Sir Christopher Chope
MP for Christchurch · Conservative · United Kingdom
“When was the last time that an allotted Opposition day was withdrawn in the way that the Leader of the House is withdrawing this one? I was looking at my calendar of business, otherwise known as the Order Paper, and it says that “The selection of the matters to be debated will be made by the Leader of the Opposition (Standing Order No.”
“The Climate Change Committee has condemned the Government for failing and falling short of adapting to climate change and accepting the reality as it is, which is that by the end of this century, global temperatures will have increased to between 3.5° and 4.5° above pre-industrial levels.”
“The Minister has referred to the grooming gangs inquiry carried out by our friend, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), and early-day motion 380 makes a number of recommendations. Will the Minister engage with the hon.”
“The landmark 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence by the United States takes place in the week commencing 29 June. I have applied for an Adjournment debate, but will the Leader of the House enable more Members to be able to participate in marking that historic event?”
“That is exactly what I did on behalf of my constituent Paul Kenchington: I wrote to the Secretary of State about the specialist steel that he uses, and I have not had a reply.”
“Next week, can the Leader of the House produce a Government statement in response to the Hallett review on covid-19 vaccines? Lady Hallett recommended major reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,444 lines we hold for Sir Christopher Chope, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 40 of 109.
“I hope that when the new clause and amendment are put to the vote, they will go through without a Division, but if there is a Division, I will be interested to see whether the Government try to argue against what the Prime Minister has already assured us of—namely, that the Government are on the side of the proposal in the new clause.”
“The answer from the Minister, obviously on the advice of Government lawyers, was that the provisions of the European convention on human rights would not be compromised by the fact that the legislation made unequal provision for civil partnerships. How wrong were the Government and the Minister! For five years people have been in limbo, while the Government have connived over legislation that is at odds with human rights requirements under the European convention. Surely there must be a greater sense of urgency from the Government than was demonstrated in my right hon. Friend’s response to the new clause. I also find it extraordinary that today’s written statement makes no mention of the Supreme Court ruling.”
“I take it from that that, because of the forces lined up against the Government, they are throwing in the towel, which is good and encouraging news. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress he has made. I despair at the way the Government have been dragging their feet over this issue for so long. It was on 21 May 2013—more than five years ago—on the Third Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 that I intervened on the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Minister for Women and Equalities asserting that I believed that doing what the Government were doing in that Bill would be in breach of human rights law.”
“Since the Government are in the mood to apologise for all sorts of historical events, does my hon. Friend think they should apologise for getting the law completely wrong?”
“Is it right to say that the view of the university is that the other encumbrances in the process are what cause the delay, not the Privy Council stage, which is a very quick stage?”
“I am with the hon. Gentleman on that. When evidence was given to the other place, every time there was a challenge that these new powers could be abused, the defence was that, ultimately, there was the safeguard that approval would need to be given by the Privy Council, yet clause 4 envisages a time when the Privy Council will no longer be able to exercise its power.”
“At the moment, there are 18 self-governing institutions within the University of London’s federal structure, a lot of which are, in many respects, regarded as universities in their own right. For example, if one looks at the 2019 university league tables, one sees that the London School of Economics is third, University College London, of which my late father was a graduate, getting first-class honours in Latin, is 10th—”
“This debate would not have taken place had I not blocked this Bill going through on the nod on Second Reading, and the contributions we have had today show that it has been a worthwhile exercise. I do not believe Bills should go through this House without being discussed, particularly when they are opaque. When the Bill was being debated in the other place, it was conceded that the foremost reason and key rationale for it was that it would facilitate universities becoming universities in their own right in London, and it was conceded that that was not clear in the Bill. If something is not clear in the Bill, how are we going to get to the bottom of it unless we start debating it? That is where the value of what we are doing this evening lies.”
“The Bill will do quite the reverse by increasing the number of organisations that will be able to award degrees, with the perverse incentive that they will want to be able to make their degrees easier and engage in the grade inflation about which so many people are concerned. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point.”
