Brexit Committee Select Committees

Download Subtitles



Brexit Committee

Live coverage of the Lords European Union select committee session with the secretary of state for exiting the EU, David Davis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Brexit Committee. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Importantly, in the context of Article 27 what happens rarely


perfect across. I was talking to the secretary, very good friend of mine


20 months ago, talking about the issue of the citizens right and I


spend what we wanted to do he explained that you should come to


Austria and say that there is no body knows this in Austria. The


bigger problem is getting the argument across. The week after the


Monday after the Prime Minister announced the citizens rights


policy, every single embassy, 26/27, not Ireland because it is a


different policy, the 26th of the 27 published in a main newspaper in


every capital what the policy was, extensive pieces on it and every


ambassador was sent out to do into these obviously. To be honest the


real issue getting the message across is at that level. We had to


have the people understand, the people of Slovenia, the people of


Hungary, the people of France the people of the north-east. The people


of Wales. I'm carrying out negotiation on people pulling a half


from the north-east but not with them. The truth here is that what we


are trying to get is that point, successfully, looking not


immediately because there is a stand-off in the initial response, a


few days afterwards a view of those countries, most of those countries


had a positive response and that is what I have to worry about, the


clarity of what we have in the officer, we have a good offer. The


discussion that we have heard within government around a transition


agreement or implementation period, whatever you would like to call it


has varied enormously. Between chancel talking about no cliff edge


and therefore really raising the question of the single market and


the customs union membership continuing, whereas others say


others things, what you think we stand. We will find that if we leave


aside the briefings which I cannot speak for we will look at in the


public statements, it is very hard to put a cigarette paper between the


Jazz on myself, on translation or in fermentation of the agreement. We


discussed it at length come virtually weekly, since Christmas of


last year. Similarly you will find on other issues, in terms of


migration policy. We have said we have both said time and again,


bringing back control of migration policy isn't the same slamming the


door to the UK. We want to attract talent into British industry, and we


don't want to see labour shortages in the UK economy, or part of it, in


Northern Ireland for example. We must look past the briefing and what


the official statements are. That is what the real policy is, not what


you see some unnamed, unspecified beating from unknown people. We must


move on. Baroness Brown. The government has very much made it


clear from the beginning that home affairs and justice matters are


matters that are of a high priority for agreement, and since the


election has their been some movement in the approach to the


European Court of Justice because for example the European arrest


warrant is very hard to see how that could be maintained at the level it


is now without the European Court being involved. Is that an area


where you feel that there needs to be a bit more give and take, or a


softer line up? You are right, justice is very important. This by


Minister takes it very important, as do all, I would imagine. Let's take


the European arrest warrant, a good example. Our view on appropriate


jurisdiction is territorial. So, if we issue a European arrest warrant,


if we had some analog after 2019 which I think we will have, or maybe


after 2021 if that is when the transition runs out or whenever, if


we have some analogue after the conclusion of negotiations and


departure, then you would expect that within the European Union that


to be subject to the appeal all the way up through the normal national


courts, and from then to the ECJ inside the ECJ. If a Polish police


force subjects a request for a British citizen in Britain, or


someone can anyone in Britain are there that would go up to the


British Supreme Court. There, we have similar arrangements with the


United States, with extradition arrangements, which operate under


each court system. You don't need to have extraterritorial reach for a


court for it to work. You can have the same thing in data, let's


imagine we have data applications. Then the mole asking a foreign state


and an other states to you in pigeon batterer in -- asking a foreign


state to impinge on the rise of being the jewel, then we have the


courts to determine. We have taken evidence from lawyers that said if a


European Court is not the final arbiter, nonetheless lawyers going


into the UK courts would still wish to draw on the results of case law


as coming out of the European law courts, and I wonder what your


thoughts are. You like it is entirely up to the court. To the


extent to which it take that on board. Now, it will be entirely up


to the court, case-by-case. I should raise it, it's embarrassing, but I


have been in court with such an issue related to government before,


in which another court Bosman judgment, a Swiss court that time,


was taken into account, no relationship, but just at that court


had dealt with similar cases in this way, and I would expect British


courts to look at European case law but not to be bound by it. It is not


being bound by it is the issue, you're not bound by the decision of


another court. Lady four can I wanted to ask a question. -- Lady


Faulkner. You referred to Lord Boswell on that previous September


discussion that was had relating to the intelligence and security, I


recall, I maybe wrong, but let me put it on the table now in case we


