Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I certainly do not anticipate that it will be possible to call everybody on the statement, and we will want to proceed with the debate on the motion. In the name of maximising participation, there is a premium upon brevity from those on the Back and Front Benches alike.

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

Despite the fact that those who oppose Brexit have tried to undermine his negotiating position at every turn, despite the fact that the Benn Act sought to remove his strongest negotiating lever, the Prime Minister has done what they said was impossible two weeks ago and got the European Union to reopen and change its negotiating position. Does he agree that, during the referendum, this Parliament effectively made a promise to the British people to deliver on their decision, and that today is the day to deliver on that promise?

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My initial response is that we are guided in these matters by House rules in respect of Queen’s consent. It would be a mistake to think that they are extrapolated from or dependent upon judicial interpretation of the kind he references. We have our own procedures in relation to Queen’s consent, and what I am saying is consistent with those procedures.

I will certainly reflect further on the point the right hon. Gentleman has made, but it is not something that has a bearing on the Second Reading of this Bill.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You say you have taken advice on this. You may remember that the last time a Bill was put through the House at this speed was the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. That was done relatively quickly, supposedly under the pressure of the Government of the day needing that law. That Act was effectively overturned in court in Davis and Watson v. the Home Secretary of the day—she was subsequently Prime Minister—and part of the argument that I am sure affected the judges was the speed with which the House came to decisions on matters of fundamental constitutional importance.

Have you taken advice from Speaker’s Counsel as to the robustness of the legislation before us today in the face of such a judicial challenge?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not ordinarily the case that the courts look at how we make our decisions. There is quite an established principle of comity with the courts, and the principle is that our procedures are respected and, in turn, we respect those of the courts. As I say, I will happily reflect further on the right hon. Gentleman’s point, as I will reflect upon the point raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), but I am entirely comfortable that we are proceeding in a proper way.

I ought to say to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that, of course, I am conscious, as every Member is, that there are different opinions about the merits of the procedure being followed today, as there are about the merits of the procedure followed yesterday and of the procedure followed at the time of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), but those are matters of political dispute, not, in my judgment, of rule observance or procedural propriety. We are proceeding in a proper manner. That manner may offend the instincts of some Members, but that does not make it improper. It may mean simply that it is distasteful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry if that is the case, but it does not mean that he has made a valid point of a procedural character.

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is clearly important, colleagues, that Members receive timely responses from Ministers on important constituency matters. This is an observation I have had many times to make from the Chair. It should not be necessary to do so again, but, sadly, it has been. The hon. Lady has made her concern clear. It will have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench, including the Leader of the House, who I am sure, in common with her predecessors, takes very seriously the responsibility to chase Ministers to serve the House efficiently and in a timely fashion. We will leave it there for now.

Are there no further points of order? The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was thirsting a moment ago, but he appears to have lost his appetite.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

He has regained it. I call David Davis.

[Mr Davis]

Following the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), my point of order is altogether too mundane to detain the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that “mundane” and the right hon. Gentleman ordinarily go together, so it would have been an exceptional state of affairs. Nevertheless, if he wishes to apply a self-denying ordinance on this occasion, who am I to prevent him?

Bill Presented

Prime Minister (Confidence)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Tom Brake, supported by Jo Swinson, Sir Edward Davey, Layla Moran, Tim Farron, Wera Hobhouse and Christine Jardine, presented a Bill to require a Prime Minister to tender their resignation to Her Majesty if the House of Commons passes a motion of no confidence in them; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 April, and to be printed (Bill 370)

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I declare a family interest in the answer to my question. The undoubted problems with health assessments are causing delays in the appeal process right across the board, not just with PIP and others, but with disability living allowance and mobility allowances. Will the Minister agree to see me and discuss how we can accelerate the process, because some appeals take more than 39 weeks to come to fruition, with the effect that children have to wait over a year before they get their proper allowances?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the Minister will agree to see the right hon. Gentleman. It would be extraordinarily reckless and foolhardy to refuse to do so, and I am sure that the Minister would never be reckless or foolhardy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am keen to encourage a new young Member. I call Mr David Davis.

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

The Home Secretary quite rightly says that he cannot comment on the individual case of Shamima Begum. However, it does raise a more general issue. In that case, citizenship was removed after the birth of the latest child who therefore presumably has a right to British citizenship herself. What, if anything, are the responsibilities of the British state to that child in this event?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend looked at the evidence that pharmaceutical companies have given to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee about the catastrophic results of a no-deal Brexit. I recall him saying that we would not need an implementation period, because we would have had our deal by now. I am afraid that it is not as easy or as simple as he appears to wish to outline.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is in order for Members to intervene, and it is in the nature and tradition of parliamentary debate in this place. However, I hope that I can be forgiven for making the point that if Members intervene and are not subsequently called to speak, they will not complain—brackets: what are those pigs I see flying in front of my very eyes?

[Mr Davis]

What a pity, Mr Speaker. I enjoy interventions, as you well know.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) has misquoted me from somewhere. It was I who negotiated the implementation period element, precisely because it is not without hiccups. It is not without issues. There will be practical issues in the first year of a WTO outcome, but that does not overwhelm the big advantages—the massive advantages—of having the freedom to negotiate our trade deals in the future.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership speech, but this is supposed to be a debate. He referred to something that I said earlier in the debate and would not let me come back on it. Is that in order?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the Chair is the arbiter of normality. Sometimes the Member on his or her feet gives way, and other times not. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough in this House to know that. He has registered his mild irritation, but the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has adhered to the rules today, as on previous occasions.

[Mr Davis]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That attempt at an intervention came one sentence from the end of my speech, to which I shall simply add that it seems to me that some points of order are as bogus as the facts to which the right hon. Member for North Durham claims to aspire.

Throughout the past 50 years, Governments of all parties have made enormous claims for their intentions on social mobility, but in delivery they have fallen short on nearly all those claims. This shall be a Government who deliver on social mobility and on the real value of a capitalist economy. On that basis, I commend the Budget to the House.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House agrees with Lords amendments 19C to 19E, 19G to 19L and 19P, and proposes Government amendments to Lords amendment 19P.

[Mr Speaker]

With this, it will be convenient to consider the following:

Manuscript amendment (b) and amendment (a) to the motion.

Lords amendments 4B to 4E.

Lords amendment 24C

Lords amendments 110B to 110J.

I inform the House that I have selected manuscript amendment (b), in the name of Mr Dominic Grieve, and amendment (a), in the name of Mr Tom Brake. I add, for the convenience of the House, that copies of manuscript amendment (b) are available in the Vote Office.

[Mr Davis]

I will turn in a moment to the issue at the forefront of many hon. Members’ minds—Parliament’s role at the conclusion of the negotiations with the European Union—but first I want to set out the other issues before the House for approval today. These are all issues where the Lords agreed with the Government on Monday: enhanced protection for certain areas of EU law, family reunification for refugee children and extending sifting arrangements for statutory instruments to the Lords. The Government set out common-sense approaches to those three issues in the Lords, who backed the Government, and the issues now return to this House for final approval.

The fourth issue is, as I have said, Parliament’s role at the conclusion of our negotiations with the EU. Before we turn to the detail, let us take a step back for a moment and consider the long democratic process we have been on to get here. It began with the EU Referendum Act 2015, passed by a majority of 263 in this House, at which point the Government were clear they would respect the outcome of the referendum. This was followed by the referendum itself, which saw a turnout of over 33 million people and 17.4 million people vote in favour of leaving the EU.

We then had the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, which empowered the Government to trigger article 50. Despite the attempts of some in the other place to impugn the validity of this notification, the Act passed through both Houses, with a majority of 372 in this place on Third Reading. This was followed by a general election where both major parties, attracting over 80% of the vote, stood on manifestos that committed to respecting the result of the referendum: 27.5 million votes for parties that said they would respect the referendum—no ifs, no buts. We are now in the process of passing this essential Bill to get our statute book ready for the day we leave. It will ensure that we respect the referendum result but exit the European Union in as smooth and orderly a manner as possible.

We have already set out in law that this process will be followed by a motion to approve the final deal we agree with the EU in negotiations. If this is supported by Parliament, as I hope and expect it will be, the Government will introduce the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which Parliament will have time to debate, vote on and amend if they so wish. Finally, as with any international treaty, the withdrawal agreement will be subject to the approval and ratification procedures under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. And this is all before we even consider the other pieces of legislation we have passed and will pass as part of this process.

Anyone who questions the democratic credentials of this Government or this process should consider the steps we have taken to get to this stage and those which we have already laid out in front of us. I believe they are greater than any steps taken for any international negotiations ever in the history of this country. Furthermore, contrary to what was said in the other place on Monday, the Bill gives Parliament significantly more rights than we see on the EU side. The European Parliament simply has to consent to the withdrawal agreement—a yes or no vote—and the EU member states will simply have a vote in the Council on the withdrawal agreement. We have considerably more powers than them, too.

I turn now to the detail of the amendment at hand. We start with a simple purpose: how do we guarantee Parliament’s role in scrutinising the Government in the unlikely event that the preferred scenario does not come to pass? Our intention is straightforward: to conclude negotiations in October and put before both Houses a deal that is worthy of support. In approaching our discussions on this matter, the Government set out three reasonable tests: that we do not undermine the negotiations, that we do not alter the constitutional role of Parliament in relation to international negotiations, and that we respect the result of the referendum.

It is on that basis that we have tabled our amendments. This is a fair and serious proposal that demonstrates the significant flexibility that the Government have already shown in addressing the concerns of the House. Our original amendment provided that, if Parliament rejected the final deal, the Government must make a statement setting out their next steps in relation to negotiations within 28 days of that rejection. Our new amendments provide for a statement and a motion, ensuring that there is a guaranteed opportunity for both Houses to express their views on the Government’s proposed next steps. Not only that, but we have expanded the set of circumstances in which that opportunity would arise, to cover the three situations conceived of in the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) last week. First, if Parliament rejects the deal, a statement must now be made within 21 days and a motion must be tabled in both Houses within seven sitting days of that statement. Alternatively, if the Prime Minister announces before 21 January 2019 that no deal can be agreed with the European Union, a statement must be made within 14 days, and a motion must be tabled in both Houses within seven days of that statement. Finally, if no agreement has been reached by the end of 21 January 2019, a statement must be made within five days, and a motion must be tabled in both Houses within five sitting days. That would happen whatever the state of the negotiations at that stage.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 110.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 128, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 125, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 19, amendment (a) thereto, Government motion to disagree, amendments (i) and (ii) to Government amendment (a) in lieu, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 52, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 10, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 43, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 45, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 20, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 11 to 14, 18, 21 to 23, 44, 47, 102 to 107, 112, 113, 115 to 119, 121 to 124, 126, 127, 130 to 134, 136 to 140, 142 to 148, 150, 152, 154, 156 to 158, 171 and 172.

[Mr Davis]

Let me start with the obiter dictum that there is a difference between eating into time and exhausting patience.

Over nine months, across both Houses, we have debated more than 1,000 non-Government amendments and hundreds of Government amendments to the Bill. Before us today are 196 Lords amendments—the outcome of hundreds of hours of debate in the other place. I beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to my ministerial team who have brought the Bill this far: my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and for Worcester (Mr Walker), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington); and, in the other place, Baroness Evans, the Leader of the House of Lords, and her team—Lord Callanan, Lord Keen, Baroness Goldie, Lord Duncan and Lord Bourne. I extend the same thanks to Opposition Front Benchers.

It is worth at this early point remembering that the Bill has a simple, clear purpose: to ensure that the whole United Kingdom has a functioning statute book on the day we leave the European Union. That involves the considerable task of converting 40 years of EU law into United Kingdom law. This is an unprecedented task, carried out under a strict timetable.

