Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Conservatives will talk about anything but their own record. Is it any wonder that they did not conduct a spending review before they called a general election? The reality is that they made unfunded spending commitments and then ran away.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

A remit of the new Modernisation Committee is to enhance the ability of Members of this House to hold the Government to account. In the light of the failure that has been exhibited over recent days, would the Minister be in favour of referring this issue to the Modernisation Committee?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I was not aware that financial mismanagement by the Conservative party was a matter for the Modernisation Committee, but it should certainly be referred to something.

Debate on the Address

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is good to take part in this debate on the Loyal Address. In particular, it was good to see His Majesty attend the House today. I wish him well in his recovery and pay tribute to his record of service to our nation.

I congratulate all new Members who have entered the House. I thank the proposer and the seconder of the motion, the hon. Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), who are no longer in their places. It is fair to say—this is a note for all new Members, as well as existing Members—that their speeches were made in the finest traditions of the House. The start of the Parliament is one of the few moments we have to unite, to respect each other’s speeches and contributions, and to become accustomed to the traditions, formalities and conventions of the House.

At the same time, we get to do the greatest thing that we all love: representing our constituents. For new Members, in particular, this will become the regular pattern of their work in this House and a reflection of the hard graft that goes in. We have all come fresh from a general election campaign where a lot of graft was put in, but we are now here, elected to represent our constituents, in the normal tradition, on the issues that may sometimes divide us, but where we can advance their cause through legislation.

I want to begin my contribution on the Loyal Address by saying a few words about the new Government’s tone over the past 12 days. It is an inevitable feature of a new Government that they spend their first few weeks continuing campaign rhetoric—we will hear it a lot—and talking down the record of the previous Government. However, much was advanced over the last 14 years.

We are proud of our record and the transformation we led, including on public finances. These are big things that do not just happen over a few weeks and months. We are proud that we transformed the public finances, from the Government borrowing £1 in every £4 to a much better fiscal position today. It is not easy to get into these fiscal positions and those on the Labour Benches should reflect on the fiscal position they inherit. We are proud of supporting the creation of 800 jobs per day, on average, having faster economic growth than many of our competitors, cutting the tax burden on incomes and fuel duty, overseeing an increase in doctors and nurses working in our NHS, more teachers, schools raising standards, and, on law and order, getting more police officers on our streets fighting crime. That is a record we are proud of. It is important to reflect on that. If I may say so, in a very subtle, gentle and polite way to those now on the Government Front Bench, it is all very well trying to rewrite history through slogans. It sometimes takes attention away from the responsibility of having to govern and make the big decisions and choices.

Let me touch on some policy areas. The Government have already presented a programme in one area of which I have some experience, having been Home Secretary for more than three years. We have heard quite a bit about immigration and crime, but although we have not seen the details, what we have heard from the Government so far differs little from some of the measures that were already in place. One example is the proposed UK border security command, which we actually set up just over four years ago to co-operate with international partners. Some of my colleagues who followed me in the Home Office will recognise much of this. They will recognise the need to take action in the English channel and work with our intelligence and security agencies in order to do so, and they will recognise the appointment of a clandestine channel threat commander and the establishment of joint interagency task forces, because they happened under the last Government.

I want to commend the work of our international law enforcement agencies and our international partners. Not only do they work at an exceptional level, but they work to save lives, and I think we should reflect on that, because only last week we saw more lives lost in the channel. We also introduced robust measures to tackle criminal gangs and county lines and put together safer streets policies together to protect our constituents, but some of those measures were opposed by those who are now in government when they sat on these Benches.

It is important to recognise that some things do not happen overnight. There is no single solution to some of these issues, but through collaboration we can drive the right outcomes. We heard the Prime Minister speak about law and order today, and I welcome many of his comments about the importance of safer streets and tackling terrorism, but also the need to address those appalling problems that we still see and will continue to see: violence on our streets and domestic abuse, with victims suffering at the hands of criminals. None of us wants prisoners to be released early, but it is important to focus on the victims of crime and to have the right punishments in place to ensure that the perpetrators are given tough sentences. Again, I noted that those measures were opposed in the last Parliament. It is important for us to get fairness back into our system when it comes to law and order.

One of the great achievements of the last Government was the expansion of renewable energy generation. We can be proud of our record in that regard and proud to be world leaders, given that the energy generated by a mix of renewables passed the 40% mark. That is a huge improvement on the situation in 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has already touched on the question of how we can generate new technology for energy purposes, and I genuinely believe that technology, rather than taxation, is the path to a much more sustainable future.

I think that our colleagues in the Government will recognise the reality of some of the projects that already exist and will now be dominating their inboxes, such as the National Grid’s attempts, through its Norwich to Tilbury plans, to impose more than 100 miles of pylons and overheard power lines across the east of England. It is pressing those proposals, but my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex and I are working to find alternatives through technology and ways in which we can upgrade the grid without destroying the East Anglian countryside. National Grid’s plans will affect farmers and community facilities such as White Notley football club, which will lose community pitches if the pylons are built across our constituencies. That will mean a huge loss of local amenity, which is deeply concerning. My constituents, and constituents throughout Essex and East Anglia, want to see alternatives such as an offshore grid or the use of more tunnelling to build up grid infrastructure capacity. The proposed infrastructure and planning Bill will be considered in great detail. It must receive the right level of scrutiny, along with the legislation on planning and new housing, and we must ensure that local views—the views of our constituents—are not simply disregarded.

I am aware that those on the Government Front Bench are already proposing a consultation in this area. If I may give them some subtle and gentle advice, listening to the views expressed in that consultation will be incredibly important, because this is not about saying that people do not want homes; in fact, constituencies such as mine have put forward so many plans for new homes. We have actually built over 10,000 new family homes over the last decade, which has helped my constituency to become a very good commuter town and successful when it comes to schools. Families want to move to our area, but it is a case of getting the balance right. That is incredibly important.

