Interserve

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Lady and I know that she has considerable expertise in this field. It is precisely for that reason that in reforming the process of outsourcing—the so-called playbook, the decisions that the Government go through in deciding how and whether to outsource—we now consider whether it is better to bring services in-house or to outsource them. There is a lot of evidence to show that outsourcing brings genuine efficiency savings and genuine innovation—the evidence shows that it can be between 20% and 30%. She castigates me for my description of the situation in respect of Interserve. It is very different from Carillion. There is one major problem for Interserve and that is in respect of the energy for waste contracts. I would much rather that Interserve had dealt with that itself and not been forced into a pre-pack administration. Unfortunately, the shareholders did not consent to that, but the net effect of all of this is that the company is strengthened. It has £100 million more in cash and has considerably reduced debt.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

One of the key lessons that emerged from the collapse of Carillion was that small companies that were acting as subcontractors were left dangerously exposed by unethical and over-lengthy payment terms. Can the Minister confirm that no subcontractors, whether in my constituency or elsewhere, have been adversely affected in this case? Will he update the House on what he is doing to ensure that these big companies cannot continue to act unethically in this way, but should play by the rules?

[Oliver Dowden]

As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, straight off the bat, I can give suppliers in his constituency that assurance. There is absolutely no change in the status of the credit rights of those suppliers who are providing services, as the operating companies remain unaffected; it is the ownership that has changed. He rightly raises the point about supply chain finance. That is a major issue. I have twice already brought in strategic suppliers and reminded them of the importance of paying their subcontractors on time, and we are backing that up with action. In November, we announced a prompt payment initiative to ensure that, in future, if they fail to pay their suppliers on time, they will be excluded from Government contracts.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts]

We have heard so much aspiration from Conservative Members, who preach to us that a no deal would be beneficial, and now we are coming down to the pragmatics, which all involve article 50, whoever actually brings it about—we will argue for our own approach. If the people of Wales ever needed proof that Westminster fails us, is deaf to our needs and is broken, it is this: while businesses and workers are anxious about their future, there are people here who talk blithely about unleashing the chaos of a no deal on their constituents.

As my Plaid Cymru colleagues and I have said time and again, this withdrawal agreement will be damaging. Plaid Cymru will never support a withdrawal agreement that takes Wales out of the single market and customs union, harming Welsh businesses and workers, as it would do. We will not support any attempt to remove the right of Welsh people to live, work and study in other European countries, as my daughter has done in Paris. In our heart of hearts we know this. Conservative Members and Labour Members all know that we are denying people and we are tying ourselves in knots as to how we justify that. As harmful as the Prime Minister’s deal would be for Wales, leaving without a deal is a worst-case scenario. We cannot countenance it as an option. Indeed, let us remind ourselves that it has already been overwhelmingly rejected by this House, as well as by the National Assembly for Wales.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I do not doubt for a moment the hon. Lady’s sincerity in wanting to avoid no deal, but does she not, like me, see the irony in the fact that she will be joined in the Lobby by people who want to achieve precisely that? If she genuinely wants to avoid that, is not the safe, moderate and proportionate step to vote for this deal?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I ask him: does he not see the deceit of presenting the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement as a better result than no deal, given that it will come with the uncertainty of being out of the single market and customs union, damaging the Welsh economy? The no-deal scenario is worse. Many of us can now talk about Brexit almost on auto-pilot, but it is deceitful to tell people who no longer want to discuss this that the Prime Minister’s deal will take Brexit off the table. It is deceitful, it is harmful and it is not the best for Wales’s economy or for many of our economies.

The substance of this debate has never made sense to me. It has centred on a fabricated theoretical concern about a hypothetical backstop never intended to be used. For the extreme right-wing of the Conservative party to be peddling myths about fantastical problems the backstop might, in some blue moon, cause is one thing, but for the official Opposition to be embroiled in the minutiae of that same debate and to be using the same arguments as the Democratic Unionist party is another; it is an unnecessary distraction and a confusion.

