Christopher Chope MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that one organisation that fits his description is the Climate Change Committee, which is charged with various responsibilities but has neglected its responsibility to promote adaptation and resilience?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Relations with the EU · Hansard source

  More

  For more than 15 years, the European Union has been in breach of its international treaty obligations to join the European convention on human rights. What are the Government doing to address the arrogance of the European Union on that issue?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  How much longer will it be before we get an answer from the Government on the review of the vaccine damage payment scheme? It was initiated when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) was in the Cabinet Office about a year ago. When will we get an answer?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Competition and Markets Authority Chairman · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister ask the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate why we have the highest energy prices in the world, particularly for electricity?

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

  More

  Christchurch priory is on the list of churches at risk. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could be saved any costs if my private Member’s Bill—the Exemption from Value Added Tax (Listed Places of Worship) Bill—which is due for a hearing in the House on Friday 28 March, were passed? It would exempt listed places of worship repairs from value added tax, which in itself would sort the problem out.

• 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.