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“When was the last time that an allotted Opposition day was withdrawn in the way that the Leader of the House is withdrawing this one?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 28 of 109.
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you can help us. In the debate after the next one, we are discussing the regulations that the Government have brought forward that will deprive thousands of people who work in our care homes of the right to work and not give them any compensation. The Government said on 22 June that alongside the statutory instrument they were laying an explanatory memorandum together with an impact assessment. The impact assessment has not been laid. Yesterday I raised this issue and referred to the fact that the Department of Health and Social Care had written to the Library to say, “The impact assessment has not been laid yet. We will be laying it at the earliest opportunity.” That was at midday yesterday.”
“Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given what my hon. Friend has said, it is available and it could be made available immediately, but the Government are choosing not to make it available until after the event.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I raised a point of order earlier this afternoon about the lack of an impact assessment before the House, despite it having been referred to on 22 June as having been made available. I was informed during the course of that point of order that pressure was going to be put on the Government to explain why there was no impact assessment. It is therefore a source of great disappointment that the Minister has not started off her speech with such an apology and explanation.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I asked the House of Commons Library to inquire of the Department where this impact assessment was, and the Department informed the Library that it was about to present the impact assessment. It did not say that the assessment was still under preparation. The implication was that it was ready to be given to the House and it was just a matter of time—they said they would do it as soon as possible.”
“I hope that, given what has happened in Scotland and Wales, we reject these regulations and put the Minister out of her misery.”
“An NHS consultant in Christchurch says that, “Mandatory vaccination would be crossing the Rubicon on medical choice, medical confidentiality and bodily autonomy.” These are vital elements of the right to privacy. A Christchurch care home manager to whom I have spoken has said that the whole proposal “undermines” the need for parity of esteem between care workers and NHS workers. You may have seen, Madam Deputy Speaker, the article in the British Medical Journal on 8 July, which says that, while it may reduce the risk of transmission, vaccination “is not a panacea for safety”. Why are we not saying that people who have had previous infection and got immunity from that are exempt from these regulations? I think that this is an unnecessary, disproportionate and misguided proposal.”
“There was not an answer to that, and there has not been one so far today. I then asked what estimate has been made “of the number of staff employed in care homes in England who have not been vaccinated against covid-19 for (a) clinical reasons and (b) reasons of personal choice including religion, belief and conscience”. Again, no answers—not even to parliamentary questions. How can we hold the Government to account if they will not even answer our questions? My constituents are absolutely livid about what is being proposed. I will not quote extensively from a letter that I received from Mr Davis from Ferndown, but he says that it is completely wrong and unethical and that it makes no sense.”
“The Government’s better regulation framework principles, set out in March 2020, say: “Where government intervention requires a legislative or policy change to be made, departments are expected to analyse and assess the impact of the change on the different groups affected – which should generally take the form of an impact assessment.” That has not happened. Why has it not happened? I put down some parliamentary questions about this, because I feared that we would not get the impact assessment, and those questions have received holding answers rather than substantive answers. One asked what estimate he has made “of the number of employees in…England who will face dismissal from their employment as a result of the enactment of regulations …and whether those staff will be eligible for compensation”.”
“It said: “A full impact assessment of the costs and benefits of this instrument is available from the Department of Health and Social Care…and is published alongside this instrument and its Explanatory Memorandum”. The Minister has not explained what has happened to it, whether it ever existed, and whether it contained information that she found embarrassing and has therefore been suppressed. An impact assessment is not an optional extra. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made clear in its report of 6 July: “An impact assessment is a fundamental tool for those who wish to scrutinise legislation before nodding it through”. Indeed, an impact assessment should be cleared by the Minister before the proposals are brought forward.”
