Early Parliamentary General Election (No. 2)

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman cannot be surprised that the Liberal Democrats are a party that wishes to stop Brexit. In a general election, where we will stand to secure a Liberal Democrat majority, such a Liberal Democrat majority Government would indeed revoke article 50. He should not be surprised by that position; perhaps he should pay more attention.

This Government and this Prime Minister have no mandate for a no-deal Brexit that they are trying to force on the British people. It is clear from the resignations of the right hon. Members for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) and for Hastings and Rye that he has no plans for securing a Brexit deal. He is not entering into this in any spirit of seriousness. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) made that point exceptionally well. How does the Prime Minister seriously think that with the previous occupant of that role having tried to negotiate a deal over the course of three years, he and he alone can achieve in four weeks what she failed to do and fight a general election at the same time—what arrogance. If he were serious about getting a deal, he would be negotiating hard in Brussels, not running away from the responsibility of the job that he now holds and said that he wanted for such a long time.

The right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made the excellent point that a general election cannot be guaranteed to resolve this issue one way or the other. The best way to do that is to hold a people’s vote on the Brexit deal. That is the best way to resolve this crisis—to give people the choice of the Brexit deal that has been negotiated or remaining in the European Union. I do not believe that there is a majority for any specific type of Brexit in this country, and we could determine whether that were the case in a people’s vote. The Liberal Democrats are crystal clear: we want to stop Brexit.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says that she wants a second referendum, but the problem for the British people will be that if the answer she gets is one that she does not agree with, the stated position of the Liberal Democrats is simply to ignore it.

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman might do well to pay rather more attention to his constituents in Cheltenham and what they would like to see happen. In answer to his point, of course Liberal Democrats want us to stay in the European Union, and we want people to have the ability to choose that option in a people’s vote. We have argued for—[Interruption.]

Leaving the EU: Preparations

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question, and I am disturbed by reporting to that effect. The rights of EU citizens in this country, and of course their dependants, will be protected, but if she wants to furnish me with the report to which she refers, I will look closely into it and, of course, write to her.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It would be infinitely preferable to secure a deal, which is why I and many hon. Members have voted three times to do exactly that. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in any circumstances the security of supply of medicines will be assured and that those medicines will be flown into the UK if necessary?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes two characteristically acute points. I voted for the withdrawal agreement on every opportunity presented to the House. I had hoped that more colleagues on the Opposition Benches would have done so. I am grateful to those colleagues on the Opposition Benches who have done so, because it will be infinitely preferable if we leave with a deal. However, my hon. Friend is also right that, as well as ensuring the freest possible flow of goods—including medicines—over the short straits, there should be additional capacity, both at sea and in the air, to safeguard citizens in this country.

Priorities for Government

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The Prime Minister’s father is a great champion of the environment. Will my right hon. Friend continue that noble family tradition?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly will, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything he does to promote the environment. It is amazing that thanks to the work of colleagues on the Government Benches, the environment and green issues are now seen as the agenda that we Conservatives lead on. We will continue with that, and make improvements to our environment that will be of immense value to the people of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

1. What support his Department provides to help developing countries manage the effects of climate change.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to prioritise (a) tackling the effects of climate change and (b) protecting the environment in developing countries.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to prioritise (a) tackling the effects of climate change and (b) protecting the environment in developing countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

It is clearly true that many of the people who are suffering most are from some of the poorest countries in the world that emit very little carbon, which is why a great deal of our emphasis is on the question of resilience. I have just returned from Kenya, for example, where we are working with pastoralists whose grassland is being eliminated and with people in Lamu who are losing mangrove swamps. Such countries are not emitting carbon but are suffering from its effects.

[Alex Chalk]

On that precise issue, what is being done to improve resilience in water security, to ensure that that does not become a source of conflict, or indeed disease, in future?

