Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between David Davis and Helen Goodman

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Yes, and that is fundamental to the whole strategy behind the Bill.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The public are extremely worried about these Henry VIII clauses. In chapter 3 of the Secretary of State’s White Paper, he says that one area where he wants to use secondary legislation is on the change from EU institutions. There are 40 of these EU institutions, ranging over areas from medicines to aviation safety. If we lose, he will have a choice. He can either set up a new one, or abandon the regulation altogether. Does he really think it is appropriate to do that through statutory instruments?

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between David Davis and Helen Goodman

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

That is the point. It is, frankly, incredible to me that anybody would imagine that I, of all people, would sign up to a deportation process. The answer here is simple, and I make the point again: I take as a moral responsibility the future guarantees of all 4 million citizens —European Union and UK together.

If I may move on, I will now address the issues created by Lords amendment 2. Let me be clear from the outset that this amendment does not seek to simply put what we have already promised on the face of the Bill, as was suggested by some. In fact, it seeks to go much further. But let me begin with proposed subsections (1) to (3), which do simply seek to put our commitment to a vote on the face of the Bill. I will repeat here our commitment: the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final issue. This commitment could not be clearer, so proposed subsections (1) to (3) are wholly unnecessary. Our clear intention—an intention stated more than once at this Dispatch Box—and by far the most likely outcome, by the way, is that we will bring a deal back to the Houses of Parliament for them to approve.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. If he is so confident about this, why can he not allow the rest of us to be confident by agreeing to Lords amendment 2?

[Mr Davis]

As I said last week, because it is unnecessary. When a Minister gives an undertaking at this Dispatch Box in this House, it is binding on the Government. Understand that point?

Exiting the EU: New Partnership

Debate between David Davis and Helen Goodman

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) is another Member of this House who has given a great deal of time and dedication to this issue. On migration, it is my job to bring the decision back to the House, but it is not my job to make the decisions thereafter. However, it is clear to me that the policies for controlling migration after our exit will be designed to further our national interest. Britain is a science superpower. We are the leading scientific centre in Europe, and as a result we will want to encourage the competition for talent to come here. The same will apply in finance, engineering, medicine and all the other areas in which skills are at a premium. We will want to attract those people, so we do not expect our policies to have any deleterious effects on industry at all.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that we will have meaningful votes on a range of things. How can it be, then, that paragraph 8.43 of the White Paper commits us to leaving the customs union, which will have a devastating effect on manufacturing, without any analysis of the effects and with no impact assessment?

[Mr Davis]

There has been considerable analysis of this—

[Helen Goodman]

Well, it is not in the White Paper.

[Mr Davis]

Let me just finish my answer. The point is made in the policy paper that we want to have a customs agreement. That will follow directly as a result of the free trade agreement. If we are successful in getting low or zero tariffs in the free trade agreement, and no non-tariff barriers, we should succeed in getting a customs agreement that reflects that, and that makes it very straightforward to continue trading with Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Helen Goodman

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that he can maintain flexibility and give the House a say through the great repeal Bill, but that only covers things in legislation. When will the House be able to consider the value of the EU agencies and the cost of setting up new UK ones?

[Mr Davis]

That is precisely the sort of thing that might well come up in legislation. In dealing with these EU agencies, we will seek the best outcome in each case for the relevant sector. When doing so, we will of course talk to the House about the costs and benefits of various options, but we will do that when it is appropriate for the House to know, not while we are in the middle of the detailed negotiations.

Article 50

Debate between David Davis and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I view everybody with great charity and generosity, and I will continue to do so.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), when the Labour Government legislated for the Lisbon treaty, Parliament had 25 days, including 11 days in Committee of the whole House, to debate it. There are 66 days before 31 March. How many days is the Secretary of State planning to give us?

[Mr Davis]

I will say two things. First, was it not the Lisbon treaty on which Labour promised a referendum, which we never got? Selling a false bill of goods is not a very good example to Parliaments around the world. This is article 50. This is the triggering process only —nothing more than the triggering process. There will be vast quantities of legislation—much more than on the Lisbon treaty—between now and the conclusion.

The Government's Plan for Brexit

Debate between David Davis and Helen Goodman

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will make a bit more progress for a few moments and keep him in mind.

All this does not mean that parliamentary scrutiny is not very important—of course it is. I, of all people, would be last to argue that. That is why I have already given three oral statements to this House and answered more than 350 parliamentary questions. It is why Ministers from my Department and I have already appeared before Select Committees on 10 occasions—I will be appearing in front of the Brexit Committee in a week. It is why the Government announced a series of themed debates, with workers’ rights and transport already discussed, and another debate coming up before Christmas. There have also been more than 15 debates about this in the other House.

