Sir Christopher Chope
MP for Christchurch · Conservative · United Kingdom
“When was the last time that an allotted Opposition day was withdrawn in the way that the Leader of the House is withdrawing this one?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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The landmark 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence by the United States takes place in the week commencing 29 June. I have applied for an Adjournment debate, but will the Leader of the House enable more Members to be able to participate in marking that historic event?”
“That is exactly what I did on behalf of my constituent Paul Kenchington: I wrote to the Secretary of State about the specialist steel that he uses, and I have not had a reply.”
“Next week, can the Leader of the House produce a Government statement in response to the Hallett review on covid-19 vaccines? Lady Hallett recommended major reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,444 lines we hold for Sir Christopher Chope, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 109.
“I happened to be, I think, the only Conservative MP at the CBI dinner last year, and I heard the Chancellor say to Rupert Soames, president of the CBI, that she was not coming back for more, that there was a clean slate, and that the Government would not increase taxes. She seems to have disregarded what she said a year ago to the CBI. Was she seduced by Rupert Soames? I do not know. Did she mean what she said, or did she not? It is hardly surprising that people do not trust this Government any longer. Those who had the misfortune—I do not know whether you ever did, Madam Deputy Speaker—to travel on Belgium’s national airline Sabena developed the acronym “such a bad experience, never again”, and that is exactly the view of those who voted Labour for the first time at the last general election.”
“In the last Budget, she said: “I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax…thresholds”. She also said that “extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.” —[ Official Report , 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 403.] Yesterday, the Chancellor had the gall to say, in the conclusion of her speech, that she was “keeping every single one of our manifesto commitments” —[ Official Report , 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 399.] It is hardly surprising that disillusionment with politics and the political system in our country is running so high, when there is that sort of betrayal of not just a manifesto commitment, but even what was said last year.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). I thank him for his support for the campaign against the family farm tax, and for his courage in speaking out in favour of abolishing that impost on our farming communities. It is no exaggeration to say that this is the worst Budget that I have witnessed as a Member of this House, but it generated the best response I have ever heard from the Leader of the Opposition. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) on the way that she dealt with it, and I start by referring to her excellent speech. She said: “the Chancellor has, by her own admission, broken her manifesto promise on income tax.”
“Is it not a cruel confidence trick to suggest that 1.5°C is still achievable, when it manifestly is not? Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency confirmed 2.9°C by 2100 as its central scenario and that a 2.5°C increase by 2050 was totally unrealistic and unachievable. Would the Government not be better off spending our taxpayers’ money on adapting to the realities—increasing resilience and ensuring we improve our flood defences and so on—and preparing for the inevitable, instead of continuing to punish the British people?”
“Order. The hon. Gentleman arrived late. He has made an intervention already and is now making a very long intervention. He should have some regard for other Members who have been here throughout the debate.”
“Order. Unfortunately, we have reached 11 o’clock, and although the next debate has been withdrawn, I do not have the discretion to extend this debate. That is something that we might consider on the Modernisation Committee, so that we have a bit more flexibility than we had today. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).”
“The importance of this issue for tens of thousands of people cannot be overstated, yet the Government continue to vacillate.”
“The hope at the time was that there would be an interim ruling or report, before this point, basically asking the Government to get to grips with reviewing the scheme because of the injustice that was being caused. So far, nothing seems to have happened about producing an interim report in relation to module 4. The recognition that the reluctance of Government to face up to the facts about covid-19 vaccines is widespread globally led to the publication of “Canary In a Covid World”, a collection of essays from 34 contributors across different countries. I was privileged to be one of them. Another contributor and co-author was Dr Peter McCullough, whose latest book, “Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology, and Reality”, was published in July and for a time was in the New York Times bestseller list.”
“As a result, the word on the street is that if someone takes a vaccine—if they take that risk for the sake of public health—and something goes wrong, they will probably have to pay the consequences themselves, and the Government will not help. It is now universally accepted that covid-19 vaccines were not absolutely “safe and effective”, as was claimed at the time. For a few people, the vaccines have been a disaster. The charity UKCVFamily continues to campaign fearlessly for those victims; later this month, it will host in London a two-day seminar with leading lawyers and medical practitioners to consider some of these issues. In January, UKCV and others gave evidence on module 4 of the covid-19 inquiry, arguing for reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme.”