“She showed a cavalier disregard for the conventions and courtesies of this House, and, as she has admitted to, she completely breached the rules under the Government’s better regulation framework, which is designed to inform decision making for regulations that affect businesses and individuals in this country. When criticised, the Minister’s response is best described as dumb insolence, and that is just not good enough. One question that I would have liked to ask in an intervention was: what is the Government’s rationale for not requiring care home residents to be vaccinated? These regulations were laid on 22 June. There was an accompanying explanatory memorandum that expressly referenced a full impact assessment.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). I am delighted that the official Opposition share my view and that of many of my colleagues that these are bad regulations and that they should be opposed this evening. Both the Welsh and Scottish Governments, as I understand it, are against this type of regulation. The Minister told us that other Administrations were watching, but this Administration should be watching what the other Administrations are doing and following their lead. I must say that this was probably the most depressing performance from a Minister that I have listened to in this House.”
“Why cannot this place restore some sense of reasonableness and good manners?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It always used to be the convention in this place that if a Minister was unable to answer all the questions raised in a debate, they would offer to write to hon. and right hon. Members whose questions had not been answered in the time available. Bearing in mind the cavalier way in which Ministers seem to be treating the conventions of the House, I wonder whether it is within your offices to be able to put pressure on the Government to restore that convention as a matter of courtesy. I look particularly at my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), who had a pertinent question that could have been answered in two words. It was not answered and I am sure his constituents, on behalf of whom he speaks, will feel aggrieved about that.”
“Tomorrow, my right hon. Friend will be asking the House to approve regulations that will put thousands of care workers in England out of a job. Two weeks ago, we were promised that a regulatory impact assessment was available. As of midday today, it is still not available. When will it be available, and why has it not been made available so far?”
“The officials at the DHSC are quoted by the Library as having said, “The impact assessment has not been laid yet”—we knew that—and, “We will be laying it at the earliest opportunity.” This is very serious, because on 6 July the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to the impossibility of being able to scrutinise the legislation properly without the impact assessment. Despite the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommending that the debate be deferred, nothing has happened and all that the Secretary of State said in response to me was, “Well, we don’t know where it is but don’t worry about it—we’ll carry on tomorrow anyway.” That is just not good enough. I would be grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to what we can do to ensure that we have an informed debate with the impact assessment before us.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It arises directly out of the response that the Secretary of State gave to me. Tomorrow this House is being asked to approve the Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021. When that instrument was laid on 22 June, the explanatory memorandum said: “A full impact assessment of the costs and benefits of this instrument is”— I emphasise “is”— “available from the Department of Health and Social Care…and is published alongside this instrument”. As of 12 o’clock today, I have been trying, through the good offices of our excellent colleagues in the Library, to get an answer from the Department as to when we are going to get that impact assessment.”
“Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The explanatory memorandum falsely asserted that the full impact assessment is available. Why was the House misled in that way?”
“Can I ask my right hon. Friend whether it will be possible to amend the business of the House motion to facilitate the deferral of the debate on the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021?”
“I do not think that the message from yesterday’s meeting of the Commission that they can at least come along and make interventions has got through. I would also like to say that this is a one-and-a-half-hour debate, this is an important subject and the Chairman of Ways and Means made it clear, when the Chairmen’s Panel last had a meeting with her, that she thought it desirable, in a debate in which there was not that much participation but a lot of time, that the Minister should be willing to take as many interventions as there are, rather than feeling constrained to refuse interventions. I just mention that because I know that the Minister we have today is assiduous in taking interventions, so I hope that today he will be able to set an example to some of his colleagues.”
“Before I call the Member who will move the motion, let me say that yesterday the House of Commons Commission said that Members who are not on the Westminster Hall call list but who are physically present will now be able to come along and make interventions. Today, we do not seem to have Members who wish to make interventions, despite their being able to see on the Order Paper that there is only one Back Bencher on the call list beyond the hon. Gentleman whose debate this is. This is a very important subject, so I just want to make it clear to those observing from outside the House that I am sure there would be a lot more participation but for the constraints and inflexibility of the rules, which do not allow Members who have not given advance notice and are not on the call list to come along and participate by making speeches.”