What farmers, factory workers and families in Wales need is clarity. For all the withdrawal agreement’s misgivings, what the backstop does offer is, for once, some degree of clarity—it is an insurance policy, after all. But everything else about the withdrawal agreement is a mirage of clarity. Adopt it and the clarity of the political declaration disappears over the horizon as a mirage. The best way to achieve clarity is, of course, to extend article 50, but an extension of three, six or even nine months will do nothing to dissipate the fog of uncertainty. Article 50 must be extended until the end of the transition period, negating the need for this deceitful withdrawal agreement and for any British backstop. A 21-month extension would keep the UK in the EU until the end of the EU’s multi-annual financial framework, give this Government time properly to agree the final relationship with the EU and, crucially, allow time to put this to the people through a referendum.

I have been struck by the irony of people talking about concerns for democracy and about it being an affront to democracy that we would ask for another referendum. The Government took the country to a general election only 25 months after the 2015 general election. It is now 32 months and more since the referendum. Democracy is a resort it suited the Government to use in that short period, so I ask: why is it not suitable to use it now? The people’s vote must of course include an option to remain an EU member state, a position that polls show is supported by more than half the people of Wales—if only it were honest-heartedly supported by the Labour party, too. If we take the scales from our eyes, we will see that the concentration of wealth in London and south-east England got us into this Brexit mess and the concentration of power is trapping us in it. As far as I can see, giving people a final say on our future is the only remaining answer. Democracy is not a one-off event. Nor is it the privilege of only one generation. Democracy, through a people’s vote referendum, will be our salvation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Boris Johnson]

If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will make some progress.

I want to stress this point. I really cannot accept the repeated assertion by the Attorney General in his very powerful speech this afternoon that there is a minimal legal risk of us being trapped in the prison of the backstop, because it is now more than a year since I stood in Downing Street—in No. 10—and was told that there was a minimal legal risk that we would even have to enter the backstop. That is not a view that I believe could now be plausibly defended by the Government.

[Alex Chalk]

Of course there is a risk with the backstop —it would be infantile to suggest that there is not—but does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is also a very great, if not much larger, risk in respect of a no-deal outcome? Would he at least recognise that point?

[Boris Johnson]

I will come to that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for conceding that it was always infantile to pretend that there was no risk of getting into the backstop, because that was, for a long time, the contention of those who proposed that the backstop should be instituted.

I am afraid that this deal has now reached the end of the road. If it is rejected tonight, I hope that it will be put to bed and we can all face up to the reality of the position and the opportunity that we have. What we need to do then—now—is to behave not timorously but as a great country does. We have broadly two options. We can either decide, if the EU is unwilling to accept the minor changes that we propose, that we will leave without a deal—yes, I accept that that is, in the short term, the more difficult road, but in the end it is the only safe route out of this and the only safe path to self-respect—or we can decide to take a route that will end in humiliation by accepting arrangements with the EU that seem to limit disruption in the short term but will leave us as an EU protectorate with many important rules set elsewhere.

Members have asked, “What’s the worst that could happen?” I will give two examples, but there is any number of rules and regulations. The financial services industry would be subject to laws set by its leading competitors, which is emphatically not what the City wants. The Commission has already made it clear that it wants to use the passerelle clause of the existing treaty to bring in qualified majority voting on taxation. We would be subject to that, under a qualified majority vote in which this country would not participate. I urge Members to think hard and to see that that predicament would be democratically intolerable. We would have to tell our constituents that they had no power or influence in setting some of the rules that govern our country.

Leaving the European Union

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think the best thing for the democratic health of this country is to deliver on the referendum result of 2016. As the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has pointed out, people from across the House have campaigned on a manifesto to respect the referendum and deliver on Brexit. And the deal before the House is not a second-rate deal; it is a good deal for the UK.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It is encouraging to hear from my right hon. Friend that, in her words, good progress has been made towards securing an alternative to the vexed issue of the backstop, but it is critical that hon. and right hon. Members have the opportunity to consider such new arrangements in advance of any vote. Is she confident that we will indeed have that opportunity in advance of the vote on 12 March?

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise the concern that Members will have. Of course, the bulk of the proposals that will be put back would be the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, which have already been considered by the House, but I am clear that Members will need to have an opportunity to look at any changes that have been made and to consider them before they vote in the House.

Leaving the EU

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has made the point clearly. In fact, it is this House that has said it requires changes to be made to the backstop—legally binding changes—and that is what we are working for.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I have constituents working at GE Aviation, BAE Systems, Spirax Sarco, Jaguar Land Rover and Honda, and those businesses urgently need certainty. What assurances can the Prime Minister provide that the talks are credible and constructive, not cosmetic, and that they can reasonably be expected to yield progress?

