Christopher Chope MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 11 Jul 2025 · Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, I do not know; I am sure that I speak for many.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Licensing Hours Extensions Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When this Bill had its Second Reading, I put it to the Minister who was responding then, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), that this was a rather puny measure, and that there is a strong case for deregulating this whole area, and for getting Parliament and the Government out of the hospitality sector’s hair in relation to licensing hours. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill is far too limited a measure?

• 4 Jul 2025 · Licensing Hours Extensions Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am so relieved to hear that. As a believer in freedom and choice, I think people should have the chance to go to the pub either to celebrate or to commiserate. I share the desire of the hon. Gentleman and many others in this House to promote the hospitality industry. There seems to be some evidence that a lot more young people are coming back to drink and celebrate in pubs, and long may that continue. In my constituency, as in many others, far too many good pubs and other hospitality venues have closed down, not least because of the Government’s imposition of extra employers’ national insurance and increases in the national minimum wage. Although the Government will probably take credit for allowing this Bill—this very modest measure—to go through, it needs to be put in perspective. At the same time, they have been the author of a whole lot of measures that have been very bad news for the hospitality industry across the country, and in Christchurch in particular.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Licensing Hours Extensions Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak only because I was not able to complete my intervention; as you rightly said, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was getting very long. The point I want to make in my short contribution to this debate is that it is because of the lack of flexibility in the negative procedure that we find ourselves having to discuss the matter on Third Reading today. If the House had the ability to amend statutory instruments, and had a guarantee, more or less, that if there was an objection to an order made under the negative procedure, it could be the subject of debate, there would be less concern about orders being subject to the negative procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure. This Bill has been dragged through this House at great length. I do not quite understand the explanation for that. Under the Bill, in the narrow context of a sporting event taking place that resulted in the need for a celebration that there had not been notice of at a time when the House was sitting—according to the Bill’s sponsors, it would be relevant only in such circumstances—the Government could allow a licensing extension.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Licensing Hours Extensions Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Will she also include within her inquiries, and her thoughts about ambition, some more control over the negative procedure? The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), who introduced the Bill today, asserted that anybody who was against an order passed under the negative procedure would be able to pray against it, but the opportunity to ensure that a prayer results in a debate is almost non-existent. That is a theoretical, rather than practical, constraint. One of the issues I have been trying to raise is—

• 4 Jul 2025 · Licensing Hours Extensions Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In the light of the number of people who voted at 9.35 am, I think it is highly unlikely that any closure motion could be carried, because it would need 100 Members to support it. I have been speaking for only two or three minutes. I know the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) is keen to get on and discuss his Bill, which I know the Government wish to talk out—I am a little bit perplexed about that. The negative resolution procedure would be necessary only in an emergency. I was quite tempted to extend my remarks, because the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) tried to link the contents of the Bill with today’s first anniversary of the election of what I think is undeniably the worst Government this country has ever experienced. Would we really have wanted to celebrate that in the pubs? Last night, I was commiserating with a group of Conservatives in a London constituency about what had happened over the last year, and explaining to them that they should take courage from the fact that at least we are 20% of the way through this ghastly Government.

• 13 Jun 2025 · Business without Debate · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for you to explain why that is not a matter for the Chair? Surely if MPs are going to be deemed by the Metropolitan police to have greater culpability than other citizens, that must be a matter for the Chair and for Mr Speaker. Why should it be delegated to the Clerks?

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May we have an early debate on the refusal of the Bank of England to comply with its 2% inflation target? Also, will the Leader of the House facilitate a meeting between me and Treasury Ministers to see whether the Government are willing to support my Bank of England (Inflation Targets) Bill, due for Second Reading on 11 July, which makes provision for penalties against the court of directors of the Bank of England for failure to meet inflation targets?

• 22 May 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am on record as having expressed my appreciation to the Leader of the House for her insistence that Ministers should give accurate and timely responses to parliamentary questions. I am sure she will therefore share my disappointment that in answering my question earlier she asserted that inflation is falling when in fact it is not falling but has reached 3.5%. She also chided me for not having raised the issue at Treasury questions on Tuesday, but the news did not come out until Wednesday. Is that the standard we are now expected to accept?