“This fits closely with the whole issue of vaccine confidence. We have heard recently about the declining take-up of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines and other childhood vaccines; our levels of take-up are now well below those recommended by the World Health Organisation. The vaccine damage payment scheme was introduced to give confidence to people who did the right thing in public health terms: they got themselves vaccinated, and they knew that if something went wrong, the Government would come in and support them. That now is not happening, or at least it is not happening in sufficiently large quantities.”
“At that stage, there had been only 154 applications under the vaccine damage payment scheme. Four years later, as of June 2025, the number of claims had risen to 21,444. This is a big and serious issue, yet the Government continue to be in denial about the validity of causal links between covid vaccines and injury or death. Now, in the face of evidence, the Government have had to change their tune, not least because, as of May 2025, 224 awards of £120,000 had been paid in respect of people who had been proved to have suffered death or serious injury as a result of having the vaccines. It is no longer open to the Government to deny that causality, but it seems that they are still intent on playing hard to get for those people who are still seeking compensation or redress for what they have suffered.”
“That summer, over four years ago, I presented a petition calling from reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme, to “maintain vaccine confidence and provide urgent support for those injured/bereaved through covid-19 vaccinations”. The complacent Government at the time responded: “Once more is known about the possible link between the vaccine and potential side effects, it will be considered whether a wider review of the VDPS is needed”. Is it not regrettable that four years on we are in exactly the same position? The new Government’s line is, “We are not sure whether we’re going to review the VDPS and, if we do, how we’re going to review it and in what respects.” What has happened since the summer of 2021? On 10 September 2021, in speaking to my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill, I expressed my concerns about the victims of these vaccines.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for people harmed following covid-19 vaccinations. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. This is a hot topic. The Secretary of State told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) in June that it was on still on the boil. We hope today to find out a bit more about what the Government will do in response to the representations that have been made. I have been campaigning on this issue since the summer of 2021, when it first became apparent that some people had suffered serious adverse reactions—in a few cases fatal ones—as a result of having taken vaccines against covid-19.”
“I hope that the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in her place, will be able to deliver a response to the questions as to what review is being carried out, which aspects of the scheme are being reviewed, when evidence will be invited, if that is to happen, and what the timescale is for all this, because at the moment people are in the dark, as my right hon. and learned Friend said.”
“My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I have before me the answer that he received from the Secretary of State when he raised the matter at Health questions on 17 June: “I reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the constituents of his I have met and other campaigners that I am having discussions with the Cabinet Office about how we deal with that and other issues that have been raised this morning…He knows the complexities involved, and I have been grateful for his advice as a former Attorney General. I do not have specific progress to report now, but I reassure him and campaigners that this issue has not gone off the boil and we are working to find a resolution.” —[ Official Report , 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 159.] That was almost three months ago, so what has happened in the interim?”
“I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister listened to her and will have direct answers to the questions that she raised. Having spent so much time badgering my right hon. Friend, when she was a Minister in the Cabinet Office, to get something done on this issue, I perhaps need to take the opportunity to say this. I think in the end I reached the conclusion that she had been badly let down by the officials in her Department. It was unfinished business at the time of the general election, and if the current Secretary of State is in discussion with the Cabinet Office, then another 15 months have gone by. Having regard to the work that was done before, I would hope that we are getting close to having answers.”
“I hope that the Government, which I always hope will be sympathetic to those in need and in plight, will now wake up and put a proverbial under the UK Government authorities that are trying to forestall any action. One can see the way in which the previous Government’s Ministers were disregarded on this issue and how the NHS carries on doing its own thing and being in denial. I hope that the Minister can tell us the timescales for this, exactly what is being discussed and what is not, and when we will be able to report something positive to those of our constituents who continue to suffer.”
“Adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines were largely absent from mainstream media discussions. When they were eventually covered, the stories were often framed with an emphasis on the rarity of such reactions, the safety of the vaccine, and the millions of lives it had saved. Members of the Covid Vaccine Adverse Reaction and Bereaved Groups who participated in interviews with mainstream media often had to agree to censor themselves, or had their words altered during editing.” We now know that they were right. Their concerns that these injuries and bereavements had been caused by the vaccines were correct, although the Government at the time were in denial. That has added to the trauma of the victims and their families.”
“The answer continued: “Ministers continue to consider options covering both potential reforms…and the situation of those who have suffered harm.” But they will not tell us the timescale. What are we to do? What are the punters meant to do about this? We are still waiting for the report from the inquiry, in particular on module 4, but the evidence given to the inquiry was compelling. In conclusion, I will quote briefly from the evidence that was given in the introductory statements before Baroness Heather Hallett: “During the early months of the vaccine rollout, those who experienced adverse reactions found it nearly impossible to access information about vaccine injuries in the mainstream media. This lack of coverage contributed to feelings of fear, isolation, and a heightened likelihood of being disbelieved.”