didn't mention at the but we also discussed parliamentary scrutiny


committee weighed at trade talks happen in terms of interim as the


trade talks commence, and continue, where you would go in without being


a privy Counsellor, parliamentarians are allowed to go into the room,


look at documents, see what is going on. That was the example. What I


think, and I'm sure Mr Starmer is going to be great in scrutinising


you come in Privy Council terms, but this committee has an important role


in the scrutiny process, and I think what people want to get from Europe


at the time was to have at least those kinds of arrangements, for the


comments to speak for itself, but let me say to me to this committee I


said 40 hours over this weekend getting to Estonia and back to speak


for three and a half minutes, but in order for the United Kingdom to bree


represented, because their committee and the body gets so the House of


Lords is rather more with it in that regard. But can I also dart I would


never disagree. I wonder whether you would be the right to a specifically


on this was I had to say that when we did these arrangements, I think


basically it was a private role in one of the departments where people


could go and hear no phone rains and all of that, at the moment, frankly,


I don't think that there is anything in this arrangement which is going


to be private for that long. I think it is more a question of timing. So


far, every publication that we have will hit the public domain at some


point, so for example next week as I say if we put in some submissions to


them, we will publish it. The day we put them in. Now, that may change


when we get to the later done table mat yes, and at that point I would


certainly look at that, absolutely, but at this stage there seems to be


no useful point. Later on I suggest I will think and maybe write to you


about it, but the levy forgets, nag me about it, but later on it may be


different. -- don't let me forget. We find in the interim, if we do


need to seize some documents I hope will keep the position. As you know,


my committee, the financial affairs committee can interact with the


financial services sector extensively. They are taking


decisions by the end of this year, so waiting for a decision later on


in negotiations as to whether there will be a transitional arrangement


or not may very well, they may have made their minds up and gone if they


need to go, in order to maintain passport and rights to work. Would


you consider... Yellow actress deciding now. Indeed, some are, I


hear that weekly. Would you consider besides whether it transitional


implementation, this would you consider that allowing the EU 27


that if you haven't made sufficient progress on the frame for a


transitional dealer, how long it will last by the end of this year,


and so on, perhaps contemplating that extension for one year? That is


allowed under Article 50. For the negotiations to continue. The arrow


only by unanimity. Yes, unanimity, but you keep talking about the will


and bilateral talks with the Bwe are in negotiation. I had this


conversation on Friday with the members of the national services,


and the ideal outcome from their point of view, not just theirs,


others do, but the ideal outcome from their broader view is that we


get to the of decision with enough time left for them to carry out


regulatory and physical changes that they need to. If we can we will, but


we are in a negotiation, and any point of leverage, and there is


goodwill, but it isn't infinite, any point of leverage, if we say, well


we had to have this, that will become a point of leverage. So, we


will seek to get that through. I said, we started off by explaining


to our European colleagues that we thought it was to their advantage as


well as ours in order to sort of them the incentive to do something


about it. Some of them of course to see it is their advantage to wait


because enough American banks in particular have said oh, we will


wait until Paris, good luck to them. Of course, they encourage the other


sides to hold back, say they want to do it. Yes, of course, we understand


the value of transition. We have been through this in excruciating


detail in terms of the effect of it done and we will do it as quickly as


we can, but it is a negotiation and I cannot, and like any area of


government yellow would say yes, I will do this or I will do that, I


cannot, but I will say that we will make our best endeavour. There was a


lot to be said for Paris by the way, but I think we need to move on. Are


you biased, sir? LAUGHTER Now the important of devolution and


the effect of Brexit. Thank you Chairman and thank you Secretary of


State. The Welsh and Scottish Government in the sake of Mark


Brayford and Michael Russell wrote to you on the 13th of June and it is


a letter with an awful lot of issues contained within it and I know a lot


of colleagues would like to quiz you a bit on it. Perhaps I can start the


ball rolling with starting with general concerns in the letter, the


general concern I suppose being what they viewed as a lack of


consultation with the general lack of engagement on the part of your


department with the devolved administrations, and the second


general thing was really a call for reform on their part, how the JNC EU


negotiations were going to work. I will if I could ask on that


narrative issue for your comment? Firstly, in January this year, my


department was created to July, one year ago, virtually, now, created,


as in announced, took a bit of time to build it up. But in January of


this year we have a JNC plenary to the ministerial committee, chaired


by the Prime Minister, and then since then we have had for the few


month running into the election we had three, I think, JM CEO Ed. --


JNC meeting. I think the first one the Scottish Government presented


its White Paper, presenting what they described as a compromised.