“A report was produced by Reform, and Tom Richmond, the senior research fellow who was its author, has said: “Rocketing degree grade inflation is in no one’s interest.” It continued: “Universities may think easier degrees are a way to attract students but eventually they will lose currency and students will go elsewhere, even overseas.” It went on to say: “Restoring the currency of degrees would also mean better value for money for the £18 billion that universities receive each year in tuition fees.” That report recommended that universities are stripped of their powers to award degrees and that final-year students should instead sit new national assessments for each degree course.”
“What is going to be done to protect their position? Obviously, they operate on the basis that they are part of the University of London, with all the prestige that that brings to their activities. A number of the 24 Russell Group universities are in fact colleges of the University of London—King’s College, LSE, Queen Mary and University College. A lot of these colleges are already seen as universities in their own right, so is it really going to make an enormous difference when this Bill is enacted? I am not so sure about that. I was disappointed that the Minister did not address one of the hot topics of the moment, which is grade inflation. To what extent are these 12 new universities, instantly created as a result of this legislation, going to engage in grade inflation?”
“Far better than me. King’s College London is 26th, Royal Holloway is 28th, Queen Mary is 38th, the School of Oriental and African Studies is 46th, St George’s is 52nd, Goldsmiths is 62nd and City, which has recently joined the University of London, is 66th. The college to which my hon. Friend referred, Birkbeck, is 125th. We are told that other colleges, beyond the ones I have mentioned, are aspiring to become universities in their own right. They may include the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, which this league table puts top of the arts and drama institutions. The question I would like to ask is this: what is going to happen to the other colleges within the federation of the University of London? They are probably not going to be in a position to become universities in their own right, and may not even aspire to do so.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my point with that long intervention. I shall not engage in a long argument about it, but he is talking about all 18 colleges of the University of London being able to become universities in their own right. Why are they going to want to do that? Currently, the collegiate council can deal with issues relating to grade inflation within the University of London. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Minister does not think that that is an important issue with which the council should be able to deal. In itself, the creation of a new university obviously does not mean that it will indulge in grade inflation, but when a report has been produced that suggests that fewer, rather than more, universities should award degrees, the Bill seems to me to be going in the wrong direction.”
“Obviously I always take such things into account, but my hon. Friend has not actually told me what the Government are doing to counter grade inflation in universities. From what he has said, it seems implicit that he regards it as a serious problem. If he wishes to intervene again, I would be grateful if he told me what he is going to do about it.”
“However, I have to accept that, so far, they do not seem to have complained about it, so all one can do in such a debate is to raise the issue and see what flows from it. The Bill will now obviously go to an Unopposed Bill Committee, because there are no petitions against it. In recent Unopposed Bill Committees, pertinent questions have quite often been asked about private Bills. I hope that that process will be gone through again, and that, if the Bill needs to be amended in any way, that process will not be avoided but will be facilitated as a result of today’s debate. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.”
“We could perhaps also be told at some stage to what extent the Privy Council’s engagement in this process over the years has resulted in changes to processes that would otherwise have taken place without the approval of the Privy Council. Has the Privy Council’s involvement been a pointless exercise, or has it brought pressure to bear to ensure that the only changes carried through are those that are sensible and in the best interests of all 18 members of the University of London’s federal structure? I fear that colleges in the University of London not becoming universities in their own right will have the consequence of putting tremendous pressure on the other colleges, which may be to their detriment.”
“It may not be the subject of the debate, but it would be very much a pertinent subject for each college that wishes to acquire university status in its own right. Before I finish, let me refer to clause 4(2), which enables the disengagement of the Privy Council from having to approve what comes out of the collegiate council’s consultation process. It seems to me that what was said in the other place—I referred to it in an intervention—was absolutely germane. We are talking about relaxing the control of the governing body over what happens within the University of London federation. If the safeguard against abuse of that relaxed control is the involvement of the Privy Council, why does the Bill also legislate to do away with that Privy Council involvement? It would be helpful if the answer to that was available now.”
“I am pleased to have been able to pursue this debate on behalf of the petitioners, as I can now see the beneficial results.”