In the minute I have left, I want to make a point about economic growth. Of course, everybody across the country and in this House fundamentally believes in securing higher levels of economic growth, which every Government want—name me a Government who do not want that. We want more jobs, we want more job creation and we want more successful businesses, but it is about being on the side of businesses and how we can effectively support them to employ people.

Over 80% of my constituents are employed by small and medium-sized businesses. We are incredibly proud of that, but the minute that more regulatory burden comes upon those businesses, I am afraid they will lose the ability to grow and to employ local people. Of course, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. On a day like today, when we see new Bills coming forward through the Loyal Address and the King’s Speech, it is right that we are given the appropriate time to scrutinise them as we go forward through this Session of Parliament. Fundamentally, however, we need to make sure that, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we Members of Parliament on this side of the Chamber provide scrutiny, but also redress, to ensure that constituents’ voices are heard—whether on planning, development or economic growth. Fundamentally, we need to make sure that Britain advances in the right way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Kirith Entwistle to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment.

Moving on to public services, over the last number of years we have been campaigning about the fact that public services in Northern Ireland are constrained because the Barnett formula has not served us well and we have been getting less than what the Independent Fiscal Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council have accepted that we need. Therefore, year on year public services are being reduced in Northern Ireland and year on year we are not getting the sort of uplift required to ensure that our constituents benefit from devolution.

New Members of this House will probably not have experienced the protracted agony around devolution in Northern Ireland and the importance of getting it restored five months ago, but one part of that restoration was ensuring that sufficient public finances were available. There is a key opportunity—though not mentioned in this King’s Speech, I hope it is something the incoming Government will focus on—to draw upon the lessons of the Holtham commission in Wales and upon the positive uplift there, to provide us with what we need to reform and transform public services.

At the moment, the challenges are not about how we grow and develop the provisions for our people, irrespective of their community background, in Northern Ireland, but about what special schools we close, what hospitals we close and what services we stop providing. As somebody who speaks for our corner of the United Kingdom in this place, I ask for earnest engagement on public services and public funding in Northern Ireland.

Devolution was restored on the basis of an agreement that we reached with the previous Government, but that agreement was supported by Labour in February of this year. The “Safeguarding the Union” document, which allowed devolution to be restored, contains within it key and significant commitments and we look forward to the new Labour Government’s honouring them. Their Members supported it at the time in February. They know its importance. While I see reference in the King’s Speech to resetting relations with the European Union—as I said earlier, we should have good relationships and we should build upon those good relationships with near neighbours—we need to carefully nurture the arrangements that were agreed in February and need to be delivered. This is about removing barriers within our own country.

We can focus on relationships with others outside, and we should, but not to the detriment of that which makes this country work. There are opportunities on regional connectivity and to build on the Union connectivity review. The proposed creation of a council for the regions and borders looks quite like the East-West Council that was agreed back in February as part of the “Safeguarding the Union” document. We will have to study the detail. If it is a rename and a re-badge, that is fine, but we need to talk about how we move people and products from one part of our country to another. Where is the connectivity review work on the A75 moving from Northern Ireland into Scotland and down towards Carlisle? How do we think about this as a national endeavour? There will be newly elected Scottish Members of Parliament on the Labour Benches who will take keen interest in ensuring that the Union works across the United Kingdom, and we want to play our part in that.

I have spent the last eight years on the Select Committee on Defence. I have spoken many times of the contribution of Thales from my constituency and the next-generation light anti-tank weapons, and how important they were in the initial weeks of the defence of Kyiv particularly and Ukraine more generally. However, the eye has been taken off the ball on support for those industries that are key within my constituency and important for Northern Ireland as a whole in the Defence sphere.

Hon. Members will have seen negative briefing in the last 24 hours around Harland & Wolff. I want to see a very clear commitment from this Government that they believe in the contracts that have been awarded to Belfast and in the renaissance of shipbuilding in Belfast, that they adhere to the commitments of the national shipbuilding review to building skills and opportunities throughout our United Kingdom and that—irrespective of the ups and downs, highs and lows of any individual company—the aspiration and the economic benefits of retaining shipbuilding and growing the shipbuilding capacity in Belfast are highly important. So, too, is the issue of Boeing wishing to bring Spirit AeroSystems back into its company. Significant issues arise from that for the economy of Belfast and Northern Ireland, as Spirit AeroSystems is the largest private employer, with high-skilled manufacturing jobs, in my constituency, but it services the entirety of the United Kingdom. Like previous Business Secretaries, the Government need to focus on that. I am not suggesting that they are not, but there is a huge opportunity in the next six months, and we need to land it to secure what is important for us.

Finally—I realise that I am going beyond the suggested time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker—there is a proposal for a football regulator. Good. We will have the debate in the next weeks and months—it will probably come from my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) —about whether that football regulator should be for England or, in this national Parliament, for football within our country.

If I did not close with this, I would probably have one less vote come the next election. My constituent Davy Warren, who used to serve me in the newsagent’s on my way to school, texted me to say: “Gavin, support England if you like on Sunday. They’re not your team but they’re the only team from our country, so support England if you like, but remind them all that Neil Diamond’s ‘Sweet Caroline’ is a Northern Ireland football team anthem.” The green and white army were very happy to lend that anthem to you all, but we will reclaim it. I gently remind the House that the last time Spain faced a home nation in any significant final or competition—my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford was there, and I was not born—Northern Ireland beat Spain.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

To make his maiden speech, I call Warinder Juss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in this Chamber. I have had the pleasure of doing so for the past 14 years, but it is not half a big improvement to be standing on the Government side of the Chamber. I look forward to giving full support to this new Labour Government in their endeavour, as they take their first steps in changing our country for the better.

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) and for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), who gave outstanding maiden speeches. They have set the bar rather high for the rest of my hon. Friends, as I think they would all agree, but I wish them all well in their endeavours. Indeed, I congratulate all new and returning Members.

