Risk-based Exclusion

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is strange to agree so much with the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg). I think that he is a bit shocked that I agree with him as well—I see that he nods.

Let me return to two central things. First, this is about Parliament being like every other workplace in the country. Of course there are ways in which we are exceptional—we often emphasise those too much, perhaps—but what was fascinating when we debated the original proposals from the Commission in the Standards Committee was that the lay members all said that in every line of work they were in, this would be standard practice. It would happen in various different ways in different organisations, but certainly in every part of the public sector and in any major employer in the land, this process, in some shape or form, would be absolutely standard. We are simply trying to ensure that this workplace, like any other in the land, is safe not just from external threats but from behaviours that could put staff, members of the public and colleagues at risk.

Secondly, the proposal is about assessing the seriousness of the risk in any given set of circumstances—which heaven knows could vary enormously from the case of one person to another—and then taking proportionate and only proportionate measures to mitigate that risk, as any responsible employer and workplace surely should, and as any other workplace would be required to do, in law written by us. It is about the assessment of risk and proportionate measures to deal with the risk; it is not, in my mind—and I think that it is a terrible shame that it has been billed as such—about exclusion. Exclusion should be, as it is in nearly every other business, the very last point to go to. It would be at the extreme end, when an assessment had been made that the risk was relatively extreme.

Many other things could be done that fall far short of exclusion. For instance, one of the oddities about this building and all the buildings on the parliamentary estate is that we often work, as an MP, with a single member of staff, or two members of staff, behind a big oak door. Somebody might want to make a risk assessment if a Member were, I would say, arrested for a sexual or violent crime relating to a member of staff. They might want to make an assessment that that Member should no longer be in that kind of office and that their office should be one shared with other members of staff, other Members of Parliament or in a more visible space. That might be the perfectly proportionate decision to take, and that could be done entirely without the public knowing and entirely as a neutral act.

This is a really important point: the court of public opinion has no formal rules of evidence, operates entirely to its own agenda, and—in my experience—rarely delivers justice or anything that we would think approximates justice. That is why, notwithstanding the point made about how rumour spreads around here, it is so important that any measure taken should be done confidentially. I think that in nearly every case it would be taken with the agreement of the Member concerned. It should also be considered an entirely neutral process. My worry about the obsession with exclusion as the endpoint of what we are looking at is that it starts to look like a punishment rather than a neutral act.

That is why, in nearly every case, if the assessment of the panel were that there was a significant risk that could be mitigated only through a suggestion of exclusion, the Member would be well advised to follow that advice voluntarily. I think they would in nearly any set of circumstances. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for North East Somerset that, in the end, it must be a matter for the House if there is to be forced exclusion; otherwise, there is a danger that we bring the whole process into disrepute and it will not last for more than five minutes.

[Sir David Davis]

The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points. I have two concerns about the process. The first is about abiding by our long-standing rule of innocent until proven guilty. The second is that the people being penalised by this measure are our constituents, not us. Does he imagine guidelines for the panel that take those two things on board in the way he just described?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

It is perfectly possible to do that. I can imagine many different circumstances where somebody was arrested for a violent or sexual offence and the panel decided that they would not go down the route of exclusion. The Member would still be able to be present and take part in debates; it is just that certain other factors would be considered, such as saying, “You can’t go on foreign travel on behalf of the House, you can’t go on travel in the UK paid for by the House, you can’t participate in IPU delegations, you can’t use the bars, and we’re going to rearrange your offices.” All of those things could happen entirely without disrupting the Member’s ability to represent their constituents to the fullest possible degree. As I say, this is always about assessing the risk in the specific set of circumstances and mitigating those risks only in a proportionate way. In most cases, my suspicion is that exclusion would be disproportionate and therefore not necessary. That is why it is unfortunate that the motion has been couched in this way.

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Report stage
Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

He does not—great.

Finally, new schedule 1 would grant the Secretary of State the power to require banks or other financial institutions to provide the bank account data—unspecified—of any recipient of benefits to identify

“cases which merit further consideration to establish whether relevant benefits are being paid or have been paid in accordance with the enactments and rules of law relating to those benefits.”

It is a very broad and, I would argue, poorly delineated power. My understanding from the Commons Library, although I note that the Minister was unable to answer the question properly, is that it includes the bank accounts of anyone in the UK in receipt, or having been in receipt, of state pension, universal credit, working tax credit, child tax credit, child benefit, pension credit, jobseeker’s allowance or personal independence payment.

The Minister says that the Government do not intend to go down some of those routes at the moment, but why, in that case, are they seeking that power? They could have come to us with a much more tightly written piece of legislation, and we would have been able to help them draft it properly. The proposed new schedule would mean that millions of bank accounts could be trawled without the Department for Work and Pensions, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) referred to, even suspecting anything untoward before it asked for the information. The 19-page new schedule, which was tabled on the last day for consideration, would grant powers to the Government without our having any opportunity to scrutinise it line by line, assess its implications or hear evidence from expert witnesses.

We should of course be tackling fraud. The Government have completely lost control of fraud in recent years, with benefit fraud and error skyrocketing to £8.3 billion in the last financial year. The Minister seemed to think that it was a good thing that he could cite that figure. The year before, it was even higher—a record £8.7 billion. On the Conservative party’s watch, the percentage of benefit expenditure lost to fraud has more than trebled since Labour was last in power.

Let me be absolutely clear: Labour will pursue the fraudsters, the conmen and the claimants who try to take money from the public purse fraudulently or illegally. That includes those who have defrauded the taxpayer over personal protective equipment contracts, or have not declared their full income to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. My constituents in the Rhondda know that defrauding the taxpayer is one of the worst forms of theft. It is theft from all of us. It undermines confidence in the system that so many rely on. It angers people when they abide by the rules and they see others swinging the lead and getting away with it.

I back 100% any attempt to tackle fraud in the system, and we will work with the Government to get the legislation right, but this is not the way to do it, because it is not proper scrutiny. The Minister with responsibility for this matter, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who is present in the Chamber, is not even speaking in the debate. The Government are asking us to take a lot on trust, as we saw from the questions put earlier to the Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure, so I have some more questions for him that I hope he will be able to answer.

As I understand it, the Government did a test project on this in 2017—all of six years ago—so what on earth have they been doing all this while? When was the new schedule first drafted, and why did the Minister not mention it in the discussions that he and I had two weeks ago? How many bank accounts does it potentially apply to? The Government already have powers to seek bank details where they suspect fraud, so precisely how will the new power be used? I have been told that the Government will not use the power until 2027. Is that right? If so, how on earth did they come to the figure of a £600 million saving—that was the figure that they gave yesterday, but I note that the Minister said £500 million earlier—in the first five years?

What will the cost be to the banks and financial institutions? What kind of information will the Government seek? Will it include details of where people have shopped, banked or travelled, or what they have spent their money on? The Government say that they will introduce a set of criteria specifying the power. When will that be introduced, how wide in scope will it be, what assessments will accompany it, and will it be subject to parliamentary scrutiny?

There is clearly significant potential to use data to identify fraud and error. That is something that Labour is determined to do, but it is vital that new measures are used fairly and proportionately. The Department for Work and Pensions says that its ability to test for unfair impacts across protected characteristics is limited, and the National Audit Office has also warned that machine learning risks bias towards certain vulnerable people or groups with protected characteristics. Without proper safeguards in place, the changes could have significant adverse effects on the most vulnerable people in society.

On behalf of the whole Labour party, I reiterate the offer that I made to the Government yesterday. We need to get this right. We will work with Ministers to get it right, and I very much hope that we can organise meetings after today, if the Bill passes, to ensure that the debates in the Lords are well informed and that we get to a much better understanding of what the Government intend and how we can get this right. If we get it wrong, we will undermine trust in the whole data system and in Government.

Broadly speaking, Labour supports the changes in the Bill that give greater clarity and flexibility to researchers, tech platforms and public service providers, with common-sense changes to data protection where it is overly rigid, but the Government do not need to water down essential protections for data subjects to do that. Our amendments set out clearly where we diverge from the Government and how Labour would do things differently.

By maintaining subject access request protections, establishing a definition of high-risk processing on the face of the Bill, and defending the public from automated decision making that encroaches too significantly on people’s lives, a Bill with Labour’s amendments would unlock the new potential for data that improves public services, protects workers from data power imbalances and delivers cutting-edge scientific research, while also building trust for consumers and citizens. That is the data protection regime the UK needs and that is the protection a Labour Government would have delivered.

[Mr David Davis]

Before I speak to my new clause, I want to address one or two of the things that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), just raised. By not accepting his motion to recommit the Bill to a Committee, we have in effect delegated large parts of the work on this important Bill to the House of Lords. I say directly to the Whip on the Treasury Bench that, when the Bill comes back to the Commons in ping-pong, I recommend that the Whips Office allows considerable time for us to debate the changes that the Lords makes. At the end of the day, this House is responsible to our constituents and these issues will have a direct impact on them, so we ought to have a strong say over what is done with respect to this Bill.

