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“When was the last time that an allotted Opposition day was withdrawn in the way that the Leader of the House is withdrawing this one?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 44 of 109.
“Thank you very much, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I have come along this afternoon so that I can ask a few questions, because this topic is very relevant in my area. I shall not draw on my area at the moment, save to say that a proposal will come before the House shortly for Christchurch Borough Council to be merged with Bournemouth and Poole Borough Councils into one new unitary authority, against the wishes of the people of Christchurch. Putting that to one side, I am concerned that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place has reported on the draft statutory instruments but that we have not yet had any reference to that report. I hope hon. Members will indulge me and allow me to bring to their attention what that Committee had to say.”
“I also hope that they listen to what the Minister says in response to concerns expressed about boundary changes, and whether there has been sufficient consultation. Is the number of councillors, which will be significantly less than it is currently, right? Do people feel—we know they do from the representations of people from Lowestoft—that they will be under the cosh and taken for granted by those in the rest of the new local authority area?”
“I was trying to do that, and I am sorry if I failed. My last point was about the need for consent in relation to the powers being used to merge councils. Where there is consent, it can be a strong card. Indeed, that is why the Opposition support this measure. However, let us look at the consent of not just councils and councillors but the people whom they represent—the people who elect them. In that context, I was drawing an analogy for district councils. Under normal law, even a parish council cannot be abolished without the support not only of that council, but of the people who live in the parish. That is a potent point on which to end my short submission. I hope hon. Members think carefully before they decide which way to vote.”
“The Minister is not just disagreeing with me, he is disagreeing with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of the other place, which drew the instrument to our attention on the grounds that there appeared to be “inadequacies” in the consultation processes.”
“A proposal can be made, but if a decision was made on such a proposal before the regulations came into effect, it would seem to me—I stand to be corrected by the Minister, if he has wiser counsel—that that would be retrospective in effect. That is very relevant in relation to my council, which the Government seek to abolish, despite there having been a local referendum in which 84% of the local people were against the proposal that the council should be forced to merge with Bournemouth and Poole. I put that down as a marker to the shadow Minister.”
“Members’ notice that the West Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Enactments) Regulations 2018 actually alter the 2007 Act. The regulations state: “A proposal made by either or both of the relevant authorities before the date that these Regulations come into force that otherwise complies with section 8 of the 2007 Act as modified…shall be treated as a proposal made under section 8(2A).” That is potentially a retrospective provision. The explanatory memorandum states: “Regulation 4 provides for the relevant provisions of the 2007 Act as modified by these Regulations to apply to the implementation of a proposal made before the coming into force of these Regulations.” Will the Minister explain whether such a proposal has yet been made and whether a decision has been made on that proposal? There are two separate stages to the process.”
“The Minister also said, very helpfully, that it was the Government’s policy to support councils that wished to combine. Here we have two independent, sovereign district councils saying that they wish to combine. In the case involving Christchurch, which will perhaps come up in due course, the situation is that sovereign councils do not wish to combine. This measure is potentially an important precedent in relation to the use of section 15, which was always designed, as was articulated by the Government at the time, to bring councils together to discuss what might be in their mutual best interests and the mutual best interests of the citizens and the businesses in their locality. I ask the Minister about the particular provisions relating to electoral arrangements. I am sure it will not have escaped hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I want to raise some issues arising from this statutory instrument. As the Minister said, this is the first time that section 15 of the 2016 Act has been used. I was present in the House during the Third Reading of that Bill. During that debate, I was given an undertaking by the Secretary of State, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that the powers in section 15 would not be used to abolish any individual local authority without its consent. I am pleased that the proposal before the House today, unlike one that may come before the House soon in relation to my own borough of Christchurch, enjoys the consent of the councils concerned. That is the first point.”
“The mere fact that councils wish to do something should not mean that we play fast and loose in relation to the principles nor that we legislate retrospectively, but only prospectively.”
