Sir Christopher Chope
MP for Christchurch · Conservative · United Kingdom
“We have now had that review, had the public inquiry and had the outcome, yet we have not had the Government’s acceptance of the clear recommendations to which I have already referred.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), probably about a year ago, she told us that the Government were already reviewing the scheme. We asked her in what respect they were reviewing the scheme, but she said she could not say, although she conceded that they were reviewing it.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is fair to remind everybody that he participated in the first debate I had on this subject, on Friday 10 September 2021.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Minister for that response and grateful to everybody who has participated in the debate. Nobody can doubt the sincerity of what the Minister said. I hope that she will talk not just to the families but to parliamentarians because this issue affects lots of our constituents.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that the Minister will include within her response an explanation of what the Government are going to do to simplify the scheme, stop blocking legitimate claims through technical measures, and ensure that instead of spending another £82 million over the next four years on bureaucracy, we actually use some of that money to compensat…”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She said that there had been 920 claims by then, but: “The work currently going on is establishing whether there is a causal link between the vaccine and the adverse events that people have been suffering.” —[ Official Report , 2 March 2022; Vol. 709, c.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
5,491 lines on record for Sir Christopher Chope, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I hope she will be able to say that the Government agree to increase the £120,000 payment, that they will apply annual increases in line with inflation, that they will introduce multiple levels of payment, commensurate with the degree of injury, and so on.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The reform should include as a minimum: increasing the £120,000 payment, at least in line with inflation to date; subsequently applying annual increases in line with inflation; introducing multiple levels of payment, commensurate with the degree of injury suffered; and any transitional arrangements necessary to provide for fairness between applicants to the existing scheme and applicants to the revised scheme.” The Government’s response, published earlier this month, is inadequate. That may be because the Minister has been in post for only three months; it may be because Government officials have not done the review work that for the last several years they have assured me and others that they were doing. We will hear from the Minister in due course.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although I do not want to overdo the comparison between the victims of contaminated blood and victims of vaccine damage, the responses of successive Governments to those tragedies have had a similar pattern: total denial of responsibility to start with, then recognition that people have suffered but not because of anything for which the Government were responsible, and then eventually conceding the cause and effect of the damage but still stalling on providing any effective redress. It is that stalling on which I wish to concentrate. The Hallett inquiry made clear recommendations in April this year. Recommendation 5 stated: “The UK government must reform the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme as soon as possible.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the Government response to the Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report. It is refreshing to see the Public Health Minister in this debate. If anybody will be empathetic on this topic it must be the right hon. Lady, as she has campaigned fearlessly on behalf of another group of victims: the victims of contaminated blood scandals.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That would be done by introducing a scheme similar to that which covers motor insurance, for example—the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme—where the industry pays for the costs of the compensation arising from problems with the way in which those schemes have operated. What could be more equitable than that? Instead of doing that, both the previous Government and the current Government are indemnifying big pharma against any costs associated with vaccines that do not work properly, which is intolerable. My Bill has a number of recommendations and suggestions. I hope that the Minister will be able to engage with me on them, if not in this debate then privately afterwards.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The long title of the Bill is: “A Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the implementation of Recommendation 5 of Module 4 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, relating to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme; and for connected purposes.” The Bill represents a legislative opportunity for the Government, and I hope that they will take advantage of it. In the meantime, during this Session, the Government have been blocking my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill. It has already been published, and the explanatory notes to the Bill set out a number of suggested reforms, including looking at the benefits of having a system that does not cost the Government anything but would ensure that people got recompense.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that the Minister will include within her response an explanation of what the Government are going to do to simplify the scheme, stop blocking legitimate claims through technical measures, and ensure that instead of spending another £82 million over the next four years on bureaucracy, we actually use some of that money to compensate the people who have suffered as a result of the vaccine programme. I can help the Minister because I anticipated this debate, in a sense, when we had the private Members’ Bill ballot. I put in a number of presentation Bills, one of which is the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (UK Covid-19 Inquiry) Bill. That is set for Second Reading on 15 January 2027, so it is ideally timed to be able to incorporate any recommendations that the Minister comes forward with in this debate.