New clause 43 in my name is entitled “Right to use non-digital verification services”. Digitisation has had tremendous benefits for society. Administrative tasks that once took weeks or even years can now be done in seconds, thanks to technology, but that technology has come with considerable risks as well as problems of access. The internet is an equaliser in many ways; I can access websites and services in East Yorkshire in the same way that we do here. I can send and receive money, contact friends and family, organise families, do work, and do all sorts of other things that we could not once do.

However, the reality is more nuanced. Some people lack the technological literacy or simply the hardware to get online and make the most of what is out there—think of elderly people, the homeless and those living on the breadline. As with many things, those groups risk being left behind by the onward march of technology through no fault of their own. Indeed, some people do not want to go fully online. Many people who are perfectly au fait with the latest gadgets are none the less deeply concerned about the security of their data, and who can blame them?

My bank account has been accessed from Israel in the past. My online emails have been broken into during political battles of one sort or another. These things are risky. I hope nobody in the Chamber has forgotten the Edward Snowden revelations about the National Security Agency and GCHQ, which revealed a vast network of covert surveillance and data gathering by Government agencies from ordinary online activity, and the sharing of private information without consent. More recently, we have heard how Government agencies monitored people’s social media posts during the pandemic, and data trading by private companies is an enormous and lucrative industry.

What is more, as time passes and the rise of artificial intelligence takes hold, the ability to make use of central databases is becoming formidable. It is beyond imagination, so people are properly cautious about what data they share and how they share it. For some people—this is where the issue is directly relevant to this Bill—that caution will mean avoiding the use of digital identity verification, and for others that digital verification is simply inaccessible. The Bill therefore creates two serious problems by its underlying assumptions.

Already it is becoming extremely difficult for people to live anything approaching a normal life if they are not fully wired into the online network. If they cannot even verify who they are without that access, what are they supposed to do? That is why I want to create a right to offline verification and, in effect, offline identification. We saw earlier this year what can happen when someone is excluded from basic services, with the planned closure of Nigel Farage’s bank account. That case was not related to identification, but it made clear how much of an impact such exclusion can have on someone’s life. Those who cannot or do not wish to verify their identity digitally could end up in the same position as Farage and many others who have seen their access to banking restricted for unfair reasons.

The rise of online banking, although a great convenience for many, must not mean certain others being left out. We are talking about fairly fundamental rights here. Those people who, by inclination or otherwise, find it preferable or easier to stick to old-fashioned ways must not be excluded from society. My amendment would require that all services requiring identity verification offer a non-digital alternative, ensuring that everyone, regardless of who they are, will have the same access.

Committee on Standards

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I have worries about this. I have worries about the Committee’s report, and certainly about the behaviour of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as I think some of her investigation methods require looking at. Regarding this case, I am concerned that the Committee is effectively setting down guidelines for the use of parliamentary correspondence with respect to the judiciary. On many occasions, I have reason to take interest in miscarriages of justice that may not relate directly to debates in the Commons or to individual constituents, but where I would want to intervene. I worry that today’s judgment curtails that, and I give notice, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will seek a debate on that issue at some point. We must ensure that this judgment does not constrain those of us who care about the rule of law and about justice, and that we do not interpret this as a sterilisation of the position between Members of the House with real concerns, and the judiciary.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has read the whole of the report because he is a very diligent Member. I know that, and I fully understand the point he makes. I do not want any MP to be prevented from trying to deal with miscarriages of justice. There are proper ways of doing that, and there are improper ways. I hope Members will find it helpful that we had strong legal advice from Speaker’s Counsel on the difference between those two ways, which we laid out in paragraphs 75 and 76 of the report. I hope that is helpful to Members. Our intention and hope is to send that to all Members, and of course I would welcome a full debate at some point.

[Mr Davis]

From memory, this was referring back to a previous judgment of the hon. Gentleman’s Committee back in 1998-2000 on what was or was not appropriate. I think this is not a decision for Speaker’s Counsel; it is a decision for this House as to how the separation of powers works. It is not simply a legal issue; it is a moral and constitutional issue, and it should be decided by the Chamber in total, not by individual officers of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I hope the House will bear with me if I speak for a little longer than others have, because it is important to put on the record precisely what the case is. It is always a delight to see the Deputy Chief Whip, and I understand why the Leader of the House is unable to be here. He has explained that to me, and I fully understand. However, if I might just mark the card for the future, it is inappropriate for a Whip to be moving a motion of this kind. It should be moved by the Leader of the House—that has been the tradition in the past—or by another Minister. There is a slight danger that if this gets into party politics, the whole system will fall apart, which would be inappropriate. I am not making any allegation at all about the Deputy Chief Whip; I just think it would have been better—I think he probably does too—if it had been somebody else. [Interruption.] Well, I gather that he has told lots of other people that he wished it was somebody else doing it.

I do not want to rehearse every element of this issue, but I want for a start to draw an important distinction that has not been properly understood in the wider public. This is not about whether the MPs should have written character references for Mr Elphicke. They were at perfect liberty so to do. That is a service that Members provide quite often, for either their constituents or their friends and associates. It is perfectly legitimate to do so, and in normal court proceedings there is a way of doing that. In fact, the courts deliberately have a proper means of gathering and assessing those references. My Committee makes absolutely no criticism whatsoever of the Members concerned for those original character references.

The issue here was that Mrs Justice Whipple, who had presided over the original trial, had to rule in a further proceeding, under rule 5.7 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, whether and to what degree those references should be made public. I think everybody accepts that the final decision she came to was a good one. She sought representations from those who had submitted references, including the five MPs, and expected those to come through Mr Elphicke’s lawyers, who by that stage were acting for the court itself.

The MPs, however, chose to ignore that proper channel, and instead sought to bypass Mrs Justice Whipple. They wrote as MPs to Dame Kathryn Thirlwall, senior presiding judge for England and Wales, and Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the Queen’s bench division, only copying Mrs Justice Whipple, in the hope that they would, in turn, lean on Mrs Justice Whipple. That is the bit that we considered to be inappropriate.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) is absolutely right that that is not a matter for Speaker’s Counsel to decide; it is a matter for the House to decide, but that is what we have come to a conclusion on. It was an improper attempt to influence a judicial proceeding, and, frankly, it is not the way we do justice in this country. It may be the way that justice is done in other countries, where politicians lean on judges; it is not the way we do business in this country. As we say, the fact that the letter was copied to Mrs Justice Whipple rather than addressed to her directly implies that the Members were attempting to exercise an undue influence over her through her superiors rather than informing the hearing.

[Mr David Davis]

I read the Committee’s report at speed, so I want to be clear in my own mind what crime, or misdemeanour, we are talking about. My understanding from my reading was that the MPs were making representations to protect the privacy of other individuals who had given references. Is that right or wrong?

[Chris Bryant]

They were making representations trying to say that various of the character references should or should not be revealed in public, and that was the matter that was being decided in the judicial proceeding by Mrs Justice Whipple. Mrs Justice Whipple had engaged Mr Elphicke’s original lawyers as officers of the court to seek representations on that matter, but the MPs did not go through that process; they went through a different process by contacting the senior judges, who were senior to Mrs Justice Whipple, and that is the inappropriate action. There was a perfectly legitimate matter of concern to the court and there was a proper process, and the MPs did not use that process; they used an improper process for seeking to influence the outcome.

That is why, as I referred to earlier, in paragraphs 75 and 76 of our report, we drew a distinction between what is a perfectly appropriate means of engaging in a judicial process and what we consider to be an inappropriate one. I am not a big fan of the term “separation of powers”, because, in our history, it has been a bit more complicated than people sometimes suggest. However, I do believe in comity—that is to say that Parliament has its role and the courts have their role, and the two need to be absolutely distinct if we are to make sure that there is proper justice available to everybody.

I am sorry to offend the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, but I am going to quote Speaker’s Counsel again. She told us:

“The proper relationship between Parliament and the courts requires that the courts should be left to get on with their work. No matter how great the pressure at times from interest groups or constituents, Parliament should not permit itself to appear as an alternative forum for canvassing the rights and wrongs of issues being considered by the judicial arm of the state on evidence yet to be presented and tested.”

The place for those things to be contested and tested is the court, not here, which is why we have the sub judice rule, apart from anything else. Some Members have suggested to me that this is a remarkably minor point. We disagree. Indeed, the evidence that we were given—not least the comments from the Lord Chief Justice—was very clear that it is not considered to be a minor point.

We scrupulously treated each individual as a separate case. Both the commissioner and the Committee gave each Member a full opportunity to explain themselves in person and/or in writing. That is why we recommended different sanctions in each case.

I should say that the Committee has come under some criticism for being too lenient. The public commentary on this issue mostly suggests that we have been too lenient, not too strict. There are those who think that a longer suspension would have been more suitable. Some have pointed out that a Member could be suspended from the House for five days for calling another hon. Member a liar, but only a single day for what is considered to be a fundamental breach of the rules of the House. I just note that the only press that I have seen relating to today’s debate says that the timing that the Government have inserted in the motion means that the Members will miss only consideration of legislation proposed by Back-Bench MPs, with Friday sittings traditionally not well attended, rather than a busy day when any crucial Government business will be considered.