“I raise this issue because in correspondence, the Leader of the House drew my attention to these proposals and prayed them in aid as some kind of precedent. It is because I looked at them and compared them with the case that I had been raising with her that I thought it was important to raise these issues on the Floor of the House. I hope the Minister will respond to the points that I have made. If he cannot do so today, I hope that he will very quickly do so in writing. We must be very jealous of our responsibilities here to ensure that we do not legislate with retrospective effect, however expedient that might seem to be. In this case, there are two councils that, apparently, want to abolish themselves and create a new council, for whatever motives—it is not for me to look into their motives.”
“My main concern is about changing the 2007 Act after the event to enable changes to be made to the boundaries without the Minister engaging the Boundary Commission, as would normally be required under that Act—changing the rules by changing the law and backdating that change to 2007. Obviously, the impact of that and the severity of that retrospection depends on whether the proposals have only just been produced or whether they have been implemented. It seemed to me, from looking at the explanatory notes, that in this case, the Boundary Commission has not yet implemented the proposal. Can the Minister confirm that that is the situation? That will differentiate this particular case from the case that I will draw to the attention of the House on a future occasion.”
“It seems to me that there is something awry. I commend the fact that in this case, both the councils concerned have made a full business case for what they are trying to achieve. It may well become apparent in due course that that is not commonplace. If councils are going to submit proposals for mergers, and they pray in aid quite heroic savings figures, it would be desirable that a proper cast-iron business case is drawn up in advance. That would demonstrate that those figures have some validity and could be subject to proper scrutiny by Members of this House. I accept that that has been done in this case, and I commend the council’s concern for having done that.”
“Part of the explanatory memorandum states: “A full regulatory impact assessment has not been prepared as these instruments will have no impact on the costs of business and the voluntary sector.” How can such an assertion be made? Surely both the councils—one a borough council and one a district council—are already supplying services or giving money to local voluntary organisations that are dependent on those councils for grant funding. If those councils are merged without any guarantee of continuity of funding— there is no guarantee set out in any of the documents before us today—the instrument may have an impact on the voluntary sector. Likewise, whether positive or negative, the costs of business could and probably will be affected by the measures. Why is there no business regulatory impact assessment for those costs?”
“I do not want to discuss councils other than this one, but in looking at the report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place—it looks at the policy aspects of regulations—I saw that it expressed concerns about whether there was sufficient local consent. That was not from the councils themselves, but the other parishes and organisations within the council area. It is a bit of a disappointment to me that that has not yet been explored, but obviously I am not a Member for this area, so I will not press that point. It is important, however, that we look not only at the views of the councils themselves, but the views of the people living in those council areas. Will the Minister comment on this?”
“Absolutely, Mr Pritchard. That is why I said it is important that the issue of consent is put to the fore. Where there is not consent, different issues arise. I am basically putting the shadow Minister—she leads for the Opposition on these issues—on notice that she should be alert to other measures that might be brought forward using the same powers. The Minister has lauded the fact that this is the first time that section 15 has been used. I hope that the shadow Minister will be alert to future occasions when that clause might be used in circumstances where there has not been consent. In the absence of that consent, such measures would potentially be in breach of the undertaking given to the House on Third Reading in December 2015 by the then Secretary of State.”
“Before the Minister goes on to the next point, can he explain why the alteration of the 2007 Act, by regulations brought in and being debated today, is not retrospective?”
“Christchurch was around a long time before Bournemouth was ever invented, and it resents enormously my Government’s proposals to abolish it against the clearly expressed will of the people. I recently saw in the paper that the Secretary of State has said that it would be wrong for Parliament to reject the people’s verdict in the EU referendum. Likewise, the people of Christchurch think it is totally wrong for the Government to reject their verdict, which was delivered by more than 17,000 people in their local referendum last December.”
“Ironically, we face the prospect that one issue on which I fought hard, namely leaving the European Union, will be delivered on 29 March next year, thereby bringing back sovereignty to the United Kingdom to the delight of myself and my constituents, but two days later, the other issue on which I fought hard, namely that Christchurch Borough Council should retain its sovereignty and independence, will not be delivered, because Christchurch will lose the sovereignty that it has had, in one form or another, since 1216 or thereabouts—a long time. When I refer back to the Conservative party manifesto, which talked about the sense of community, I have in mind the sense of community that can come only from a strong, historic association.”