“That is hardly a confidence-building measure, but as I mentioned, as of the end of June, there were more than 22,000—more than 22 times as many—claims for damage caused by covid-19 vaccines. It is hardly surprising that there has been a decline in vaccine confidence. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said, we need some urgency. When I ask questions about this, I keep getting fobbed off with unsatisfactory answers. Mostly recently, on 7 July, a Minister wrote in answer to my question: “I am not in a position to comment on timelines for the consideration of options for reform or recommendations for change.” Are those options not being considered now? When are they going to be brought forward?”
“I agree absolutely. If someone has suffered serious adverse effects from a covid-19 vaccine, it is not much consolation to them, their loved ones or those whose confidence we are trying to build to be told that because they are only 30% disabled they are not entitled to a penny. Someone who is 59% disabled is not entitled to anything, even if that disability was caused by the vaccine. To put all this in context, the VDPS was set up in 1979 to boost confidence for those receiving vaccines. Between 1979 and 31 March 2025, the total number of non-covid vaccine claims was 958. As of 31 March, 331 were still live, 88 of which had been waiting more than 12 months, and only nine had been successful.”
“The Minister says she cannot give us an exact timeline. Could she give us an approximate time? Is this going to be finished before the end of this year, for example? That is not an exact timeline, but it would be an indicative timeline. And when she talks about various options, can she not explain which of those options are being considered or which ones are not being considered? For example, is increasing the £120,000 payout being considered? Is reducing the disability threshold from 60% being considered? Is disapplying the three-year limitation period for the bringing of civil claims being considered? Please can we have a yes or no to those things? We are not asking for the decisions on those, but we are asking whether they are being considered or not.”
“Obviously, the Minister has a brief that has been given to her by officials on behalf of the Minister with responsibility for public health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is not able to be here. Can this Minister give me some assurance that I, together with my colleagues who have participated in this debate, will be able to meet the relevant Minister, so that we can go over some of this stuff? I realise that this Minister does not have the discretion to be able to respond to this debate, but the public health Minister would have that discretion, so can she guarantee that we can fix up a meeting, please?”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to overrule the Dorset Integrated Care Board’s decision to refuse permission for the re-opening of a GP surgery in Burton, which ignores, inter alia, the needs and wishes of the people of Burton and the fact that new housing already in receipt of planning permission will generate demand from an additional 2,000 patients for local GP services. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003107]”
“The petition states: The petition of residents of the village of Burton in the constituency of Christchurch Declares that the petitioners and other residents of the village of Burton in the constituency of Christchurch had the benefit of a local accessible GP practice on Burton Green for over 40 years prior to its closure in August 2024; are delighted that earlier this year South Coast Medical acquired the premises for the purpose of opening a new branch of the Grove Practice following a welcome refusal by the local planning authority to permit a change of use on the grounds of loss of community benefit; and are outraged that the Dorset Integrated Care Board has since refused permission for the re-opening of the surgery.”
“It is a pleasure to be able to present this petition, which has been organised by Mr and Mrs Mackenzie-Cook of Burton in Christchurch, who, along with thousands of other local residents, have been campaigning for the reopening of Burton’s only GP surgery, which prior to its closure in August last year had served the people of Burton for over 40 years. With local encouragement, another GP practice bought the premises earlier this year and everyone assumed that its application to reopen the branch surgery would be a formality. But in April, Dorset’s integrated care board rejected that application, and we now need the Government to overrule the unelected ICB and show everyone that they were being genuine at the general election when they promised to increase access to GP services rather than to reduce it.”
“One way of dealing with that would be for the Government to prohibit the import of solar panels and insist that, as a condition of such solar farms, panels must be produced within the United Kingdom. Would that not be a sensible policy?”
“If the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) wishes to participate in this debate, I should say that there are only 10 minutes or so for the Minister to respond to the mass of points that have been made. I hope she will be brief.”
“I am open to being reassured, and I look forward to the Minister pursuing such a course.”
“The consequence of not having a specific timetable is that the ball is very much—to use that expression—in the Government’s court, because they can decide whether they will implement the provisions of this Bill, which has been put forward by the Home Office. I hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, he will explain why the Bill has to be introduced by regulations on a date yet to be specified. Of course, the making of regulations is in itself a further unnecessary administrative burden. I would be interested to hear from the Minister as to why the Bill is being treated differently from the other Bills the Government are hoping will get through today.”
