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“When was the last time that an allotted Opposition day was withdrawn in the way that the Leader of the House is withdrawing this one?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 61 of 109.
“It so happens that last weekend I was stopped in the street by a constituent who works at Roke Manor, who told me that this is a really serious problem. She raised it in the context of the Chinese visit.”
“The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that that is what is provided for by the Standing Orders currently in place. If we wish to change the Standing Orders, why do we not seek to refer this matter to the Procedure Committee? The Standing Orders are under our control, but we cannot change them tonight.”
“It is unfortunate that the SNP did not table an amendment to include one of its Members instead of one of the Labour representatives—that might have made for an interesting debate and vote afterwards. At the moment, however, the SNP proposal is to vote down this Committee proposal completely, which is surely absurd because it means the Joint Committee on Human Rights will not be established in good time.”
“One consequence of that happening can be a significant reduction in the number of cases that end up in the European Court of Human Rights. I suggest that that is really important.”
“I have had the privilege of serving in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for some 10 years, during which I spent two years as chairman of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee. During that time, the United Kingdom had the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and a lot of work was done jointly with the Joint Committee on Human Rights to spread the good word across the other 47 member states of the Council of Europe on how Parliaments can scrutinise work of their Governments in relation to human rights. It is fair to say that this Parliament is an exemplar for the Parliaments in those other member countries. I have spoken about this at seminars. It is important that, when the Joint Committee on Human Rights looks at the convention, it should do so in an independent way.”
“Once the Committee is set up, the Procedure Committee could look into the issues and I am sure that it could produce a report in due course. It would be unfortunate if this situation were to be used as a stick with which to beat the rest of the United Kingdom. I say that as a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee; I have the privilege of serving under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and we had a successful visit to Dundee earlier this week. I want to thank the Scottish National party for ensuring that we have had a debate on this important issue. We debate human rights, and the parliamentary scrutiny of human rights, all too rarely.”
“Following the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), may I also pay tribute to Michael Meacher? The work he did, particularly in my experience with Parliament First, is a lasting legacy and demonstrated his great commitment to this place. One of the great things about the proposals before us tonight is that many of those being chosen to serve on this Joint Committee are people like Michael Meacher, who have independent minds. That is what this House needs on such Committees. I suggest that we pass this motion tonight, because if we do not we will be unable to set up the Joint Committee. It is a matter of regret, given that their lordships’ House named its people back in July, that we are only now naming ours.”
“The House is anticipating that this matter will be decided soon. I hope that it will be, because six months after a general election, the right of this Parliament to be represented in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will expire. I hope that our new members of the Parliamentary Assembly will be chosen soon and presented to the House. I understand that that is normally done through a written statement from the Prime Minister. I also hope that that statement will include the names of some Scottish National party Members, because even if they cannot at present participate in the work of the Joint Committee, they could play an important role in the Parliamentary Assembly—”
“Absolutely, Mr Speaker, and I am sorry that I was led down the wrong route by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who has also been a distinguished member of the Parliamentary Assembly. I have made my point briefly: I hope that this matter can be resolved amicably and that the Joint Committee is able to function with all parts of the United Kingdom being properly represented on it. The first purpose of the Joint Committee is “to examine matters relating to human rights within the United Kingdom.” I hope that that will be borne in mind by the Deputy Leader of the House and that she will respond with a big heart to the suggestion that this matter be referred to the Procedure Committee—but after the motion has been passed tonight.”
“My hon. Friend refers to the power of the Secretary of State to set up a system. When does she expect that to happen, and what is causing the delay?”
“If there is such widespread opposition to this Bill, why was it that the Saatchi Bill made such good progress in the other place during the last Parliament, when I understand it had the benign support of the Government?”
“My hon. Friend has not responded to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Surely the point is that if we want to discuss this in more detail in Parliament, the ideal opportunity for that is in Committee when it can have detailed scrutiny.”