We have an inheritance after 14 years, and I would just say to some of the Conservative Members who have defended the previous Government’s record, or at least have attempted to do so as they have made their various leadership pitches, that the economic performance of those 14 years tells a rather different story, with low living standards, a cost of living crisis and low growth. In fact, growth has been so low that, had we maintained the growth of the last Labour Government, GDP would be £140 billion higher, every household would on average have £5,800 more every single year and there would be £50 billion more, on the same tax rates, for spending and investing in our public services and our infrastructure. That is what 14 years of Conservative Government have meant for this country, and to cap it all we had the Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng exuberance of the mini-Budget, with the disastrous crashing of the economy, which has left people paying high interest rates even now, two years later. That is the record we inherit, it is what we have to fix and we have made a very good start.

In the Gracious Speech, the importance of economic stability was underlined with the announcement of a Budget responsibility Bill to deliver stability and to attract investment by creating confidence throughout the economy. There is the national wealth fund to attract private investment and to invest in the massive opportunity available to us in this country, which, almost uniquely in western Europe, is through clean energy, with our geographical and geological opportunities, as well as our marvellous tech in this country, our science base and our universities. There are the reforms to planning to deliver infrastructure and housing, and the reform to skills to deliver for our workers and for their employers. The investment we have announced in transport, which is so important—the improvements in rail and in buses and the commitment to sustainable aviation fuel—show that this is a Government who actually understand the importance of integrated transport in delivering societal and economic improvements.

Turning to the impact on my constituency, we, like everybody in this House, will benefit from the commitments to take action on NHS and dental waiting lists, and to improve appointments, as well as to recruit additional teachers and to bring in breakfast club places for our children. All of those will make a massive immediate difference, and they are part of the down payment that the Prime Minister committed to during the election campaign and reiterated in his brilliant speech earlier. In my constituency, one piece of legislation announced today above all is of particular significance. I represent many people whose loved ones died at Hillsborough, or who were injured or who attended, so I am very pleased—along with all of my Merseyside and Liverpool city region colleagues, and indeed many more in this House—for everyone who has campaigned so hard for justice for 35 years. The legal duty of candour on all public officials and authorities will now be created, as it should have been so many years ago.

I am thrilled at the announcement about and the commitment to mental health in the Gracious Speech. Maghull health park in my constituency arguably has the most comprehensive array of mental health services in Europe, with medium and low secure provision to go with the well known high-secure Ashworth hospital, which is the best arrangement on a single location. Mersey Care NHS foundation trust, along with the Liverpool city region combined authority and Sefton council all want to see, as do I, investment in a world-leading diagnostic and research mental health facility on the same site. What we heard in the Gracious Speech gives me great confidence that such investment is likely to be available so that we can make the most of what we are already very good at in this country and make so much more of it. It must be right, as the sovereign said in the other place, that mental health should have the same attention as physical health.

This brings me on to speak in more detail about energy. The Liverpool city region and the north-west of England are supremely well placed to be at the heart of the Government’s plans for investment in clean energy and energy security. Contrary to what some Conservative Members have been saying, this is about jobs, cheaper transport and lower energy bills. It is an economic investment as much as it is an environmental one. It is of course essential that we support workers in the oil and gas industry, so that we avoid the mistakes of deindustrialisation, and that there are jobs and training for people to make the transition and take advantage of the lower-carbon future that we all know is coming.

In the Liverpool city region and across the country, it is absolutely right that we make the most of opportunities in fixed and floating offshore wind. I am so pleased that one of the Secretary of State’s first acts has been to end the ban on onshore wind, and indeed that he has announced three new solar farms. In the north-west and elsewhere there are plans for hydrogen, for carbon capture and storage, and for nuclear, and uniquely in the north-west, in the city region, we have great plans for the Mersey tidal project. They are all key to growth, to prosperity and to addressing the climate crisis, so I am thrilled that this is front and centre of Labour’s plans for government.

There are many other aspects of the low-carbon future, including improvement in insulation in housing and plans for solar for people at home. That is something I have invested in, and I have seen the benefits with lower bills already. I would advocate that for everybody, and it is brilliant that we are committed to giving everybody the ability to make the most of such an opportunity.

The Liverpool city region and the north-west are part of the HyNet project, which is a commitment to a series of green hydrogen generation units. We are also committed to improvements in green transport through the roll-out of EV charging points—something that has to happen much more quickly right across the country—and there are already net zero hydrogen buses in service in the city region. Elsewhere in the city region, Glass Futures is leading the way internationally in decarbonising the production of glass, and we are also looking at battery storage.

Whether in the city region or elsewhere in the country, this really is key not just to Labour’s energy mission, but to the mission of sustaining the highest growth in the G7, and whether through investment in energy or improvements in public services, by having growth at the centre we really will see improvements in this country and we really will see a change from what we have seen over the past 14 years. The 14 years of chaos are over, and it is time to turn the page. As the Prime Minister said, it is time to work together—and he offered to do so with all Members in this House and people beyond this House—to start to rebuild Britain. Today’s Gracious Speech is an important down payment in securing Britain’s future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Sir Roger Gale.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by adding my congratulations to both the hon. Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on their speeches earlier this afternoon. I suspect that you and I have heard quite a number of such speeches, and I think we can probably agree that those were two of the very best we have ever heard.

May I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), who spoke movingly of his football team and of his town, in which he quite clearly has great pride. I have not visited Wolverhampton for over 60 years, and I do not know whether the Ambassador bowling alley is still there, but I recall that Berry Gordy brought the Motortown revue to Wolverhampton, and I actually watched Stevie Wonder playing ten pin bowls in the Wolverhampton bowling alley—think about that.

It is 41 years since I was first elected to this House as the then youngest Member of Parliament for the new seat of North Thanet, and I am delighted that, 41 years later, I find myself elected as the youngest Member of Parliament for Herne Bay and Sandwich. New colleagues on both sides of the House who have not heard these types of speeches before—you and I both know this very well indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker—will find that they will make great friendships right across the House over the coming weeks and months, and that is as it should be. Out there, in the real world, people do not understand that we work so closely together, but we do, and so we should. Jo Cox was absolutely right when she memorably said that there is much more that unites us than divides us. And so it is with this speech today.

