Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between David Davis and Eilidh Whiteford

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

As I said, I am not going to demur from the principles I already outlined. My hon. Friend is right. The UK single market is several times bigger for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland than the EU single market. The only difference in the case of Northern Ireland is that there is £1 billion a week of trade between it and Ireland. We will see a significant increase in the amount of powers given to the devolved institutions, but we will have to protect matters such as the single market in the UK, security, environmental agreements and so on.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The Government have already signalled their intention to withdraw from the common fisheries policy. However, paragraphs 4.2 and 4.4 of the White Paper seem to suggest not just that EU powers on fisheries will revert to the UK Government rather than the devolved institutions, but that the Government

“intends to replicate the current frameworks provided by EU rules through UK legislation.”

Are the Government seriously suggesting that we will have business as usual for the fishing industry under a CFP framework after Brexit? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us on the Government’s plans?

[Mr Davis]

Some of what the hon. Lady calls business as usual will be temporary and some of it will be permanent. That will depend entirely on the criteria I laid out earlier.

Exiting the European Union

Debate between David Davis and Eilidh Whiteford

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. This is one of the reasons that the process is taking some time. The legal interactions of certain elements of the acquis communautaire and British law are not straightforward. My starting position was that we would put them all into the law and take it from there, but it does not quite work like that. That is why this is taking a little while, but my right hon. Friend can be sure that my legal section and the Whitehall lawyers are on that issue as we speak and will come up with conclusions as quickly as they can. When they do so, I will tell the House what their conclusion is.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Scottish fishing communities were due to receive more than €100 million of European maritime and fisheries fund support between now and 2023. The Secretary of State has committed to supporting our agricultural communities by guaranteeing that CAP funding will be matched until 2020. Will he make a similar commitment today to our fishing communities to honour the maritime and fisheries funding that has been allocated in the current round?

[Mr Davis]

Sadly, I did not make that commitment. The Chancellor made the commitment and—[Interruption.] With great respect, it is not for me to make commitments on behalf of the Treasury. We will place in the Library a copy of the letter in which the Chancellor laid out the underpinning of the CAP, structural and science funds and so on. He made it clear that that was effectively his decision until the autumn statement. I will report to him what the hon. Lady said so that he is at least aware of her concerns before that statement.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between David Davis and Eilidh Whiteford

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I am on almost my last line, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.

The Bill would probably still get through in those circumstances, but it is probable that the House of Lords, whose primary function is to act as a defender of our constitutional rights, would strip out the whole central section of the Bill. That is what it ought to do, and that is what it will do if the Government do not get the next stage right.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). He has made an important and valuable contribution to today’s debate. When we debated the Bill on Second Reading, the most serious concerns raised by Members on both sides of the House related to clauses 26 and 27, so I am glad that we are debating this robust and constructive set of amendments this afternoon. I am also glad that the Government have acknowledged that certain aspects of the proposals are problematic and have agreed to table amendments on Report.

The principles and the workability of this part of the Bill are problematic, and I hope that the Government will look at it again. In particular, they have sought to distance their intentions from some of the scenarios that have been outlined by civil society groups, but we must concentrate on the actual text that will form the basis of the courts’ interpretation of the legislation. I reiterate a point I made the other day about the explanatory notes to the Bill, which state clearly:

“The definition of the term ‘for electoral purposes’ does not rely solely on the intent of the third party; the effect of the expenditure must also be considered.”

That illustrates the Bill’s ambiguity and lack of clarity.

The Electoral Commission has consistently raised the concern that, under this part of the Bill, it will acquire a wide discretion to interpret whether third party activities fall within the regulatory framework established by the Bill. Neither the commission nor I thinks that that is an appropriate role for it. Its role is to regulate, not to decide what should be regulated. I share the concern expressed earlier by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), on this point.

The Electoral Commission has also expressed what I suspect are well-founded fears that, as things stand, any interpretation of regulated activity could be open to legal challenge. In the short time that we have been discussing these proposals this afternoon, we have already heard examples of organisations taking legal advice. The last thing any of us wants is for this to end up in protracted and expensive legal challenges. That would not be an appropriate way of deciding what the law actually is. We need clarity on the face of the Bill and in the explanatory notes. I observe that many of the amendments in this group share the common aim of clarifying and tightening up the Government’s definitions, and I shall be looking for assurances from the Minister that any amendments tabled on Report will tackle the issue of definitions, in order to avoid placing the Electoral Commission in that contradictory position—that conflict of interest, if you like—in relation to the job that it is being asked to do.