Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Liam Fox

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Liam Fox]

If the point the hon. Gentleman makes is valid, it is valid in the other direction, too. It should be wrong and, in his case, criminalised to tell any young person that they are definitely something when they are unclear about what they are. If that is what comes out of our debate today, that is a step forward in the wider debate.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Liam Fox]

I will give way briefly because other Members still want to speak.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the noble Lord Winston put it well in the other place when he said,

“The basic problem is this: we are at risk of legislating for a piece of biology that we really do not understand. We do not understand the underlying mechanisms”?

—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2024; Vol. 835, c. 1847.]

[Sir Liam Fox]

I would not want to contradict the noble Lord in any way whatsoever, but there are other elements of the Bill that give me cause for anxiety. I know those are part of the reason the Government have found bringing forward legislation difficult. We have talked on both sides of the House about the concept of the harm that could be done by these processes, but there is no test of harm in the Bill. If all forms of conversion therapy covered by the Bill can be harmful, surely it would not be unreasonable to have a test of intent to do harm prior to any prosecution being brought under the legislation, and yet that is not in the Bill. That is a vital part missing from the Bill, because that is about second-guessing people’s intent, rather than any concept of their wishing to do harm. That casts our net far too wide in law.

There are two other points about the drafting. The first is that the use of the term “activity”, as well as referring to a “course” of action, means that a single event—a one-off event, or a one-off conversation—could, if interpreted in a particular way by a prosecutor, bring people within the scope of the law. That needs to be tightened, and I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that if the Government are bringing forward legislation, that is something we need to look at, as is use of the term “suppress” alongside

“orientation or identity…in full or in part”.

Again, this loose language potentially comes unstuck when a parent has a strong and necessary challenge to make against their child in order to give them a different view. It could be interpreted very wrongly if this was the wording of any legislation.

Finally, I will say this: we are here to produce good law in the House of Commons; we are not here to signal to any one part of the population that we are on their side. We have to ensure that the law we produce has the intended effect and that that law is necessary. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will look at these elements closely in the days and months to come.

Fairness at Work and Power in Communities

Debate between Christopher Chope and Liam Fox

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

We should be having far more housing built in our urban areas. One of the great hopes I have for this Bill is that we will see housing built closer to where people can go to work so that there is not so much pressure on the transport infrastructure. It has been our tendency in recent times to build commuter belts where people therefore have to travel into our cities. Getting mixed development in our cities, thereby regenerating them, would take a lot of pressure off the transport system.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Fox]

I do not have time—I apologise to my hon. Friend.

We need reform of land banking. The system that we have at the present time, where big developers buy land, get permission for 200 houses, build 40 and wait for the price to rise before they build the rest, results in planning blight. It results in big land banks for the developers. It means that people who live in our communities do not know what is going to happen. There are a number of solutions. My preferred one would be that if developers have not built out the permissions they have, they should not be allowed to apply for further planning permissions in the same local authority area. We absolutely have to deal with this problem, because it blights communities up and down the UK.

The levelling-up agenda is about extending opportunity to people in all parts of the United Kingdom. In regenerating our great northern cities, we have an opportunity to take pressure off the overcrowded south where housing and transport demand is too high. We need better employment opportunities spread across the country in what I would call a rebalancing of Britain. We have a great chance to have a win-win for all parts of the United Kingdom. However, unless we are able to tame inflation, none of our ambitions will be realised.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Christopher Chope and Liam Fox

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I understand why the Government will not accept the amendment, and I do not want to go there again, but what we need is urgency. Time is not just money; it is also worry, anxiety and uncertainty, and I echo the points made in one of the many excellent letters from my constituents in Portishead on this. It says: “It is not right that leaseholders have to worry about the costs of fixing safety defects that we did not cause.” We all agree with that; the question is who should pay. If the costs are a direct result of legislative change made by the Government, it is reasonable for taxpayers to contribute to that. If they are not, builders and insurers should pay, including for non-cladding related defects.

The second point that my constituent makes is this: “We recognise that the additional £3.5 billion announced by the Secretary of State is a step forward and we do welcome this funding. We are still awaiting the full detail of this funding announcement, as well as that of the proposed loans for medium-rise buildings.” In the last debate, we were told that more details would be forthcoming after the Budget. It is after the Budget, and we have still not had the details we are looking for, and these are real-time problems for which our constituents require real-time solutions.

My constituent goes on to say that “providing funding for buildings over 18 metres while forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay via a loan scheme is entirely unfair, because building height alone does not determine fire risk.” We understand that, and again it is about appreciating that there needs to be a cut-off to stop taxpayers having to sign a blank cheque, but the cost for remediation should be met by those who are actually responsible for the problems in the first place.

The final problem that my constituent raises—it has been raised so often in this debate and previous debates—is negative equity and the difficulty of resale, which is causing immense distress. It can be a major generational problem for people who are looking to sell or downsize. It can cause them a great deal of anxiety. We have heard that the market should sort it out, as we would normally expect, but we are still waiting for elements of that that the market would normally regard as being necessary.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Fox]

I will not, because time is short and so many Members want to get in; I apologise to my hon. Friend.

Last time, I asked what direct contact Ministers had had with the Association of British Insurers, the building societies and the banks, because without their help, we are unable to deal with the negative equity and resale problems that are at the heart of so much of the distress we find. I know from talking to so many of my constituents about this issue that they appreciate that the Government have already come a long way. They are very grateful for taxpayer support. The problem is that we need more details, and for real-time issues, we need real-time solutions. Urgency is the key.

South-west England (Long-term Economic Plan)

Debate between Christopher Chope and Liam Fox

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

The only city to compare with Bath in terms of difficulty of getting around, certainly as a driver, is Edinburgh. Anyone who can find a parking space in Bath is doing extremely well. These might seem like minor irritations, but they are major restrictions on a city’s ability to draw in wealth and tourists with spending power. The ability to do that is an important part of the wider economic picture.

I want to give my hon. Friend the Minister plenty of time to deal with all these issues, but may I finally raise the issue of fairer funding? It is a very sore point, not only in the south-west but in many rural areas across the United Kingdom. We have been told for such a long time that we are going to get a better formula that will reduce the discrepancy in per capita funding for those who live in the cities and those who live in the countryside. The countryside is not just where people from the cities go for their holidays or their weekends away, and the concept of rural poverty needs to be taken fully into account. There is no point in saying that the cost of living is lower in rural areas than in cities. We get lower funding per capita for healthcare, education and local government; we pay our taxes, yet our average wages are lower. We are being discriminated against in more than one way. The Government should equalise the formula much sooner than we have been led to expect. That is one of the key elements of being able to bring prosperity to our region.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Following that point, would my right hon. Friend give time to developing a Fox formula, to ensure that we can link public expenditure in the south-west to the money that Scotland receives?

[Dr Fox]

I would settle for our fair share of funding in England. I have no intention of allowing my name to be used in a pejorative term, in the way that the Barnett formula has come to be regarded. I shall skip that opportunity.