Tributes to the Speaker

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). In so doing, may I thank her for her exemplary public service over so many years?

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) referred to career advice. I can remember, Mr Speaker, that you once asked me, at one of these meetings of potential Conservative candidates, whether I could give you some advice as to how you might become a proper parliamentary candidate selected in a constituency. The advice I gave you, which you followed, was that you should get married. That just reminds us, does it not, of how times have changed?

You and I have been friends for many years. I had the privilege of nominating you for the Conservative party candidates list at a time when our views were very similar. Indeed, one of your qualifications then was that you regarded, as did I, Enoch Powell as a schoolboy hero. I think that in more recent weeks, you have been following the advice that Enoch gave. I had the privilege of serving with him on the—[Interruption.] Yes, back in 1984 this was. Enoch Powell was on the Procedure Committee, and he gave advice to us that, in the absence of a written constitution, the procedures of the House are our constitution. That is something that you have taken very much to heart over recent weeks and months, Mr Speaker. I hope that nothing that has happened in that period will cause pressure to build for a written constitution, because that would deprive us of those flexibilities.

You have obviously been a really good servant for Back Benchers. You have also always had your finger on the pulse. I will give just one example of that. Back in 2010, after the coalition Government were elected, there was an announcement that the Government were going to bring in a measure which had not been in the manifestos of either of the two coalition parties: to change the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister to call a general election. You, with your finger on the pulse, chose me to secure the first Adjournment debate of that Parliament on the subject of the Dissolution of Parliament. The debate, which I think went on for about an hour and a half, was an opportunity for new Members and old to hold the Government to account for their extraordinary announcement, which at that stage was for a threshold of 55% in order to trigger an election. We asked questions such as, “55% of what?” On that occasion, Mr Speaker, you showed your perspicacity regarding which issues were going to be—and indeed still are—important.

You were fantastic, Mr Speaker, when we had the presidency of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. You went out of your way to impress our colleagues across the other 46 countries that belong to the Parliamentary Assembly, and then you stood up for those of us in this House who found ourselves being arbitrarily removed from membership of the Parliamentary Assembly because we had had the temerity to vote against the Government’s attempts to try to rig the referendum by suspending the rules of purdah. Your intervention caused the Government to be put into the naughty corner. As a result, a few years later, those of us who had been removed from the Parliamentary Assembly were reinstated. I thank you for that and for your fantastic service to this place and to democracy over so many years.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. I really appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have known each other for 35 years and I richly appreciate his words.

Standards

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I had not intended to participate in the debate, but I am a member of the current Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) will recognise, serving on the Standards Committee is one of the less pleasant responsibilities that falls to Members, but that is the position I have been in for quite a long time. I can recall a time when we passed sentence, in a sense, on my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), saying that she should make an apology to the House. I was in the House when she made her apology, and I recall the sense of outrage that her apology was not as full as some people might have wished. As a result, she suffered additional penalties in her constituency—it was a long time ago and I am sure that has all been forgiven.

In that context, when I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) reading out what is on the website of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), it filled me with horror, because it is totally contradictory to the findings of the Committee. What does not come across in a report such as this is the detail that has been gone into by the members of the Committee—including lay-members, who do it for love, really—the commissioner and her predecessor. An enormous amount of work has gone into this, and we reached a conclusion:

“We are satisfied from the evidence we have considered that Mr Vaz did on 27 August 2016 offer to procure and pay for illegal drugs for use by a third party.”

Paragraph 54 states:

“On the basis of the evidence supplied by the audio-recording and the transcript, we reach the following conclusions germane to the Commissioner’s findings…that Mr Vaz’s explanation of the incident on 27 August 2016 is not believable…that on this occasion Mr Vaz expressed a willingness to procure a Class A drug, cocaine, for the use of another person…that on this occasion Mr Vaz engaged in paid-for sex. We consider that the evidence supporting these conclusions is compelling.”

On that basis, I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) in asking whether it would be reasonable, if the right hon. Gentleman is returned following the next general election, for the Standards Committee to revisit this issue, having regard to what is on the website now. I commend the work of the Standards Committee and particularly that of its Chair, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), but it seems to me that what is on the website is designed to bring the work of the Standards Committee into disrepute.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has expressed himself with his customary courtesy. I think that the answer to that question—I am looking plaintively in the direction of the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—is that that is a matter for the Committee. It would be quite wrong for me to seek to influence it any way, and I do not do so. It is absolutely not a matter for me or, indeed, for any occupant of the Chair. It is, I think, a matter for the Committee. I say this by way of explanation and attempted intelligibility to observers: the Committee has authority in this matter and, if you will, ownership of it. Committees are in charge of their own inquiries. It would be a matter for the Committee, but obviously not in this Parliament. That is the best way to leave it.

Obviously, although I heard the recital—I do not use the term “recital” in any disobliging sense—by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) of what was on the website, it is not something that I have studied, and I hope people will understand that it is not something that the Speaker would have studied. There is no reason to expect that I would have done so. It is a matter for the Committee. It has a range of sanctions available to it, and it makes the judgment as to which sanction or set of sanctions it wishes to recommend to the House. If, for whatever reason, the Committee does not recommend an apology, an apology is not required. If, on the other hand, it does, it might be. A very different matter was recently brought to my attention in relation to a non-Member and the allocation of a pass, and I had to point out that there was not an unpurged contempt. A person had behaved badly and been criticised, but he had not failed to apologise when instructed to do so. For whatever reason, he had not been instructed to do so and was therefore not required to do so. My understanding is that that is the case in this instance. Whether that is the right thing or the wrong thing is a matter for the Committee.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is not for me to advise people on their travel plans, but I take seriously what the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has just said on that extremely important matter, about which not merely thousands or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands or, indeed, millions of people feel very strongly. If people who may not have regular interaction with or cause to pay visits to the House intend to visit the House, it would be most unfortunate if they were inconvenienced and disadvantaged with very little notice and without explanation, let alone apology. I cannot think that that conduces to the better reputation of the House. People will have to make their own judgment about whether to come, and the hon. Gentleman will doubtless offer them his advice, but I think I have given colleagues an indication of my unhappiness with the procedure that has been adopted by representatives of the Executive branch. I will bear colleagues’ concerns in mind in ruling on this matter on Monday.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you think that this issue should be referred to the Procedure Committee? It always used to be a convention that we had decent notice of business. That convention has been in a sense undermined by, for example, the recent practice of debates following applications under Standing Order No. 24 taking place immediately after the application has been granted, rather than on the following day, which gives people notice. We have some dangerous precedents for business being changed at short notice to the detriment of Members of this House and to members of the public who might want to attend our proceedings. If the matter was referred to the Procedure Committee, it may be able to recommend some tightening of Standing Orders so that this sort of situation did not arise again.

While I am on my feet, it looks as though, from what the Leader of the House said in his point of order, a motion has been put down for Monday under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but it will not fall under section 1(1)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. The motions we debated today covered two different Acts and two different provisions, but I understand that the motion down for debate on Monday relates only to the 2018 Act, so it seems—I hope that you will be able to consider this over the weekend—that it cannot be regarded as the same issue that we dealt with today. I hope that you will be able to take such matters into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I certainly will reflect on that point and the other points that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I take his points in the constructive spirit in which he has made them. He speaks as someone who has of course been a distinguished ornament of the Procedure Committee over a period. Is the hon. Gentleman currently gracing the Committee with his presence?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Yes. If you can put it that way, I am, and I can say that I first had the privilege of joining the Procedure Committee back in 1984, when it was graced with the presence of the right hon. Enoch Powell and many other distinguished Members of this place.

[Mr Speaker]

I know quite a lot of things about the hon. Gentleman, but I did not know that. I am now better informed, so I recognise that his service on that Committee dates back a long way.

I take very seriously what the hon. Gentleman says, and I accept the point he makes about the unpredictability spawned by the, in my view, justified decisions in relation to Standing Order No. 24 applications for debates. Nevertheless, it is a fact that that has inevitably produced a degree of unpredictability in the business.

The only point I would make, and which I think is fair to make in this context, is that when we are dealing with applications under Standing Order No. 24, there is an established process provided for by the Standing Orders, and it is understood by colleagues that an application can be heard only if the Speaker agrees to hear it, and can therefore proceed, if the Speaker hears and approves it, only if the requisite threshold of support has been attained in the House.

By contrast, in this particular case, a representative of the Executive is seeking to change the business not on the basis of a voted-for proposition but on the basis of what some people might regard as an act of Executive fiat. That does seem to me to put it in a somewhat different and perhaps inferior category.

Climate Change (Net Zero UK Carbon Account)

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I think it is important that an alternative point of view should be expressed in this short debate, and that is what I intend to do.

I was one of the Members of this House who voted against the 2008 Climate Change Bill on Third Reading, and I have no regrets whatsoever about having done so. Indeed, the line that those of us who voted against that Bill took has been endorsed in a very important report, issued last year to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the Climate Change Act 2008, in which it was described by Rupert Darwall as

“History’s most expensive virtue signal”.

That was obviously an expensive virtue signal, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) is proposing would be an even more expensive and extravagant virtue signal. [Interruption.] It would be well to remind my hon. Friends—some of them are right honourable—of somebody whom I think they held in high esteem. In 2011, the former Member for Tatton the right hon. George Osborne told the Conservative party conference:

“We’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business. So let’s at the very least resolve that we’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.”

At the 2017 election, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends were elected, as I was, on the basis of a Conservative party manifesto that promised there would be an inquiry into energy costs. Soon after the election, that inquiry was set up under the auspices of the Government, and the inquiry—the cost of energy review—was carried out by the distinguished Oxford energy economist Dieter Helm. I find it extraordinary that my hon. Friend made no reference whatsoever in his introductory remarks to the contents of the Helm report, let alone to its conclusions.