To all that, I say that the Committee does not recommend suspension from the House lightly. I think it is fair to say that we pretty much agonise about doing this, because we know that it can feel like quite a blot or stain on someone’s career. I have spoken, I think, to nearly all the Members concerned. It is a very serious sanction. Some have pointed out that the independence of the courts is such a basic part of the British constitution that it is genuinely shocking that Members of Parliament should have acted like this. That particularly applies to the long-standing Member who refused to accept that he had made a mistake—although he does now, and he has written a fulsome apology—and the two Members who are qualified or have practised in the law. As we say in our report, all three of them, frankly, should have known better.

However, we also recognise that there has never been an explicit rule forbidding MPs from interfering with judicial proceedings, nor a general rule against Members attempting to use their position as a Member of Parliament to exert improper influence or gain improper advantage. In a sense, that is because we always thought those things to be self-evident.

Let me make one final point. The Committee has already expressed concern—as has the independent expert panel, which deals with cases of sexual harassment and bullying—about the Government’s refusal to bring motions to the House at the earliest possibility. We normally expect these things to come to the House within 48 hours. I say this very gently, but I would worry if the Government were picking and choosing when to bring a motion to the House.

I think Sir Stephen Irwin, the chair of the independent expert panel, wrote to the Government to make the point that it would obviously be an inappropriate and partisan point if the Government were choosing to table a motion on a particular day so as either to remove a Member from a vote or to enable a Member to vote. There is an argument for the motion to be tabled by the Committee itself rather than by the Government, and for the Speaker to grant it precedence. That could only happen, of course, if we were to change Standing Orders, and that is not in the gift of the Committee.

[Mr David Davis]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I was about to be on my last sentence, but of course I give way to the right hon. Gentleman—he is so tempting.

[Mr David Davis]

As the hon. Gentleman did to me. I am actually going to commend him for this. The punishment here is not denial of access to the House of Commons; the punishment is reputational. In truth, those who think that someone should be stopped from coming in on Budget day, or whatever, misunderstand the nature of the punishment. The aim of the punishment is not to deny the constituents of those MPs the right to be represented on an important day in the House. The punishment is entirely reputational, so I think the Committee did that right.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely accept that. In fact, I do not like the word “punishment”. Of course this may feel like a punishment, but we prefer the word “sanction”. We have deliberately tried over the past 18 months, since I have been Chair, to create a sort of tariff of sanctions, which we apply according to the seriousness of the misdemeanour and to a set of aggravating and mitigating factors, which we try to bear in mind in relation to each individual. We have laid that out in the report.

It is unusual to have a report that refers to several Members; I am not aware of any case where we have drawn a distinction between each of the Members who have been engaged in a similar action. I hope the House would be reassured that the fact we have drawn a distinction between the five Members, because of their seniority, their previous careers and so on, is an indication that we are only seeking to bring in a sanction that is commensurate with the situation before us. We are not a court of law; we do not have competing parties and everybody represented by lawyers and all the rest of it. However, we seek to give proper consideration to both the reputational risk for an individual, even when an investigation is started, and the reputational risk for the House if we were not to take these matters seriously. We also try to make sure that there is natural justice for each of the individuals, from the beginning to the end.

We would like to bring in some changes to our practices in the future, and we are close to completing the report on the code of conduct, which will make some statements about this. We need to be a bit clearer from the very beginning in explaining to an individual Member what will happen in an investigation when the Commissioner is engaged and when the Committee is engaged we probably need to give a clearer indication of the exact process again, because no Member should have to have all this stored in their head against the day when they might suddenly find themselves in a difficult situation.

I have spoken for too long, as is my wont, but I hope that this has been helpful to the House. If hon. Members are ever in doubt about a course of action they are intending to take, the Commissioner, myself or the Registrar—we have a new Registrar, James Davies, who has just started—are always there to provide confidential advice if people would like it.

Coronavirus Bill

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I rise merely to refer to the issue of the timing and the length of the Bill. As Members will know, the Minister said in the previous debate that the Government were tabling a new clause that would allow the Bill to be on the statute book for two years but with an opportunity after six months to vote on whether the temporary measures in it should remain. I urge the Minister to look carefully at that new clause, because I think it is defective. New clause 19 states clearly:

“‘relevant temporary provision’” means any provision of this Act—

(a) which is not listed in section (2) (provisions not subject to expiry)”

I cannot find that section anywhere, so I do not think that the new clause works in law. I may be completely wrong—I may have missed something—and if so, I hope the Minister can enlighten me. I do not think there is any conspiracy here; it may just be that something has been missed.

Like the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), my anxiety from the start has been that two years is a long time to have such draconian measures on the statute book and that to have them on the statute book without a moment when the House, rather than Ministers, can decide to switch individual measures on or off is quite problematic. The Government have already used the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to table statutory instruments to close pubs, restaurants, casino, spas, gyms and so on. That secondary legislation still has to go through the House under the 1984 Act, and the Commons and the Lords have to vote in favour of it within 28 days of it being tabled.

Likewise, if the Government had gone down the route of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, they would have needed to come back to Parliament every 30 days for each of the individual powers that they presented under that Act, and if the House chose not to allow those powers to remain, the Government would not be able to continue using them. In addition, the 2004 Act makes it clear that if Parliament is adjourned for more than four days, or even if it is prorogued, the Speaker and the monarch have to summon Parliament.

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

The hon. Gentleman may be coming to this, but there is one other element: putting this in primary legislation rather than secondary takes it out of the purview of the courts., so here we have one of the heaviest-duty Acts we have seen post war prevented from undergoing judicial review in the interests of citizens.

[Chris Bryant]

I agree, and I do not understand why the Government have gone in this direction. I have been told in several private meetings that it is because they believe that the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 can only be used when they do not know that something is coming down the line, but I think the definition of an “emergency” in section 19 of the 2004 Act would allow for every single thing that we are considering.

I tabled an amendment, and I must apologise to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), because it is entirely my fault that, by accident, his name ended up on my amendment. I am terribly sorry. If the Government Whips want to beat anybody up, they should beat me up. There is a serious point here, which is that if the Government are going to take draconian powers and give themselves the power to switch them on and off, that should come back to Parliament more frequently even than is allowed for in the Government’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Personally, I would prefer the time period to be shorter. I would prefer Government Ministers not to be switching powers on and off, because that will lead to them being more queried by the nation at large. I prefer something more like a three-month period when they have these powers, with regular review by the House, but I am not going to die in a ditch. There are no ditches here. I laud the Government for the movement that they have made, but they may still need to move some way further. It may be that they need to amend their own amendment when it goes to the House of Lords.

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

I rise to speak specifically to amendment 6, in my name and those of others, and to the Government amendment.

The Secretary of State himself said that the Bill has an astonishing range of powers: from forced quarantine to cancelling elections; and from allowing single doctors to section people to reducing parliamentary oversight of intelligence gathering. That is just a taster, but there is much, much more. The Opposition Health spokesman described it as having a draconian impact on many basic freedoms. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has just said, many, if not all, of those powers are actually to be found in two pre-existing Acts. The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984—the year 1984 is ironic—was designed for exactly the position we are in now: dealing with pandemics and epidemics. It was amended later, I think in 2008, to make it even more specific. The 1984 Act contains the vast majority of measures the Government need. As the hon. Gentleman said, it has been used already for the closure of pubs, restaurants and so on through secondary legislation.

The other Act is the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government could have used that. The Government have argued, most recently last week at business questions, that this is the wrong sort of emergency—sort of like the wrong kind of snow—to fall under the remit of the Civil Contingencies Act. I have to tell the Government that they are plain wrong. I was here for the debates on the Civil Contingencies Act. I remember the arguments about what it would and would not apply to, and this is specifically the case. It is not just me. I am not a lawyer, but a number of public lawyers of my acquaintance think the Government are wrong. Most importantly—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) alluded to this—we can call on an even greater authority. After business questions last week, I made a point of order to ask Mr Speaker if we could get the opinion of his counsel, Mr Daniel Greenberg. I will read the relevant paragraph to the House—it is only a couple of lines. He said:

“The 2004 Act (which I wrote), including the powers to make emergency provision under Part 2, is clearly capable of being applied to take measures in relation to coronavirus.”

The man who wrote the Act, the most authoritative source in this House, Mr Speaker’s Counsel, who is completely impartial, says that the Government are wrong, they could have used the Civil Contingencies Act.

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), the Leader of the House answered, in effect, that the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 was not available for this particular emergency. Knowing my right hon. Friend, I am sure that he was repeating, in absolute good faith, the briefing he had been given, but I was here and lived through the passage of that Act, and that is not my understanding of it. More importantly, it is not how a number of public lawyers understand the Act. So could you, Mr Deputy Speaker, undertake to get the Speaker’s Counsel to give this House an opinion as to whether that Act is applicable before we move the emergency legislation next week?

