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“When was the last time that an allotted Opposition day was withdrawn in the way that the Leader of the House is withdrawing this one?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 46 of 109.
“Does my right hon. Friend accept that all this injustice is being facilitated by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which enables these rogue parking enforcers to find out the identity of the owners of such vehicles?”
“I have two or three questions for the Minister. I have already mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) my concern about the DVLA’s inadequate behaviour in this respect. I do not see why the DVLA itself does not stop giving access to its database to rogue parking companies. This Bill proposes to deal with that indirectly through members of parking associations rather than directly with the parking companies concerned.”
“Will my hon. Friend say when he expects the provisions of this Bill, and the secondary legislation, to be enacted, so that people who are concerned about this issue know the deadline for implementing what we in this House want to do? If my hon. Friend gives satisfactory answers to those questions, I hope that the Bill can make progress.”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for correcting me. In that case, may I challenge the Minister to explain why so many of these rogue parking companies are continuing to operate in the disgusting way that we have heard about during this debate? Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure, when this Bill goes forward, that we also introduce a provision ensuring that there should be equal treatment of all vehicles in private car parks? In my local authority area of Christchurch there is a lot of resentment about the fact that when, for example, Travellers invade the car park, they are treated with impunity, whereas people who may have just overstayed by 20 minutes find themselves having the book thrown at them. Can we ensure that the Bill is used as a vehicle for getting equal treatment for all motorists who park in private car parks?”
“Let us require proof of all this before we take away the livelihood of a driver or deprive somebody else of the ability to become one. Clause 1(1)(f) talks about an indication that a person “has threatened, abused or insulted another person”. I think that would rule out anybody who has been in the Whips Office, either in opposition or government. I speak as somebody who has never been granted such a privilege, but what person who has served in the Whips Office can say hand on heart that they have never threatened, abused or insulted another person?”
“An indication that a person “has committed an offence”—I think there should be proof that they have. It goes on to say that the consequence of that offence involves not actual physical or psychological harm, but a risk of physical or psychological harm. That is so ludicrously widely drawn that is unfit to be the subject of legislation in this place. Clause 1(1)(e) is equally wide. There has to be an indication that somebody “has done anything that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, constitutes unlawful discrimination against” someone. If there has been “unlawful discrimination” in breach of the Equality Act, let it be established, but let us not have a smear that something may have happened or that there is an indication that it happened.”
“That is open to massive abuse by people who, for reasons best known to themselves, may have a grudge against somebody who is already a taxi driver or licensed private hire vehicle driver, or they may wish somebody else not to come into that competitive profession. That provision really must be tightened up if the Bill is to get on to the statute book. We then get to clause 1(1)(d). The “relevant information” would be an indication that a person “has committed an offence that involves a risk of causing physical or psychological harm to another person (whether or not the person was charged with, prosecuted for or convicted of the offence)”. That is so widely drawn as to be downright oppressive. Why do we need to include that in the Bill at all?”
“If we are going to introduce a rule book, it needs to contain rules rather than rumour or smear. I would be interested to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge explain why he has chosen to use such a wide expression. I am equally unhappy about clause 1(1)(c), which concerns an indication that an applicant “has caused physical or psychological harm to another person”. What will be the test for that? There is no requirement for it to be proven, either beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities; there simply has to be an indication that it has happened. An indication can come from someone who makes an anonymous telephone call.”
“Why should the relevant information include an indication that that person has committed a sexual offence, when that can be established without any difficulty? Then we get on to an indication that an applicant “has harassed another person”. That is incredibly wide, and we are not talking about a court appearance or any sort of offence. It means that somebody simply could allege to the licensing authority that they or somebody else had been harassed by the applicant. That licensing authority and others could use that indication as grounds for refusing the applicant a licence, thereby preventing him from becoming, or continuing as, a taxi driver or private hire driver. We are talking about depriving licensed drivers of their livelihood or preventing others from taking up the profession.”
