Transcript of the conversation: the Italicized script is Sir Christopher Chope's responses
We are in conversation with Sir Christopher Chope, Conservative Member of Parliament for Southampton, Itchen from 1983 to 1992 and then Christchurch from 1997 onwards. Early in his career he was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. He later became Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport. Known for his parliamentary etiquette and parliamentary perfectionism, he is well known for his hard-working attitude representing the Conservative cause. As an early Brexiteer, Sir Christopher Chope supported the grassroots Leave Means Leave campaign.
This is Niwa Limbu, contributor and editor for the Bruges Group. Firstly, it's my pleasure to have you, Sir Christopher.
My pleasure. Thank you for inviting me on.
No worries. Firstly, what's on everyone's mind so far is the issue of the Rwanda bill.
I briefly wrote about it on the peers hijacking the bill and the significance of the amendment through Jay for the Bruges Group recently. So I wanted to know firstly, what are your thoughts on the government accepting such an amendment that would change the trajectory of the bill? And I wanted your analysis, Chris, on what it means for the upcoming election.
Well, I think as far as the government's concerned, it would be pleased that it's got the bill through onto the statute book. My frustration is that actually we could have done it much sooner. We delayed unnecessarily over the Christmas recess and then we delayed completely unnecessarily over the Easter recess because we could have finished the the exchanges between the Commons and the Lords before Easter, in which case we the bill would be now would have been for four weeks on to the sooner to get rather sent.
And obviously the rest of the program for sorting out the boats would have been brought forward by at least another four weeks. So I think it's actually the fault of the government that it's been delayed as much as it is. And it's not necessarily the fault of their lordships. Whether it's going to work as a deterrent, only time will tell. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that the fact that quite a lot of people who seek to cross the channel in small boats end up drowning. That in itself doesn't seem to be an adequate deterrent. So is the threat of being deported to Rwanda and then not being able to re-enter the United Kingdom, is that going to be a sufficient deterrent? Only time will tell.
I think particularly one question that many grassroots conservatives are asking themselves, and many of the media actually, was what will be the significance of the Rwanda bill for the manifesto upcoming for the general election in the year ahead. What are your current thoughts with Rwanda? Do you think it would be a mainstay policy issue for Rishi?
Well, obviously there's going to be a divide between the parties because the Labour Party have said that they will repeal the legislation or not use it. They wouldn't need to repeal it because all they need to do was to take an administrative or political decision and not to seek to uh remove any asylum seekers to Rwanda so they could do that if there was a labor government, they could do that from day one.
And there's obviously going to be a major issue in the election uh between uh the parties on the issue of illegal migration uh and I think that quite a lot of commentators are saying, well, there's a lot of frustration with amongst conservative supporters that the failure to deliver on the stop the boats commitment. But the other side of that coin is, would things be any better if there was a different government? And the answer is, no, they certainly wouldn't. And if people vote for reform because they have got a more purist approach to this, which they can have because they haven't got to consider it against the background of the reality and the law, Are people going to vote for reform on the issue of the boats?
I think that the genuine desire of the Prime Minister is to stop the boats, and he's doing almost everything within his power to achieve that. And perhaps we'll come on later, as you said, to discussing the European Convention on Human Rights and the extent to which that is inhibiting our ability to take these decisions for ourselves. But I didn't think anybody could doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister on this. And so that will be an issue in the general election, but it will also be looked at against the issue of competence. Have we got a grip on it?
I'm particularly interested in the sort of ideas of small boats and the whole particular importance on the issue of immigration, because last night it was reported that a seven-year-old girl was among five other deaths on the small boats.
And it was reported it was coming from France. It was also reported from Facts4EU that the French police watched 112 of their illegal immigrants boarding a single, clearly overloaded small boat before the tragedy ensued. So, it's clear from my side that Emmanuel Macron's France is refusing to take back its illegal immigrants. And he says this is an EU Commission decision. And we all know that also von der Leyen, and their EU Commission have simply refused to agree a return deal with the UK. So aside from the Rwanda bill, what do you think a next Conservative government can ensure for stronger measures to legal process?
Well, you're right to draw attention to the laid-back approach of the French enforcement authorities. I had a constituent who happened to be staying in a hotel about probably June or July last year, and he saw from his hotel bedroom people coming down the beach out of the sand dunes and getting into a dinghy that had been brought in from offshore to the shore. And there were gendarmes around but allowed the people to get on board and then leave. And apart from anything else, if you were setting up a ferry company in the United Kingdom and transporting people without a passenger license, without any safety provisions and all the rest of it, you will be hauled in front of the magistrates. And yet the French authorities seem to be totally indifferent to what's happening and almost encouraging it. And so, what else can be done? I think that the French have got their own agenda.