“Amazingly, Bournemouth and Poole do not want to merge together to achieve significant savings, because both of them have a common interest in getting their hands on Christchurch and its assets. Although Christchurch cannot suggest that Bournemouth and Poole merge together, Bournemouth and Poole can not only object to their own merging together, but insist that they would like to merge with Christchurch in a new unitary authority. According to the Government’s rules, that is perfectly hunky dory and fair, but it is certainly not fair as far as my constituents and I are concerned. I fought the general election hard on this issue.”
“Under the Government’s new relaxed arrangements, if the council as a whole were to bring forward a plan seeking to remove that land from the green belt, all the protections that the people of Christchurch thought that they had in relation to green-belt land would be swept away. That is another cause for concern. The Government have dealt with all this in a thoroughly asymmetrical way. In Christchurch’s alternative submission to the Government, it suggested that one way out of all this would be for Bournemouth and Poole to merge together and leave Christchurch as it is. That was ruled out by the Government as not permissible under the rules, because they cannot force Bournemouth and Poole to merge together if they do not wish to do so.”
“That point is also emphasised by the fact that Christchurch Borough Council has at the moment 24 councillors and there are five county councillors in Christchurch. In the proposals that are being considered, the number of councillors would fall to about 10 or 11, which would be a significant diminution of democratic representation of the people of Christchurch. That means that Christchurch people would have much less influence in the future. The fear and loathing I have spoken about is coupled with the fact that it is well known that Bournemouth Borough Council is keen to take advantage of the fact that Christchurch has a lot of land in the green belt.”
“This relates to the issue of governance. When Christchurch Borough Council went to the joint committee, which it has joined to try to show good faith and co-operation, it insisted that the committee should accept the fairness and equity of having everybody paying the same council tax in a new area from day one, but that committee has shown absolute contempt for the council’s representations. Of course, that is not surprising, because in a new unitary authority Christchurch would only comprise 13% of the councillors and resources of that authority. Therefore, Christchurch’s interests will be in a permanent minority. This issue of harmonisation is symptomatic of the high-handed way in which Christchurch people will be dealt with in the future, were this unitary authority to come about.”
“I have asked for notes of that meeting, but I have been told that no notes were kept. However, that meeting was really crucial, because on the basis of what was said at it, the consultation that was carried out in Dorset—designed to secure the approval of the people for a change from two-tier local government to unitary local government—was based on a 20-year harmonisation period. In November 2017, the official in charge of this, Paul Rowsell, told me that the harmonisation period of 20 years was certainly off the agenda completely; that the maximum period for harmonisation would be five years, but more likely in the range of zero and two to three years; and that up until now there had never been a situation where councils had been abolished or restructured and the harmonisation period had been longer than two years. So what happened?”
“Given the gap of over £200 in the current level of council tax between Bournemouth and Poole, on the one hand, and Christchurch on the other, a new authority will need to levy a council tax that is ultimately the same across the whole of the new unitary authority area. Christchurch Borough Council has been insistent that in such a scenario harmonisation or equalisation should take place from the outset. A similar proposal has been accepted by the joint committee in the rural part of Dorset. However, in order to try to demonstrate that local government reorganisation would be good value, the consultation with the people was carried out on the basis of a harmonisation period of 20 years. Where did that figure come from? It came from a discussion that was held between section 151 officers from Dorset and departmental officials in June 2016.”
“None of those privileges, which the Secretary of State accords to councils and people in Northamptonshire, have been accorded to my constituents. Instead, a proposal has been brought forward over a long period of time, initially by council chief officers—with the support of many of the leaders of the councils at that time, many of whom have since been replaced—on the basis of a very dubious “consultation”, which took place as long ago as the autumn of 2016. In relation to Northamptonshire, the Secretary of State says that he would expect proposals to come forward and that they should be current, so that any business plans will relate to the current financial arrangements, rather than to historic ones, which is what is proposed in Dorset. Harmonisation is a fraught issue.”
