Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I am sorry to hear the hon. Lady referring to the national living wage as bogus. It is a very proud achievement of this Government and it is actually rising faster this year than the real living wage. Over the past three years, since it was introduced, the national living wage has handed the lowest paid workers a pay rise of almost £3,000.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to help improve the cyber-security of public and private sector organisations.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)]

Our world-leading national cyber-security strategy, supported by £1.9 billion of transformational investment, sets out the steps that we are taking to defend our people, deter our adversaries, and develop the skills and capabilities that we need. Our vision is that, by 2021, the UK is secure and resilient to cyber threats and prosperous and confident in the digital world.

[Alex Burghart]

I was concerned to read that three quarters of FTSE 350 companies are not aware of the risks associated with businesses in their supply chain, particularly with businesses with which they have no contact. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that their own suppliers understand these vulnerabilities?

[Oliver Dowden]

As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this very important issue. Companies must do more to understand their supply-chain risks. Our cyber essentials scheme extends our influence to organisations that provide products and services to Government; it specifies standards that will improve their cyber-security. We use contractual arrangements to ensure that they help those in their supply chains, often small companies, to be more secure.

No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I am obviously not terribly delighted that we are having a vote of confidence in the Conservative Government, but I suppose I might thank the Opposition for bringing my party back together today. We were heavily divided last night, but I can be confident that we are all going to go through the same Lobby together. It will be a bonding experience, so thank you very much for doing that for us.

It is of course quite right that we are having a vote of no confidence. We find ourselves in a peculiar hung Parliament in which, as the Leader of the Opposition said, the Government suffered a major defeat last night and have suffered a defeat on a money Bill. It is quite right that the confidence of the House is tested. However, we are all quite aware of what will happen. The Government are going to win this vote this evening, and then we are going to have to move on. The most interesting question is not about this vote, which is a foregone conclusion. It is about what is going to happen after that.

We know what the Prime Minister is going to do. She has offered to reach out, speak to other corners of the Commons and look for some consensus, but we still do not know what the Opposition are asking for. The fact that we have been put on the spot in a vote of no confidence, when the Opposition have not said what they would take to the public in the event of a general election is, quite frankly, shameful. That reminds me of how, in 1997, the Labour party managed to breeze into power without telling the public—[Interruption.] Yes, it won by a convincing majority, but it did not tell the public in advance what its policy was on the single European currency. That had to be wrung out of Labour when it was already in power. The Labour party has a track record on this. If it wants to go to the country, it at least should have the courtesy to tell the public what it would take into that vote.

[Helen Jones]

Record spending in the NHS.

[Alex Burghart]

Record debt is what we would have. The hon. Lady’s party is offering this country and my voters—my tax-paying constituents— £1,000 billion of extra debt. That is £35,000 extra for everyone who lives in this country.

[Helen Jones]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I am very happy to give way and take the extra time.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman, perhaps because he is rather younger than me, seems to have forgotten that, when the Labour party took office, NHS waiting lists were 18 months for some specialties. Under the Labour Government, there were practically no waiting lists in some specialties. We are all proud of that record.

[Alex Burghart]

And when the hon. Lady’s party left power, we had record debt, a crashed economy and a loss of confidence in our foreign policy after the disastrous Iraq war. The Labour party ran this country into the ground. Eight years later, we have record employment; we have rising wages—we have everything a sensible, evenly minded, well-balanced economy has brought. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a very unseemly atmosphere, but the hon. Gentleman is at least still smiling, and that is to be welcomed. [Interruption.] Order. Let us hear the hon. Gentleman.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The truth is that the Labour party left power under an enormous cloud. Everybody knows it. It left after a disastrous 13 years in office, in which the economy was destroyed, and Government Members are united in our desire to ensure that it does not have an opportunity to do that again. Let us be frank: the Blair-Brown years were a golden age compared with what would come after a general election this year, should the Labour party force one upon us. We would rather have Blair and Brown than Corbyn and McDonnell any day of the week, but those options are not available to the British public.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 14 November.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. The Cabinet will meet this afternoon to consider the draft agreement that the negotiating teams have reached in Brussels, and the Cabinet will decide on the next steps in the national interest. I am confident that it takes us significantly closer to delivering on what the British people voted for in the referendum. We will take back control of our borders, our laws and our money and leave the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy while protecting jobs, security and the integrity of our United Kingdom. I will come back to the House to update it on the outcome.