[Rory Stewart]

The question of water security is absolutely central. It poses the danger of conflict, for example in the Indus valley and along the headwaters of the rivers that flow into Egypt on the Nile. It is also an area where technology can help, however. We have become much better at preventing water waste. In many developing countries, 50% of the water is wasted; technology is part of the answer to this problem.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have already put extra money into schools. We recognise the pressures there have been on schools and are ensuring that they are funded. I read in the Maidenhead Advertiser that the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am about to step down from Parliament. I am not. He said that the Liberal Democrat party was looking forward to a by-election in the “Windsor and Maidenhead” constituency; that is not my seat. I believe he claimed that the Liberal Democrats were looking forward to taking the seat, but they could not even win it when they put 1,000 people on the streets of Maidenhead when it was a decapitation target. Wrong on prediction, wrong on facts—typical Liberal Democrats: wrong on everything.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Two of my constituents are relatives of Kirsty Boden, one of the victims of the London Bridge terrorist atrocity. Despite the fact that at least one of the terrorists’ families received legal aid for representation at the inquest, none of the victims’ families did. Does my right hon. Friend think that we need to look again at the entitlement to legal aid for inquests, so that those people who wish to ask questions about what happened to their loved ones are not left to fend for themselves?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue, and he will have seen from the reaction across the House the concern that people have about it. As I have said previously, we send our deepest sympathies to the families of the victims. I can see why my hon. Friend has raised this as a matter of concern. I understand that the Ministry of Justice is making a number of changes to ensure that there is more support for bereaved families, and we are committed to simplifying the process for applying for exceptional case funding, but I will make sure that the Ministry of Justice meets my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further.

European Council

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

In my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I pointed out that in a specific vote that is taking place on an EU response to these budgetary matters, we will be abstaining. On the wider issue, if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the impact that no deal would have on jobs in his constituency and more widely, I simply say to him that he had the opportunity to ensure that we left with a deal by voting for the deal. Parliament rejected that deal, and I believe he voted against it.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It seems overwhelmingly likely that Russia will seek to obstruct the extradition of the Russian nationals suspected by the Dutch authorities of involvement with the downing of MH17, just as Russia obstructed the extradition of nationals suspected of involvement in the killing of Alexander Litvinenko and the Novichok poisonings. What more can be done, as a European community of nations, to ensure that Russia abides by its international obligations and brings suspects to justice?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will know that, in terms of the activities of Russia across a range of issues, the European Union has used the tools at its disposal. I referred in my statement to the sanctions in relation to Russian activity, particularly in Ukraine, but it is the case—he is right—that Russia does not permit the extradition of Russian citizens who are suspected of crimes in other jurisdictions. We all across the world should recognise the importance of ensuring that those responsible for crimes can be brought to justice. I urge a change of opinion, but I suspect that Russia will continue to wish not to extradite its citizens, which means that those who have been the victims of crimes such as the use of Novichok on the streets of Salisbury, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko and the downing of MH17 do not find the justice that they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. A range of work was done locally, supported by the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office with councils’ consent, to ensure that voters were aware of the requirements. The indications so far are that that has been successful, but of course we will look at the Electoral Commission’s independent review before making further decisions on the process.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

5. What plans the Government has to encourage more candidates with disabilities to stand for election.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Brandon Lewis)]

The Government are working with disability organisations to help political parties better support disabled candidates. In December 2018, we launched the £250,000 EnAble fund, providing grants that cover disability-related expenses that people might face when seeking elected office.

[Alex Chalk]

I have met many talented students with disabilities in Cheltenham from the National Star College, so I commend my right hon. Friend for removing disability expenses from the electoral spending limits. Surely, that should apply across the United Kingdom. Does he not agree that it should be rolled out to Wales, too?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is, of course, a matter for the Welsh Labour party in the Welsh Assembly. We have taken the view here that excluding disability-related expenses is vital to closing the gap between candidates with disabilities and candidates without disabilities, therefore enhancing equality of opportunity.

Votes at 16

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered votes at 16.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. In November 2017, I brought this subject forward in a private Member’s Bill, which sought not only to modernise the age at which people can vote, but to reform political education in schools and much more. After many years of debate and campaigning to extend the franchise, the time has now come to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote.