“Is my right hon. Friend prepared to accept manuscript amendment (a)? Why does he not bring before us a draft of the regulations that he proposes? That is common practice in the legislative context, and Committees are often allowed to look at the draft regulations, but we do not have them before us.”
“With the news this week that the promise that the European Union made to our Prime Minister has been reneged on, may we have an early debate on how we can hold the European Union to account so that it complies with its word? For example, can we bring forward a breach of promise action against the European Union?”
“Given the political priority which my right hon. Friend attaches to 24/7 consultant cover for accident and emergency hospitals, why was his Department unable to answer the question I put about which hospitals in England currently provide such cover? Will he collect that data and make sure that it is published?”
“Order. On several occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has tested my patience by using the expression “filibustering”. Nobody in this Chamber has been filibustering and if they had been, I would have brought them to order. I think it is very disappointing that, having relied on self-regulation, that seems manifestly to have failed and I have not been able to call as many Members present whom I would have wished to. However, we now have to move on to the wind-ups, because under the rules laid down by Mr Speaker we have a maximum of 10 minutes for the SNP spokesman. I call Dr Whiteford.”
“In welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, may I ask him how much notice he is going to ensure will be given of these forthcoming amendments?”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that this issue is not just about votes on legislation, but about debates? Surely it would be reasonable for us, as a UK Parliament, to be able to debate issues affecting all parts of the United Kingdom, thereby removing the restriction on debating devolved matters. This morning in Westminster Hall, SNP Members were speaking about housing supply in London.”
“In that case, is it not about time they did? Channel 4 has a turnover of about £1 billion a year, and assets of roughly half a billion. Surely the taxpayer stake in it could be sold and would help the Chancellor with his agenda.”
“The proposals in the manifesto covered public Bills. Why do the Government’s current proposals not cover private Members’ Bills, which are of course public Bills?”
“Following that point, would my right hon. Friend give time to developing a Fox formula, to ensure that we can link public expenditure in the south-west to the money that Scotland receives?”
“Order. Three more people wish to speak. I do not wish to impose a time limit. If each Member speaks for a maximum of five minutes, we should be able to fit them all in.”
“11. Whether his Department has discussed with the Dorset clinical commissioning group the provision of accident and emergency services in Dorset; and if he will make a statement.”
“In that case, will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government do not support the CCG’s bizarre proposal to close 450 beds at the Royal Bournemouth hospital and force 40,000 in-patients each year to go to Poole general hospital?”
“T4. Does the Secretary of State accept the verdict of the Competition Commission, which decided recently that it would be against the interests of patients for Royal Bournemouth General Hospital and Poole Hospital to merge? The clinical commissioning group has responded by saying that one of the hospitals will have to give up all its services.”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would not be anything for the Greek people to be ashamed of if they decided that they were best off getting out of the straitjacket of the eurozone and were able to wrest away from the controls of the European vulture funds?”
“As someone who is looking forward to serving on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, may I seek my right hon. Friend’s assurance that the deliberations and recommendations of the Committee will always receive responses from the Government? In the last Session, none of them did. For example, may we have a guarantee that, were the Committee to consider the role of the House of Lords on Scottish affairs, the Government would respond to the recommendations?”
“The only reason why one country in Europe is currently not a member of the Council of Europe is that Belarus refuses to disapply the death penalty. That is a fundamental breach of the legislation. More difficult is the judicial interpretation of the original words of the convention, which now extend into what is effectively judge-made law, over which Parliament and the people have no control. We are all familiar with the issue of voting rights for prisoners and how it was specifically excluded in the discussions leading up to the signing of the protocol. The sentence of life imprisonment was clearly introduced as a substitute for the death penalty, but even that is now being undermined by the European Court of Human Rights saying that there should be the opportunity for a review, rather than life meaning life.”
