Christopher Chope MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Western. Before my hon. Friend develops the debate, may I inquire about the fact that, according to the Order Paper, the fourth of the written statements to be made today, by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, is titled “Future of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme”? If that statement is being made today, would it not be convenient for us to see a copy of it before this debate begins, so that it can inform the debate, rather than that being left until after the debate?

• 17 Jan 2025 · Licensing Hours Extension Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister not share my concern that this is a Bill of very limited ambition? Considering what she has said, surely there is a strong case for deregulating this whole area and for getting Parliament and the Government out of hospitality businesses’ hair.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member explain why his Bill excludes the use of solar thermal panels?

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that an unintended consequences of this Bill could be that it is no longer possible to build a new thatched house? In Dorset and Hampshire, we welcome people who are developing new thatched houses. How will that work with this Bill?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady therefore support my private Member’s Bill, which is coming up in March and is designed specifically to exclude repairs to listed places of worship from the VAT regime?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Covid-19 Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister, quite rightly, expresses sympathy for the victims of covid-19, which is something we all share, but he has not mentioned anything about the victims of covid-19 vaccines, of whom there are thousands. We know that those people did the right thing and took the vaccines, but they were not warned of the risks. The Minister has been talking about risk assessments. There was a lack of risk engagement, and now we find that the compensation scheme, the vaccine damage payment scheme, is in place but not operating effectively or fairly. The Health Minister keeps talking about possibly amending it, but every time he mentions that it causes immense harm to all those who are still suffering as a consequence of having done the right thing and taken the covid-19 vaccines, when many of them now wish they had not.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend hits on an important point. What action did the MHRA take to apologise for or explain its failure to give adequate and timely warnings to potential patients?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the consequences of the lack of transparency has been a public distrust of vaccines, which is spreading rapidly? As a consequence, for example, there is less take-up of MMR vaccines than there should be and used to be, and that is because of a lack of trust in the system.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency · Hansard source

  More

  I shall try to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) by referring to a quote from Hayek’s book, “The Road to Serfdom”. I do not claim credit for identifying it myself; it was quoted in the other place by Lord Hannan of Kingsclere on 15 January in the context of the Football Governance Bill. He was talking about the growth of the administrative state, about which the hon. Gentleman was speaking at the beginning of his speech. Hayek said: “The delegation of particular tasks to separate bodies, while a regular feature, is yet only the first step in the process by which a democracy…relinquishes its powers”. That is in chapter 5 of “The Road to Serfdom” from 1944, so not much has changed. The MHRA is an example of what happens if we in this House transfer responsibility to unelected and unaccountable organisations. It so happens that on the Order Paper for tomorrow is my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill, which is sponsored by a former Attorney General. That Bill calls for an independent review of covid-19 vaccine damage. It calls on the Secretary of State to “appoint a current or former High Court judge to lead an independent review of disablement caused by Covid-19 vaccinations administered in the United Kingdom and the adequacy of the compensation offered to persons so disabled.” We know that more than 600 people have already been told by the agency responsible at the Department of Health and Social Care that they have suffered disabilities as a result of covid-19 vaccines. A large number of them, where the disability is in excess of 60%, have been awarded wholly derisory payments of £120,000 each. My Bill goes on: “The review must consider…the rates and extent of disablement caused by each type of Covid-19 vaccination offered in the United Kingdom”. Relevant to this debate, the review must also consider “the effectiveness of Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency monitoring of such side effects, and National Health Service and Government responses to such monitoring”, as well as “the adequacy of compensation offered to persons so disabled”. There has always been an agreement, basically, that if something goes wrong for people who undertake vaccination voluntarily or are in receipt of other medical products—if they are doing the right thing by the country at large—and they have an adverse reaction, they will be able to look to the Government or the taxpayer to pay them some recompense under the scheme to which I have referred, if causation is established. The trust built by that scheme has been undermined by the long denial of the previous Government—and, to an extent, the current one—that any adverse reactions had been caused by the covid-19 vaccines, other than the most minor disablement. It has also been undermined by the fact that so many people have applied for a review of their cases. Some people—I think more than a thousand—have been waiting more than 18 months for a decision. That shows that this is a low priority for the Government. I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, she will be able to explain why the Government will block my Bill again tomorrow. If they were taking this issue seriously, as they should be, they would be open to and supportive of the establishment of an independent review of disablement.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one consequence is that we have a United Kingdom in part of which people have a second-class citizenship compared with the rest of the United Kingdom? Does he have any solutions, other than the solution put forward by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) in his brilliant Bill, as he brings intellectual rigour to try to address this intractable problem?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Electricity Grid Upgrades · Hansard source

