Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I am grateful for that intervention, because nothing could have been more obvious than the fact that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and indeed many Opposition Members, simply do not have a clue about how the operations of the European Union function. I will deal with them in a minute, as the hon. Gentleman will find out—I would be interested if he would like to intervene and repudiate what I am about to say.

The Lords themselves—unelected, of course—are subject to the Parliament Acts, which may well prove necessary in relation to this Bill. This is therefore an issue of democracy.

I have watched and participated in the evolution of change in relation to European matters both in this House and outside, in referendum campaigns and the like, for the best part of 38 years. It is essential for those who are not so well acquainted with the manner in which EU law is made, which became more objectionable as the competencies in each of the treaties expanded, to appreciate just how undemocratic and unaccountable the EU system unequivocally is. I have to say that my own party is responsible for many of the problems that were created, but I am delighted to say that the democratic decisions of the British people have now demonstrated the need for this Bill, along with the fact that we have left the European Union.

The democratic deficit is one of the most important reasons—if not the most important reason—why we had to leave and why the Northern Ireland protocol arrangements and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill are in need of immediate resolution. That Bill, which has passed all its stages in this House, is now becalmed like the Mary Celeste in the House of Lords, with nobody on board, pending agreement from the European Union to change its mandate and resolve this outrageous democratic deficit immediately.

As Con O’Neill, who negotiated our entry into the European Union, admitted in his 1983 report to Lord Hume—by then, far too late—the Government simply did not understand the undemocratic system that was and remains employed by the European Union. Many people, as is quite obvious from what we have heard in the past 40 minutes, do not have the foggiest idea what that means in practice and the way in which the European Union actually functions.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir William Cash]

No. In a nutshell, every single law that goes to the Council of Ministers, which is the ultimate law-making body, does so by a majority vote of the 27 member stated behind closed doors, without even so much as a transcript and in total secrecy. Indeed, I had an exchange with the noble Lord Clarke of Nottingham on this matter when he was still in this House in 2017. He made it abundantly clear in his response to an intervention that the real legislative power of the Council of Ministers was exercised in private, going on to say,

“I used to find that the best business at the European Council was usually done over lunch”,—[Official Report, 14 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 215.]

which is fundamentally different from the way in which we have legislated since we left the EU and in this actual debate today. By contrast, we are conducting business today, and taking democratic decisions, by a majority of this House, which is proof in itself that it works.

In practice, in the context of the sunset arrangements in this Bill, clauses 12 to 16 provide delegated powers to restate, revoke and/or replace and update certain retained EU laws, which are secondary retained EU law and a new category of “secondary assimilated law”. Many of these powers are subject to the negative procedure, but the affirmative procedure is required where primary legislation is being amended or substantive policy change implemented. Some primary legislation is in the Bill. Where the negative procedure applies, the scrutiny system is similar to the work done by the European Statutory Instruments Committee, and it will be for the House to decide how that evolves in line with the democratic decision taken by this House today.

When the original proposals for the first withdrawal agreement Act were brought into effect, at my suggestion—I introduced a Bill on the subject—all EU law was then deemed to be UK law. But then remainers got to work and came up with the concept of retained EU law, which asserted the supremacy of the principles of EU law and decisions by the European Court. We may have left the EU, but a massive ball and chain was embedded in that Act preventing us from making our own sovereign laws on our own terms. I add, by way of parenthesis, that the Prime Minister responsible for that Act resigned—thanks to the Spartans.

Those laws had been made under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. It is certainly true to say that since that date, not one single European law was ever repudiated by this House, because the provisions of that 1972 Act prevented it. We were therefore subjugated to the European Union and decisions of the European Court of Justice by our own irresponsible, voluntary abdication of the inherent and democratic procedures that evolved in this House over the best part of 400 years.

Our entry into the EU in 1972 was therefore a blind step into the void of an undemocratic and unaccountable system of government. These thousands of laws lack inherent democratic legitimacy, and must therefore be removed from and/or replaced on our statute book. The Bill also allows us to move back to the certainty implicit in the UK common-law way of doing things, as compared with the purposive interpretation of law by our judges, as laid down by the principles of EU law. Nobody can dispute that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

One of the loveliest plaudits I have had since becoming a Member of Parliament is to be named as a species champion for the brimstone butterfly. If I had longer, I would tell the House about what a beautiful butterfly it is and how it can be conserved.