[Alex Burghart]

Yesterday saw the best wage growth figures in a decade and the best employment figures in my lifetime. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that that can only be delivered by the free market economics that unite this side of the House, and not by the bankrupt socialism opposite?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He references yesterday’s figures, which showed more people in work than ever before. They showed the female unemployment rate at a record low and, as he said, the fastest regular wage growth in nearly a decade. However, may I say to my hon. Friend that that is on top of figures last week that showed our economy growing three times faster than the eurozone average, the share of jobs on low hourly pay at a record low and the number of children in workless households at a record low? You only get that through good Conservative management of the economy.

Overseas Electors Bill: Money

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to him for his work in stewarding this very important reform to this point. He is absolutely correct that that engagement has taken place because he did much of it, and I am very grateful to him for that. He is also absolutely right to remind the House of the Government’s manifesto commitment. It is one that we take very seriously and hope to see enacted as soon as possible for the benefit of British voters.

I would like to address the amendment to the money resolution tabled by the Opposition. It would limit spending under this legislation to £10,000 in any financial year. That limit would remain until the financial year after the Minister—perhaps me—lays before the House a report on spending incurred under the legislation. To put this far more simply than the amendment, that means that there would not be enough money to implement the Bill, and yet the Bill is about enfranchising British citizens. It is about ensuring and broadening participation in our democracy. It is about giving the vote to people who do not currently have that right because they have moved abroad, but who are none the less British. It is an outrage that Her Majesty’s Opposition are acting in direct opposition to these aims.

Let us start with a matter of principle: in no electoral system do the Government set out how much they plan to spend on registering electors and then register only that many accordingly. That is not how we run our democracy. The Opposition talk of the need to give a voice to the under-represented—it is a theme that they like—but here they are blocking measures that do just that. These measures enfranchise those who were previously registered or resident in this country, and overseas voters are one of the most under-registered groups of all, at about 20% of those eligible.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain to the House the consequences of agreeing the amendment?

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly will: the amendment would simply starve the Bill of the money that it needs to do its job. It is a blocking amendment, a wrecking amendment—it would do nothing less than stop the policy from taking effect. We think that the policy is important, because it starts from a matter of principle, and we think that the Government should support that principle with the necessary spending. Let us be in no doubt about what the amendment would do. I will offer three reasons why I think the amendment should be rejected: it is convoluted, unrealistic and incoherent.

To start with the first of those, the amendment is byzantine in its wording and unnecessarily confusing on an issue that really ought to be clear. Parliament has already agreed this policy, on Second reading at a level of principle, so nothing can be clearer than saying to our fellow British citizens that we think they ought to have the vote. This amendment sullies that principle by putting obstacles in its way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jo Platt]

I will not give way, as I want to make some progress.

Until 2015, the number of overseas voters registered to vote had never risen above 35,000. However, at the UK general election in 2017, there were a record 285,000 such voters—a jump of more than 800%—following the various overseas voter registration campaigns directed by the Government, who have clearly begun to politicise the overseas electoral mechanism. The Opposition will therefore continue to do what is right for the country by upholding the integrity of our elections. We welcome the rising levels of participation among overseas electors in recent years, but they have created heavy administrative challenges for local authorities. We have seen the failures of past Government implementations, and we do not need another Tory policy failure at the public’s expense.

The existing provisions for registering overseas electors under the 15-year rule already involve an extremely challenging and resource-intensive process for electoral registration officers. According to the Association of Electoral Administrators, significant staff resources are required to process and check whether overseas electors have been registered within a local authority area in the past 15 years. The AEA has estimated that it takes roughly two hours to register one overseas voter, and because overseas electors fall off the register after 12 months, the vast majority of registration applications occur immediately ahead of a general election, when the pressure on electoral administrators is at its most intense. We must also recognise the wider pressures facing returning officers and electoral registration officers.