I should also place on record my thanks and, I hope, the thanks of the whole House to the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister for the way in which they have managed with great dignity the transfer of power. This country does state openings rather well, and it does democracy even better. There are many who envy us for that, and it is a precious jewel that we should never lose.

This King’s Speech has much in it that I trust we can all applaud. It makes clear reference to defence of the realm, which is so vital to our country, and a commitment to NATO. It also commits us to support Ukraine in what is not just their war but our war—a war to defend democracy. There is also a commitment—although not everybody will agree with this—to a two-state settlement in the middle east. Those are all laudable aims, and I trust we can all support them. There are other areas that are greyer and that we shall have to take some issue with. That is the job of the Opposition, as the Prime Minister would expect. The Opposition will hold his feet to the fire and hold him to account when we think that he has got it wrong.

There are three issues that I want to raise very briefly this afternoon. I have grave concerns about the proposed reforms of planning law. Like Many Government Members, I represent a rural constituency and I fear for the loss of farmland. I am not sure—this is a genuine confusion and concern—whether it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Housing who is driving the proposed planning reform policy. I have a very real concern that local democracy will be removed, and that we shall find ourselves with a slash-and-burn policy that will destroy yet more of not only the green belt, but of the land we need to grow the food to feed our country. I trust that the Government will address that issue very clearly and very seriously indeed.

The new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has moved very fast indeed to grant planning consents that give me cause for concern. I find it wholly unnecessary that East Anglia and Thanet should have to place solar farms on prime agricultural land—grade 1 land—that generates wheat of bread-making quality. We have acres of rooftops and car parks in public ownership that could and should be used to protect the land that we need.

I have a particular concern about a project that two colleagues from East Anglia referred to earlier. The Sea Link project is designed to run a power cable from East Anglia under the Thames and around the coast to make landfall close to Sandwich. The proposal is to build on marshland immediately next to a site of special scientific interest, having crossed the Pegwell bay nature reserve, a 90-foot high structure the size of about four football pitches. National Grid has got this so horribly wrong that it only now realises that marshland is wet, which means it will have to pour thousands of tonnes of concrete into the land, drill down and pile before it can even begin to build its structure. Viable alternatives have been suggested, so I hope that the new Secretary of State will take this concern on board and use his powers to instruct National Grid to go back to the drawing board and get it right. We all want clean energy and renewable energy, and we all want to hit the net zero target, but not at any price. If we rush into this, we will get it wrong. We owe it to the grandchildren of every Member present to get it right.

Finally, I am concerned about an omission from the King’s Speech. Given the comments and publicity, I am sad that the speech makes no mention of animal welfare. I would hope that, at the very least, His Majesty’s new Government will reintroduce and ram through the trophy hunting bill that two Members of Parliament—one Labour and one Tory—tried but failed to get through the last Parliament.

With that, in the interests of this United Kingdom, I wish the Government and their programme well. We will hold feet to the fire where necessary, but I trust, as the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, that we will not be obstructive. A Government have a right to get their business through.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Patrick Hurley to make his maiden speech.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

The right hon. Gentleman has been around this place long enough to know that he is delivering a non-answer on Labour’s support for defence spending. The whole House will have noted that, although he raises an important issue in respect of prepositioning. He will appreciate that there are limits to what I can say from the Dispatch Box given that some of this relates to high-side intelligence, but I assure him that we are working with our Five Eyes allies, in particular the United States, since the US and the UK have exceptional capability in these areas, to ensure that we both have adequate knowledge and understanding of such prepositioning, and take effective steps in respect of it.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Eight weeks ago, on 29 February, at first order questions, I asked the Minister without Portfolio what the Government would do to assist people who are adversely affected by the statute of limitations as a result of having been injured by covid-19 vaccines. My right hon. Friend said in response that she had taken the issue to the permanent secretary. Will she update us on what has happened with the permanent secretary over the past eight weeks?

[The Minister without Portfolio (Esther McVey)]

I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question. He is a tireless campaigner on this matter, on which he has met with me and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As I said to my hon. Friend, I am dealing with this matter with the permanent secretary; he will know that we have a new permanent secretary in the Department, and we are working at pace to resolve it.

Access to Redress Schemes

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), and I am grateful to him for introducing this important subject. I am sorry that it has not attracted more attention from hon. Members on both sides of the House.

How often have we said, “There is nothing new under sun”? I will start my remarks by referring to August 1975. Tanya Price had a whooping cough vaccine at the age of six months. Shortly after, she developed convulsions, and 18 months later, she was described as a “motionless and expressionless being” in a debate in this House by her MP, the late Robert Adley, who was my predecessor but one as MP for Christchurch, although at that time the constituency was Christchurch and Lymington. Robert Adley worked tirelessly for months to try to obtain redress from the health service for Tanya’s injuries, which were caused by the whooping cough vaccine.

That was 48 years ago, under a Labour Government, but little has changed in the Government’s institutional reluctance to admit to medical failures and institute redress schemes. Robert Adley described fighting Tanya’s battle as fighting the NHS, which he described as being like

“sparring with a giant octopus.”

That was all those years ago, but I do not see that the situation has changed. In his Adjournment debate in the House of Commons on 22 March 1977, Robert Adley said:

“This fight has been going on for a long time. Certainly in the last four years a group of parents have sought to get what they see as justice for their children but they have had precious little satisfaction. The battle is in many ways a repetition of the thalidomide debate…The result is decaying confidence in all the immunisation programmes. It represents a flirtation with tragedy, particularly when most of the other vaccines appear to be safe, harmless and have little or no disadvantageous side effects.”

He rightly severely criticised

“the position adopted by the Secretary of State in his refusal to consider compensation, and until…recently, his refusal…at least…to discuss the problem openly”.—[Official Report, 22 March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 1244.]