[The Prime Minister]

The talks I had last week I think indicated, from the point of those in the European Commission, that they do indeed want to ensure we can leave with a deal. They have extended those talks; previously, indeed, there had been some unwillingness to extend the talks. But now that Parliament has shown what it specifically wants to see changing in the withdrawal agreement, we are able to have those talks and to explore the various ways in which we can ensure we deliver a deal that this Parliament can support.

Election Law Reform

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay]

The hon. Gentleman makes reference to the full understanding of election law dating back to 1868 and in its various guises since. It is only now that the Supreme Court has overturned what we had all accepted as the normal happenings and procedures of election law for all these years. It has confounded many election specialists.

Let me pick up where I left off. As yet, the draft code has no statutory force. In just 51 days, we will be appointing candidates for local elections and in 80 days the local elections will be taking place throughout the country, possibly in just about every constituency. The Electoral Commission currently proposes to put thousands of local election candidates into battle with no clue as to what they should do to stay properly within the newly interpreted law.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that these issues, with which the Electoral Commission is grappling very late in the day, have been known to us for many years? Regrettably, the Electoral Commission has dragged its feet in addressing these issues. It should do so in a way that provides clarity and certainty for people who could otherwise be liable to prosecution.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is one person in this House who has been liable to prosecution: I have had the full force of that.

As I shall ask a number of times in my speech, is the Electoral Commission fit for purpose? Was the commission’s preferred interpretation of the relevant sections of the 1983 Act, which it used in support of my prosecution and, it seems, for no other obvious purpose, included in the 2015 guidance for candidates and agents? No, it does not appear anywhere. Did it find its way into the revised guidance for the 2017 general election, under which everybody in this House fought for election? No, it does not appear anywhere. Armed with the result of the Supreme Court judgment, to which the Electoral Commission was attached as an interested party, did the commission finally incorporate it into its most recent guidance for the local elections in England in May 2019? Did it incorporate within that guidance the definitive Supreme Court interpretation of sections 90C and 90ZA of the 1983 Act? I think you know the answer, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is no. Why did the Electoral Commission intervene, at public expense, if it had no intention of advising candidates and agents, on pain of criminal prosecution, as to the proper interpretation of law following the judgment in its favour? Is the Electoral Commission incapable of speaking with itself? I ask once more: is it fit for purpose at all?

A huge grey area has now opened up. What if someone decides, without recourse to the candidate or agent for authorisation, to print and deliver thousands of leaflets saying “Vote for X”? This could cost the individual thousands of pounds, which they decide to pay themselves. Once it is printed and delivered, they inform the candidate and agent about the unwanted help that they have provided and paid for. Unknown to them is the fact that the candidate has no headroom left in their election budget for this kind of spending, which would breach the legal spending limit. The leaflets are clearly for the benefit of the candidate and they have obviously been used. They are notional, as they are free, because the third party has paid for them. The Supreme Court’s new interpretation of section 90C requires that that cost must be recorded, and in the circumstances that would breach the spending limit for the candidate and agent, with all that that might entail.

Candidates and agents need to know the risks they face. Clear warnings should be given in Electoral Commission guidance. Remember that it is candidates and agents who face criminal sanctions if spending limits are breached. Under the Supreme Court’s judgment, they lose control of spending should anyone else decide to offer their support for free, whether it is wanted or not. How can anyone hope to budget for an election campaign under such a system? We all need clarity from the Electoral Commission. It pushed for this interpretation of the law and won at the Supreme Court, so how do we deal with it in practice? At the next election, might people provide free goods and services on behalf of, say, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to the extent that they breach their spending limits? Will we then find them massively embroiled in police investigations and court cases? There are those who may decide to take such action and spend money simply to cause chaos. The Electoral Commission has yet to step up to the plate and explain how the interpretation that it pushed for and won on in the Supreme Court will play out in practice.

I shall dwell only briefly on some of the errors that have put people to threat of financial and criminal sanction, at the doors of the commission and its guidance. The commission offers, in its own words, “bespoke advice” to campaigners and parties. Let me highlight but one recent publicised example. Vote Leave sought that bespoke advice, on offer for free, in respect of activities during the referendum campaign. It seems that Vote Leave acted on that advice and has now been accused of breaking the law—by acting on Electoral Commission advice, which is now considered to be the wrong advice. You could barely make it up.