The Government respect the constitutional role that the House of Lords has played in scrutinising the Bill and, whenever possible, we have listened to sensible suggestions to improve it. However, when amendments seek to—or inadvertently—undermine the essential purpose of the Bill, which is to provide for a smooth and orderly exit, or the referendum result, we must reject them. For example, on the interpretation of Court of Justice of the European Union case law, we have worked closely with former Law Lords such as Lord Hope, Lord Judge, Lord Browne, Lord Neuberger and Lord Thomas to develop a solution that has genuinely improved the Bill. Our other Lords amendments represent the outcome of similarly productive discussions. The role of the House of Lords is clear: to scrutinise legislation that comes from this House, not to recast it or repurpose it. Of course, it should not undermine decisions that were put before the British people in manifestos or in referendums.

The House of Commons’ improvements to the Bill span a number of areas, ranging from narrowing the types of deficiencies that can be corrected using the delegated powers in the Bill to bolstering the rights of individuals by extending the ability to bring certain challenges under the general principles to three months after exit day. I will address in turn the main issues covered by this group on which the House of Lords has asked this House to think again but where their lordships’ approach has either undermined the essential purpose of the Bill, or attempted to overrule well-considered amendments from this House.

The first such area is the sifting system proposed in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chairman of our Procedure Committee. The proposal was that a committee would consider instruments subject to the negative procedure that were brought forward under the main powers in the Bill, and could recommend that they be subject to the affirmative procedure instead. This unanimous recommendation of the cross-party Procedure Committee was clearly born out of careful and detailed consideration by that Committee, and the Government were happy to accept it. My hon. Friend’s amendments were agreed by this House following an extensive debate.

What we have back from the other place—Lords amendments 110 and 128—is both an imposition on our procedures by the other place and a threat to the workability of the whole process of correcting the statute book. This is for two important reasons. First, a binding recommendation following the sifting process is not a recommendation at all—it is an instruction to the Government that would mark a significant departure from established procedures for handling secondary legislation. It is equally unacceptable, as the Chair of the Procedure Committee has noted, for the opinion of a Committee of the unelected House to govern procedure in this place. The Commons Procedure Committee’s proposals have teeth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said in December:

“The political cost to my Front-Bench colleagues of going against a sifting committee recommendation would be significant. The committee will have to give a reason why it is in disagreement, the Minister will be summoned to explain his or her Department’s position, and it will be flagged up on the Order Paper if a particular SI has not been agreed between the sifting committee and the Government. That will result in a significant political cost”.—[Official Report, 12 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 266.]

He was right.

Secondly, although I understand concern about the pace at which committees will be required to operate, an extra five sitting days, as the Lords propose, would risk taking the process for a negative statutory instrument into what might well be its fifth or sixth calendar week. That would seriously jeopardise our ability to deliver a functioning statute book in time. For our part, the Government are poised to do everything we can to support the speedy work of the sifting committees. On a slightly wider point, I understand that the House of Lords wants to improve the Bill in various ways. Some of its changes can individually seem sensible and proportionate when seen in isolation, but the cumulative effect of those changes could sometimes make it impossible to deliver the smooth and orderly exit we want.

I turn now to the question of exit day. After considering the issue at length, this House accepted amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) that set exit day in the Bill, but allowed that time to be altered in the unlikely event that the exit date under article 50 differed from that written into the Bill. That is a sensible approach. It provides certainty about our exit day, but it also incorporates the terms of article 50. Let us remember that exit day will be determined by international law rather than by this House.

We discussed this issue at length when we considered the Bill that became the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Their lordships have suggested that this House abandons the conclusions of the lengthy and considered debates that we have already had on this issue by returning the Bill in broadly the same state in which it was first introduced. I accept the helpful scrutiny of the Lords on many aspects of the Bill, but this House has already reached a sensible position, which commanded a significant majority, and we propose to adhere to this House’s original decision on this matter.

At the heart of the Bill are the delegated powers that are essential for the United Kingdom’s orderly departure from the European Union. Those powers will ensure that the statute book continues to function as we leave the European Union. As we have consistently said, we do not take the powers lightly, which was why, in addition to the changes approved by this House, we made further amendments in the Lords. When using the principal powers in the Bill, Ministers must now give their good reasons for the changes they are making, exactly as the Lords Constitution Committee recommended. We have introduced further safeguards by preventing the powers in the Bill from being used to establish public authorities. We have also removed the international obligations power from the Bill entirely, as it has become clear that there are better and more effective ways to ensure that the Government’s international obligations continue to be met than through the use of that power.

That means that the approach before us is substantially different from what we first introduced, while still protecting the core purpose of the Bill. This reflects the fact that the Government have listened to the views of Parliament throughout the Bill’s passage, but we cannot accept Lords amendments 10, 43 and 45, which replace “appropriate” as a reason for using the powers to “necessary”. This House has accepted the premise of the Government’s approach to delivering a functioning statute book—specifically, that we will preserve and incorporate EU law, and then make the appropriate corrections via secondary legislation. Given the scale of the task and the speed necessary, that could never have been done through primary legislation, but at every turn we have sought to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Given that that fundamental premise has been supported, there needs to be sufficient flexibility for Ministers to propose changes that might not be strictly considered necessary, but that everyone here would think appropriate. “Necessary” is not a synonym for sensible, logical or proper; it means something that it is essential to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his forecast, or his good wishes—one or the other—

[Mr Speaker]

Have it framed.

[Mr Davis]

I have some much more pertinent things than that to frame, Mr Speaker.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is essential and is in the national interest. Some of the amendments passed in the upper House—and the upper House does a very important job, as a reviewing House, in improving the quality of legislation—could have the effect of undermining the negotiation. That is a matter of critical national interest, and we will have to deal with it accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis]

As a matter of diplomatic policy, we never comment on internal operations in other Governments.

[Mr Speaker]

We have had the Hollo; let’s have the Bone.

[Mr Bone]

Thank you for saving me up, Mr Speaker.

Hon. Members know that we will leave this dreadful European Union superstate in 379 days, but they might not know that that will also mark the end of the Secretary of State’s grand tour of Europe. He is in a unique position to advise the British people about which countries like us and which do not so that we will know which countries to go to after we leave. Will the Secretary of State tell us the answer?

[Mr Davis]

I am very tempted to give my hon. Friend the list from the last three weeks, which would take about five minutes. Two things have struck me while talking to all my European opposite numbers: all of them are sad that we are going; and they all want a strong future relationship. They all want to stay our friends and allies, and that is what we will deliver.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act 2018

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2018

Space Industry Act 2018

City of London Corporation (Open Spaces) Act 2018.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

If I simply accept the European Commission proposal, then yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Unlike the question from the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), which was commendably pithy—and again I exhort him to issue his textbook for the benefit of all colleagues.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I will do my best, Mr Speaker.

The EU has made it clear that EU citizens coming to the UK during the transition period should be eligible for settled status; the Prime Minister says they will not be eligible. Is that a red line, or are the Government willing to compromise on that? I thought nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will not take points of order in the middle of Question Time, but I gently say to the Secretary of State that I understand his predicament. A soothing medicament may assist him, and I extend my sympathies, but he must face the House because Members are saying that they cannot hear him. I am sure he would not want to mumble deliberately.

[Mr Davis]

Good Lord, what a terrible thought.

The withdrawal and implementation Bill cannot be brought to the House until we have agreed the withdrawal agreement. The European Union negotiator expects that to be concluded in September or October 2018, which is probably right, so the Bill will be tabled after that date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran]

Recent polls show there is now a clear majority in favour of a referendum on the deal. Is it any wonder that this Government have lost control? Yesterday, Parliament took back control, and now the public want to take back control from the Tory party and the Democratic Unionist party. Will the Minister please explain to my constituents how a referendum on the deal—the first referendum on the facts—would be anti-democratic? Does he not trust them—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order—when I say that, the hon. Lady must resume her seat. I think we have the thrust of it, but what is required—and I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Lady—in these situations is a question, not the development of an essay theme. I am sorry, but she must learn to appreciate the difference. The question was too long, and that should not happen again.

[Mr Davis]

I am very tempted to point out the polling results of the Liberal Democrat party recently. The simple point to the hon. Lady is this: no opinion poll comes anywhere near the votes of 17.5 million people, which we will respect.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s speeches in such proceedings are becoming rather repetitive—they are always crowing and carping. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Mr Davis]

Given my voice, I will wait it out, Mr Speaker.

Let us start with this issue of the single market and customs union. I am glad to see the shadow Chancellor in the Chamber, because he said earlier this year that remaining in the single market would be interpreted as “not respecting” the referendum result. The shadow International Trade Secretary—I cannot see him here—said that a permanent customs union is “deeply unattractive”. He said that as a “transitional phase”, it

“might be thought to have some merit. However, as an end point it is deeply unattractive.”

In fact, he described it rather later as “a disaster”. So much for Labour policy on this matter; we can see why it has changed 10 times in the course of the last year.

On the question with respect to the United Kingdom, I said in my response to the urgent question that I would be circumspect, and I intend to be. I am not going to go in for tit-for-tat comments—that would be very bad for our negotiations—but I will take the opportunity to rebut one falsehood I saw being stirred up by various of our political opponents yesterday: the suggestion that we might depart the European Union but leave one part of the United Kingdom behind, still inside the single market and customs union. That is emphatically not something that the UK Government are considering. So when the First Minister of Wales complains about it, the First Minister of Scotland says it is a reason to start banging the tattered drum of independence, or the Mayor of London says it justifies a hard border around the M25, I say they are making a foolish mistake. No UK Government would allow such a thing, let alone a Conservative and Unionist one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On reflection, I think I prefer the phrase “the rubber has hit the road” to the one that I was going to use to describe yesterday’s fiasco.

It is no surprise that leadership contenders are now circling the Prime Minister. I can reveal that there is a vacancy coming up, because the Prime Minister is today being interviewed for the job of Scotland football manager, where her fantastic ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory could be put to very good use.

A Government who said they would bring sovereignty back to Parliament are now being controlled by someone who is not even a Member of this Parliament. A Government who refuse to give Parliament any say in the development of our negotiating position are now allowing that negotiating position to be dictated by the leader of a minority Parliament in the smallest of the four nations of this Union. I could not put it better than the shadow Minister: what a shambles; what a complete mess.

Will the Secretary of State now go back to “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, the document published by the Scottish Government that his Government rejected out of hand a year ago, and use that as a basis to produce a solution to an otherwise intractable problem? The fact is that the Government’s red lines are not compatible with each other, as the Brexit Committee concluded only last week. We were therefore unable to see how it is possible to reconcile leaving the customs union with avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Will the Secretary of State go back to that paper and use it as a basis for reopening negotiations?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has concluded his remarks. [Interruption.] The problem is that he has taken one and half minutes plus, and there is huge pressure on time, so I think we must now proceed.

[Mr Davis]

Shall I reply?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, that is only fair, as I allowed the hon. Gentleman to blurt out his question to allow the Secretary of State briefly to answer.

[Mr Davis]

I will answer very briefly. First, I am very surprised by the hon. Gentleman, of all people, being so dismissive of small nations. Secondly, the Scottish Government document to which he refers was read carefully, and many of its elements are consistent with our negotiating strategy, not least the aim of protecting employment rights. I really think he should recognise that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is of course right. The other thing we can say is that 85% of the Members of this House were elected on manifestos that said they would respect that referendum. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just make two points. First, there is a lot of noise in the Chamber. Members must be heard. Secondly, may I say very gently to the Secretary of State that I appreciate that he has trouble with his voice, but that accentuates the importance of his facing the House so that we can all hear him?