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We now know that, as of 30 June, 264 claims had been successful and 582 claims under the scheme had been rejected where causation had been established but the claimant did not meet the 60% disability threshold. On my calculation, that means that about £32 million has been paid out in compensation, yet in answer to a question I asked, which was answered on 3 September, I found out that over four years the costs of the staffing, the non-staffing, the medical assessment and payments to health care bodies is no less than £82 million. All that public money was spent on bureaucracy to try to block people who have suffered damage—in some cases, bereavement—as a result of doing the right thing and taking the vaccines. That is just unacceptable.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), probably about a year ago, she told us that the Government were already reviewing the scheme. We asked her in what respect they were reviewing the scheme, but she said she could not say, although she conceded that they were reviewing it. It now seems as though the Government are starting afresh, saying they are “committed to reviewing the scheme…we will work closely with the vaccine injured and their families as we consider how the scheme could be strengthened in the future.” That is a long way from the specific, clear and strong recommendations made by Baroness Hallett. Let us think about what the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said to Kate Scott in in August 2021: he said he would review it. Has the review not already taken place? I assume it must have. There is another issue here.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She said that there had been 920 claims by then, but: “The work currently going on is establishing whether there is a causal link between the vaccine and the adverse events that people have been suffering.” —[ Official Report , 2 March 2022; Vol. 709, c. 1151.] Fast forward to today, and we see that we have the findings, to which I have already referred, and then the Government response: “The government…accepts that there is a need for reform of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, and is committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose and delivered effectively.” That implied that it was a review that would start after the inquiry had reported; however, when I and other people campaigning on behalf of the victims met the then Public Health Minister, the hon.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He said: “For most people, vaccination is a beneficial procedure, and it is right for the community to give financial aid and support to those who suffer as the result of vaccinations given as part of the public policy programme.” —[ Official Report , 5 February 1979; Vol. 962, c. 32.] That was the rationale for the vaccine damage payment scheme, a scheme introduced by the then Labour Government in their dying days. I will not criticise them for having made that a priority at the end of their term of office. In responding to my Adjournment debate in March 2022, the then Minister, Maria Caulfield, refused even to accept any causality.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On 2 March 2022, I raised the specific subject of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 in an Adjournment debate. In that debate, I referred to Kate Scott, whose husband, a fit 44-year-old software engineer, spent 124 days in hospital following a severe brain injury caused by the vaccine. Boris Johnson, the then Prime Minister, had written to Kate Scott and her family back in August 2021, stating: “You’re not a statistic, and must not be ignored.” He said that the Government would—I use the word again—consider Kate’s suggestions for reform of the scheme. In concluding my speech on that occasion, I referred to what David Ennals, Labour’s Secretary of State for Social Services, had said back on 5 February 1979, when introducing the legislation.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have now had that review, had the public inquiry and had the outcome, yet we have not had the Government’s acceptance of the clear recommendations to which I have already referred. Back in September 2021, I requested that the then Secretary of State establish an independent review of disablement caused by covid-19 vaccines and the adequacy of the compensation awarded. I was not requesting a mammoth public inquiry, but only a short, judge-led inquiry into how we should most fairly compensate those who suffered adverse consequences. I also contrasted the Government’s pessimistic view with the World Health Organisation’s COVAX scheme, which, as the Minister will know, indemnifies claims for vaccine damage in third-world countries. We, the British taxpayers, pay for that, but we do not have an equivalent scheme in our own jurisdiction.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is fair to remind everybody that he participated in the first debate I had on this subject, on Friday 10 September 2021. That was the occasion on which I moved the Second Reading of a private Member’s Bill and, in so doing, drew attention to what were then 1,632 yellow card reports of deaths having taken place shortly after vaccination. I also drew attention then to the public petition that had been put to Parliament, and the Government’s response. The petition called for improved support for those injured or bereaved through covid-19 vaccines. The Government response stated: “Once more is known about the possible links between the vaccine and potential side effects, it will be considered whether a wider review of the VDPS is needed.” Well, that was more than five years ago.