David Davis

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address

David Davis voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address' (307-171, passed)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)

David Davis voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)' (104-316, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)

David Davis voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)' (78-408, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)

David Davis voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)' (104-317, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)

David Davis voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (l)' (78-408, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)

David Davis voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (o)' (104-317, defeated)

Voted NO on: King's Speech Motion for an Address

David Davis voted NO on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address' (307-171, passed)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)

David Davis voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (p)' (104-316, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)

David Davis voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Voted AYE on: King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)

David Davis voted AYE on 'King's Speech Motion for an Address: amendment (i)' (108-323, defeated)

Spoke in debate: Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Parliamentary appearance by David Davis

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

On a point of order, given that this applies directly to the Minster, I draw the House’s attention to the motion tabled by the now Prime Minister on 4 December 2018 following non-compliance with a previous Humble Address. It starts: “That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018”. —[Official Report, 4 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 668.] That motion was passed by this House. We have just debated an a

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

I press the Minister on his lack of answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). When it became apparent that Mandelson posed an obvious and serious security risk to the state, it was said that ongoing mitigations were put in place to control that risk. Will the ISC see those ongoing mitigations? And if not, why not?

Debate on the Address

I think the answer to the question is, “No, it didn’t,” but the hon. Member should be aware that it was only two months ago that a Labour Member described me as the MP who is never knowingly on message, which is a label I espouse—I do not mind that. No Government have got this right. We need a welfare system that looks after the disabled and people who have no choice about what they are suffering, but not one that makes it an even choice to be on the dole or in a job.

Debate on the Address

The Prime Minister quite rightly prioritises the defence of the country. We have depended for decades on the courage, honour and loyalty of our soldiers. However, some of our best units are now losing soldiers, because this Government are undermining them and allowing them, under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, to be prosecuted and persecuted for alleged crimes—that were not carried out—from decades ago.

Spoke in debate: Debate on the Address

Parliamentary appearance by David Davis

Debate on the Address

That is absolutely right. My concern is that the reason we have so many excess deaths is not poor doctors or poor nurses, but poor management. We have really, really poor national health service management. To put it starkly, poor management effectively kills 15,000 people a year. If we improved that number, we could get within range of our comparator nations. That is a huge number of people, and we could do quite a lot about it if we set our mind to it. Experiments within the health service now

Debate on the Address

I will be careful how I answer the right hon. Member because I have an interest to declare here: I have a disabled grandchild, and her mother is one of the people who suffers the stress he talked about. As I say, we need a humane system that deals with people properly. Our current system for supporting disabled people and people looking after disabled people is incredibly bureaucratic, unpleasant and nasty to deal with. That is not the area of welfare that we need to deal with; it is principally

Debate on the Address

It is interesting, because the hon. Member’s Government and his Secretary of State have claimed, “All these green policies are reducing the cost of our energy. Not using oil and gas is reducing the cost of energy.” What is the consequence? The highest energy costs in the world. I will be interested to hear if he can explain that when he makes his speech. The other issue is that growth, or the loss of growth, has a material impact on the public finances. To give the House a measure of that, a 1%

Debate on the Address

No, not for the moment. Neither does it explain the increase in borrowing costs, which are higher than any other G7 country’s and virtually double Japan’s. That is nobody’s fault but the Chancellor’s, and the horrific consequences for our public finances have been laid out already by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). The real brake is Labour’s own policies: high taxes, massively burdensome regulation, high b