“The key to my concern is apparent in the long title, which talks about making “provision about the exercise of taxi and private hire vehicle licensing functions in relation to persons about whom there are safeguarding or road safety concerns”. What do we mean by “concerns”? Concerns may be irrational. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) has been waiting for three months to find out the nature of the concerns about his conduct. Would the Bill prevent him from applying for a private hire licence? Clause 1 states: “In this Act “relevant information”, in relation to a person, means information indicating that the person…has committed a sexual offence.” “Indicating” is a very weak word; if the word was “proving” or “showing”, I would be much happier.”
“I have several concerns about the Bill. As with many Bills that were drafted with good intentions, the proposed remedy is disproportionate to the problem. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) accepts in his explanatory notes to the Bill that to obtain a licence to drive private hire vehicles or taxis, people have to show that they are of good character and that they are fit and proper persons. I have no problem with that, and I would have no problem with requiring all 293 licensing authorities to use the same test to ensure that an applicant was a fit and proper person and had not been ruled out by another licensing authority.”
“Clause 1(4) gives definitions of “sexual offence”; you may be pleased to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have no objection to that part of the clause. However, we then get on to clause 2, which would set up a new licensing information database. I do not know the extent to which that would be compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998, but it would basically mean that false information provided to one licensing authority on the basis of which that licensing authority has refused somebody a licence can then be transferred—”
“I have no problem with attempts to commit offences, conspiracies to commit offences, aiding and abetting, or incitement, which are listed in that subsection. I do, however, have a strong objection to clause 1(3), which states: “A reference in subsection (1) to an offence (including a reference having effect by virtue of subsection (2)) includes a reference to conduct that would have constituted the offence if it had been done in England and Wales.” In other words, we are not talking about offences; we are talking about conduct that could, if there had been a prosecution, have amounted to an offence. How oppressive is that? It strikes me as incredibly oppressive and potentially unfair and unjust.”
“Clause 1(1)(h) refers to another test of “relevant information”: an indication that the person concerned “may be unsuitable to hold a driver’s licence for other reasons relating to…the safeguarding of passengers, or…road safety.” So the clause is a catch-all. There would be no protection under the rule of law for anyone who made an application. They would be vulnerable to prejudice, petty vendettas and all the rest of it. It seems to me that the core of the Bill, which is contained in clause 1, is fundamentally flawed. It moves a million miles away from the current provision that if someone can establish that he or she is a fit and proper person, he or she can, prima facie, become a licensed driver. Clause 1(2) states: “A reference in subsection (1) to an offence includes a reference to the following offences”.”
“We must not belittle the offence of driving with excess speed. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cambridge, like me, has the privilege of being a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, but he will know that members of the institute must declare every year whether or not they have been convicted of a driving offence, which includes speeding. Why should the Bill provide a relaxed test in relation to such behaviour by someone who wishes to be a professional driver, while saying that if there is an indication that that person may have caused psychological harm to another person—although not proven—that will count against him or her?”
“There may well be a strong case for a national licensing system in the context of the Bill, although in my experience small councils—and I speak as a great defender of a small council, Christchurch Borough Council—are very jealous of their right to have licensing regimes, whether for taxis and private hire vehicles or for other purposes linked to their particular circumstances. Clause 1(1) refers to “relevant information…indicating that the person…poses a risk to road safety when driving”. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a subject close to my heart, because I used to be a Minister for road safety. When I looked at the explanatory notes, it became clear to me that someone who had convictions for speeding or careless driving would not be regarded as posing a risk to road safety. Why not?”
“The Bill, however, says that if the licensing committee in one local authority decides that there is an indication that someone “has caused physical or psychological harm to another person”, that indication, which is then used by that local authority to deprive the person who has caused the harm of the right to keep or obtain such a licence, must be transferred to another authority and could be used as evidence in that other authority against a similar application, although the raw material on the basis of which the conclusion was reached may not also be transferred.”
