Ed Davey
MP for Kingston and Surbiton · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s opening remarks, not least about the 25th anniversary of the horrific terror attacks of 9/11. I welcome the Government finally banning imports from illegal Israeli settlements, something Keir Starmer should have done a long time ago.”
“I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Britain should be the safest country in the world to have a baby. We will keep raising this issue until it is the safest.”
“No mother should have to give birth in such circumstances. Does the Prime Minister agree that Musgrove Park cannot wait until 2033 for work to start on a new maternity unit? Will he offer a meeting to local MPs, so we can move it forward? And will he make fixing the maternity scandal across our country a top priority of his Government?”
“I hope at that summit the Prime Minister will negotiate a good deal for our country, our economy and our defence, and that means rejoining the single market. North Devon’s maternity unit has been closed for three weeks due to staff shortages, so women now have to travel for up to two hours to give birth.”
“The Prime Minister said yesterday that Brexit ushered in “a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration.” —[ Official Report , 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 27.] He is right. Our economy is stuck in this mess thanks to the Conservatives—and the leader of Reform UK—and their terrible Brexit deal.”
“There are so many more problems in our political system: too much power in the hands of social media barons who interfere in our politics and crypto billionaires who use donations to buy influence; and too little power in the hands of our people.”
The complete record
Every one of 6,005 lines we hold for Ed Davey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 121.
“Given the policy of taking back control, will the UK have its own procurement policy for large contracts such as this one for passports separate from the Official Journal of the European Union process? Will that also mean that British firms will be less able to compete for public sector contracts in other EU countries in the many ways in which they can now?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech with which I fully agree. When we were putting sanctions on Russia after it annexed Crimea, I was privy to information on discussions with the European Commission about how the octopus arms of the Russian state were all over the energy sector across the European Union and how it was using devious means to get its way. May I therefore invite him to take on the logic of his speech that we use not just military but diplomatic means, so that we can use energy policy to take the money away that is fuelling Mr Putin’s military and intelligence?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Is the problem that the current system of NICE analysis, using its quality-adjusted life year—QALY—measures, is unable to take account of negotiated discounts through pipeline agreements such as the one he has outlined? Is it time that this House and the Government made it clear that that needs to be taken account of, and that NHS England and Vertex need to get together and show that the cost is good value for money when we take account of pipeline deals and negotiated discounts?”
“If evidence emerges via the work of the Information Commissioner, the Electoral Commission, the Select Committee, The Guardian or anyone else that any organisation misused people’s data to interfere in a UK election or referendum, will the Secretary of State guarantee that a full public inquiry is established to find out what happened and what the implications were?”
“I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has brought forward this Bill, which follows the Bill introduced in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee. If the Government tell us today that the Bill would provide a pull factor, we should vote against them for that reason alone, because the reality, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, is that people become refugees because of the push factor. We have to support these people, who are fleeing appalling conditions.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about how other European countries regard this problem. I think that he is saying that every other European country bar Denmark believes that a child refugee should have the right to have their family come and join them in that country. Any argument that the Government make today is an argument that is not accepted in Germany, in France, in Spain, in Italy and in every other European country. Why should the argument be different for the UK?”
“I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement but urge her to go further and, as others have said, use energy policy as a new way of tackling this Russian threat. We all acknowledge the significant British energy interests in Russia, but will she confirm that Putin’s military and intelligence assets are primarily funded by the sale of Russian fossil fuels, and can I commend to her the EU’s energy security strategy, which was largely written in London and is reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels?”
“If it has not been ended, will she make sure that it is ended, so that the love-in with Russia that we saw a few years ago is completely finished?”
“I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and the calm leadership that she is showing on this issue. I associate myself and my party with her comments on our amazing emergency services, and pass on our thoughts to the victims. Following on from the questions from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), whether or not Russian agents are shown to be responsible for this incident, is it not time that we got more realistic about Russia? Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rosatom—the Russian nuclear power company so strongly championed by the former Prime Minister, Mr Cameron— has formally ended? She may not know that today, but will she write to me when she finds that out?”
“The Government had plans to legislate to ban alleged domestic abusers from cross-examining their victims in the family courts. Is that still Government policy? If so, when will such a provision be put before the House? Every day that there is a delay, more vulnerable people get tormented in court.”
“In the Minister’s answer to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), she mentioned Stephen Shaw’s second review of the detention of people in immigration centres, particularly the experience of vulnerable people, and said that he is looking at the Home Office’s implementation of his first review. Has the second review been concluded, and has she received the report on it? If not, when does she expect to receive it, and when does the Home Office expect to publish it?”