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The inquiry made its recommendations. Why can the Government not accept the four parts of recommendation 5? I do not understand that, and I am not satisfied in that respect. I shall continue to campaign on this issue—I hope not for another five years. Question put and agreed to . Resolved , That this House has considered the Government response to the Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Minister for that response and grateful to everybody who has participated in the debate. Nobody can doubt the sincerity of what the Minister said. I hope that she will talk not just to the families but to parliamentarians because this issue affects lots of our constituents. A headline in The Daily Telegraph states: “Paralysed vaccine victim ‘not ill enough for payout’”. That is an example of the issues. That particular victim worked for the NHS as a nurse. We need action. The tone of what the Minister said seems more like a placebo. Placebos have their place in healthcare but we need to go further. She talks about the spring; we are still in the autumn. Why can we not get some action now? All the time the Government knew what was going on at the inquiry. The victims gave evidence to the inquiry.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Does he agree that one of the fundamental issues is who regulates the regulators? When the regulators failed in this case, ultimately the ombudsman tried to regulate the regulators, but the regulators were too stubborn to accept the ombudsman’s recommendations. So who is going to regulate the regulators?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is a tribute to the persistence of parliamentary colleagues, the EMAG campaigners and our constituents, who are behind all this and who are saying, “What has happened to this extra money? Why can’t we have it paid out to us?” I said at the beginning that in the context of where we are with the national debt, this is very small beer, but it is not the money so much as the principle that is important, and I think that the principle is overridingly in favour of paying out what is due to these people, who were victims of Government maladministration.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In setting up the inquiry, the Treasury deliberately prevented Penrose from finding issues of maladministration. The Treasury has been complicit in denying the victims of regulatory failure the compensation to which they should have been, and still are, entitled. Successive Governments are responsible for allowing this appalling saga to continue. Today, the Minister has the opportunity to change that and restore public confidence in the Government, the blob and the way in which such things are administered. Earlier I asked the question: who regulates the regulators? If a regulator is in place and that regulator falls down on his responsibilities, people expect that there will be some redress, but that does not seem to be accepted at the highest levels in Government, so I hope that that can change. This issue is not going to go away.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He asked four pertinent questions—nice, easy, simple questions—and I hope that the Minister will answer each of them affirmatively in his response. My interest in this subject goes back many years, not only because my constituents were badly affected by the collapse of Equitable Life, but because I was a shadow Treasury Minister when the Treasury set up Lord Penrose’s inquiry into the scandal. That inquiry is another example of the Treasury delaying the process to try to kick the can down the road. Although the inquiry was initiated in 2001 and Lord Penrose reported to the relevant Treasury Minister at the time, Ruth Kelly, in December 2003, it was three or four months before the Treasury deigned to publish his report, and another four years after that before the publication of the ombudsman’s report.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let us put the issue in context. The headline today is that we now have £3 trillion of national debt, which represents an increase of £1 trillion over the last six years. That debt has accumulated largely because of Treasury neglect and bad policy. The Treasury continues to talk about having low interest rates and an inflation target of 2%, but as we now know, it consistently allows inflation to be above 2%, with the most recent figure being 3.5%. That erodes the value of people’s pensions. Under successive Governments, the Treasury has behaved appallingly on the Equitable Life pensioners. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate and introducing it so well.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The right hon. Gentleman will know that the places of worship scheme is massively oversubscribed. If people can have VAT allowances against repairs to historic places of worship in Scotland, why can we not have them in England? Would that not be a much more direct way to help with the cost of repairs for historic churches, and will he ensure that such a provision is included in the Budget?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister is doing her best in very difficult circumstances. Does she agree that one of the problems is that over recent years the Government have given insufficient subsidy and support for adaptation measures and been obsessed with subsidising windmills and solar panels, which will not do anything to deal with the real problems on the ground that we are experiencing?”
House of Commons16 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We take these concerns very seriously and will look further at what needs to be done”—”
House of Commons16 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order arises from the written statement issued by the Government today about the covid-19 inquiry module 4 report. That report was issued exactly six months ago, so the Government have presented their response on the very last day when that could be done. But instead of being a specific answer to the recommendations in the report, the response merely says that the Government want more time. I am particularly concerned about Baroness Hallett’s recommendations for specific changes that she thought should be made to the vaccine damage payments scheme. Today the Government are saying that they note those and recognise “the trauma and distress caused to families facing long waits for the processing of their claims.”
