Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between Nick Clegg and David Davis

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)]

I commend the Secretary of State for ignoring some of the more over-excitable demands from parts of the Brexit press and some of his Back Benchers, and for confirming, as he has done today, that he will incorporate into British law some of the jewels in the crown of the EU—the habitats directive, the working time directive and the green renewable energy directive—that we can all agree on. He will know, however, that there will be a fork in the road: the Government will either have to keep those provisions in domestic legislation, in which case Conservative Members will reasonably say, “What on earth was the point of leaving the EU in the first place?”; or he will remove those provisions, in which case the EU will need exacting safeguards to ensure that we do not undercut EU standards.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is impossible to do what the Prime Minister said yesterday about participating fully in crime-fighting and anti-terrorism EU measures without access to the Schengen information system and other databases—I remember from my time in government that such databases are devastating crime-fighting tools—and without abiding by EU data protection directives overseen by the European Court of Justice?

[Mr Davis]

After a commendation like the one with which the right hon. Gentleman started, I think my career is over.

The right hon. Gentleman is half right and half wrong. What the Prime Minister was referring to yesterday was, of course, the importance of either maintaining something very similar to, or putting in place a replacement for, the justice and home affairs strand of the European treaties. He is right in one respect: if we are to exchange data with not just the EU but other countries, such as the United States, we will undoubtedly need data protection, such as data laws and privacy protection, that meets their standards. The Bill will ensure that we get to that point on the day we leave the European Union and can therefore continue to exchange data. There is no doubt that there will be continuing discussions thereafter about how we maintain all our standards at the same level. However, that will be with not just the European Union, but all our allies, whether America, Canada, the “Five Eyes” —everybody.

Article 50

Debate between Nick Clegg and David Davis

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My right hon. Friend is inviting me to comment on the case in detail. I will not do that, but I will agree with him in one respect: prerogative power has been used for the past 40 years to increase the burden of European legislation but it seems not to be to reduce it.

[Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Governments of the day, of different political persuasions, published White Papers on their negotiating priorities ahead of the Amsterdam treaty, the Nice treaty, the constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty, and that Maastricht treaty negotiations were preceded by two whole days of debate under John Major’s Government and a vote in this House? Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why an approach involving Parliament’s prerogatives of scrutiny is appropriate for amendments to EU treaties but not appropriate to the much larger endeavour of pulling the UK out of the EU altogether?

[Mr Davis]

What the right hon. Gentleman forgets of course is that we have announced already, right at the beginning of this process, that we will introduce the great repeal Bill, which will lead to an enormous length of debate in this House on exactly what powers will be kept and what powers will remain—most will remain. After that, there will be other Bills, I should think, that will also deal with the individual elements of the negotiation, which will inform the House, with the House having the right to both amend and vote on them. So I do not see what he is complaining about.

Next Steps in Leaving the European Union

Debate between Nick Clegg and David Davis

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My right hon. Friend was, if I remember correctly, at the Conservative party conference, and she may have heard what I said there. There were two things that relate to this. One is that the single market is one description of the way the European Union operates, but there are plenty of people who have access to the single market, some of them tariff-free, who make a great success of that access, and it is that success that we are aiming for.

The other point I made was that the global competition for talent is something that we must engage in. If we are going to win the global competition in economic terms, we must engage in the global competition for talent. We are entirely determined to do that, but that does not mean, and it is not the same as, having no control of immigration. They are very different issues. We will be going for global talent and we will be going for the best market access we can obtain.

[Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)]

I have always been a great admirer of the Secretary of State for his staunch defence of civil liberties and his staunch defence of the prerogatives of this House. I was a great admirer when he brought forward the Parliamentary Control of the Executive Bill in 1999 and stirringly told us that

“Executive decisions by the Government should be subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament”.—[Official Report, 22 June 1999; Vol. 352, c. 931.]

Can he tell us on the basis of what constitutional principle he believes the Prime Minister can now arrogate to herself the exclusive right to interpret what Brexit means and impose it upon the country, rather than protect the rightful role of scrutiny and approval of this House?

[Mr Davis]

Here we go again. The right hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference between accountability and micromanagement—it really is as simple as that. The simple truth is that there will be debates galore in this House, starting on Wednesday and thereafter, about what the Government’s strategy will be. We will tell the House as much as we can, but not enough to compromise the negotiation. At every turn, right through to the end, we will obey the conventions and laws that apply to the creation, removal and reform of treaties: every single one. This Government believe in the rule of law and that is how we will behave.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Nick Clegg and David Davis

Wednesday 27th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clegg]

Where free speech is exploited to incite hatred and violence, of course the law must be applied and people must be prosecuted, and prosecuted hard. The problem with starting on this slippery slope always arises when we start defining what kind of speech we do and do not like, or what we do and do not find offensive. The very definition—the heart—of a free, liberal society is that we should be free to offend each other, and that is what is at stake in this new debate.

