connection with the London Olympics,

(b) there would not, but for this section, be sufficient time to dispose of the application before the beginning of the London Olympics period, and

(c) the circumstances in which the application is being made are such that, but for this section, it could not have been made in sufficient time to be disposed of before the beginning of that period.

(2) The traffic commissioner may direct—

(a) that subsection (3) is to apply in relation to the application, and

(b) if the traffic commissioner proposes to hold an inquiry under section 35 of the 1995 Act in relation to the application, that subsection (4) is to apply in relation to the inquiry.

(3) If the traffic commissioner gives the direction under subsection (2)(a), the following provisions of the 1995 Act do not apply in relation to the application—

(a) section 17(3) (publication of notice by traffic commissioner);

(b) section 18 (publication of notice by operator).

(4) If the traffic commissioner gives the direction under subsection (2)(b), Schedule 4 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/2869), in its application to the inquiry, has effect as if for sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 there were substituted—

(3) The traffic commissioner may abridge the periods referred to in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2).”

(5) Section 23 of the 1995 Act (conditions as to use of operating centres) applies in relation to the licence as if the application were an application of which notice has been published under section 17(3) of that Act.

(6) Such variations as are made to the licence on the application, including by the attachment of conditions under section 21 or 23 of the 1995 Act (road safety and operating centres), have effect only during the London Olympics period.

(7) Subsection (3)(a) does not affect the liability incurred in respect of the application under regulation 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) (Fees) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/3000) (which requires payment of a fee on an application for variation for which publication is required by section 17(3) of the 1995 Act).

(8) The power to give a direction under subsection (2) includes power to vary or revoke the direction.

(9) In exercising functions under this section, the traffic commissioner must act under the general directions of, and have regard to guidance given by, the senior traffic commissioner.

(10) In this section, “operator’s licence” has the same meaning as in the 1995 Act (see section 2(1) of that Act).”’.—(Hugh Robertson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Committee on Members’ Allowances

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Does the Minister accept that, if those fears had been allayed, my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) would not have had to table the amendments that are being debated today? How is what he has just said consistent with the Government’s action yesterday in withdrawing from the business of the Committee of Selection the appointment of the members of this Committee? Finally, may I ask my hon. Friend why the opportunity for a short, five-minute debate was not taken—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. I must also tell him that we are discussing motions 9 and 10 together, and that no amendments have been moved.

Volunteering Bill

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Friday 10th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I will explain to hon. Members why it is necessary to face the Chair. The rule of the House is that when the Speaker or Deputy Speaker is on his or her feet, no other Member will stand. If a Member has their back to me, they will not see whether I am standing. It has been some time now—let us try to ensure we get it right.

[Mr Chope]

Perhaps it is my fault, Madam Deputy Speaker, for sitting right at the back so that others have to turn around. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the interest that the debate is generating among my hon. Friends.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of responsibility. The Minister for Equalities, who has been dealing with the Protection of Freedoms Bill in Committee, has made it clear on a number of occasions that the ticking of boxes cannot be a substitute for people taking responsibility for their charges or for volunteers who should be under their supervision and control, and whom they are responsible for recruiting.

Why have we suddenly got into the situation whereby it is thought necessary to have a Criminal Records Bureau check for tens or hundreds of thousands of volunteers? I examined the coalition agreement after the general election and saw that we were promised the Protection of Freedoms Bill. That has now come forward, but I am not sure that it goes far enough in introducing simplicity and common sense. There is a lot of talk about common sense and, indeed, “A Common Sense Approach” is the title of the report carried out for the Government by Sunita Mason, the independent adviser for criminality information management, on the impact of the vetting and barring system on volunteering and other activity. She recognised that there was far too heavy a hand in relation to all this, but I am not sure that the solutions that the Government have come up with in their Bill are not still unnecessarily complex.

We know that 95% of people who have CRB checks are cleared. An individual knows whether they have a criminal record, so they should be quite capable of signing a declaration of whether they do. If they do not, and they sign a declaration to that effect, on the face of it that should be sufficient evidence that they are a fit and proper person to engage in volunteering activity.

Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Bill

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Friday 19th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. When Members make interventions, could they please face the Chair because it is sometimes difficult for me to hear what is being said? It is not a private conversation between two Members; it needs to be recorded for Hansard.

[Mr Chope]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a result of where some hon. Members are sitting, it may sometimes seem as though we are a cosy cabal, but we are not. We are trying to address our remarks to the wider world, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) made an excellent point, which he also raised in his speech.

Under clause 3,

“The authority must consider how it might promote or improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of the relevant area”.

I am glad that that will not be defined because it should be left to the individual procurers. I am not so sure about the requirement in subsection (4):

“The authority must consider whether to consult the persons (if any) for whom the authority is making provision in the exercise of that function.”

Again, there is no requirement that authorities should consult—they only have to consider whether to do that. However, that could be important.

Parliament (Amendment)

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

As I understand it, I am not able to give way during a ten-minute rule Bill. I am supposed to have 10 minutes, but I keep looking at the clock wondering how many minutes have expired—[Interruption.] Five minutes—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s 10 minutes will be up at 5.27 pm.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that a number of Members will not be able to reach that moment soon enough. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Let us be clear: Ministers come with a high price tag. Lord Turnbull told the Public Administration Select Committee earlier this year that the average cost of a Minister was £500,000 a year. That is not his salary, but the costs of the private secretary, the office and all the rest that goes with it. Despite being committed to making savage cuts in public expenditure, however, the Government are in denial of the increased costs that the Government have incurred by increasing the number of Ministers.