This was a copper wires that current prius are -- requiring Scotland to


have a completely separate manager to the single market. I think we


could negotiate it tomorrow if it were wanted, but there are issues --


interesting issues with the UK single market if it were such a


thing. We need to divide issues where we did agree with them, and


the next, or the second after that's JNC, we had a presentation of the


Welsh proposal. Was in many ways much more


practical. It was focus very clearly on employment in industry. We are


possible, we looked to pick out of these documents issues which we


could agree with, for example, the example of protection of employment


law. I have said are not least for occasions and the Prime Minister on


frequent occasions, there will be no reversal of that as a result of


departure from the European Union. In the same period, the Scottish


First Minister did everything possible to use that issue of Brexit


as a motor for another independence referendum. I basically take issue


with the thrust of Mike Russell. I think we have bent over backwards,


not to the tool, there will be no veto, a working for the people of


Scotland and Wales and in particular Northern Ireland, of which we have


not been able to engage with for some time. Once again, when you took


evidence in Cardiff and in Edinburgh, they were disturbing


criticisms of things like getting agendas on time and I repeat to you


that when you have battling parties, it is actually almost resetting that


we in which we can bring people together or at again and I would ask


you in a second if you would comment on that. To move on to a second


point, that is a suggestion of developing common positions and


devil part of that. I think devolution issues, if you take


fishing for example, although it is a slightly different mechanism,


telling everyone what has gone on after words, what would you comment


on Internet as well as the common suggestion of that? As long as there


is no contradiction between our aims. The serious fishing industries


around the United Kingdom, some want to be able to fish and other waters,


others just want restrictions on others coming into our water. There


has to be a compromise between that. In ongoing negotiations in Europe


with ongoing issues such as fishing, there is considerable consultation


and has been over many years and I would expect that consultation to go


on. When it goes to the ongoing relationship, we will have extensive


discussions with them. Thank you. I must mention a interest has been


in the Scottish parliament for the first eight years as an elected


member. How do you think of the Scottish and Welsh common request


that they should be more closely involved with negotiations? I will


be as diplomatic as I can be. The truth is, we will take into account


what they will have to see and worry also about the interests of the


Scottish people and the Welsh people. We will talk also to


industry and others in Scotland and Wales. When the Prime Minister came


into office last year, the first place she went was Scotland.


Northern Ireland was the first place I went. In the Republic of Ireland,


all with the aim of protecting the interests of the component nations


of the United Kingdom Honours level playing field as you could have, to


make sure we do not accidentally art and industry in a particular area.


It is more than just talking to them. He recently confirmed that the


repeal bill subject to legislation subject to the void -- devolved --


devolved legislators, what do you think would happen with that? I do


not want to go down hypothetical routes. I would think we would get


onto that early next year. Between knowing them, it is important to


see, to bring the committee up to speed, the repeal bill will be


published and there will be elements of it which are aimed at allowing


the decommissioning of what powers remain within the devolved


administration, which is in effect all the powers they currently have.


What powers will be further devolved to them once we are out of Europe


and what we need to have to have a United Kingdom level of decision. We


need that school preservation of the United Kingdom single Market or


comprising single international treaty agreements and that will


happen over the course of the next six to nine months. Do you think the


government is being sufficiently proactive in thinking up solutions


with regard to Ireland? Let me divide the problems into two groups.


Those relate to Northern Ireland and those that relate to the Republic.


In Northern Ireland, the first one is the preservation of the peace


process and the preservation of the Belfast agreement. One of the


primary elements for the preservation of the visible border


and whilst at the same time been able to maintain an external border


of the European Union. A lot will be according to how we can operate a


customs system and that could involve a variety of things, such as


whether we use in trusted trader schemes, to allow people to go


across the border without being stopped, of whether we can use


pre-tagged containers, that sort of thing. That is one area where


talking has started. That will slightly be changed by the new


government elected in Ireland. I talked to the new secretary of state


they are the other day and these discussions will continue. But these


are ongoing relationships. We are nowhere near any solution. But also


what happens to Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, exports? A lot


of them come to us but also go through the rest of the United


Kingdom to the continent. How do we maintain that? We are giving thought


to that as well. We are not nearer resolution on this because we have


had no Northern Ireland executive to help deal with it. There has also


been a change of government in the South. We will not actually have the


solution to the Ireland issues probably until near the end of the


Brexit negotiations. If we have a comprehensive free trade agreement,


we could get away with later customs agreements than we otherwise would.