“As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am assiduous in my membership of Committees—I think I am a member of five Select Committees at the moment—so I am happy to take on additional responsibilities and burdens. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I think that he misunderstands the Bill. We are not talking about a national system, although there might be good arguments for introducing a national system, so that somebody who was licensed to be a taxi driver or a private hire vehicle driver in London could also be such a person in Christchurch, or vice versa.”
“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?”
“Ordered, That Phil Wilson, Anna Turley, Bridget Phillipson, Grahame Morris, Graham P Jones, Mr Kevan Jones, Stephen Timms, Ian Austin, Gareth Snell, Liz Kendall, Toby Perkins and Conor McGinn present the Bill. Phil Wilson accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 152 ).”
“Ultimately, it would be another deterrent to people letting their properties. Labour Members often refer to the slogan “property is theft” and try to create an atmosphere in which every private landlord is regarded as scum. I am just trying to redress the balance and make it clear to those who wish to legislate against bad landlords that we already have an enormous amount of relevant legislation on the statute book. It might well be that the Bill being debated on Friday will be an additional part of that legislation, but setting up an expensive, bureaucratic registration system is the last thing we need. Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.”
“The inevitable consequence of his proposal is that once again the responsible landlord—the person who lets a house to family members or lodgers, or who brings into use a family home that would otherwise be empty—would end up being penalised and brought before the courts, but there would be no impact on bad landlords, whom I assume, on the basis of his definition, would include those thousands of people who are illegally sub-letting social housing, despite that already being a criminal act that is subject to criminal sanctions. Why do we not deal with that? Why do we not enforce existing laws against bad landlords and those who are illegally sub-letting social housing? Another reason to oppose the hon. Gentleman’s proposal is that it would have a disproportionate impact on the law-abiding.”
“As a result of a freedom of information request, the RLA found that in 2016-17, among the 296 councils in England and Wales that responded, there were just 467 prosecutions of landlords. This averages out at just over 1.5 per council. In the same year, councils received 105,359 complaints regarding landlords. That is an indication that, although the responsibility lies with councils, they are not fulfilling it. The hon. Gentleman’s Bill would impose on councils the additional burden of maintaining a register of landlords and then carrying out enforcement against those who have not signed it.”
“I share the view articulated by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government when he said that “public safety is paramount and I am determined to do everything possible to protect tenants. That is why government will support new legislation that requires all landlords to ensure properties are safe and give tenants the right to take legal action if landlords fail in their duties.” Let us deal with the substance of the matter and ensure that where there are bad landlords, every facility is made available to ensure that tenants can get proper redress against them. At the moment—let us not dispute this—responsibility is given to local authorities to enforce the legislation already on the statute book. That responsibility is to enforce housing standards in rented homes.”
“I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the private rented sector, which is sponsored by the Residential Landlords Association. Among the APPG’s distinguished vice-chairs is the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), whose private Member’s Bill comes before the House on Friday. That Bill is strongly supported by the Residential Landlords Association. I wish to impress on the hon. Gentleman that while the RLA is perfectly rational in its approach to this issue and shares his dismay at there being so many bad landlords, it recognises that by far the majority in this country are responsible and good landlords, and that the last thing they need is another stealth tax placed upon them, which is what he is proposing.”
“Let me say at the outset that I understand that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) has issues in his constituency, about which he has spoken eloquently. However, I believe that his Bill is a totally disproportionate response to a local matter. I have always been of the opinion that any Member of this House who wishes to introduce a Bill should be able to do so—I have presented a fair number of my own, so I will not oppose the hon. Gentleman’s request to be given leave to bring in a Bill—but I wish to put on record the fact that I will not support his Bill. There is great pressure on this House to pass ever more regulation. That regulation needs to be necessary, effective and proportionate, and having heard the hon. Gentleman’s speech, I believe that his Bill fails all three tests.”
“Order. I well understand that the hon. Lady has a deep constituency interest in Edinburgh airport, but this debate is about Gatwick airport. Frankly, I think it is very unfair of her to use examples from her constituency to try to produce a nebulous connection between Edinburgh airport and Gatwick airport. If the hon. Lady wishes to speak about Gatwick airport and the subject matter of this debate, which is growth and noise reduction at Gatwick, she can continue to do so. If not, I will call the next speaker.”