On 18 October, I asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he would

“estimate the annual cost to the public purse of the change in the number of Ministers and Whips drawn from the House of Commons since the dissolution of the previous Parliament.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 516W.]

I expected an answer along the lines of, “We reckon there are five extra Ministers, as a result of which, with each costing about £500,000, it works out at about £2.5 million”. In fact—this is on the record—my right hon. Friend did not answer the question at all. He avoided it completely and talked about how Ministers had taken a pay cut. That was not the question I put to him. I use that as evidence that even at the centre of this Government—in the Cabinet Office itself—they do not want to face up to the consequences of their own actions.

Another part of my Bill deals with the number of peers in the House of Lords: currently, there are 777. Since the general election, 56 new appointments have been made, and another 50 are proposed to be recruited imminently, with further additions proposed to comply with the coalition’s commitment to have the same proportion of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords as the proportion who voted for those parties in the general election. According to the maths that I have done on the back of an envelope, to get a proportion of 59% of the 777, an extra 186 peers would have to be appointed, bringing the total to 963. If there was no reduction in the number of Labour Members, to produce 59% of the higher figure of 963 we would have to produce the best part of another 100 peers. In the short term, therefore, it seems to be coalition Government policy to increase the number of Members of the House of Lords by no fewer than 250, which is absolute lunacy. Meanwhile, contrary to all the representations made by various Committees of the House, the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries is 32 and rising. Over the years, many people have suggested that there should be no more than one PPS per Department, but the Government have ignored all that.

The Bill is a framework Bill. Similar Bills have been put before the House previously, and I go forward confident in the knowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) and Mr Speaker himself have argued a similar case to that which I advance today. I have 12 supporters for the Bill, and following last night’s debate I could have accommodated more, but the rules of the House prevent me from having more than 12. I am grateful to all my hon. Friends who have offered to support my Bill but who cannot be included in the 12 —the Bill will have many more supporters in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Graham Brady, Mr Richard Shepherd, Mrs Eleanor Laing, Mr Mark Field, Mr Andrew Turner, Mr Robert Syms, Martin Vickers, Mr Philip Hollobone, Graham Stringer, Tristram Hunt and Mr Charles Walker present the Bill.

Mr Christopher Chope accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 March and to be printed (Bill 97).

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A proposal that has not yet been tabled in an amendment or a new clause, but perhaps could be tabled on Report or in the other place, is for a sunset clause, in order to see how the new number works in practice, rather than allowing it to go on indefinitely. He may be interested in proposing such a sunset clause—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Shall we concentrate on what is actually in the Bill—in particular, the issue of the number of MPs—and not on what might occur in the future?

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, Ms Primarolo. I am sorry that I got slightly carried away, as a result of that intervention, in anticipating what might happen in the future.

I tabled my amendment for discussion because in the general election we promised that there would be 585 MPs, because we needed that number and it would reduce the costs of Parliament, but we are now proposing 600. That means that the costs will be reduced by less than they would have been had we opted for 585. Given what we have heard today, it appears that when the books were opened they were even worse than the worst fears of my right hon. Friends in the Government. Surely it is inconsistent with the spending decisions taken today to row back from a figure of 585 to one of 600. That gives credence to the charge made against the coalition Government that, although 600 is an arbitrary figure, it is not quite as arbitrary as we might be led to believe, because it is based on some private work that has been done suggesting that it might be to the advantage of the coalition partners, rather than the Labour party.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) intervenes, may I remind the Committee that we are not discussing AV versus first past the post? We are debating a particular form in this amendment, and we are now drifting away from that a little. Perhaps we could come back to it.

[Mr Chope]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

I refer the Committee to the evidence submitted to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee by Professor Patrick Dunleavy in the 14th written submission on page 205 in the third report on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. In his important paper, he asks what the alternative vote means. Were the Bill to pass, and were there to be a referendum in which the question on the alternative vote appeared on the ballot paper, many members of the public would ask precisely that question: what does the alternative vote mean?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. That might be in people’s minds, or it might not, but the hon. Gentleman must come back to his amendment, which covers a particular version of the system. I would be grateful if he would stay focused on that point; it is quite a narrow one.

[Mr Chope]

It is indeed.

The effect of my amendment would be to adopt the system that Professor Dunleavy describes as London AV, rather than the three alternatives—classic AV, Australian AV and London AV—also set out in his document. The amendment has obviously been selected for debate because Mr Speaker recognised that there is more than one system of alternative votes. The system that I am describing can be described as the supplementary vote system, but there is also one known as the Australian system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I cannot change my amendment at this stage, and I am not sure that an amendment dealing with AV-plus would have been selected. If the hon. Gentleman wanted an AV-plus amendment, he could have—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. We are not discussing AV-plus. Can we get back to the amendment? We have a lot of business to get through over the next two days, so I would be grateful if all hon. Members—in their interventions as well as their speeches—focused their comments on the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. The Minister is addressing very clearly a number of complex points, and I realise that he is looking behind him because he wants to be as helpful as possible, but we need him to face forward so that Members in all parts of the Chamber can hear his comments.