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“When was the last time that an allotted Opposition day was withdrawn in the way that the Leader of the House is withdrawing this one?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 78 of 109.
““Bananarama” is a sophisticated form of Scrabble, which comes in a small package. I think the pieces are yellow, but that is enough publicity for that product. The Bill is an example of where people come forward and say, “There is a problem, therefore we must have more legislation”, but are we really going to start penalising online retailers by saying that if they do not provide all the information upfront as soon as the customer clicks on to their website, they will be subject to a criminal assessment? Apart from anything else, common sense dictates that it is only at the end of a transaction that one knows the bulk and scale of the products ordered. The retailer may offer a range of different products, some of which can be delivered by Royal Mail and some that might need to be transported by an elephant.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In light of the fact that so many issues could not be debated in Committee, have you had any notice from the Government that they intend to give House more time on Report so that those issues may be debated properly?”
“The Government should learn a lesson from how we conduct private business, during which if it is thought that the arguments being made about amendments are reasonable, the amendments are accepted without anyone feeling that they are losing face. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Bill’s promoters on being broad-minded enough to accept not only amendment 11, but amendment 30, which we shall reach in due course. Without further ado, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn . Amendment made : 11.— (Mr Chope.) Clause 9 Builders’ skips: penalty charge provisions Amendment proposed: 14 —(Mr Chope.) Question put, That the amendment be made. The House proceeded to a Division .”
“In other words, the amendment would mean that there would have to be a lack of responsibility before a criminal act could be committed. There was acceptance across the House that such an amendment would be reasonable, so while I shall not press amendment 10 to a Division, I will seek the opinion of the House on amendment 14. Earlier in the debate, we heard the good news that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, will accept amendment 11, which should interest those who think that such occasions are rather a pointless exercise. It is clear that the promoters of this Bill are much more willing to accept amendments than the promoter of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill—the Government.”
“Your recollection is impeccable, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although more than two months have elapsed since we last debated the amendments, I do not think that it is necessary for me to remind the House of the issues at stake, given that there are further important matters to discuss. During the course of the debate, there was considerable discussion regarding which of the commendable amendments in the group we should seek to test the opinion of the House. Having listened to the helpful advice of my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), the balance of opinion is that the best choice would be amendment 14, which would provide that people could not be prosecuted for having unlit skips if they had taken reasonable steps to ensure that they were lit.”
“However, if local authorities believe they can charge a lot for the use of off-street car parks, surely, in a society in which we support the principle of having and promoting the use of electric vehicles, they should be required to provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered vehicles rather than just have the opportunity to do so if they wish to take it up.”
“What I am suggesting in amendments 21 and 22 is that the clause should state that London local authorities “shall”, rather than “may”, “provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles” in every “public off-street car park under the management and control of the authority”. We know that London local authorities make an enormous amount of money from car parking charges, both for on-street and off-street parking. We also know that off-street car parking charges often discourage shoppers from going to local shopping centres.”
“On the whole, batteries that are long-lasting are heavy and large, so it is much easier if one has a smaller, more efficient unit that can be charged at a charging point. I was therefore disappointed to see that part 5, which gives powers to London local authorities to “provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles”, does not require those local authorities to provide and operate such charging apparatus. What a missed opportunity, one might say. I am not suggesting that local authorities should provide and operate charging apparatus in any place.”
“The amendment relates to part 5 of the Bill, which deals with charging points for electric vehicles. Many moons ago, perhaps even more than two years ago, I was told that the reason the Government were so keen to ensure that the Bill got on the statute book was its provisions on charging points for electric vehicles. The fact that the Bill has been on a very slow curve since is indicative of the many practical problems that are being experienced by people who want to promote electric vehicles and a green economy. That is why the issue of charging points has not been as significant as the Government at one stage thought it would be. I declare my enthusiasm for the idea that there should be electric vehicles. Obviously, if one has an electric vehicle, one needs to have somewhere to charge it.”