Dieter Helm supports, as I do, the objective of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but his overall verdict is one of the most damning to be found in any official report on any Government policy in any field. He concluded that continuing with current policy would perpetuate the crisis mentality of energy sector crises, which, he says, are likely to worsen. The report states that this is

“challenging the security of supply, undermining the transition to electric transport, and weakening the delivery of the carbon budgets. It will continue the unnecessary high costs of the British energy system, and as a result perpetuate fuel poverty, weaken industrial competitiveness, and undermine public support for decarbonisation.”

It is extraordinary that although the Government commissioned that report, they have in effect never responded to Professor Helm’s conclusions. It is almost as though there is a collective state of denial about all this. That is why I think it important, before we engage in any more expenditure on virtue signalling, to pause for a moment and think about the need to carry out proper cost-benefit analyses before we implement changes in legislation.

Nothing my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks spelled out the specific benefits that will accrue to people in the United Kingdom, as against elsewhere, as a result of this extraordinary act of self-indulgence, whereby we will unilaterally condemn our economy to problems that no other economy is prepared to suffer. He has not set out at all where the benefits will come from, so we have had neither the costs nor the benefits set out. That is exactly one of the problems there was with the climate change legislation in 2008.

I recognise that I may be in a minority in this House in articulating this view, as indeed I was in 2008, when a number of us voted against the primary legislation, but however emotionally charged this issue is, I do not believe we should ignore our responsibility as legislators to look in a hard-headed way at the costs and benefits that will accrue to our country. I am not going to seek to divide the House on this issue today, because—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is very discourteous for Members to witter away from a sedentary position when another point of view is being expressed. The hon. Gentleman might not wish to test the will of the House, but if he wished to do so he would be at liberty so to do. He is entitled to make his speech and to be treated with courtesy by everybody, so those who are not behaving with courtesy ought to reconsider their behaviour.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to you for that intervention, Mr Speaker. I am sure that none of my colleagues needs to be given lessons in how to conduct themselves in this Chamber, because I know that at heart they are all very polite people, but sometimes their emotions get the better of them. I fear that that is what has been happening today.

The reason why I will not seek to divide the House today is that, as a matter of principle, I believe that anybody who wishes to bring in a private Member’s Bill should be free so to do. They should not expect that Bill to go through on the nod when presented to the House, but I see no reason why we should not allow people to bring in private Members’ Bills, and that is what the motion seeks to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham seeks the leave of the House to bring in his Bill, and I certainly do not wish to deny him that right.

While I am speaking, I should like to remind the Government of something. Perhaps this is going to be a Parliament of only one Session, which could go on for two, three, four or five years, but let us remember that during each Session of Parliament, a proportionate number of days should be given over to private Members’ Bills. By extending this Session, seemingly indefinitely, the Government should be under a duty to provide more days on which we can debate the sort of measures that my hon. Friend has brought before the House today. As things stand, his Bill will not be able to be debated in this Session because no other days have been set down for private Members’ business.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Alex Chalk, supported by Zac Goldsmith, Rebecca Pow, Mr Simon Clarke, Richard Benyon, Vicky Ford, Kevin Hollinrake, Sarah Newton, Paul Masterton, Jenny Chapman, Helen Goodman and Tonia Antoniazzi present the Bill.

Alex Chalk accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 384).

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is indeed a valid observation. The hon. Gentleman is right as far as today is concerned. To be fair, I do not think I was—and I do not think the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) would suggest this—signalling that the matter could be aired by the mechanism either of an urgent question or a statement today, but of course there is always the possibility of subsequent days.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) in relation to Hillsborough, Mr Speaker. May I put it on record that the gentleman in question is one of my constituents, and this will be the second occasion on which he has faced a long trial that has not resulted in any verdict and has resulted in the jury being discharged? I hope that will be taken into account if anybody thinks it reasonable for such a person to be put through a third trial.

[Mr Speaker]

I rather imagine the point the hon. Gentleman has made on behalf of his constituent will be heard in the appropriate quarters. If he is concerned that it might not be, it is always possible for him to send the Official Report to those whom he believes need to read his words in it. I think we will leave it there for now, but I thank him; he has raised a serious point of a legal character, and he is representing his constituent, and I respect that.

I remind the House that under the Order of the House of 1 April I must interrupt any proceedings at 2 pm, when I will call a Member to move the business of the House motion. I therefore intend to bring proceedings on the statement to a close at approximately 1.45 pm to allow time for the presentation of the Bill and the ten-minute rule motion.

EU Exit Day Amendment

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister made light of my intervention, in which I expressly drew the attention of the House to what we had been told on Friday during an urgent question by a Minister of the Crown from his Department. If what was said then is wrong, when are we going to get an official correction and apology from the Government, because those of us who were in the House on Friday were certainly gravely misled by what was said?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Obviously I well remember the exchanges, and I am aware of the particular interaction to which he is referring. The normal principle applies: every Member is responsible for the veracity of what he or she says in this Chamber. If a Member inadvertently errs, it is incumbent upon that Member to correct the record. The Minister, perfectly reasonably, said that he had not seen what was said. However, it is not beyond the wit and sagacity of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) to arrange for a copy of the extract from the Official Report to wing its way to the Dispatch Box during the course of this consideration, and the Minister might then be in a position further to respond to him.

Speaker’s Statement: New Zealand Terror Attacks

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Friday 15th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

This poisonous barbarity will not prevail; I think we are all clear about that. I deeply appreciate the words of the Minister and the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). In saying what they have said, and doing so in the way in which they have, they have spoken for millions—if not hundreds of millions—of people around the world. I think colleagues will understand that there is a particular piquancy about me calling the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope).

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I, on my behalf and that of my constituents, express our sympathy and solidarity with the citizens of our twinned city of Christchurch in New Zealand? This grotesque manifestation of religious hatred is beyond comprehension, but as the Minister intimated, it requires us all to redouble our efforts to promote the virtues of tolerance and religious freedom as the best weapons against the outrage of terror.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It seems entirely reasonable for me to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I would like to reflect on that matter. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Order. Members cavil as though there is an assumption that there should be immediate and comprehensive knowledge of all circumstances that might subsequently unfold. It may be that there are Members who feel they possess such great wisdom and, if so, I congratulate them upon the fact. I do not claim that wisdom, so I am giving what I absolutely admit is a holding answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I will reflect on the point, but if he is asking whether I think it is unreasonable that people might seek to amend a Business of the House motion, I do not think it is unreasonable. If, in future, Back Benchers were to seek to do so, it would seem sensible to me to say, “Let us look at the merits of the case.”

Finally, in attempting to respond not only to the right hon. Gentleman but to some of the concerns that have been expressed, I understand the importance of precedent, but precedent does not completely bind, for one very simple reason. [Interruption.] I say this for the benefit of the Leader of the House, who is shaking her head. If we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change. Things do change. I have made an honest judgment. If people want to vote against the amendment, they can; and if they want to vote for it, they can.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I remind the House that, further to what you have just said, it was because of your courage in allowing an amendment to a Loyal Address, which enabled a referendum test to be applied in this House, that we had the referendum in due course and we are where we are? Let nobody suggest that you, by your actions, have been undermining Brexit. It would seem to me to be an absolute own goal for this House if we started undermining your position in the Chair. As an independently-minded Government Back Bencher, I strongly resent the fact that the Government pairing Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is on the right-hand side of your Chair, has been trying to orchestrate objections to your decision.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. So far as his last remark was concerned, I think I can cope with that. Government Whips going about their business in their own way is something to which the Chair is very well and long accustomed. The notion that a Government Whip might now and again do things that are unhelpful to the Chair is not entirely novel. I have broad shoulders and I am not going to lose any sleep over that—never have done, am not doing so and never will.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy and his sense of fairness. He recalls the record accurately: I did indeed select an additional amendment to the Humble Address, if memory services me correctly, in 2013, and that was in the name of Mr John Baron. That amendment was on the subject of a referendum on British membership of the European Union, so what the hon. Gentleman says is true.

The fact is that there is a responsibility on the Chair to do their best to stand up for the rights of the House of Commons, including the views of dissenters on the Government Benches—that is to say, independent-minded souls who do not always go with the Whip—and to defend the rights of Opposition parties and very small parties, as well. I have always sought to do that, and on the Brexit issue, as on every issue, what the record shows, if I may say so—and I will—is that this Chair, on a very, very, very big scale, calls Members from across the House with a very large variety of opinions. Ordinarily, as colleagues will acknowledge, when statements are made to the House, my practice, almost invariably, is to call each and every Member, whether the Government like it or not. That is not because I am setting myself up against the Government, but because I am championing the rights of the House of Commons.

Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree with the potential deterrent role that legislation can have, but I would use a different analogy. There is a general law against driving without due care and attention, but due to the incidence of and public concern about people driving while using mobile phones, which was and is, strictly speaking, an offence under the law against driving without due care and attention, Parliament decided to introduce a specific offence, effectively replacing the previous one. The hon. Lady will know that, sadly, that specific offence has not actually had the deterrent effect for which many people had hoped, and that large numbers of people are still offending.

Taking that analogy and looking at the specific offence contained within the Bill, amendments to which we are seeking to discuss, if the general common law under which a lot of upskirting activity is prosecuted at the moment is replaced with a specific statutory law, prosecutions will come under the specific law, rather than under the general common law, which, as Lord Pannick has said, is vague and ambiguous in many respects. If the consequence of the Bill is that all offences of upskirting are then brought within its ambit and prosecuted on that basis, that will be great and I am all in favour of it.