• 20 May 2025 · GP Services: Christchurch · Hansard source

  More

  I will just finish quoting from this letter: “If you are lucky enough to get an appointment, the next problem is getting there. Many people don’t drive or have a car, public transport is not easy for those with mobility issues, and taxis are expensive. If you do drive, another problem arises because parking is very limited.” It continues: “I cannot understand how it was stated that no complaints have been made. I and many others, in emails sent to the ICB, mentioned several issues, but I doubt any were noted.” That is a letter from one constituent; there are lots of others. A new housing development has been approved in the locality of Burton; with some 700 new houses, there will inevitably be increased demand for GP services. Indeed, the developer, or the owner of the land, has already approached a surgery to see whether it would open a branch on the new estate. That will not be necessary if the branch to which I have referred is reopened. I will quote from another letter. I will not give the person’s name because it refers to their condition, but she has multiple sclerosis. She says: “It’s so hard for me to get to the Purewell surgery even if you can get an appointment…I fell nearly two years ago, and I still haven’t had a proper appointment to see a doctor to see what’s causing my pain.” She says that she wants to have a choice. Another person wrote: “I previously lived in Stour surgery’s catchment”—that is another surgery within the Christchurch constituency—“and they were amazing. I couldn’t fault them one bit. I then moved to Burton and was forced into this alternative provision.” She says that it is a nightmare to get hold of and that we should have a right to choose who we want as our GP. She also says, “Every time I’ve had an appointment, it’s been running 30 to 45 minutes late.” Reopening the local branch surgery would resolve those problems. I hope that I have given a flavour of the strength of local feeling on this fraught issue. Somebody else wrote to me that not everybody wishes to complain publicly about the lack of service available from providers in the Christchurch medical practice, because they are worried about the consequences for them. I think that such concerns are irrational, but they are understandable.

• 20 May 2025 · GP Services: Christchurch · Hansard source

  More

  The ICB is not elected or accountable. We have an elected and accountable council—BCP council—which decided that the surgery in Burton, a community facility that had been there for more than 30 years, should remain and that permission should not be granted to change its use, because of its value as a community asset. Why should the ICB be able to second-guess the elected representatives of the community? Is that not intolerable?

• 20 May 2025 · GP Services: Christchurch · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because I want to ensure that the Minister has time to respond to those points.

• 20 May 2025 · GP Services: Christchurch · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman mentions the issue of finances. I tabled a written question about how much the health service has been spending on general practice in the Christchurch constituency. Again, rather surprisingly, the information is available only for the year ending 2023, so we do not have any information for 2023–24. Although I would not expect the figures for 2024–25 to be available, I certainly would have expected the total costs for 2023–24 to be available by now. The answer says that in 2022–23, some £17.5 million was spent on providing GP services in Christchurch. The idea that the cost of transferring patients from one practice to another should be a decisive factor against the reopening of a branch seems extraordinary. It makes a nonsense of the argument that we must rein in our expenditure. While we are talking about the ICB’s expenditure, for the last several years I have been complaining that, at any given time in Dorset, under the ICB’s supervision, there are some 250 patients in Dorset hospitals who have no need to “reside”, as it is called. In other words, those people are in hospital but do not need to be there. Every day, that is 250 patients at a cost of between £500 and £1,000 each. The same body is presiding over that scandal. It said last year that it was going to halve the number, but it has failed to do so—indeed, the number is just the same as a year ago. Instead of taking it out on the people of Christchurch and saying, “You can’t have access to a reopened branch surgery,” it should be looking at its own poor performance. As I have said to the Minister informally, the idea that Dorset ICB will somehow be amalgamated with other ICBs—creating even more bureaucracy, and making it even more remote from the people—is, again, farcical. My final point—I want to give the Minister time to respond—is that, in answer to a written question, the Minister for Care said that as a result of what has happened in the last year, the number of patients in Highcliffe has increased by about 150. In Christchurch medical practice, the total number of patients has actually fallen; in the Stour surgery, it has increased; and in the Grove, it is about the same. To suggest, on those figures, that the financial viability of other practices in Christchurch will be threatened if this branch surgery is reopened seems to be without any justification. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response, although I note that the Minister for Care is not responding to the debate.

• 20 May 2025 · GP Services: Christchurch · Hansard source

  More

  One of the issues is that since the branch surgery was closed, Christchurch medical practice has reduced its number of full-time equivalent GP doctors. There used to be 10.7 and now there are only 10.2, which may be part of the problem. Surely it must be in the interests of the Government, the taxpayer and everybody else to allow a branch surgery to reopen, at minimal additional cost, to the benefit of 4,500 people in the Christchurch area.