“Far from it—I am with my hon. Friend on subsidies. I am suggesting that the cost of charging an electrically powered motor vehicle should be self-financing. Obviously, when someone goes into a public off-street car park and charges their vehicle, they can expect to pay for the parking, the service and the electricity. I am not suggesting that other car park users cross-subsidise those who have chosen to have electric vehicles. Electric vehicle users are already cross-subsidised to an extent because of their different treatment under the vehicle excise duty regime.”
“In the same way, if we want to increase the uptake of electric vehicles, we need to increase the number of places where people who own them can recharge them, so that they do not just leave them with an empty battery in the middle of the highway.”
“My hon. Friend is getting into an interesting argument on which we could have an academic discourse. Obviously, to encourage an embryonic service, we might have to provide it and hope that people start using it. Many years ago, when I was the Minister with responsibility for roads, I was involved in promoting the use of lead-free fuel. It seems amazing, Mr Deputy Speaker that, within our living memory, we moved from full-leaded fuel to the unleaded version. To begin with, relatively few vehicles ran on unleaded petrol. If a pioneer bought a vehicle that used unleaded fuel and there was nowhere to fill it up, it would have been a deterrent to people taking up unleaded vehicles.”
“However, if London local authorities wish to take powers to establish charging points for electric vehicles, my point, and the point of these two amendments, is that they should provide them in all their car parks.”
“Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. As so often, you are spot on in reading the language not necessarily expressed between my hon. Friend and me. In my hon. Friend’s most recent intervention, he asked why local authorities are being given this responsibility. The Bill does not leave it to the private sector to provide charging points for electric vehicles; it gives powers to London local authorities to provide and operate charging apparatus. In my submission, that is acceptable only if there is a requirement for them to provide that. What is the point of giving them a power without any certainty about whether they will exercise it? My hon. Friend paints a scenario in which the public sector can be kept out of this completely. Indeed, I could support that where there are no public sector London local authority-owned car parks.”
“One consequence of part 5 may well be that in London the private sector will be inhibited from coming forward to provide and operate charging apparatus, because local authorities will be competing unfairly by providing that apparatus in their best positioned off-street public car parks, rather than in all their car parks. That is the point I am trying to make: it should, effectively, be compulsory.”
“My hon. Friend is making an argument against the whole of part 5. He is basically saying that if we are to have charging points for electric vehicles, it should be left to the market, and that the private sector will come into the market and fill any gaps. I find that to be a persuasive argument. My counter-argument relates to the provisions in part 5. If London local authorities are to be given powers to set up charging points we should, at the same time, say that they shall set up charging points. Otherwise, we could have a situation where they pick and choose where they think it will be most advantageous for them to set up the charging points, and effectively undermine the potential private sector involvement to which my hon. Friend refers.”
“My hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps we will hear from the Minister in due course what he thinks is the answer to that issue. The regime being established under part 5 would put London local authorities in a privileged position compared with ordinary private sector operators. Philosophically, my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley and I would say that that was wrong. The counterweight is that if the legislation puts local authorities in a privileged position, additional responsibilities should be placed on them in the public interest—namely, to ensure that charging points are available not just in occasional car parks, but in every public off-street car park run by the council.”
“I accept that, which is why I am disappointed that relatively few spokespersons for London local authority taxpayers are present in the Chamber. There is a lot in this Bill that could ultimately result in additional costs for London local authority taxpayers, mainly through council tax. As somebody who represents a constituency outside London, all I can do is share my hon. Friend’s concern about that. Indeed, we are doing a public service in raising the issue, although it does not seem to have yet reached the ears of people across London, who are normally very concerned about whether they are getting value for money for their council tax.”
“My hon. Friend makes a good point. I suppose the counter-argument is that it is important that a motorist setting out for London from Shipley in an electric car should be able to find somewhere to charge up their car with electricity.”
“That is a good point. I hope we will hear from the Minister in due course, because it is no exaggeration to say that there is nobody in the House with a better or more consistent record of wanting to promote electric vehicles than him.”
