Business of the House

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is an important issue that affects many of us. I have indeed written on behalf of my own constituents about this matter, because the number of places to pay has been reduced significantly in North East Somerset as well. The issue the hon. Lady raises is one the Government need to look into to see how it is being dealt with. We must keep on raising it until it is made possible for people to pay their bills easily and in a way that ensures that they can keep their heating running.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Given the spiralling cost of repair work to the Elizabeth Tower, can we have a debate in Government time about the wider R and R programme so that the huge budget that has already been allocated to it does not spiral out of control as well?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Indeed. Restoration and renewal is a House responsibility rather than a Government one, and therefore it is only right that, with a new House of Commons, new Members should be able to express their views and to have a full understanding of what is happening with the project. It may well be that the Backbench Business Committee will consider a debate, but I have certainly heard the request for a debate in Government time.

Business of the House

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is an irony, to put it at its mildest, about people who voted for the Benn Act and the Cooper-Boles Act now complaining about undue haste on a Bill that is even shorter. Time is only right when it is the time they have asked for. When it is their time it is perfect, however short. When it is the Government’s time it is always wrong, however long. No, the Government are not treating this House with contempt. This Government, of course, only exist because they command a majority in this House, but this House is treating the British people with contempt. It is failing to deliver on its promises and its manifesto commitments. We must bear in mind that both the Conservative party and the Labour party said that they would deliver on the referendum. That is not happening. Enough—we must go.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Some no doubt voted against the programme motion for the WAB because they will never vote for it in 1 million years, but others voted against it because they had concerns—not unreasonable ones—that we needed additional time. Surely the proportionate and sensible thing is to offer the House more time. If it does not vote for it, the Government will take their course, but surely they should at least try.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The efforts of the Government to try have become extremely trying to the patience of the British people. We now need to go back to the British people, and they can decide, in their wisdom, how they wish us to proceed.

Business of the House

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about representation within Parliaments and about Members of Parliament taking their seats once they have been elected. I think that, perhaps, an Adjournment debate might be the right approach to ventilate that matter.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Can we have a debate about British Telecom’s hapless delivery of broadband under the Building Digital UK taxpayer-funded programme? Constituents of mine in Cirencester Road have been waiting for cabinet 129 to be fixed up. They were promised that it would be done by the end of June. There has been delay after delay and broken promises. Can we have a debate to hold BT to account?

[Mel Stride]

Once again, this might be a good subject for an Adjournment debate, when the very specific issues—not least around cabinet 129—can be aired with the appropriate Minister.

Business of the House

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

As for the lyric

“Stop making a fool out of me”,

nobody was attempting to make a fool out of the hon. Gentleman, I can assure him.

On proroguing, I have made it very clear that the view of Government Members and of the Government is that this should not be used as a device to ensure that Parliament is absent from the decisions that may have to be made towards the end of October and, furthermore, that it would not be appropriate for Her Majesty the Queen to be drawn into those kinds of political decisions.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

GCHQ, headquartered in my constituency, is now in its centenary year. It was founded in 1919, under the then name of the Government Code and Cypher School. May we have a debate to allow hon. Members from across the House to pay tribute to the brilliant men and women who work in that organisation and who keep our country safe in an increasingly complex and dangerous world?

Business of the House

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. All hon. Members will be worried about what is happening in Venezuela, where we want to see not only stability, but an end to the appalling crisis that is leaving so many people starving. I will certainly take up his request with the Foreign Office.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

May we have a debate on recruitment to the judiciary? Our judges are renowned the world over for their calibre and integrity, which underpin the success of our legal sector, but it is proving increasingly difficult to recruit those judges, so can we have a debate to ensure that this important issue for UK plc gets the attention it deserves?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his long-standing service on the Justice Committee. I gather that he has just retired from that Committee—he seems far too young to be retiring from anything, doesn’t he? He makes a serious and important point. We have Justice questions on 5 February at which I encourage him to raise his point directly with Ministers.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It has been said more than once in this debate that this is the high court of Parliament. My constituents, and anyone else watching the debate, might assume that that is some historical nicety or arcane expression, but it is far more important than that. In the context of these proceedings, this court has the ability to achieve the conviction, punishment and disgrace of one of our number. Therefore, it is critical that when it does so, it complies with what we might think are natural rules of fairness and, in the present context, other important statutory limits—most obviously, of course, the European convention on human rights.

Why does that matter? Any court, be it the magistrates court, the Crown Court, the High Court or the Court of Appeal, must ensure that its proceedings are fair. Never is that more important than here in the high court of Parliament. It is no defence to say, “Well, we are seeking to condemn the Government as a whole.” In the court of public opinion, assumptions and judgments will be made about precisely who is being identified. If anyone has any doubt about that, it is made clear in the press that is already circulating on social media who it is who stands to be condemned.

In those circumstances, we need to be careful to ensure that what is taking place is truly fair. If these were criminal proceedings in a normal court—the magistrates court or the Crown Court—the first question would be what precisely is being charged. What is the matter that is being breached? I suggest that there is serious confusion about what was ordered on the last occasion—the proceedings on 13 November. The written motion before the House on that day stated:

“That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the following papers be laid before Parliament: any legal advice in full”.

In the course of those proceedings, an attempt was made—perfectly properly, no doubt—to seek to amend that motion.

The document submitted to the House yesterday states that

“During the debate on that motion Labour’s frontbench made it clear that: ‘the motion requires the publication of the final and full advice’”.

Leaving to one side for a moment precisely what is meant by “final and full”, and leaving aside whether those two adjectives are capable of pulling in different directions, I suggest that some confusion must remain about what exactly happened. There were two hon. Members who sought to clarify what it was that we were being asked to vote on—my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who is in her place. It was you, Mr Speaker, who said:

“Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. It might profit her and all Members of the House if they listen to the development of the argument in which the shadow Secretary of State is engaged. Frankly, it is not really very confusing at all. There is a motion, and Members can read the motion and form their own view of it.”