“For example, Poole has residents in Sandbanks and Canford Cliffs, who are immensely better off than those in many parts of my constituency. Why should Christchurch Borough Council be expected to subsidise those people long into the future? The Government’s proposal raises some serious issues. Recently, the Secretary of State used his existing powers under section 2 of the 2007 Act to invite proposals for structural change in Northamptonshire. By so doing, he triggered requirements for consultation, under section 7(3) of the 2007 Act, and he enabled local authorities collectively or individually to put forward their own proposals. He has also set out guidance as to what a proposal should seek to achieve and matters that should be taken into account in formulating a proposal.”
“It has quite high levels of council tax. A report in The Sunday Times this week said that the highest council taxes in the country are in the Dorset area. They are not so high in Bournemouth and Poole, because for many years they decided not to increase their council taxes—as was prudently required—in order to ingratiate themselves with their electors. Now, with a gap of more than £200 a year at band D between the council tax in Poole and that in Christchurch, the people of Christchurch are really worried that in the event of a unitary authority, they will not only take on the big capital debt risks to which I have referred, but will have to subsidise people in Bournemouth and Poole who are inherently, in many cases, better off than they are.”
“Over recent years, my constituents have watched Bournemouth with dismay—from the safety of the other side of the River Stour—as they have seen one failed project after another: the IMAX cinema, the surf reef and the £395,000 pay-off for the last chief executive. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that there is a well-established and, I think, well-founded loathing by many Christchurch citizens of the way in which Bournemouth Council behaves. That is now coupled with a real fear that if Christchurch is forced to join with Bournemouth and Poole, it will result in a diminution of the quality of services and Christchurch taking on responsibility for enormous debts, which have been brought together by Bournemouth Council at a time when Christchurch Borough Council has been prudent. It is debt free. It has done the right thing.”
“The authors of the letter describe the prospect of failure as “disturbingly likely” and say that, in such a scenario, Bournemouth Council “would be left to service a significantly increased debt, backed by an asset which…would not cover the value of the ‘investment’.” The loan being taken out by Bournemouth Council to achieve its objective is described as “the very antithesis of prudent borrowing”. If the Secretary of State has his way, citizens and businesses in Christchurch will be saddled with the consequences of Bournemouth’s decision for many years to come. It is ironic that the justification that the Government give for seeking local government reorganisation is to achieve better value for money.”
“I do not know whether the Minister shares my concern that that is another example of the abuse by local authorities of the preferential loan terms that they get from the Government, which enable them to make borrowings at far lower cost than the private and commercial sectors. In a letter sent this week on behalf of other hotel proprietors in Bournemouth, it is said that “there would be a real, adverse impact on the provision of front-line services” if “this highly speculative venture were to fail”.”
“20WS.] Although the Secretary of State said some time ago that he would reach a decision on the Dorset combined authority proposal at the same time as making his announcement on local government reorganisation, I understand that there has been no further communication on this even since 26 February. Why is that? How is it that the Government believe that their decisions on local government reorganisation do not impact on the costs of business? To take one topical example, on 6 March Bournemouth Borough Council decided to approve an investment in the construction of a hotel on the site adjacent to the Bournemouth International Centre involving some £70 million to be borrowed by the council, and “to make consequential changes to the budget of the Council”.”
“One justification for the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 was to facilitate devolution so that businesses could be more involved with local authorities in achieving regeneration. To that end, all Dorset councils and Dorset local enterprise partnership collectively made a submission for the creation of a Dorset combined authority. The submission was made in July 2016, but remains undecided by the Secretary of State. In his statement of 26 February, he said that he intended “now to ask the leaders of the Dorset councils how they would like to proceed with their combined authority proposal”. —[ Official Report , 26 February 2018; Vol. 636, c.”