It would be wonderful to say that things have moved on. One of the consequences of the thalidomide scandal was the setting up of the royal commission headed by Lord Pearson, which took some five years to report, eventually doing so in 1978. It was set up following the Robens Committee on Safety and Health at Work, and in the light of concern about thalidomide. When the Pearson report was published, it was welcomed by the then Prime Minister as a comprehensive review. It was designed to remove unnecessary litigation, time delays and all the rest when getting redress for people who had suffered medical injuries induced by vaccines or other drugs. Paragraph 1,398—it was a long report—recommended the following:

“We concluded that there is a special case for paying compensation for vaccine damage where vaccination is recommended by a public authority and is undertaken to protect the community. We had reached this conclusion when we were asked by the Government for our views.”

The Pearson Committee also recommended strict liability for vaccine damage.

Sadly, those recommendations were not implemented, although we did get the vaccine damage payments legislation of 1979. I have been campaigning to get that legislation brought up to date, so that it is relevant to the circumstances of all those who have suffered loss and damage as a result of doing the right thing and taking their covid-19 vaccine. It has been an uphill struggle. The most recent information I have is that there are so many applications under the vaccine damage payment scheme that the Government cannot cope. In three years, only 163 out of more than 9,000 claims have been successful—those were the figures as at 31 January. Of those claims, 4,000 were still awaiting a resolution; 2,000 have been outstanding for more than six months, and some for more than 18 months. That is directly damaging to all those people who are thinking of engaging in civil claims, which the Government keep advising victims to do.

Making a civil claim against a large multinational pharmaceutical company—or the Government, for that matter—is an expensive business. I have a constituent whose father has the £120,000 compensation, but for whom that is wholly inadequate because of the severity and longevity of the injuries and disabilities that he sustained as a result of the vaccine. He is finding it nigh on impossible to get access to justice, because solicitors will not take up his calls. Even starting an action will cost tens of thousands of pounds. That is an intolerable situation, and one which, all those years ago, Lord Pearson was trying to avoid.

The Government’s feeble response is, “If you think you’ve been injured by a vaccine, go and seek compensation through the courts.” It does not work quite like that, as sadly has been seen by all those people whose cases it has already been established were caused by vaccines. One would think that if the vaccine damage payment scheme has established that an individual’s damage was caused by the vaccine, as night follows day, the Government would concede liability in a civil action. Far from it; they insist that individuals must fight the case before the courts.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is about power, is it not? As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the individual does not have the financial means or expertise to take forward those cases against either a corporation or a Government. In the Post Office scandal, the Post Office spent £100 million of our public money defending a case that they knew they would not win, because they were trying to stop the truth coming out and to bankrupt and stop the individuals from concluding the case.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That is right. These are deep-seated institutional failures. This is not a party political issue, but one that affects everyone in this country. This House is unable to persuade Governments and the officials serving them to get real about what many people are suffering as a result of the delays. It seems as though the Government’s policy, perhaps led by the Treasury, is always to postpone the inevitable. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the contaminated blood scandal. I find it unacceptable that those people whose cases have been established as deserving proper compensation are still waiting. There are similar cases in the Post Office scandal, as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, and in the sodium valproate case, which has given rise to huge reports, which I hope briefly to come to later.

Going back to the issue with which I am primarily concerned, because I chair the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, there are now getting on for 10,000 claims under the scheme. Almost half are yet to be dealt with, so people are waiting for their claims to be resolved. Under the system that operates, if their claim is rejected by the independent panel, they have the right to have their case reviewed. That process itself generates further delays, sometimes in excess of a year. Meanwhile, there is a three-year limitation on being able to bring civil actions from the time the cause of the civil action arose.

I raised this issue with the Prime Minister in a private meeting and at Prime Minister’s questions a few weeks ago. I am pleased to say that, following that, I have a meeting set up with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care next week. But I will not hold my breath, because I just do not see any willingness on the part of officialdom, even if there was willingness on the part of Ministers, to address these outrageous injustices. It goes to the heart of trust in public service and in Government if people cannot trust the Government to do the right thing. If they take the vaccine and it turns out to have been very bad for their health, the deal should be—it always used to be—that the Government look after them and see them right, but that is not what is happening. Instead, those people are being put through the ringer, and enormous amounts of bureaucracy and time are being wasted, and to very little effect—except that the Treasury can probably say, “Well, we can’t actually guarantee that we will have to spend this amount of money now.”

Years ago, when I was a shadow Treasury Minister, I looked at the issues arising from the Equitable Life scandal. That was a failure by the Treasury’s own team of regulators to protect investors in pension schemes under Equitable Life. At one stage they were thought to be as good as investing in the Consolidated Fund. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that everybody was joining in having Equitable Life pensions. Well, the regulator was asleep on the job. The ombudsman found that that was the situation and ordered compensation. The Government refused compensation and said that they would make ex-gratia payments. As is the case today, we know that much of the money that was eventually set aside has not yet been delivered to the victims of the Equitable Life scandal, and that the Treasury is refusing to distribute the money, saying “Well, that is basically a win for the Treasury.” Is it surprising that confidence in our institutions and in government—with a small “g”—is rapidly diminishing?

Today’s debate is of fundamental importance. I hope that the Cabinet Minister, when he responds, will come up with some specific proposals on what will be done in relation to all the individual cases that will be referred to in this debate, as well as dealing with the deep-seated institutional problems to which I have referred. The Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), with whom I have previously raised this matter in Cabinet Office questions, and who at one stage I thought would respond to this debate, is charged with ensuring that we address the issue of the time bar on covid-19 vaccine damage claims. I would be very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister if, when he responds to the debate, he can give us some positive news on that point, even if not on many others.

The covid vaccine damage payment scheme is not a strict liability scheme, and it is not even a compensation scheme, but it is better than nothing. Why is it, however, that the £120,000 maximum payment under the scheme has not been updated since 2007? It would now be about £200,000 if updated. Why are we updating everything else in line with inflation, but not the vaccine damage payment scheme for people for whom taking a vaccine was disastrous? Again, we cannot get any answers out of the Treasury or the Government. Sometimes there are expressions of sympathy, but they are not much use. What we want is action. What justification can there be for eroding the value of vaccine damage payments to the extent that I have referred to?