[Mr David Davis]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clegg]

I will make some progress, because I have only 12 minutes.

We will stand up for the poorest and most vulnerable, and we will always defend a Britain that is at its best when it is open-hearted, open-minded and outward-looking. Of course, it would be churlish of me not to welcome those measures that build on the work that the coalition Government did. The expansion of childcare was of course a good thing, although the Government will have to do a lot more to help parents facing crippling childcare costs after their parental leave ends but before the Government’s help for three-year-olds starts. Of course I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to raising the personal allowance, which was started by the Liberal Democrats in the previous Government, although I am not sure what kind of a comment it is on this Government’s confidence in themselves that they seem now to want to pass a law on tax policy when they could introduce it of their own accord.

Let me turn to the issue that will devour the Government’s energy and time in the coming months: Europe. With so much at stake, the United Kingdom needs a Prime Minister who is absolutely clear about what he wants and why he wants it. Instead, this must be the first time in living memory that a country’s citizens are being asked to support the outcome of a renegotiation on a matter of such fundamental importance to its place in the world without the Government of the day setting out exactly what they want to achieve. Because we do not know what the Government consider to be a successful renegotiation, we do not even know for sure which side the Prime Minister will be on when the referendum is finally held. That is a precarious position—to put it mildly—from which to persuade millions of people who are indifferent or sceptical about the European Union. Just imagine the circumstances in which the referendum is likely to be held: years of denigration of everything the EU does, followed by months of mind-numbing, interminable wrangling over the renegotiation, with a divided Cabinet and a Prime Minister who still appears ambivalent about our role in Europe.

In recent days, I have sensed a slight swagger in the Government’s confidence that they will secure a good deal in the European Union and then go on to win the referendum. But having witnessed two referendums spin off in entirely unpredicted directions in recent years, I would strongly counsel against any complacency. My advice to the Government, if they wish to hear it, is simply this: they should pursue their renegotiation with the European Union but spell out exactly what they hope to achieve so that people understand the choice in front of them. They should be careful not to string out the renegotiation for so long that there is not enough time to make the wider case to the British public. Above all, they should remember that the referendum will be won through conviction, not ambivalence. Ambivalence will not succeed in this negotiation and it will absolutely not win a referendum.

One thing that we already know is that whatever deal the Prime Minister agrees and brings back from Europe, it will not satisfy significant parts of his own party. That is why he must not overstate what he can deliver. When that moment of truth comes and the Prime Minister presents his deal to this House and the country, I hope that he will advocate it with real conviction and make a clear and unambiguous argument in favour of our membership of the European Union, warts and all. In the end, there is no surrogate for a full-throated and sustained advocacy of Britain’s continued membership of a European club that, although undoubtedly imperfect, allows us to tackle crime, address climate change and provide jobs and economic security in a globalised world in a way we never can or will be able to on our own.

The European question is not the only pressing constitutional issue that the Government face. It is clear that the Government have been elected, above all else, because English voters did not believe that a combination of Labour and the SNP would be good for our country or our economy. It was a divisive campaign—a victory of fear over hope. The greatest risk now is that the rise of nationalism and the politics of grievance may cause the fractures in our United Kingdom to grow until we splinter entirely. The warning lights of a full-blown constitutional crisis are flashing. Yet it is telling that this Queen’s Speech contains a plan to weaken our human rights, but not to strengthen our constitution.

The Conservatives are understandably cock-a-hoop at their victory, yet they achieved a parliamentary majority with just 37% of the vote. The SNP has very nearly turned Scotland into a one-party state on 50% of the vote—a position of disproportionate power that it will no doubt use to further the case for the break-up of our Union. Four million people cast a vote for UKIP and more than a million voted for the Greens, yet those parties return to Parliament with just one MP each. My party has just eight MPs, when under a proportional system we would have 51.