“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. ]”
“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?”
“My right hon. Friend will know that, last Thursday, there was a local referendum in Christchurch in which more than 17,600 people voted against the abolition of Christchurch Borough Council. He has given the council only until 8 January to make an alternative submission. In the light of the financial implications of his announcement today, will he extend the period so that the implications of these important changes, which particularly affect rural Dorset, can be taken into account in making that alternative proposal?”
“However, if people want to take over a council—in the case of Christchurch, an ancient borough with no debts but assets in excess of £50 million—can that really be done without local people having the final say? There seems to be a certain inconsistency to the Government’s approach. That is the essence of the Bill. If it were already on the statute book, Christchurch Borough Council would not have to spend money on a local referendum, because the matter would have been closed last year when the district council voted against abolition.”
“Despite that, much energy and many months have been wasted by local government officials trying to engineer a situation that, in my view, is designed in their own best interests, because a merger will mean that they either receive substantial pay-offs, or become part of a larger organisation with enhanced salary bands. The Bill would make it clear that it is for elected councillors to decide these issues. It would be only if they supported such a proposal that a local referendum could be called. Parliament approved measures that provide that if councils wish to increase their council tax by more than 2%, they have to get the consent of local people in a local referendum, paid for by local people.”
“Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), said: “Finally, when looking at district councils that may wish to merge—there will be no compulsion to do so—we will ask them whether it would create a credible geography for the proposed new structure.” —[ Official Report , 15 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 549-50.] There is therefore quite a lot of encouragement from some of the obiter dicta of the Government on this issue. The Bill would put it beyond doubt that councils could not be abolished without their consent. In January last year, Christchurch councillors voted, by a majority, against the abolition of their council, as did Purbeck and East Dorset councillors.”
“It has been suggested that it would be possible for a group of councils to get together and effectively bully another group of councils and force them to be abolished against their will. There have been, however, words of encouragement from the Secretary of State who, in his statement of 7 November, greatly emphasised the need for consent, and said that that had not yet been demonstrated in the local government reorganisation in Dorset. During the Adjournment debate of 15 November that was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), the chair of the all-party group on district councils, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon.”
“I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. This is a timely debate because Christchurch Borough Council is this very day sending out voting papers for a local referendum to ask every local elector in Christchurch whether he or she consents to the abolition of Christchurch Borough Council and its forced merger with Bournemouth and Poole into a unitary council. The electors will have two weeks in which to give their response. The Bill, which I hope has the support of the Government, would make it absolutely clear that principal local authorities, including district councils, are on a par with parish and town councils, and could not be abolished without their consent. Unfortunately, the current law does not seem to make that absolutely clear.”
“It would put a lot more pressure on councils to agree. It would mean that no individual council or group of councils could impose a majority opinion on the minority. We are talking about the essence of local democracy. There is nothing more local than a local district council that is accountable to its own electors. From time to time, the Government have suggested that it would be appropriate to abolish that level of local democracy, but I think that is anathema. It should not be done unless there is full-hearted local consent from elected councillors and local people.”
“I will not, actually, because I have only one more minute to go. This is analogous to the EU referendum. We wished to take back control over our national democracy, so why should we wish to take away from local people and their local councils the right to decide their own future and therefore potentially force them to surrender valuable assets and control over vital services such as planning, the allocation of housing and so on? During the Adjournment debate to which I referred, the Minister said that those were very important matters. I will not be able to finish my speech today, but I hope that there will be an opportunity for the debate to be adjourned until a time when, with any luck, the need for it will have evaporated.”
“Most people would accept that it is perfectly reasonable to exclude commercial market and negotiation-sensitive information but, unfortunately, that was not expressly excluded in the terms of the Humble Address on 1 November. Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the option of the Government bringing forward a revised motion that expressly excludes that information from the material to be supplied to the Select Committee?”
“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?”
