Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Most countries landed on the age of 13 as a result of a protracted negotiation in the US Senate about data and online safety many years ago. That policy was not based on evidence; it was based on the compromise of a committee in another country. We must base such decisions on evidence, and there was no firm evidence for picking 13 over any other age.

Alarm bells on the question of data and consent are already ringing. Just this week, the Information Commissioner announced an investigation into how TikTok uses the personal information of 13 to 17-year-olds in order to make recommendations to them. Changing the digital age of consent would give parents more control over who accesses their children’s data, and it would dumb down the powerful algorithms that feed children addictive content.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill in the way he has and on becoming a Parliamentary Private Secretary. Does he support the Bill going into Committee? I think there is consensus across the House that it should be given its Second Reading. If it is not given its Second Reading, however, it will not go into Committee and we will not be able to discuss in further detail the points that he is making.

[Josh MacAlister]

The hon. Member is, of course, a connoisseur of private Members’ Bills and has been known not to be keen to see many of them make it to Committee. I am sure he will not mind me gently making the point that I am here today, as so many Members are, to make a difference and ensure that the Government take action.

The Bill also commits the Government to instruct the UK chief medical officer to update and reissue guidance for parents and professionals about the impact of excessive screen time and social media use on children. It is nearly six years since that guidance was last issued, and we have seen the positive impact of recent guidance elsewhere, such as in America where the Surgeon General advice has stated more recently:

“social media has not been proved safe”

and that

“Children and adolescents who spend more than 3 hours a day on social media face double the risk of mental health problems including experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety.”

That advice led to calls in the US for cigarette packet-style health warnings on social media websites.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I would be willing to accept the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement if this were advice to schools, but it is not; it is advice to parents and carers. If there were going to be authoritative advice for schools, as well as other organisations that have charge of children—scout troops, children’s clubs, and other publicly funded organisations that look after children—I would have said, “Possibly,” even though there is to be a 12-month delay before the CMO tells us stuff we already know, as the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington pointed out.

The second step is for the Government to publish a plan for research within 12 months. That is not the conclusion of research, and there is no time limit—just a plan, a vague aspiration that we should have a plan, with no commencement, no sense of budget and no idea of when it might come. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington has been sold a cosmetic pup.

The third and final point is that the Government have to publish this “assessment”—whatever that may be—which, as far as I can see, is fundamentally to tell us something we already know, and which the hon. Gentleman has illustrated extremely vividly. We should all be furious about the delay and prevarication that is being injected into what could have been a huge step forward for parents and children.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am one of the people who is very angry about this, and my right hon. Friend is a co-sponsor of this Bill, so his disappointment must be even greater. However, does he agree that one way forward would be for this Bill, with its present inadequate drafting, to get its Second Reading and go into Committee? The people’s representatives in Committee would then be able to restore the Bill into something closer to what they expected.

[Kit Malthouse]

I was going to come on to that later, but my hon. Friend is completely right.

AstraZeneca

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Some of what I have already pointed out is really important. We have already said that we will have the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, at 25%, and we are sticking with that. We have made sure that we are investing in our public services so that people can have a guarantee of proper public services in this country. One thing that affects many businesses in this country—I have heard it repeatedly—is that if we have 7 million people on NHS waiting lists, we will not get people back into work. I would argue that the public sector and the private sector both have a role to play in enabling each other to flourish. It is not a question of “private sector good, public sector bad,” or the other way around; the two have to work hand in hand.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

For all the virtues of AstraZeneca, let us not forget that thousands of people suffered serious injury or death as a result of having the AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccines. Why, then, are the Government continuing to waste taxpayers’ money on indemnifying AstraZeneca against claims for civil liability brought by those victims of AstraZeneca vaccines?

[Chris Bryant]

I think the hon. Gentleman needs to speak to the hon. Member who spoke earlier—oh, he’s left. I actually believe that the vaccines saved lives; I do not believe that they lost people their lives. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I will never be united on that front.

Listed Places of Worship Scheme

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Listed Places of Worship Scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. There are around 20,000 listed—

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

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?

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Sir Christopher, thank you for your point of order. I am sure that that is something the Minister will attend to in his winding-up speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree wholeheartedly that this is not just about the social value. There is a profound economic value that goes beyond the £30 million I referenced.

The Church of England alone has a backlog of repairs to parish churches estimated at more than £1 billion, with the annual need estimated at £150 million per year. Large-scale closures are also sweeping across Scotland and Wales. There are 969 places of worship on Historic England’s 2024 heritage at risk register, and more than 60% of MPs in England have a church, chapel, meeting house or cathedral in their constituency that is on the register.

The listed places of worship grant scheme is the only regular financial support the Government provide to help those looking after these buildings. By “financial support”, I mean simply a refund of the tax already paid to the Exchequer.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting Christchurch priory. I am certain that he will be the strongest advocate of the proposal he puts forward on that Friday.

Refunding the tax our places of worship have already paid is vital because in the UK, unlike in the rest of Europe, they depend overwhelmingly on local people to raise the funding for their buildings. In France, Belgium, Germany and Italy, by contrast, such buildings are either owned by the state or supported by special taxes.

The scheme was introduced in its current form by the Labour Government in 2001, when the right hon. Gordon Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, recognised the harm that changes to VAT could cause these buildings. It was launched in the House of Lords in December 2001 by Baroness Blackstone, who stated:

“This new grant will provide much-needed public support for these historic buildings. The scheme underlines the value this Government place on our important historic environment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. WA129.]

I plead with the current Government to recognise that.