“Thank you for that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously it means that when the Minister responds, he should address his remarks to the issue of charging points for electric vehicles in London, without straying into whether there should be charging points for electric vehicles beyond London. I am glad that you have effectively given him that warning in advance of him making his contribution, and I am sorry if I was going to lead him down the wrong path.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Amendment 23 would introduce the words “on a discretionary basis” into clause 16, amending the provision that: “A London authority may grant a person permission to provide or operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles…on any highway for which they are responsible as highway authority.” That discretion would be necessary as a consequence of amendments 21 and 22 being accepted. Amendments 24 and 25 propose leaving out references to authorised persons, which would result in the London authorities having to exercise the responsibility themselves, rather than through authorised people.”
“Clause 16 allows a London authority to give an “authorised person” permission to set up a charging point on the highway, for which that authority would not be directly responsible.”
“Maybe my hon. Friend is right, but my submission is that if the London authority is going to provide charging points, it should do so itself, on its own land. The Bill does not deal with charging points on private land. It deals only with charging points in public off-street car parks that are in the control of the authority, and on any highway for which it is responsible as the highway authority. If someone is going to set up a charging point on a highway, the highway authority should be responsible for it, rather than the person who is setting it up. If anyone wants to set up private off-street charging points for electric vehicles, I would encourage them so to do. They would not need the permission of the local authority to do that. Indeed, they might be able to access the subsidies that were mentioned earlier.”
“It seems to me that this is another way of introducing a statutory exception that benefits local authorities and overrides the common law of the land.”
“Amendment 28 is designed to leave out subsection (8), which reads: “For the purposes of determining, in any proceedings in a court of civil jurisdiction, who is liable for injury, damage or loss resulting from the presence on a highway or public off-street car park of a connecting cable at or near charging apparatus…it shall be presumed that the person in charge of the relevant vehicle at the relevant time had responsibility for and control of the cable.” Why should that presumption be made? Why should it not be a matter of who has responsibility for and control of the cable? That should be the test, rather than making a presumption that the person in charge of the relevant vehicle has the responsibility for and control of the cable.”
“The subsequent paragraph specifies that a London local authority has “the right” to “indemnify” itself “against any claim in respect of injury, damage or loss arising out of the grant of a permission granted under subsection (2).” It seems to me that these provisions give to the London local authorities far too many privileges above the law. If they are keen to set up these charging points for electric vehicles, they should, in my submission, also accept the responsibility that goes with that, which is that they should be constructed in a responsible way and should not cause danger to members of the public which can result in injury, damage or loss.”
“If somebody puts a connecting cable across the highway or a public off-street car park, but it is not constructed in such a way as not to be an obstruction, resulting in somebody tripping over it and injuring themselves, one would expect that local authority to be liable for the consequences of that action. According to the drafting, however, the London local authority is seeking to absolve itself from liability for people who fall over connecting cables, on the highway or in public off-street car parks, which connect to charging points for electric vehicles.”
“I think that puts the local authorities in a privileged position, enabling them to have an unfair competitive advantage compared with other people who are involved in providing charging points for electric vehicles. Amendment 27 emphasises the same point in respect of paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (7). Paragraph (c) states that nothing in the section “is to be taken as imposing on a London authority any liability for injury, damage or loss resulting from the presence on a highway or public off-street car park of a connecting cable”.”
“It says in subsection 7(b), “in relation to permissions granted under subsection (2)”, that nothing “is to be taken as imposing on a London authority by whom a permission has been granted any liability for injury, damage or loss resulting from the presence on a highway or public off-street car park of the charging apparatus to which the permission relates”. What is effectively happening under this provision is that the London local authorities are seeking to say, “Not me, Guv”. If anything goes wrong with the charging apparatus and it results in an accident or in somebody being injured, which would normally lead to a claim for damages against the local authority, that authority is going to be exempt from the consequent liability.”
“Well, if that is not sufficient to intimidate me into withdrawing my amendment, I do not know what is! I would certainly not wish to go down any route that could be interpreted, even mistakenly, as enforced nationalisation. I will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point. I look forward to hearing his speech, and I shall perhaps come back to that point when I have the privilege of winding up this short debate. Amendments 26 and 27 propose leaving out subsections (6) and (7) of clause 16. The effect would be to deal with the issue of liability. One of the privileges that the Bill gives to London local authorities is to exempt them from the common law relating to nuisance on the highway or in public off-street car parks.”