Battle buses have probably been part of election campaigning since buses were invented. An investigation into the Conservative party concluded with a report published on 16 March 2017 and led to fines. No similar investigation was made into the use of battle buses by any other party or by any third-party campaigners. There appears to be a lack of even-handedness in the activities of the commission across much of what it does and whom it pursues. Its status and reputation are not helped when its current director of regulation has posted anti-Conservative social media messages in the past and has provided witness statements for court use against Conservatives, including me, but against no other political party.

All political parties and candidates use correx boards—we are all familiar with them in this House. They have become the usual stock in trade at all elections. These boards are rugged—we are familiar with their construction—and would last for many years, save for the inevitable criminal damage, I am sorry to say, that characterises many modern election campaigns. Across all of these documents—of 2015, 2017, and 2019—is there one word of advice on how correx boards should be treated and how criminal damage should be reconciled and accounted for? Everyone will be familiar with my answer by now—it is no. There is not one word of advice.

The Electoral Commission offered substantial evidence during my criminal trial. Its view was that correx boards should be written off and recorded in full at the first election that they are used. I can only say, “Really?” Then say so in published guidance. Let us examine what its current perceived position really means. Let us say that successful candidate X wins in a safe seat that is likely to be held for many years. That is common for many in this House. If the boards were to be expensed through the election return at the first outing, at the second outing, there would be nothing to declare because they cannot be counted twice. The new Opposition candidate at the second election would be at an immediate disadvantage on needing to buy expensive correx boards just to keep up, while the sitting MP would have a zero cost to declare, allowing a spending advantage, as budget could be used for additional leaflets or other election promotions. I ask again: is the Electoral Commission fit for purpose? Does it actually understand what it is there to regulate?

Let me give a few examples of the perversity of the law and the situation we now find ourselves in following the Supreme Court judgment. This would certainly apply should we face—heaven forbid—a premature general election. What would be the status of a supporter—or, probably more accurately, a spoiler—deciding to hire an aircraft with a trailing banner of support which is not wanted or assented to by the candidate or agent? The benefit test and the on behalf test under the Supreme Court ruling would have been met, the candidate would probably have seen it and, as such, they would need to account for it as an election cost, potentially exceeding their election budget and placing themselves under threat of prosecution under the criminal code. That would mean a loss of seat, fraud charges, a criminal record, costs and loss of any professional qualifications—potential ruination.

How would senior members of a party possibly tour the country at an election, as is the usual and expected standard practice? This would be deemed, under the benefit test under the Supreme Court, to be in support of the candidate in the particular constituency visited. The Nicola Sturgeon helicopter alone would break the budget of the candidate visited, as would the security and travel costs for the PM or the Leader of the Opposition.

I have saved the most perverse example, which is relevant to this age of digital campaigning, until last. What if a foreign national or hostile foreign Government were to spend on Facebook advertising in support of—or denigration of—a candidate but it is entirely unwanted by that candidate? The benefit and use tests under the Supreme Court ruling would have been met. If the candidate were able to obtain the cost of the advertising from Facebook and find who placed it—in itself a tall order—how many impressions would be relevant? Were the impressions seen by non-voting businesses or by minors, they would not be an election cost, but impressions viewed by those of voting age would. However, the law and Election Commission guidance state that an honest assessment needs to be made. Under the newly interpreted understanding of section 90C of the 1983 Act, an honest assessment would need to be made. Might this pitch the election expenditure over the limit, with all that follows? The double entry of election expenses requires, at all times, the identification of donors. So, madly and perversely, the candidate could find themselves in a double illegality because a second illegal activity would be deemed to have taken place by the recognition and deemed acceptance of an illegal foreign donation.

It is very easy to speak in an Adjournment debate just to have a moan, but tonight I wish to conclude with some solutions—I have a number of them. Might higher local candidate spending limits and lower national party spending limits be the answer, so that any interpretative complications at the margins would at least allow sufficient latitude for the candidate to be on the correct side of the law and spending limits? Legislative change needs to be forthcoming—it is urgent; it is needed almost within days. I have proposed a most simple and elegant solution. It is available to Ministers under a simple statutory instrument, which I recommend be passed with all haste.