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. One key aspect of the 2004 Act is that the use of powers has to be approved by Parliament within seven days and the powers can last for only 30 days before they have to be renewed by Parliament. Indeed, the Act contains specific measures to ensure that the House sits if we are in recess or even if we are prorogued. So could you feed that into the process of answering the right hon. Gentleman?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

5. Whether he plans for the UK to be subject to rulings of the European Court of Justice during the transition period.

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)]

In Florence five months ago, the Prime Minister set out a proposal for the implementation period under current terms, utilising the existing structure of European Union rules and regulations, including the European Court, for that time-limited period. That is necessary so that there is only one set of changes for businesses and people and minimum disruption. We are also clear that our priority will be getting the right arrangements for Britain’s relationship with the EU in the long term, out of the single market, out of the customs union and without direct jurisdiction of the European Court.

[Chris Bryant]

So the European Court will be deciding on issues in this country, and if British businesses want to continue doing trade with the rest of Europe, they will have to abide by all the rules of the single market, and British citizens will have fewer rights in the rest of Europe than they have now. In essence, the Government are turning us from being a proud partner with European colleagues into a vassal state. Will the Secretary of State propose that we hand them over some Danegeld as well?

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The red line, for me, is delivering the best Brexit for Britain, and that is what we will do.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Actually, there is not a consensus in this House about what should happen. The Government are making a choice. They are choosing a majority that is based on the DUP and trying to keep the Conservative party together, whereas in actual fact there is a vast majority in this House, in the country and in the House of Lords in favour of us staying in the customs union so that we keep the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together and do not harm our trade. Why will not the Secretary of State just see that?

[Mr Davis]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman asks an intelligent question, and I will answer it as clearly as I can. He said that we are making a choice. We are, and it is based not on any one party, but on 17.5 million votes that were cast to leave the European Union.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

To be fair to the Labour spokesman, I think he was agreeing with the position laid out by the Government and that the issue is incredibly sensitive. I think he is being very responsible in that regard. My hon. Friend is right in one respect: if this process does not start early, and does not deliver a free trade area and a customs agreement, it will be much more difficult to resolve the border issue. We will still do so, but it will be much more expensive, much more difficult and politically more problematic. The best way to proceed is with fast progress in the next few weeks.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Tens of thousands of businesses in this country, including supermarkets, and importers and exporters who work across the whole European Union, rely on their ability, under EU law, to have one certificate of insurance for their lorries that will enable a lorry to go from Aberystwyth to Krakow or anywhere else in the European Union. Those businesses will soon be securing new insurance certificates, which will last for a further year. In other words, by the end of March, they need to know what the situation will be so that they can take out certificates of insurance for after Brexit, as the Secretary of State suggests. When will they have that certainty?

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Gentleman sets out very clearly why we are trying to get the implementation period agreed by March.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Government’s paper on foreign policy, defence and security after we leave the European Union suggests that there are many areas where we want to maintain a very strong relationship with the EU. The paper seems to suggest that we should have some kind of observer status at the relevant Council meetings afterwards. Would it not be bizarre for us not to have that if we are still engaged in things such as Operation Atalanta, Operation Althea and many other projects? Otherwise, the rules and the determination of how those projects should be progressed will be determined by people in a room that we are not able to access.

[Mr David Davis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Indeed, I had dinner with the French Foreign Minister last week. Speaking to him, it was clear that member states see a very important role for Britain as a provider not just of military power, but of wisdom, skill, history, tradition and reputation.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The right time has to be, first, when we have a draft treaty in front of us—not an actual treaty, because it will be prior to ratification by the European ratification process, starting with the European Parliament, and we have made that undertaking. It has to be after that is done, in order for the House to be informed. Otherwise, it will be as soon as possible, and as I have said, our intent and our expectation is that it will be before the European Parliament has its opportunity and, therefore, before the process goes ahead.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Surely the point is that a fait accompli is not a British concept in law. What the Government are trying to do, effectively, is present this House, Parliament and the country with a fait accompli—take it or leave it. If the Secretary of State were not a Government Minister now, I am sure he would be signing the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). Just in case the Secretary of State loses his job between now and Committee stage, would it not be a good idea for him to declare now that he is going to sign up to that amendment?

[Mr Davis]

Will I be signing somebody else’s amendment? I am not sure—I think not. The processes we are going through are designed to give the House a great deal of input into this process. That includes, as was said earlier, the sequences of statements, appearances before Select Committees, urgent questions and the like. In addition to that, as I said—it was ignored, of course—the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 gives the House the outright ability to reject out of hand, if it chooses.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I would say two things to my right hon. Friend. First, the election gave us a bigger mandate than it gave the Opposition. Secondly, we are seeking to get a deal, as that is by far and away the best option. The maintenance of the option of no deal is both for negotiating reasons and for sensible security; any Government doing their job properly will do that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If there is no deal, agricultural products from Wales will probably face tariffs in Europe, and European agricultural goods coming into the UK will face tariffs. That will dramatically increase the cost of family food budgets, which is wrong and bad for my constituents. The Secretary of State for Transport has a brilliant answer to this; he says that we are just going to grow more food. In order to grow more food in this country, will we not need agricultural workers from elsewhere in Europe and the common agricultural policy to remain? Might we not just be better off staying in the EU?

[Mr Davis]

I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but if he wants to look at the pricing of food, he should look at how much of it is down to the common external tariff barrier on food.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The first thing I would say is that eight days is quite a long time for this sort of thing. Perhaps the most relevant comparison is with the Lisbon treaty, which recreated—[Interruption.] Yes, it is, because it recreated the European law on a major basis. This Bill does not do that. It does not aim to change law, with a tiny exception that I will come back to; it aims to maintain the laws that we currently have—it is primarily technical in that respect. If the hon. Gentleman sees it as being any different, then I will give way to him again.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The trouble with relying on secondary legislation is that it is unamendable and gets only one and a half hours of debate. Would it not be sensible, particularly in relation to any secondary legislation brought through under clause 9, to allow a new form of secondary legislation where we can amend it and have substantial debate?

[Mr Davis]

In essence, remember, the aim of the Bill is to translate European Union into UK law and to make sure that no problems arise, whether that means references to bodies that we are no longer subordinate to, whether it means that the language is different, or whether it applies to reciprocal rights. Much of this will be very straightforward and relatively simple. The point that the hon. Gentleman should look at is that the Bill seeks to make the type of secondary legislation, whether under affirmative or negative resolution, proportionate to that. If he wants to talk about the issue further, I am happy to talk to him. As I have said before, I am not going to reinvent the constitution at the Dispatch Box.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and she is right that the Labour party is incredibly confused about what its policy is. The approach we are taking is simple: we want a customs agreement that goes with a free trade agreement. Those two things together are designed to deliver frictionless free trade. We want not only to protect jobs and the economy, about which she is quite right to be concerned, but to be able to trade with the rest of the world, which is where the maximum growth is.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I hope there is a deal, and that it is good both for Europe and for us. However, to implement such a deal, with clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill the Government are seeking to allow Ministers to introduce regulations that

“may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament”—

any provision—

“(including modifying this Act).”

In the whole history of this Parliament, no Government have ever come to Parliament to ask for that. That is not a Henry VIII clause; it is an Alice in Wonderland clause! Surely the Secretary of State, as the parliamentarian who has stood up so many times at the Dispatch Box to call for Parliament to have powers, should amend that provision before it comes to Committee stage.

[Mr Davis]

I will deal with that in more detail on Thursday, but I am not the one in fantasy land. This is a Bill that will work and will deliver the best deal for Britain.

Brexit and Foreign Affairs

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Monday 26th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

No. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must make some progress.

A large part of my job—almost the invisible part—is ensuring that we are prepared for contingencies, and that is happening as we speak.

We have also made it clear that the new partnership must be overseen by a new and independent impartial dispute mechanism. That cannot and will not be the European Court of Justice. No nation outside the European Union submits to the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ, and neither will the United Kingdom. We will start to move towards the new partnership by securing the rights of citizens on both sides. I know that everyone in the House will agree with me that European Union citizens make a huge contribution to our society. We have heard today from the Prime Minister about what the approach will entail, but the overarching principle is that European citizens living in the United Kingdom will continue to lead their lives in exactly the same way as British citizens with the same rights and responsibilities.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Davis]

No, not for the moment.

We intend to reach agreement on that issue as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Davis]

I give way to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).

[Mr Davis]

No. What the hon. Gentleman is describing is something like the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States—the EFTA court—where there is a parallelism. That is not the aim. The aim is to have an independent arbitration arrangement, as is normal. For instance, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement does exactly that. It has nominees from either side, and an independent chair. That is the sort of thing that we have in mind.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Davis]

No. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has to learn some discipline at some point in life. I thought discipline was his thing, but there we are.

Ending the free movement of people means leaving the single market, as the European Union has made abundantly clear to those who have cared to listen. We all accept the need to protect existing UK businesses in the European Union. Leaving the single market does not mean losing access to that market, which is why we are proposing a new, ambitious free trade agreement. But this is not just about protecting existing markets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) said. To deliver the national interest, we must seize on our new freedoms in terms of trade to create jobs and lift living standards. Britain must get out into the world, forge its own path and be a true beacon for free trade.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Davis]

No.