“Further to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), will the Secretary of State explain the legal basis for the immigration exemption from the general data protection regulation?”
“I am afraid that the Secretary of State has not answered the question asked by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). Is it not true that UK companies will be bound by rules that the EU will decide? Those rules will affect a huge amount of business, but we will have no influence over them after we leave the EU?”
“I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for giving way; she is making an excellent speech. Is it not ironic that the Government are planning to consult on improving protections for women who are the victims of domestic violence, but in the Bill they are taking protections away from some of the most vulnerable of them?”
“There are so many other such examples, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I could detain the House longer than you would feel was sensible, so I will not read them out. None the less, I say to Ministers that they exist. If they bothered to read them—I urge them to do so—they would see that these are real people. If this legislation goes through with the immigration exemption, the Ministers on the Front Bench would be responsible for ruining the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people, because they would have given the Home Office—the Executive—too much power, which means that it could not be held to account.”
“A subject access request would be her only path to sorting out her immigration status. There are many examples showing how unfairly this will work in practice. Another example of Home Office mistakes on identity is the case of a nurse who had been working in the NHS and living lawfully in the UK for many years, but whose application to naturalise as a British citizen was denied because of her alleged poor immigration history. The brief says: “A SAR was made and it became clear that the Home Office had mixed her up with another Nigerian woman with a slightly similar name and a poor immigration history. Following the SAR, she was able to challenge the Home Office.” Under this Bill, she would not have been able to do that, and the NHS would have lost a diligent trained nurse.”
“The SAR revealed that a third person had assumed his identity, and had applied for and secured voluntary return and the grant had subsequently been removed. The file further revealed that there was no cross-checking of signatures, photographs, or fingerprints on the Voluntary Assisted Returns scheme.” This would have had serious consequences for the individual had the subject access request not revealed the identity theft, but, of course, under this immigration exemption there will be no such right to make that request. We have talked about issues around domestic violence. We have heard the example of a woman applicant, the victim of domestic violence, who had no knowledge of the immigration applications made for her because her husband had all the papers.”
“Let us face it: the Home Office holds the prize for the largest number of mistakes made, week in, week out, by any Department. To take just one example, the Home Office has a shocking 10% error rate on immigration status checks alone. The Conservative party may be happy to take away access to justice and the rule of law from British citizens, but I am not. Let us look at the impact on fairness. The best way to illustrate how deeply unfair the immigration exemption would be is with a few examples—real life examples, which is to say real people. Let me take some examples from the Law Society brief. It takes the case of Z, a failed asylum seeker attempting to reopen his case: “The Home Office refused to reopen the case, saying that he had previously left the UK voluntarily and had received a resettlement grant from the Home Office.”
“The Home Office will be under no duty at all to disclose the information in a person’s file and the information used to make the decision. That is an affront to natural justice. In any dispute about how a case has been administered, it is surely self-evident that officials should have to provide that information. To help Government Back Benchers who care about the rule of law even more, I should say that this affront could affect a British citizen. The administrative mistake might well be that someone has incorrectly been considered not to be British. In the many briefings that we have been given for this debate, there is example after example of British citizens being denied justice, with their very nationality being denied. Only a subject access request by an individual’s lawyer can end up revealing such basic errors of the Home Office.”
“That is before Brexit; if we do not secure a data adequacy agreement while we are in the EU, it will be far more difficult and demanding as a third country. The granting of data adequacy for third countries involves a more stringent examination of how national security data is dealt with. I say candidly to those on the Treasury Bench that if they want their Brexit negotiations to proceed as smoothly as internal Tory party politics allows and to secure the data adequacy agreement that British business desperately needs, they will have to drop that immigration exemption—not water it down, not caveat it, but drop it. Moreover, the exemption is insulting to freedom, the rule of law and access to justice. What it means, as others have said, is that an individual cannot know why he or she has had their case refused by the Home Office.”
“It is clearly in breach of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights, undermining article 8 on the protection of personal data, article 20 on equality before the law and article 21 on non-discrimination. Take the central example of what the exemption will mean for citizens from other EU countries—the 3 million here already and those who will come in the years ahead. Does the Minister really expect the Commission and the EU’s Brexit negotiators to turn a blind eye to the theft of data protection rights from EU citizens that the immigration exemption represents? It is a clear and evident breach of faith with the December agreement on EU citizens. There is simply no way that the EU could or should grant the UK a data adequacy agreement if we intend to take data protection rights from its citizens with this measure.”
