I can see Chope's point and I think he or someone like him is necessary if we are to have good laws.
He objects when a topic is snuck in to a government sponsored piece of legislation that has gone through a rigorous process of committees and green papers and debates. The private members' bill invariably jumps on the back of the government's bill, without debate. His position is simply this:
Chope, who has argued his aim is to prevent badly thought-out legislation, said he had not been objecting to the substance of the issue, but wanted to see all legislation properly debated.
Amen to that. There should be a proper debate, consultation andd scrutiny. As someone with direct experience of some god-awful laws that went through 'on the nod' because they were popular at Party Conferences but hadn't been thought through, I think that Chope or someone like him is vital.