• 20 May 2025 · GP Services: Christchurch · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered access to GP services in Christchurch. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. This short debate was triggered by the perverse decision, announced last week, of the Dorset integrated care board to refuse permission for Burton surgery to reopen. The surgery is a premises in Burton village in Christchurch constituency, which has had a GP surgery for more than 30 years. The surgery was converted from a guest house. It has good car parking nearby and a pharmacy adjoining it, and is a well-loved community facility. In 2007, the GP practice in Burton was amalgamated with Christchurch medical practice and became a branch of that practice. Then, in December 2023, patients were told that the Burton premises would be closed and all patients transferred to Christchurch medical practice in Purewell. I wrote to the integrated care board to express my concern at the impact that would have on the people of Burton. Although the ICB said that it was powerless to intervene because the surgery was only a branch, local residents were confident that another GP practice would acquire the premises and continue to provide GP services, because the building is in really good order: it has 11 consulting rooms and is a very attractive proposition for another GP practice. It was expected that it would be put on the open market for sale. Much to everybody’s frustration, that did not happen. The owners of the practice decided instead to do a closed deal with a veterinary hospital based in Christchurch, which agreed to acquire the site, thereby excluding the possibility of another GP practice taking it over. However, one thing they had not thought about was that they needed to get planning permission for a change of use. The planning application was strongly opposed by local residents, backed by me, and it became a major issue in the general election campaign. Eventually, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council refused the application on a series of grounds, the principal one being that “insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the loss of a community facility at this site would not result in a substantial decline in the range and quality of facilities and services available for local people.” In essence, the local planners said that it was necessary to keep the surgery in Burton because removing it would take away an important community facility. If nobody else was willing to open such a community facility, I would not have been able to put forward this argument, but another practice has now purchased the premises and is willing and ready to open a branch in them. However, in order so to do, it had to apply to the integrated care board for permission. It did just that last November. Extraordinarily, it took months before a decision was reached—so long that I raised the issue in an oral question. The Secretary of State himself took it on board and, as a result, the ICB was pushed into having to make a decision on 23 April. As I understand it, the decision was made on 23 April, but was not communicated until some time afterwards. In the meantime, and in anticipation that the application to reopen the branch was essentially a formality, South Coast Medical completed the purchase of the building and started the refurbishment. The plan was that it would reopen this summer. The ICB’s decision to refuse permission for the branch surgery to reopen is, in my view and that of my constituents and local residents, beyond belief. I appeal to the Minister to intervene on behalf of the 4,500 patients whom the ICB accepts would choose to re-register at Burton were the surgery to reopen. Ironically, it is said that the cost of re-registering those 4,500 patients would be a significant burden on the health service. That is because people who are in their first year with a GP are thought to be more burdensome, so the GP gets paid a slightly larger amount for each of them. To describe the exercise of patient choice in that way—as a burden on the NHS—seems to me to be pretty wide of the mark. After I heard the outcome of the application, I tabled a series of questions, one of which sought to establish how many people have been transferring from one practice to another in Christchurch each year, because I wanted to get a feel for that. The answer, from the Minister for Care, stated that the information is not available. Some of the arguments made in favour of not allowing the surgery to be reopened, in answer to another of my questions, were based on the number of appointments already taking place in Christchurch. That prompted me to table a named day question on that subject. At about 9.30 am this morning I received a holding response, saying that the information relating to the number of appointments at surgeries in Christchurch over the past couple of years is not available, yet the ICB says that it used that very information to help it reach its conclusion. I hope the Minister will explain why the ICB, which I think is basically the custodian of all this information, so far has not decided to share that information with Ministers. Either it has the information or it has not been wholly open in suggesting that the information helped in its decision.

• 20 May 2025 · GP Services: Christchurch · Hansard source

  More

  I will not just at the moment, but I may do later. This whole issue is a test case for the credibility of the new Labour Government’s promises about increasing access to GP services. In August 2024, after the general election, no one in government or in the NHS, including Dorset ICB, was suggesting that a GP surgery in Burton was not needed. Now that a serious plan to reopen the surgery is in place, without any capital cost to the NHS because South Coast Medical has acquired the premises using its own resources and does not need a grant, it is surely perverse that the ICB is arguing that such a branch surgery can no longer be afforded and that reopening it would adversely affect the financial viability of other practices in Christchurch. I tabled questions on that issue as well. There is no evidence that other practices in Christchurch would be adversely affected, and I challenge the Minister to share with me, the House and my constituents the evidence that has been used to reach this decision. Will she also explain what can be done to appeal against the decision? It has been handed down by an unelected and unaccountable quango, or arm’s length body, which, among other things, has said to me in a letter that there have been no complaints about the quality of service being provided by the other main practice in Christchurch, which was operating the Burton branch and chose to give it up. However, there have been many complaints; I have fistful of them here, some of which I may refer to. Either the ICB does not open its post, or it is closing its eyes and ears to representations about issues relating to the availability of doctors, the importance of patient choice and the inconvenience of having to travel so far in a community that is not well served by public transport and where taxis are very expensive. If somebody is dissatisfied with the quality of service being provided by their general practitioner, they may wish to exercise their choice, and it is good to have some healthy competition, but all that seems to be being squeezed out by the integrated care board. I will quote from a letter from Helen Yonwin, who writes: “Since the surgery closed last year in Burton and patients were transferred elsewhere, trying to get an appointment has been a nightmare. They seem to be unable to cope with the extra patients. The telephones are not always answered and it can take over 30 minutes to eventually get a response, only to discover that you are number 20-something in the queue. After a long wait to be told there are no available appointments, so ring again the next day, there are still no appointments, ‘But you can receive a telephone consultation from a GP’—but the next available slot is in four weeks’ time.” That is not improving access to GP services, which is what the Government pledged. It is a levelling down and reduction in service. I hope the Minister will say that it is intolerable and unacceptable, and that for it to be condoned, if not supported, by the ICB is appalling.