The Cumberlege report, “Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review”, was set up in 2018 in response to concerns about the Primodos hormone pregnancy test, the use of sodium valproate in pregnancy and vaginal mesh. The review, which was led by Baroness Cumberlege, published its report in July 2020. It made a number of serious and compelling recommendations, including the establishment of an independent redress agency. If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who introduced the debate, thinks that the Government are going to respond positively to the suggestions he put forward, I just ask him to look at the record. That was an ex-Conservative Health Minister making a clear recommendation, on page 11, to set up an independent redress agency:

“A new independent Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices should be created based on models operating effectively in other countries. The Redress Agency will administer decisions using a non-adversarial process with determinations based on avoidable harm looking at systemic failings, rather than blaming individuals.”

How long did it take for the Government to respond to that report? They published their response not in 2020 but in July 2021, exactly one year later, which fits the pattern we are discussing. It took them a year to respond to the report and they cursorily rejected its recommendation for a new redress agency, stating:

“We do not accept this recommendation. We do not believe that a redress agency would make products safer and support our commitment to patient safety. We also believe it is already possible for government and others to provide redress where this is considered necessary, the government therefore has no plans to establish an independent redress agency.”

It took the Government a year to prepare that wording and explanation. All one can do, really, is despair. There is an opportunity today for the Minister to say, “Well, that was all under a previous Government. Now we have a new Government and they will accept all the recommendations of the Cumberlege report.”

The Cumberlege report also recommended that discretionary schemes should be established for sodium valproate, hormone pregnancy tests and pelvic mesh. That would

“provide discretionary payments for the costs of additional needs”

caused by the harms associated with those products. The Government response also rejected that recommendation, noting:

“Patients have the right to take healthcare providers to court for clinical negligence, or manufacturers to court for product liability.”

It further explains on page 23:

“While the government is sympathetic to the experiences of those patients who gave evidence to the report, our primary focus is on improving future medicines and medical devices safety. It is therefore crucial that we focus government funds on initiatives that directly improve future safety (including specialist mesh centres and support for families affected by medicines in pregnancy). For this reason, redress schemes will not be established in response to recommendation 4.”

That was the situation in relation to the hapless individuals who were at the wrong end of that particular NHS procedure. More recently, and before we have got as far as any inquiries into it, we have been faced with the prospect of having to deal with the scandal of all those young people who are living with the consequences of being given puberty blockers at the behest, if not the recommendation, of the NHS. When Sir Chris Whitty was asked about that on the radio earlier this week, he seemed totally unapologetic, almost to the point of diffidence, although he was insistent that we should do something about people who were engaging in smoking tobacco or vapes. So another compensation issue will arise in relation to all those people who were persuaded by the NHS to do the wrong thing.

One recommendation that did come out of the Cumberlege review was for the establishment of—this sounded really great—a patient safety commissioner for England. When, in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, I approached Dr Hughes and asked whether she would take up the case of the victims of covid-19 vaccines, she was very sympathetic, but said—and this comes back to the issue of the culture—that she had only the equivalent of one man and a dog in her department. She was being starved of the resources that would enable her to fulfil the remit that she had been given by the Government, which, again, was absolutely intolerable. She explained that she did not have time to deal with the vaccine damage issue because, perfectly reasonably, she was concentrating on sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. On 7 February this year she published her report setting out further recommendations for redress in relation to those matters, including a recommendation for the creation of an independent redress scheme to provide both financial and non-financial redress. The Government have not yet responded to that report; perhaps the Minister will respond to it today. In February, in response to a parliamentary question, the Health Minister responsible said:

“The Government is now carefully considering the… recommendations, and will respond substantively in due course.”

That is just not good enough, especially as the Government seem to be relying on some very feeble initiatives to which they have drawn attention.

There is now—this is exciting news, Madam Deputy Speaker—a new risk acknowledgment form to be completed by those for whom valproate is prescribed. There is also a “claims gateway” on the NHS Resolution website for those wishing to embark on clinical negligence claims. The Hughes report criticises these arrangements, and criticises the “claims gateway” description because there is no new legal framework to enable people to engage in litigation and no guarantee of help with legal aid. We hear that a child who challenged the decision by a north London comprehensive in relation to the wearing of religious symbols received legal aid money amounting to £150,000. How was that possible, when people who want redress because they have been done down by the national health service do not get anything at all?

In the foreword to her report, Dr Hughes says

“the case for redress had already been made by the First Do No Harm review so my report would primarily focus on ‘how’ to provide redress rather than ‘why’.”

I hope that, in his response today, the Minister will accept that the Government should now focus on how to provide redress rather than why redress is needed. In her foreword, Dr Hughes also says:

“All those we spoke to have approached this process with openness and goodwill despite the considerable challenges they face. As time progresses, these challenges intensify and, understandably, there is now a growing sense of frustration and anger among patients. Confidence in the government to do the right thing is eroding.

Over the years, while these patients have been suffering, I have seen other healthcare scandals in this country rightly receive recognition and redress, from thalidomide to vCJD and, most recently, the infected blood scandal. Fairness demands that those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh receive the recognition and redress to meet their needs.”

If the Government agree with that, why do they not say so now? Why are they continuing to kick the can down the road and deny people access to the compensation that they rightfully deserve?

I have spoken for longer than I expected, Madam Deputy Speaker, but, as I have said, there is a long history to this. I hope it will not be another 48 years before another Member of Parliament for Christchurch stands up and says, “48 years ago, a former Member for Christchurch was arguing this very point in the House.” Let us learn from history. Let us not be complacent; let us get angry for action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

The Government remain committed to ensuring value for the taxpayer across all projects. As the hon. Gentleman highlights, this is principally a matter for DLUHC.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

What is the latest position on a review of the impact of the statute of limitations on the ability of people injured by covid-19 vaccines to bring civil claims? More than 3,000 claims have not yet been dealt with by the Government’s compensation scheme, and people’s ability to begin civil litigation will be prejudiced unless something is done quickly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