I learned the hard way about the difficulties of reforming our creaking political system, but surely no one needs any more evidence that our British constitution is well past its sell-by date. The general election may have delivered the Conservatives a majority in Parliament, but it has left them in charge at a time of great political fragility. The Prime Minister is rightly proud that five years ago, after an uncertain election result in 2010, he was able to swallow his pride, act boldly and put the national interest first. He has an opportunity to do that again now. If the Government want to keep our country united and to act truly in the interests of one nation, now is the time for him to act in a big and bold way to reform our constitution and institutions and to address the rising tide of nationalism. Yet all we have heard today is a self-absorbed plan to replace one Bill of Rights with another weaker one, some fiddling with parliamentary Standing Orders and a welcome but insufficient commitment to devolution to the north. This sort of piecemeal tinkering does not go nearly far enough.

In my view, the time has come for a major, cross-party constitutional convention to find a new federal settlement in which power is devolved to our nations, our regions, our cities and our people. This Parliament could be the one that creates a new settlement for our country. This Parliament could be the one that saves our Union and renews our democracy. That should be the legacy enshrined in this Queen’s Speech.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Nick Clegg and David Davis

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am aware of the popularity of the current Member for the Isle of Wight, and he will know better than I do that the number of MPs representing that area has changed quite dramatically through the ages. I believe that the Isle of Wight once had eight MPs. I understand that this proposal is controversial there, but equality of size as a general rule—with the two exceptions I mentioned—seems to us to be a cornerstone of the Bill.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, but even those who are on side in respect of what he is trying to achieve through equalisation of the size of parliamentary seats are somewhat concerned at the speed and perhaps the brutal simplicity of the approach. Will there be scope for judicial challenge of any of the individual decisions taken by the boundary commissions?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Member will know, anyone can seek judicial review in normal practice, but on the criteria given to the boundary commissions, it is worth stressing that they will retain their existing ability to refer to local links, geography, county boundaries and so on, but subject to a principle of equality. That is a simple—yes, it is simple—straightforward principle of equality that we are enshrining in the legislation.

By having more frequent boundary reviews—one every five years—constituencies will be kept more up to date, reflecting changes in where people live. In order to make that possible, we are changing the consultation process. Consultation is, of course, vital, but as leading academics concluded in a report published just last week, local inquiries have become “the playthings” of political parties and have had, in practice, little impact on the commissions’ final recommendations, so we will abolish local inquiries. Instead, we will triple the time that people have to make representations to the commissions to have their say—from one month to three months. Residents will have—

Political and Constitutional Reform

Debate between Nick Clegg and David Davis

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The key question is whether the package of reform increases the power of Parliament to hold the Executive to account. That is the fundamental issue of principle which members of the Labour party, when they were in favour of political reform, used to understand. This package of reform unambiguously puts this Parliament back in the driving seat.

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

I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for changing his mind on the 55% proposal, but may I ask him to think again about the timing of the referendum? The reason that the Electoral Commission recommends against holding referendums on the same day as elections is not that people cannot decide on more than one thing at a time, but that it leads to differential turnouts, which means that the subsequent referendum is unrepresentative. Would that not be unfortunate on such an important issue?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The Electoral Commission, which the right hon. Gentleman cited, said just last week:

“There are benefits of holding elections and referendums on the same day—for example to encourage turnout, but there are risks associated with combination too.”

What we must do is act in order to minimise those risks and increase the benefit. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There were real problems in the elections in 2007 which, as analysed in the Gould report, raised concerns about combining elections at the same time, but let us remember that as the Gould report demonstrated clearly, the complexity at that time arose from the coincidence of elections to Holyrood and very complex and lengthy ballot papers for the local elections in Scotland. In the proposed referendum, there will be a very simple question to which there is a simple yes or no answer. I think people will understand that that is best held at the same time as they go to vote on other matters, rather than asking them to return to the ballot box on another occasion, at great additional expense to the taxpayer.

Constitution and Home Affairs

Debate between Nick Clegg and David Davis

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I should like to make progress. I have said as much as I can and wish to say at this stage on that issue.

The power of recall is just one of a range of reforms intended to shift power directly to the British people.

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

The Deputy Prime Minister knows that I approve of and support the power of recall, but I have talked to him about the scope for individual injustice in a scheme that is triggered by something that is not judicial. In his remarks about the power of recall, is he telling us that the triggering procedure, which would currently be the Privileges Committee, would become more quasi-judicial than it is now?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I can confirm that I believe it would be wrong for a Committee that, as constituted previously, is composed only of other politicians, to act as judge and jury for something as important as the trigger that would lead to a by-election and a Member losing their seat. Exactly how we could provide a fairer form of due process so that MPs are not unfairly ensnared in the mechanism of recall is the subject of reflection now. If the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member has any ideas about how we should do this, I should be grateful to hear from them.