“In undertaking (9), they undertake “in preparing the strategy, to consult the Navigation Advisory Committee…as well as the local planning authorities, and housing authorities”, and in under undertaking (10), they undertake “to keep the strategy under review, and revise…as necessary”. Those are much more proactive undertakings than one might have thought from my hon. Friend’s summary, and they point to one of the big concerns from the outset, which was that the people using the Middle Level for the purposes of residential occupation felt they could be priced out or discriminated against. The undertakings in the letter, however, which have been incorporated into the amendments, are a significant improvement on what was there originally. I do not need to undertake an exercise of self-justification.”
“I hope that it does not, because undertaking (7) says that the Middle Level Commissioners are undertaking “to prepare and publish a strategy setting out how they intend to exercise the powers conferred by section 15 with the aim of increasing the availability of residential moorings (including transit and temporary moorings) on the waterways”. Undertaking (8) sets out “that the strategy will include details of the steps that the Commissioners will take to…identify potential residential mooring sites to be put to the local planning authority…facilitate applications for planning permission for residential moorings” and to “provide residential mooring themselves, subject to obtaining funding and planning permission”.”
“As you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that issue took up quite a lot of debate during the Bill’s earlier stages in the House, and the undertaking that has now been given is very important. I also refer briefly to undertaking (5) on the level of the registration fee for static houseboats, which limits the charges for residential houseboats. Undertakings (7), (8), (9) and (10) relate to the residential mooring strategy, which, again, my hon. Friend referred to briefly. He was saying that it all depends on the local planning authority.”
“I shall start with the first undertaking, which states that the commissioners undertake “to spend at least 25% of the annual income received from charges under section 5 on providing facilities on the Nene-Ouse Navigation Link which meet the current Minimum Standards for the Provision of Facilities for Boaters as published by the Inland Waterways Association, until the standards are achieved on this route; and will maintain those facilities until the Navigation Advisory Committee agrees that they are no longer needed (or an expert appointed to determine any dispute following the procedures set out in section 3 determines that they are no longer needed)”.”
“Is it not good that we are having a debate about these amendments so that comments can be put on the record and people looking at the history of the Middle Level in future can say, “This is what these amendments were about.”? I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for introducing and explaining them and putting that on the record, because otherwise this might have gone through on the nod. My hon. Friend referred to the amendments in such detail, so I shall concentrate on one or two of the undertakings, because they are an equally important part of the process. The undertakings are contained in a letter dated 13 July to Lord Thomas, who was the Chair of the Opposed Bill Committee on the Middle Level Bill in the other place.”
“Why are we not talking about a duty on local authorities to carry out enforcement? The Minister is saying that they have the powers, but the Public Bill Committee heard evidence that the London Borough of Newham prosecutes around 250 landlords and agents a year and that that represents half the total number of prosecutions in the whole sector. Why is there not a duty on local authorities to carry out enforcement?”
“As I understand it, the Government are not proposing to abolish the right of doctors to charge for writing letters, so why are we proposing to prevent letting agents from charging for the services that they provide?”
“Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has said, this is not a Conservative measure at all, and I despair at the fact that so many people seem to want to support this exercise in socialism and control. Why should a Conservative Government be engaged in preventing professionals from charging a fee for services rendered? Doctors in my constituency charge those aspiring to become social tenants £15 a time to get a medical certificate in support of a social housing transfer. That—in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—is not a cost, but a charge. It is a charge, and it is an arbitrary charge: it is imposed, but payable.”
“It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. I am neither a landlord nor a tenant, but I am the chair of the all-party group on the private rented sector, and that sector is under substantial pressure on issues relating to regulation and interference by the Government. The Residential Landlords Association has estimated that, in the past nine months alone, there have been over 25 consultations across Whitehall proposing changes that will have an impact on the private sector. More than 140 Acts of Parliament and more than 400 regulations affect landlords in the private sector already. That is why many of those landlords choose to get help from letting agents, and this Bill is a direct attack on the profession of letting agents. As my hon.”
“However, I think that there is too much crowd-pleasing on the part of the Government and not enough sensible regulation and recognition of the important work done by those in the private rented sector.”