And despite all the money that we have spent on subsidising the French, it doesn't seem to be producing any reduction in the number of boats setting out. Obviously, the numbers in this sea are already higher than they were in the same period last year. So again, something has got to be done. But how can we achieve that unless we can get rid of our responsibilities to the European Convention on Human Rights and essentially turn these boats around if they leave France illegally? And I think that some tough action along those lines is really what's going to count in the end.
So, what would be the main idea for having a tougher stance on our continental allies? Because clearly, even giving the French millions of pounds, it seems to not be working. They're having exactly what you're saying, Sir Christopher, a laid-back approach. So how can we deter and encourage the French to actually take accountability for their own borders?
Well, I think one of the problems is Schengen. Because as soon as these migrants get into Italy or into Bulgaria or wherever, that they can basically move across the European mainland without any checks or controls. And so, if the French were really serious about addressing this problem, I think they would want to come out of Schengen and introduce proper border controls between, say France and Italy. But I don't see that happening because obviously it will be at odds with the great European project for a United States of Europe. But unless that happens, then we're going to have people wanting to come to the United Kingdom because they've got friends or relatives here.
And also, we've got quite a well-developed informal economy where people can just disappear below the radar, engage in illegal working with impunity. And unlike situation in France where there's a lot more ghettoization, here people just seem to arrive and fit in with our economy and so it's not easy. And I put forward a private member's bill, which I've repeated year after year, which basically should emphasize that to be in the United Kingdom as a foreigner without lawful authority is in itself an offense. And you should be deported. And the line taken by the Home Office is, well, we don't want to criminalize these people. But it doesn't add up. We've got a farcical situation where people feel that there's one law for the foreigners and there's another law for the homegrown people.
And just to take an example, the other day somebody complained to me that they visited a doctor of surgery in London and there was a big sign up saying, you don't need to prove who you are, give any details of your identity, you can access our GP services at will and on demand. By contrast, if you are a local resident in that area and you go and say, I'd like to register with my GP, you're going to be told, well, we can't register you because we haven't got any spaces, and even if you were registered, you would have to provide all your details so that people knew who you were. Double standards. And there doesn't seem to be any resolution to this, except at the moment there seems to be a lack of will on the part of the various authorities to combine against these people who are here illegally.
I think this can easily segue us to our next questions on Europe. So, the EU's Commission recently proposed initiatives for uh restrained for this idea of a free movement, particularly for young people aged 18 to 30. Now, Keir Starmer has recently said that he would not support such a movement. However, in the past with the labor leadership hustings, he supported a free movement free movement deal for 18 and up to 30 year olds. So, in your eyes, Sir Christopher, an elected Keir Starmer labor government, do you think they will follow in alignment with the EU while disregarding the disproportionate costs and limited advantages of such initiative for British citizens?
Well, I'm very suspicious about the Labour Party's attitude towards the EU because they rely among their core supporters on a lot of people who remainers and remainers or now rejoiners. And that's one of the frustrations that we still haven't completed Brexit. We've almost completed it, but we haven't completed it. And why should we have a system where the French and the European authorities do not engage in enabling our people to have free movements in the same way as we? We don't have free movement as such with the United States, but we have reciprocal visa arrangements which make travel into the United States virtually seamless. So it's now easier to go to the United States than it is to the continent of Europe in many cases. And the United States doesn't say they're only offering these privileges to people of 30 and under.
So that's just a political game playing, I'm afraid, and the Labour Party look as though they're going to fall in behind that and take advantage of the fact that a very large number of the younger peoples seem to not be able to understand the significance of having control over your own destiny and the importance of sovereignty. They see this issue just as one of personal convenience.
I totally agree with that. So, in recent light, with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights regarding Switzerland's bound responsibility to combat climate change under the ECHR. Now, I know we have our own problems with the ECHR regarding immigration. However, this overlaps the idea that the ECHR as a whole is just a step too far over non-parliament made legislation having jurisdiction over climate related matters.
So, Christopher, what are your thoughts on the potential implications of this ruling for countries considering the ECHR?