However, if we are going to do that, we should not constrain those offences by saying that they can be proved only if a motive is also proved. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked, why is not the mere fact that somebody takes a photograph without the consent of the “victim” an offence in itself? Why do we have to limit the offence in the way that this Bill does?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have been listening patiently and most attentively to the hon. Gentleman, who has offered the House a procedural disquisition and some remarks that touch on what might be called the theology of the Bill, which is of considerable interest to the House. He also animadverted to a number of the Bill’s explanatory notes, but if he felt able to proceed fairly promptly to the amendments, which relate specifically to guidance, purposes, aggravating factors, and notification under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, he would be beautifully in order.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am most grateful to you, as ever, Mr Speaker, for your guidance on such matters. Turning specifically to my right hon. Friend’s amendment 1, it would remove from the Bill any requirement to prove a motive. It seems to me that the activity itself should be criminal and should not need to have a motive ascribed to it. As soon as a motive has to be established, it makes it much more difficult for the prosecuting authorities. It makes it so easy for members of Her Majesty’s constabulary to say, “Well, there was no motive.” Why do we need a motive in respect of an offence that outrages public decency? No one has written to me saying that they think upskirting is a reasonable activity in which to participate. I very much hope the Government will accept amendment 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend.

Electoral Commission Investigation: Vote Leave

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is extensive interest in this subject and I have granted the urgent question for the very simple reason that I have judged it to be urgent, so I am keen to accommodate colleagues. I remind the House, though, that there is a statement to follow and that the debate on the first group of new clauses and amendments to the Trade Bill has to conclude by 3.30 pm. There must be some time for debate on those matters; otherwise, it rather obviates the purpose of the remaining stages. I will call some colleagues, but some colleagues may be disappointed. I shall do my best, and I ask colleagues to help each other.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend put the synthetic outrage of remain campaigners into some kind of context by reminding the House that many of those same remain supporters in this House tried to change the Electoral Commission’s rules on referendums to enable the then Government to breach the purdah rules? Fortunately, that attempt by that Government was thwarted by this House. Many of those remainers would have liked to have a relaxed purdah arrangement.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who expresses himself with his characteristic clarity but—if I may say so—uncharacteristic force, which the House will have noted. Needless to say, I take what he said and the passion he feels about the matter—as someone who has served in the House without interruption for 35 years—extremely seriously. Standing Order No. 25 provides that motions for the Adjournment of the House for a specified period and moved by a Minister are put forthwith—that is to say, without debate. It would have been possible for the Government to table a Business of the House motion overriding the Standing Order, but they have not done so.

If a Minister moves motion 13 on the Order Paper this evening, the Chair will be obliged to put the question without debate. If the Chair’s opinion on the voices is challenged, a Division would be deferred until tomorrow. As ever, it would be up to Members whether to vote for or against the proposition. Salvation lies in Members’ hands.

I add, merely by way of information and in the name of transparency, that no indication of this intention on the part of the Government was communicated to me in advance. I am not complaining about that; I simply want to make it clear to people who might think, “Oh, the Speaker must have been aware of and in on this”, that that was not and is not the case.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You may be aware, and colleagues certainly will, that a strong rumour is going round to the effect that the Government will not move motion 13 this evening. Surely it would be courteous for the Government to indicate now whether it is their intention to move the motion or that they have responded to the concerns expressed and will withdraw it. Why can we not know that now, rather than it being left until later?

[Mr Speaker]

I tend to take the view that clarity and the resolution of uncertainty are always desirable. I do not know whether a decision on the matter has been made. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that if a decision has been made, it should be communicated to the House first, rather than to the media. If a decision has not been made, it is very much to be hoped that it soon will be.

Business without Debate

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I know, but he was exceptional.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In our earlier exchanges I intimated that strong rumours were circulating that the Government were not going to move the motion on when the House will go into recess, as indeed they have not, and you intimated then that, as soon as the Government made a decision, it would be courteous of them to communicate it to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I wonder, have you been able to find out the time at which the Government decided that they were not going to move the motion, and what was done between the time of that decision and 7.15 pm?

Prayers

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Friday 6th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order arises from what happened following the sitting on 15 June and Lord Pannick’s article in The Times yesterday on the need for Bills to be scrutinised properly. We do not know how many of the 34 Bills on today’s Order Paper will be discussed before 2.30. I personally hope we will be able to reach the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

I seek your advice on those Bills that will not be debated today. How can it be made clear to the Government, parliamentary colleagues and the wider public, including social media, that an objection to a Bill going through on the nod is not a commentary on the merits of the contents of the Bill, but a demand for proper scrutiny? I am sure, for example, that if the Government object to my Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill today, it will not be because they object to the substance, which they concede will save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.

Is there any way in which we can ensure an opportunity for the reasons for objections to be articulated, and can you also advise on what can be done to dampen public expectations that Bills undebated today should, on the whim of the Government, be able to queue-jump Bills that have been successful in the private Member’s ballot, received a Second Reading and are waiting for the Government to facilitate discussion in Committee? If the Government support a private Member’s Bill, is not the proper course to convert it into a Government Bill, as has been done with the Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Under existing arrangements, an objection at the moment of interruption suffices to prevent the progress of a Bill. There is no provision for an explanation of the reasons for that objection. If our private Member’s Bill procedure were to be reformed, as many people—myself and the Procedure Committee included—were to be successful in bringing about, if there were to be a change to the procedure, part of the change could relate to the objection process. However, if memory serves me correctly, when the Procedure Committee recommended a change to the existing procedure, it did not recommend—and nobody else recommended—a change on that point.

There was of course great controversy three weeks ago, and the hon. Gentleman has to fend for himself in the public domain in seeking to defend his decision. In procedural terms, I emphasise that no impropriety took place. That is all that I can say today. It would be perfectly possible for the House to reform the private Member’s Bill procedure, but not everybody in the House wishes to do so, and it has been obvious to me that the Government have not wished to do so. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) brought forward a report on this matter, which the Government have shown no enthusiasm for bringing to the House with a view to implementing. We had better leave it there, if there are no further points of order.

Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

3rd reading: House of Commons
Friday 6th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that is the maximum timetable, rather than the minimum.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the hon. Gentleman completed his remarkably brief oration?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I have indeed, Mr Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, yes, a Dorset knight.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that during the implementation period, all foreigners, including those in the European Union, will be treated equally in having access to our country?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think I will be having to resist the temptation to call the goose Jeremy.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On Thursday last week, there was a very important local referendum in Christchurch. The result was that 84% of the people of Christchurch want to keep it as an independent sovereign borough and are against its abolition. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I cannot understand this atmosphere. I want to hear about the views of the good burghers of Christchurch.

[Mr Chope]

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government respect the views of the people of Christchurch and give sufficient time—indeed, extra time—for the council to draw up alternative proposals that properly reflect the wishes of the people of Christchurch?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

After the dress rehearsal, we can have the real performance. I call Mr Christopher Chope.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there are too many people in detention centres who should have already been deported? They should have been deported before the expiry of their prison sentences. Why is that not happening?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

They were there, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) chunters from a half-sedentary position. We will come to him in a moment. I am saving him up; it would be a pity to waste him too early in our proceedings.

[Mr Chope]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was indeed present at the Committee this morning, and I heard exactly what the Secretary of State said and the questions that were put to him. I am sorry to have to say that the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) has misunderstood the situation. The question the Secretary of State had was whether or not he thought there would be an agreement before midnight on 29 March 2019 and he indicated that he thought it might be reached a nanosecond before midnight on that day. He was then asked whether that meant this House would not be able to vote on such an agreement until after 29 March, and he said that obviously it will not be able to vote on an agreement until after 29 March if there has not been an agreement until 29 March. That was the point he was making, and it was a perfectly sensible one.

[Mr Speaker]

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing a bit of extra information to me, which, in one form or another, he has been doing for over 30 years. I am greatly obliged to him.

Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 5, leave out from “after” to the end of the subsection and insert—

“any members of the public who are registered to vote in local elections in the United Kingdom”.

This amendment would further extend the public access to local audit documents under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 in the interest of transparency and accountability.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 5, leave out from “insert” to end of subsection and insert “including any politician or journalist”.

This amendment extends access to politicians as well as journalists so that they can access the information needed to fulfil their scrutiny function.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 5, leave out from “insert” to end of subsection and insert “including non-domestic ratepayer”.

This amendment extends access to non-domestic ratepayers and clarifies the existing law.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 5, after “any” insert “accredited”.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 5, after “any” insert “professional”.

Amendment 7, page 1, line 5, after “any” insert “qualified”.

Amendments 5, 6 and 7 would ensure that bloggers and citizen journalists would not have greater access than other members of the public.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment would remove the definition of journalist.

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

“(1B) In subsection (1A) publication of journalistic material means the proposed inclusion in a newspaper or magazine whether paid for or distributed without payment and includes any article proposed to be published on any website on the internet whether it can be accessed without payment or upon payment of a subscription.”

The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that the section covers all journalists who may wish to publish their articles in a newspaper or magazine or on the internet, irrespective of whether there are any charges for either.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) The relevant authority must ensure that any person interested in making an inspection within subsection (1) may do so at all reasonable times and without payment”.

This amendment would extend to section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 the same conditions as is set out in section 25 (3) of the Act.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) In subsection (1) after ‘Act’ in line 1 leave out ‘other than an audit of accounts of a health service body’”.