“At this stage, we would normally hear from the spokesperson from the official Opposition. We received notice that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) would be here physically today. In her absence, and without any explanation of why she is not here, I have no alternative but to move straight to the Minister for his response.”
“May I express strong solidarity with my hon. Friend in his words of sympathy with our Indian friends? Would it be possible for Indian citizens, who are living here in the United Kingdom, to travel to India should they so wish, so that they can help their grieving relatives or provide other support? It would surely be unreasonable to prevent people leaving our country who wish to go and help in these circumstances.”
“The Leader of the House has addressed the issue that has been a concern to me and that led to me seeking support for an amendment—the issue of retrospection—but I am rather disappointed that he does not seem to be ruling out the fact that changes to paragraph 4.3 are retrospective. How can it be justified that we make retrospective changes to paragraph 4.3 which, subject to the decision maker, can be allowed to be lawful? Surely if we change the rules we should change them prospectively rather than retrospectively.”
“But paragraph 16 of the Commission report states that the drafting of paragraph 4.3 has merely “been updated so that it more clearly reflects the policy intention of the Commission and the House, when the resolution relating to non-recent cases was passed in July 2019”. Without anticipating my own speech, all I can say is that there is no evidence at all that there was such a policy intention at that time, and I am very worried that those words in paragraph 16 could be used by a decision maker in order to justify what I would regard as retrospective change.”
“Will the independent panel be accessible by former Members, rather than just current Members? In paragraph 3 of the Commission’s report, there is a reference to the changes to which we are referring being “recommended by staff for clarification and updating of the documents.” Are those staff involved in any of this decision making? Can my right hon. Friend ensure that those recommendations from the staff are published, so that we can all see what they were and the basis on which they were put forward?”
“It was a mistake to put two points in one intervention. My first point was about whether former Members of Parliament will have access to the independent panel for appeal.”
“I obviously agree with the right hon. Lady’s assessment of the importance of getting proper clarity and ensuring that we are not going to have retrospection, but may I also draw her attention to the sentence in paragraph 3 of the Commission report? I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House misunderstood that. It says that the changes that we are discussing were “recommended by staff for clarification and updating of the documents.” I am not referring to the Alison Stanley recommendations; this is something completely different. These changes that are causing us concern were recommended by staff. Is it unreasonable to ask whether we can see the document in which those recommendations were made and see whether some of the staff who made those recommendations may themselves have been involved or know decision makers?”
“The words in paragraph 16 that these changes are “so that it more clearly reflects the policy intention of the Commission” are weasel words. I can say that there is no evidence whatsoever—I was on the Standards Committee—that the Standards Committee, the Commission or this House ever intended, when extending the scope to non-recent cases in July 2019, that it should be possible to complain of the conduct of any former member of the parliamentary community until that person died. In other words, it might be 10, 20 or 30 years hence.”
“In that legal opinion, Tom Linden makes it clear that there is a common law presumption against retrospective effect. I hope that we are not going to get into territory where litigation will arise if people feel that the common law presumption against retrospection is not being honoured by the decision makers. In that opinion, Tom Linden quotes Lord Brightman giving a good definition about what is retrospective and what is not. Lord Brightman says that it is “retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past.” It seems to me, from what we have heard, that the changes to paragraph 4.3 would be regarded as retrospective if those principles were applied.”
“I do not know how they have appeared, who they were sent to or why we cannot see them, but it would be useful for the purposes of transparency if we could. Those are set out in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the report. As has been discussed, the most significant change is in paragraph 16, which changes the scope of the provisions on bullying and harassment. I do not have any problem with the revision, but what I do have a problem with is the possibility that that change is retrospective. The issue of retrospection was discussed quite usefully in the original report. There was a legal opinion from Tom Linden, QC, on what were then being discussed as pre-scheme cases, and the opinion is set out on page 93 in the delivery report, published in July 2018.”