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

In the chaos that was yesterday, it did at least seem to be clear at 9 o’clock in the morning that the Government believed in the idea of regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland and for the Republic, but what is their position now? Have they now ditched any idea of regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland, or do they recognise that actually regulatory alignment is really important not just for the Good Friday agreement, but for businesses right across the United Kingdom? That is what the Secretary of State should be trying to achieve for all of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

Is Horlicks a parliamentary word, Mr Speaker? I might use it in future. I am the Brexit Secretary, so that is of course what I focus on most of the time. The simple fact is that the free trade agreement the hon. Lady talks about is precisely what we are aiming for. It is exactly where we and Brussels want to get to as quickly as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

The word is certainly not unparliamentary. It could be said to constitute a form of advertising, but it is not disorderly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

Or a euphemism.

[Mr Speaker]

Or indeed a euphemism, as the right hon. Gentleman pertinently observes from a sedentary position.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

When will we have a decision on the rights of EU nationals in the UK? The Secretary of State has yet again forgotten about them amidst the current chaos. More than 3 million people are in limbo with regard to their future rights, including many Irish citizens to whom we have a particular and long-standing duty.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I am sure it was a brilliant exposition, but I did not hear it.

[Mr Speaker]

No, but the Secretary of State has the confirmation from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), wittering from a sedentary position, that it was very good. He said it not once, but twice—that should satisfy the Secretary of State, I feel sure.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I invite my right hon. Friend to remind the House that 498 right hon. and hon. Members voted for the withdrawal Bill, in the full knowledge that, two years after notification had been served, we would be leaving the European Union? Is it not a little disappointing that they seem to be backtracking on their commitment to honour their promises to the British people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

The ones in receipt of the Conservative Whip will.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and all colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. There are three reasons for the implementation period. One is to give businesses a significant amount of time after the decisions are made, so that they can make their decisions on the basis of clarity and certainty. The second is to give the Government time to prepare changes in the regulatory structures, regulations, customs and all the other things we have to do. The third is to give foreign Governments time to make accommodations too, because we will depend on, for example, French customs arrangements. Those are the three reasons. The first is, as the Chancellor says, a wasting asset if it goes on for very long—not immediately, but if it goes on for very long.

The European Council is, I think, on 13 or 14 December —anyway, it is in the middle of December. If it finds that there has been sufficient progress at that point, we will start straightaway and conclude as fast as we can. However, it is a negotiation and there are two sides to make the decision. The hon. Lady can take it as read that we will be as quick as we can on that to give as great an amount of certainty as early as possible to British business.

[Mr Speaker]

We are better informed as a result of the insistence of the right hon. Gentleman on including in his answer any consideration that might be thought, in any way at any time, to be in any degree material.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

In the event of a no deal, why would the EU agree to a transitional period?

[Mr Davis]

In the light of your comments, Mr Speaker, the hon. Gentleman will have to ask the European Union that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stephen Kinnock. Not here—where is the feller?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for showing that time does not always mean talent. I am hoping he can help answer a question that my constituents keep asking: how much is all of this going to cost us? Departments do not seem able to answer that, and I have been asking them. Some of them think they are not paying anything at all, whereas others think everybody else is paying. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy says it has received extra cash to pay for the impact of the Brexit negotiations; the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport says it does not know how much any of this is going to cost; the Department for Communities and Local Government says it is expecting the Treasury to pick up the tab; and the Ministry of Defence says it is not spending anything because it expects there to be a deal and so no funding is required. This is a bit of a mess, so can this Secretary of State commit to publishing, by Department, by year, details on how much money has been put aside for the cost of negotiations and whether that money is from the Department or from another budget?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know the hon. Lady is an academic doctor, but it is not necessary to treat Question Time as the occasion for the presentation of a thesis.

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Lady demonstrated the second half of her original quip; speed of wit does not equate to speed of question. The simple answer to her question is that, as we have already said, the Treasury is putting aside £250 million for contingency planning this year and a total of £500 million overall. That money will be spent where it is necessary, and that will change depending on the progress of the negotiations.

Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My right hon. and learned Friend has a point. As I understand it, the reason why Mr Barnier wants to conclude the negotiations, including that element of article 50 that refers to the future arrangements, by October is to enable that ratification process to take place. In that respect, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend.

[Mr Speaker]

May I just ask the Secretary of State to face the House, because some colleagues could not quite hear?

[Mr Davis]

I was facing you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am always delighted to be faced by the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that privilege should be enjoyed by the House as a whole.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

We have a withdrawal Bill that has not only been delayed, but just has not come to the House in any of the three or four weeks in which we expected it to, and we do not know when it will. We have the former UK ambassador to the European Union telling us that the Prime Minister’s approach to the negotiations is in danger of leaving the UK “screwed”. The negotiations are being led by somebody who thinks that Czechoslovakia is one of the countries with which we are negotiating, although unlike the Cabinet, Czechoslovakia is split into only two parts and they are still on amicable speaking terms. The Government refuse to publish the truth about the impact of Brexit, saying it is confidential, despite the fact that between 2013 and 2014 they published 16 different analyses of the potential impact of a yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum. The Prime Minister is having to make emergency trips to Europe to try to bail out her failing Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, for any vote to be meaningful, we must be in possession of the full facts? Will he therefore agree that Parliament will have sight of the Government’s recently produced analysis before a vote takes place, and will he confirm that the Administrations of the three devolved nations will be treated as equals, as the Government have promised, and that they will also have a timeous and meaningful vote before we leave the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I have known the hon. Gentleman a very long time and I always get nervous when he starts a question with, “May I say in the friendliest of terms?” We are having this discussion today precisely because I did not fudge yesterday. I told the Committee what I saw that the facts were, and that in no way changed our intent or, indeed, our commitment to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

There was a certain amount of harrumphing from a sedentary position from the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), in response to which I simply observe, without fear of contradiction, that none of my parliamentary colleagues is a viper. However, I think it would be fair to say that that is a matter of taste rather than of order.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to have a meaningful vote on the final deal, it will be better if all Members engage constructively with the proceedings rather than seek to frustrate the will of the British people?

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The first thing that I point to is the right hon. Gentleman’s wonderful selective choice of fantasies—none of them is true. He has ignored the fact that inward investment in the UK was at record levels in the first half of this year. As he raises the point about how a letter of his came to the attention of Guido Fawkes—he did it in a point of order yesterday and has alluded to it again today—let me tell him that that letter came to me via a journalist who already had full knowledge of its entire contents. I am afraid that he has no apologies coming from me on that either.

[Mr Speaker]

That discussion can continue on a subsequent occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I did that only a couple of days ago. I will come back to the point, but for the House’s interest, I will read a small part of a LabourList article—I read LabourList all the time, of course—by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who opened this question. He said:

“On Sunday Keir Starmer used an article in The Observer to call time on the ambiguity that had come to define Labour’s approach to Brexit since the referendum”—

the ambiguity, right? He said, “It was an approach”—this is the best bit—

“that…served us well on 8 June”.

What was that ambiguity? Tell leavers you want to leave; tell remainers you want to remain. That ambiguity, of course, could not last, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it was never sustainable. That is the ambiguity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just asked his question.

Now, our position is very clear. The transition arrangements will meet three different requirements: to provide time for the British Government, if need be, to create new regulatory agencies and so on; time for companies to make their arrangements to deal with new regulation; and time for other countries to make arrangements on, for example, new customs proposals. That is what will be required. That is why we need to be as close as we are to our current arrangements. It does not mean that, in the long run, we are in either the customs union or the single market.

[Mr Speaker]

There is plenty of material for colleagues to include in their Second Reading debate speeches if they so wish. The material might be better located there.

[Keir Starmer]

I asked the Secretary of State his position and he started with my position. If he wants to swap places—any time.

Given the progress to date, and knowing that we will go back to this answer, what prospects does the Secretary of State genuinely believe there are for bespoke transitional agreements being agreed, negotiated and implemented by March 2019? Knowing how anxiously businesses are looking at this, when does he anticipate being able to tell them what the arrangements will be, because they need to make arrangements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

Perhaps I will organise a visit for the hon. Gentleman to see Mr Barnier himself. We have taken action in all those areas. We have taken action to underpin the funding of universities. In industry, we have seen the Nissan arrangements. We have talked to the financial services sector about what we expect to happen, and we have particularly talked about an implementation period with them in mind—not just them, but them in particular. Plenty of action is being taken to improve the certainty and clarity on where we are going.

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, Charlie Elphicke.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

No, I will not give way at the moment.

The Bill gives time for us to work with the devolved Administrations to determine where we will continue to need common frameworks in the future. Crucially, it will not create unnecessary short-term change that negatively affects people or businesses. Before the summer recess, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State wrote to the Scottish and Welsh Governments to begin intensive discussions about where common frameworks are and are not needed. In the current absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, equivalent engagement has taken place at official level with the Northern Ireland civil service. We will bring forward further detail on the process underpinning these discussions in due course for Parliament to decide on.

Certainty in devolved legislation affected by EU exit is also vital. The key delegated powers in this Bill are conferred on the devolved Administrations so that the task of preparing the devolved statute books for exit can rightly be led from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Government are committed to ensuring the powers work for the Administrations and legislatures. For instance, I have already confirmed that we will always consult the Administrations on corrections made to direct EU law relating to otherwise devolved areas of competence. I firmly believe that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making powers of each devolved Administration and legislature. It will mean that decisions and powers sit in the right place and closer to people than ever before. Crucially, the Bill means that our UK businesses and citizens have confidence and certainty that the laws will allow them to live and operate across the UK as we exit the EU.

As the Prime Minister said in January, the historic decision taken by the British people in June last year was not a rejection of the common values and history we share with the EU but a reflection of the desire of British people to control our own laws and ensure that they reflect the country and the people we want to be. The Bill is an essential building block. It lays the foundation for a functioning statute book on the basis of which future policies and laws can be debated and altered. The Bill itself is not the place for those substantive changes to the frameworks we will inherit from the EU—we will have many more opportunities to debate those, both before and after we leave.

I hope that all Members on both sides of the House will recognise that we are acting responsibly in leaving the EU by prioritising, first and foremost, a functioning statute book. In bringing forward the Bill, we are ensuring the smoothest possible exit from the EU—an exit that enables the continued stability of the UK’s legal system and maximises certainty for businesses, consumers and individuals across the UK. As we exit the EU and seek a new deep and special partnership with the EU, the Bill will ensure that we do so with the same standards and rules. In the Bill, we are not rejecting EU law but embracing the work done between member states over 40 years of membership so that we might build on that solid foundation once we return to being masters of our own laws. I hope that everyone in the House recognises the Bill’s essential nature: it is the foundation on which we will legislate for years to come.

We have seen this morning the Opposition’s reasoned amendment. I have just emphasised the critical nature of the Bill. A vote for the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment is a vote against the Bill, a vote for a chaotic exit from the EU. It suggests that the Bill provides a blank cheque to Ministers. That is a fundamental misrepresentation of Parliament and our democratic process. Using the Bill’s powers does not mean avoiding parliamentary scrutiny. Secondary legislation is still subject to parliamentary oversight and well established procedures. In no way does it provide unchecked unilateral powers to the Government.

The Government agree that EU exit cannot, and will not, lead to weaker rights and protections in the UK, as I have just said to hon. Members. We have been clear that we want to ensure that workers’ rights are protected and enhanced as we leave the EU. The Bill provides for existing legislation in this area to be retained. After we leave the EU, it will be for Parliament to determine the proper level of rights protection. On devolution, I have just explained in detail the approach we will take.

Finally, the argument that the Bill undermines any particular approach to the interim or transitional period for the implementation of our new arrangements with the EU is completely wrong. It will provide a clear basis for our negotiations by ensuring continuity and clarity in our laws without prejudicing those ongoing negotiations. Without the Bill, a smooth and orderly exit is impossible. We cannot await the completion of negotiations before ensuring this legal certainty and continuity at the point of our exit. To do so, or to delay or oppose the Bill, would be reckless in the extreme.

I have in the past witnessed the Labour party on European business take the most cynical and unprincipled approach to legislation I have ever seen. It is now attempting to do the same today. The British people will not forgive Labour if its end is to delay or destroy the process by which we leave the EU.