It came a piece of legislation would be the rules of origin. We are


making this speed, all I can see. It is not as fast as perhaps I would


like. As far as the government agreement with the DUP what steps


are you taking to make sure the voice of the nationalist community


is being here? I tried to talk to both sides. The confidences apply


but does not really impinge on our policy because both sides of the


argument, of the executive in Northern Ireland, want to see that


open border maintained, so I do not think there is any controversy


there. I do not want to leap around in groups, because it is a very


sensitive area probably try and sort out the Northern Ireland executive,


we get through that, I will try and make arrangements to speak to both


the major components of the executive. Could you give is another


ten minutes to finish off the questions? The question on


citizenship are important. Citizens rights. I notice something of key


interest to yourself and to millions of people in this country and in the


European Union who are currently held in suspense were awaiting the


answers. The Justice committee recommended that unilateral


recommendation of confirming European Union citizens rates within


this country on the basis that its primary responsibility was for


British citizens within the European Union. Many felt that was not


helpful. There are reports today of how things are softening in the


restriction and duration of it, perhaps you could enlighten as


Mortimer. I guess my question is simply this, can you tell us where


we are with it, what things remain and what is the timetable for


getting the? How long will the suspense B is the question many


people love? We made a sustained effort to get that message across to


the people of the countries involved. For two reasons, one to


influence the government, but also because it impacted on people here.


In terms of the areas of difference, the first area we do not see the


European courts to be involved. It would be unique for them to be


involved in extraterritorial jurisdiction rather than on this


rather limited operations in Ukraine. We do not see any need and


many other member states do not see a need for it, but what they do want


is some guarantee that it is going to be sustained, that the rates


within the European Union will be sustained. We understand that and it


will be an act of Parliament. That will be enforced by the British


courts. But it will also be backed up by the treaty, so it will be


subject to international and European law in maintaining the


rates, so that is where we are. He vast proportion of the people did


not see a problem with the European Court issue. We want to give them


confidence that we will get past that hurdle. That is the


expectation. I could see our citizens are at the


behest of the Europeans on this bit and do not believe they will reverse


its either and I do believe the need to give everyone confidence. In


terms of the actual rights, we addressed that, there is a lot of


real if dues and a lot of mythology. When you hear about people being


deported which turned out to be security issue, so we try to deal


with the worries and one of them was the issue of people thinking somehow


we would treat European citizens in the UK are second-class citizens in


some way. What we are trying to do is make this as close to British


citizenship without the general election vote in every other


respect, in terms of employment rights, economic rights, welfare


rights, health rights, education rights. Pension rights, all of these


will be the same. That is what we set out to do but there is one


differential which is the question of the ability to bring the family


members from another country, that is the difference. At the moment we


do not have that right for British citizens as we agonised over this


and thought it would not be right to give 3 million people write British


citizens have not got. And they would not in Australia America or


somewhere. That is one of the areas of tension. The other one which we


have left open is exactly when the date falls. What we tried to do is


to say whatever it is it will not be before the accession date, the


Article 50 date. Because that gave people nine months or so after the


referendum results will be with known it was coming. We did not want


to say to anybody that had come here in good faith expecting their rights


to be preserved to lose the fundamental main rights. Where it


ends up, it will not be any earlier than that not later than the


departure date but where it ends up is up for discussion. We do not want


to give a date so far in the future that will attract people to come


here for welfare tourism. We try to be as fair as possible, we tried to


do it in such a way that does not lead to other misunderstandings, it


has, even so. We are trying to avoid that. We will be discussing that


next week. I shared this committee that created


the report on acquired rates of EU citizens. I worked on it. It sounds


to me as though this issue of the red line is one you to order the


European Court of Justice, that it is a red line for the Government and


you hold that view, even if others in your own Cabinet take a different


view. It seems unnecessary to be any


different. I wanted to point out areas it may


make a difference. There are people who may be listening who are living


in Spain or somewhere you might to hear with issues arise which they


take through to Spanish courts to do with their rights, you make it clear


to them the Spanish courts or the Polish courts are the only recourse


and they will not be an overarching court which deals with supranational


issues such as the right they feel they have acquired.


That decision is for Spain and the European Union itself. We think our


Supreme Court is probably good for that purpose.


You're seeing our Supreme Court is fine for Europeans living here but


you are basically saying to British people abroad, and in the same way


the court of Spain or OK to deal with you and Italy and Poland, that


is the message coming today. If I lived in the country I accept


the rule of law in that country. One of the things you said an


answering was if on the issue of the Euro warrant, it was basically


territorial and should not be European Court of Justice take a


different view, and you said there is nothing wrong with people


invoking law from other jurisdictions. Our courts... They do


that anyway. That is not right. We do it with regard to common law


matters from other courts, in relation to European matters when we


were in the year but not -- we do not for people in Britain of


Tanzania or the law of China -- invoke the law.