This amendment (which amends section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014) would enable “persons interested” to inspect the accounting records relating to the audit of accounts of a health service body.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) In subsection (1) after “At” in line 1 insert “and after”.

This amendment (which amends section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014) would extend the period in which inspections can be carried out beyond 30 days.

Amendment 12, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) In subsection (4)(a) leave out “inspect or”.

This amendment (which amends section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014) would remove the restriction on inspecting any part of any record or document on the grounds of commercial confidentiality but would retain the restriction on copying.

Amendment 13, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) Subsection 4 (a) after ‘grounds of’ insert ‘current’”.

This amendment (which amends section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014) would ensure that documents relating to past contracts could be inspected.

Amendment 14, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) Subsection (5) is hereby repealed.”

This amendment (which amends section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014) would remove the definition in the Act of when information is protected on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

[Mr Chope]

In moving amendment 2, we are mindful that this is a week in which there has been an attack on our parliamentary democracy, and we mourn Keith Palmer and the others who were the victims of that terrorist. This Bill and these amendments deal not with parliamentary democracy, but with local democracy, and their purpose is to strengthen further our local democracy in the United Kingdom.

I will also speak to amendments 3 and 4, which extend the range of individuals who are able to benefit from the powers under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is seeking to achieve that in her Bill. I shall also speak to amendments 5, 6, 7 and 9, which look in detail at what we mean by the expression “journalist” in clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has an amendment dealing with the definition of journalistic material, which I shall leave him to address.

Amendment 9 deals with the arrangements for exercising the right to inspect, and amendment 11 would extend the period within which such rights can be exercised beyond 30 days. Amendment 12 would enable documents, which are claimed to be commercially confidential, to be inspected but not copied. Amendment 13 would extend the right to inspect past contracts, and amendment 14 would leave the definition of commercial confidentiality unaltered in common law. Finally, amendment 10, which is arguably the most radical of these amendments, would extend the right of inspection beyond local government to the audit of accounts of any health service body as defined in the 2014 Act.

It will be obvious from that brief summary that all the amendments are faithful to the long title of the Bill, which is to extend public access to certain local audit documents under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

My amendments are also inspired by recent experiences of how secrecy in local government is undermining the ability of members of the public properly to scrutinise what is happening and to hold councils to account. They also seek to address some of the issues raised on Second Reading on 25 November.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The reference by the hon. Gentleman to the “Rotten Boroughs” column is, of itself, orderly, but it might help and inform the debate if that reference could be related more specifically to the terms of the important amendment to which he is speaking.

[Mr Chope]

I absolutely take that point, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

That is the first time that anyone has suggested I am living in the past. To take my hon. Friend’s point, if we are to give privileged access to journalists—our hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is seeking to give journalists privileged access compared with other members of the public—those journalists need to be qualified in the sense that they understand the law, not just people who are prejudiced or not objective and who do not have the standards that we normally expect of journalists. My feeling is that if we are to give them special privileges, they should be duly accredited.

As I have said, I have expressed that point in alternative ways: we could also refer to them as professional journalists. As you may know, Mr Speaker, there is a society called the Society of Professional Journalists, which requires a professional journalist to adhere

“to a strict code of ethics so as to maintain and preserve public trust, confidence and reliability”—

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) thinks it important that journalists should adhere to a strict code of ethics—

“To ensure this the process of ‘gate keeping’ is upheld within mainstream media. This relies on all experienced and trained journalists and editors to filter any nonfactual information from news reports before publication or broadcasting.”

I do not want to go into the whole issue of fake news, but it is probably now more important than ever for us to ensure that there is some basis for the reports put forward by journalists, and how can that be policed unless by a body such as the National Union of Journalists or the Society of Professional Journalists?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Ordinarily, I feel that I can follow and, to an extent, anticipate the hon. Gentleman, such is the frequency with which I have heard his speeches over three decades, but on this occasion my senses have deserted me. I had thought that he was going to tell us how many members the society has.

[Mr Chope]

Mr Speaker, I was not actually going to go into that level of detail.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, I will take a point of order now. There are a couple of Select Committee statements coming, but we can await those with eager anticipation and bated breath. I am sure colleagues do so, but let us first hear the point of order from Mr Christopher Chope.

[Mr Chope]

In a section headed “Making Commitments on the Floor of the House”, paragraph 23.42 of the Cabinet Office guide to making legislation, published in July 2015, states:

“Parliament will hold Ministers to any commitments they make on the floor of the House which are recorded in Hansard. Ministers must, therefore, take care during debates not to make any commitments for which they do not have collective agreement”.

My point of order, Mr Speaker, is how can Parliament hold Ministers to those commitments that have been made on the Floor of the House?

Briefly, the background is this. In recent days, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), have told me, the leader of Christchurch borough council and the mayor of Christchurch that they do not regard themselves as bound by the commitment made by the Government to the House on 7 December 2015. On that day, I asked the then Secretary of State:

“Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that amendment 56 will not be used by the Government to force change on any local authority?”

The Secretary of State replied:

“I will indeed.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 822.]

That is pretty clear, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) received a similar commitment. How can we hold the Government to account for the commitments that have been made?

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman—I am saving him up.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I thank you for responding to my point of order yesterday, which had the immediate effect of securing answers to overdue parliamentary questions from the Department for Communities and Local Government? One question that was due for answer last Friday has still not been answered and you, Mr Speaker, may think that it is very exacting. It asked the Secretary of State when he intends to respond to the letter from the mayor of Christchurch. I cannot understand why we cannot get an answer to that question and I hope that this point of order will embarrass the Department into giving an immediate response.

[Mr Speaker]

As I advised the hon. Gentleman yesterday, it is the normal expectation that responses from Ministers to written parliamentary questions are both timely and substantive. Moreover, I suggested to the hon. Gentleman that there was a growing spectre of potential embarrassment for Ministers from the relevant Department, the Department for Communities and Local Government—namely, if they did not respond speedily to his question, he might feel inclined to raise points of order over and over and over again about the matter. That would be gravely embarrassing to Ministers and I was sure that they would not want that to happen.

Ministers will have heard, or will hear very soon, of the hon. Gentleman’s perfectly reasonable question last week and of his point of order about it today and I am sure that they will not want the embarrassment of his coming back to the Floor and raising further points of order about the non-answer. The hon. Gentleman is starting to copy the tactic that has long been followed by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and that was followed regularly by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, the late Sir Gerald Kaufman, of raising in the form of either a further written question or a point of order the fact of a non-answer. That is gravely embarrassing and I feel sure that Ministers will not want it to continue for any length of time. I know the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—I have known him for 30 years—and he is a very persistent fellow.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am bound to say two things to the hon. Lady. First, I have no responsibility for arrangements for the delivery of petitions, and certainly no responsibility for any security or other arrangements in the immediate environs of, or anywhere near, 10 Downing Street. The hon. Lady may think it very satisfactory that I have no such responsibility, or she may be gravely dissatisfied by that fact, but it remains a fact none the less.

Secondly, I think that the hon. Lady has found her own salvation in this matter. She has registered her discontent very forcefully on the Floor of the House, as she is privileged to be able to do as a Member of Parliament. I feel sure that she will communicate that point to her constituents, but I do not myself think that the argument need run any further, and even if it does, it certainly should not involve the Chair.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We will leave it there for now, at least as far as the hon. Lady is concerned, but the day would not be complete without my taking a point of order from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 9 February a group of councils in Dorset made a submission to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, seeking to abolish Christchurch and two other councils that are strongly resisting abolition. A week ago, I asked the Secretary of State whether he could give a closing date for the receipt of objections to that submission, and also a closing date for the receipt of alternative proposals. Those seemed to me to be reasonable requests.

My question was due to be answered on Friday. I received a holding reply. I assumed that I would receive a full reply yesterday, but I did not. I have still not received a reply. I wonder what could be done, Mr Speaker, to ensure that such a modest question can receive a timely response from the Secretary of State, because a great many of my constituents want to know how much longer they have in which to register their objections.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not have any great sagacity in these matters, but my response to the hon. Gentleman is as follows. It does seem to be a pretty straightforward inquiry, and, of course, it is a general rubric in this place that responses to hon. Members’ questions should be both timely and substantive.

In my limited experience, Ministers in successive Governments, irrespective of the hue of those Governments, tend to find it rather irksome, and possibly even embarrassing, if the non-answer to a question is regularly highlighted on the Floor of the House. I do not want to raise a spectre, but if the Minister does not respond, and if the hon. Gentleman—discontented as he would then continue to be—were to raise a point of order on a daily basis, it would be gravely embarrassing to Ministers in the Department concerned, and I am sure that they would not want that to happen.

Prayers

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Friday 24th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I noticed that the Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill had appeared on the Order Paper yesterday morning, and I tabled some amendments to it, but obviously those amendments are starred because, although I tabled them at the first opportunity, it will not be possible to debate them unless there is a ruling to the contrary. I inquired as to the practice relating to the issue and was told that the convention is that a Member of this House should not put forward their private Bill for Report and Third Reading if that Bill has only come out of Committee on the Wednesday, rather than the Tuesday of that week. That was certainly the practice adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) when he brought forward the Homelessness Reduction Bill, which I had the privilege of chairing in Committee. It was quite clear that that Bill would not be put forward for Report until there had been a clear period in which amendments could be tabled. Would you rule on that, Mr Speaker? If the Kew Gardens (Leases) Bill is heard today, will it be possible to discuss the amendments to it?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that it will be possible. As is probably obvious to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), this is the first I had heard of their disquiet and of the timing of the Bill coming forward. I am advised that the rationale for that is that there are few sitting Fridays left, and that the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) is keen to make progress with his Bill. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that, there will be an opportunity for new clauses and amendments to be considered.

