Covid-19 Vaccines: Safety

Debate between Christopher Chope and Andrew Gwynne

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Gwynne]

Yes, I heard that. Of course, the issue is that we were protecting the lives of those people who needed the vaccine to be able to get on with their day-to-day lives. The covid vaccines did go through several stages of clinical trials before approval and, as I am sure the Minister will make clear in her response, the MHRA continues to monitor the use of the vaccines to ensure that their benefits outweigh any risks. That is an important fact.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the vaccines were so safe, why was it necessary for the vaccine manufacturers to seek an indemnity against liability for negligence from the Government and the taxpayer?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I suspect that they wanted those assurances because of the rapidity of the roll-out. There is an ongoing process of testing the vaccines. These things are kept under review all the time by the scientists, the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care.

As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the MHRA operates the yellow card scheme to collect and monitor information on suspected safety concerns. A dedicated team of scientists review information daily to monitor the vaccine roll-out. For this reason, His Majesty’s Opposition and I do not view the ask of this petition—a public inquiry into covid-19 vaccine safety—as necessary.

Serious vaccine side effects are extremely rare, and catching covid-19 without vaccine protection remains overwhelmingly more dangerous than getting the vaccine itself. Where vaccine damage does tragically occur, it is right that individuals and their families can access the vaccine damage payment scheme, which I spoke at length about in September. We must ensure that this scheme remains fit for the future. I did raise some concerns about that in the previous Westminster Hall debate on this issue, because it is important that those who are eligible can access financial support.

The petition claims that there has been

“a significant increase in heart attacks and related health issues since the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccines began in 2021.”

I appreciate the strength of feeling of those who signed this petition, and I do want to understand more from the Minister about any investigations being undertaken by the health authorities and scientists.

Parking (Code of Practice) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Andrew Gwynne

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 23rd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I commend the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for his Bill and for the very sensible amendments that he has brought before the House. I assure him that I am not going to speak at length. I rise at this stage just to congratulate him and to assure him that he has the full support of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I address some remarks to the amendments in my name, particularly amendments 7 and 8 to clause 1? Like everybody else in the Chamber, I think this is a really good piece of legislation, but it is dependent on the good will of the Government to ensure that something actually happens.

Too often, we pass legislation in this House, and months or years later we find that nothing much has happened as far as the Government are concerned. I give as an example the primary legislation passed in this House to limit public sector exit payments to £95,000. That was contained in the Enterprise Act 2016. The Government have still not implemented that provision. Despite promises more than a year ago that they were about to bring forward regulations, they have not even fulfilled those promises. The most recent information I have is that there will be a write-round before Christmas, and then they may have a consultation on the regulations next year. When the Government say, “Yes, we’re definitely going to do something about this”, as they did when that law was passed, there is quite often a gap between what is said and the reality.

It is against that background that I am seeking, in amendments 7 and 8, to tighten up the requirements on the Government to bring forward the code of practice. Currently, all the Bill says is:

“The Secretary of State must prepare a code of practice containing guidance”.

However, he may not prepare that code of practice for many months or many years, and we should learn from past mistakes.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Andrew Gwynne

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 18th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. friend is absolutely right about that and he brings me to my next point.

Let us consider the example of London, a global city with a growing population that is expected to rise by more than 1.5 million in the next decade. Strangely, the same city is expected to lose a dozen MPs from its contingent of 73 if the current proposals go through unchecked. As my hon. Friend has said, to compound that, research from the House of Commons shows that over the six-month period from December 2015 to June 2016 the London electorate grew by 6%. That did not occur in isolation; during the same period, the south-west saw a rise of 4.7%, Yorkshire and the Humber’s rise was 4.2%, Wales’s rise was 4.1% and the increase in the west midlands was 3.2%. Those citizens are eager to play their part in the process, but for this purpose they are citizens whose voice no longer counts.

As we have heard, many of the proposed constituencies make very little geographical sense, homogenising vast swathes of rural Britain and tearing up historic counties. For example, dramatically cutting the number of Welsh MPs will do little to address the democratic deficit felt by some within rural Wales. Any constitutional changes, including in the very make-up of the constituencies we stand here to represent, should be done fairly, and everyone’s voice should be heard.

The truth about the plan to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 is that no real reason has been given for it. As my hon. Friend said, when the original Bill was being discussed, no Minister could give a real reason for picking the 600 figure. New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further not just towards the Conservative party, but towards the Executive. There are no plans to cut the size of the ministerial payroll, and having fewer MPs to hold Ministers to account is not good for democracy. It cannot be democratic, fair or even competent to advance this review at the same time as we are stuffing the other place with unelected and often unprepared peers. Put all this together and we face a boundary review being conducted on the basis of a completely lopsided electoral register. If we proceed as planned, we will see a huge transfer of parliamentary representation from areas that are growing to areas that have not seen the same growth.

The Opposition are confident that this Bill will significantly improve the process of drawing up new parliamentary seats on a fair and equal basis. We believe that 650 is the right number of MPs to hold the Government to account. We give our full support to this Bill in the hope that the Government pause—

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am coming to the end of my speech. We give our full support in the hope that the Government pause, look again and proceed with changes that are agreed consensually with Members in all parts of this House and with all nations of the UK.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Andrew Gwynne

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

There is a whole host of ideas going round. There was a time when no child benefit or allowance was payable for the first child, on the basis that parents should take responsibility for that child and bear the costs themselves, but, if they had any more, they could expect the state to help them. My hon. Friend’s point illustrates further the fact that this measure should have been the subject of proper consultation and draft clauses, so that we could have had a debate on it in the wider context of universal benefits. Instead, it was announced at the party conference and implemented in this way.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Is not one of the benefits of a universal system of child benefit the fact that everyone in society who has children feels part of that society and that welfare state? The proposal will breed resentment not only between the haves and the have-nots but between the haves and those whose family situation fits the new system.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point against these provisions. On the issue he raises, it would be worth reminding ourselves that the Christian organisation CARE has produced a useful document, “The Taxation of Families 2010/11”, which considers whether current tax burdens are fair. It looks at the relative position of households up and down the income distribution scale in the United Kingdom. For a family on £51,543 a year, who represent 150% of the reference wage, a single person with no children is better off than 94% of the population, a one-earner couple with no children are better off than 81% and a lone parent with two children are better off than 80%. Yet a one-earner couple with two children are better off than only 63% of the population and a two-earner couple with two children are better off only than 69%. That shows that targeting families with children for this tax exacerbates the unfairness rather than ameliorating it—running directly against the principles of fairness, equity and justice.