“The danger, as always, is that if they are passed without adverse comment, it will be possible for them to be replicated in other Bills. We have observed that iterative process for many years. Throughout the country, we have encountered more and more—”
“My hon. Friend is entirely right. That brings us back to the question of whom we are trying to encourage to use electric vehicles, and hence to use electric vehicle charging points. If using a charging point can make someone liable at law for events for which that person would not have been responsible but for the provisions of this statute, that in itself will deter people from using electric vehicles. I know of no legislation that provides for someone who fills up his tank at a petrol station to be automatically liable, as the person in charge of the vehicle, irrespective of whether he or she is at fault. I assume that normally, whether the petrol station was owned by a private sector company or by a local authority, its owner would, could or should be responsible. Important issues of principle underlie these provisions.”
“I shall deal next with amendment 29, Mr Deputy Speaker. It proposes the removal of clause 16(9), which states that in subsection 8, “’the relevant vehicle’ means the vehicle in respect of which the connecting cable was about to be, was being or had been used for charging”, and that “’ªthe relevant time’ means the time when the liability arose.” That seems to me merely to compound the proposals in subsection 8. We then arrive at what could be described as a bright dawn. Amendment 30 makes the following proposal: “Clause 16, page 13, line 15 after ‘cable’, insert ‘or wire which is not provided by the authority’.” I tabled that amendment because I considered it to be an essential safeguard, spelling out the status of the charging apparatus to which we have been referring, which had not been provided by the authority.”
“May I anticipate my hon. Friend’s intervention by saying that I am delighted by the broad-minded way in which he has viewed some, if not all, of the amendments? I understand that he is now about to give the House a verdict on the merits, or demerits, of amendment 30.”
“It is defined in clause 16 as “any cable or wire, whether provided by the authority or otherwise, used to connect the charging apparatus to a vehicle and that is not permanently attached to the charging apparatus.” As a consequence of the other amendments, I do not think the definition is sufficient.”
“My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will be able to make his own speech in due course, and when our friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), replies on behalf of the promoters, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley can intervene on him to ask why he thinks this amendment is so good. That might be the better way of proceeding, because the situation from my point of view is that I thought my amendment was a good idea and now it has been accepted by the promoters, which I think that is a doubly good idea. Amendment 31 addresses the definition of connecting cable.”
“I have tabled some amendments to this clause. Amendment 32 would leave out subsection (2), because that is consistent with the argument I was putting forward earlier that it would not be right to allow authorised persons to be involved in this process. This is therefore a consequential amendment, consequent upon being able to remove references to authorised persons from the Bill.”
“That is absolutely right, but in drafting these amendments I had to anticipate the possibility that my earlier amendments would not be accepted by the promoters or the House—after all, it seems that there is even some difficulty in getting my hon. Friend to accept them. I therefore thought, to employ a lawyer’s phrase, that it was probably sensible to plead in the alternative, or move an amendment in the alternative. I agree that it would not be sensible to accept all the amendments en bloc because some of them are in the alternative. That would have to be sorted out if a lot of these amendments were carried or were accepted by the promoters. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have arrived in the Chair just in time for us to get on to clause 17. It deals with notices to be given before the exercise of powers under section 16.”
“The local residents look to the local planning authority, in the first place, to try to ensure that those safeguards are available, through the process of needing to obtain planning consent. That involves publishing a notice, giving notice of what is proposed and obtaining the consent of the authority. The Bill states that that would not need to be done and someone could put their charging point on the highway without having to get the permission of the local planning authority.”
“Clause 18(1) states: “A London authority shall not exercise any power conferred by section 16(1) unless they have consulted any authority other than themselves who are a local planning authority, as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the area in which they propose to exercise the power.” Consulting a planning authority is a very different proposition from obtaining its permission, which is why amendment 37 would replace “consulted” with “obtained the consent of”. When people are faced with the possibility of having an electric charging point provided by a local authority or a London authority on the highway outside their house, they need to be protected from it being sited in the wrong place or being a health hazard.”