This debate reminds me of my daughter’s favourite film, “The Lorax”, which I have seen many, many times. The Lorax stands and speaks for the trees. Today I am speaking not only for the trees but for nature. There are very legitimate concerns about the impact of revoking all retained EU law, and those concerns come from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Butterfly Conservation, Buglife, Plantlife, the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, the Bat Conservation Trust and the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust. These are not radical or militant groups. They are not interested in the rights and wrongs of Brexit, and many were in existence long before the UK even joined the EU. Their intervention is unprecedented. These are mainstream conservation charities that rely on their membership, which I know personally is comprised of people with completely different political beliefs who share a common desire to improve and support nature. When the RSPB calls this Bill “an attack on nature,” we have to listen.

The Government created the category of retained EU law to ensure continuity after leaving the EU, and their deadline is arbitrary. Anyone would think the Prime Minister is more concerned about the upcoming local elections and the impending general election than about doing the right thing. The Bill flies in the face of common sense. Rushing to get rid of legislation without the time or the capacity to consider properly what we might want to keep does not make sense. As has been repeatedly pointed out in this debate, the Minister is not even aware of all the legislation that we might be getting rid of. It feels as though the Government are intent on cutting their nose off to spite their face. This is childish and it is another example of the Prime Minister putting the needs of his Brexit extremists ahead of what is right for our country.

The Environment Secretary had told the Environment and Climate Change Committee that 1,000 pieces of legislation were possibly involved, but we know that that figure has doubled, and the Minister is unable to give a final figure. If we do not know how much legislation is impacted, how can we possibly consider what we want to keep? Let us look at what is at risk. The environmental protections at risk include the highly effective habitats regulations, which protect some of most threatened and rare species and their habitats from the impacts of inappropriate development and persecution; the water framework directive, which regulates water pollution prevention and drives forward quality improvements in rivers and lakes; and the plant protection products regulations, which provide protection for all the environment and human health from pesticides.

Of course, what we want is to strengthen and not destroy, but this Bill makes a nonsense of the country’s environmental targets and commitments, and the Environment Secretary knows it. The confusion in this Government is shown by the fact that, on the one hand we have the new statutory English biodiversity targets published under the Environment Act 2021, which add to the pre-existing target of having 30% of the country protected for wildlife by 2030, while on the other hand DEFRA is consumed by a scramble to redraft regulations that have taken decades of work and expert consultation to evolve, under the direction to “lessen environmental burdens”. Like the rest of government, DEFRA is pulling in two directions at the same time.

Clause 15 prevents redrafting by precluding any that would “increase the regulatory burden”, even if these burdens that we are so worried about increasing amount to only an administrative inconvenience. It is crystal clear that the only outcome can be a weakening of environmental protections for our air, soils and water, and an increase in the loss of biodiversity. I believe that the public really care about this. The membership of all those organisations, right across the whole of our country, in every constituency, care too. We are a nation of animal lovers and we want the air we breathe and the waters around us to be clean. If we do not know what we are getting rid of, how it may have an impact and what difference it might make, how can we be sure we are doing the right thing? I was always taught that if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well. So will the Government just calm down, focus and get it right? Our country will pay the price if they do not.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I will be brief. My arguments will be simple and they will go straight to amendment 36.

When the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) spoke, I had a flash of déjà vu, back to the days when I co-operated with his father, thwarting the Blairite attempts to bypass Parliament some years ago. It came back to me that his father and I also shared a view on the European Union, with both of us knowing that it was undemocratic. We knew that both from ministerial experience and because we had read out history; Monnet and Schuman had designed it to be undemocratic, which was why we wanted to leave.

I say to the Minister, given what was said before from the Front Bench, that I come at this as a convinced and campaigning Brexiteer. I remind the House, given the substance of this Bill, that I resigned from Cabinet to preserve the right to diverge from the EU. So I agree with the aims of the Bill, but I also agree with the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), about its effectiveness in delivering those aims. I voted and campaigned to improve democracy; I wanted to take back control in order to give it to Westminster, not to Whitehall. However, that is what we have here.