“May I too express my thanks and good wishes to Ray Mortimer? My interest in the issue arises from when I was on the Standards Committee, particularly during the 2017-19 Parliament. During that time, I was involved in discussions leading up to the creation of the ICGS and its extension in 2019. I have read the conclusion of the House of Commons Commission following Alison Stanley’s review, and I accept that the Commission is right to take the necessary measures in response to that review, but my concerns tonight are about the Commission’s endorsement of “other changes recommended by staff for clarification and updating”. I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that those are changes recommended by staff not in response to a request from Alison Stanley, but off their own bat.”
“My view is that if that had been the intention and it had been expressed in words, it would never have been passed by this House, which is why I am agitated about this and particularly keen to see the terms in which the staff were recommending these changes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise that other people want to join in the debate, but this issue will not go away unless we clarify that these changes will not be retrospective in any respect.”
“I think the Leader of the House will say that he has more or less said that, but anything else that he can do to reconfirm that would be extremely helpful. Where is the evidence that there was a misrepresentation of the intention in the wording of paragraph 4.3? The text of the paragraph remained the same in July 2019 as it was in June 2018, and if the new text had been intended to change the rules, then I think the Standards Committee, this House and the Commission would have been totally in opposition to any suggestion that we could expose former Members of Parliament to the risk of being complained against and investigated for the rest of their lives after they had left the House. In a sense, what this Commission report seems to say is that that was the intention, but it was never properly expressed in words.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment, but can he explain what he means by the expression “in the future”? There will be a lot of people listening and wondering, “When is it going to affect me?””
“My right hon. Friend answered a question from me on this very subject by saying that the data was not available. I cannot understand why crucial data—such as the number of people who have been vaccinated for more than three weeks, who are then admitted to hospital and subsequently die—is not collected. Why is that?”
“I expect that people will increasingly take the law into their own hands as they see that there is no risk in going out and meeting in the open, as was confirmed in evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, and that there are very few risks associated with social mixing with people who are already vaccinated. The Government have got it completely wrong on risk assessment. My advice to the Minister would be to go and get some risk assessment therapy during the Easter break and then come back with some new ideas in April. He should reflect on the adage that the welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. That, in essence, is what this debate is about, and that is why I shall be voting against these measures.”
“The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 extend to 94 pages. How do the Government believe that we can support the regulations when there is not even an impact assessment for them? If there was an impact assessment, it would point out that every day those regulations remain in place is costing the economy about £1 billion—£1 billion a day. We can get a lot for £1 billion, and if a cost of £1 billion a day is being incurred, there certainly needs to be a lot more justification than the Government have so far adduced during this debate.”
“The latest data on the dashboard for hospital admissions in Dorset goes back to 11 March, so I had to make my own inquiries, and I found out that within the last week, there have only been three hospital admissions in all the hospitals throughout Dorset. We have 1,200 beds in our hospitals, and we have a population of over three quarters of a million people. That data does not tell me that it is reasonable that we should continue to have a lockdown and that people should be deprived of their social and economic liberty. One of my constituents who is very good on these things wrote to me saying that 5,000 cases from 1.9 million tests shows that 99.993% of the population were unaffected. That is what we are talking about in terms of proportionality.”
“It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). I thank him for his leadership in the campaign that so many of us support, trying to ensure that some common sense and proportionality are brought to this debate and that we have our freedoms back, because we should not have them taken away from us unless there is the most compelling justification. As my hon. Friend said, this is also an issue of trust. The Government are using the slogan “data not dates”, but the data is being either withheld or ignored. I have been regularly looking at the so-called coronavirus dashboard. Suddenly, when the data got rather good from my perspective but bad from the Government’s perspective, it disappeared.”
“I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 5, after “must” insert “within six months of this Act coming into force” This amendment will ensure that the guidance has to be issued within a specific time.”
“When this issue was raised in Committee, the Minister for School Standards said that it was his intention to get on with it and that he would be consulting people as soon as possible about it. I interpreted that to mean he would be getting on with consulting on the draft statutory guidance, as that is often the norm in this House. While the House is considering— [Interruption.]”