[Alex Burghart]

I just want to come back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), because it is important, given that we are discussing the proposed amendment. Will the hon. Lady tell the House what is meant by

“in any financial year prior to the financial year after the financial year in which a Minister of the Crown lays before the Commons a report”?

[Jo Platt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which obviously refers to that earlier question, but I need to press on with what I have to say.

Following the 2017 general election, the AEA called in a new report for

“urgent and positive Government action”,

outlining 33 recommendations to improve the electoral framework in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Let me begin by saying how pleased I was that the Bill received its Second Reading on 23 February, without a Division, and I very much hope it will now move forward to Committee. An Overseas Electors Act would introduce votes for life, removing an arbitrary rule that bars British citizens who have lived abroad for more than 15 years from voting in a general election.

The Bill has been well supported throughout the House of Commons by the Government, and I have received a great deal of support from many Opposition Members as well. I was particularly pleased at the large turnout on Second Reading, given that it took place on a Friday. As I have said before, I have received particularly good advice from my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who is in his place, and importantly from Opposition Members.

I wanted to intervene on the Opposition spokesman when she made one comment, but I was not allowed to do so; an accusation of politicising the debate was made, but I do not think anyone promoting a private Member’s Bill can have taken as much trouble as I have done to try to engage the Opposition and to depoliticise debate as far as possible. I resented the inference that was made. I did not intervene then, but I have had the chance to say that now.

The Bill addresses a crucial gap in our electorate, whereby currently only an estimated 1.4 million of the 4.9 million British citizens of voting age who live overseas are eligible to vote in UK elections. Those electors should be recognised as an integral part of our democracy, on a simple point of fairness. Many citizens who have moved overseas have a legitimate ongoing interest in the UK’s public affairs and politics. Many spent all their working lives in the UK and continue to have a direct interest in their pension rights. Many moved overseas to work, not having much choice, but will eventually return home to the UK on their retirement. Many have family connections that they wish to retain. Many want to retain the ability to communicate through the often unseen processes of maintained British influence all over the world, usually referred to as soft power, which is incredibly important.

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend raises a point that is close to my heart. A good friend of mine has been working in the charitable sector in Africa for 17 years and is now unentitled to vote. Does my hon. Friend find it outrageous that a British citizen who has gone abroad to work so hard has been excluded from voting here?

[Glyn Davies]

I certainly do. That is an example of why the Bill is important.

I know that others wish to speak, so I shall finish by saying that a detailed impact assessment has been submitted alongside the Bill. I refer right hon. and hon. Members to that impact assessment for a full overview of the costings.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

When I was elected to this place, I did not think that I would take such a keen interest in money resolutions and the private Members’ Bills process, but it is with a degree of trepidation that I have found myself down the rabbit warren of parliamentary procedure. I speak specifically about my experience serving on the Public Bill Committee for the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill.

It was with a degree of surprise that I saw on today’s Order Paper that the House was to be asked to agree to a money resolution given that two other Members—namely, the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)—have introduced private Members’ Bills that the House has voted democratically to give a Second Reading, but the Government have chosen, in an abuse of their Executive power, not to grant money resolutions on those Bills. As a result, the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill Committee, on which I serve, is currently in parliamentary purgatory. We have met in excess of 12 or 13 times on a Wednesday morning to consider a motion to adjourn. Because we do not have a money resolution, we cannot consider the Bill clause by clause and line by line, nor can we consider any amendments.

There is certainly a case of double standards here. It is inherently unfair that the Government are abusing their Executive power to stonewall private Members’ Bills, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) has brought forward his Bill—which is further down the queue than the Bills of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton and of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar—and it will progress on the back of the money resolution provided by the Government today.

The nature of this Parliament means that numbers are tight. The Government would do well to reflect on the tight parliamentary arithmetic. Their colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party currently seem to be holding a gun to their head and refusing to join them in the Lobbies. When the House divides in a few moments, we will see whether colleagues from Northern Ireland will join the Government in the Lobby.