First of all, I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say the comments that the hon. Member repeated; as far as I am aware, he has denied saying them. As I said, I am building on the success of this Government. Let me give another: the biggest permanent tax cuts in modern British history announced yesterday—cutting taxes, not like the Opposition, who want more borrowing and spending.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new role. Will it include the possibility of re-examining the vaccine damage payment scheme, which has been described at the public inquiry as not fit for purpose? The £120,000 maximum payment has not been increased since 2007, and the 60% disability threshold is causing a massive injustice. Will she address those issues, please?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter, which he has worked extremely hard on, to the attention of the House. I am grateful for that suggestion; I will take it away and come back with further information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Obviously, any contract of any size that the Government deal with—the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS in this case—goes through an extremely detailed and careful process in order to ensure that we get the best value for money for the British public, that we help our public services solve the problems they face and that national security is maintained. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with a particular element of that contract, he should bring it before the House. Otherwise, I believe he is just scare- mongering.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend help with a situation where Thales, the French defence contractor, and its UK subsidiary are insisting that materials should be procured not from the UK, but from India. How is that consistent with the Government’s procurement policy?

[John Glen]

I cannot comment on a specific case on the Floor of the House, but I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend on the matter he raises. Frameworks are in place, but without knowing more detail it is impossible for me to comment here.

All-party Parliamentary Groups

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

That was an idea that we toyed with. It was put to us that we should have a gatekeeper who would decide whether there could be, for instance, an all-party group for each of the Caribbean countries and one for the Caribbean as a whole, and one for each of the overseas territories as well as one for the overseas territories. The danger with that is the question of how to set the criteria for that person to be able to decide. It would mean putting a great deal of power in the hands of one individual, and that is why in the end we rejected the idea. We have reached a different set of conclusions, which we hope will lead to the same eventual outcome: that someone who currently chairs, or is an officer, of three APPGs in a fairly similar field will say, “Do you know what? I am going to try to get them all to combine, and I want to be the chair of the one.”

The guiding principle for us has been, first and foremost, that APPGs are, broadly speaking, a good thing, but there is a danger that they can be a very, very bad thing. It is certainly a bad thing if a commercial interest is effectively suborning Parliament, gaining a kind of accreditation by virtue of the APPG name. I would argue that this gets particularly acute when the secretariat is provided by an external body that is not even a charity but a PR company or a lobbying company. It seems to me that there is a commercial interest in their making APPGs just to keep themselves in business, and that is an inappropriate way for us to proceed. It leaves us open to real reputational risk for the whole House.

I will go through some of the points that have been made, starting with those made by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). He said that he was a trade envoy and an officer for six groups. I know that some trade envoys have decided no longer to be officers of the relevant groups because they are the trade envoy who has a relationship with the Government in relation to those countries. I gently suggest to him that that is a better, or perhaps more appropriate, way of proceeding. I understand fully why he may have ended up being a trade envoy, which is a good thing to be, although I worry about quite how the Government make people trade envoys and retain their commitment to the Government by virtue of doing so. I understand that he might have got there because of expressing his interest through those various groups. I would also say to Members that being a member of an all-party group is a perfectly satisfactory way of signifying to the country and to their constituents that they are supportive of it. They do not have to be an officer in every instance.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Has the hon. Gentleman been in for the whole of the debate? [Hon. Members: “No.”] In which case, I will not. I am sorry.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is not giving way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Having said that, I now feel that I have been discourteous and I am going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The point I was going to make is that there seems to be an issue about the definition of membership of an APPG. My understanding is that anybody who is not a member of the Government is a member of an APPG. The hon. Gentleman himself was once involved in a contested election to become chair of the APPG on Russia, and some 200 Members across both Houses we dragooned into voting in that election. They were not registered members of that APPG, but they happened to qualify because they were ordinary Members of Parliament.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The rules specify that anybody who is not a member of the Government can be a member and an officer of an all-party group. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I remember the occasion when he, among many others, came to a meeting on the top floor and we had about 350 people voting at an APPG extraordinary general meeting just to get rid of me—over Russia, ironically enough.

The important point the Committee is trying to underline is that an all-party parliamentary group should only be an all-party parliamentary group if it has enough support among the 1,450 Members of this House and the other House to be able to have a proper AGM attended by five Members, for heaven’s sake, and with 20 Members expressing support. That is important because, otherwise, it is very easy for an APPG to be run by an individual Member on behalf of a commercial interest or in pursuit of a personal agenda, bringing along their friends just once a year. That is the evil we are trying to address.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Unfortunately, the proposed rules we are being asked to adopt this afternoon say:

“A Member of the House of Commons may be an officer of a maximum of six Groups.

An APPG must have at least 20 members”.

I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about 20 registered members, because all Members of both Houses, other than members of the Government, are automatically members of APPGs if they so wish.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

No, they are not automatically a member of all APPGs, otherwise every APPG would have 1,450 members. The hon. Gentleman needs to read the rules and the guide to the rules, both of which are available from the Vote Office, as they make all of this perfectly clear.

The point the Committee is trying to make is that every APPG should have a properly constituted annual general meeting, should have a limited number of officers—who have full responsibility for the running of the APPG, and for making sure it operates under the rules of the House and does not expose the House to further reputational damage—and should have enough registered members on the list it submits each year to be able to qualify as a proper all-party parliamentary group.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) refers to the guide to the rules on all-party parliamentary groups. I went out to try to get a copy of this document from the Vote Office and was able to get one copy, but there were no other copies available. The Vote Office is currently trying to print more copies. Considering how few Members there are in the Chamber, it seems most unsatisfactory that we have such a small number of copies of the guide to the rules, which extends to a very large number of pages. Why can we not all see this before we reach a conclusion?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

What is the point of order?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

This debate should not conclude until all Members present have had an opportunity to read the guide to the rules on all-party parliamentary groups, a copy of which is not yet available to every Member.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have received no other complaints from hon. and right hon. Members that they do not have a copy. As the hon. Gentleman says, he has not been here for the whole debate, so he has not heard a lot of the other arguments. It is a bit discourteous to keep disrupting the debate in this way. We should allow the Chair of the Standards Committee to finish his speech without interruption through points of order, which is a poor approach when we are having a debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is on the Panel of Chairs, so I hope he would understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I agree, and I hope others have heard what my hon. Friend said.