“Again, I congratulate him on having brought it before the House. The purpose of this amendment is to try to ensure that we get on with it, which is why the amendment proposes that the Secretary of State “must” issue guidance “within six months of this Act coming into force”. It is a pity that we have not had the draft guidance already. It was exactly one year ago tomorrow that the Bill was debated on Second Reading, and almost six months after that it had its Committee stage. A further six months on from that, so one year after it was first debated, the Government are still saying that they are intent on bringing forward statutory guidance but have not yet produced even a draft.”
“The essence of this Bill is something that everybody in the House supports; after all, who wants the cost of school uniforms to be higher than it needs to be? I support the idea that we should have good-quality school uniforms at a competitive price, available throughout schools in England. That is the purpose of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and I are ad idem on that. The hon. Gentleman will probably therefore agree with my amendment 2, which is designed to put an end date on what appears to be the Government’s prevarication in getting on with the job. They were first talking about introducing statutory guidance on the cost of school uniform many years ago—back in 2015, if I recall correctly. Since then, not much progress has been made and we are now relying on the hon. Gentleman’s Bill.”
“My opening remarks will, as ever, be brief. First, let me say how wonderful it is that we have Friday sittings back, and I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Leader of the House for having facilitated that. I understand that Her Majesty’s official Opposition were keen that we abandon Friday sittings, so I hope they have now realised that there is a virtue in this, not least because some of the Bills on today’s Order Paper are being promoted by Opposition Members. Let us welcome that and put it on the record. I wish to speak to the amendments standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), and to amendment 1, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.”
“I am all in favour of that. Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is another example of why we need to get back to normal sittings in this Chamber, so that people become more familiar with the way we normally work.”
“It asks: “Why is VAT charged on school uniform?” It goes on to say: “For older children—or those who are taller than average”— I will come on to the issue of waist size in a minute— “school uniforms, as well as all other clothing and shoes, attract the full standard VAT rate of 20%. Reality Check explores why these families are paying more and why successive governments haven’t acted.””
“I would have tabled an amendment to this Bill along similar lines, had that been in scope, but unfortunately it would not have been, because it has a very narrow title about guidance to schools. Had the scope of this Bill been slightly wider, I would have tabled an amendment that would have removed VAT from all specific school uniforms, and I am sure that it would have received almost unanimous support in the House. As I cannot do that, I have engendered this debate by saying that included in the guidance should be a reference from the Minister to how schools and governing bodies can minimise the impact of VAT. I will refer briefly to a BBC reality check. I do not know whether you look at these things, Mr Speaker, but this is a very helpful one.”
“Although we are going to issue guidance to governing bodies, which we say is very important, on the price and quality of school uniforms, the Government have the ability to reduce, at a stroke, the cost of school uniforms by 20% for all those people adversely affected by the current VAT rules. That would not have been possible before we were liberated as a legislature by our leaving the European Union. I introduced a private Member’s Bill—I cannot remember whether it was in this Session or the previous one—to reduce value added tax. Although it was a financial Bill, I was delighted that, because it would have reduced the burden of taxation, it was within scope for private Members’ legislation.”
“I hope it will be convenient for Members if, instead of going through all the amendments one by one in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper, I jump ahead and go straight to amendment 5, which goes to the heart of one of the issues that I raised on Second Reading a year ago, for which I got a lot of support from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and others. Amendment 5 says: “Any guidance issued under this section must include advice on ways of minimising the payment of Value Added Tax as a component of the cost of school uniforms.” The issue of VAT is solely within the remit of the Government, and VAT is adding 20% to the cost of a heck of a lot of school uniforms.”
“In Committee, he referred to some of the key ingredients that he expected to be in the draft guidance—namely, exactly the same provisions as are in the current non-statutory guidance, which was last issued in 2013. It does not seem as though an exacting demand was being placed on him by the Committee or, indeed, that he was placing one on the shoulders of his officials, so it is disappointing that that has not yet happened. It is therefore important to put in the Bill an end date or a timescale within which the guidance must be issued. That is the purport of amendment 2.”