Well, I think the only judge who disagreed with the judgment, and he did in part, was the British judge. And I think he made some good points about overreach and the implications of this. And it may well be that the... The consequences are much more serious for the credibility of the European Convention than the judges who delivered this judgment realized, because there may be a very strong reaction in Switzerland against this gross interference and extension of the convention to cover areas which it was never designed to cover. And judge made law over which domestic parliaments have got no control is really the anathema. So, it may well be that this judgment gives more countries the impetus to question the membership of the European Convention.
And certainly, I think it may give us a further reason to question it. And then when you look at a bill which I'm totally against, but the tobacco and vapes bill, which is before Parliament, now it's quite clear to me, and I think to lots of other commentators, that in essence that bill is extremely vulnerable to being challenged successfully in the European Court of Human Rights, because it is going to discriminate against different adults on the basis of what they are allowed to do lawfully, and that seems to be in primarily in breach of the convention. So we could have the ironic situation in which a cross-party alliance between labor and conservatives who want to control the ability of people to be able to fly tobacco that that cross-party alliance could end up saying, well, we're not going to be able to do what we want to do as long as we remain members of the convention.
So, there could be an unholy alliance on the basis of that. Of course, the trouble is it will be several years down the road because it takes three, four, five years before a challenge can end up with a judgment of the court. But the European Convention on Human Rights is, I think it's served its purpose. We don't need to be members of the convention any longer and lots of commentators pointed out that some of the most desirable democracies to live in the world they don't belong to such a convention they decide their human rights laws themselves domestically and so we could do exactly the same.
I think on the climate matter, we could talk about net zero now. So Christopher, considering the recent challenges faced by Tesla and the concerns raised by your colleague, Sir John Redwood, regarding the recent rush to adopt electric vehicles, what are your thoughts on the current trajectory of the Conservative Party's policies on net zero? Are there aspects that need reassessment or a complete reboot, especially in light of issues surrounding electronic vehicle adoption and the broad impact applications of energy infrastructure and sustainable goals, such as you let's proportion for the average Londoner.
Well, I voted against the original climate change legislation, so that sets out where I am and I think that the problems we have got directly emanate from failure to do a proper analysis of the potential costs and benefits of legislating in this area. There was never any open discussion and debate about what having a net zero target for 2050 was actually going to mean in practice for ordinary people. And so, I'd like to see the government retreat a lot more on that than they have so far. the points you make about electric vehicles.
Who are the real beneficiaries from this? It's the Chinese. Because the Chinese are continuing to build coal-fired power stations, they're still continuing to increase their use of fossil fuels to sustain their economy and their manufacturing industry. They are talking about not increasing that from a date sometime in the future. But as of now, they are continuing to do that. They're also benefiting from our dependence upon the raw materials and the rare minerals which go into making batteries. And the Chinese are hoovering up battery production. They're also coming in now and taking advantage of the fact that the traditional diesel and petrol vehicle production in Europe is being curtailed arbitrarily by government interference, saying we're going to be more dependent on electric vehicles. And the Chinese are able to produce those electric vehicles at much lower cost than we are.
And the only encouraging thing about all this is that consumers are not fooled. And so why has there been a big turn down in support for electric vehicles, largely because if you buy an electric vehicle as an individual, then after about three years, that electric vehicle is going to be virtually worthless. And the drop in value in the second-hand market and the realization of that is actually now causing consumers to change their behavior. And I think it will result in more pressure on whatever happens in the general election, more pressure on the government to postpone indefinitely that 2035 deadline by which the only new vehicles which will be able to be sold will be electric powered ones.
You add in the problems about the infrastructure and the grid and all the rest of it. That just compounds the situation. And a whole lot of other areas where Joe Public is increasingly complaining about the costs. We see that everybody's talking about the government wants people to convert to heat pumps. But who are the people who are actually benefiting from the heat pumps? The people who can afford the best part of £20,000 for a heat pump. So, they get the subsidies from the government, but the ordinary person who's paying their domestic electricity bills is ending up subsidising all that.
So, this is a policy that doesn't add up, and it's another example of where I think there's a sort of popular rebellion in the making, and it needs a political party to harness that popular discontent. on this policy. I think Sunet is taking the first tentative steps towards doing that and maybe a bit more pressure from reform will encourage him to have a bit more courage and go further. But that's the way we've got to go. We've got to clear up this artificial rulebook, which is resulting in absurdities and additional costs for individuals as well as the strengths upon the freedom of activity.
I think speaking about reform, we can now talk about candidate selection. If the viewers don't know here, Sir Christopher Chobe wonderfully talked about how candidates need to actually come back to the Conservative Party, actually represent the true authentic Conservative views as a local constituency candidate.