“It relates not to what came from the EU, but to what Whitehall has done to the legislation. It used to be called “gold-plating”, but in this case I would call it “dirt-smearing” the regulation. I refer, of course, to the immigration exemption in schedule 2. I am disturbed about that for a number of reasons, some of which other Members have mentioned. However, to get the Minister’s attention, I should say that if the legislation is passed with that exemption, that will put at risk the chances of the UK’s obtaining a data adequacy agreement prior to Brexit—something essential for business and vital for security. The immigration exemption is not allowed under the EU’s regulation; it will be found to be illegal.”
“We were highly influential in the conception and birth of this regulation as a member of the EU, but thanks to Brexit, we will not be at the conception and birth of a daughter of this EU regulation. There is bound to be a daughter of the GDPR, given the speed with which these technologies are developing. Inside the EU, the UK fashioned this regulation; we were a rule maker, and we were in control. With Brexit, we will not have a vote, we will be a rule taker, and we will have lost control. There could not be a clearer example of how Brexit will actually weaken Britain’s democracy and sovereignty—the precise reverse of what was promised to the people. Although I welcome this legislation in general, I do fear for the future. However, I have one massive concern about the Bill.”
“Indeed, I served on the Competitiveness Council and formed a like-minded group for growth, on which Britain was leading the way in Europe in developing further the single market in energy and in digital services. It was clear that this regulation was essential for British business, because Britain was leading in digital services and needed this to support our businesses trading across the EU and to give consumers the confidence that this brings. It was a key area for business for Britain, and we pushed it. It is therefore particularly ironic that we are transposing this regulation into UK law just as we are pulling out of the EU. The legislation before us is excellent; it has cross-party support; and it is a perfect example of why Brexit is a bad idea for the UK.”
“It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). The House should reflect on his speech. Obviously, he was full of great rhetoric, but for some of us, he was playing the man and not the ball, but the House should discuss the ball—the substance—because that is key. I say to him, in language I know he understands, that veritas is a good defence. I want to speak about the actual Bill, not amendments made in the other House. This piece of legislation is very welcome. It emanates from the EU, and I am delighted that the Government are implementing it. This regulation was being formed when I was a junior Minister in the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Britain was very supportive of it and was leading on it.”
“Nothing in the many tables and figures in the section on the Department for Communities and Local Government, as it was then, talks about homelessness; they are all in very broad aggregate totals that tell us nothing. This is completely unnecessary. Other Parliaments, including the New Zealand and Swedish Parliaments, are given detailed information on spending. They get to deal with the figures and so make real decisions on how the money is spent. We do not, and that is shocking.”
“This Parliament talks about parliamentary sovereignty all the time; I wish we had some, but until this Parliament stands up to the Executive and plays its role in analysing how the money is spent, we will not have anything like parliamentary sovereignty, Brexit or no Brexit. I make that point with respect to homelessness because there cannot be many other issues on which it is as important that the House get to grips with the money. To illustrate that point, I refer hon. Members to the estimates, which I am sure they looked at ahead of this debate, including the central Government supply estimates published last April, which are the subject of this debate.”
“The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and all those who have spoken so far have made passionate speeches, showing how they care about homelessness in their constituency. I hope, therefore, that if my Homelessness (End of Life Care) Bill gets a Second Reading, they will be there to support it. I share their passion, but I want to make a boring speech. I want to speak about the estimates that are before us today—this is an estimates debate. The reason is—to make a serious point—that the House does not do its job properly, and has not done so for decades, because it does not hold the Government to account for their draft budgets and how they spend taxpayers’ money.”
“I am sure that that £9 million could have been spent on homeless people. It also talks about removing £16 million from the Move On fund—it could not be spent in-year and so apparently has to be spent later on in this Parliament. That is another £16 million not being spent on homelessness. Perhaps the Minister, who I am sure has been briefed for this debate, can tell us why £25 million has been lost from the homelessness budget this fiscal year. If we are to get to grips with this, we have to get to grips with the money.”
“Yes, it was indeed, and when the Cabinet debated ways to improve value for money, I made the same argument. The then Prime Minister was interested and asked the Cabinet Secretary to pursue it, but unfortunately, after several meetings, it was blocked by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I move now from the main supply estimates to the supplementary supply estimates, which—again—I am sure others have read in detail. These are a little more illuminating and come with a proper memorandum. Hon. Members might be interested to know that they reduce the amount of money for homelessness. It might be for a good reason—I do not know—but it talks about a £9 million reduction in the flexible homelessness support grant. Apparently a new procurement strategy and vehicle is being set up that means the money cannot be spent.”