[Mr Speaker]

I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the House that Front-Bench speakers can speak without a time limit but must be sensitive to the number of people who wish to intervene on them. I merely note—colleagues can make their own assessment—that on current progress probably somewhat fewer than half of those who wish to speak today will be able to do so. Colleagues obviously need to help each other.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

One problem with not being able to get on to the ongoing arrangements is that we do not have a definitive answer to that, but we do know that we are capable of creating a parallel arrangement if need be. That is not technically difficult, but we would prefer to have a closer association than that, and that is what we will play for.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Matt Western.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have just experienced what it is like to be the last Member called and to realise that nearly all the questions have already been asked. I will try to make this one slightly fresh.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that exchange rates are seen across the world as the measure of confidence in a country and reinforce the decisions of businesses and others to invest there? Since the negotiations started, our currency has fallen against the euro and the dollar. What does that say about how well the negotiations are going?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 27th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

All the evidence shows that public holidays improve the productivity and wellbeing of workers, including those in the NHS still awaiting their £350 million a week as promised by the leave campaign. Does the Secretary of State agree with having an additional four days, as the Labour party proposes? Although that would still be short of the number in Finland and Spain, which have 14 and 15 days respectively, it would bring us in line with the European average of 12. At the moment we only have eight. That is an example of how, when we leave—

[Mr Speaker]

Well done—very good. I think we have the gist. The thrust of the question has been communicated and we are eternally grateful to the hon. Lady.

[Mr Davis]

The short answer is no. The more elaborate answer is that employment rights in this country are better than the European Union minimum across the board. That is true of the average number of mandatory annual holidays and maternity rights, to give just two examples. I am afraid that we do not have an awful lot to learn from the European Union in that respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

Clearly it is part of our negotiating aims to have free and frictionless travel as well as trade. Obviously there will be more control of our borders in the future, but it will not be designed to inconvenience people. It will be control designed to deliver the national interest and to keep this a free and open country that welcomes people from all over the world in the way we have done for centuries and will do for centuries to come. Was that the last question, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

It was indeed.

[Mr Davis]

In that case, I should like to wish everyone in the House a happy six weeks, and I look forward to seeing some of them here again.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and also for his kind remarks about me earlier.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

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

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

[Mr Davis]

We introduced the most straightforward possible Bill necessary to enact the referendum result and respect the Supreme Court’s judgment. This Bill has a simple purpose: to allow the Prime Minister to notify under article 50 and start the two-year negotiation process. The House of Commons has already accepted that, voting overwhelmingly to pass this Bill, unamended, last month. The House accepted that the majority of people, no matter which way they voted in June, want the Prime Minister to get on with the job at hand, and to do so without any strings attached. Despite the simple purpose of this Bill, it has generated many hours of debate in both Houses—quite properly, I say to those who debate whether it should have.

Over the past five weeks, we have seen Parliament at its best. Hon. and right hon. Members and peers have spoken on this subject with passion, sincerity and conviction. However, I was disappointed that the House of Lords voted to amend the Bill. The Bill is just the next step in the long, democratic process surrounding our exit from the European Union. That process will continue with future legislation, ranging from the great repeal Bill, which will convert EU law into UK law at the time we leave, to a range of specific Bills that we expect to introduce, such as on immigration or customs arrangements. Parliament will be closely involved in all those important discussions and decisions.

As we embark on the forthcoming negotiations, our guiding approach is simple: we will not do anything that will undermine the national interest, including the interest of British citizens living in the European Union, and we will not enter negotiations with our hands tied. That is not to say that I do not appreciate the concerns that lie behind these amendments. It is not the ends that we disagree on, but the means, and I will attempt to address these individually—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I will group this question with questions 11 and 16.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I believe that the Secretary of State seeks to group it with questions 10 and 15.

[Mr Davis]

It is questions 11 and 16 on the old listing, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

It is now questions 10 and 15. That will assist the Secretary of State. We have to keep up with the development of events.

[Mr Davis]

When you get to my age, Mr Speaker, it is so difficult.

As the Prime Minister said in Glasgow last week, as we bring powers and control back to the United Kingdom we must ensure that they are the right powers, at the right level, so that the UK can operate effectively in the interests of all its citizens, including the people of Scotland. Where powers should best sit will be a matter for further consultation and discussion across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I am not sure whether certainty about the future is a human right—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not sure whether we should have all these hairist remarks—they are rather unseemly. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is a distinguished senior statesman in the House.

[Mr Davis]

As I was saying, Mr Speaker, I am not sure whether certainty about the future is a human right, and I am certainly not sure whether the House would necessarily extend it to the hon. Gentleman. The simple truth is that we have a large group of people—some of them European citizens and some of them British citizens abroad—to whom we want to give certainty across the board about their right to remain, their right to healthcare, their right to welfare, and so on. I have now seen, one way or another, representatives of around half the member states, and it is plain to me that they all treat this issue seriously and want to see it dealt with early in the negotiations. That is the Government’s policy—to ensure certainty for everybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the business question, I want to mention that today is the birthday of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I am sure there will be veritable rejoicing in the streets on this happy occasion—at any rate, at least in Perth and North Perthshire. Happy birthday to the hon. Gentleman.

Exiting the EU: New Partnership

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Needless to say, people who were not here at the start of the statement should not be standing. That goes without saying; it is an established feature of our proceedings.

[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.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The first thing I would say to my hon. Friend is that there is a two-year timetable, so we are still two years out from this. The Prime Minister has also said very clearly in her industrial strategy and in her speech on Brexit that we intend to support the scientific community and to build as much support for it as we can. When we engage in negotiations after March, we will negotiate with the European Union with the aim of creating a mechanism that will allow the research to go on.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not want to have to keep saying this, because I know it is very tedious. I know that the Secretary of State is a most attentive Minister, but may I appeal to him not to keep turning around and looking at people behind him? It is incredibly frustrating for the House. I know that is the natural temptation. [Interruption.] I am sure that he has made a very valid point, but it suffered from the disadvantage that I could not hear it.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

As I said at the beginning, the Prime Minister’s speech—one of the clearest expositions of national policy that I have heard in many years—answered all the questions that the Opposition and the Brexit Committee raised other than those that would actively undermine our negotiating position. The Opposition, of course, tabled a motion that said, “We will not undermine our negotiating position.” It is right that they expect us to obey the rules of the House, but they should do so, too.

[Mr Speaker]

Colleagues, may I point out that there are a lot of questions on the Order Paper that I am keen to reach, but exchanges at the moment are quite ponderous? We need to speed up a bit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right; we have made it clear that that is our intention. It is one of the reasons, I believe, why the Prime Minister’s speech has been received with such applause around the rest of Europe. I will quote, if I can find it—

[Mr Speaker]

Briefly.

[Mr Davis]

In that case I will not quote it, Mr Speaker. The quote is rather long, so I will leave it. I simply say that I agree with my right hon. Friend.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The article 50 Bill will be introduced imminently. A great repeal Bill is to be introduced in the next Session—an important piece of legislation that will ensure that all EU law is converted into UK law, including on issues such as workers’ rights and environmental regulations, which I would have thought would matter to the Opposition. There will be subsequent legislation on those and other issues. But that is just the beginning. Exiting the European Union will give this Parliament control of its own laws again. Decisions on policy will be taken here, not in the European Union, and we will be back to being a free country again.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Brendan O’Hara. Where is the chappie? Extraordinary fellow. Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh.

Article 50

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Let me say this to the hon. and learned Gentleman: the Prime Minister was not aiming to sideline democracy—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. The House is in an understandably excited and excitable state. What I want to say to colleagues is that they do not need to look into the crystal ball when they can read the book. Members should know by now that I always want to facilitate the fullest possible questioning and scrutiny, and it is right that that should happen, but it is also right that, when the Secretary of State is responding to questions, he is given a fair and courteous hearing.

[Mr Davis]

The Prime Minister was aiming to carry out the will of the people—all 17.4 million of them—in the national interest. That was what she was doing. Let me pick up on the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman quite properly raised: the issue of our judges. I think that I mentioned at length three times in my statement that this is a nation of the rule of law, a nation to which the independence of the judiciary is important, and a nation that is watched by other countries as an example for themselves. Of all the people he could criticise, I do not think that I am at the front on this issue.

Similarly, on the parliamentary process, there has been an interesting litany through this whole process over the past six or seven months. Every time I get up, I say that I will give the House as much information as possible subject to not undermining the national interest or our negotiating position. That is what we have done and that is what we will continue to do—not just through this Bill, but through the great repeal Bill, subsequent primary and secondary legislation, and the final vote at the end, which we have promised.

The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned membership of the single market, putting to one side of course that that membership means giving up control of borders, laws and rules, on all of which the Labour party is singularly incapable of even making a decision let alone coming up with a policy. He also talked about a plan. Last week, the Prime Minister gave a 6,500-word, closely argued speech that has been recognised across the country and around Europe as the epitome of clarity with clear objectives, aims and ambitions for this country, so I do not take that point at all.

On scrutiny more generally, we have now had, I think, five statements, 10 debates, and some 30 different Select Committee inquiries. I hardly think that all that in six months represents an absence of scrutiny of a central Government policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not often surprise me, but for the ex-Director of Public Prosecutions to say that taking a matter to the Supreme Court is a waste of time strikes me as quite extraordinary. I have made this point several times over the past few months: once the process has started, a reason for taking it the full distance is to get the most authoritative and clearest possible guidance on a major part of our constitution. Yet again, the hon. and learned Gentleman has not advanced the knowledge of the House very much, but I look forward to the contributions of other Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I will thank the hon. Gentleman not to refer to me as the “old Member”. I will of course ensure that there is proper scrutiny.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has another birthday until December—I think his birthday is 23 December—so he has a long time to wait: nothing to worry about.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Today, British judges in the highest court in the land decided a point of historic constitutional importance that is unprecedented in law. It was right to seek the judgment of the Supreme Court to enable it to “discover” the law, as we lawyers euphemistically call it. Crucially, the Supreme Court recognised the limits of its constitutional powers when it left the form of that legislation to this Parliament. Is this not our constitution thriving in action, and does it not bode well for the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Government are determined to deliver on a decision taken by the people of the United Kingdom but Scotland, of course, the country that we on the SNP Benches represent, voted to remain within the United Kingdom and the Scottish Government have been empowered by the Parliament to make sure that we remain within the single market. Why is the Secretary of State acting against the best interests of the Scottish people? Will he not understand that, if he refuses to accept our will, our only option—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Too long. Too loud. We do not want to hear it. Enough.

[Mr Davis]

First, I do not necessarily think that the interests of the Scottish National party are the same as those of the Scottish people. Secondly, as I remember, the Scottish nation voted to stay inside the United Kingdom—the United Kingdom that voted to leave the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

After receiving that document I was very careful not to criticise it publicly, because I wanted to have that debate. I was chairing the Joint Ministerial Committee, so I did not want to, as it were, colour my chairing of it.

As I have said before, the document falls into three categories. There are bits which I did not think would work, there are bits that are subject to debate—especially those relating to devolution issues—and there are bits where we are absolutely on the same page, on matters such as employment law. However, elements of this paper will run into problems not just with the United Kingdom Government, but with other members of the European Union. It was criticised by the Spanish Europe Minister, and it was criticised implicitly by senior Norwegians on the European Free Trade Association front. I do not think that it can be held up as the ideal model for a perfect outcome.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, to the Opposition spokespersons, and to all 84 Back Benchers who took part in this important series of exchanges.

New Partnership with the EU

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I am loth to disagree with my parliamentary neighbour, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—people are trying to build a statue of him in my constituency, but I put that to one side—but I cannot think of a single trade treaty between the EU and another country that uses the European Court of Justice to organise its dispute issues. Every treaty that the EU has ever signed, as far as I am aware, uses either an international arbitration system or the World Trade Organisation, so there is absolutely no reason why my right hon. Friend and the Government could not achieve that in our negotiations.