I feel a great deal of pressure, not because of the grandeur of this place, but because of the young people from my town who inspired me to present my private Member’s Bill and to continue the debate after that, because they believe so passionately in this issue. When I presented my private Member’s Bill, I had the pleasure of having members of the Oldham youth council in the Public Gallery. They were disappointed that the Bill did not proceed, but I am continually inspired by their faith, spirit and continued vigour as they seek to achieve their aim of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Across all age groups, people in Oldham generally say, “I didn’t know what I was about when I was 16 and 17, so why should we extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds today?” It strikes me that we are setting the bar much higher for 16 and 17-year-olds than for over-18s when it comes to taking part in our democratic exercise. If we wanted to be completely flippant about it, we could say that the only test at the moment when it comes to our franchise is whether someone believes what is plastered on the side of a bus. The truth is that there is no real age test when it comes to participation in our democratic and civic institutions. It should be about spirit, commitment and making the effort to be an active citizen taking part in our democracy.

I am always impressed at the quality and tone of the debate in my local youth council and the Youth Parliament. I am also impressed at how much research goes into everyday issues that we might take for granted. These young people are thinking about their lives and what the future brings, so certain issues mean much more to them.

Extending the franchise is not about left or right. Some Conservatives are concerned that a lot of 16 and 17-year-olds will be more left-leaning, and they think, “They’re not going to vote for us, so why on earth should we prioritise giving them the franchise, when it could be to our detriment at the ballot box?” I do not believe that that is a robust argument, but it has been used.

When I go to my sixth-form college, Oldham College or my local youth council, there is a genuine range of views across the spectrum of political opinion. It is not the case that all young people are Labour left voters; there is a richness of debate and challenge when they take part in political exchanges. I genuinely say to our Conservative friends that there is nothing to fear. However, we all need to make an effort to reach out and to convince young people that we are worthy of their vote. That is healthy for democracy.

The fact is that our democracy and our franchise have always evolved. Some 200 years ago, men and women marched from my town to Peterloo in Manchester, demanding the right to vote—no taxation without representation—and for us all to be treated equally. A number of those people did not return home: five people from my town were killed at Peterloo demanding the right to vote. Last year we reflected on 100 years of women’s suffrage. In my town, we fought for two years to raise funds for a statue of our heroine, Annie Kenney, not only to remember her contribution, but to remind us that what we too often take for granted today was hard fought for by generations that went before us.

We are not just the beneficiaries but the custodians of those rights—they are fragile, important and precious, and we should value them. However, they come with a responsibility to take on reforms in our generation too. Extending the franchise to be more inclusive is the democratic challenge of our generation, and it is one we should take up. Let us bear in mind that less than 50 years ago, 18, 19 and 20-year-olds were denied the right to vote. Our democracy and our franchise have always been evolving, and we have sought to expand them, rather than to narrow them down, and to include and engage people.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point about extending the franchise and about democracy being a progressive, ongoing process. On that basis, would he rule out extending the franchise to 13-year-olds? What is it about 16 that means it should be the limit? Why not go lower still?

[Jim McMahon]

That is a fair challenge. At what point do we draw the line? I would say it is at the point at which young people take an active interest in politics, which is generally when they go to sixth form or college or they begin their life as an apprentice in the world of work. That is also the point at which they begin to pay national insurance, and there is that fundamental point about those who pay direct taxation wanting to have a say in how the Government spend that taxation on their behalf. No taxation without representation—that matters as much for 16-year-olds as for 18-year-olds.

In truth, this is not about 16 and 17-year-olds at all. Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, if we gave people the right to vote on their 16th birthday, it would be another five years until they could vote in a general election. It does not mean that, at the point at which they turn 16, they will elect a Government; it is the point at which they become part of the franchise, taking part in local, mayoral and devolved elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Thank you very much for calling me to speak, Mr Howarth. It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). If I may say so at the outset, what a pleasure it is to hear this matter being debated in a responsible and uplifting atmosphere, because there will be young people watching this debate and those are the sorts of qualities that have been in short supply recently.

However, I am afraid that I take a different view on this issue to other hon. Members and I will explain why. One of the points made by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) that resonated me was that democracy is enriched by having the widest participation possible. That sounds unanswerable, but it begs a question: what is the widest participation possible? Should 13-year-olds be allowed to participate? I have met some 13-year-olds who speak with great authority on political issues. However, the fact is that we in this House have to make a decision about what the cut-off point for such participation should be.