Moreover, beyond those that have been tabled, if there is concern that there was not a proper period in conformity with usual practice for the tabling of amendments, and the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Shipley feel disadvantaged by that, it is open to the Chair to allow manuscript amendments. I hope that, even if the hon. Gentlemen are not pleased about the sequence of events, they are reassured that such opportunities as they might seek to speak on these matters will be there for them. They will have an opportunity to deploy their vocal cords and their intellects.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—Recommendations by GREVIO and the Committee of the Parties (No. 2)—

“Any recommendations or reports by GREVIO (that is the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence) or the Committee of the Parties (that is the Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention)) must be debated in Parliament before any Government response is given.”

New clause 11—Annual statistics—

“The Government must use its best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims in each country who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published annually.”

New clause 12—Quarterly statistics—

“The Government must use its best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published quarterly.”

New clause 14—Limitation on reservations concerning Article 44—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any declaration as provided for under paragraph 2 of Article 78 of the Convention that it will not establish jurisdiction under Article 44 when the offence established with the Convention is committed by a person who has her or his habitual residence in the United Kingdom.”

New clause 15—Territorial application—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any restriction on territorial application under Article 77 of the Convention.”

New clause 16—Victims of forced marriage—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any restriction on its right to take the necessary legislation or other measures referred to in Article 59.4.”

New clause 17—Compensation awarded to those who have sustained serious bodily injury or impairment of health—

“No ratification of the Convention shall be made by the United Kingdom unless at the time of depositing its instrument of ratification it declares that it reserves the right not to apply the provisions of Article 30 paragraph 2.”

New clause 18—Limitation on reservations concerning psychological violence and stalking—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any declaration as provided for under paragraph 3 of Article 78 that it reserves the right to provide for non-criminal sanctions for the behaviours referred to in Article 33 and Article 34.”

New clause 19—Reservations—

“Nothing in this Bill shall prevent the United Kingdom ratifying the Istanbul Convention with reservations as provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 78.”

New clause 20—Requirement to denounce of the Convention after five years—

“The United Kingdom Government shall denounce the Istanbul Convention no later than five years after it has ratified the Convention.”

Government amendment 1, leave out clause 1.

This amendment leaves out clause 1.

Amendment 56, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“without making any reservations under Article 78 of the Convention.”

Amendment 57, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, after “Convention” insert “without reservations”.

Government amendment 2, page 1, line 12, leave out “date by” and insert “timescale within”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on the timescale within which she expects the Istanbul Convention to be ratified, rather than the date.

Amendment 58, page 1, line 13, at end insert “without reservations.”

Amendment 24, page 1, line 14, leave out from “laid” to end of the subsection and insert “when reasonably practicable”.

Government amendment 3, page 1, line 14, leave out

“within four weeks of this Act receiving Royal Assent”

and insert

“as soon as reasonably practicable after this Act comes into force”.

This amendment changes the deadline for a report under clause 2 from four weeks from Royal Assent to as soon as reasonably practicable after commencement.

Amendment 22, page 1, line 14, leave out “four weeks” and insert “three years”.

Government amendment 4, page 1, line 16, leave out “Her Majesty’s Government” and insert “the Secretary of State”.

This amendment means the obligation to make a statement to Parliament will fall on the Secretary of State, rather than Her Majesty’s Government generally.

Amendment 59, page 1, line 17, after “Convention” insert “without reservations”.

Government amendment 5, page 1, line 17, leave out “it” and insert “the Secretary of State”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.

Government amendment 6, page 1, line 19, leave out “its” and insert “the”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.

Government amendment 7, page 1, line 20, leave out “the Convention will be” and insert—

“the Secretary of State would expect the Convention to be”.

This amendment means the Secretary of State will be required to make a statement detailing when she would expect the Istanbul Convention to be ratified, rather than when it will be so ratified.

Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 2, line 2, leave out “each year” and insert “biennially”.

Government amendment 8, page 2, line 2, after “each year” insert “until ratification”.

This amendment makes clear that the government will only have to report on progress towards ratification until ratification has taken place (see amendment 14).

Government amendment 9, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) if a report has been laid under section 2(1), any alteration in the timescale specified in that report in accordance with subsection (1)(b) and the reasons for its alteration;”.

This amendment is designed to avoid the implication that a report under clause 2 will necessarily have been issued before a report is required under clause 3.

Amendment 26, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment 27, page 2, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).

Government amendment 10, page 2, line 7, leave out “(before ratification)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Amendment 28, page 2, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).

Government amendment 11, page 2, line 10, leave out “(before ratification)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Government amendment 12, page 2, line 11, leave out “to” and insert “in”.

This amendment changes a reference to legislative proposals being brought forward “to” the devolved legislatures to legislative proposals being brought forward “in” the devolved legislatures - which is the usual formulation.

Amendment 29, page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (d).

Government amendment 13, page 2, line 14, leave out “(before ratification)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Government amendment 14, page 2, line 16, leave out paragraph (e).

This amendment removes the ongoing reporting obligation in clause 3(1)(e).

Amendment 49, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“and produce a breakdown of government spending on victims of violence and domestic violence for both men and women.”

Amendment 50, page 2, line 27, after “violence” insert—

“and provide statistics showing international comparison on levels of violence against women and men”.

Amendment 51, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“and to include the names of these organisations”.

Amendment 60, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“(f) the costs to the Exchequer of the measures set out in subsection (1)(e).”

Amendment 52, page 2, line 32, leave out “annual” and insert “biennial”.

Amendment 53, page 2, line 32, leave out “1 November 2017” and insert “1 January 2020”.

Amendment 54, page 2, line 33, leave out “1 November each year” and insert—

“1 January every 2 years”.

Amendment 55, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, leave out from “Act” to end of subsection and insert—

“will not come into force until 90% of the signatories to the Convention have ratified it and there has been a proven reduction in violence against women in 75% of the countries who have ratified the Convention.”

Government amendment 15, page 2, line 37, leave out

“on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent”

and insert—

“at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.

This amendment means the Act will be brought into force two months following Royal Assent, rather than immediately on Royal Assent.

Government amendment 16, in title, line 1, leave out

“Require the United Kingdom to ratify”

and insert—

“Make provision in connection with the ratification by the United Kingdom of”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.

Government amendment 17, in title, line 3, leave out “; and for connected purposes”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to try your patience, but could you advise the House about the status of explanatory statements associated with amendments, and particularly Government amendments? The Member’s explanatory statement to amendment 4 on page 8 of the amendment paper says:

“This amendment means the obligation to make a statement to Parliament will fall on the Secretary of State, rather than Her Majesty’s Government generally.”

In fact, the amendment goes much further, because it would change the Government’s role in ratification and substitute the Secretary of State for the Government, so the explanatory statement is not a full and accurate statement of the effect of the amendment.

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman in response to that further point of order is that I am not responsible for the content of Government explanatory statements.

Beach Huts

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

There are indeed many attractive beach huts located around the country, and there are some amazing spaces. But when we talk about amazing spaces we ought also to think about amazing natural spaces. If my hon. Friend has ever had the privilege of visiting Highcliffe cliff top, she will probably agree that that is an amazing space because it is unspoilt. We can look out to sea and out to the Needles. Why should we wish to despoil such a place, to the detriment of local people, without at least some proper consultation?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell the House that his constituency is naturally upmarket and requires no artificial input.

[Mr Chope]

That is a very good way of putting it, Mr Speaker. We enjoy a large cohort of visitors, not least now because of the popularity of the series “Mr Selfridge”, as Mr Selfridge is buried in a church in Highcliffe and spent much time at Highcliffe castle. We have quite a history and there are many aspects of life in Highcliffe and Christchurch that are attractive to visitors and to our resident population.

On 18 November last year the Christchurch Council community services committee agreed to allow a competition to proceed for the design and construction of beach huts at Highcliffe. That was confirmed by the Council’s resources committee on 2 December. Both meetings, and the decisions taken at them, were kept private on grounds of commercial confidentiality, despite the fact that the beach huts were to be sited on open, unspoiled coastline, which is also part of a site of special scientific interest.

Two months before, local residents had celebrated the Government’s rejection of a proposal for a massive offshore windfarm at Navitus bay of up to 200 wind turbines, each up to 200 metres in height—my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the local council, and many other colleagues campaigned strongly and successfully against that proposal. One can therefore understand people’s dismay when they found that the council, which had campaigned so effectively on their behalf on that issue, had secretly been cooking up a proposal with Plum Pictures.

That proposal emerged only in March this year, when people found out that the competition had been launched and were able to look at the brochure, which described Christchurch Borough Council’s “beach retreat technical specification”, for people to design their own beach retreat—they are called beach retreats because they are not just ordinary huts; they are larger than huts and for overnight, residential use around the clock, 24/7. Those beach retreats were to be located in a scattered formation across the clifftop at Highcliffe.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is always useful to have a bit of information, but I am not responsible for boats—or indeed for what Hyacinth “Bouquet” used to call “riparian entertainments”. They are not a matter for the Chair.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are about to embark on a very important debate that is being led by the shadow Chancellor on—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Some Members are disquieted because they want to get on with the debate. I want to get on with the debate, too, but points of order must be heard. They can be dealt with more quickly if we hear them.

[Mr Chope]

We are about to embark on a very important debate on the economic benefits of UK membership of the European Union. The shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to lead the debate. Surely it is essential that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the House to answer the points that are made and to defend the ludicrous stance that he has been taking in the media. Why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not here? What can this House do to require him to maintain its conventions and attend this debate?