[Mr Speaker]

It would be good if it were a speaking statue. I fear that otherwise it will not fully capture the richness of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) is right. I cannot imagine that most countries doing deals with the European Union would agree that the European Union’s own court could make the judgment; the judgment would of course be made by an independent court, and generally is.

The Government's Plan for Brexit

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State is clearly not giving way at present—a point that is so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to grasp it.

[Mr Davis]

You make my point, Mr Speaker.

It is widely accepted that the negotiation of our departure from the European Union is the most important and most complex negotiation in modern times, and it is overwhelmingly important that we get it right; I think that is common ground. It is normal even for basic trade negotiations to be carried out with a degree of secrecy. Indeed, the European Commission recognises this in its own approach to transparency in such negotiations, in which it says:

“A certain level of confidentiality is necessary to protect EU interests and to keep chances for a satisfactory outcome high. When entering into a game, no-one starts by revealing his entire strategy to his counterpart from the outset: this is also the case for the EU.”

The reason for this is to retain room for manoeuvre, including the ability to give and take, to trade off different interests, to maximise the value of concessions, and to do so without always giving the other side advance notice. We must retain the ability to negotiate with a high degree of agility and speed; the more complex the negotiation, the more parties to it, and the more time-pressured it is, the more important that is.

Any trade negotiation—and this is more than a trade negotiation—is difficult and complex. This negotiation will be another step up beyond that, for a number of reasons. First, it is about more than just trade. While that is an incredibly important part of it, our new relationship with the EU will also encompass our continued co-operation in areas such as security, justice and home affairs. Secondly, it is not merely a bilateral negotiation, but one involving about 30 different parties with a number of different interests. Thirdly, while considering our exit, Europe must also consider its own future. We have been clear that we want a stable and secure European Union—a vital partner for the UK at a time of very serious global challenges. Finally, the political scene in Europe is not set, but is changing—the point I was making. During the period of our negotiations, there are at least 15 elections and other political events that could change the backdrop to our exit process. The combination of these factors and their interplay will mean a changing climate for what are already complicated talks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The substance of the hon. Lady’s question is incredibly important and, as she has said, the Prime Minister addressed it at the CBI. She addressed it again yesterday and that is why she has said that we want a smooth and orderly exit. How that occurs will be affected by a number of things. The hon. Lady has mentioned the structural issue relating to whether the negotiation is done in parallel or in series. We do not accept the series approach. We have made that plain to the European Union, and we need to deal with that before we come to the detailed question of whether there is a transition or not.

On transition itself, I make this important point. The Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), is sitting next to the hon. Lady. Transition, when it is raised by various people, will mean different things. For example, when the Europeans talk about it, it effectively means a much longer negotiation period, while other people are concerned about matters such as financial stability. There are different issues that need to be dealt with in a different way.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman says that he needs to make an important point; all points made by Secretaries of State ought to be important, as should the points made to them.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

UK money through the European Union funds important international development projects all over the world. As part of any transitional arrangements, will the Secretary of State make sure that those continue to be supported and that the plug is not pulled when or if the UK finally leaves?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Clearly something has disappeared from the file. The question is about—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to disorientate the right hon. Gentleman, but it had been an earlier ambition on his part, as communicated to my office, to group this question with question 22. I hope that he is still happy with that vaulting ambition.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

22. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the status of EU nationals in the UK as part of his Department’s preparations for the UK exiting the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis]

The Government will not be so easily put off, although the hon. Gentleman is quite right. It would have been better if we had got a better response from the EU—but I will not say anything rude about those involved. One of the interesting disciplines of the next two years is that I will be polite to everybody.

[Mr Speaker]

Preserving the habits of a lifetime, I feel sure.

Article 50

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The hon. and learned Gentleman finishes by calling me “furtive”, having started his contribution by commending me for the number of times I have appeared at the Dispatch Box—an interesting idea. I thank him for his reply none the less. I shall respond to his points in a moment, but let me first say that I am determined to work constructively with Opposition Members who want to make a success of Brexit. I have said that the Government will be as open and transparent as possible as we approach these vital negotiations—this must be the 20th time I have said that—and that Parliament will be closely and repeatedly engaged in the process of exit.

The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that his party respects the referendum result and is not seeking to undermine the decision of the British people, but I have to say that the approach being taken by certain Opposition Members rather gives the game away. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), has declared that what the referendum result—the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action achieved by any Government—needs is an “injection of democracy”. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has suggested that Labour would amend any article 50 Bill to bring about a second referendum.

The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), the former Deputy Prime Minister, who is in the Chamber, suggested after last week’s result that his party would seek to amend any legislation on triggering article 50 to allow for a second referendum on our new relationship with the EU. He did not like the first answer given by the voters, so he is seeking to put the question all over again in the hope of getting a different one. These are not constructive proposals to enable Britain to make a success of Brexit. I am sorry to say that they look increasingly like attempts to thwart and reverse the decision that was taken on 23 June—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Bacon, I always regard you as a cerebral denizen of the House, not the sort of person who would point across the Chamber. That is profoundly discourteous and very un-Bacon-like, if I may say so.

[Mr Davis]

As we are speaking of cerebral issues, Mr Speaker, I shall return to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I read in the Financial Times that he recently attended a private event in Parliament at which he was hailed as

“the man who’ll make sure we stay in the EU”.

Apparently he winced at that because he

“does not want expectations to get out of hand.”

We have had a weekend of Labour confusion. The Leader of the Opposition suggested he might seek to block the triggering of article 50 if various conditions were not met. A few hours later, the deputy leader said that that was not right. I heard the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) on the radio this morning and he now appears to be suggesting a different approach. He says that triggering article 50 should be conditional on our going into this negotiation with all our cards face up for everyone on the other side of the table to see.

I have said repeatedly that we will be as open as we possibly can be. Indeed, we have set out our strategic aims for the negotiation again and again. I have told the House before—I do so again today—that they are: to bring back control of our laws to Parliament; to bring back control of decisions over immigration to the United Kingdom; to maintain the strong security co-operation we have with the EU; and to establish the freest possible market in goods and services with the EU and the rest of the world. But there are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

We will not achieve a good outcome, however, if the negotiation is being run by 650 people in the House of Commons and nearly 900 in the other place. No negotiation in our history has been run in that way. Indeed, if Parliament insists on setting out a detailed minimum negotiating position, that will quickly become the maximum possible offer from our negotiating partners, and the talk of a second referendum from some Opposition Members will simply encourage the EU27 to impose impossibly difficult conditions in the hope that the British people will change their minds. In other words, their whole approach is designed to wreck the negotiations.

So, Parliamentary scrutiny—yes. Telling the Prime Minister which cards to play and forcing her to disclose her hand to those she will be negotiating with—no. That will not be the approach taken by our EU counterparts. The European Commission states in a public document on how its negotiations are conducted:

“The negotiations and their texts are not themselves public...A certain level of confidentiality is necessary to protect EU interests and to keep chances for a satisfactory outcome high. When entering into a game, no-one starts by revealing his entire strategy”.

I will consider any suggestions that the shadow Secretary of State constructively has to make. We have said that we want as broad a consensus as possible, but we will not do anything to compromise Britain’s negotiating position or give grounds to those who want to thwart the result of the referendum.

The shadow Secretary of State did raise another point that I do not want to let pass. He accused the Lord Chancellor of failing to defend the judiciary. I do not accept that. I have the quote in front of me and the Lord Chancellor said:

“The independence of the judiciary is the foundation upon which our rule of law is built and our judiciary is rightly respected the world over for its independence and impartiality.”

I have been in this House for a little while. Over the past decade or so—since about 2004—there have been a number of occasions when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches that the Labour Home Secretary of the day criticised by name and in terms individual judges. I never did that. I did not attack him because I thought he was doing something he believed in—even if he was wrong. Nevertheless, I certainly never ever undermined the judges when I was in that position. A little later in that decade, Mr Peter Hain was threatened with prosecution for criticising judges, and I led the campaign to stop that prosecution, so I will take no lessons from Labour on this subject.

[Mr Speaker]

As usual, I want to accommodate the enormous interest of the House in this important statement and will strive to do so, but I must say to the House that questions and answers must be brief from now on.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the passage of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 the then Foreign Secretary, now the Chancellor, made it unequivocally clear that the purpose of the Bill that was being passed into law was to give to the British people the absolute right to decide whether we stayed in or left the European Union? At no stage was that unclear. Does my right hon. Friend therefore deplore all those, including 70 Opposition Members, who now say that that decision does not stand and that we should fight to stay in the EU regardless of the public’s decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I am going to. First, because the triggering of article 50 should be done only when the policy work is complete, and it is not yet complete. Secondly, because the judicial timetable still allows us to meet the date of 30 March, which is the date that we are going to hit.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not sure that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) yelling “Answer” from a sedentary position quite constitutes the sort of knightly behaviour that we have come to expect of him.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

If the courts have banged their metaphorical gavel on our prerogative powers, does my right hon. Friend share my concern that they may do so again regarding, for example, a decision to go to war?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State obviously does not challenge his speechwriter much, because nothing changes from statement to statement. The High Court has just made a judgment on something that, at one time, he was fully in agreement with. So, for the third time of asking, will he tell us why he now disagrees with the Bill that he tried to bring forward? It was not about going to war; it was about the Crown prerogative not being exercised without the assent of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds—which I am disinclined to facilitate him doing—I must just say that although I appreciate that repetition is a common phenomenon in politics and not in itself to be deprecated, there is a bit of a tendency on the Scottish National party’s Benches to keep asking him about matters for which he is no longer responsible. The questioning is to the Secretary of State in his capacity as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, not in his capacity as someone who previously expressed views from the Back Benches or elsewhere in an earlier incarnation.

[Mr Davis]

I refer the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) to the answer I gave earlier.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

I obviously welcome that new information from the Secretary of State, but the Fraser of Allander Institute has already told us that this will cost up to 80,000 jobs in Scotland alone. The CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors have warned about the impact of limiting freedom of movement. They have done their homework, Secretary of State. You did not do your homework during the Vote Leave campaign, when you had a blank piece of paper to campaign on. If the Secretary of State is going to Scotland, he will need to do better than that. When will that assessment be published?

[Mr Speaker]

I have always done my homework, and I strongly resent any suggestion to the contrary.

[Mr Davis]

I venture to suggest that if you did your homework, Mr Speaker, you would not have it marked by the hon. Gentleman.

I have not seen the Fraser of Allander report, so would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman directed me to it. One thing about these reports is that they all base themselves on single assumptions. We need to look at those assumptions to see whether they are realistic, and that is what we will do. There have been a large number of forecasts of the effect of Brexit. Some are very pessimistic about certain aspects of policy that we do not intend to allow to happen. I will look at that particular report carefully and talk to him about it after I have done so.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Another day, another outing. [Interruption.] I knew they would like that.

[Mr Speaker]

For the avoidance of doubt—to be absolutely clear for the benefit of all Members, the Secretary of State will move the amendment.

[Mr Davis]

I beg to move amendment (b), at end add

‘; and believes that the process should be undertaken in such a way that respects the decision of the people of the UK when they voted to leave the EU on 23 June and does not undermine the negotiating position of the Government as negotiations are entered into which will take place after Article 50 has been triggered.’.

I am glad to hear that the Labour spokesman accepts that we must respect the decision of the people. That is important progress. Of course, it comes from somewhere, but where is not at all clear. I will come back to that in less than a minute. He went on to say that he did not want to see point scoring, and I rather agree: this issue is too important for point scoring.