“I look forward to having a British Bill of Rights on the statute book. That was in our manifesto, and it would only increase cynicism in politics if we abandoned such a clear manifesto commitment. When the Bill is introduced, I hope it will include the word “responsibilities”. One thing that really annoys constituents is that the principle of equity, which runs right through English law like a golden thread, is not applied in very many human rights cases. People want a sense of fairness. They particularly want to ensure that those who come before the courts do so with clean hands, and that if they do not, they cannot expect to be treated in the same way as those who do. The issue is not compliance with the strict words of the European convention on human rights—they are not an issue, because we all agree with them.”
“In its opinion earlier this year, the European Court of Justice said that the EU could not join the European convention on human rights because of concerns that the interpretation of human rights law in Europe would then rest with the European convention on human rights rather than the European Court of Justice. We are in exactly the same position in this country: we want our own Supreme Court to interpret the treaty, rather than to leave it to an external body. The Government are on the right course and should not be deterred by the siren words we have heard from so many people this afternoon.”
“I am not going to take any interventions, because even if I get an extra minute it will mean others will lose out. Article 31.1 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties makes it clear that “a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its objects and purpose”. If the European Court of Human Rights was doing that, there would not be a problem. The UK Government are in close contact with the thinking of the European Court of Justice.”
“T5. Does my right hon. Friend think that the CBI’s poverty of ambition for a radical new relationship with the EU is attributable to the fact that the CBI receives funding from the EU?”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Greek people wish to regain their sovereignty and once again become masters of their own economic destiny, they should be arguing to leave the eurozone and set up the drachma once again?”
“T8. Page 73 of the Conservative party manifesto said:“We will press for…further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy”.What specific reforms does my right hon. Friend expect to be agreed prior to the referendum?”
“Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he and his party objected to my Bill in the last Parliament calling for an independent audit of the economic costs and benefits of our current membership of the EU? Is that not the most fundamental issue about which the public want to be informed before the referendum?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that the section 125 provisions were adopted by the Venice Commission in the following year and are now universal best practice, and that the Venice Commission has endorsed the fact that there should be a prohibition on Government expenditure in the four weeks of the referendum campaign?”
“Do the figures my hon. Friend is referring to include Government expenditure? The Minister, responding to the debate on the previous group of amendments, said the Government should not be a lead campaigner in a referendum, thereby implying that it will be a campaigner and spend Government resources. Are Government resources restricted in any way?”
“Surely the Government could do something on this front. They could ask the European Commission and the European Union not to intervene and not to fund the referendum campaign. They could then get a written undertaking from the Commission not to use European Union funds. That is outside the scope of the Bill, but the Minister could give such an undertaking.”
“T2. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a local education authority should not be allowed to give itself planning permission to build a school on green-belt land, in breach of the local core strategy? That is exactly what Dorset County Council is proposing to do in Marsh Lane, Christchurch. If the Secretary of State cannot answer today, will she have a meeting with me to discuss this important matter?”
“The formula is very unpopular with my constituents because, whenever they argue for free prescriptions, free long-term care for the elderly or free university tuition, they are told that these things cannot be afforded in England, yet they somehow can be afforded in Scotland. At the same time, however, they point out that they are paying £1,600 a head to Scotland, so it cannot be a matter of those things being unaffordable in England; rather, it is something to do with the Barnett formula. The new clause would resolve that issue and help to bring the United Kingdom back together with less conflict than there would be if we allowed the “too little, too late” agenda to be perpetuated.”
“I hope that new clause 3 will also find favour with the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I am delighted to see sitting on the Front Bench preparing to respond to the debate. He gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on several occasions during the last Parliament. At that stage, only some members of the Committee—I included myself among the optimists—thought that it would not be long before he became a fully fledged Secretary of State for Scotland. It is wonderful that that has come to pass. This is an important debate, not least because it will sort out the problem of the Barnett formula by effectively abolishing the need for it.”