I refer again to pages 55 to 74 of the guide to the rules. It may or may not surprise colleagues that that is appendix 5, on data protection and APPGs—page after page after page of MPs who run groups telling MPs who may be members of the group, or who may be on a mailing list, how we handle their data. That is one of those things where we move ten places across, from one thing to another, without anybody on the Standards Committee understanding at all what was being put forward.

I do not know whether the Chair of the Standards Committee has experience of trying to administer all-party groups. Getting the detail right is important. We try to get it right, and we make some mistakes, but to add in an extra 20 pages for each group that we may be involved in, even if we are limited to six groups, gives us more than 100 pages to fill in. It is bureaucracy. If the only people who can be members of those groups are Members of Parliament, what on earth are we trying to do? That should not be there, and I hope that it is taken out.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Another unintended consequence is that, if a group is allowed only four officers, and one of those officers is appointed to the Government, or falls under a bus, the group will be unable to operate until it has had a formal meeting to elect a replacement. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is so rigid as to be unworkable?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. This debate has to finish in nine minutes, and one more Member wishes to speak before the Minister. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has been speaking for 12 minutes, and I would like to give five minutes to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett).

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

There is a difference between a cap and a control, and it is up to Departments to ensure that they are getting value for money in what they spend. Cutting bureaucracy and cutting exercises that take up a lot of civil service time but that are not productive is a good thing. There is a role for consultancy, alongside growing and nurturing the resources inside the service. It is important that we always get value for money, but that is best generated by having a Department that is laser-focused on value for money in what it is spending and on why it is spending it.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

9. When the rapid response unit was disbanded and what happened to the information it collected.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

The rapid response unit was created in 2018 and disbanded in August 2022. It was formed as a central resource in the Government Communication Service that used publicly available information to improve Government’s ability to identify where certain narratives about our work were gaining traction online and to understand public sentiment about Government policies. On disbandment, the information collected was archived and it will be retained in line with the Cabinet Office information retention policy, which is available online.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

But why has my hon. Friend refused to admit in answer to parliamentary questions that the rapid response unit collected and stored information on sitting MPs? As my subject access request has confirmed that I was one of those MPs, can he explain why the unit was using taxpayers’ money to snoop on me, who authorised this and why?

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend is welcome to come and have a meeting with me and officials in the Cabinet Office to discuss any concerns that he has about the rapid response unit. I have asked them this morning whether there were any monitoring emails that contained his name. I have been given assurances that there were not, but I am very happy for him to come to the Department and talk through all the possible implications. The truth is that the Government have a number of media monitoring services that check what is going on. They monitor not just what MPs and peers say, but what journalists say and anything that is reported in the mainstream media. As my hon. Friend’s name has appeared in newspaper articles in connection with various stories, it is natural that it would be picked up by those monitoring services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Christopher Chope for his second verse.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T3. Can my hon. Friend assure me that all branches of the Ministry of Truth, which was exposed in the Big Brother Watch report in January, have now been disbanded, so that we no longer have Government and taxpayer-funded activity discrediting MPs who hold the Government to account? In answer to the earlier point that was made, can my hon. Friend explain why, in answer to parliamentary question 148802, which requested information on whether or not the Government were monitoring MPs, no answer was forthcoming? If it was so innocent, why was no answer forthcoming?

[Mr Speaker]

May I remind the hon. Member that this is topical questions?

G20

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The protests send a clear message that the Iranian people are not satisfied with the path that their Government have taken. As I mentioned, we have now sanctioned 24 extra people, both political and security officials, for their role in the crackdown on protesters. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently summoned Iran’s most senior diplomat in the UK to make it clear that we do not tolerate threats to life and intimidation of any kind.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Putin was emboldened to attack Ukraine by the continual appeasement from western democracies over many years? Why does he not think that a similar appeasement of the Chinese dictatorship will not result in a similar disaster?

[The Prime Minister]

Our approach to China is in complete alignment with the United States, Canada and Australia. It is one that is clear-eyed about the challenges that China poses to our values, interests and economic security, which is why it is right that we take robust action to defend ourselves against that, as we saw just yesterday with the decision on Chinese investment in a sensitive industry in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Indeed, the Prime Minister will be taking the lead on this agenda. That is recognised because, as was announced earlier today, he is attending COP. The hon. Lady should be aware that this is about an implementation process. At the same time, I remind her that Government representatives are already attending COP and the Montreal protocol partnership. This leadership on forests and land use is an important recognition of how nature-based solutions are critical to achieving that, which is why many people from Government are making sure that we achieve net zero and are supporting global efforts.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the potential contribution of international energy self-sufficiency to meeting climate targets.

[The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)]

Home-grown renewable and low-carbon energy are fundamental to meeting climate targets for every country and are key components of energy security and independence, as outlined by the International Energy Agency. The alignment of economic, climate and security priorities has already started a movement towards a better outcome for people and the planet.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

If my right hon. Friend supports self-sufficiency, why is the United Kingdom still importing such vast quantities of liquefied natural gas from the United States, especially when two thirds of all that gas is produced by fracking?

[Graham Stuart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, it makes sense to ensure that we maximise the albeit declining production from the North sea to this country. To those who suggest—including, it must be said, the separatist Scottish National party—paying billions of pounds to foreign countries to supply gas that we have to have, rather than producing it in Scotland with Scottish jobs, I say that is frankly absurd, as he will recognise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

All matters of tax are for His Majesty’s Treasury, but it is clear that all our formerly fossil fuel companies are indeed energy companies, and they are investing incredibly heavily across the piece in renewables as well. We will continue to work with them to ensure that they invest their profits wisely.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T4. When Ministers go to the COP27 conference, will they give the cold shoulder to Germany to show our country’s disapproval and disgust at it continuing a massive expansion in its use of lignite, which is the dirtiest way of generating electricity?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

After the COP presidency is handed over to Egypt, we will ensure that we continue to work with all our international partners to find solutions that move to renewables and clean energy.