The House should know that this morning I received a letter, signed by the shadow Secretary of State and his predecessor, which was extremely flattering about my history of standing up for the rights of Parliament and so on. It went on to pose 170 questions about our negotiating strategy. To give the House an idea of how much of a stunt that is, it is one question a day between now until the triggering of article 50. Worse still, some of the questions in that long list are requests pre-emptively to concede elements of our negotiating strategy.

Next Steps in Leaving the European Union

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

What I say to my hon. Friend at this point is that if the European Union adheres to a punishment plan and it fails—as I believe it would—that would be an even bigger incentive to countries that want to leave than no punishment plan at all. The approach that is being talked about would put at risk the stability of the European Union, which has financial instabilities of its own, and it should take that seriously.

[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?

Exiting the European Union

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I thought it would be useful for the House to be brought up to date on the working of my Department after the referendum of 23 June. Our instructions from the British people are clear. Britain is leaving the European Union. The mandate for that course is overwhelming. The referendum of 23 June delivered a bigger vote for Brexit than that won by any UK Government in history. It is a national mandate, and this Government are determined to deliver it in the national interest.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that there will be no attempt to stay in the EU by the back door; no attempt to delay, frustrate or thwart the will of the British people; and no attempt to engineer a second referendum because some people did not like the first answer. The people have spoken in a referendum offered to them by this Government and confirmed by Parliament —by all of us, on both sides of the argument—and we must all respect it. That is a simple matter of democratic politics.

Naturally, people want to know what Brexit will mean. Simply, it means leaving the European Union, so we will decide on our borders, our laws and the taxpayer’s money. It means getting the best deal for Britain: one that is unique to Britain and not an off-the-shelf solution. This must mean controls on the numbers of people who come to Britain from Europe, but also a positive outcome for those who wish to trade in goods and services. This is an historic and positive moment for our nation. Brexit is not about making the best of a bad job; it is about seizing a huge and exciting opportunity that will flow from a new place for Britain in the world. There will be new freedoms, new opportunities and new horizons for our country. We can get the right trade policy for the UK. We can create a more dynamic economy, a beacon for free trade across the world. We want to make sure our regulatory environment helps, rather than hinders, businesses and workers. We can create an immigration system that allows us to control numbers and encourage the brightest and best to come to this country.

I want to be clear to our European friends and allies that we do not see Brexit as ending our relationship with Europe; it is about starting a new one. We want to maintain or even strengthen our co-operation on security and defence. It is in the interests of both the UK and the European Union that we have the freest possible trading relationship. We want a strong European Union, succeeding economically and politically, working with Britain in many areas of common interest, so we should all approach the negotiations to come about our exit with a sense of mutual respect and co-operation.

I know the House will want to be updated about the work of the Department. It is a privilege to have been asked to lead it by the Prime Minister. The challenge we face is exciting and considerable. It will require significant expertise and a consistent approach. Negotiating with the EU has to be got right, and we are going to take the time to get it right. We will strive to build national consensus around our approach.

We start from a position of economic strength. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, there will be challenges ahead, but our economy is robust, thanks in no small part to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne). The latest data suggest our manufacturing and service industries and consumer confidence are all strong, contrary to some of the earlier predictions. Businesses are putting their faith and their money into this country. Over the summer, SoftBank, GlaxoSmithKline and Siemens all confirmed that they will make major investments in the UK. Countries, including Australia, have already made clear their desire to proceed quickly with a new trade deal for the UK. As other nations see advantages to them, I am confident that they will want to prioritise deals with the UK, too. But we are not complacent. Our task is to build on this success and strength and to negotiate a deal for exiting the European Union that is in the interests of the entire nation.

As I have already indicated, securing a deal that is in our national interest does not and must not mean turning our back on Europe. To do so would not be in our interests, nor Europe’s, so we will work hard to help to establish a future relationship between the EU and the UK that is dynamic, constructive and healthy. We want a steadfast and successful European Union after we depart.

As we proceed, we will be guided by some clear principles. First, as I have said, we wish to build national consensus around our position. Secondly, we will always put the national interest first. We will always act in good faith towards our European partners. Thirdly, wherever possible, we will try to minimise any uncertainty that change will inevitably bring. Fourthly, and crucially, by the end of this process we will have left the European Union and put the sovereignty and supremacy of this Parliament beyond doubt.

The first formal step in the process of leaving the European Union is to invoke article 50, which will start two years of negotiations. Let me briefly update the House on how the machinery of government will support our efforts and on the next steps we will take. First, on responsibilities, the Prime Minister will lead the UK’s exit negotiations and be supported on a day-to-day basis by my Department. We will work closely with all Government Departments to develop our objectives and to negotiate new relationships with the EU and the rest of the world. Supporting me is a first-class ministerial team and some of the brightest and best in Whitehall, who want to engage in this national endeavour. The Department now has over 180 staff in London, plus the expertise of over 120 officials in Brussels. We are still growing rapidly, with first-class support from other Departments.

As to the next steps, the Department’s task is clear. We are undertaking two broad areas of work. First, given that we are determined to build national consensus, we will listen and talk to as many organisations, companies and institutions as possible—from large plcs to small businesses, and from the devolved Administrations to councils, local government associations and major metropolitan bodies.

We are already fully engaged with the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure a UK-wide approach to our negotiations. The Prime Minister met the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland in July. Last week, I visited Northern Ireland for meetings with its political leaders, where I reiterated our determination that there will be no return to the hard borders of the past. I will visit Scotland and Wales soon.

My ministerial colleagues and I have also discussed the next steps with a range of organisations. My first meeting was with the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, followed by key business groups, representatives of the universities and the charitable sector, and farming and fisheries organisations. But that is just the start. In the weeks ahead, we will speak to as many other firms, organisations and bodies as possible—research institutes, regional and national groups, and businesses up and down the country—to establish their priorities and the opportunities for the whole of the UK. As part of that exercise I can announce that we will be holding roundtables with stakeholders in a series of sectors, to ensure that all views are reflected in our analysis of the options for the UK. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman resume his seat for just a moment? There is quite a lot of unseemly and, dare I say it, somewhat unstatesmanlike noise from a sedentary position. Someone was muttering, “Too long!” It is not too long at all. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order. Let me remind the House that it has always been my practice to facilitate the fullest and most extensive interrogation of the relevant Minister, and that will happen today. Everyone will have his or her opportunity. But it would be a good thing if people would listen respectfully. If they can manage a beaming countenance reminiscent of that of the Foreign Secretary that will be a bonus, but it is not obligatory.

[Mr Davis]

Those roundtables will include stakeholders from the broadcast, aviation, energy, financial services and automotive sectors, and others.

I will also engage with EU member states. I am beginning with a visit to Dublin this week. I am working particularly closely with the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Trade, who have been meeting counterparts in Washington, Brussels and Delhi, and in the capitals of other EU states. While we do that, my officials, supported by officials across Government, are carrying out programme of sectoral analysis and regulatory analysis, which will identify the key factors for some 50 sectors of British business. It is extremely important that the House understands that. We are building a detailed understanding of how the withdrawal from the EU will affect domestic policies, to seize opportunities and ensure a smooth process of exit.

The referendum result was a clear sign that the majority of the British people want to see Parliament’s sovereignty strengthened, and so throughout the process Parliament will be regularly informed, updated and engaged.

Finally, we are determined to ensure that people have as much stability and certainty as possible in the period leading up to our departure from the EU. Until we leave the European Union, we must respect the laws and the obligations that membership requires of us. We also want to ensure certainty when it comes to public funding. The Chancellor has confirmed that structural and investment fund projects signed before the autumn statement and research and innovation projects financed by the European Commission by money granted before we leave the EU will be underwritten by the Treasury after we leave. Agriculture is a vital part of the economy and the Government will match the current level of annual payments that the sector receives through the direct payments scheme until 2020, again providing certainty.

The Prime Minister has been clear that she is determined to protect the status of EU nationals already living in the UK. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible would be if the rights of British citizens in EU member states were not protected in return, something that I frankly find very hard to imagine.

I am confident that together we will be able to deliver on what the country asked us to do through the referendum. I am greatly encouraged by the national mood. Most of those I have met who wanted to remain have accepted the result and now want to make a success of the course Britain has chosen. Indeed, organisations and individuals I have met already who had backed the remain campaign now want to be engaged in the process of exit and in identifying the positive changes that will flow from it as well as the challenges. I want us all to come together as one nation to get the best deal for Britain.

In conclusion, we are confident of negotiating a new position that will mean this country flourishing outside the European Union while keeping EU members as friends, allies and trading partners. We leave the European Union but we will not—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is an aspiring statesman. His aspiration may be a little way from fulfilment. I want to hear the Secretary of State’s peroration.

[Mr Davis]

It is an aspiration of very long standing, Mr Speaker.

In conclusion, we are confident of negotiating a position that will mean this country flourishing outside the EU, keeping its members as our friends, our allies and our trading partners. We will leave the European Union but will not turn our back on Europe. We will embrace the opportunities and freedoms that will open up for Britain. We will deliver on the national mandate for Brexit, and we will deliver it in the national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

For as long as we are a member of the European Union, which by the sounds of it will be at least two years, we will meet all our obligations and we will take our responsibilities extremely seriously, including the one that my right hon. Friend has outlined.

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently ask the Secretary of State to face the House? Sometimes his answers are not fully heard. They are heard by the person at whom he is looking, but not by the House.

[Mr Davis]

All I can do is plead inexperience.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes! I call Mr Frank Field.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his return to the Front Bench and, on behalf of all those Labour constituencies that voted to leave, thank him for his statement and for making the control of our borders the cornerstone of any renegotiation? May I take him back to the question from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)? Given Europe’s huge trade surplus with us, how does the Secretary of State think that power position will play out when we are talking about membership of or access to the single market?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

Somebody on the Front Bench muttered that I should be all right with that; I shall not say who. I demurred from—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker. I demurred from second-guessing our own negotiating position for six months in respect of the Labour party, and I am going to demur in this case. I will say this to my hon. Friend: the decision of the British people was, I think, first and foremost about control of our own destiny over and above anything else, and that is what we are seeking to return.

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State is an immensely cerebral denizen of this House, and therefore there is no need for him at any time to imitate a turnstile. That is best avoided.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I also welcome the Secretary of State to his place, but may I say to him that many of us wanted rather more detail than a few more reheated old soundbites? We know the old slogan “Brexit means Brexit”, and what we got this afternoon was an essay on how waffle means waffle. May I commend to him the approach of the Japanese Government, who have not simply spent the last seven weeks setting up a Brexit commission, but gone to the lengths of reporting its results? I hope that that diligence and speed will inspire his work in his Department over the months to come.

I want to press the Secretary of State on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). He made a big play in his statement of his ambition, which I share, to restore parliamentary sovereignty. Will he therefore give this House a vote on the final package for Brexit, whenever and however it is finally negotiated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

That is a very good try. I am sure that, in his youth, my hon. Friend was a great seducer, but I am not going to be seduced. [Interruption.]

[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”.

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 12th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Let me say the following. First, in so far as he has a concern about what he describes as the use of the Dispatch Box for “vicious party political campaigning”, that is somewhat beyond my purview. I have no ambition to try to bring an end to such activity, and I do not think that ambition would be a realistic one.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has made his concern on this matter clear. As I said on Monday in response to his point of order on that occasion, what is said in this place by any Member—any Member—is the responsibility of that Member. It is for the Leader of the House to decide whether he wishes to correct or to clarify what he said about this matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to “vicious party political campaigning”, but, in trying to be helpful to him, I detect that what concerns him is what he judges to be an incorrect, inaccurate or false personal attack. My answer to that is that each Member must take responsibility. Members have parliamentary privilege. That parliamentary privilege must be used with care and responsibility. If it is not, it is damaging to the doctrine of parliamentary privilege and to the rights not only of the Member concerned but those of Members across the House. Whether it is necessary for anything to be said by the Leader of the House is not, at this stage, something that I can possibly judge. However, I have tried to give as full and fair a response to the hon. Gentleman as I can.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is similar to the point of order made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). It is about qualified privilege, public record and the protection of the reputation of ordinary citizens, not necessary political people. On 20 April, in response to a parliamentary question, the Prime Minister referred to Mr Suliman Gani and said, “this man supports IS”—Islamic State. That is an incredibly serious allegation, with massive reputational implications. It might restrict somebody’s right to travel, perhaps to the US, and it could even put his safety and that of his family at risk.