When the Minister was speaking earlier, she talked about the consultations, but they were not with us—they were with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Departments of State and not with us. But we are the people who are responsible for this legislation. What is more, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque—one might almost say a pig in a poke—because we do not even know how many pieces of legislation are going through on the back of this Bill, let alone what they are. That, of course, is not democratic. We have heard the anoraks talking about this SI Committee, that sifting Committee and so on. That is not the Floor of this House. These issues are sufficiently important—some of them, not all of them—to be debated in the Chamber. Just glancing down the list, I see: aviation safety; compensation rules; insider trading; protecting a pensioner’s payout when a company goes bust—I cannot think of anything more significant to our constituents than that; and preventing the trafficking of illegal weapons. These are substantive issues that need to come to us.

[Stella Creasy]

I hesitate to stop the right hon. Gentleman, but does he therefore agree with me that the fact that Ministers have already unilaterally decided to revoke the piece of legislation that protects our constituents getting 50% of a pension pot if their company goes bust, without any consultation with us because they will use the powers in the Bill simply to let it be deleted, makes exactly his case as to why this is not democracy or taking back control?

[Mr Davis]

If the hon. Lady had given me 30 seconds, I would have made exactly that point. I agree with her. This morning, or last night, we had No. 10 rushing to brief the papers and to write to us saying that the Bill will not remove existing rights and protections, which is plainly not true, and that it will not impinge on environmental rights and so on. That demonstrates what a great hole there is in the middle of this legislation. If those matters were covered in the law, we would not need to have that assurance. All of the non-governmental organisations that are concerned—I do not agree with all of them—would not have had to have their say either.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because I, too, am very much in favour of parliamentary scrutiny and things being done properly. Everything that is covered by this Bill came in by a secondary measure and therefore it is proportional. Primary legislation is not within the scope of the Bill. If anything that came out of Europe came through in primary legislation, it will have to go through consideration on the Floor of the House. Unless my right hon. Friend is against secondary legislation altogether, I do not quite understand why he finds this Bill so shocking.

[Mr Davis]

I am sorry, but two wrongs do not make a right. The reason why I did not like the European Union was precisely what my right hon. Friend has just described. We had things almost de facto imposed on us. We went down an SI-type route to do things that I thought were important enough to justify discussion on the Floor of the House. The depletion of debate on the Floor of the House, mostly in the years before he came into the House, was one reason I was a Brexiteer.

We have approached this issue in a different way in other respects. Let us imagine that we are talking about 4,000 pieces of law, regulations or whatever. In truth, probably 90% of that may be clunky and may not work very well, but there is one thing in the Bill that I approve of, which is dealing with the superiority of European law—taking those priorities out of it. That is sensible. Once we have dealt with that, things will broadly work and will not justify a rush at this exercise. Let me explain very briefly what I think the consequences of that will be. I said that it is not democratic, but it will also be inefficient and possibly incompetent. I give the House, as a demonstration of this, what we did on 3 March 2020. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that was the day that we gave the Government all sorts of powers under the emergency Coronavirus Act 2020. If we look, we can see how many errors were made in governing the country over the next six months, until we corrected that Act. If we do not bring a Minister to that Dispatch Box to justify what they are doing, the quality of the decision goes down, and that is dangerous when we are talking about measures as important as these.

The right approach is the one that we have actually taken in some areas. For example, we are rewriting the General Data Protection Regulation under a digital Bill. We are rewriting Solvency II and other financial measures under primary legislation, and the same is true for some procurement work. We should be doing similar things with some other software elements and biomedical rules. That is the way to do it: pick off the 10% or the 5% that really matter—that make 100% of the difference—and do that properly, on the Floor of the House, and not by remote control on a ministerial diktat in an SI Committee upstairs.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in this debate. I rise to speak to amendment 36, tabled in my name and the names of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, and to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for her hard work in drafting and tabling it.

Post Office: Compensation for Horizon Scandal

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for all her work and for her remarks. It is not practical to reopen the historical shortfall scheme in full, but cases are still coming forward and the Post Office is looking at them on an individual basis, because we want to make sure that we catch as many people as possible who have been wronged.

As for remuneration for postmasters, I talked about the fact that we have to give post offices a future. That has to be done on the back of the people—the postmasters up and down the country—who make the Post Office what it is. Remuneration remains a key topic of discussion with the Post Office, the NFSP and postmasters in general.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I have watched many Ministers do a good job at the Dispatch Box, but it takes a very special Minister to take an issue such as this to heart and really make it move, as this Minister has. The compensation that he talks about is long overdue, particularly for litigants—he knows that I represent one of them—and it will go a good way to correcting some of the historical injustices in this sorry case. I congratulate him on that and I know that this is not the end of the tale.