“Until we sort out our processes on things such as public expenditure scrutiny, we will never do that job properly.”
“It says: “The Department’s recent performance in reducing homelessness therefore cannot be considered value for money.” We need to get to grips with this. The money we are spending is probably not enough and the way we are spending it is not very good. We will not tackle this problem until we sort ourselves out. The only thing we can find is the trends, and the trends are worrying. We have been spending more in recent years on dealing with the symptoms of the problem—temporary accommodation—but less on prevention. It is great that we have the Homelessness Reduction Act—a brilliant piece of legislation—but we are spending less on prevention, which is not what Parliament wants. Homelessness is a scar on our society. We in this place are elected to do our job properly, to scrutinise the money and tackle this problem.”
“Without this information, it cannot fully understand the impact that reducing one source of funding will have on the others…the Department does not have the information it needs to predict where a cut in funding will limit a local authority’s ability to meet its duties.” What does that mean? The Department does not know. We are not told. Who does know? Who knows where this money is being spent and whether it is being spent in the best way possible? It is time we got our Parliament up to scratch. Then we can talk about parliamentary sovereignty. I turn to others parts of the NAO report, which we paid for—it is an expensive and detailed report and we ought to read it properly. It is provided to the House free for Members. I refer them to paragraph 24, which is headed, “Conclusions on Value for Money”.”
“It shows that local authorities spent £1.148 billion on homelessness in 2015-16—the last year we have figures for—of which £845 million was spent on temporary accommodation and £303 million on prevention, support and advice. There is little detail beyond those big aggregate figures, which do not tell us much about how the money was spent. The commentary in the Auditor General’s report is instructive. Paragraph 128 states: “Local authorities fund the cost of homelessness from a number of different sources… The Department does not know how much of each source of funding is used for each component of homelessness services.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend. One advantage of devolution is that we can experiment with new ways of doing things, one of which might be better scrutiny of the money. I am a bit of a geek on this. I wrote a pamphlet about 15 years ago on it. I did some research and found that the last time the House voted down a request from the Government was 1919, which shows that the House has basically given up its role in scrutinising the Budget properly. When one asks for more information, one ends up going to the National Audit Office, which does some decent work on the figures to help the Public Accounts Committee, which is behind the report we are debating now. I refer hon. Members to the NAO report on homelessness published last September, which shows the full extent of the problem.”
“The hon. Lady is making an excellent point. Does she agree that the fact that the Housing Act 1996 describes people as “becoming homeless intentionally” is quite outrageous and offensive? Is not that the exact point that she is making?”
“Has the Home Office decided whether EU citizens wanting to come to the UK to work in our NHS post Brexit will be subject to the tier 2 visa cap? If no decision has yet been taken, when do Ministers intend to end the uncertainty facing NHS employers?”
“The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Her point on housing is extremely well made. Does she share my concern that some of the regeneration of estates in London is reducing the amount of social housing and that the opportunity to improve and increase social housing is simply not being taken in estate after estate across London?”
“Again, the hon. Lady makes a powerful point, along with her right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan). My wife is a social housing lawyer and she has a presentation on the meaning of “affordable” in Government policy and law. She has found 11 different definitions of affordability, so not only is it confusing—“affordable” often does not mean affordable—but it is completely absurd and we need to get back to the issue of social housing that the hon. Lady raised.”
“Those projects that innovated by using a whole series of indicators to try to identify the families who were in most need, most under threat and most vulnerable had some promise. One of the things I regret in recent years is that some of the innovative programmes outside the Sure Start family that tried to help those who are, in many ways, the most vulnerable in our society, were cut. If we are to make a sustained attack on reducing child poverty, we need to think of policy programmes that will meet the needs of those particular families. Otherwise, we are not providing for the children most in need. I hope the Minister will respond on whether the issue is only area-based programmes, or whether there are targeted, innovative programmes that we should look at as well.”
“In its first years, there were no Sure Start projects in my constituency, and I went to other boroughs in London to visit them, to see how they were working and to learn about them, because I thought it was an important policy innovation. There is no doubt that some evidence suggests that for some people, Sure Start was effective. However, we should also look at the evidence that showed that there were poor families with children that it did not reach—particularly what are sometimes called the hard-to-reach families. Sure Start often did not manage to reach those. We need to think not just of area-based poverty programmes, although they still have a role, as Sure Start showed.”