It transpires that the allegation was not true. On Monday this week, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to correct this, and, to be fair, there was an apology and correction issued by a spokesman of 10 Downing Street yesterday. Of course, that did not have the same prominence as the original allegation and, in many ways just as importantly, does not correct the original allegation in the official record, which can still be published by others under qualified privilege—perhaps people who do not follow our affairs quite so closely. I am very concerned about the consequences of that, and I want to ask you, Mr Speaker, what can be done by the House or by the Government to protect people such as Mr Gani from the further consequence of a serious calumny—no matter how unintentional—against his reputation.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for his courtesy to me in providing notice of it. I understand that the Prime Minister has answered a written question on this matter today seeking to clarify what he said in the House, and this is available on the parliamentary website in the usual way. However, I appreciate that Members are here and they want a specific and informative reply. They may well not yet have consulted the parliamentary website.

The question was tabled by the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) and was answered by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has answered:

“I was referring to reports that Mr Gani supports an Islamic state. I am clear that this does not mean Mr Gani supports the organisation Daesh and I apologise to him for any misunderstanding.”

As I have said before—indeed, only a few moments ago, in response to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—what a Member says in this place is the responsibility of that Member. I reiterate, as I often do, that, while parliamentary privilege is an essential protection of free speech, all Members should reflect carefully before criticising individuals. As “Erskine May” notes, it is

“the duty of each Member to refrain from any course of action prejudicial to the privilege which he enjoys.”

I have already referred to the written answer, and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has referred to what I understand to be an apology issued by a spokesperson last night. It is not for the Chair to require a Member to apologise on the Floor of the House, but it is perfectly open to a Member to do so, and good grace and magnanimity in these circumstances are, I know, always appreciated.

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to points of order, I need to make a short statement which I hope will help the House in the matter to come.

Owing to a printing error an incorrect version of the programme motion has been printed on the Order Paper. A corrigendum will be in the Vote Office and online shortly. The significant difference is that two days are proposed for consideration and Third Reading, rather than the one day referred to incorrectly on the Order Paper. The motion will be moved in the correct form after Second Reading. My understanding is that two days were wanted by all parties, so there should be rejoicing about this matter.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

It was not a point of order, it was a statement, but the right hon. Gentleman usually has points of order before breakfast, before lunch and before dinner, so I am happy to hear his point of order.

[Mr Davis]

Between lunch and tea, now. In your statement, Mr Speaker, you said that two days had been agreed by all parties, but that was actually agreed by those on the Front Benches. Many of us believe that this enormous constitutional Bill balancing privacy and security requires four days on the Floor of the House, as there are at least a dozen major topics that need to be dealt with and we will not be able to do so in Committee. Can you advise us as Back Benchers, not Front Benchers, how on earth we get this Bill debated properly?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a fair point. I am not sure that it is a point of order, but the right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I respect his sincerity on these matters. What is wanted by Front Benchers is not necessarily the same as what is wanted by Back Benchers, as he has just demonstrated. I have no control over the programme motion. That is a matter for the House. All I can say is that if there is very strong cross-party feeling, I have a sense that Ministers will inevitably be on the receiving end of it. I do not have the list in front of me, but in so far as the right hon. Gentleman is subtly in the process of advertising his own interest in being called to speak, I think his effort has been successful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Bernard Jenkin. [Interruption.] Where is the fellow? He is not here. We shall hear from someone who is here. I call Mr David Davis.

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

For five or six years—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know the House is in a state of some perturbation but we must hear from the right hon. Gentleman. When he has composed himself, we will hear from him.

[Mr Davis]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. For five or six years, the number of national insurance numbers issued to EU migrants has been hundreds of thousands higher than the official immigration figures. That implies that the official immigration figures may be a dramatic underestimate. We can know the truth of the matter only if Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs releases its data on active EU national insurance numbers, but HMRC has refused to do so. Will the Prime Minister instruct HMRC to release those statistics immediately so that we can understand the truth about European Union immigration?

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr David Davis.

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

I was not standing, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is a most dextrous parliamentarian, and I am sure that he can recover very quickly. I think the accurate characterisation would be that he had been standing. He did not do so on this occasion, probably because he was chuntering from a sedentary position. He then stood again at my exhortation. He has now had plenty of time in which to formulate his question.

[Mr Davis]

It is all right, Mr Speaker. I was not sure whether it was the other David Davies whom you were calling.

We are fortunate to live in a democracy. We are not guided by Cabinet Secretary guidelines. As far as I know there is no manifesto basis for this, and as far as I know there has been no House of Commons vote for it, so what is the constitutional basis of the Prime Minister’s decision? Is it the royal prerogative?

Litvinenko Inquiry

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Home Secretary for the tenor and thrust of her statement. The magisterial report written by Sir Robert Owen says in paragraph 10.16:

“The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin.”

Given the secrecy of the Russian state, I do not think we need to worry too much about the word “probably”. This is way beyond the normal civil legal requirements and what is needed to take economic, political and diplomatic action. What is certain is that the Russian state under President Putin has killed over 100 opponents—lawyers, accountants, journalists and politicians. It is a kleptocratic state that uses assassination as a policy weapon.

May I ask the Home Secretary what we intend to do about Patrushev and Putin? We cannot tolerate their ordering assassinations on the streets of our country. Will she take targeted economic sanctions against them and, where possible, travel sanctions, although obviously those are not possible with a Head of State? Will there be an expulsion of intelligence officers—both FSB and others—from the Russian embassy, which would be entirely appropriate? It has been asked whether we should encourage our allies to help us. Of course we should, but we should also tell countries such as the Bahamas, Switzerland and Cyprus—all the Russian financial boltholes—that there is no hiding place for the money of these people.

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what has to be described as a comprehensive question.

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I just want to hear some further observations on this matter. I call Mr Davis.

[Mr Davis]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we all agree with the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) on this, and indeed with the Leader of the House’s comments. However, the simple fact is that there have been many rumours that the Chilcot inquiry has been delayed by Whitehall not clearing things quickly enough, by not providing enough information and by challenging the ability to release information. It would be extremely helpful to the House if we could have a statement on this issue, and I ask you to encourage that to happen, Mr Speaker. Frankly, this is an insult and compounds the grief of the many families who lost loved ones in that war.

[Mr Speaker]

I say gently that I want to hear the points of order—we will hear from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in a moment—but the Leader of the House was absolutely correct to say that it was not for him to pre-empt the delivery or publication of any letters. However, in the light of what I sense to be a strong feeling across the House, it would be extremely helpful if, when the Leader of the House is in full possession of the facts, he were to consider an early, short statement, on which there would be an opportunity for questioning, at the start of next week. I merely put that thought to him now. He will have an opportunity to reflect on it. Let us hear whether he wishes to say anything further in response to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, in response to his twofold inquiry, two things. First, if the right hon. Gentleman wants—I respect this—an unambiguous answer, he should pose an unambiguous question and not rest content until he has an unambiguous answer. If the right hon. Gentleman were to raise his eyebrow and quizzically inquire, either explicitly or implicitly, whether that means he should engage in repetition, I would say yes. The House is no stranger to repetition. It is not a novel innovation in the practice of this place, nor, if I may very politely say so, in the practice of the right hon. Gentleman. That is the first point.

The second point is on the question of a motion. That is not a matter for me, but could a motion, including a cross-party motion, be tabled on this matter and a vote be forced upon it—the right hon. Gentleman knows that it could; just looking around the House, no names, no pack drill—I have a feeling there would be a number of takers.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You are, of course, quite right in what you said at the beginning. This is principally a matter for the Government, but it is also a matter that addresses directly parliamentary privilege. This morning’s judgment ruled, first, that the Wilson doctrine, as we interpret it in its narrowest sense, has no legal basis, but beyond that it has no basis whatever if we are communicating with whistleblowers, campaigners, lawyers, journalists or each other. It seems to me that the original aim of the Wilson doctrine was to protect all those things and to protect Members of this House either from intimidation or from oversight by the Government. Therefore, there is a role for the House. I look to you, Mr Speaker, for guidance on what that might be.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the right hon. Gentleman says and I do not demur from it. It is an extremely important matter and he is perfectly properly concerned with the rights of Members. If he wants to know, at this time, my own view on the matter, he can of course consult paragraph 21 of the judgment, which reflects my own view based on expert legal advice. If the right hon. Gentleman feels, as I suspect the right hon. Member for Gordon does, that there is still real ambiguity about this matter, they must use their parliamentary wiles to draw Ministers on the matter. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who celebrates this year, I think, 28 years’ uninterrupted service in the House, is very well familiar with all the options open to him. There are Adjournment debates, opportunities for urgent questions and Opposition days. There is a miscellany of ways in which he can pursue this matter, and I have a hunch that he and others will do so.

English Votes on English Laws

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will take other points of order in a moment—[Interruption.] Of course I will come to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). We are saving him up.

There is a sense in which the hon. Lady’s point of order contains a rhetorical question, and it is fair to say that the Government abstained on the question before the House, namely that this matter has been considered. A point has been made; nothing has been decided.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like your guidance on a similar point. Because, as you have told the House, the motion was simply saying that we discussed the issue today, many of us abstained rather than vote for it because we, too, feel that we need more time to discuss the matter at greater length. I am seeking your guidance on how we communicate that to the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I would say that the right hon. Gentleman had communicated his point directly to the Leader of the House if the latter were here, but he isn’t and therefore the right hon. Gentleman hasn’t. That said, I have a feeling that his point of order will have been heard by other representatives of the Government, notably a distinguished ornament of the Government Whips Office in the form of the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), so the Government will have heard. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman is arguing for more time, possibly next week, his point has been heard. We will now hear the point of the order of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond).

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interfering briefly in this important debate. On Thursday, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Mr David Anderson, is publishing a 300-page report on surveillance strategy. It is normal for the Government’s reports to be presented to the House first, before anybody else, but I understand that there are major press briefings tomorrow about it, meaning that we will not be the first to hear about it. We will hear about it first on the “Today” programme, rather than in the House of Commons. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on what we can do to bring the Government to heel on this matter?

[Mr Speaker]

If the Government have anything to say about the report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, they should say it first to the House of Commons. He is extremely dexterous in his use of parliamentary mechanisms to flag up matters of importance, be they local, national or international, and I do not think that that capacity is likely to desert him in this case. Where a matter is judged to be pressing, there are means by which it can be brought to the Floor of the House. He is well aware of those mechanisms and can deploy them if he so wishes, but this is a serious matter, and although we are pressed for time, I am genuinely grateful to him for drawing to my attention something of which until five minutes ago I was myself unaware.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) raised a point of order after business questions last week relating to the interception of communications. The passage in the report of the interception of communications commissioner to which he referred concerns the operation of the statutory regime for the interception of communications and suggested possible additional safeguards for journalistic sources under that regime. That does not on the face of it raise any issue for the House. The House will be aware that the Wilson doctrine, to the effect that Members’ communications will not be subjected to surveillance or interception under that regime, has been reaffirmed by successive Governments. A prospective adjustment of the statutory regime for journalists cannot therefore have any direct implications for the operation of the Wilson doctrine. I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning the matter and pledged to return to him and to the House with a response, which is what I have done. We will leave it there for now, unless he feels an urgent desire—[Interruption.] He does. Very well.