House of Commons16 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Rogue traders operate with impunity in the park homes sector, yet the Government have refused to supply sufficient money to National Trading Standards to enable it to carry out a national investigation and bring those rogues to book. What is the Minister going to do about it?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible for the three London bridges that are in disrepair to be designated as trunk roads, so that they could be repaired under the provisions of this legislation?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
““Roads for Prosperity” was the title of a 1990 roads White Paper that led to an enormous expansion of our road network, which I was lucky enough to be involved in during my time as the Roads Minister.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That continued for a bit of time, and then the Labour Government decided that they did not want to have the income from the tolls dedicated to a future road project across the Thames, and that the money would go into general taxation; we lost the allocated resources that should have been there to fund the lower Thames crossing, and the money that continues to be paid by those who use the Dartford crossing just goes into general taxation. Is it any surprise that people are sceptical about promises that are made when legislation like this Bill is being debated? The Minister says that the Bill will not be used as a vehicle for toll roads across the country. Frankly, from my own perspective, I once argued that the best way for us to promote important highway infrastructure in this country is by building roads for prosperity.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There was then an extension of one year for tolls in order to ensure that we had sufficient income to pay for the ongoing repairs and maintenance costs. That should have been the end of the financial burden on motorists using that crossing. Of course it was not, because then the Treasury got involved and said, “No, we need to keep the income coming in from the crossing. How do we justify that?” Well, the justification was that by continuing to have tolls on the crossing, we would be able to fund the lower Thames crossing.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The idea then was that the income from the tolls on the Dartford crossing would eventually be used to help fund the lower Thames crossing. I am supportive of my party’s reasoned amendment, because it shows a certain scepticism about all these promises that are made. We should recall that, at the time of the opening of the QEII bridge, I promised—it was a repeat of a promise that had been given by a previous Conservative Minister—that the tolls would cease to be payable once the costs of the bridge had been paid for. The legislation provided that there was a maximum period of 20 years through which the tolls could be paid in order to fund the bridge. In the end, I think the period of the tolls should have been about 12 years, because the bridge should have been paid for by then.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was a great celebration of private enterprise at its best, because Members may recall that that bridge was built in only three years and two months. It cost £120 million and was delivered on time and to budget. The way it was financed was set out in the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988. In responding to this debate, I hope that the Minister will explain why a similar proposal is not being applied to the lower Thames crossing. I checked out the remarks that I made as the Minister when the bridge opened in 1991, 35 years ago this month. In those remarks, I made reference to the fact that we were working on the lower Thames crossing. We recognised 35 years ago that there would be a need for an additional lower Thames crossing.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). The different varieties of charges and how they are enforced is a problem not just for people with disabilities, but for general motorists. As I understand it, almost half of the income from the current Dart charge is from penalties. That income is almost as great as the income from the charge itself. It shows the level of confusion that is caused to those who use that crossing. I had the privilege of being the duty Minister in October 1991, when the Queen Elizabeth II bridge was opened by Her late Majesty. That was an occasion that I will never forget, with fly-pasts and the QE2 underneath the bridge.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If so, over how long a period will the Government allow the operator and the construction vehicle to have that paid back? Will the tolls be designed to pay back the cost of the tunnel within 20 years, 30 years or 50 years? The answer to that question will determine the level of the tolls. Are they going to be affordable? My view is that it is reasonable that this infrastructure be paid for by the people who will use it. I do not have a quarrel with that.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my right hon. Friend for that observation. That is why we need to be very sceptical about what the Government are proposing. Let us look at the issue of the lower Thames crossing. I read that it is going to cost £10 billion, and people will ask how we are going to raise that money. It seems to me that it will not be difficult to get the capital from the private sector, if a return can be obtained on that capital. Indeed, when Sir Nigel Broackes, who was the boss of Trafalgar House, was bidding for the Dartford crossing, he obtained the capital from the Bank of America. I do not think there is any doubt that the money will be forthcoming, but what will be the cost of the whole project? Will it have a finite cost of, say, £10 billion?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hear what the hon. Lady says, but the question I am asking is: why can we not have dedicated legislation for the lower Thames crossing, as we did for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing? In the primary legislation that went through this House, it was specified that there should be tolls only for the length of time it took to repay the costs of construction. Subsequent Governments changed that in the way that I have described, because any legislation can obviously be changed by a subsequent Parliament.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Surely, we must find a way of funding the repairs and the reconstruction necessary to keep those London bridges open. My grandchildren talk about London Bridge falling down and all the rest of it, but we are not talking about London Bridge. Three other key bridges in London are either already closed or about to be closed. What are we going to do about that? I would be interested if the Minister is prepared to say, “Yes, I agree that the model set out in the Bill could be applied to the bridges in London that are in desperate need of repair.””