However, there is no doubt that the way in which we handle and disclose information is important to the negotiating process. Needless to say, I have given a great deal of thought to how we achieve accountability at the same time as preserving the national interest. That was why at the first parliamentary Committee hearing I appeared before—I think it was the House of Lords Select Committee—I volunteered an undertaking that British parliamentarians would be at least as well served, in terms of information, as the European Parliament. As I said to the Opposition spokesman, I have said on several other occasions that we will provide as much information as possible—subject, again, to that not undermining the national interest. This is a substantive undertaking, but it must be done in a way that will not compromise the negotiation.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State repeats that what he is doing is—he thinks—in the national interest, but he must have heard from industrialists, as Labour Members have, that the uncertainty and lack of clarity from Ministers means that people are putting back projects and not investing. That is why the growth rate is down and the public finances are in such a mess.

[Mr Davis]

We heard during the campaign about how the economy was going to collapse, but I seem to have noticed in the past few months that really it is doing very well indeed, thank you very much. This nay-saying—this talking down the country—is, frankly, the least desirable part of the Opposition’s behaviour.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Helen Goodman

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The OBR, the IMF, the Bank of England, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and the London School of Economics all say that Britain’s share of world exports will fall post-Brexit. Does that not show how empty the Government’s rhetoric is about us being a global leader in world trade?

[Mr David Davis]

The hon. Lady should be very wary about taking economic assumptions underpinning a forecast as a statement of what is going to happen. The outcome after the Brexit process is over will depend very much on the deal we strike. That will be a good deal and there will be an increase in the amount of world trade we take.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Helen Goodman

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. When the Prime Minister is at the European Council tonight and tomorrow, she will reiterate what we have said many times already: we want an outcome that is successful for both the United Kingdom and the European Union. As my hon. Friend suggests, if the UK and the EU do not achieve an open, free and barrier-free trading relationship, it will be harmful to many European countries and harmful to European financial stability, and no one wants that.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Were we to leave the customs union, the businesses exporting 44% of our exports to the EU would face extra costs for compliance with the rules of origin, which the OECD estimates at 25%. Does the Secretary of State not agree that membership of the customs union is even more important than membership of the single market?

[Mr Davis]

As I said earlier, these matters are assessed very carefully, but perhaps the hon. Lady should look at various other countries around the European Union, although they are all smaller than us, so they are not really good models. There is Turkey, which is inside the customs union and outside the single market; there is Norway, which is inside the single market and outside the customs union—actually it manages to trade with Sweden very easily—and there is Switzerland, which is outside both the customs union and the single market. What we are looking for is the best balance to achieve the best outcome.

Next Steps in Leaving the European Union

Debate between David Davis and Helen Goodman

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I gently implore the Secretary of State to face the House so that we can all benefit from his mellifluous tones. [Interruption.] Somebody chunters rather ungraciously from a sedentary position or otherwise, “You pays your money and you takes your choice,” but the right hon. Gentleman must be heard.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Last week, the Government were required to publish the submission they put into the court defending their reasons for using the royal prerogative. This is what it said:

“The relief sought…to compel the Secretary of State to introduce legislation into Parliament to give effect to the outcome of the referendum—is constitutionally impermissible. The Court would be trespassing on proceedings in Parliament.”

It is obviously nonsensical to say that to involve Parliament is trespassing on Parliament. Did the Secretary of State really give the instructions to the lawyers for this submission?

[Mr Davis]

I shall be very careful because one has to be careful when we are talking about court cases. The main guidance I gave to the Attorney-General was that a would-be vote in this House on article 50 could have two outcomes. It either lets it through or it stops it. If it stops it, what would be the outcome? It would be a refusal to implement the decision of the British people, creating as a result a constitutional problem to say the least. That was then interpreted by the lawyers as they saw fit.

Exiting the European Union

Debate between David Davis and Helen Goodman

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think we want too much information on that front.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has always been a great defender of parliamentary democracy. Throughout the afternoon he has emphasised that the situation is complex and there are trade-offs to be made. That is why it is so incomprehensible to many of us that he does not want the House to have a vote before the path is chosen for how to trigger article 50. I wonder whether he is aware of the statement made by the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Hague, that it would be sensible

“to endorse the start of negotiations”

as

“a defeat for the terms of exit, after lengthy negotiations…could leave the UK in…limbo”.

[Mr Davis]

I always listen very carefully to my fellow Yorkshireman. Let me say to the hon. Lady that the reason for the question of article 50 not being put to a vote of the Commons is simply this: I am a great supporter of parliamentary democracy because it is our manifestation of democracy in most circumstances; in this unique circumstance we have 17.5 million direct votes that tell us what to do. I cannot imagine what would happen to the House in the event that it overturned 17.5 million votes. I do not want to bring the House into disrepute by doing that. I want to have the House make decisions that are effective and bite into the process. That is what will happen.