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.

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.

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.

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?