That means leaving the customs union, so that Britain will, for the first time in over 40 years, be able to take full advantage of growing markets across the world and determine a trade policy that is fashioned not around the interests of 28 countries but around those of one country. We will have a trade policy that suits this country and this country alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

That research would depend on what the actual deal was. It is madness to make an estimate without knowing what the deal is. If the deal involves a comprehensive free trade area with no tariffs and no non-tariff barriers, there will be zero effect. It is rather daft to try to cite some non-existent academic issue.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Davis]

No, the hon. Gentleman has not yet earned my sympathy—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I think the hon. Gentleman needs to accept that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

This is obviously the start of a very special relationship. The Secretary of State will know that the Prime Minister earlier published a document about EU citizens living in the UK. The one thing she failed to mention in the House was that all those EU citizens would not be functioning exactly as they are now. They will have to have documentation with them; they will effectively have to have an ID card. I am surprised: surely this Secretary of State is not going to support ID cards for EU nationals living in the UK.

[Mr Davis]

You know, I was right not to give way to the hon. Gentleman in the first place. He has got it wrong; it is not an ID card. We are talking about documentation to prove that people have the right to a job and the right to residence, but they will not have to carry that around all the time. It is not an ID card; it is rather like your birth certificate. It’s not an ID card! Good heavens!

I shall turn now to the legislative agenda—

Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I am going to seek your protection, Mr Speaker. That is two people who have finished my career today—I am being called “pragmatic” as well. The simple truth is that when we come to do the trade and other deals, there will be relationships between us, as there are with other countries, to ensure that we maintain common standards—the point the ex-leader of the Liberal party, the ex-Deputy Prime Minister, made about data protection and so on. There will be things that we will negotiate, but my hon. Friend would be surprised if I talked those negotiations out in this place at this time.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I do worry, because the Secretary of State says in his White Paper:

“Existing parliamentary procedures allow for Parliament to scrutinise as many or as few statutory instruments as it sees fit.”

That is simply untrue. In 2014-15, nine negative statutory instruments were prayed against by the Leader of the Opposition; only one was allowed a debate, and that was not on the Floor of the House, so it could not be on a fatal motion. In 2015-16, 19 were prayed against by the Opposition and only five were allowed debates, again only in Committee. Not a single one was allowed a vote in the House. This is not bringing back control to this House, and we will be worried unless the Government change the process.

[Mr Davis]

We of course start by obeying the conventions that apply to the House, and I am afraid that we do have an SI procedure, which is both affirmative and negative, which has effects and influence. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come and talk to us about how he thinks we can improve that, I will be happy to see him.

[Chris Bryant]

At half-past 2?

[Mr Davis]

I am happy to see him, but not at half-past 2.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)]

I am going to get the hang of this, Mr Speaker. I ask to group questions 11 and 14. In a few years, I will get used to this place—then I will retire.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Resign?

[Mr Davis]

I said retire, not resign.

We are working closely with the Scottish Government to ensure the best deal for Scotland and the rest of the UK as we leave the European Union. We share many objectives, including having an open and outward-looking country, ensuring access to labour, collaborating on science and research, protecting workers’ rights, having a smooth and orderly exit process, and guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals in the UK and of UK nationals in the European Union. We should also agree that there should be no new barriers to living and doing business within our own Union. They should not be created.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

That is not the response I am getting from the Ministers I have spoken to around Europe. What they have come back with is that they want a constructive outcome, and the only way to get a constructive outcome is to have a comprehensive free trade arrangement.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Under the common agricultural policy, some of the richest people in this country get millions of pounds in handouts from the taxpayer, which must surely be wrong. When we are in charge of our own agricultural policy, would it not be a good idea to put a cap on how much people get, just as we have a benefits cap?

[Mr Davis]

I welcome a sinner who repenteth, because after 2019 the hon. Gentleman will have a say on that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Given the constituency that my hon. Friend represents, he will know that better than most people. I understand exactly what he is getting at; he is absolutely right.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

11. There will be a temptation for the Government to think that this is just about Government-to-Government conversations, but would it not be useful for them to look at this as a Parliament-to-Parliament negotiation as well, so that we might all start lobbying together to secure the best possible deal for this country?

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Just say no.

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, if I am wrong, I apologise. I will send the right hon. Gentleman the quote that I gave from The Scotsman at that time.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Article 50

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

That is a debatable matter of law. I think that that is the accurate answer. Subsequent matters may arise after the triggering of article 50, but if so we will come back to the House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There is no reason why the Government should not get their Bill through all the proper stages in this House and in the other House by the end of March. When the business managers come knocking and say, “We should condense the processes and have several different stages on the same day”, may I urge the “old” Member who flourished for 20 years on the Back Benches to return and fight hard for this House, saying, “We will do the process properly”?

New Partnership with the EU

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)]

I say to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has just made a point of order, that I spent many years sitting on the Opposition Benches—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Making that point.

[Mr Davis]

Not making that point, but making a rather more pertinent one, which was that we did not have the opportunity at all to interrogate Mr Tony Blair after he had been on the radio and television. But today is a parliamentary day and I wish to share with Parliament what I think are some important points.

I would like to update the House on the Government’s plans for exiting the European Union. Today, the Prime Minister is setting out a plan for Britain. It is a plan to ensure that we embrace this moment of change to build a confident, global trading nation that seizes the new opportunities before it, and a fairer, stronger society at home, embracing bold economic and social reform. It is a plan that recognises that the referendum vote was not one to pull up drawbridges and retreat from the world, but rather a vote of confidence in the UK’s ability to prosper and succeed.

It is a plan to build a strong, new partnership with our European partners while reaching beyond the borders of Europe, too, forging deeper links with old allies and new ones. Today we set out 12 objectives for the negotiation to come. They answer the questions of those who have been asking what we intend while not undermining the UK’s negotiating position. We are clear that what we seek is that new partnership: not partial EU membership, not a model adopted by other countries, not a position that means we are half-in, half-out. Let me address each of our aims in turn.

First, we will provide certainty wherever possible while recognising that we are about to enter a two-sided negotiation. We have already made announcements about agriculture payments and student funding. Our proposal to shift the acquis—the body of EU law—into UK law at the point of exit is designed to make the process as smooth as possible. At the point of exit, the same rules and laws will apply, and it will then be for this Parliament to determine changes in the country’s interests, for we also intend to take control of our own laws and end the authority of the European Court of Justice in the UK. Laws will be made in this Parliament, and in the devolved Assemblies, and interpreted by our judges, not those in Luxembourg.

We will aim to strengthen the Union between our four nations. We will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations, and we will ensure that as powers are returned from Brussels to the UK, the right powers come to Westminster and the right powers are passed to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Another key objective will be to maintain the common travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. No one wants to see a return to the borders of the past.

In terms of immigration, we will remain an open, tolerant nation. We will continue to welcome the brightest and the best, and to ensure that immigration continues to bring benefits in terms of addressing skills shortages where they exist, but we will manage our immigration system properly, which means that free movement to the UK from the European Union cannot continue as before. We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already in this country and already make such a great contribution to our society, in tandem with similar protections for the rights of UK citizens in EU countries. We would like to resolve that issue at the earliest possible moment.

UK law already goes further in many areas than EU minimums, but as we shift the body of EU law into UK law we will ensure that workers’ rights are not just protected but enhanced. In terms of trade, we want to build a more open, outward-looking, confident nation that is a global champion for free trade. Membership of the EU’s internal market means accepting its four freedoms, in terms of the movement of goods, services, capital and people, and complying with the EU’s rules and regulations. That would, effectively, mean not leaving the EU at all, so we do not propose to maintain membership of the EU’s single market. Instead, we will seek the broadest possible access to it through a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU. We want it to cover goods and services and to be as ambitious as possible.

This is not a zero-sum game. It should be in the interest of both the UK and the EU. It is in all our interests that financial services continue to be provided freely across borders, that integrated supply chains are not disrupted and that trade continues in as barrier-free a way as possible. Although we will seek the most open possible market with the European Union, we also want to further trade links with the rest of the world, so we will deliver the freedom for the UK to strike trade agreements with other countries. The Department for International Trade has already started to prepare the ground and it is clear there is enormous interest around the globe in forging new links with the UK.

Full membership of the EU’s customs union would prohibit new international deals, so we do not intend to remain part of the common commercial policy or to be bound by the common external tariff. Instead, we will seek a customs agreement with the EU with the aim of ensuring that cross-border trade remains as barrier-free as possible. Clearly, how that is achieved is a matter for negotiation.

The UK is one of the best places in the world for science and innovation, with some of the best universities in the world, so we must continue to collaborate with our European allies. When it comes to crime, terrorism and security, we will aim to further co-operation with EU countries. We will seek practical arrangements in these areas to ensure that we keep our continent secure and defend our shared values.

Finally, in terms of our exit, we have said repeatedly that it will be in no one’s interests for it to be disorderly, with any sort of “cliff edge”—the words used by the Opposition—as we leave the European Union. We intend to reach broad agreement about the terms of our new partnership with the EU by the end of the two-year negotiation triggered by article 50, but then we will aim to deliver an orderly process of implementation. That does not mean an unlimited transitional period where the destination is not clear, but time for both the UK and EU member states to prepare for new arrangements, whether that be in terms of customs arrangements, the regulation of financial services, co-operation over criminal justice, or immigration controls.