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Lady’s second question for the Minister include All Saints Mudeford, which burned down two years ago? The rebuilding process cannot be started because of the extra burden of VAT, so the church is raising money for that.

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my right hon. Friend. If one wants a current example, there was a headline in The Daily Telegraph on 1 May that read, “Migrant spared prison after punching female officer”. [ Interruption. ] This was a fact—it was a court case in Poole in Dorset, not far from my constituency. A small-boat migrant who repeatedly punched two female police officers was spared jail. That is completely laughable, and on that I have the support of David Sidwick, Dorset’s excellent police and crime commissioner, who is trying to take this issue further. When people who have come here seeking our help and assistance abuse the system, and we indulge their presence, that brings the whole system into disrepute. I hope that the Minister will get much tougher on this issue, but sadly, the Bill seems to weaken the offence regime under immigration law, rather than strengthening it, as we should.

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I accept the wisdom behind this new clause, but will the Minister go further and comment on new clause 39, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? That new clause is designed to put an end to another mischief affecting the non-refoulement rules; it would ensure that primacy was given to the torture convention and the refugee convention, and that it was not possible for the European Court of Human Rights to interpret the European convention on human rights in such a way as to exclude those provisions.

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I speak briefly to new clause 39, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? He is unfortunately not able to present this argument himself, because he is attending a meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and he asked if I would speak briefly in support of his new clause. I hope that I can encourage the Minister to expand a bit on whether the Government think that this is rather a good way of ensuring that the worst abuses in the courts system are avoided. Essentially, my right hon. Friend’s new clause would give precedence to the non-refoulement arrangements in the refugee convention and in the UN convention against torture, but it would not allow the European convention on human rights and the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights to extend beyond those provisions. That is very important, because fundamental to English law is the principle of equity. If people come here with clean hands and seek justice and our support, we should be keen to encourage that, but if people come here and abuse our hospitality or have already committed offences, we should get rid of them quickly. That is not very easy at the moment, because of how the courts interpret the European convention on human rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) referred to new clause 14. The problem I have with it is that it does not go far enough. It talks about getting rid of or disapplying the Human Rights Act, but of only disapplying the interim arrangements of the European Court of Human Rights. We need to go much further than that, and I am slightly reluctant to be enthusiastic about the new clause. One provision that I am very enthusiastic about, and which I am disappointed that the official Opposition will not call a Division on, is new clause 15. The shadow Home Secretary’s explanatory statement says: “This new clause would prevent a foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK, as well as anyone who has been charged with”—

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  I very much support the Secretary of State’s concerns about the automotive industry in this country. Will he therefore take action immediately to remove the arbitrary restrictions on the ability of our domestic motor manufacturers to produce and sell vehicles with internal combustion engines? The Government’s policy has already reduced the domestic production of vehicles in this country by a third between February last year and February this year. Why does he not lead by example and remove all tariffs on US vehicles?

• 25 Mar 2025 · NHS Waiting Lists · Hansard source

  More

  Waiting times for patients living in the village of Burton outside Christchurch could be drastically cut if the local integrated care board were to approve the creation of a new branch surgery. That application has been outstanding for more than four months. Will the Secretary of State put a bomb under Dorset ICB and get it to approve it straight away?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Knife Crime: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing to the House this horrific catalogue of embarrassing incidents—embarrassing to Members of this House and previous Administrations, because we have been asleep on the job. The legal authorities were able to stamp down on last summer’s riots in Southport so effectively by taking tough measures; does he agree that that is called for now? Talk about reducing the incidence of knife crime by half over 10 years is totally inadequate. Immediate action is needed to make an example of this type of crime and deter others from participating.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecution Rates · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Solicitor General confirm that it is imperative that prosecution rates for all cases of violence are increased, and that she is not suggesting to the prosecuting authorities that they should discriminate on the grounds of gender?

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing a Bill on this important subject. He mentions research. Can he explain why the extent of clauses 2 and 3 is limited to England and Wales? What is happening in Scotland in relation to the research issues?