“All those other Bills have a commencement date, but clause 2(2) of this Bill says: “This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.” The question I ask is: why? Why is that necessary? Why can we not in this very simple Bill say that these provisions will come into effect either on the day of Royal Assent or within two months of that date? That would be the norm. What sometimes happens, of course, is that the Government give themselves powers and do all the talk about supporting Bills such as this, and then never bring forward the regulations.”
“The presumption under the Bill—as you will know, Mr Speaker—is that if someone is guilty of an offence, they will be unable to go to football matches again as a spectator. My assessment is that that is disproportionate and unnecessary. For those reasons, I strongly oppose this aspect of the Bill, and seek through these amendments to remove references to “attempts”. Amendment 6 is another example of where we need to try to tighten up private Members’ Bills when they are brought before this House, so that the Government do not have everything their own way. Members will know that there are four other Bills to be debated on Report this morning.”
“As a result of Baroness Casey’s report, the Home Office decided to bring forward this Bill. However, nowhere could I find in the report any reference to the fact that Baroness Casey wanted to treat attempts to enter in exactly the same way as entering, which is why I have put forward these amendments. There is no need to expand on that except to say that it is in common law. Normally, an attempt to commit a criminal offence is an inchoate action, which can itself be the subject of criminal proceedings; in those circumstances, there would be no need to have this provision written into the Bill. It seems to me that the provisions would create a penalty that is quite severe; it could affect people’s ability to go and watch football matches for many years into the future.”
“Baroness Casey, who is an expert on producing reports, was commissioned by the Football Association to look into that issue and come forward with recommendations. In her report, which spanned more than 100 pages, she emphasised the fact that much of the disorder was nothing to do with people coming in without tickets and tailgating; in fact, a lot of it was attributed to other failures to enforce the law, in particular the taking of drugs and alcohol on public transport in London, which is verboten, and the taking of drugs in the vicinity of a football match, which should also be forbidden but was allowed to proceed with impunity. She also made the point that unlike at many football matches, what happened at Wembley was largely exacerbated by the inadequacy of the stewarding arrangements.”
“My amendments are designed to exclude from the Bill provisions relating to attempts to enter. Such attempts are less important than actual unlawful entry, and to include them in the same category is disproportionate and unreasonable. When we come on to debate other parts of the Bill on Third Reading, points can be made about the Bill more generally, but it seems to me that someone attempting to enter a football match without authorisation should not be subject to the same penalties, as set out in the Bill, as people who actually succeed in getting into a football match. Actually, 11 July is quite an interesting date. On this very day four years ago the 2020 Euros final at Wembley stadium resulted in the unauthorised entry of thousands of fans, which caused a lot of disorder.”
“Many people watching and observing proceedings in Parliament will wonder whether we have our priorities right. The Bill is about unauthorised entry to football matches in particular circumstances, but I think most people are much more concerned about the proliferation of unauthorised entry into our very country, and the failure of the Home Office and its officials to do anything effective about it. In my submission, the Bill is a trivialisation of legislation by Home Office officials who should be doing other things—but I will not dwell on that now, Mr Speaker. The long title of the Bill states that its purpose is to “Create an offence of unauthorised entry at football matches for which a football banning order can be imposed following conviction.” However, it is about not just unauthorised entry but any attempt at unauthorised entry.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and for the diligence with which she has approached this subject, including having discussed it on several occasions with me. She says that instead of a date being specified in the Bill, regulations will be passed to bring in the provisions at the beginning of the football season. When is that? Is there a particular date?”
“There is a big issue with attempted tailgating to avoid paying fares on the London underground. What does my right hon. Friend think about the Bill, in comparison with what is happening on the underground?”
“Apart from anything else, I fear that if we allow attempts to remain in the Bill, the people who are still outside the stadium and never got in will be the easy pickings—they will be the ones who get arrested and penalised, while the mass of offenders who got in without authority will get away with it—because in order for any of this to work, there has to be an arrest and a subsequent prosecution. I wish to test the will of the House in relation to amendment 1. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“The Minister says that the Bill will come into force before the start of the football season. We heard from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) that the season will start pretty soon, within four or five weeks. I assume that means the Bill will not be implemented until summer 2026—that is the clear implication of what the Minister said. If I am wrong in that interpretation, I hope he will intervene, because it is important to get it on the record that the Bill will not be in force until a year’s time. On the issue of attempts, listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I thought that I had under-egged the pudding a bit, because he adduced a whole lot of extra arguments that reinforce the case for removing attempts from the Bill.”