Let me turn to the Bill. The right to vote is the bedrock of our democracy and no politician should get in the way of the public exercising that right, but I find myself somewhat in disagreement with the proposal from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. To be consistent, I take the view that the voting franchise should generally be as we had it in the 2014 independence referendum in Scotland: anyone living in the country should be able to vote. There should obviously be exemptions for those who work overseas, but the fundamental point remains that those who have the greatest stake in the nation’s future should be able to vote. In my view, that means that everyone over the age of 16 who lives in the country should be allowed to vote. In Scotland, we have extended the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds and I shall vocally press the UK Government to do likewise.

If the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the Conservative party as a whole wish to extend democracy, I politely suggest that they should start elsewhere. They should start by abolishing the House of Lords and introducing votes at 16.

[Alex Burghart]

In a hypothetical future referendum on Scottish independence, does the hon. Gentleman think that a Scotsman living in, say, Pimlico should be able to vote on the question of Scottish independence?

[David Linden]

In the 2014 referendum, the franchise was that those who lived in the country should be able to vote and our position now is no different. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can discuss it and I can explain it to him so that he understands it better, but—

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

The House will have heard the Japanese Prime Minister say that Britain would be welcomed into the trans-Pacific partnership with open arms. Does the Prime Minister agree that post-Brexit it would be wonderful if our country could meet Japan’s embrace?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously I have spoken to the Japanese Prime Minister about this issue, as I have spoken to other Prime Ministers of countries involved in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. I am very pleased that they want to welcome us into that trade agreement with open arms, and we stand ready to do exactly that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of intimidation experienced by people in public life.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Brandon Lewis)]

Intimidation can do real damage to our democracy and has no part to play in healthy debate. The Minister with responsibility for the constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), has launched a consultation on a new electoral offence of intimidating candidates and campaigners. I encourage anyone who has experienced this sort of unacceptable intimidation to respond and to take part in that consultation.

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that those who seek to interfere with the course of an election through criminal intimidation should face electoral sanction?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He is absolutely right. An electoral offence has a higher tariff. It is right that we are clear that our democracy is precious and important. We must do everything we can to protect robust debate with respect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

These matters are always the subject of keen discussion between the business managers of all political parties. I am sure that the hon. Lady will encourage her party’s spokesman to make those representations.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

T3. What progress is my right hon. Friend’s Department making on tackling the issues raised in the racial disparity audit?

[Mr Lidington]

Two weeks ago the Prime Minister launched a £90 million programme to help to tackle inequalities in youth unemployment. That is in addition to targeted employment support already under way in 20 areas across the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady has raised a very important issue. As she says, this is a complex problem, and we need to ensure we have long-term solutions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will shortly be publishing a new serious violence strategy, which will put an emphasis on early intervention with young people. It is important that we have tough legislation on knives, but we also need to work in partnership with retailers. We have recently consulted on new measures, including restrictions on knives sold online, and in March 2016, when I was Home Secretary, we reached a voluntary agreement with major retailers about how knives should be displayed and the training given to sales staff to support action to tackle knife crime. She is right, however, to raise this as an area of concern.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Q4. On the subject of Northern Ireland, does the Prime Minister stand by the commitments made in the joint report of December, and will she confirm that we will accept nothing that will undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we stand by all the commitments we made in December. We have been clear that our preferred option is to deliver on them through our new partnership with the EU, with specific solutions to address the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland if needed. The work we are undertaking with the Commission will include that on the final so-called backstop, which will form part of the withdrawal agreement. That cannot be the text that the Commission has proposed, which, as I have said, is unacceptable, but we stand ready to work with the Commission and the Irish Government to ensure that all the commitments on Northern Ireland made in the joint report are included in the withdrawal agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to promote value for money in aid spending.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to promote value for money in aid spending.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)]

We work continuously to improve the way we design, implement and monitor programmes. Spending money well, wisely and efficiently makes sense both because it is British taxpayers’ money and because it allows us to deliver better education, better healthcare and better nutrition for some of the world’s poorest people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend’s question on the Palestinian Authority is for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, but the basic principle is clear. This is not just about transparency. Transparency is not an end in itself, but a means to achieving accountability. It is not just about getting the data out there; it is about making sure that people in the developing world can access the data, understand the data and use the data. We can improve only if we are challenged.