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I fear that that we are still suffering from the hangover of a so-called Conservative Government who did not get to grips with issues such as the Aarhus convention, so I am very much with my right hon. Friend on that. I intervened about the scope for extending the Bill to projects not currently a part of the main highway network or trunk road network. If we want to deal with the problems to do with London bridges, we will have to find some way to fund bridge repairs. I have an interest: my home in London for many years was just south of Waterloo Bridge. Recently, we heard rumours that the bridge may have to close because of cracks in it. If it is closed, that will be the third unusable central London Thames crossing. That is intolerable.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I remember all the difficulties we had with the European Union when I was the roads Minister; EU legislation was preventing the completion of the M3 through Twyford down. That environmental interference ultimately cost our economy a significant amount of money, but when anybody uses the M3, they see that it just blends into the landscape and is a really well designed project. The question I put to my right hon. Friend, rhetorically, was: why did we not do something about the Aarhus convention when we were in government? On this, as on a lot of things, I am delighted that the leader of the Conservative party is showing herself to be a real Conservative.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand that, and one of my concerns is that we may find that the tolls continue far into the distant future, when there will no longer be a need for tolls to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure. In a sense, the model espoused for the lower Thames crossing project could have exactly the same consequence for motorists, which is that they will end up paying a lot more than the cost of the tunnel. I hope that the Minister can explain why we could not have had specific, ringfenced legislation on this, instead of a general Bill. If we could have had that, we could have made a lot more progress. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is saying that we Conservatives would like to leave the Aarhus convention, because it inhibits progress on such projects.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I cannot, obviously, make an assurance like that; it was a rhetorical question. All I can say is that I think people should take responsibility for their decisions, and we should face up to the fact that if there are costs associated with bits of infrastructure that cannot be funded out of general taxes, we should be prepared to ensure that they are funded by the users. To close down a thoroughfare across the Thames, with no solution or plan for what will happen, is totally unsatisfactory. I would like the Mayor of London to take action, because this comes within his responsibilities. He could easily use some of the income from the congestion charge or the ultra low emission zone charge to fund that. It does not seem as though that is happening, which is why I suggested that the Bill be used for this purpose.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We cannot privatise the whole of the trunk road network because it that would mean dealing with all sorts of rights of way, bridleways and other complications, but the motorway network is set up in such a way that it could be the subject of one of the largest ever privatisations. I go back to my point about the success in the 1980s of involving private capital and entrepreneurial activity in the development of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. Why do we not extend that more widely across our road network?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sceptical about the Bill, but frankly, when I was a Government Back-Bench MP, I proposed that we should privatise the whole of our motorway network, because that would bring good benefits to the taxpayer and ensure that the network was paid for by the people who use it. Earlier this month, I drove back with my wife from Strasbourg—Strasbourg to Christchurch is about 550 miles, and the tolls amounted to over €100. That was a contribution that I made toward the cost of the French motorway system. If we are true radicals—this may be too radical for my hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench—why can we not privatise our motorways?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It brings in massive new powers for the Office of Road and Rail, at a time when I thought the Government were rowing back on arms-length bodies being given such powers; and there are great powers under clause 99 to basically repeal any legislation retrospectively, as a consequence of the measures in the Bill. I could not understand the references to the insolvency legislation in the Bill. How would that fit into what happened with the building of the channel tunnel, for example? That was a private-investor exercise, and ultimately, the initial investors lost most of their money—but that was a result of them taking the risk. Are the Government suggesting, by taking those powers in relation to insolvency legislation, that different arrangements should operate in the future?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not going to try to clarify that. It sounds as though what I have said is only partially accurate, but in a sense, that reinforces my point, which is that, whoever owns the bridges or has financial responsibility for them, the financial vehicle identified in the Bill could be used to pay for their repairs and maintenance, to ensure they are brought back into use. I do not purport to be an expert on who owns which bridges. I did not know that any of them were owned by charities. The hon. Gentleman seems to say that they are; I am not going to dispute that, but I do not think that alters the principal point I was making. I am concerned about other provisions in the Bill, and some of those concerns are identified in the reasoned amendment.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How have things changed since that safeguard was written in under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020? That safeguard was written in in 2020, and the Minister is now saying that we need to remove it. Why?”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that his points are compounded by the fact that the Minister has refused, or expressed himself unable, to respond to any of these issues?”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When was the last time that an allotted Opposition day was withdrawn in the way that the Leader of the House is withdrawing this one? I was looking at my calendar of business, otherwise known as the Order Paper, and it says that “The selection of the matters to be debated will be made by the Leader of the Opposition (Standing Order No. 14(2)).” Why is the Leader of the House seeking to usurp that right and put his own plans in place instead?”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Climate Change Committee has condemned the Government for failing and falling short of adapting to climate change and accepting the reality as it is, which is that by the end of this century, global temperatures will have increased to between 3.5° and 4.5° above pre-industrial levels. What are the Government doing to adapt, rather than trying to prevent this from happening?”
House of Commons7 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister has referred to the grooming gangs inquiry carried out by our friend, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), and early-day motion 380 makes a number of recommendations. Will the Minister engage with the hon. Member to ensure that his ideas and recommendations can be taken forward, because we do not want to have to wait until Baroness Casey’s report in three years’ time?”
House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