You noted in the conference that the grassroots Conservatives are not represented in the modern Conservative Party, where this blob-like progressive establishment has had its mainstay over the party. So, my question is, simple question, what feasible advice would you give the upcoming candidates, and what advice would you give them once elected into Parliament?
Well, being selected as a candidate at the moment, if you are a real Conservative, is very difficult. And one of the ways in which we used to operate was to give the power to candidates, ultimately to the members of a local constituency association. And when I was selected for culture, then at that stage, the seat had been won by the Liberal Democrats in the by-election. But when I was selected as their candidate, the membership of our association filled one of the local quarters.
Well, there must have been three, four or more hundred people there. We've recently got examples of candidate selections for so-called state seats with a few of those 50 people present and the choice of candidates has basically been controlled from the center so if we're going to attract people into the Conservative Party who share real Conservative beliefs and encourage them to get into Parliament, then we certainly got to give them the chance of being selected on merit rather than being restricted because they are thought to have traditional Conservative views. So, there's a real problem there, and if I was the leader of the Conservative Party, I'd have a root and grant change of what's happening in central office because I think the culture there is very hostile and has been for some time to real conservatives and that's one of the problems which we've got and we've selected a whole lot of candidates who become MPs who then turned out to be found wanting in various respects and why were they ever selected the first place? Largely because of the failings of the central office process so there's a big problem there. But as far as once they get into Parliament, obviously they need to have the courage of their convictions, because there's no point in being in Parliament if you haven't got any views of what you would have changed.
And just to go along with the blob or the prevailing orthodoxy, must lead to a very frustrating parliamentary career. And I say to some of my colleagues who've been ministers I said when you cease to be a minister, will you be able to say, well, this is what I changed, or this is what I tried to change, or are you just going to go and say, well, I just need along with all the civil servants advice and tick the boxes and carry my big red box home with me in the evening and signed everything beautifully and 7 came back to work in the morning so I hope that we are going to get a fresh group of individuals who are strongly motivated to promote those principles of freedom, responsibility, the small state, lower taxes, strong defence and so on. But we're a long way away from that at the moment.
My final question here. Recently, you attended a parliamentary debate on the COVID vaccines. A few days ago, in this speech, you raised concerns about the adverse effects experienced by some individuals following the COVID-19 vaccination, including delays in compensatory processes and access to therapeutic treatment for vulnerable people. What steps do you believe the government should take to address these issues and ensure timely justice and support for effective individuals from the COVID-19 vaccination?
Well, thank you for raising that question. Funny enough, I had a meeting with the Health Secretary on this matter earlier on this week. And that follows on from a question I put to the Prime Minister saying, why doesn't the government support my COVID-19 vaccine damage bill, because that bill, in a sense, sets out what the solution should be.
First of all, we must lift the limitation period from three years, because at the moment you cannot bring a civil action against the vaccine manufacturers or the government more than three years after the cause of action arose. For many people adversely affected by the vaccines, that cause of action would have arisen in the first six months of 2021. So, it's now, we're in a critical phase on that. And so, I raised that with the Secretary of State. I've also raised with her the delay in dealing with the caseload. The new cases are coming in at a rate of about 100 a week. More than 11,000 applications have been made, but only about 4,000 have been resolved. And the average time taken for cases where there has been a payment award is about 295 days.
And so, they need more resources there and they need to make sure that when an application is made to get the records for your health records in order to enable you to your claim that that is actioned quickly, but there's been big delays all through the system. And undermining, underlining all this is the need to ensure that there is vaccine confidence, because these vaccines are increasingly being regarded by people as being something which you should have got. Why is that? Because the government has been rather cabal in. The deal should have been that if you take the vaccine in the public interest and do the right thing, then if it turns out that you're in that small minority who suffer adverse consequences, that the government will see you right.
And that part of the equation, the deal, is not being fulfilled by the government. And we've got the same situation in a whole lot of other areas, including, obviously, the contaminated blood. And the government, particularly the health service, seems to be in denial. There's a sort of cultural reluctance to provide compensation where it is required and is needed in order to promote support and confidence in the vaccine system.
Well, Sir Christopher, thank you for your time. I thought that was very informative, especially on your bill. I think it's something for Bruges Group members and for followers of the Bruges Group to follow on and actually encourage their local constituency members department to actually support. So, thank you for your time, Sir Christopher.