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, and to those who are attending our proceedings, is that who the Government field to respond to a debate is a matter for the Government. The hon. Gentleman will probably—on the whole—be relieved to know that the matters for which I am responsible do not include the Chancellor’s movements, and I am bound to say that—on the whole—that is a considerable solace to me too.

There will be people, and I get the impression that the hon. Gentleman is one of them, who will feel that it is somewhat discourteous if a very senior Minister who is responsible for the policy area in question is not present in the Chamber, but it is not against the rules of the House. I would hope that the Chancellor would have some interest in what Members think about the matter. That would be courteous, and it would show a degree of humility and respect, but beyond that, it is a matter for the Government to choose. I gather that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will respond to the shadow Chancellor, and that is perfectly orderly.

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say very gently to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) that I hope he is not intending to provide biographical details of each of the people from Poland before proceeding to the second of the 160 countries of which he wishes to treat. If that is his intention, it might test the patience of the Chair. I feel sure that he is planning no such mission. On that note, no doubt he will take the intervention from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).

Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In view of the hon. Gentleman’s preference for expedition rather than, of course, expediency, he will be delighted that we have reached his Bill in such an orderly way, and without undue delay.

Wild Animals in Circuses (Prohibition)

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just explain that in these circumstances we do not take interventions? That does not happen. Mr Chope’s remarks must be heard.

[Mr Chope]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester did not refer to the outcome of the licensing regime, which has, perfectly rightly, been brought into effect. The regime requires up to seven inspections a year of animals in travelling circuses. My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that zoos, including Colchester zoo, are inspected only once a year. We are now about to embark on the fourth year of that licensing regime and nobody has criticised the welfare of the animals subject to it. On the basis that good Conservatives should argue for as little regulation and prohibition as is possible and reasonable, I think we have reached a compromise whereby we have a proper and tight welfare licensing regime without the need for a total ban or prohibition. That is why I say to my hon. Friend that it would be wrong of him to raise people’s expectations—I accept that many support the views he has expressed today—by suggesting that this legislation could be passed under the Private Member’s Bill procedure. I hope that his response will be that the Government should bring forward legislation, if indeed the Government have the will to implement this particular aspect of our manifesto.

It would be out of order, Mr Speaker, for me to talk about other aspects of the Conservative manifesto that have not yet been implemented and might not even be implemented at all. The onus for putting this matter right, if it needs to be put right, must be on the Government. This will be controversial and technical legislation, which is why I do not think it appropriate to be dealt with under the Private Member’s Bill procedure.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Will Quince, Jim Dowd, Sir Roger Gale, Bob Blackman, Mark Pritchard, Mr Philip Hollobone, Nusrat Ghani, Mr Virendra Sharma, Simon Hoare and Louise Haigh present the Bill.

Will Quince accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 March, and to be printed (Bill 135).

UK’s Relationship with the EU

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ah! Let us hear from one of the three musketeers at the back, Mr Christopher Chope.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the draft texts incorporate the precise and clear manifesto promises on which Conservative MPs were elected last May to restrict the payment of in-work benefits and child benefit to foreigners? Yes or no?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I also wish to hear the voice of Christchurch on the matter of Scottish universities.

[Mr Chope]

How can it be in the United Kingdom national interest that school leavers from Scotland are being denied access to their own universities because of the arbitrary cap on numbers imposed by the Scottish Government, when school leavers with lower qualifications from the rest of the UK are able to gain such access?

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

The House is anticipating that this matter will be decided soon. I hope that it will be, because six months after a general election, the right of this Parliament to be represented in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will expire. I hope that our new members of the Parliamentary Assembly will be chosen soon and presented to the House. I understand that that is normally done through a written statement from the Prime Minister. I also hope that that statement will include the names of some Scottish National party Members, because even if they cannot at present participate in the work of the Joint Committee, they could play an important role in the Parliamentary Assembly—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have indulged the hon. Gentleman a tad. He is indeed a distinguished member of the Council of Europe, a fact that has been commented on not only in the House but in many European capitals that I have visited. That said, it is not a matter for the motion tonight. I hope that the matter to which he refers will shortly be resolved in a satisfactory way, but it does not touch upon the question of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a fact of which I think the hon. Gentleman is intimately conscious.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, Mr Speaker, and I am sorry that I was led down the wrong route by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who has also been a distinguished member of the Parliamentary Assembly. I have made my point briefly: I hope that this matter can be resolved amicably and that the Joint Committee is able to function with all parts of the United Kingdom being properly represented on it.

The first purpose of the Joint Committee is

“to examine matters relating to human rights within the United Kingdom.”

I hope that that will be borne in mind by the Deputy Leader of the House and that she will respond with a big heart to the suggestion that this matter be referred to the Procedure Committee—but after the motion has been passed tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. The House and perhaps the nation should hear Mr Christopher Chope.

[Mr Chope]

The nation would be interested to know that draft clause 1 has been widely condemned as legally vacuous. What is the Secretary of State going to do to ensure that the people of Scotland realise that it is legally vacuous and that if they support it, they will be supporting a meaningless constitutional proposal?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are not talking about the Baldry conservation trust, Mr Sheerman.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the full might of the Church of England be deployed in support of the Bat Habitats Regulation Bill, which is due for a Second Reading on 16 January 2015? That Bill would protect churches and deregulate the system so that bats did not get a free ride inside our churches.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Friday 5th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it possible to move that the Bill be referred back to Committee?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is seeking to move to recommit the Bill. Under Standing Order No. 32 I have the power to select or not select such a motion. In the circumstances, I decline to select the motion.

New Clause 1

The Independent Commission for Aid Impact

“(1) The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) shall have responsibility to carry out independent evaluation of the relevance, impact, value-for-money, efficiency and effectiveness of the ODA in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) The Schedule [The Independent Commission for Aid Impact] makes further provisions about the ICAI.”—(Mr Nuttall.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have expressed my own thoughts to the House on how we should proceed, and I have tried to be very fair and candid about the matter. Whatever opinion people have about these matters, they will express it, and that is nothing to do with the Chair.

I cannot really go further than I have gone today. The handling of matters in the future, as ordinarily, is in the hands of the business managers. In the best, pragmatic British tradition, what we must do is work with what we have before the House today and, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, do our best.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the House is most indebted to you for your ruling. It is being said that tonight’s vote will be a proxy for a vote on the European arrest warrant. Is there anything in Standing Orders to allow a vote on one issue to be treated as a proxy for a vote on another?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not for me to interpret individual votes. The hon. Gentleman asks whether there is anything in the Standing Orders about how a vote on one matter can be considered to be a proxy for another, and the straightforward, factual answer—as I think he knows—is that no, there is not. I am not aware that anybody is suggesting that there should be, but do not give them ideas.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. An announcement was made earlier today that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, wearing their hats as party leaders, are to go to Scotland tomorrow to spell out more details about further devolution of power to Scotland in the event of a no vote next week. The Deputy Prime Minister was giving evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee earlier today and I asked him why the UK House of Commons was not going to be told first about the details of further devolution so that Members could ask questions. There could, for example, be a Government statement on the issue at 7 o’clock this evening. The Deputy Prime Minister told me that the Government could not make such a statement, because of the rules of purdah.

My point of order, Mr Speaker, is to ask whether it is correct, under the procedures of this House, that the rules of purdah prevent Ministers from making a statement to our House about proposals for further devolution for Scotland. If purdah is not a bar, and if the Government are genuinely keen to share this information with the House, would it possible for them to make a statement at 7 o’clock this evening?

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My understanding is that the convention of purdah during election and referendum campaigns is not a convention of a parliamentary character. There is nothing to prevent, or render illegitimate, the communication by a Minister of a view or intention to this House, and I therefore understand, having taken advice, that what the hon. Gentleman said about the possibility of a Government statement, either tonight or tomorrow, is correct. I am sure that there will be a warm glow on the countenance of the hon. Gentleman when he hears it said that he is correct.

Business of the House (2 December)

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I hope that we have enough time to debate this motion, which will effectively suspend our Standing Orders. Given that the subject matter that we will be debating on 2 December is amending the Standing Orders, it seems to me that it is wrong to limit the debate because, as we know, in the absence of a written constitution, the Standing Orders are the constitution of our country. I do not think that we should take changing the Standing Orders lightly. That is why I hope that in the course of this debate we will hear from the Leader of the House about why he thinks it reasonable for the Standing Orders to be altered, and for the time limit for debate to be as short as set out in the motion. When one looks at the detail of the motion, one can see that effectively—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to cut the hon. Gentleman off in his prime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are short of time but let us have a brief snippet from Christchurch.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Why does my hon. Friend not make it a criminal offence to be an illegal immigrant?

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

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am clear that he wishes at some stage to test the will of the House on amendment 20, but could I ask him to be clear on whether he wishes to do so in respect of amendment 1?

[Mr Chope]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

Identifying the “owner” of a builder’s skip

[Mr Chope]

I beg to move amendment 10.

[Mr Speaker]

With this is will be convenient to consider amendments 11 to 19.

[Mr Chope]

These amendments relate to part 3 of the Bill, which deals with “Builders’ Skips”. It is important that we have a proper control regime for builders’ skips. It is also important that we are absolutely clear in our own minds about what the impact of the proposed changes to the Bill would be. For example, amendment 10 would add to section 8(1) so that the relevant highway authority could require the relevant person to provide them with the name and address of the owner of the builder’s skip

“where that information is not clearly and indelibly marked under the provisions of section 9”.

Section 9 provides that a skip must be

“clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name and with his telephone number or address”.