Schedule 4A to the 1983 Act lists what are election expenses under part 1 and what are not election expenses under part 2—for instance, if a candidate drives themselves around in their own car. The Secretary of State has wide powers under section 15 of the Act to make orders to add or subtract from parts 1 and 2. A simple addition, in these words, to part 1 would clarify the law and revert matters to what I believe Parliament always obviously intended under the Act. It reads:

“Notwithstanding that a matter might fall to be included within Part 1”—

that is the “what is”—

“of this schedule because of section 90C of this Act”—

the deeming provision that the Supreme Court has now come to—

“it would only be deemed an election expense if section 90ZA(4) also applies.”

It is section 90ZA(4) that requires authorisation by an agent. In easy terms, this would restore, within threeand a half lines, the position that election expenses can only be so if properly authorised by a candidate, agent or somebody properly authorised by them. With this in place, we can start to unload what has been described as the compost heap of election law in due course and replace it in the longer term with legislation that is fit for purpose. But candidates and agents deserve protection right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) not only for giving an excellent speech, but for making such an important contribution to this critical field. People watching this from the Public Gallery, or perhaps reading the debate later, may be surprised to learn that these issues are of such seriousness that if candidates or their agents get them wrong, there is a decent possibility that the matter will be resolved with an individual standing up in court, potentially at risk of losing his liberty, his reputation and, indeed, his livelihood. If that is the consequence, it is critical that the legal landscape is clear, and I am afraid that I respectfully agree that it is not clear.

Let me give the House just one small example of how we find ourselves in a situation where people’s campaigning activity might owe more to their appetite for risk than to the correct campaigning message. In 2017 in Cheltenham, one of the issues was whether I should be putting out a leaflet that mentioned Cheltenham repeatedly throughout. Under one view, if it was simply a national message that would apply to Cheltenham, it could be national expenditure. But under another view, it could be allocated as local expenditure. People watching this should understand that if someone gets that judgment wrong, they could end up being prosecuted for breaking their limit.

I thought that there was a risk involved in allocating that as a national spend so I declined to do so, but others took an entirely different view, mentioned Cheltenham a lot and simply allocated the spending as a national spend. It turns out, however, that the Electoral Commission has decided after the event—through these provisional codes of conduct—that circumstances where the constituency is mentioned should be classed as a local expense. Well, if that is right, the implications are absolutely enormous.

My hon. Friend has already delivered a devastating critique of the Electoral Commission, but one of my criticisms is that it is so slow to act. It knew about this situation in 2015, and yet two years later, when it came to the 2017 election, had it sorted the situation out? No. Had it provided any guidance? No. Candidates like me were simply left to fend for ourselves and make a judgment based on our appetite for risk. I had zero appetite for risk, so I took a cautious approach; others did not, and the net effect was that there was not a level playing field. If the Electoral Commission is not there to ensure a level playing field, what on earth is it there to do?

[Ian C. Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. I am a member of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and I am particularly interested in this debate because of the inquiry that we have been carrying out into fake news. One issue that is crucial in all this, but that we have not really discussed today, is the advent of social media campaigning. If we are talking about not being up to speed, I have been on a huge learning journey on the Committee since I was re-elected in 2017. Frankly, I am sure that most of the Members of the House will not be aware of the scale of change that has happened in this area in recent years. The issue regarding local and national spend that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is just one of those changes. We need urgently to reform the law to take account of what actually happens in campaigns today.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good and fair point, but I would say that the law will inevitably struggle to keep up with every last twist and turn. That is one of the reasons that we need to have an Electoral Commission that is agile and nimble, and can provide assistance to candidates. My first criticism of the Electoral Commission is that it has singularly failed to show that agility and nimbleness. That is not simply an academic criticism; it is echoed in how elections are run, and it means that we do not have a level playing field.