Those are the aims and objectives we set today for the negotiation to come. Our objectives are clear: to deliver certainty and clarity wherever we can; to take control of our own laws; to protect and strengthen the Union; to maintain the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland; to control immigration; to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU; to protect workers’ rights; to allow free trade with European markets; to forge new trade deals with other countries; to boost science and innovation; to protect and enhance co-operation over crime, terrorism and security; and to make our exit smooth and orderly. That is the outline of an ambitious new partnership between the UK and the countries of the EU.

We are under no illusions: agreeing terms that work for both the UK and the 27 nations of the European Union will be challenging, and no doubt there will be bumps on the road once talks begin. We must embark on the negotiation, however, clear that no deal is better than a bad deal. As the Prime Minister has made clear today, the UK could not accept a punitive approach, so let me be clear that we do not expect that outcome.

We are confident that if we approach the talks in a spirit of good will, we can deliver a positive deal that works for the mutual benefit of all. It is absolutely in our interests that the EU succeeds, and it is absolutely in the EU’s interests that we succeed too. That will be one of our central messages: we do not want the European Union to fail; we want it to prosper politically and economically, and we will seek to convince our allies that a strong new partnership with the UK will help it to do that.

Our approach is not about cherry-picking; it is about reaching a deal that fits the aims of both sides. We understand that the EU wants to preserve its four freedoms and chart its own course. That is not a project that the UK will now be a part of, so we will leave the single market and the institutions of the European Union. We will make our own laws and decisions about immigration. Let me be crystal clear, if there has been any doubt: the final deal agreed between the UK and the EU will be put to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before it takes effect.

To conclude, we are leaving the European Union but we are not leaving Europe. We will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends with our European neighbours. We will be ready for any outcome, but we anticipate success, not failure. The UK will embrace its new place in the world with optimism, strength and confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Russia has been up to its usual tricks in trying to stir up trouble between Serbia and Kosovo this week, and it is of course trying to face down the United States of America and, for that matter, other members of NATO on the border with Poland and Estonia. I believe that the bedrock of our national security is NATO—I hope my party does, too—but on coming back from the EU, successive Foreign Secretaries, Home Secretaries and Prime Ministers have come to this House and said that they are proud to have been able to make sure that the EU keeps strong sanctions in place against Russian territorial aggression. How will we be able to do that in future when we have left the European Union?

[Mr Davis]

We will be able to do that by bilateral negotiation, but let me go back to the fundamentals of what the hon. Gentleman said. He is right that we need to contain Russian expansionism, and that that is an important part of this country’s role in the world. One of the most important parts of what was an incredibly important speech was where the Prime Minister made it very plain that we will continue to be a good global citizen and a good European citizen, particularly on matters of regional security.

The Government's Plan for Brexit

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I will make some more progress, if I may. [Interruption.] I will not give in to my normal temptations today. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] No, no.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Davis]

Mr Speaker, I am going to make about five minutes’ progress. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

All I can say is what I have said before: that is what I expect. It is as simple as that.

I want to pick up on the point about parliamentary scrutiny in a little more depth, if I may—

[Chris Bryant]

The 2010 Act says that a Government cannot ratify a treaty until such time as they have laid the treaty before the House and 21 sitting days have passed. It does not guarantee a vote. In fact, since 2010 the Government have on several occasions refused to allow a vote on treaties even when they have been asked for by the Opposition. Is the Secretary of State now specifically saying that the Government will guarantee a vote at such a point?

Article 50

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. We have in fact given a great deal of information about our direction of travel and the overarching strategy, but, as I have said, there is none so deaf as those who will not hear.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State accepts that he could publish a Bill next week and we could have it on the statute book long before the judges have done their business, so the reason for taking the decision to the next stage is not to expedite it but some other. I can only presume that it is because, somehow or other, this man—the Secretary of State—a man who has always fought for Parliament, is suddenly fighting for the prerogative rights of the Crown.

[Chris Bryant]

No, the Secretary of State is fighting for the prerogative rights of the Crown. Would it not be a phenomenal irony if the people who clamoured to bring back control to this country handed it from Parliament to Ministers and the Crown?

[Mr Davis]

This is one of those rare occasions when the heckle is right. The truth here is that the rights of Parliament rest on the sovereignty of the people—in this case, 17.4 million people.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

There are very many things I could do at this Dispatch Box, but criticising David Cameron is not one of them.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I see no reason not to help the Select Committee on that basis; that seems an eminently sensible use of time and of the Select Committee’s expertise, so of course we will do that. However, this will be an issue right across the board; pretty much every Select Committee in the House of Commons will have an interest, one way or another, in the progress of Brexit and in what the outcome will be.

[Chris Bryant]

May I ask the Secretary of State about timing? As I understand it, the Government intend us to have left the European Union by 1 April 2019. The two years allowed for in article 50 will transpire during that period, but he has already laid out loads of different areas that will have to be legislated for as a result of the negotiations. After the negotiations have happened, he might be overturned in this House or at the other end of the building. How will he make sure that he carries the whole country with him on each of the bits and pieces of the detail if he has not produced a draft of what he is aiming for in the first place?

Next Steps in Leaving the European Union

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I think Mrs Merkel will have read the Prime Minister’s speech last week and will know exactly where our priorities on the control of borders lie. I will not get into tit-for-tat rudeness with our European opposite numbers, because I do not think that that would be successful. I will say, however, that these are the first days of a two-and-a-half-year negotiation, and the first days of negotiations are always tougher than the endgame —[Interruption.] Well, I speak as someone who has done one or two of them, unlike many of the people chuntering on the Opposition Benches. I think we can take it as read that what our European opposite numbers are saying today is not necessarily what they will be saying tomorrow.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I cannot think of any major treaty in history that this country has signed in which the Government have not come to Parliament to get a mandate for their negotiating position. They have done that every single time over the past 400 years. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to make a success of these negotiations, he needs to gather as much support as he possibly can across the whole country, including among the 48%. That will involve at least a White Paper and preferably a draft repeal Bill before the final repeal Bill.

[Mr Davis]

First, the European Union Referendum Bill was passed with a majority of six to one. If that was not a mandate, I do not know what was. Secondly, we have a mandate from 17.4 million people, which is the biggest mandate achieved by any Government in history.

Wilson Doctrine

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

That was a helpful intervention. In the official guidance, due consideration is given to lawyers in regard to privileged material. Due regard, as provided for in the European convention on human rights, is given to journalists and the protection of their sources. The guidance includes doctors, but it also refers to ministers of religion, and I have some anxiety about the direction we may be taking. There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had about what separate categories there might be. I am glad that the Committee will look at precisely how MPs—and, I presume, other parliamentarians —will be treated in the draft Bill, which we will need plenty of time to consider. Last year, we had one day in the House to consider some of the most important matters of personal freedom and liberty, which was wholly inappropriate. The clock is ticking on the High Court ruling, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden won earlier this year, so I hope that the Government will move speedily with their draft Bill.

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

The shadow Leader of the House is telegraphing that the Opposition will support an amendment to the upcoming legislation to provide that protection of privilege. He should be aware that the revelations on the Wilson doctrine were preceded by serious breaches of the legal privilege protection, and—this has changed in the past decade, because I spoke to the previous Home Secretary about the matter—that intercepted communications between the legal representative and the suspect, as it were, are now recorded and given to lawyers who may prosecute that suspect. That is a serious breach of what is known as equality of arms in natural justice.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. He does not need to intercept this communication; I am not only telegraphing, but semaphoring and using every other means of communicating to the House, that there should be a proper debate about the several categories of people that might benefit, in the interests of national security and a wider democratic interest, from a specific provision in law.

There is a separate debate to be had about whether all warrants, as Anderson suggests, should go through a judicial process anyway. In particular, the right hon. Gentleman is right that the European convention on human rights makes specific provision for legal privilege so that lawyers are able to guarantee a fair and proper hearing for a defendant, but that has been breached in the past. Moreover, if we want to guarantee a free press, there must be provisions for journalists.

We cannot have a proper debate, however, unless draft legislation is produced in sufficient time for the House to be able to consider all the issues in the round before the process of tabling amendments begins. I very much hope that the Home Secretary will come forward early and not leave things to the very last minute, as she did last year.

Secondly, it is time that we abandoned our reliance on the doctrine in favour of statute law. Apparent ambiguities in the Wilson doctrine need to be clarified. A sensible course needs to be drawn that guarantees the independence of Parliament, but ensures our national security. We argue that this can be done only through legislation and we stand ready to work with the Home Secretary on this. As I said, she has to come back by the end of March with a new Bill to replace the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, given the High Court ruling, but I earnestly hope that she will introduce new draft legislation in the forthcoming weeks.

Thirdly, it is our contention that the new legislation should apply to all parliamentarians: Members of the House of Commons; Members of the House of Lords, although not necessarily all peers; Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly; and UK Members of the European Parliament, although obviously not all Members of the European Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I can confirm that the deputy leader of the Labour party is perfectly content with the policy that we are arguing for. Indeed, he is the person who got the Home Secretary to confirm for the first time that she had changed the Wilson doctrine.