There is another way in which this cannot be the end. We have heard about learning lessons and all that, but this is about more than learning lessons; there is a massive question of justice. People have covered up—let us make no bones about it—a massive injustice to their advantage and for their own profit, pay and honours. I know that the Minister cannot say certain things and that sub judice issues apply to him, but I hope that he will keep a very close eye on this issue and make sure that the people who need to be punished are punished and that justice is done.

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work and the conversations that we have had. I should not have to be here making these statements and the taxpayer should not be covering compensation for the Post Office. This is being done because people have been wronged by those in authority and they have been let down time and again over 20 years. That is why we need compensation, justice and answers and to be able to draw a line under this, so that people who have been wronged can move on with their lives.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

Essentially, yes. We want to make sure that we can work with hon. Members on that. I do not want to accept all those amendments here and now, but I want to make sure that we can get it right in the other place, working with them at that stage.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I would like this to be rendered in English for the world at large to understand. If the Minister puts into law in the Lords all the amendments that we proposed, will it not still be the case that nothing can be done to stop a Russian oligarch from moving, selling or transferring his assets, even if we know all about it, until the moment when he is actually sanctioned?

[Paul Scully]

First, I thought that when I said, “Essentially, yes,” it was a clear, two-word answer to a simple question. I will cover my right hon. Friend’s amendments in my closing remarks, but I wanted to speak to the Government amendments at this point. However, his new clause 29 would give a huge amount of powers not just to the Foreign Secretary in relation to Putin’s regime, but to future Foreign Secretaries. We need to tread carefully and look at that carefully before the House acts in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis]

I will speak solely to cross-party new clause 29. It is a very simple clause with a simple purpose: to make sure that the sanctions we intend against the oligarchs in Putin’s regime are actually effective.

I remind the House of a previous occasion when we had great fanfare for action against economic crime. Since we introduced unexplained wealth orders some years ago, we have tried to operate the orders only nine times against four individuals, and they have worked only twice. They failed seven out of nine times. The Government are doing something in this Bill to try to improve the equality of arms between Government lawyers and the multimillion-pounds-a-year lawyers on the other side. The Government have done good work that will help, but it does not address, because it cannot address, the most fundamental problem with unexplained wealth orders because, since 1990, it has been almost impossible to get any trustworthy evidential information out of Russia. The very least that does is slow the process leading to sanctions. The process leading to sanctions will be incredibly difficult and incredibly slow even with this better balance.

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have confirmed that the Government have—this is a tabloid quote, I am afraid—a “hitlist” of more than 100 oligarchs. So far, 11 days into this conflict, we have sanctioned just 17 individuals, with some very obvious and notable exceptions who we can see and hear redisposing their assets even as we sit here. Press reports have quoted Government sources suggesting that it will take six months to work through the rest of the hitlist. And the rest, as I suspect it will take longer.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am a big supporter of the right hon. Gentleman’s new clause. President Zelensky is to address us tomorrow; would it not be good for us to be able to tell him that that new clause was accepted tonight? We would then be able to say that we can crack down much faster.

[Mr Davis]

It would be good. It would allow us to crack down more effectively; not so much more quickly but more effectively.

What will we see during the months it takes to get people to the legal point at which they are sanctioned? We will see Russians scrambling to sell off their houses, dispose of their businesses and offload their football clubs. In respect of many of the measures, we will know a lot more about it and be much better informed, if none the wiser, with respect to what they are doing. Multimillion-pound car collections will be loaded into jets; anchors will be weighed on superyachts; priceless artworks will be squirrelled away—all to wend their way back to Russia or some other safe haven for these people. By the time our sanctions have taken effect on not all but many of the oligarchs, the horse will have well and truly bolted. Indeed, the background noise is currently the sound of a stampede of horses bolting as the door on the stables creaks shut. That is what we have to put right.

My new clause will help to prevent all that. It will not do everything, because it is only one piece of the repertoire of things we need to do, but it will allow the Government to publish a hitlist—forgive the tabloid term—or a list of individuals who are being considered for sanctions. In the same way as someone may wait on bail before they face trial, the freedoms of those on the list will be restricted for the period so that they do not flee. Once a person’s name appears on the list, their ability to sell, liquidate or transfer out of our jurisdiction their assets—cars, homes, businesses, jets, investments, cash and so on—will be frozen. They will then be unable to sell those assets or move them out of the UK. They will still be able to use them—there will be beneficial advantage to them—but their ability to thwart what we are trying to do today will be restricted.