[Mr Harper]

I think that the situation is actually slightly worse than my hon. Friend says. When listening to the speech of our hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), it struck me that the Electoral Commission had been quite nimble and agile in some ways, in the sense that it decided to back a legal action that made the current position more complicated and less straightforward. What it actually should have been doing was being less nimble and sticking to the existing understood provisions in the law, rather than trying to change them. There is enough change in the system, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) says, without muddying up things that everyone in this House thought were very clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

The Electoral Commission needs to do two things. First, it needs to be nimble and agile in responding to developments in campaigning practice. Secondly, it needs to show judgment when matters come before its desk. That judgment means using common sense, but it also means being scrupulously impartial and scrupulously independent. That is not just a statement of the obvious. It is something that is set out in the code of conduct for electoral commissioners, which says:

“Commissioners, and the Commission as a body, are accountable to Parliament. Within the Commission, Commissioners are accountable to the Chair. Commissioners are expected to act at all times to further the Commission’s aims and objectives, and uphold its impartiality.”

Impartiality is key. Section 2 on conflicts of interest goes on to say:

“The failure to declare an interest and then act appropriately can affect the validity of a decision. The test in all matters is—would a fair-minded and informed observer conclude that there is a real possibility of bias? The issue is not just whether there is bias, but instead could there be a reasonable suspicion of bias? Decisions must be made in an impartial way without any opinions being formed beforehand”.

And yet we have an extraordinary situation whereby the director of regulation of the Electoral Commission—the person who comments on the fines imposed on political parties, and who, perhaps more than anyone else, should be impartial and be perceived to be impartial—wrote on Facebook when David Cameron became Prime Minister:

“Just can’t understand what people were thinking—do they not remember the Tories before?”

She went on to say that she

“doesn’t want to live under a Tory government.”

She also wrote that she could “not believe” that she lives

“under a Tory PM again! What is wrong with people? Grrr! Words have failed me.”

This is the person who is making decisions on whether to proceed with prosecutions or investigations against my hon. Friend. How on earth does that satisfy the test? I remind the House that the test asks

“would a fair-minded and informed observer conclude that there is a real possibility of bias? The issue is not just whether there is bias, but instead could there be a reasonable suspicion of bias?”

Well, if that test is not crossed in this case, what on earth is the point of the Electoral Commission?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend reiterates a number of important points. He is right that this requires urgent consideration, and I have confirmed that the Government are looking at the position and want to help ensure that there is clarity. In this House, we are legislators; we are responsible for looking at the law and whether it is clear. As to the regulator’s responsibility to provide usable guidance promptly, I observe again that the Electoral Commission is separately accountable to the House. There have been questions tonight from my hon. Friend and others that the House will wish to satisfy itself of for its oversight of the Electoral Commission, which, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, is through the Speaker’s Committee. I encourage Members to direct some of their questions to that source. That is the right thing to do.

What I can talk about is the Government’s next steps, so let me add something in relation to the codes of practice that I have mentioned. First, the commission concluded its public consultation on them in December 2018, and Ministers will review those draft codes before they are put to Parliament. Again, I emphasise that because that is the right and proper opportunity for the Government to contribute their part, but also for this Parliament to do so. The commission aims to have them approved by Parliament in time for elections in 2021. The Government will continue to work with the Electoral Commission on the statutory codes of practice, because we recognise the importance of having clear and accessible codes to provide further clarity on electoral spending.

[Alex Chalk]

There can be no doubt but that the Minister is attending to these matters with her customary diligence. Does she agree with me, however, that we can have endless codes of conduct, but that will not address the potential mischief? The situation is that somebody who is being mischievous could in effect sabotage a candidate’s campaign by flying an aeroplane towing a banner at great expense, and that may render the individual liable to conviction, punishment and disgrace. No code of conduct is going to solve that, is it?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, in short, I do recognise the example given, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for expounding it. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, who added other compelling examples, whether about leaflets or in relation to other hostile actors seeking to do such harm. I understand those concerns, and I am glad they have been laid out clearly in examples tonight.

No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

The hon. Gentleman knows my views on a lot of what has gone on, including on the calling of that general election, but this is about today—this is a different moment. We are 18 months down the line. Let us be honest about what would happen in a general election. We would not have the normal election between centre left and centre right parties. The Opposition Front-Bench team advocates a hard-left programme that has singularly destroyed almost every single country in which it has been practised. It uses what can only be described as sincerely held dishonesty to claim that it will look after some of the most impoverished people in this country, when in fact it is those impoverished people who will pay the biggest price from a Government who are represented by Labour Members.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no social mobility in bankruptcy and that it is only if we have a prosperous economy that is generating opportunity that we can deliver that kind of social mobility?