It seems to me that the best way of resolving this matter is to ensure that the skip must be, as amendment 15 suggests, clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name, telephone number and address. If that is done and there is no breach of the provision, it will not be necessary for the highway authority to exercise the power set out in clause 8 because the information that it is seeking to ascertain will already be in its knowledge and the knowledge of anybody else who looks at the skip in question. That would improve the wording of the Bill.

Amendment 11 challenges the current provision, which states:

“A requirement under this section shall specify the period within which it must be complied with, which must be a period no shorter than 3 working days beginning with the date on which the request was made.”

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I trust that the hon. Gentleman is now satisfied. He does not have to suggest that his ear is somehow defective. I feel sure that it is not. He might simply not have been paying full attention; I do not know.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

A further point of order. It is point of order day!

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it within your power to require the Government to provide time for the proper scrutiny of Government measures before they are subject to a vote? Command paper 8671, to which the Home Secretary referred in her statement, comprises 155 pages of pretty impenetrable prose, with hardly any explanation. The command paper has considerable policy implications, but there are many ifs and buts among the contents. I cannot see how the House can reasonably be expected to reach a substantive conclusion on whether signing up to the document is in the national interest unless we are given a lot more time for its scrutiny, not only by the House but by the Select Committees, which are appointed specifically to do the job of scrutiny.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I do not have the power to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I much appreciate his belief that the Chair ought to be invested with greater powers, and I do not for one moment dissent from that proposition. The reality is that he and others will have to use their best endeavours in the coming days—it is literally a matter of days—to ensure that they are furnished with adequate material, and understanding thereof, to enable them to participate to their satisfaction in the debate that the Government have apparently now scheduled. I can operate only within my powers, but I know that the hon. Gentleman is a persistent, indefatigable and skilful Member, and I am sure that he will make the very best fist of this, not only on his own but with others.

Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Far from it; I am not suggesting that at all. I believe in the rule of law and at the moment that is unlawful. The point that I was trying to make is that, although the Bill was discussed briefly in Committee, it was never debated on Second Reading because it went through on the nod. When I read the Bill, I thought that one of the best things about it was that it would give discretion to local authorities to award disabled persons’ parking badges for a limited period. So if, for example, someone had a medical certificate saying that their disability was such that they would lack normal mobility for six months, the local authority would be able to issue a disabled parking permit for that period instead of being able only to issue an indefinite one. It is my understanding that the Bill would give local authorities that additional discretion—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot take the opportunity now to initiate a Second Reading debate, the absence of which he spent some moments lamenting. He must now focus his remarks on the new clause, accompanying new clauses and amendments. I feel sure that after that brief diversion that is precisely what he is now minded to do.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, Mr Speaker. In commenting on my hon. Friend’s amendments relating to the notice period following the renewal of licence, I was speculating on the discretion that a local authority has to set a fixed period for a licence after which it would have to be renewed and notification would have to be given to the recipient. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that standard procedure at the moment is for local authorities to issue a licence for an indefinite period that is coterminous with the lifetime of the person to whom the licence has been issued. The Bill would give a new discretion to local authorities to set renewal periods, and it would be to the exercise of that discretion that the provisions in my hon. Friend’s amendments relating to the process of notification for renewals would be relevant. That is the background to the point that I was making.

You said that I lamented the lack of a Second Reading debate, Mr Speaker, although I did not use that word. The lack of such a debate means that speculation about the intent of the Bill in relation to local authority discretion is at large, and has perhaps been anticipated by several of my hon. Friend’s amendments.

If local authorities have discretion to renew licences and issue them for fixed periods of time, it is reasonable to say that there should be a specified period within which the local authority would send to the licence holder notification that it had to be renewed, giving the holder time in which to obtain the relevant documents to facilitate the renewal, should that be necessary.

There is much to commend some of my hon. Friend’s amendments, although I am sorry that I cannot go along with him on all of them—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) has got his answer on Liu Xiaobo and will doubtless be content.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Q11. In the cause of deficit reduction, the Government are reducing police funding by 20% in real terms over four years. Can my right hon. Friend therefore assure me that, also in the cause of deficit reduction, he will insist on a reduction in our contribution to the European Union budget of more than 20%?

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He should be encouraged by the presence on the Treasury Bench of the Deputy Leader of the House, who will have listened to him. The gravamen of his complaint appears to relate to the relationship between the Science and Technology Committee and, in this case, the Home Office, but perhaps the Government more generally. I can say only that these are not matters of order on which the Chair can rule. The Select Committee should pursue these questions with the Government, and if the Committee is dissatisfied with the response, it should in the first instance take the matter up with the Liaison Committee.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope you will be able to guide the House on what we shall do with the Finance Bill when we get back. Two days—Wednesday and Thursday immediately after Easter—have been set aside for a Committee of the whole House, but the Bill has not yet been published. Today’s Order Paper provides that amendments to the Bill may be tabled in advance of Second Reading, but we do not yet know what subjects will be considered on the Wednesday and Thursday. Those subjects are usually agreed by the Opposition and the Government, and I am party to neither. When will we find out what those subjects will be?

What can you do through your good offices, Mr Speaker, to ensure a timely response to questions that are pertinent to the Finance Bill? I have tabled priority notice questions that have a direct bearing on the issue of child benefit, yet they have remained unanswered for over a week. What can you do to ensure that Ministers respond to them quickly?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I shall make two points in response. First, I should imagine that it is the responsibility of the Government to table a committal motion in regard to the consideration of the Finance Bill, and to do so before the rise of the House tonight. On the assumption that the hon. Gentleman remains as keenly interested in the matter throughout the day as he is at the moment—that is a confident expectation on my part—I suspect he will be beetling into the Table Office to discover at what point the Government have tabled that motion. I hope that that offers him some reassurance.

Secondly, in relation to the prospective—but, as far as he is concerned, delayed—answers to his substantive questions, the Deputy Leader of the House will have heard what he has said. It is important that there should be timely and substantive responses to parliamentary questions from colleagues, and I would say only to the hon. Gentleman in the friendliest possible spirit that not to provide timely responses to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is almost as hazardous a mission for any Minister as to treat in a similar way the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman).

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I received no advance notification of the Government’s intentions beyond that which was on offer to, and could be seen by, Members of the House as a whole. The Government did give notice of their intentions on the Order Paper today.

I note, however, the hon. Gentleman’s further inquiry, namely whether I have had any indication of any Government intention to make an oral statement on either or both matters to which he refers, and my answer to that is no.

The wider response to the hon. Gentleman is that nothing disorderly has occurred. It is helpful to the House to have the maximum possible notice, and I can understand his disappointment that some of those matters appeared in the Vote Office, in the form of documentation, only at the time when Business, Innovation and Skills questions were taking place. He may think that that is unseemly or disappointing, and it may be something that he would not himself be inclined to do, I do not know, but nothing disorderly has taken place.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House, in responding to my question about the Government’s definition of equality, said that the issue of extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples was part of the consultation being launched today, but I refer you to paragraph 1.5 of the consultation document’s executive summary, which states:

“The consultation therefore, does not look at reforms to civil partnerships, for example opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.”

May we have a statement from the Government either adopting the policy endorsed by my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, for which I would be very grateful, or putting him right so that he has to correct the record?

This is a very important issue, because you will recall, Mr Speaker, that when people served on the Standing Committee on the Civil Partnerships Bill, some of us, particularly myself, moved amendments stating that civil partnerships should be available to heterosexual couples, and we were told then that civil partnerships were the exclusive domain of same-sex couples because there was no such thing as gay marriage. Now the situation seems to be changing, but there needs to be some equality-consistency on the part of the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

My response to the hon. Gentleman is as follows. First, he has a beady eye and is a keen student of detail, and I am not in any way surprised that he is familiar with the detail of the consultation document and has studied the various numbered paragraphs. He has made his point, and it is open to the Leader of the House to respond if he wishes, and perhaps to accept that on that factual point the hon. Gentleman is correct.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman refers to the Standing Committee on the Civil Partnerships Bill and suggests that I might remember that experience. That experience is etched upon my mind and is likely to remain so permanently, because I remember serving on the said Standing Committee with the hon. Gentleman, and it was—shall we say?—an immensely stimulating and, some might think, a protracted experience.

I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will find further opportunities to develop his points—on that issue, on the issue as a whole and on particular points that are of concern to him today—in the weeks and months ahead, in the Chamber and possibly elsewhere. If the Leader of the House wants to respond, he can—[Interruption.] But he does not wish to do so.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Friday 20th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 59, page 1, line 3, leave out

‘the time for general purposes’

and insert

‘the period of summer time (within the meaning of the Summer Time Act 1972)’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 58, page 1, line 6, after ‘Ireland’, insert

‘specifically including the interests and concerns of the principal faith communities within the UK.’.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 9, leave out clause 2.

Amendment 63, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, after ‘group’, insert ‘of independent academic experts’.

Amendment 22, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(1A) Membership of the Group must be ratified by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.

Amendment 64, page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 65, page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment 12, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

‘(6) Such terms of reference must include an investigation into the impact on energy consumption of advancing time by one hour.’.

Amendment 23, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

‘(b) Membership of the Independent Oversight Group must include at least one representative from each of the four nations of the United Kingdom.’.

Amendment 95, in clause 14, page 6, line 2, leave out ‘Daylight Saving’ and insert ‘European Time’.

Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 25, page 2, line 14, leave out ‘18’ and insert ‘24’.

Amendment 60, in clause 4, page 2, line 19, leave out ‘the time for general purposes’ and insert

‘the period of summer time (within the meaning of the Summertime Act 1972)’.