Given my history in this House, some may be rather surprised that I am willing to see a restriction of a specific human property right—that is what my new clause amounts to and that is quite unusual for me—but we need to take action now; otherwise, any sanctions that the Government seek to impose will be entirely meaningless for a large number of these people. We see Chelsea being sold today and all sorts of actions going on that cannot be helpful to what we are trying to achieve. My new clause would give the Government breathing space—time to go through the legalities of formally sanctioning the oligarchs and pals of Putin who rightly deserve to be the target of sanctions.

Although the Government have identified 100 oligarchs to sanction, other countries have identified more. This is going to be a long war. The sanctions are going to be in place for years, not months. They will have effect only if we move more quickly than the targets.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Davis]

Not for the moment; I am just about to finish the point. To move rapidly is the only way to ensure that our sanctions actually hit Putin where it hurts. I will now give way—I have never not given way in my life.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am most grateful. My right hon. Friend’s new clause is very important but, as he would probably concede, a difficulty with it is that we need alongside it transparency in respect of beneficial ownership; otherwise, we will not know who owns the assets. The problem is that the ownership of a lot of the assets is hidden. Does he agree that for his new clause to be truly effective we need a day-one capability to see who owns the assets?

[Mr Davis]

Yes, I do, but my hon. Friend must bear in mind that the burden in the new clause—the responsibility and requirements—falls on the person who is sanctioned.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I was not going to intervene on my right hon. Friend but I have been looking back over the list in his new clause. Does he think there is a slight problem, in that the new clause talks of

“selling any assets they own or…moving any assets they own or have an interest in out of the United Kingdom, or…moving any of their funds out of the United Kingdom”

but it does not cover anything about gifting assets out to an individual who may then transfer them immediately? Does he think that ought to be included in the measure?

[Mr Davis]

Yes, my right hon. Friend makes a good point. The reason why gifting and transferring to relatives, which is another category, is not in there is because I took—I almost ripped it out of the legislation—the legislation that we put in place for Skripal, which also omitted those things. My right hon. Friend is quite right, though, and had my new clause been accepted today, I would have looked to make two changes when the Bill went to the Lords, the first of which would be to do that—to tighten it. The other would be to include a right of appeal if it went on too long the other way round, to balance the human rights issue.

We should bear in mind the fact that the National Crime Agency, for example, has people on police bail. I know of a case in which people have been on police bail for five years and we know nothing about it, so the restriction in my new clause on somebody who faces possible sanction is much less than the restriction the NCA imposes on some people. It is vital that we prevent ultra-wealthy individuals, with their teams of highly paid lawyers, advisers and accountants, from exiting the UK with their ill-gotten gains or hiding them where we cannot find them or get them.

By the way, I am a great believer in the presumption of innocence, but if somebody came out of the old Soviet Union—Russia—in the years between 1990 and 2010 with £1 billion, £2 billion, £3 billion or £4 billion to their name, and they were previously an officer of the Russian state, I do not quite start with the presumption of innocence that I would normally start with. I would start with a requirement on them to explain where that came from. That seems to me to be a reasonable, common-sense modification of my normal “mad-libertarian” interests.

[Anthony Mangnall]

The presumption of innocence must surely be broad and not subjective in respect of any one individual. My right hon. Friend made the point about people on bail; the whole point is that if someone is on bail, a case has already been presented and built up. I of course understand that my right hon. Friend is trying to get to the point at which the case has been built up. On his new clause, how is the process reversed if someone should not be on the list? How would the Foreign Secretary say they are no longer on the list? There is nothing in my right hon. Friend’s new clause that specifies how that would work.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is right. If we put the measure in place, there would be a decision at some point as to whether someone was on the list or no longer on the list—“We’ve decided that you’re not subject to sanction.” That clearly has to be part of the operation. By the way, I am afraid police bail does not quite work the way my hon. Friend thinks it does: in the case that I had in mind, there is no case but they have been on police bail. That is just an example to demonstrate that the idea in my new clause is not an unheard of option.