[Johnny Mercer]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is rank hypocrisy that comes out of Opposition Members when they talk about social justice and equalising life chances—that fantastic phenomenon that, no matter where a person is born in this country, whether it be Manchester, Plymouth, London or Chelsea, and no matter whether they are gay, black, white or whatever, the circumstances of their birth are irrelevant because their opportunities are the same. That fundamental principle is in no way advanced whatsoever by the hard-left policies of massive government, massive tax, the taking over of private companies and the sucking out of money from the pockets of people who go out and work hard in this country every single day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I wish the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) were still in his place, because we would have the kind of clash of opinion we want in this House. He suggests that when Opposition Members talk about child poverty, say it is an absolute horror to walk past homeless people on the street as we walk into Parliament and point out that this Government drive people to food banks as public policy—the Government see food banks not as charities run by good people as volunteers but as a matter of public policy—they advocate a hard-left programme. I will tell him something: if that is a hard-left programme, I will stand on it in my constituency and across the country. We are not frightened of saying that; we are not frightened of saying we believe this country deserves better; and we are not frightened of saying we can do better.

I want to come on to Brexit, but let me first say this. I accept that Government Members are not uncaring about homelessness—I would not suggest that for one moment—but it is an indictment of the Government that school pupils cannot get the special needs support they want and that people in hospitals cannot get the care they want. Those things do not land from the moon. They do not just happen. They are a consequence of the policies people in this House voted for.

[Alex Chalk]

rose—

[Mr Seely]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Many people ask me—and, I dare say, every Member of Parliament—“Why on earth would you go into politics?” They ask it particularly at times like this, but I know the answer, and I know the answer as a Conservative. I went into politics because I believe to my bones in social mobility. Let me make it crystal clear that I expect there are Members throughout the House who believe in that, but the issue that divides us is how to come up with solutions: how to go about achieving it, how to unlock potential, how to seek out the treasure that is in the heart of every man and woman.

I know that it is as a Conservative Member of Parliament that I have been able to provide opportunities in my community in Cheltenham that have allowed people to fulfil that potential. People say, “Cheltenham? For goodness’ sake, it must be the most affluent place in the country.” Not a bit of it: we have some of the most deprived communities anywhere in the country, where people live in generational, entrenched poverty.

What has the Conservative party done for my community? It has provided £22 million for a cyber-park in Cheltenham that will allow the finest minds to come in and out of GCHQ, and to create start-ups. If a person living nearby has come from generational poverty but something about them says, “I want to better myself, I want to go forward, I want to provide for my family and I want to build a future,” that opportunity exists. More than £400 million has been provided for a road project. Some might say, “Who cares about a road project?” Road projects are what allow a local community to thrive; they allow opportunities to be generated and futures created.

But it is not just about infrastructure projects. Recognising the issue of homelessness, it is this Government who provided £1.3 million for social impact bonds. That means there is one-on-one support for individuals who can go and address the needs of the most vulnerable in our society: those suffering from drug addiction, or mental health problems, or debt. That has served to make a huge difference in my community, so it is not just a stronger community economically, but a fairer one, too. Moreover, £3 million has been made available to help deliver social housing in Cheltenham, in Portland Place.

Of course there is always room for improvement and always more to do, but on the issue of social mobility which is the party that is not just talking the talk but walking the walk? It is this Government who are achieving that and who are making a difference in my community, and that is why I will vote against this motion tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

As I indicated to the Chair of the Select Committee, we are all extremely concerned about the potential implications of US withdrawal and what it might mean on the Turkish border in relation to Kurdish areas. Humanitarian agencies are very alert to this, but politically we are doing what we can with partners to minimise any risk of confrontation there.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

What assessment is it possible to make of the number of lives that have been saved in Syria as a result of the historic financial contribution to the aid effort by the United Kingdom?

[Alistair Burt]

It is difficult to put full figures on this, to be honest. We believe, as I indicated earlier, that we have provided 27 million food rations, 40 million medical consultations, 10 million relief packages, and 10 million vaccines. If we look at all those whose lives have been protected—the 3.5 million in Turkey, the 1.5 million in Lebanon and the 1 million in Jordan— we can see that United Kingdom aid has played a significant part in that.

Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

We live in unprecedented times. There have been 20 ministerial resignations and many, many more at Parliamentary Private Secretary level, and the Government have been found to be in contempt of Parliament—the first Government ever to be. No one even seems to bat an eyelid any more. Then, we had the events of yesterday. Yes, the Prime Minister may have spent 22 hours on her feet answering questions on all this, but we are still none the wiser. We have no concrete date for when that meaningful vote will ever come to fruition. Every time legitimate scrutiny is performed by Opposition Members, we are shut down and told that it is political point scoring.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Huq]

I will not give way because a lot of people want to speak.

The Government are crippled by indecision and paralysed by Brexit. Labour was accused of constructive ambiguity when trying to steer a course for both the 48% and the 52%, but now the Government have adopted the same strategy, trying to scare people into supporting their deal by invoking either no deal or no Brexit, depending on who they are talking to—they cannot both be right. Or are they trying to bore us into accepting their deal by saying that the British public are bored of this, even while refusing to make a fresh assessment of what the British public think now?

Of the 164 hon. Members who spoke in the debate, 122 were against the deal. This is a decision bigger than on any piece of legislation, any Budget, anything that any of us has voted for, but it seems that the Government do not want to play ball and follow the parliamentary rules. Every time I have raised the question of a people’s vote with the Prime Minister, she has told me that it would corrode trust in politics and politicians, but can she not see that she is doing just that—corroding faith in democracy? She has whipped MPs to abstain on Opposition day motions—I think it all started with Andy Burnham’s motion on how people are not pawns and should not be used as such in the negotiations. The Government have been forced to publish legal and economic advice. We now know why, having seen that advice. They have been found in contempt of Parliament. And all that before yesterday marching us all to the top of the hill and then pulling the vote at the last minute.

Democracy is not just about turnouts at general elections; it is about votes in this House, and we surely cannot have a Government who decide not to take part when they see that they cannot win. Our unwritten constitution may not have formal checks and balances, but it relies on trust, and that is slipping away from the Government. They are clocking up air miles rather than votes and ditching openness and transparency. Any decision should be taken only when people are in full command of the facts, but this Government believe the opposite. The only way to resolve this is by holding a people’s vote to see if the will of the people in 2016 is still the will of the people now.

Exiting the European Union

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is that long-term peace and prosperity not only of Northern Ireland but the whole United Kingdom that has underpinned the approach the Government have taken to the whole of these negotiations. We remain firmly committed to ensuring that the peace process that has been so important to the lives of people in Northern Ireland, the peace that has been achieved and the development in Northern Ireland that has been achieved can continue into the future and give the people of Northern Ireland the bright future that we can also give to people across the whole United Kingdom. Having no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is an important part of maintaining that process into the future.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Are not the public entitled to a grown-up acknowledgement across this House that the issue of the backstop affects both policies? Whether it is the Prime Minister’s proposal or, indeed, the Opposition proposal to stay in the customs union or outside the single market, both require a backstop. Does she agree?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any of the alternative arrangements that are being put up by contrast to the Government’s deal also require a backstop. The backstop is there in the circumstances where the negotiations fail to achieve the future relationship in time at the end of the transition period, and that could happen in the negotiation of any of the agreements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What the analysis actually shows is that outside the European Union, the best deal available in relation to our economy, and which delivers on leaving the European Union, is the deal on the table—the deal I have negotiated with the European Union. When people voted to leave the European Union, one issue they voted on was bringing an end to free movement once and for all, and that is what the Government will deliver.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Q12. In its November survey, local homelessness charity P3 recorded two rough sleepers in Cheltenham—that is two too many, of course, but it is a dramatic reduction on the previous year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows the value of social impact bonds that provide vital one-on-one support to people with complex needs, and will she support and congratulate the vital work of charities CCP and P3 that make such a difference to vulnerable people in our communities?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We are all concerned about rough sleepers, but as he says, it is finding the solutions and ways through that is important. I commend him for his excellent work in campaigning on the issues of homelessness, rough sleeping and social impact bonds, and I congratulate P3 and CCP in Cheltenham. The rough sleeping social impact bond, which is designed to support individuals who have spent a long time within the homelessness system, and to reduce rough sleeping in the long term by helping people to access the support and services they need, is an important step forward. I congratulate those organisations on the work they have done in my hon. Friend’s constituency.