You will find it very rare our courts will do anything, but the


question being raised, the point of European dipping chords as there is


an anxiety that if we are going to be travelling, parallel lines and


trading with Europe and do things in the reciprocal basis we should be


travelling in the same direction on these issues to do with law, our law


should work in hand sweat developed in parallel lines. You agree or not?


I think to a large extent most of western law developed in parallel


lines but not the same lines. The point of the referendum was it was a


decision of control, of control of laws, control the borders, control


of money, those were the three big issues that dominated. That is what


I have to deliver. Not giving control to another legislative and


another judicial authority. I want to press you on this because


we have been the evidence on a number of matters to do with law and


one of the great things are across Europe which have enhanced our


world, and you do is to world civilisation, one of the great


civilising forces has been we actually have a reciprocal


fundamental principle and how we deal with matters of law and it has


been developed in a very impressive way which is envied by other parts


of the world. One of the things that happens is if a British person is


married to an Italian and they divorced and have children and the


British person is one thing, the mother of the children who wants her


tell your husband to pay for the maintenance of the children and he


is reluctant to do so, she can get an order in the courts here and the


order will be enforced in Italy. Because of this reciprocal


arrangements we have around enforcement. You cannot get back to


work in China or other places and it is because of the arrangements


developed over 40 years. In the new arrangements and negotiations has,


well you have that sort of thing in mind?


That is not quite the same. It is all to do the same sort of thing.


For a lawyer you are being very vague.


If you want to do things across borders and have trading


arrangements across borders, manages across borders and you want to have


law operating across those borders you end up having to have


overarching supranational courts and that is the bit of that that was


never discussed in the referendum and the piece that is missing in


much of what is being discussed now. If the ordinary people of Britain


realised some of this and enforcement of orders will not be


taking place they might actually be thinking if only I had no one that I


might have reached a very different decision in how I voted. I do not


accept your premise. The simple truth is the effective system of


judicial cooperation is perfectly achievable.


So what will you do with trading arrangements were you happy trading


arrangement with someone in Germany and that German company goes bust


and you want to get your compensation? We have arrangements


to make that possible currently and it is through the overarching


principles and overarching court. What would you do if the same thing


happened in New Zealand or America? Sometimes, as your colleague says,


you are told to go whistle. That is what happens. This is our Foreign


Secretary. I'm afraid you are making enormous


generalisations. I work in international trade and on many


occasion had to enforce judgments across other judicial areas and it


is perfectly possible all the time. It is all other than the EU is. I


suggest the enforcement arrangements across Europe have in fact, with


great success and lawyers in Britain are very anxious about what will


happen with those enforcement procedures.


We can do this without subjecting ourselves to foreign courts.


Can I pick up on the point that began this Salah said of questions


about the disappointment with the proposal on the rights of EU


citizens and ask two questions, the first one is the one about what


impact do you think this will have on staffing in the NHS, that is one


of the very silly questions. The second, and this may be a topic we


may be looking at, is do you consider it will be easy to sort out


reciprocal health arrangements for citizens in the EU and vice versa?


And adding to that, you may be aware we have been contacted by a number


of UK citizens living in Europe who said why are you willing to meet?


Do I think it will be easy? I will never see anything is easy in this


exercise but before I come back to the question on the NHS, we said in


our paper on citizens' rights we will seek to maintain reciprocal


health treatment and to try to either maintain or creates an


arrangement. That is quite explicit. On staffing, the difficulty here is


there are a whole series of issues that will affect whether people come


to work in the UK. Bluntly, after the referendum there were some


pretty unpleasant behaviour by some British citizens, I am ashamed to


say. Which the Government was very fierce about, and so it should be.


The pound has an effect, the value of the pound, right through to, with


nurses, there has been a new and rigorous language standard put in


place which may have been too rigorous, though that is not for me


to say. These have all had effects. The aim is to bring back control of


migration to the UK, not to slam the door shut. This country has had very


large numbers of European and other countries' migrants come here, they


do a very good job and an enormous value to society and in particular


to the NHS but also social care homes and other industries which we


rely on them and they should not see what I do in at stopping that, it is


simply aimed at managing it. May I ask you, Minister, how many


women are on the negotiating team? The photo in the Times what a


disgrace. I can't remember. Are there any?


Thank you very much indeed. You spent rather more claim that I think


you had hoped. It is a sign of the interest the committee takes in the


subject and we greatly look forward to our next hearing and discussion


with you. Thank you very much indeed.


With the Minister agree, like me, I have been very wary during the


Brexit process to committing the Government to something that may


adversely impact the industry? Essay that on a very positive day for my


constituents. There is no wish to do that either side of the house. There


is a general agreement on both sides of the house this must be a measure


which acts both in the interests of consumers but also in