In that remark, it seemed to me that you were saying, “Look at the text: it is tolerably plain.” But then my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) said:

“I am deeply unclear—are you asking for publication of the final advice”—

which is what was being proposed orally—

“or of any legal advice”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 193-96.]

Although it is not necessarily for me to give evidence, there was a state of some confusion at the end of the proceedings on 13 November about precisely what had been ordered. That matters because the wording that appears in this motion is the latter, not the former. In other words, it is what is amended. That is significant because, if we are applying the European convention, proceedings must be fair under article 6, and article 7 says that there must be no punishment without law. In other words, it must be crystal clear precisely what law is alleged to have been contravened. I want to make the basic point that there was considerable confusion in the House about precisely what had been ordered.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I remember being here when that debate happened, and there was initially some confusion, but if such confusion reigned, why did the Government not oppose the motion at that time? It is all well and good to say now that it was unclear, but that was not the argument that was progressed at the time.

[Alex Chalk]

Respectfully, that is not right. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said at the time:

“I am deeply unclear—are you asking for publication of the final advice or of any legal advice in full that has happened during the entire negotiation? [Interruption.] With due respect, I am being asked for my vote regarding the motion on the Order Paper. Are you asking for what is on the Order Paper, which is,

“any legal advice in full”—

that is, during the whole negotiation?”—[Official Report, 13 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 196.]

At that point, Mr Speaker rightly intervened to ask who my hon. Friend was referring to, and so it went on. The matter was not clear. Given the importance of these proceedings, and the potential impact on one or more individuals, is it not right that the House should be crystal clear about what is on the indictment, so to speak?

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but will he answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) asked? If the motion was so unclear, why did he not vote against it and why did the Government not oppose it?

[Alex Chalk]

Respectfully, that is no answer at all.

[Mr Jones]

It is!

[Alex Chalk]

It is no answer at all; absolutely not. To take an analogy, if the prosecution were to bring proceedings against the hon. Gentleman for an alleged crime and if the court were satisfied that the proceedings were bad through duplicity or lack of clarity, the court would stay those proceedings because they would be improper proceedings. That is what has happened here. There are real concerns about these matters. In these circumstances, if the high court of Parliament wishes to act in a way that is proportionate and fair, the proper outcome is to refer the matter in accordance with the terms set out in the amendment. Those are my representations, Mr Speaker.

Business of the House

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises a horrific issue by which I am sure all hon. Members will be appalled. I encourage him to raise it at Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs questions next Tuesday, when he can ask Ministers what the UK can do to try to put a stop to this appalling practice.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The Mandarin Oriental hotel and the Glasgow School of Art both recently suffered devastating fires while undergoing renovation. Will my right hon. Friend consider making a statement about what lessons have been learned from that, so that when hon. Members move out of here, that is not the moment when this place goes up in smoke?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he will be aware that in this place not only are we looking very carefully at the programme for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, but we are also looking on a daily basis at the current health and safety risks, including fire risks, and strong steps are being taken now by the House authorities to minimise the risk of fire. I had a recent exchange of letters with the chief executive of the House which I placed in the Library, but my hon. Friend is right to raise this point and I will certainly consider it further.

Business of the House

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I believe the hon. Lady is referring to the proposal for proxy voting while on baby leave. I was pleased to see the Procedure Committee report on the sorts of considerations that it felt, having taken evidence, we would need to bear in mind were the House minded to introduce proxy voting. The shadow Leader of the House and I met just this week and discussed this issue. We agreed that we would both seek views, through the usual channels, on how best to proceed. I absolutely assure all right hon. and hon. Members that I mean to make swift progress on the matter.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

My constituents and I value our accident and emergency at Cheltenham General Hospital and we want to see 24/7 services restored, but despite my having put in for Adjournment and Westminster Hall debates for many months to ventilate the issue of recruitment pressures, which is sometimes advanced, no debate has been provided. Does my right hon. Friend have any advice on how I might get this important issue before the House?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising this issue. He has, in fact, raised it with me on a number of occasions and, indeed, in the House. He will be aware that there have been a number of opportunities to debate health matters more generally, including in yesterday’s Opposition day debate, and there is always the possibility of the next Health questions. Nevertheless, he will need to look to you, Mr Speaker, for an Adjournment debate should he wish to put the issues for his constituents more directly to Ministers.

Business of the House

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sorry to hear about that. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman either to seek an Adjournment debate or to raise the matter at Education questions since it is a very specific point.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

At a time when Cheltenham General Hospital needs capital investment in its emergency department, will hon. Members have the full opportunity to make the point that spending wildly disproportionate sums on this place will be unacceptable to my constituents and risks damaging the very democracy that we seek to uphold?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is a keen advocate for his constituency. That is precisely the reason why we need to discuss affordability and value for taxpayers’ money as we seek to restore this Palace of Westminster, which is old and in a bad state of repair.

Business of the House

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

All Members agree that all political parties should abide by electoral law. If there are any accusations the hon. Lady wants to make, she can rest assured they will be taken up by the Electoral Commission.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

May we have a debate about the recruitment of doctors to emergency medicine? Cheltenham A&E is hugely valued by me, my family, my constituents and the population of Gloucestershire, but in 2013, before I was elected, it was downgraded. NHS managers at the time used recruitment issues as a pretext. May we have a debate to establish whether this explanation still holds water?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend raises a vital constituency matter and is absolutely right to do so. Decisions by NHS professionals must always be taken in consultation with local people—I have a similar issue of great concern to my constituents right now. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate to hear from a Minister what more he can do to protect his own medical facilities.