I see Dame Eleanor is looking at me, so let me finish by saying that if we back new clause 29, we will ensure that our sanctions regime will often have real effect. It is proportionate and simple and it would be effective.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I rise to speak specifically to new clause 2, on the funding of enforcement agencies, but I wish to say a couple of things about the amendments in general. First, I am grateful to the Minister for the Government’s spirit and approach in respect of the amendments. We all want the same thing and are attempting to find the most effective wording and mechanism to achieve our shared objectives. I hope the Minister sees the amendments on which there are votes tonight as utterly constructive. I assure him that they really do have cross-party support among Back Benchers in the widest possible sense. A lot of people are behind them and I hope that reassures him that we want to help and are not here to cause him problems.

I am grateful for the concessions that the Government have already made on penalties, on the implementation period, on speeding up sanctions—I very much welcome those new clauses—and on the reporting of unexplained wealth orders, which I have been after for a long time. As I have said to the Minister privately, our amendments include drafting amendments. I am glad he is going to talk to us about amendment 3. He will have heard the general concern throughout the House about whether the wording targets the individuals we wish to target. The other amendments are about strengthening the Bill.

To talk generally, some of the amendments point to the fact that this is not an economic crime Bill. A range of vital issues have to be addressed in a substantial and substantive economic crime Bill. A lot of people have talked about Companies House and tougher regulation; I would include company formation agents in that. We have talked about other enablers and effective enforcement, which is covered in our amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) raised SLAPPs, and issues in respect of whistleblowers and Scottish limited partnership are also important. That all shows that we do need a comprehensive Bill, but I accept that this is a very important first stage.

Post Office: Horizon Compensation Arrangements

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). They are absolutely right, and they have been long-term campaigners on the issue. Mr Speaker, I smiled to myself when you made your statement, but I understand it and support it. This Minister cares passionately about the issue, and, whatever he says, as a long-term Whitehall hand, I see the symptoms of a Minister caught between the jaws of the Treasury and Whitehall lawyers. Lawyers do not always deliver justice and the Treasury rarely does. What I will say to him is this: nobody deserves justice more than the 555. They opened up the worst miscarriage of justice in modern Government. If it helps him in his battle to get this done quickly and properly, I will say this to him: if he cannot do it, we will find a way of having this House instruct the Government to do it. Let him use that in his battle with the Treasury and the lawyers.

[Paul Scully]

I can quote the Francis Urquhart line back at my right hon. Friend, but any pressure will be gratefully received. The last two years of covid have been about learning to speed up Government. As someone who has been running small businesses for 25 years, I am used to making decisions, cracking on, getting on and doing things. The Government do not always work that way. We have learnt in the past two years how to do it and I fully expect it to happen in this case.

Postmasters with Overturned Convictions: Settlement Funds

David Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

These questions have been addressed not just in the original Justice Fraser report, which talked about the technology and the Horizon software; Sir Wyn Williams also has technical advisers to his independent inquiry to give him advice on the recommendations that he may want to make. We will indeed ensure that the software, which has been improved—there have been iterations since the last of the prosecutions—continues to improve. Indeed, I would expect it to be replaced at some point.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The Horizon scandal obviously ruined many hundreds of lives, and the whole House will welcome the Government stepping in to meet the bill for compensation. However, the involvement of the Treasury in previous compensation schemes—Equitable Life comes to mind, but others too—has not always been wholly beneficial. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must not allow arbitrary Treasury rules to limit the compensation paid to these postmasters, whose lives have often been completely ruined by the process—not simply the financial process, but the emotional and social damage?

[Paul Scully]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly the Treasury has these rules to make sure it gets the best value for taxpayers’ money but, none the less, some things go beyond that. We have talked about the human cost now and umpteen times over the past 20 years, and it is important we get this right.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I would like to hear more from the hon. Gentleman about this, and I am very happy to meet him to talk about it.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

It seems that legislation is the only way that the hundreds of postmasters and postmistresses who have had their lives destroyed by the Horizon scandal will get sufficient compensation in a timely manner. Will the Department look at legislation to deliver this?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. Friend not only for his question, but for his meeting last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) as well as Tracy Felstead, Janet Skinner and Seema Misra, and we cannot help but be moved by the harrowing tales that the sub-postmasters tell after 20 years of suffering. Yes, we will look at everything that is required to make sure that we tackle the issue of how all sub-postmasters can seek justice and request compensation.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Budgets and Finance Bills were the first reason for having a Parliament —to approve the expenditures of the Executive. For more than a century, the first resolution for a Finance Bill has been what is known as the general amendment of the law resolution. The resolution allows Members to table amendments that deal with tax administration and relief provisions not otherwise provided for by the specific Ways and Means resolution.