[Alex Burghart]

I welcome the Minister’s comments on accountability. My constituents raise value for money in aid spending with me on a regular basis. Does he agree that accountability to people in poor countries is essential in getting value for money?

[Rory Stewart]

Absolutely, and the challenge of accountability in the developing world is great. Here in Britain, where there is a free media and a lot of civil society, it is very easy, as we all know, for people to challenge a rail project or what is happening in a hospital. In the developing world, we need to invest in ensuring that we have the right kind of beneficiary feedback, because it is the people on the ground who know more, and we will improve only if we listen.

Grenfell Tower Fire Inquiry

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I should like to extend my congratulations to the new hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). It feels a bit strange to be welcoming you to the House when I have only just arrived here myself, but you made a wonderful speech and I look forward to working with you—I mean “her”; I am still learning the conventions myself.

I greatly enjoyed making my maiden speech, but it gives me no pleasure to stand before the House today to talk about this tragedy that has befallen our country. I am afraid that it will be one of those disasters that mark this period in our history and that we will remember for a long time to come. The Prime Minister has responded to it entirely appropriately by calling for a judge-led inquiry, and I was pleased that the shadow Secretary of State did not question the basis on which we intend to proceed. The Prime Minister went to the Lord Chief Justice and asked for a senior judge to be appointed and to proceed with an inquiry that will look into the immediate causes of the fire as well as the wider issues. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) said earlier, that will give the inquiry the opportunity to report in two or more stages, so that local residents can hear the issues that have immediately affected them while the inquiry goes on to consider the broader questions that affect communities and councils in many areas across the country.

It is with reference to those wider issues that I want to make some remarks, and I declare a sort of interest in that for a while I was on the board of Yarlington Housing Group, a housing association in the west of England.

The first thing that struck me came from a BBC “Newsnight” investigation which suggested that developers may have used only desk-based research to persuade inspectors that the cladding was safe to use. If that is the case, serious questions must be answered following the tragedy, and we would want to know where else in the country that has happened.

The second thing is tenant feedback. If the reports are true that tenants had complained to the tenant management organisation about safety in the building and if those calls were not listened to, we need to know why. We need to know why the TMO was not picking up on the important feedback that only someone who lives in a building can give. I am not saying that had that feedback been listened to the fire would have been prevented, but without that feedback we can be certain that people in other buildings are being put at risk.

That brings me on to my next point: illegal sub-letting. It is a delicate, sensitive subject, and the Government have been absolutely right to announce an amnesty to encourage everyone to seek help and to come forward. Illegal sub-letting in our tower blocks and social housing discourages people from coming forward and reporting their concerns—it breaks that feedback. We all have to think of ways to ensure that people living in social housing can come forward and have their concerns heard.

My fourth point relates to something that I said in the House the other day, and it has been picked up on by a couple of other Members. What happened in Kensington and Chelsea prompts some serious questions about emergency and contingency planning in our local authorities. Just as some other authorities have used the cladding that seems to have been a major contributor to the fire, so other authorities may have emergency planning that leaves a lot to be desired. However, I was reassured by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that the Cabinet Office is already looking into that, and I am keen that that work is taken forward.

Before I sit down, I would like to reflect on something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). I am glad that we seem to be in agreement that we should have a judge-led inquiry. I was pleased that the shadow Secretary of State did not criticise Sir Martin, and I presume that he backs him in his role. Sir Martin is a highly respected judge and has achieved great things in his profession, dealing with extremely complex areas of law that will be relevant to this inquiry. That is an asset to the investigation, and we should all welcome that. His ability to do that work is not hampered by the colour of his skin or his social class. His skills have got him to where he is, and it is his skills that we should back. The inquiry will require some cool-headed thinking. It will not be helped by hot remarks that suggest to the families that the victims were intentionally killed by people in government. It will not be helped by remarks that suggest that someone’s impartiality is undermined by their social class. While we can debate its particulars, we all have a duty to get behind the inquiry and to encourage people who live in the area and in other tower blocks to come forward and be part of it.