“It is very difficult for tenants on housing benefit to obtain accommodation. It is very difficult for tenants who do not have clear British citizenship to get rented accommodation. All those things will become a lot more difficult as a result of this additional burden on the private rented sector. Some 30 years ago, I was a junior Housing Minister. I was much associated with deregulating the sector—introducing shortholds, getting rid of controlled tenancies and enabling the growth that has taken place in the private rented sector. I am disappointed to see my Government working in the opposite direction. I signed amendment 4, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. I understand that he has been bought off by the Government, so I will not press the matter to a vote.”
“No, I will not give way, because I want to allow hon. Members who have not yet spoken to get in. Why are we preventing letting agents from charging for credit reference searches, identity and passport checks, and all the rest? When one looks at the evidence in support of the Bill, it is quite clear that if the existing laws were properly enforced, the need for the Bill would not have arisen. I am extremely sceptical about the Government’s assertion that enforcement will be a lot more effective. If they really believe that, why do they not place a duty on local authorities to enforce the legislation, rather than leaving it as a mere power? The legislation will have a lot of unintended consequences. It is already difficult enough for tenants to obtain rented accommodation if they have pets.”
“I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, particularly for the generous comments with which she began her remarks. As a consequence of this being a Government Bill rather than a private Member’s Bill, my right hon. Friend will have seen its financial implications. The financial implications set out in the explanatory notes are on the basis that there will be 29 prosecutions a year—that is all. Is she surprised at all the hoo-hah about this, and that the Government are expecting only 29 prosecutions a year?”
“Hate crime is one of those vile activities that we need to legislate against, but we need to do it in a really good way. The best way to do that is, as she suggests, by getting the Law Commission on board because it has the expertise to help us in this House.”
“May I say how much I welcome this debate? I am grateful to the Government for taking forward this measure as a Government Bill rather than relying on the private Members’ procedure. I am also very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, for her generous comments about the importance of being able properly to scrutinise in a sober fashion the very serious issues that are contained in this Bill and indeed the wider debate, which has been developed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). In answer to her point on that, I say bring on the Law Commission. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I think that it is very important that we should try to keep abreast of new developments.”
“I have nothing but praise for the hon. Lady. Fortunately, the Opposition Whips, who are represented on the Selection Committee, obviously did not think it was necessary to allow the Bill to proceed without any amendment. It is worth putting on record that, during that Committee debate, the official Opposition spokesman said: “The Opposition support the Bill completely, and will not propose any amendments.” –– [ Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 2 July 2018; c. 17.] At that stage, the Opposition were blindly supporting the Bill, rather than being prepared to examine exactly how it might be improved.”
“It has certainly done the latter. It is quite a long time since a Second Reading Committee was set up to consider a piece of legislation, but in terms of making faster progress, there is no doubt that we are much further on than we would have been if this had remained a private Member’s Bill. Some of the other Bills that had already had their Second Reading have yet to come out of Committee and reach their Report stage. So those are some of the advantages of having a Government Bill. Another advantage is that when the Bill goes into Committee, the Committee has the opportunity to take evidence. My right hon. Friend gave potent evidence to the Committee, as did other witnesses. That would not have been possible if the Bill had stayed a private Member’s Bill.”
“When one divides that by £8,000, which is the cost of each case, one comes up with a figure of 29 prosecutions a year. If the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) had gone out into the street in her constituency and said, “I’m bringing forward this really important piece of legislation that will result in 29 prosecutions a year,” I am unsure whether people would have thought that it was as significant as it was being portrayed.”
“The Bill would have been vulnerable as a private Member’s Bill—that is particularly true when a Bill reaches the other place. Mr Speaker, I know that I am going to be told that I am straying from the amendments that I am seeking to address, and I apologise if I am doing that. I am hoping to establish support for amendment 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, to ensure that the Bill delivers what it says on the tin. The Minister said that she was going to outlaw upskirting, and judging by the correspondence that I have had, most people assumed that that was what was going to be delivered. But then when one looks at the detail of the Bill’s financial implications, one works out that the Government are banking on it costing only £230,000 a year to a prosecute all these offences.”