“Friend the Member for Gainsborough has great clarity and takes the debate forward by leapfrogging other proposals. Obviously it could not be implemented instantly, but it would not leave the matter of when to introduce full fiscal autonomy to the discretion of the Scottish Parliament, as amendment 89 proposes. Instead, new clause 3 would ensure that this Parliament would agree now on full fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament. That would be a good way for this Parliament to say to the Scottish people that we respect their decision in the recent general election and that we respect the decision of their elected representatives, as enunciated by the hon. Member for Dundee East, to support this new clause.”
“That has been the problem: for too long, we have been sharing these responsibilities between one part of the United Kingdom and another, with one part being played off against the other. That has meant that those wanting to promote a particular agenda have been given ammunition, because they have been able to argue that the sharing of the responsibility has been ill defined. It is almost invariably ill defined and open to interpretation. Indeed, some of the evidence we heard suggested that such disputes would ultimately have to be determined by the courts. It was suggested that the courts in the United Kingdom would determine what Parliament had decided on a particular split or shared responsibility. What a recipe for conflict and division! The new clause tabled by my hon.”
“The consent of the Treasury would be needed for any changes in old age pensions which would affect the liabilities of the National Insurance Fund.” So, by giving full fiscal autonomy to the Scottish Parliament, we would also be giving it full fiscal responsibility. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in an intervention, that is an important and worthwhile matter. My constituents are worried about the mix and match approach, however. When I had the privilege of being a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, we took evidence in Scotland. One of the most telling pieces of evidence came from an academic—I cannot remember which university he came from—who said that shared responsibility would be a recipe for conflict.”
“Governments and official Oppositions are often reluctant to change the line they have taken when faced with strong arguments against it. In the course of this debate, my hon. Friend has shown that new clause 3 finds favour with a large number of Members across this Committee. I support it because it would do what is stated in the explanatory statement: “entirely remove the remaining reservations over financial and economic matters, home affairs, trade and industry, energy, transport, social security, regulation of the professions, employment, health and medicines, media and culture and other miscellaneous matters.”
“The last two and a half hours have been fascinating, and show what this Chamber should be about. The Government and the Opposition Front Benches have come in with their own ideas and during the course of the debate it has become apparent that the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has captured the imagination of the Committee and has superseded amendment 89 proposed by the Scottish nationalist party, and I say to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie)— [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for Dundee East that I think he has made a very wise decision in saying he is going to bring the full weight of his party in Parliament behind my hon. Friend’s new clause. It is much clearer than his party’s amendment. The hon. Gentleman should get credit for that.”
“The Government have said that they wish to give a say to local people in relation to onshore wind farms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be ironic if they were not giving a say to local people in relation to offshore wind farms, which can have an equally dramatic impact on local communities—as will the 26 mile corridor of cables across my constituency?”
“Understandably, the school believed that the education authority was, albeit reluctantly, accepting the decision, particularly when the 28-day period for objection laid down in the school organisation guidance for maintained schools expired. At page 10, the statutory process guidelines say that “Any appeal to the adjudicator”— in this case, the Secretary of State— “must be made within 4 weeks of the decision.” The Dorset County Council cabinet considered that issue on 8 April and concluded: “The local authority will retain its right to refer to the Secretary of State should the decision by the Governing Body of St Ives First School, after consultation, not address the concerns raised by the local authority”.”
“On 18 May, Mr Minns, head of learning and inclusion at Dorset, wrote to the chairman of the governors concluding that, following the discussion of the local authority’s concerns about the school’s management of the process to convert from a first to a primary school, those concerns had been satisfactorily addressed. That was subject to three caveats, one of which was to ask a local authority officer to “undertake a new assessment of the space in potential readiness for September 2016”. That was an implicit acceptance that the year 5 accommodation for September 2015 was readily available, as indeed it is.”
“To begin with, the education authority tried to find fault with the proposed accommodation, site security, financial planning and the impact on the pre-school. It even threatened to issue a notice to improve. That led to a meeting at the school on 12 May when most of the grounds of objection were shown to be without foundation. Most fundamentally, the local education authority had to accept that St Ives was constructed as a primary school and operated as one until the county boundaries changed in 1974. It is also a strong school financially.”