  More

  Order. This is an intervention, not another speech.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Electricity Grid Upgrades · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention—he is being very generous in giving way—can I just say that we have to move on to the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30 am and there are many people who wish to participate? I have not imposed time limits; all I am saying is that there are 13 minutes left and probably seven people who want to speak.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Electricity Grid Upgrades · Hansard source

  More

  I call Emma Foody.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The argument that the Secretary of State puts forward is essentially one for banning smoking altogether. What he said earlier was misleading; he suggested that people of a particular age group will not be able to smoke. They will not be able to buy cigarettes, but they can still smoke. They can cadge cigarettes off other people. Is this not a half-baked measure?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Fly-tipping · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Before we finish this debate, I remind the Minister and Members of paragraph 19.45 of “Erskine May”, in which it says: “A half-hour adjournment debate is a personal debate between the Member who has secured the debate and the Minister who is to reply…Interventions from the Opposition frontbench are not allowed. Opposition spokespersons may participate, from the backbenches, on matters which do not relate to their portfolio. Equally, because the debate is personal to the Member and the Minister, no reference should be made to the absence of other Members (for example, an Opposition frontbench spokesperson).” References in this debate to the absence of anybody from the Opposition Front-Bench team were out of order, and I apologise for not having raised that at the time. I think it is important that we remind ourselves of the rules of procedure and the fact that, in half-hour debates, there is no opportunity for Opposition parties to participate.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Fly-tipping · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that courtesy. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 20 Nov 2024 · Apprenticeships and T-Levels · Hansard source