“In a further briefing, the chief executive said: “I don’t recall any discussion with MHCLG”— the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government— “about this and my first knowledge of any of the details was in a letter, sent by MHCLG in the latter part of March to each Chief Executive to ask if their Council would give its consent to the making of Orders to bring about local government reform”. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would now correct the answer that he gave to my question, and the assertion that the regulations had been “developed and worked up with all nine councils”. The Minister has also failed to explain why he believes that the regulations have no impact on the costs of business and the voluntary sector and, as a result, do not require a regulatory impact assessment to be produced.”
“Friend sent on 27 March to me and other colleagues in Dorset state specifically that the draft regulations had been “developed and worked up with all nine Councils”, when that was not correct? In one of my questions, No. 136755, I asked him to explain why the retrospective effect and impact of the regulations was not set out and why he did not consult Christchurch Borough Council in making the regulations. This Minister answered that the regulations “were shared and developed with the Chief Executives and Monitoring Officers of all nine…councils.” It is clear from what the chief executive of Christchurch Borough Council has said that that is not correct.”
“The second set of regulations were certainly the subject of consultation and discussion, but why was there no specific consultation on the first set—the ones to which I have referred? When was the need for the regulations first identified, and for what reason were they laid more than 13 months after the need for them arose? That was when the Dorset councils made the application that the regulations are designed to validate. The chief executive of Christchurch Borough Council has told me in an email: “There was no discussion at any point about the need for an invitation to be made. It was only when the draft Regulations were sent to each of the Councils that the matter of ‘invitation’ came to light”. Why did the letter that my right hon.”
“The Dorset (Structural Changes) (Modification of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007) Regulations 2018, laid on 29 March, are designed to make several changes to the 2007 Act and to backdate those changes so that an application for single-tier local government does not have to be made in response to an invitation from the Secretary of State. Since the laying of those regulations, I have tabled a series of parliamentary questions to my right hon. Friend, to many of which I do not think I have received a satisfactory response. I shall refer to one or two of them now. Why has there been no specific consultation on the regulations to which I have referred? Two sets of regulations were laid on the same day.”
“The most fundamental question that this debate raises is whether the future governance of Christchurch should be decided by its citizens and elected representatives or by the Government. The Government are seeking parliamentary approval to ignore the will of the people of Christchurch, its elected district councillors, county councillors and Member of Parliament. The issue was put before the people of Christchurch in a local referendum last December. They voted by 84% to 16%, on a 54% turnout, against the council’s being forced into a merger with Bournemouth and Poole to create a new unitary authority.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered future governance of Christchurch Borough Council. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Let me remind hon. Members of some important parts of the 2017 Conservative party manifesto. On page 9, it says: “True Conservatism means a commitment to country and community…a respect for the local and national institutions that bind us together”. On page 12, it says: “Theresa May’s Conservatives will deliver…Prosperous towns and cities, underpinned by strong local institutions”. On page 32, it says: “We will support those authorities that wish to combine to serve their communities better.” It is with those three commitments in mind that I invite my hon. Friend the Minister carefully to think again about the future governance of Christchurch Borough Council.”
“May I ask my right hon. Friend about two statutory instruments that were laid just before Easter, which are designed to abolish Christchurch Borough Council against its will? Will she assure me that neither of those instruments will be brought forward for debate until there has been a report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to which I have written pointing out that one of those statutory instruments seeks to change primary legislation and to do so retrospectively, with hybrid effect and in breach of Government undertakings to Parliament?”
“Friend has told me that he will try to limit exit payments for local government officers to £95,000, in accordance with the Government’s pledge. At my behest, he did go off and ask council officials in Dorset about that, and the response from them was, “Bollocks!” and “We have worked our bollocks off—no way are we going to allow our exit payments to be limited to £95,000.” The savings being suggested are unreasonable, and this is all leading to a failure and breakdown in good-quality local government. As I think I have probably made clear during my speech, I am an extremely dissatisfied bunny as Easter approaches, because I believe in localism.”