[Mr Davis]

I will return to the subject of the debate.

The answer to those journalists, commentators and editors who think that this is about the House getting above itself, or that in some sense it is not important, is simple: we should not tolerate the Government intercepting or interfering in any way with any of our communications—there is one tiny exception that I shall return to—because MPs are the people who are charged with holding the Government to account. We forget this line from time to time in the sort of schoolboy antics that pass for the reporting of Parliament in this day and age, but we are the ones who hold the Government to account. In doing so, we deal with campaigners, journalists, whistleblowers, other MPs and, of course, our constituents. The text of the judgment states that the only protected component is our constituents, and although they are incredibly important, in some ways they are the least salient of the components that we deal with.

The Home Secretary, quite properly, reminds the House of the demands of national security. She is right to do that because 58 people have died owing to terrorism within the United Kingdom since 2000, and the figure is about 90 if we include those in Tunisia and elsewhere. Security is a serious issue, but so are matters that are brought to our attention by whistleblowers. Mid Staffs occurred because whistleblowers were supressed or ignored—the same effect that we get by diluting the Wilson doctrine. How many people died unnecessarily at Mid Staffs? It was 1,200. We must not forget that whistleblowers are incredibly important and they would, or will, be supressed by what is seen as the demise of the Wilson doctrine.

Let us consider the possible cases. A police officer calls an MP about corruption, but he might be intercepted by other police officers. A prisoner calls his MP about ill treatment in prison, but he might be intercepted and recorded by other prison officers. A tax official calls the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee about sweetheart deals on tax with big companies and Parliament being lied to—hon. Members might begin to realise that these are real cases—but that person might have his life destroyed because of activities under RIPA. Imagine an official from the Ministry of Defence telling an MP about the mistreatment of a prisoner by the British Army, or an immigration officer telling a shadow Home Secretary about Government deceiving Parliament—that case led to the arrest of one of our colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), some time ago. The absence, failure or demise of the Wilson doctrine would undermine or deter all those cases.

The Home Secretary has a difficult task, because technology is changing under our feet and has been doing so for decades. The difficulty today is that the Wilson doctrine that most people believed was in place is not. The idea that all our communications are protected is untrue for a number of reasons. I cannot find the first reference—I think it was Gordon Brown, but it might have been earlier—but one Prime Minister limited such protection to cases with a warrant from a Secretary of State. Before then it was not limited in such terms. Let us understand what a limitation that is. The report on surveillance by David Anderson, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, points out that there are more than 65 different statutory mechanisms for initiating intercepts and other sorts of communication surveillance. Very few of those require a warrant from the Secretary of State. It is a very narrow protection.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am very fond of the hon. Lady, but I think she has deliberately misunderstood what I was saying. Judges regularly say in their summing up that they are taking into consideration the fact that because the person is a Member of Parliament they would lose their job as well if they were to be given a custodial sentence of more than a year. It is a matter of fact that these matters are taken into consideration.

There is another problem with the Bill. Having set a very high threshold—that the courts or MPs get to decide whether somebody is subject to the recall process—it then sets the very low threshold of 10% for throwing someone out. As I said, no Member has achieved election to this House by 50% of the total electorate, so the idea that it would be difficult to find 10% to force them out of their seat, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, is to live in cloud cuckoo land.

If those two thresholds are wrong, what is the right one? Should we just leave it to the public, which in essence is what we heard from the hon. Member for Richmond Park? As many Members have said, there is a danger that the extremely wealthy could pervert the process; they could spend lots of money in individual constituencies—or perhaps 10, 20 or 30 at a time—and subvert the proper democratic process. Arguably, big money is already doing that in the British system. We need to look again at how people spend money and at the rules governing not just general elections, but by-elections, because the last thing I want is an American-style democracy where only the rich can ever get elected.

Of course there is a danger of timid MPs, but there is that danger today, and the honest truth is: I would trust the public. I say this for a simple reason. In 2003, I got into a bit of trouble with the electorate, The Mail on Sunday and a whole load of journalists after the paper revealed that I had been using a gay dating website called Gaydar, and there were pictures and so on. The story was not quite as it was presented in some of the newspapers, but be that as it may—

[Mr David Davis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will once I have finished my point.

One Mail journalist told me they were taking bets in the office on when I would commit suicide. The campaign was malevolent, but it still would have been perfectly legitimate for some of my constituents to say, “Let’s start recall.” People could legitimately have asked about my conduct. However, I also have absolute confidence in the electorate and the people of the Rhondda, and in the people of this country for that matter. They might have got 500, 1,000 or 1,500 to sign the recall, but The Mail on Sunday did its own opinion poll and found that the vast majority of the people in this country did not think I had done anything wrong or that I should resign. Having gone through that hell in November 2003, I say that it is perfectly legitimate, and the wise thing for us to do, to leave it to the public, as long as we make sure that the threshold is decent enough that it is not just about people being vexatious and as long as big money cannot determine the outcome. In the end—

[Chris Bryant]

This is my last sentence, and I am sure that people have heard quite enough from me—

[Mr David Davis]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, I did promise to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Davis]

At the risk of repeating the hon. Gentleman’s point, I remember that we discussed that issue at the time. Surely the outcome of his whole argument is that the public are wiser than we give them credit for. They were wiser about his private life, they are wiser about the influence of big money and they are wiser about our politics. There are many Labour members in my constituency who vote against me religiously but would never vote for a recall, because they think that I am doing my job. Is that not what we end up depending on?

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The proof of that is that after those events, in the 2005 election, I increased my majority. I can only assume that that proves that it pays to advertise.

My argument is simple, really. Yes, let us have recall; it is an important next stage in the democratic process. We have to open up that little sliver of democracy in the political process, because the leviathan is groaning. We need to change, but we need to ensure that we sort out the financial thing, that this cannot be done vexatiously and that we have a high enough threshold.

Debate on the Address

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 8th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Davis]

I will give way to the hon. Lady first.

[Mr Davis]

I shall come back to the hon. Lady’s point, after giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

I always presumed that life-threatening conditions were not to be included in this—otherwise, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, we would be entering into a barbarous situation. The other issue is notifiable diseases, because it is in all of our interests for people in this country—of whatever nationality— who have tuberculosis or another notifiable disease to be treated. I hope he agrees on that; we do not want to cut off our nose to spite our face.

[Mr Davis]

Let me deal with those very good points in order. First, health tourism is not new; people may now be coming from Romania, but we have had people coming from the middle eastern states for a long time. I used to live near King’s College hospital, which has a great liver treatment centre, and a significant proportion of its patients at one time were from Arab countries. [Interruption.] They were not paying, that is the point. Of course we have to do something about health tourism, but we also have to be wary of unintended consequences. I mentioned A and E because in London, as the hon. Lady knows, and in some other parts of the country it is acting as a secondary GP service. In a huge, three-hour queue of people coming to A and E to get secondary GP services, I do not know how we distinguish between those born in Britain and those born in Hungary or Romania. There is a great risk of getting this wrong, and the medical profession would not go along with it and be the arbiters. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, communicable diseases are a problem, irrespective of whether someone is a British citizen or born abroad. They have to be treated differently and separately, but that is not a question of payment or of health tourism; it is a question of getting it right.

This morning, the Health Secretary talked on the radio about the pull factor, characterising medical care as such. That is the case for a health tourist, and we can do something about it, but we could not do something about the half a million Polish immigrants that there were at one point. The pull factor for most of the Romanians and Bulgarians will not be health care, welfare or housing; it will be simple economics, because the average income in Romania and Bulgaria is approximately one third of our minimum wage. Most Romanians and Bulgarian could treble their standard of living simply by coming to the UK and doing almost any job.

We have to face up to that fact, which also faces Germany and all the European countries closer by. One would have thought that if we really did have a working European Union, we would by now have been able to say to each other, “When we devised the rules about the freedom of movement of people, they were not devised for an organisation of states that had a tenfold difference in average incomes.” Let me say that I am a free marketeer, so I think those things are terrific and I am a believer in the free movement of people, but we have to think of a better way of dealing with this matter, because these people will not be the last ones who come along—and they are coming in January next year.

[Chris Bryant]

I just want to correct the right hon. Gentleman on one other thing about the reciprocal rights between different countries. About 1 million British people live in Spain and another million live in France, but if they have not reached the retirement age, they are not entitled to the full use of the Spanish or French national health services and many of them end up getting trapped. So the law of unintended consequences might also apply to a lot of British people who are no longer living here.

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Gentleman is almost exactly right, but there are sets of different regimes, with some applying to retired people, some to working people and some to people who are neither working nor retired—I checked these things this morning, just to be sure. There are three different regimes and they alter by country, too—surprisingly so, in the European Union. The whole European economic area, including Switzerland and Norway, has a regime under which people in almost every category get some form of health care.

[Chris Bryant]

For two months.

[Mr Davis]

For two months. Health tourists coming to this country to get a single operation or a single course may be wanting only the two months, so this is another area where we have carefully to think through the obverse effect of these actions. I know the pressures on politicians are high following the UKIP flurry in the past week or two, but we have to think carefully.