“In the light of the response that my hon. Friend is yet to get from the Minister, does he share my disappointment that it is proposed that the partnership between East Dorset District Council and Christchurch Borough Council should be broken and that those councils should be absorbed into unitary authorities against their will? That is contrary, surely, to the principles being enunciated of voluntarism and the importance of keeping shire districts that are close to the local people.”
“Most fair-minded people would accept that it is reasonable that some of this material may not be available until three weeks have expired, but there must be some of the material that could be made available now or sooner than in three weeks. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will do his best to make available soon that material which could be supplied before the three-week deadline?”
“That was the point he was making, and it was a perfectly sensible one.”
“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.”
“Ordered, That Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Gary Streeter, Derek Thomas, Craig Tracey, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Steve Double, Robert Halfon, Philip Davies, Sir Edward Leigh and Sir Desmond Swayne present the Bill. Mr Christopher Chope accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 November and to be printed (Bill 115).”
“One of the most significant fiscal changes affecting housing in the last 30 years has been the policy of the Treasury to treat stamp duty as a cash cow. Stamp duty is now a significant burden for those moving into home ownership. It is a transaction tax, which, like all such taxes, has had the consequence of reducing the number of transactions. My Bill would enable the Government to give special relief from the burden of stamp duty, in line with avowed Government policy to promote home ownership among first-time buyers. I hope that we will hear more about that in the Budget. This Bill should enjoy the support of everybody in this House because it works with the grain of public opinion and would enable more people to reach their aspiration of becoming homeowners in the United Kingdom. Question put and agreed to.”
“I will save anybody interested in looking at the website the need to do so by quoting from it. It has an overview saying how people can get “help with savings, through a Help to Buy ISA” or “a home through shared ownership”. It goes on to say: “The Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme closed at the end of 2016.” It then talks about Help to Buy equity loans and so on. However, it does not address the real problem: that so many people in this country want to embark on a road to home ownership but cannot afford even to save for a deposit because they are paying full market rent rather than an affordable rent. I therefore hope that the Government will take seriously the issues raised in this Bill.”
“Unfortunately, despite parliamentary questions and letters from a number of colleagues, many of whom are co-sponsors of the Bill, we are still waiting for a result. It may be that we are waiting for the announcement to be made not by my hon. Friend but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 22 November. However, whether it be now or on 22 November, something must be done about this, because we need to open up the £40 billion of private institutional investment in our housing that we so desperately need. If one looks, as some of us may, at the Government website on affordable home ownership schemes, it is a depressing sight. Indeed, there is hardly anything on it, and certainly no reference to anything as imaginative as the schemes to which I have referred.”
“Subject to consultation, this would be the definition: “Affordable rent-to-buy housing is housing that is made available at a rent level which is at least 20% below market rent, including service charges where applicable, and later made available to the tenant living at the property to buy at a cost which may be less than market value. Provision should be made for receipts or a proportion thereof to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision if the subsidy is withdrawn. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices.” I hope that the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), who I am delighted to see in his place on the Treasury Bench, will embrace that, or a very similar, definition.”
“There should be no problem with clarifying the definition, because, in a typical affordable rent to buy scheme, one in three purchasers is moving directly from the social rented sector, and almost all the others are from the housing waiting list. The House of Commons Library briefing paper published in late August states: “There is no all-encompassing statutory definition of affordable housing in England. Indeed, there is a good deal of ambiguity in the way the term ‘affordable’ is used in relation to housing.” It is to help fill that vacuum that I brought forward this Bill, which will provide a definition of affordable rent to buy.”
“That could provide homes at £200,000 each, and that could provide 200,000 such homes—a significant way of addressing the problem we have with housing. However, that is all subject to one caveat, which it is the purpose of the Bill to address. Currently, affordable rent to buy does not come clearly within the definition of affordable housing, and the Bill requires that it should so do. There needs to be an explicit reference to affordable rent to buy in the national planning policy framework definition of affordable housing. Such clarity would enable many more local authorities to take forward these innovative schemes.”