What should be the underlying principles for that decision? The first principle that we have to grapple with is whether we take the view that it is only adults who should be able to vote, or whether we say that people who are not yet at the age of majority should be able to vote. I take as a starting point the UN convention on the rights of the child, which is absolutely clear. It says that young people have the right to be treated as children, and by the way that means that they should be afforded the rights they should enjoy as children up to the age of 18. That manifests itself in issues such as service on the frontline, and so on and so forth.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Chalk]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment; let me just develop the point a fraction.

That acknowledgement of the age of majority at 18 is, in fact, reflected across the overwhelming majority of countries that are signatories to the United Nations. We could be forgiven in this place for taking the view that, “Well, actually, the world is moving towards 16,” but that is simply not the case at all. The United States, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain—in all those countries, the voting age is 18. In other parts of the world, things differ; for example, in Singapore the voting age is 21. It is true that some countries are moving in the direction of allowing voting at 16, Austria being one, but they remain overwhelmingly in the minority.

If we want to take the view that adulthood begins at 16, it is critically important that our country does so consistently. Otherwise, we would have the very odd situation where someone would be perceived to be old enough to vote in an election, but when they came out of the polling station they would not be entitled to walk across the road and go into a betting shop to “vote” on the outcome of that election; that would be odd. Alternatively, what about the situation where a 16-year-old, having voted in a general election, would not be entitled to sit on a jury to decide whether or not one of their peers was guilty of a serious crime, such as murder, manslaughter or rape?

My final point about inconsistency is that under the proposals, someone might be old enough to vote but not mature enough—so the law says—to use a tanning booth or buy fireworks. I am not saying for a second that there is not a legitimate argument to be had, but I think the electorate would find it extremely curious if we were to say that a person has the maturity to decide who should be the Government of a country that spends collectively £842 billion every year, yet does not have the maturity to decide to use a tanning booth.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is okay that 16-year-olds can join the Army?

[Alex Chalk]

Of course, they can join the Army, but they are not entitled to serve on the frontline in a way that might put them at risk of losing their life. In some ways, I respectfully suggest that the hon. Lady’s point makes the argument for me. Part of the reason why 16-year-olds cannot serve on the frontline and be at risk of losing their life is that under the UN convention on the rights of the child, child soldiers may not serve on the frontline. That is in recognition of the fact that we take the view that children are children and adults are adults.

I am not suggesting for a second that this is not a legitimate argument to have, but people watching this debate might take the view that there is a broad consensus in Parliament to move towards votes for 16-year-olds. I do not sense that there is such a consensus and, critically, that view is not echoed in the court of public opinion. Polling tends to suggest that there is not a majority in favour of reducing the voting age.

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Chalk]

Let me make one last point. Before I came into this place, I spent a lot of time as a barrister, and when I go into schools in my constituency such as Pate’s Grammar School, Balcarras or Bournside and ask, “If you were accused of a crime you had not committed, would you be happy to be put on trial with a jury made up of 16-year-olds?”, the schoolchildren often say, “Perhaps not.” Just imagine the inconsistency. The trials that I have prosecuted might involve post-mortem photos—really grisly and explicit photographs—and we take the view as a society that people aged 16 are not old enough to watch a film in the cinema such as “The Wolf of Wall Street” or “The Silence of the Lambs”, or to see those kinds of explicit photographs in a jury trial. If those people were considered old enough to vote, that would be a troubling inconsistency.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point about how we need to follow opinion polling. Does that mean that, based on opinion polling, he will be making representations to legalise capital punishment again?

[Alex Chalk]

No, I do not think that. Of course, it is right to recognise that opinion polls do not determine everything that happens in this place, but I would hate for the impression to somehow be given that there is a groundswell of popular support for votes at 16. That is not the case at all. By all means, let us have the argument in this place and try to shift public opinion if that is where some Members want it to go, but it would be wrong to create the impression that public opinion is with them. I simply do not think it is.

[Gavin Robinson]

There is a strength to the hon. Gentleman’s argument about consistency, although I detect a change in the overall direction of travel of Parliament on this issue. Could I ask him to return to his point about consistency, reflecting that there is now a lack of consistency with Scotland and Wales?