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

The issue under discussion is the question of the collection of metadata—in other words, data on those from whom we have received calls. It matters particularly with regard to whistleblowers and the like. When my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) asked about that, he was told by the Cabinet Office in terms that metadata were not protected under the Wilson doctrine, so our constituents and whistleblowers are still at risk.

[Mr Speaker]

I note the additional point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. However, it does not seem to me obviously a matter for the Chair to seek to interpret the Wilson doctrine, beyond reporting to the House, as I have just done, that the prospective adjustment in respect of journalists does not appear to me to constitute any prospective change to the doctrine. I have a sense that he wishes to continue the debate—I say that in good humour and with respect—but I have nothing to add this afternoon. If he wishes to pursue the matter further, he might profitably do so with Ministers, who look all agog and in eager anticipation of the prospect of that dialogue. I doubt that there is anything to which they look forward more.

Point of Order

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 5th February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to make a request of you, in the context of your responsibility for protecting the privileges of Members.

Yesterday, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Anthony May, criticised the British police for intercepting journalistic communications in order to determine journalistic sources. As a direct result of that, No. 10 Downing street instructed the Home Office to change the arrangements so that in future the police would have to secure judicial approval before intercepting or collecting data on journalistic communications.

A year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) asked the Cabinet Office whether the Wilson doctrine applied to information collection of that kind in respect of Members of Parliament. The same issue applies: just as journalists want to protect their sources, we need to protect our constituents—who may be complaining about the state—and whistleblowers. Given your responsibility for protecting our privileges, Mr Speaker, will you make inquiries of the Government to establish whether our communications are protected in this way, and whether, if they are not, they should be subject to judicial oversight?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer—I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that highly pertinent point of order—is that I shall make inquiries. Having made such inquiries, I will revert to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think, in all propriety, and suitably notified in advance, I will report to the House.

Business of the House (Today)

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said on a couple of occasions, in response to Members of this House, that you will not call the Home Secretary until later on because others wish to speak. Is there anything to prevent her from speaking before the end of the debate?

[Mr Speaker]

It would be normal for the Home Secretary to speak either at the beginning or at the end of the debate. A most courteous approach was made to me on her behalf suggesting that it might be helpful to the House if she were to wind up the debate, and I agreed to that request. It is not that I am seeking to delay the Home Secretary for one moment; it is that there is provision for others to speak. When they have finished doing so, the Home Secretary can and will speak, and we will look forward to that. I think it would be a bit odd if I suddenly interrupted the flow of the debate now, when other Members are seeking to contribute, but I will take one further point of order from the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Davis]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I quite accept that it is not normal procedure, but at the moment we are debating something we know not what. We do not know whether the Government are going to change the motion or stay with this motion. My stance on this matter is entirely different depending on which of those two outcomes it is. Therefore, it might be useful for the House to know rather earlier than usual.

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a named day question on 5 December this year, I asked the Attorney-General how many libel settlements, and of what value, the Crown Prosecution Service had made in each year between 2007 and 2012. I was given the answer that the CPS had made no libel settlements in that period. Unfortunately, in May 2008, in a case adjudicated by Master Eyre between Hardcash Productions and the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief constable of West Midlands police, there was a settlement of £50,000 between the two defendants. I am certain, because I know him well, that there is nobody less likely to mislead the House than the Attorney-General. Therefore, he must be depending upon information given to him by the Crown Prosecution Service. If this House cannot depend on the organisation that is supposedly committed to promoting justice in this country to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, what can you do to defend us?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. In the first instance, I can ask the Attorney-General to respond, and we will see what happens.

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The events of last week have created a historic constitutional precedent that future decisions on war and peace will be subject to the decision of the House. That has implications for other constitutional conventions, one such being the tradition that the Government do not reveal their legal advice in those matters. That is normally a very sensible convention, but if the Attorney-General is the adviser to the Government and to the House of Commons, that creates a problem in giving independent advice to the House. Can you, Mr Speaker, use your offices to resolve that problem, either by obtaining independent advice on future occasions, or by approaching the Government to change that convention?

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting constitutional point, which I readily accept is worthy of further reflection and consideration. My best advice to him is that, if he wishes to pursue the matter and for the House to have an opportunity to reach a judgment about it, he should, in the first instance, approach the Chair of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform with a view to that Committee undertaking a study of, and making recommendations in relation to, the issue. There should then be an opportunity for the House, before too long, to come a view about it. I hope that that is clear and helpful.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

If I had 10 minutes to take my hon. Friend through the forensics, I probably could. There is plenty of forensic evidence that will come out of the UN investigation and out of other data that we can obtain by other methods. It is not a question of panic; it is a question of getting the facts right before we act. It is very simple: when we are going to do things which will lead to the death of people, civilians in particular, we should get our facts right first.

That brings me to the Deputy Prime Minister on the “Today” programme this morning, talking about chemical weapons and saying—let me quote him exactly—that it is

“the first time in close to a century”

that we have seen—in Syria, he means—

“the ever more frequent use of chemical weapons.”

I recommend that he speaks to our American allies. The CIA has recently declassified and published its information on Iraq’s use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, in which the west provided intelligence data in order for the Iraqis to be able to target their activities more effectively, killing 50,000 Iranians. How will our stance now be seen on the Iranian street? What will the pressures be on the Iranian Government when we make our holier-than-thou arguments about chemical warfare now?

I do not have time to conclude the arguments that I want to put. I will make one last point. Putin has said that the reason he provided anti-aircraft missiles to the Syrians was, in his words, to balance the war and prevent external intervention. What will his response be if we attack Syria? His response will be to feed this war more weapons, more deaths—

[Mr Speaker]

I call George Galloway.

Extradition

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr David Davis.

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

rose—

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will hear from Top Cat in a moment, not just yet. I should have explained. Mr David Davis—he with the slightly greyer hair and the longer service in the House.

[Mr Davis]

I, for one, congratulate the Home Secretary wholeheartedly on her decision on Gary McKinnon today, but I also share some of the concerns of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). There are a number of cases where there are concerns over justice being done, with respect to both Europe and the USA—in particular, in respect of the USA, there are fears that the intimidatory use of the plea bargaining arrangements force possibly innocent people to make guilty pleas, and similar problems in the justice systems of other European countries. Will the Home Secretary give the House an undertaking that what she proposes to bring about today will give protection to UK citizens equal to that which American citizens get from their constitution?

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker. As you might imagine, since the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) has been suffering this burden, a number of us have been looking into the possibilities. If you are able to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question in the affirmative, will you tell us whether the House could also consider recommending legislation to the Government, given that it is almost certainly necessary?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) for his point of order, and for notice of it. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for his follow-up. Let me first say, for the benefit of both the right hon. Member for Neath and the House, that, as he will recall, my concern was that Members who wish to table an early-day motion upon this matter should be free to do so in terms that reflect their beliefs—and it was then up to them to seek support from other Members of the House, which, indeed, was forthcoming in very substantial number. I note the thanks the right hon. Gentleman has given, but I simply thought I was doing my democratic duty by the House.

Secondly, I may disappoint the right hon. Gentleman by saying the following, but it remains a fact: it would not be for me to recommend any such course of action in relation to the ancient offence to which he referred. That is not a matter for the Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman, or any other non-ministerial Member, is free to propose legislation by way of a private Member’s Bill. Moreover, the right hon. Members for Neath and for Haltemprice and Howden and other Members are very well versed in the use of the procedures of this House to highlight what they judge to be a continuing omission or an area of policy that requires, let us say, corrective action. Knowing the right hon. Member for Neath and his track record of public campaigning on matters big and small over four decades, I doubt that he will require any further encouragement from the Chair.

Points of Order

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

First, there are many ways in which the hon. Lady can continue to pursue this matter, but a point of order is not one of them. Secondly, she will understand that I do not want to act as umpire between competing reports in—I will not say the popular newspapers—what are apparently described as newspapers. I will leave those institutions to make their own observations. No Minister has apologised to me, but if I receive an apology in respect of this matter, I assure the hon. Lady that she will learn of it without delay.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. One of your principal responsibilities is to protect the freedom of speech and action of Members of this House. Accordingly, I draw your attention to an action taken by the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland who, on the last day before the recess, started proceedings against the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) for “scandalising the court”, a criminal action that was described in 1899 as “obsolete”. Our freedom to criticise the judiciary and the judicial process is fundamental to the operation of this House. Accordingly, have you received an application from the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom to come to the House and explain what he will do to protect our rights? If not, what will the Officials and Officers of the House, led by you, do to help us protect those rights ourselves?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The answer to the first of his inquiries is that I have received no such approach. I shall seek to address the second of his concerns in what I say. I have listened carefully and respectfully to what he has said. These are extremely important matters and there are issues of devolved responsibility and, possibly, of whether the case is sub judice. I will reflect on what he has said and revert to him if necessary. In the meantime—I say this with great confidence—I know that he will draw on the skills and willingness to assist of the Table Office. I hope that that is helpful to him and to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Prime Minister is exceptionally well educated and I am sure he has a very full vocabulary and can make proper use of it.

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

Yesterday, it was announced that the French company Dassault had won the first round in the contest for the $10 billion fighter aircraft contract with India. That is disastrous news for thousands of workers up and down the country, particularly in my constituency. Given the long relationship between India and Britain and given that we give many times more aid to India than France ever did, will the Prime Minister engage himself and the full force of the Government in attempting to reverse that decision?

UK Border Force

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A great many colleagues wish to participate in the debate on this statement. I know that a fine example of the brevity required will now be provided by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

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

The shadow Home Secretary used the phrase “deeply out of touch” and “complicit in a loss of control at our borders”, which is, of course, a perfect description of Labour policy for the last decade. The Home Secretary made a decision on 22 July this year which only she could make, simply because she is the only person with advice from the security agencies. Can she tell us in broad terms what that advice was?

Mull of Kintyre Review

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As I look for a single-sentence question, I feel sure that the test will be met by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

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

I am not sure that I can meet that expectation, Mr Speaker, but I will do my best. Part of the problem arises from the clash between the demands for justice and for a solution that prevents an accident from happening again. The Secretary of State appears to have solved the justice problem for the future with a change to the rules on the attribution of blame. One of the problems was that there was no black box in this aircraft. Will he ensure that all RAF aircraft will in future have black boxes so that we will know the cause of any crash?

Disturbances (London)

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have statements by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and a heavily subscribed Budget debate to follow, so there is pressure on time. Short questions and short answers are essential.

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

It is incumbent on those of us willing to criticise the police when they make mistakes, as they did during the G20 protest, to step in and correct the record when inaccurate and unjust criticisms are made, as happened over the weekend. The simple fact is that few police forces in the world could have delivered the peaceful outcome for the vast majority of 200,000, 300,000, 400,000 or 500,000 demonstrators during a march in which none was harmed or hurt, and in which all were able to exercise their democratic right properly. Similarly, the police were able to use intelligence to make the arrests to which the Home Secretary referred. However, I hope she will not pay any attention to the sort of thing said in The Times this morning by a retired police officer, when he called on her to use “dawn raids” and “snatch squads”. That is the sort of thing we might expect in Tripoli, not London.

Equitable Life

Debate between David Davis and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is a very important statement, and a lot of hon. and right hon. Members wish to take part in the exchanges on it, but there is also very important business to follow, so there are pressures on time. What is now required is brevity.

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

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on achieving so much in two months. He said that he had done more in two months than Labour did in two years, but he underestimates it. He has done more in two months than they did in 10 years.

Nevertheless, there is a great deal left to be done, as my hon. Friend himself said. Halfway through next year is still a long time to wait for many of the more elderly policyholders. Can he give the House an undertaking that he will stick to that timetable so that those policyholders receive their compensation before they die, in many cases? He said that he was still considering Sir John Chadwick’s proposals. Will he ensure that not only he but the independent commission takes representations from EMAG, and do so quickly?