Debate on the Address

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, although I believe the greater problem would be legislative gridlock if too much legitimacy were given to the House of Lords. The simple fact is that over the course of the past century, these Houses have managed a pretty effective balance without crippling government. The position that we have arrived at still needs reform, but very careful reform.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have to consider two things hand in hand, the composition of the House of Lords and its function. Although I am passionately in favour of an elected second Chamber, one of my criticisms of the draft Bill is that clause 2 will not reinforce the primacy of this Chamber. Some kind of concordat would have to be agreed by both Houses and written into their Standing Orders. Does he accept, though, that the current situation is unsustainable? We already have far too many Members down the other end of the building, and if there is no reform, there will be another 200. There will be more than 1,000 Members, the vast majority of them appointed by party leaders on a party Whip. Surely that is unsustainable.

[Mr Davis]

I agree with the last point, but the hon. Gentleman should not let the best be the enemy of the good.

I will finish my points about the Lords, because I want to talk about two other significant issues of justice and freedom. For me, the test is to look back and see what would have happened in the past decade if we had introduced whatever new reform we will come up with. As the Deputy Prime Minister will be only too conscious, in the past decade the Lords have stopped the curbing of jury trials and a number of other measures, including the extension of detention without charge. That would not have happened if we had had too politically similar a House of Lords. When the House considers the matter in some detail, my test will be whether a reform will achieve the same check on the Government.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Debate between David Davis and Chris Bryant

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I must confess that I was looking forward to more of that. I have on occasion referred to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) as the hon. Member for the 13th century, but I think that that was far too radical a century for his liking.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate. He is quite greedy about getting debates. I think he has probably had his fair share for the rest of this Parliament, but he introduced an important matter that is of interest to many.

I also congratulate the many Members who have spoken on behalf of constituents who have had particular problems. I know, from when I was responsible for consular support in the Foreign Office, how often British embassies around the world deal with complicated situations in relation to extradition. In some circumstances, British people did not have to be extradited and were caught up in the criminal justice system in another country, where they did not speak the language, did not understand the system and were a long way from their loved ones, as many hon. Members have said. Some people were languishing in pretty hideous jails. I visited a couple of them in Thailand and Peru and cannot recommend the process to anybody. I therefore commend hon. Members for their comments.

In relation to Andrew Symeou, I tried to ensure, as far as possible, that our embassy in Athens was doing as much as possible to ensure that the family and Mr Symeou had the support that they needed. Of course, we were also trying to provide support to the family who were the victims of the crime in question.

I also congratulate the lawyers who have taken part in the debate. I notice that they keep calling themselves “jurists”. They are not going to get away with that. We know who they are. Unfortunately, I mostly agreed with their contributions, so I will not be rude to them this evening.

It is a fundamental principle that nobody should be arbitrarily arrested without due cause. It inevitably follows that no extradition, no surrender of a person and no arrest under an international warrant should, in the words of the Book of Common Prayer,

“be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly”.

Extradition is a vital part of a modern criminal justice system, as many Members have said. It means that nobody can evade justice simply by fleeing the country. In our case, 581 people have been brought back to the UK to face justice as a result of the European arrest warrant since 2004, including the failed 21 July bomber, Hussain Osman, who was extradited from Italy. Indeed, he was removed from Italy fast enough for his interrogation to inform the decisions on charges that had been placed against others, which was an important part of securing justice in that case.

We need at all times to keep our extradition arrangements, both multilateral and bilateral, under review so that nobody’s freedom is unjustly deprived by them. It seems to me that there are five key issues: the operation of the European arrest warrant, the question of whether a prima facie case should be made in all situations, the issue of double or dual criminality, the implementation of a forum bar and the purported imbalance of the US-UK treaty.

I will first make a few simple points. The first is that the motion refers to the protection of British citizens, as have many hon. Members. However, many UK extraditions are of course not of UK nationals. Many EAW requests are from countries that want their own nationals to face criminal proceedings back home. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights seeks a special threshold of proof for British citizens. Leaving aside the matter of Northern Ireland, I believe that the idea of special arrangements for our nationals, as opposed to anybody else, in the UK courts smacks more of the Russian system of extradition, which prevents the extradition of any Russian national, than the historic British position that the law should be blind to nationality.

[Mr David Davis]

On that point, the hon. Gentleman could have said that it smacked more of New Zealand, Australia, Germany or France. Why did he pick Russia?

[Chris Bryant]

It was partly because Russia has made a large number of extradition requests to this country to which we have said no because Timothy Workman, the judge in charge, has decided on each occasion that they were being advanced merely for political reasons, whereas when we make extradition requests, such as for Mr Lugovoy, who is sought for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian state simply says that no Russian national will be extradited. I do not think that there should be a distinction between different nationalities.

My second minor point is that I suspect that statistics throw far less light on the matter than one might think. It is true, for instance, as the hon. Member for Esher and Walton mentioned, that the number of extraditions from the UK has risen dramatically since 1975, but then so has international travel. Moreover, although there was just one extradition to Spain in the decade up to 1973 compared with 61 in the past seven years, I suspect that that had more to do with the relations with Franco’s regime than with anything to do with the extradition system.

The same is true, I believe, of the US-UK extraditions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Since 2004 there have been 73 extraditions to the United States from this country, and just 38 to the UK from the US, yet 70% of UK requests for extradition have been successful compared with just 54% of US requests to the UK. In other words, a US request is less likely to succeed than a UK one. Moreover, far more British nationals go to the US every year than the other way around. I know that that seems counter-intuitive, but the Library’s figures suggest that roughly 4.5 million British people go to the US every year, and fewer than 2 million come from the US to the UK.

Thirdly, cybercrime almost inevitably crosses borders, whether we are talking about conspiracy to fund terrorism, illegal file sharing or industrial espionage. Consequently, I agree with hon. Members who have said today that we have to ensure that we have a better way of dealing with the question of where individual matters may be resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

That kind of casual British superiority sometimes does not carry the day when it comes to making decisions about our legal systems—[Interruption.] It was a joke. I am sorry. I clearly missed that.

[Mr David Davis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am being more generous than I should be, but of course I will give way.

[Mr Davis]

I rise to get the hon. Gentleman off the hook. He has accepted that judicial and prison systems in other European countries are less than desirable. He says that he does not want a prima facie test. Does he accept that he is therefore proposing, or what exists, will punish innocent people who are sent to those countries and suffer those problems?

[Chris Bryant]

No I do not accept that. The return question to the right hon. Gentleman would be this: why did he expressly support in 1991 the ratification of the ECE? If Britain had wanted to, it could have insisted on a prima facie case—that was when many member states had even less advanced criminal justice systems than they have today. The honest truth is that Britain came to the decision that it was more important to close down the costa del crime and the many different ways in which people could evade justice around Europe. I agree with his position at that time.

[Mr Davis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am conscious that the Minister’s contribution is far more important than mine and I want to move on to a couple of other issues.

I fully understand the concern that many have with the abolition of double criminality from the framework decision. I understand those who believe that that could mean that one could be extradited for holocaust denial or other matters that are not criminal offences in this country. However, I ask hon. Members to remember that sections 64(2) and 65(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 make it absolutely clear that the conduct must have happened in the member state where it is a crime, not in this country. When people travel abroad, surely people subject themselves to the laws of those other countries.

Under the forum bar, extradition would not be allowed if, in the words of section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, which is now section 19B of the 2003 Act,

“a significant part of the conduct alleged…is conduct in the United Kingdom”

and if, in the opinion of the court, it is not

“in the interests of justice for the person to be tried for the offence in the requesting”

country. Many have pointed to some of the problems inherent in such a forum conveniens test—it could further delay complex proceedings, several of the terms are imprecise, and there could be extensive litigation around them—but the Opposition are not opposed to such a test per se, and merely note that the Government have not thus far introduced the relevant motion in this House or the other place.

Let me turn to the imbalance in the US-UK treaty. Members will know that the US constitution requires that nobody can be arrested without a prosecuting authority proving probable cause. That applies equally for a US arrest for US prosecution, for an international arrest warrant or, under the 2003 treaty, for extradition. The requirement for a UK extradition to the US is that information must be provided that satisfies the reasonable suspicion test. Both tests are based on reasonableness and require similar paperwork and evidence to be submitted. In the case of someone to be extradited from the UK, the US authorities first have to secure a warrant or grand jury indictment, both of which require that the probable cause test is met in the United States of America. The argument that the treaty is imbalanced is simply not made.

Let me briefly turn to the cases of Gary McKinnon and Babar Ahmad, which are much in Members’ thoughts today. It is not for this House to decide the guilt or innocence of anyone, nor do I believe that this motion can legally affect either of the two cases, notwithstanding the points that have been made by others. The length of time that these two cases have taken makes it difficult to see how justice is being done in either of them. Whatever changes the Government bring forward will not directly affect them. None the less, I urge the Secretary of State to make a final decision on Gary McKinnon as soon as possible, and the European Court on Human Rights to do the same by Babar Ahmad. Nothing we do tonight will free either of them, but we can ensure that in future others do not suffer in the same way.