[Alex Chalk]

There is, and one could take the view that because the position has changed in Scotland, we should reflect that throughout the entire United Kingdom. That is a legitimate argument, but if one takes the view that the decision in Scotland was an aberration, why would we want to continue it elsewhere? I want to make it crystal clear that Scotland has a very large measure of devolution; it is a country, to a very large extent, and it is important to recognise its differences. [Laughter.] Well, it is a country.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Alex Chalk]

If Scotland wants to introduce votes at 16, that is a matter for Scotland, but I do not see that it is an argument for doing so across the United Kingdom. Of course, one recognises the injustice of some 16-year-olds not being able to vote—I have met some extremely sophisticated and politically astute young people—but there has to be a dividing line somewhere. If we want to make the age of 16 that dividing line, it has to be consistent across the piece. It is not consistent now, and unless we are going to change our fundamental assessment of when adulthood begins, the case for changing the voting age has not been made.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

I do not want to inhibit people from intervening, because I accept that it is a useful way of conducting the debate. However, the more interventions that are made and accepted, the less likely it is that I will get everybody in. I am going to reduce the informal time limit to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

No, I will not; the hon. Gentleman has spoken long enough. The Government are not listening to young people. They have not had a say and the Government have not even tried to reach out to them at such a crucial time, yet those young people, all being well, will live a lot longer than most people in this place. We are debating their future and they cannot understand why their voice just does not count.

When I meet young people, the issues they want to discuss are the burning injustices across our society. They advocate their points with passion, deep understanding, thoughtful political processing and reasoned arguments that are outstanding and well researched. They also look to the longer-term consequences of decision making, which is rare in this place. I am inspired that young people have such thought, and it gives me real hope. They re-energise me and recommit my focus on the important issues we are here to fight. It is arrogance that denies our young people a voice. They rightly put this place to shame. They put many in this place to shame for not wanting them to have their franchise. The Labour party values that voice and the challenge young people give us all. We will give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote.

Another side to politics that arises from this issue—people should not patronise by saying we need to educate young people first, although I am a massive advocate for political and citizenship education—is that today, it is the young people who are educating politicians. While the Government are self-absorbed in their survival, the young people who they have denied a vote are finding an alternative political voice. It is not a cross on a piece of paper, but something far more powerful. They are taking to the streets and challenging this archaic monument. They are showing Westminster that they have a voice and are going to use it. They hold the power, and they will make the change and use it to highlight the biggest political issue of our time. The climate strikers have just started their campaign, and they will take power and show up this place if it does not respond to the most pressing issue on our planet, which is causing so much conflict in our world. It is causing people to move from their homes. It is causing floods and famine on our Earth. I was overwhelmed by the determination of the 200 climate strikers in York, and I expect far more to come out a week on Friday.

If denied a vote, young people will find another way of doing politics that will surpass this place. They are determined, defiant and demanding change. We all have power, young and old. The question is what we do with it. In order for the climate strikers to have climate change at the top of the political agenda, Labour will not only give young people a vote, but will listen to their voice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. We have heard a great many contributions from Members on both sides of the Chamber, and we have had quite a lot of consensus. It is notable that we have heard fantastic contributions from a number of Members from Scottish constituencies. There is a really strong argument that, where people have seen votes for 16 and 17-year-olds work successfully, they have warmed to it.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) for securing today’s debate. He campaigns tirelessly on this issue and is a great advocate for young people in his constituency. They have asked him to raise this issue in Parliament, and he has done so diligently. I enjoyed his comments about his constituency’s connections to Peterloo and about the Oldham suffragette Annie Kenney, reminding us that this is about not just extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds but extending democracy and increasing participation.

I shared my hon. Friend’s frustration two weeks ago when this House did not have the opportunity to debate his amendment to the Overseas Electors Bill—an amendment that had gathered cross-party support and would have been a significant step towards securing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. We can safely say that private Members’ Bills have not been an effective vehicle on this issue. I therefore welcome the opportunity to debate this important topic, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Many arguments have been made about the age of maturity. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) argued strongly on that, and I disagreed with him on a number of issues. I enjoyed his comment that a 16 or 17-year-old is not eligible to serve on a jury. Of course, neither is anyone above the age of 75. Unless we are going to restrict the franchise at the upper end as well, his argument is somewhat inconsistent. Such arguments fail to capture the spirit of the debate. Above all, this debate is about strengthening our democracy, inclusion and how to involve all society in shaping a vision for our country. I believe our democracy would be made stronger by such an improvement to it.