Amendment 67, page 2, line 21, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

Amendment 68, page 2, line 23, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

Amendment 69, page 2, line 28, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

Amendment 81, page 2, line 32, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

Amendment 83, page 2, line 36, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

Amendment 84, page 2, line 40, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

Amendment 89, in clause 5, page 3, line 10, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

Amendment 90, in clause 6, page 3, line 12, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

Amendment 91, page 3, line 19, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

Amendment 71, in clause 8, page 3, line 34, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

Amendment 72, in clause 9, page 4, line 4, leave out ‘time’ and insert ‘summertime’.

Amendment 76, in clause 11, page 4, line 25, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

Amendment 61, in clause 12, page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (1).

Amendment 79, page 5, line 37, leave out subsection (8).

Amendment 93, in clause 14, page 6, line 2, leave out ‘daylight saving’ and insert ‘summertime extension’.

[Mr Chope]

I wish to introduce a discussion on amendment 59 and the other 27 amendments, from Members on all sides of the House, that you have included in this group, Mr Speaker. Before I outline the reasoning behind amendment 59, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on having steered her first private Member’s Bill so far. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] As you know, Mr Speaker, I have been in this House for some 23 years and have never got a private Member’s Bill as far as my hon. Friend has, so she is to be congratulated. I did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, because I hoped that I would be able to change it through amendment, should the opportunity arise. That is the background to where we are today.

Amendment 59 is born of two deep-seated political convictions that I hold. First, I believe passionately in the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That means that I support a single currency for the Union, the pound sterling, and a single time zone. I am a Conservative, as well. In other words, I do not support change unless there is an overwhelming case for making it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I hope that we will have many similar witty interventions from my hon. Friend during the day.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Preferably relating to amendment 59.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. I say to him for the avoidance of doubt that were the debate taking that shape, I would intervene to prevent it, but it has not yet done so. I am grateful to him for his solicitous concern for the debate but he can happily leave it with me.

[Mr Chope]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that passing reference by the hon. Member for Christchurch to his view on the merits or demerits of the Bill is in order, but dilation on that matter is not. For that reason, I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch would be well advised to take a gentle hint and focus on amendment 59, which gives a man of his experience, ingenuity and indefatigability considerable scope in any case.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to my hon. Friend for his point of order. For the sake of clarification, I was suggesting that the part of the Bill calling for the collection of evidence is not necessary, but we can develop those arguments in due course if there are amendments pertinent to it.

The most important thing is that I should make some progress. I have not made much, owing to the number of interventions and the amount of interest in this group of amendments. There is opposition to such a change in Scotland; I can see that there is some support as well. In the past year, the Government have basically done nothing in relation to the Bill since Second Reading. They have not considered the evidence. If they had, we might not need to allow up to 18 months for the proposed inquiry. At the moment, the Government suggest that it could take 18 months rather than one year. My amendment would reduce the scope of that inquiry, thereby reducing the costs and enabling progress to be made more quickly. Those who want progress will see merit in amendment 59, because it would focus the scope of any inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Again, it is dangerous to generalise. I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but some Members of the House go jogging at 7.30 in the morning. It would be wrong to suggest that they should be excluded from our discussions. At the moment, at 7.30 in the morning, daylight is just about breaking in London, but if the Bill were passed and the clocks were changed, they would be jogging in darkness.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the hon. Gentleman gives way, and pursuant to the intervention that he has just taken, I know that in focusing on amendment 59 and the amendments with which it is grouped, he will want to turn his remarks to the preparation of the report on the costs and benefits of the time zone.

[Mr Chope]

I agree absolutely, Mr Speaker.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. That may well be imperative, but it is also imperative that interventions from now on are brief, because a number of people wish to speak. I remind the House that a debate of exceptional importance is to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. I do not think that I am alone in hoping that that debate will not be delayed unduly.

[Mr Chope]

I will make a brief response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), Mr Speaker. What she says about perceptions is important. That is why it is essential that the Government do not bring forward motions that seem to be designed to appeal to an outside audience, while at the same time leaving things rather vague and open to the accusation that they are trying to tie the hands of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

Regulatory Authorities (Level of Charges) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful. No debate would be complete without the legendary literary references of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), but I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) will not be tempted away from the path of virtue, whatever the enticements of the Minister.

[Mr Chope]

We now know where my hon. Friend the Minister gets all these references from, but that is another story.

Let me give an example of a good regulator. Some of us had the privilege of listening to Colette Bowe from Ofcom earlier in the week. She said that Ofcom had been asked by the Government to reduce its costs by some 25%. It has already reduced its costs by more than 20% and it has not increased the costs of regulation but reduced the size of the organisation so that it acts more proportionately. There is a message there for many other regulators whose minds are not concentrated sufficiently because they have the option of always being able to increase their charges. That is why I have these provisions in the Bill.

The Bill does not say that regulators can never increase their charges, but clause 1(2) states:

“No regulatory authority shall introduce a charge in respect of a service currently provided free of charge in England unless a report has been laid before Parliament setting out the reasons for the introduction of the charge and that report has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Other colleagues will have different examples, but at the moment the Department for Transport is actively considering charging owners of vehicles a registration fee just for having a vehicle in their ownership. The statutory off road notification, which is a means whereby an owner can keep a car off the main road without incurring a fee, will be changed and the owner will have to pay the fee that is being introduced, even if they are keeping the car off the main road and not using it on the highway. That would be an additional new charge. Would it be reasonable? I do not think it would, but if it were introduced under the Bill, it would be necessary for a report to be laid before Parliament setting out the reasons and justification for it. If that were to happen, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire would no doubt ask questions about the impact on those who have older cars that they do not use very often.

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

It is €225,000 a year. I got that in quickly because I feared that if I mentioned it too slowly, Mr Speaker, you might intervene and say it was not relevant to the debate.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say that the hon. Gentleman has been entirely relevant so far? He has nothing to fear.

Prayers

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether you were copied in on the e-mail that a number of us received yesterday afternoon from the Chief Whip, but it informed us of a further 13 Parliamentary Private Secretaries and helpfully enclosed a consolidated list of the 46 PPSs—an all-time record—who add to the 95 Ministers on the payroll vote. Can you ensure that that list is printed in Hansard? Surely it is important that the public know who the Parliamentary Private Secretaries are because they hold important positions and have forfeited a lot of their independence by taking on those responsibilities.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman but, sadly, what he has just said does not constitute a point of order, as I think he is eminently well aware, although, arguably, it might constitute a point of frustration. I do not think that my requiring the Government to publish such a list in Hansard would be at all reasonable because it is not a matter for me. I did not know about it and I know very little, if anything, of the contents of that list, but I think I can predict with some certainty that the hon. Gentleman is unlikely to feature on it.

Political and Constitutional Reform Committee

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

This is a very welcome debate, which was promised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when I raised the issue on Thursday. It seemed from informal conversations that I held with him afterwards that the debate would take place in prime time on Tuesday week. It has been brought forward, but that does not mean that people should feel they have been detained here and must stay here. Let me say, at the risk of inviting a mass exodus, that neither I nor, I am sure, any of my hon. Friends intend to call a Division this evening; therefore there will not be a vote, and therefore there is no need for anyone to stay here unless they wish to listen to the arguments.

In brief, my argument is that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House introduced this motion without notice last Thursday, he said it could have gone through on the nod then but that he would be pleased for questions on it to be put to him, and I would like to put some of them to him now.

First, how will this proposed Political and Constitutional Reform Committee interact with the other Select Committees proposed for the new House, for whose Chairmen we will be voting on Wednesday? On the face of it, this does not seem to be a departmental Select Committee. If it were a departmental Select Committee, it would be the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and would deal with all the activities and responsibilities of that Department, including, most importantly, that Department’s budget, but it appears instead to be a cross-cutting Committee on political and constitutional reform. Therefore, I hope that this question can be responded to in answering this debate: if the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not going to be scrutinised by this Select Committee, by which Select Committee will its responsibilities that fall outside political and constitutional reform be monitored and held to account?

Following on from that point is this question: if this is a Political and Constitutional Reform Committee with a remit to consider political and constitutional reform, does that mean that all other Select Committees of this House are precluded from looking at issues of political and constitutional reform when they think those issues are material to the matters falling within their particular remits? If the purpose of tonight’s motion is effectively to exclude all other Committees of the House from considering political and constitutional reform, the implications of that should be clearly spelled out.

Finally, how will this new Committee interact specifically with the Justice Committee and the Public Administration Committee? Prima facie, the Public Administration Committee has a remit that would cover a lot of the day-to-day responsibilities of the Cabinet Office. Will they still be within its remit, or will they instead be within the remit of this new Committee? If it will not be the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Select Committee, why are we not spelling that out in terms?

It is a pity that this motion was put on Thursday’s Order Paper without any prior notice. We were invited to let it go through on the nod on Thursday evening, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said that that should not happen so he objected to it. We have now rightly got a debate about it, and I hope that, in the spirit of the new politics, we will have some proper answers, including to the question that if this was such a good idea, why was it not thought of initially when we were setting up all the original Select Committees? Why, in other words, does it appear to be rather an afterthought?

[Mr Speaker]

With the leave of the House, I invite the Deputy Leader of the House to reply.

Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Christopher Chope

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A large number of Members are seeking to catch my eye. As Members from the last Parliament will know, I have always sought to accommodate everyone if it is at all feasible to do so, but I need a single short supplementary question and a typically pithy reply from the Front Bench.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Front Bench and his commitment to a sweeping redistribution of powers from the Government to Parliament. May I urge on him rather speedier action for the setting up of the House business committee, which the coalition document talks about being set up within three years? Surely, it could and should be set up this year.