“My amendment 33 seeks to remove the power for an authorised person to publish such a notice. Amendments 34, 35 and 36 make similar amendments, and it is not necessary to repeat the argument in support of them. I shall now deal with the amendments relating to clause 18, which is entitled: “Duties to consult or obtain consent of other authorities”. It is invidious to try to evaluate the significance of one’s amendments, but amendment 37 is significant.”
“Clause 17(1) states that “a London authority shall not exercise any power…unless they have first published a notice under this section.” [Interruption.] Okay, well that is what clause 17(1) says. Clause 17(2) says “unless the authorised person”— [Interruption.] Yes, but I am seeking to remove authorised persons from this entirely, whether or not they had published notices. That is why this is a consequential amendment, consequent upon the removal of any references to authorised persons. That is because they would not be able to operate this equipment, whether or not they had published any notices under clause 17. That is made clear by subsection (3), which states: “A London authority or an authorised person, as the case may be, shall publish a notice”.”
“The clause provides for a new offence—have we not enough offences on the statute book already—and states: “A person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale if he uses charging apparatus in contravention of a sign displayed on the apparatus which indicates that…the apparatus is not to be used for any purpose other than charging a vehicle; and…it is an offence to so use the apparatus…A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if…he had the permission of the person who operated the charging apparatus at the time to use the charging apparatus for the purpose in question”— although it was a non-authorised purpose— “he had reasonable cause to believe he had such permission; or…at the time there was on the charging apparatus an indication given by the person who operated the charging apparatus that it could be used for the purpose for which it was used.” Effectively, the clause creates a new offence of stealing electricity.”
“The same issue arises about consultation and, as I have already said, I do not think that the powers in the Bill should be extended to authorised people. The same point arises from amendment 39, which will leave out subsection (3). Last but not least comes amendment 40. Clause 19 creates a new offence of unlawful use of a charging point— [ Laughter. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley laughs, and I think that many people coming to the issue for the first time would laugh as well.”
“Giving my hon. Friend the benefit of the doubt, my response to his intervention is that that is not necessarily so. This provision presupposes that the London authority, which might be Transport for London, would be providing the charging points and doing so against the wishes of the local planning authority in whose area it was going to put those charging points. That is what I am trying to get at: it is possible that there will be two different authorities. The London authority exercising its power under clause 16(1) is not necessarily the same as the local planning authority as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Amendment 38 will leave out subsection (2), which talks about an “authorised person”.”
“Friend the Member for Harrow East why the promoters of the Bill think that existing laws on electricity theft are inadequate to deal with electricity that is taken from a charging point. Some 25,000 people—quite a lot of people—steal electricity each year, and such theft costs each electricity customer the equivalent of £7 a year.”
“Nothing is being done about that—it is apparently being ignored—but meanwhile we are trying to bring in draconian measures to deal with people who, in a fit of over-enthusiasm, might abstract some electricity from a charging point. Surely we should keep the law simple: whether the electricity is from a charging point, from a company or from someone’s own meter through changing the wires or using a device, we should rely on the same law—that is, the Theft Act 1968. The Theft Act provides that it is an offence to steal electricity and there are guidelines about the reasonable penalty to be imposed on people who steal electricity. I look forward to hearing from my hon.”
“My hon. Friend, is the sponsor of the Bill, is nodding. That would be fine if there was not already provision in law to deal with the stealing of electricity, and that is why the provision is completely redundant. We are creating a separate regime of stealing electricity from a charging point for charging electric vehicles rather than relying on the general statute law on electricity theft. I do not know whether the House is familiar with this, but electricity theft is a big issue. At the beginning of July the energy regulator, Ofgem, said that it wanted more to be done to combat electricity theft. I know that this is not the subject of the Bill, but a third of electricity theft in this country is to power cannabis farms.”
“I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s speech on the amendments because I am not sure that there is a distinction between using electricity in an unintended way and stealing it.”