A key reason why Labour is strongly in favour of votes at 16 is that it would help to increase voter turnout and develop lifelong voting habits. A recent study by Demos found that only 37% of young adults in the UK feel that British politics today reflects the issues that matter to them, which concerns me. No wonder we are seeing high levels of voter apathy and low turnout when voters are not directly engaged from a young age and feel unrepresented from their first point of contact with the political sphere.

[Alex Chalk]

If the hon. Lady thinks that young people have the right level of political maturity to vote at 16, does she think that they have the right level of maturity to buy fireworks? If she does, why did her party vote in favour of banning that?

European Council

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have now answered that question on a number of occasions, so I refer the hon. Lady to the answers I gave earlier.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

If the Prime Minister’s deal is not to come back before the House, it is vital that this House has the opportunity to consider what it can agree on a cross-party basis. The Prime Minister kindly indicated that parliamentary time will be given over for that process but, notwithstanding that we will be getting a statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will she as Prime Minister indicate by when those votes will take place?

[The Prime Minister]

Although I have indicated that we would whip against the amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), if it were to pass it would lead to some votes taking place on Wednesday. The commitment that the Government have made is that there would be opportunities over this week and next week. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated that we would facilitate the opportunity for the House to make those decisions in the two weeks following last week’s European Council.

Overseas Electors Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I would like that to happen: before having an extension it would be useful to have a review of where we are now, because that might highlight some of the areas of concern. So, yes, I would like to see that done sooner rather than later.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. On the point he has just raised, does he agree that we would need to be satisfied that, in the event of an allegation of electoral impropriety, there will be the resources and willingness on behalf of overseas authorities to properly investigate that, because it could mean the difference between a correct result in an election or an incorrect result?

[Philip Davies]

I agree. The more people the franchise is extended to, the more chance of a result being affected by it, so my hon. Friend is right. That is why it is absolutely necessary that we get these things right. We must not just do them, find problems later and not really have a plan for how to deal with them. I would sooner we got it in place to start with and knew how we were going to try to prevent problems and deal with them once they arose.

I hope new clause 9 is self-explanatory. It would require the Cabinet Office or Secretary of State to

“within 12 months of the provisions of the Act coming into force,”—

it has a date on it for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough—

“lay before Parliament a report evaluating the effects of the Act and the extent to which it has met its objectives.”

I have to say that we pass legislation on a regular basis in this place, in a slightly willy-nilly fashion in my opinion, and we seem to do it often on a sentiment—a worthy sentiment usually—but I would like to see more legislation come with some conditions attached, one of which would be a review of it afterwards to see whether it is meeting the objectives set out. That should be standard in all pieces of legislation. We just pass a piece of legislation and then that is it so far as most people are concerned. We then move on to the next thing and often nobody ever revisits to see whether it is working. In fact, when anyone is asked to justify anything, they often use the fact that they have passed a piece of legislation as their justification for having done something, regardless of whether or not it was effective. I would like to see this new clause added to many more pieces of legislation.

[Alex Chalk]

May I gently suggest that my hon. Friend is uncharacteristically proposing unnecessary bureaucracy? The reality is that if something were perceived to have gone wrong, he has shown himself to be well able to draw it to the attention of the House. Does he not agree that if such a matter needed to be ventilated in public, there is no doubt that that could be done fully and robustly?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend thinks that flattery is going to get him everywhere, but on this occasion I am not entirely sure that it will. It is very kind of him to say what he did, and—if I may reply in kind—no one is better than him at asking incisive questions and getting to the nub of things, particularly given his background. The problem is that we pass so much legislation in this place covering such a wide area that, no matter how good or bad any of us might be, we just cannot keep on top of it all. It is impossible to do that, and we sometimes need a prompt to remind us of the pieces of legislation that have gone through. I do not think it would do anyone any harm if a report came out that made them think, “Oh yes, I remember this piece of legislation. I’m interested in this one.” Even the best of us forget from time to time what legislation has been passed through this House.