“It is a pity, in a sense, that the private Member’s Bill process is giving rise to this sort of legislation, which is—I return to the word I used earlier—relatively trivial compared with all the other problems with which this country is faced and with which this legislature should be dealing.”
“As I said earlier, the Home Office has responsibility for all this, but every day we find that it is unable to fulfil its existing responsibilities, let alone new ones that will be placed on it as a result of this Bill. Most recently, the Home Office revealed that it is unable even to record the number of people who have entered this country and then left. Obviously, the way to find out whether people who come in on visas are complying with those visas is to check the visa records when people leave. The Home Office cannot even deal with that. We are talking about extending its role in the belief that some magic new Bill will control unauthorised entry to football stadiums, when the Home Office cannot even control our country’s borders. I am extremely sceptical about this piece of legislation.”
“I fear that what will happen is that an individual will be picked on every now and again, but when there is a problem of mass trespass, we will not be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it. We will get a situation similar to the one in supermarkets, with blatant shoplifting and a failure of the police or security people to take any action because they choose not to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said on Report, there is a danger that bringing the criminal law into these areas will result in disappointment and, as a result, bring the law into disrepute; we put all these laws on the statute book, but we cannot actually do anything about them.”
“She said that although these provisions could have been included in that Bill, because of her legal experience she particularly wanted to have a Bill in her name on the statue book. I hope that in the end those dreams will be fulfilled, as that is an important matter for her. I have reservations about how this Bill will work in practice, and I am concerned about unintended consequences for the police. If there is an incident similar to the one that took place at Wembley, how will we be able to arrest all those people? Every time somebody is arrested by the police, a policeman has to take that person away and put them in a black Maria or whatever, which means that they are no longer able to police the ground.”
“That seemed to me a sensible arrangement, because the burden of policing soccer matches was not borne only by the local constabulary and its taxpayers, but also by the club itself. As Baroness Casey’s report makes clear, the Wembley incident that prompted the Bill was essentially a one-off incident caused by a set of different circumstances, including that we were still during the period of covid, which meant a severe restriction on the number of people who could attend such matches. Other problems were created due to the absence of experienced stewards and so on. I remember asking the hon. Member for Amber Valley why provisions in this Bill would not be included in the Football Governance Bill, which was discussed earlier in the week.”
“I declare an interest as a debenture holder at Twickenham, and I have never experienced the sort of problems to which she was referring. When I was at university, I can remember the first football match I ever went to, which was at Dundee United. I stood on the terraces, and I did not feel any danger inside the ground. The danger in Dundee was outside the ground after the event. Then, when I had the privilege of representing Southampton Itchen, I was a frequent visitor to the Dell. Again, I did not see any problems there. There were problems associated with the need to ensure crowd control, and the football club paid dearly for the costs of policing to enable that to happen.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Bill is an improvement on its predecessor, and I give credit to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for that, because it allows the defence to which she referred in her earlier remarks, and that is better. I regret that she would not accept the amendments that would have removed the attempt issues, but I must say I was alarmed when she said that she hoped the provisions in this Bill would be replicated more widely in other Bills. Would that be in relation to Wimbledon or Twickenham? It seems to me that the mischief being addressed in this Bill is peculiar to soccer supporters. I am not sure about the suggestion that we need to go more widely to deal with this type of hooligan behaviour.”
“There are already laws against killing people at football matches. There are already laws against criminal damage. There are already laws against violent behaviour. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has looked at Baroness Casey’s report on the incident at Wembley in 2021, but it says that the issue of tailgating highlighted by the hon. Member for Amber Valley was not the only problem. There was also lots of drunken behaviour—”
“The hon. Lady is shaking her head, but that is in Baroness Casey’s report—she finds that there was a lot of drunken behaviour and evidence of drug taking. Those are criminal offences. The expression on the hon. Lady’s face makes it seem as though either she believes that Baroness Casey’s findings were incorrect or she has some other reason for disagreeing with that. I think that bringing the criminal law into this narrow and specific field when there are already a host of other criminal offences covering these issues is the wrong way forward, but I am obviously in the minority on that.”
“If the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) says he has no interest in this Bill, then he does not have to attend. I thought he was seeking to intervene, but he was not; he was wanting to make some sedentary remark. I have put on the record my opposition to and scepticism about the contents of this Bill, and I will leave it at that.”