However, since Philip Hammond’s Finance Bill 2017, the Government have not included such a resolution. The effect is that any amendments tabled by Members to the Finance Bill must be tied to one of the specific resolutions already agreed by the House. In effect, by not including the amendment of the law resolution, the Government have shut down the rights that the House has enjoyed for more than 100 years. The result is that Members’ hands are tied when it comes to effectively amending the Finance Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, can you give guidance as to how the House can recover those fundamental rights, which have been arrogated by the Government?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order. There is no matter of order for the Chair arising from the absence of an amendment of the law motion. There was no such motion after the last three Budgets and I think I remember, during the last Budget, a very similar if not identical point of order from the right hon. Gentleman. There is a lot of tradition around Budgets, and it may well be that the David Davis point of order becomes part of that tradition. Anyway, it has no effect on the scope of debate—the reasons for and implications of the absence of an amendment of the law resolution are themselves a proper matter for debate. The right hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.

Before I call the Minister, I point out that up until and including No. 6, Darren Jones, on the call list, Back-Bench contributions will have a five-minute time limit. Thereafter—No. 7 onwards—the limit will be reduced to three minutes. For those who are contributing remotely, please look at the timer on the bottom right-hand corner of the device that you are using. If, for whatever reason, you do not have sight of that, please use an alternative way of ensuring that you keep within the time limit that has been set. Please do not be tempted to try to extend it, because we have 101 contributions to this debate. For those who are taking part in the Chamber, the timer will be displayed as usual on the monitors in the Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for the work she is doing on the Select Committee. Thomas Cook did have clawback and malus arrangements in place for the recovery of directors’ bonus payments in specific circumstances, as required by the UK corporate governance code. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Insolvency Service to fast-track an investigation, and it will report back. As the hon. Lady outlined, the CEO did advise the Committee on 15 October that he would consider voluntarily surrendering some of his 2017 cash bonus, but it must be pointed out that no bonus was paid to the ex-CEO in 2018.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) highlighted the point that the biggest concern is not simply how much is paid to executives, but their being paid for failure, not for success. The current arrangements in British company law allow chief executives and other executives to be paid on the basis of share price and allow them to buy back shares, propping up the share price. This is a formula for payment for failure. Is the Department looking at that?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this. Part of the reforms in January was to make organisations report back on the effect of share price growth on executive pay outcomes. We published some evidence before the summer from a review undertaken on share buy-backs, and there was no clear evidence to suggest that they did have a perverse outcome.

Points of Order

David Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On a mundane but important point of order, Mr Speaker. The House of Lords Commission gave the following ruling on passes for parliamentary assistants in its last report:

“Members may not sponsor a pass for anybody whose primary role is to support an All-Party Parliamentary Group.”

That may have been to deal with some problem of misuse—I do not know; I cannot speak to that—but I am concerned about it. I see the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, is in his place; some years ago, he changed the law—under some influence from me, I think—to make Members of Parliament authorised people under the whistleblowing Act. Organisations such as the all-party group on whistleblowing therefore need staff in the House. Could the House authorities make representations to the House of Lords to make sure that that is taken on board and corrected?

[Mr Speaker]

I think this has some relevance to security, and the Chair would not normally pronounce on such matters in the Chamber, but I want to reflect on the right hon. Gentleman’s point, because it is important and potentially has ramifications for other Members and groups. Rather than give a knee-jerk response that is insufficiently considered, I will give a considered response at a later date. I hope that will be helpful. If I may say so—and I will—“mundane” and the right hon. Gentleman simply do not go together.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

No. Advice and support are available to every business across the United Kingdom, including, of course, businesses in Scotland. I work very closely with the Scottish Government. They are represented on the groups that are developing the contingency plans for a no-deal Brexit, and businesses are included in that.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

In Scotland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, there are grants of up to £1,050 per employee for training employees, and up to £200,000 for new IT systems for dealing with new customs arrangements. Given the importance of this, why is it not more widely advertised both in Scotland and in the United Kingdom?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As he knows from the industrial strategy—he was closely involved in its construction—grants and assistance for training, especially for employees whose jobs change as a result of technological change, is a very important contribution that we can make, and I am glad that he has brought it to the attention of the House.