  More

  Before I call Jim Shannon, I will just say that there are five people wishing to speak and 20 minutes, so you can do your own calculations.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister include references to fraud in her White Paper? Action Fraud, which would be more accurately described as “Inaction Fraud,” is presiding over a complete failure to do anything, particularly about fraud against online retailers. Can we ensure that action is taken to help victims of fraud?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Flood Preparedness: Norfolk · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I will have to call the Front Benchers at 5.10 pm, so I hope that the two Norfolk Members who are standing can share the remaining seven minutes between them.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Flood Preparedness: Norfolk · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I cannot order the hon. Lady to sit down, but we should comply with the convention for one-hour debates: Opposition spokesmen should have five minutes each and the Minister should have 10 minutes to respond.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The information I have about the extent of illegal vapes in the marketplace comes from the Government. In their impact assessment for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will be debated in the next fortnight, the Government accept that about 30% of the market is illegal, and that is where I got my figures. My hon. Friend refers to supermarkets. I am not suggesting that there is any illegal activity in supermarkets or among responsible retailers.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister not share my concern? I understand that only one in 3,000 containers coming into a port like Southampton are inspected. It only needs one container to get through and there might be tens of millions of pounds-worth of vapes in one container.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  As I understand it, a reusable vape may cost as little as £10, so let us see what happens. However, the Government’s own impact assessment on page 40 expects that 26% of current smokers will revert to smoking or alternative non-vaping products. The figure for recent ex-smokers is that 3% will revert to smoking or alternative non-vaping products. Those two added together show that 29% of current vapers will not transition to reusable vapes. The figures say that 24% of current smokers will transition to reusable vapes. Slightly fewer will do so, therefore, than will revert to smoking or alternative non-vaping products. It is encouraging that 7% of recent ex-smokers will transition to reusable vapes, whereas only 3% will revert to smoking or alternative non-vaping products. That is significant, but I am concerned about the 29% of current vapers who will be driven back to smoking. Is that a good thing for them or for public health? I do not think that it is. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) referred to his background as a smoker and now a vaper. I have to admit to having never smoked or vaped, so I come to this debate with an enormous amount of wisdom and experience on the subject. I am driven by the fact that both my parents smoked very heavily as a result of their experiences in the war—when people were not fighting the Germans, there was not much else to do other than smoke. That was very bad for my parents’ health, as it was for so many people of that generation. I do not wish to encourage people to smoke, but the impact assessment makes no reference to the benefits that will accrue to the tobacco companies and the Exchequer from the increased number of people who will smoke as a direct result of the implementation of the regulations. That is a serious omission. Earlier, some people said that there is a shortage of information available on this subject. I think that this debate is inhibited, as the one that we are to have on the Bill that will come forward in the next fortnight will be, by the Government’s extraordinary interpretation of the World Health Organisation framework convention on tobacco control, particularly article 5.3, which seeks to ensure that interactions between the tobacco industry and policymakers are conducted transparently. We are all in favour of that, but the article does not apply to interactions between the vaping industry and policymakers regarding vape regulation. I have been told, however, by Imperial Brands, I think British American Tobacco and others that they have been unable to access Government Ministers or officials because Ministers and officials are falsely interpreting the framework convention as prohibiting such engagement. It specifically does not inhibit or prevent such engagement. I think that it is probably the fault of the Government that, as a consequence, they are not as well informed about the issues as they could and should be. Article 5.3 does not preclude policymakers, elected or unelected, from engaging with the tobacco industry or associated parties. Let us have open dialogue about this, instead of a situation where, as I understand it from talking to somebody from Imperial Brands, efforts by that company to engage with Government officials and Ministers are rejected on the grounds that such engagement would be inconsistent with the WHO framework convention. It would not be inconsistent with it. I hope that one positive thing to come out of the debate will be that the Government will rethink their total lack of engagement with the manufacturers of vaping products. We have some really good manufacturers of vaping products based in this country. Why are we trying to put them out of business and encouraging Chinese manufacturers to run rampant in our marketplace, as they are doing with increasing effect? My plea to the Government, which I hope the Minister will address, is to engage with tobacco manufacturers and companies such as Imperial Brands that are interested in promoting smoking alternatives and vaping. All the projections are that the amount of vaping going on in this country will increase significantly. That is fine, but please can we try to ensure that we do not drive people back to smoking? That would be really bad for our public health and the national health service. I despair that no one from any of the three Front Benches has addressed the unintended consequences of these regulations on public health.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for listening to the points that I have been making. They can be summed up as: smoking costs lives; vaping saves lives. Therefore, if we can encourage more people to vape rather than smoke, that is to the benefit of public health and the individuals affected, as well as assisting those who suffer as a result of secondary smoking or passive smoking. The consequence, which is accepted by the Government in their impact assessment, is that by taking these measures against single-use vapes, quite a lot of people who currently use them will go back to smoking. Vapes have a 65% success rate in enabling people to quit smoking. The chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health said that “scare stories” about young people vaping could be causing the misconception among adult smokers that vaping is at least as risky as smoking. We know that it is not. Compliant vapes do not contain tobacco and do not produce smoke, and vape aerosols do not contain the harmful chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Why are the Government therefore proposing to introduce regulations, which, on their own figures, will result in about 26% of people going from vaping back to tobacco products?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend keeps using the expression “potential illegal imports”, but massive illegal import is already taking place. The number of illegal imports detected is a minute proportion of the actual number of illegal imports that are coming into the market. Will he concentrate on the current issue relating to illegal imports, instead of describing that issue as a “potential”?