“Last autumn, they changed their view, and their advice then was that it would be for a maximum of five years, while I was told by a departmental official that it would be two years at the longest, and that it might be less. We still cannot get any firm information from my right hon. Friend or his Department about the period of harmonisation they have in mind. However, it seems that the consultation that went out some 18 months ago, based on a 20-year harmonisation period, was a false prospectus. It has caused people across Dorset to reach a conclusion on the basis that they would all be much better off financially, when in fact they will not be; that particularly affected people in Poole. My right hon.”
“The Secretary of State is intent on adding insult to injury by forcing tax payers in Christchurch to carry on cross-subsidising those in Poole and Bournemouth even after the unitary authority is established. That will, for example, force my constituents in one of the poorest council estates in the whole of the west country to subsidise people living in Canford Cliffs and Sandbanks. It is totally unacceptable and, frankly, a cause for shame that I, as a Conservative Member of Parliament who campaigned against this, have been let down very badly by my own Government. This has not been helped by the fact that the Department has kept on moving the goalposts. Originally, officials at the Department assured section 151 officers across Dorset that harmonisation, as it is called, over 20 years would be perfectly acceptable.”
“One of the perverse consequences of the Government’s policy drive towards unitarisation is the destruction of small local councils that have been prudent and are debt-free, as is Christchurch. Christchurch has raised from local tax payers the money that is necessary, while the neighbouring authorities—Poole and Bournemouth—that are now going to take it over, together with its assets, artificially held down their council taxes for many years. The consequence is that the council tax in Bournemouth and in Poole is about £200 less at band D than it is in Christchurch. Those authorities are being rewarded for putting forward false budgets, while Christchurch is being penalised for having been prudent and responsible.”
“The Secretary of State has asserted, incorrectly, that savings will be made all across Dorset as a result, yet we know that just on the issue of the negative revenue support grant, Dorset stands to lose over £10 million a year. Despite having received assurances in private from him that that would be sorted out, we have still to see the detail and see whether he will deliver on that assurance. Back in December 2015, my right hon. Friend’s predecessor, who is now the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, assured the House that the Government would not abolish councils against their will. The Government have reneged on that promise, to their eternal shame, and have in so doing encouraged council chief officers to be distracted from their responsibilities to deliver good-quality local services.”
“I listened carefully to the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I must say that his claims that the Government support local government and that they believe all changes should be led from the ground up will ring very hollow in Christchurch, where he has announced his decision to abolish an independent sovereign council, which has been in existence effectively since 1216, against its will. Back in November, he said that there was insufficient local consent. The local council then decided to hold a local referendum, in which 84% of the people voting were against the council’s abolition and the enforced merger with Poole and Bournemouth. Yet, despite that, the Secretary of State decided, after the poll had been announced, that there was now sufficient local consent.”
“Why will my right hon. Friend not specifically answer the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross)? Why can he not give a guarantee that, in 2020, we will actually take back control over our fishing and our waters?”
“Does my right hon. Friend accept that the actions of the Russian Federation are totally incompatible with membership of the Council of Europe, which believes in democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and will she ensure that we can expel Russia from the Council of Europe as a reprisal? Its continuing membership seems to fly in the face of our commitment to those important values.”
“I congratulate my right hon. Friend on not being provoked by the ridiculous statements coming from the European Union on this subject. I commend to my right hon. Friend the wise words of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), because they show that we can have a border with regulatory divergence, as there is at the moment. Why can that not continue into the future?”
“The background to new clause 1 is the principle of quid pro quo, because the petitioners are concerned that new charges and obligations are being brought in without their getting anything in return. Before I expand on that, I should say that all the new clauses and amendments are grouped as one, so we are effectively discussing the Bill as a whole. I think that every part of the Bill is included in one or other of the amendments.”
“Beale and others, the commissioners must provide something beyond what is already provided in return for making additional charges. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay will accept that that is a reasonable proposition. The March Cruising Club is of the opinion that if boaters can be charged to use the system for navigation, it is essential that boater facilities are maintained and that an adequate depth of water is introduced as a minimum standard. Where that does not apply, any requirement to pay charges should be waived.”