“My purpose in saying “Object” was that I wanted the Bill to be scrutinised, and full marks to the Government—I do not always give them full marks—for recognising that this was a Bill that could be properly scrutinised only if it became a Government Bill. So did I achieve my objective? Yes, I did. I am pleased that the Government have done this. I am sure that the hon. Lady, having seen the strength of some of the amendments and new clauses, will reflect on the fact that if the Bill had been left as a private Member’s Bill for her to steer through, she would have been under pressure from the Government throughout. They would have told her not to accept any amendments, and that if she did, the Government would prevent the Bill from making progress.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“One final consequence of this being a Government Bill is that when it goes to their lordships’ place nobody will be deterred from tabling amendments on the basis that if they do so, there will not be time to consider those amendments in private Members’ Bill time in the House of Commons and therefore the Bill will be killed. That argument will not run in the House of Lords in relation to a Government Bill, which this is. That is another reason why it is a very good idea that it is a Government Bill. I am very enthusiastic about amendment 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, and obviously equally enthusiastic about my own.”
“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is very important that we should have this discussion, as this issue is complicated, and I agree with her suggestion. That is another argument in favour of having a proper, sober debate on this issue, without getting too much emotional involvement in it. Finally, if the Government are reluctant to accept the amendments put forward today and reluctant to extend the scope of the Bill so that it embraces more than 29 potential prosecutions every year, I hope that when the Bill reaches the other place their lordships will look at this legislation and say, “We want to make sure it actually delivers what it says it is going to deliver.” It certainly does not do that at the moment, and it will not unless it is amended.”
“If the hon. Lady needs a reference for the figure—I am surprised if she does—it is contained in the explanatory notes. Paragraphs 29 to 31, which concern the financial implications of the Bill, make it clear that the cost per prosecution is £8,000, and that the total cost to the Exchequer of the legislation will be £230,000 a year. If we divide one into the other, we get the figure of 29.”
“That is our challenge to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister. In all the correspondence I have received, people feel that all upskirting offences should be subject to the criminal law and criminal sanctions, irrespective of motive. If there are to be offences that are not subject to criminal sanctions, we need to spell them out squarely and fairly, which has not been done so far. I welcome the scrutiny the Bill has received so far, the way in which the Minister has accepted the spirit of new clause 1 and her willingness to look again at other issues, and I am happy to support Third Reading. But I hope that when, eventually, the Bill returns to this House, the Government will accept amendments made in the other place that make it even better. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.”
“Surely the Government’s motivation is to simplify the law in this area and to ensure that all offences of upskirting are dealt with under the Bill, rather than under the common law. It would help to spell that out, not least for the benefit of police officers and the prosecuting authorities. If that is the intention—I drew an analogy earlier with the offence of using a mobile phone while driving compared with the offence of driving without due care and attention—there is a lot to be said for having the specific offence in the Bill cover all instances of upskirting. If and when the Minister addresses the issue, perhaps she will come up with an answer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke of what offences of upskirting she believes should not be subject to any criminal sanction.”
“and learned Friend the Minister has addressed that conundrum, and in the absence of its having been dealt with in this House, I hope it will be dealt with in the other place. My hon. and learned Friend has offered a review of the legislation after two years, which is obviously better than nothing, but with the greatest of respect, the best thing for her and her Department to do is to review the Bill between now and when it is debated in the other place—that will hopefully be a lot sooner than two years—so that we can try to get some consistency. As a leading counsel, she will know that, where a statutory offence is introduced, it trumps a common law offence as a matter of principle.”
“That common law offence is on the statute book, so if there is no requirement for mens rea in relation to that offence, why are we saying that the geographical gap in the law can be filled only by legislation that includes a requirement of mens rea and a requirement to prove the motive of sexual gratification in particular, and other motives besides? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked, which instances of voyeurism that are currently subject to the common law, and that can be prosecuted under the common law offence, will not be covered by this Bill in the geographical location that is not covered by the offence of outraging public decency? It does not seem to me that my hon.”
“Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), I hope that the other place will also look carefully at the restrictions that are currently in proposed new section 67A(1)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which is found in clause 1(2) and relates to the necessity of proving a purpose in order to establish guilt. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister talked about mens rea—I am not sure whether, in due course, we will get on to “womens rea”—and I would like her to explain how it is that, under the current common law offence of outraging public decency, for which she says this Bill is filling a geographical gap, there is no requirement for mens rea.”