“We will not take communities with us and build the number of houses necessary unless councils and the state are allowed to be far more proactive, not just in finances, but in how the whole planning system works. I end by talking about one of the major poverty reduction programmes in recent decades, how it worked and the lessons we should take from it: the Sure Start project. I found the Sure Start programme, brought in during the first term of the Labour Government, very exciting, because it was trying to take an area-based approach, so that there was no stigma in the services being provided, and to take a more holistic approach, bringing different service providers together in a way we had not seen before. To some extent, it worked.”
“I think it was the hon. Lady who said that 1968 was the last peak year of house building. The idea that the private sector and the free market will deliver the amount and types of homes that we need to go back to those periods is for the birds. It is just not true. I am fascinated by the quote from the Conservative leader of the Local Government Association. Maybe we are moving toward an understanding, at least in local government, that the state needs to drive house building; otherwise we will never meet demand, particularly in London, but no doubt also in cities elsewhere. I hope the Minister will address the need to rethink the fundamentals of our approach to house building.”
“Often they cannot go to school, and in that temporary period, which can last for months, they are often in very poor accommodation. As a result, the school is less able to support that family. That is just one example of how housing policy in London is affecting many people day in, day out, and making the experience of children that much worse. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden talked about the importance of social housing; that has been a general theme. I could not agree more. We need to completely change the whole approach to building houses. For decades, under all Governments, we hoped that the private sector would produce the houses, but if we look over five or six decades of house building, we see that we have only ever had serious increases in housing when the state has been directing and building houses.”
“If he takes nothing else away from my speech, I hope he takes that point. Housing issues are as severe in Kingston as in many other boroughs in London, and of course the most vulnerable and low-income families are affected most severely, in numerous ways, many of which have been touched on. To give an example of how that can multiply child poverty, when these families are evicted by their private rented sector landlord, they ask the council for support and are given temporary emergency accommodation outside the borough, sometimes miles away from the children’s schools and where the parents work—and the parents are often in work. The impact of poverty on those children can be severely affected by the dislocation in how our housing support works.”
“There are also estates in central Surbiton, Chessington and Old Malden where levels of poverty equal those anywhere in the capital. I often worry that the external perception, whether in City Hall, Whitehall or even the Guildhall in Kingston, means that people do not recognise that there are families in real need. As we do not have some of the social infrastructure found in other boroughs, some children in those struggling families get an even worse deal, because there is not that wider network of support. I am not asking the Government to give us the sort of money for social deprivation that other boroughs might get—that argument would be rejected—but I want the Minister to work with his colleagues and realise that in boroughs such as mine, there are vulnerable families. That needs to be recognised more.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on winning the debate and on her speech. We have had a degree of consensus on a number of issues that are critical to tackling child poverty, particularly housing. I want to say quite a bit about housing, but first I want to talk about my constituency. The Royal Borough of Kingston is often seen as a wealthy borough. It is true that it has some very wealthy parts, but over many years representing three quarters of the borough, I have found that that external perception is inaccurate when it comes to the lives of thousands of people in the borough. We have pockets of severe deprivation. In wards such as Norbiton, where we have the Cambridge estate, Cambridge Gardens and the King Henry estate, people are really struggling, daily.”
“On behalf of my constituents whose families have suffered from the effects of Primodos, I thank the Secretary of State for taking a step in the right direction. He has announced that there will be another review with another remit. Can he reassure the House that one of the reviews will be able to investigate the cover-up over Primodos that we know has taken place for decades, and that if a crime has been committed, it will be dealt with?”
“The whole House will welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to meet the family of Alfie Dingley. Will he also agree to meet the campaign group End Our Pain, which is campaigning to allow doctors to prescribe cannabis when it would help their patients? End Our Pain wants to present to the Minister the evidence that honourable colleagues have talked about and discuss the fact that the Multiple Sclerosis Society has changed its position on the use of medicinal cannabis, based on the evidence.”
“What end of life are you talking about? I’m on the street and nobody cares about me.” Friends, please support the Bill. Let us show that we do care. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Sir Edward Davey, Ms Karen Buck, Bob Blackman, Sir Vince Cable, Mr Kenneth Clarke, Caroline Lucas, Norman Lamb, Kate Green, Wera Hobhouse, Geraint Davies, Christine Jardine and Mary Creagh present the Bill. Sir Edward Davey accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed (Bill 163 ).”