David Davis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State—who tells the truth—frequently says that the parties in Northern Ireland did not support the legacy legislation. I am speaking from memory, so these numbers are approximate, but when there was a poll of the population of Northern Ireland, 30-something per cent were in favour of the legislation and about 20-something per cent were against it, so it was about three to two. So if the Secretary of State is picking on popularity, on community support, he is in the wrong.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  I suppose I should declare an interest: I was the only person, other than Tom Watson, to have had an Act of Parliament struck down in the courts—not using a declaration of incompatibility, but actually using article rights and so on—so I am quite familiar with that process, and this is not it. I commend the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for taking part in the JCHR—it is an incredibly important Committee. I will say to him that, throughout its history, the Committee has mostly had unanimous judgments. Certainly under Harriet Harman, for example, who was a brilliant chairman, the judgments were almost entirely unanimous; they were never on a party basis. To make the Opposition side of the House happy, I will start by talking about the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act requires “compelling reasons” to bring forward a remedial order, with the Joint Committee on Human Rights later clarifying that there is a “general constitutional principle” that “it is desirable for amendments to primary legislation to be made by way of a Bill”, not by a remedial order. Although the JCHR allowed the progress of the remedial order, it was after significant amendment and by majority vote—not the usual unanimity—and with it stating: “It is…highly unusual that the Government has laid a Bill and a remedial order concerning the same subject matter on the very same day. Usually…we would consider the Government’s approach constitutionally improper.” I agree, and I encourage colleagues to read this report, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) did earlier, because we can almost see the Committee’s discomfort. What happened is that the Secretary of State made an appeal on the basis of the urgency of the matter, in his mind. The hon. Member for Bracknell just referred to it as “unique” in its complexity. That is precisely a reason to use primary legislation, not a parliamentary technique that allows no amendment whatsoever. My arguments about this are arguments of detail that go to the interests of the people of Northern Ireland individually, not some sweeping order that takes away rights.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman has a long and honourable service in this area. He is exactly right, and he understands, as everybody on this side of the House does—well, most people on this side of the House—that asymmetries are built into the system that handicap, and indeed sometimes terrify, the people on one side of the argument while favouring those on the other. I want to talk to that because, obviously, as we have heard, the remedial order will allow new civil cases to be brought and, we are told, bring justice to victims. Government policy, as we have heard time and again, does not differentiate between real victims and terrorists. It will allow IRA sympathisers to continue their campaign of vexatious lawfare, hauling our brave veterans into court. I remind the House that in 2006 the Blair Government passed a law that said that anyone hurt in the troubles is classed as a victim. That means a proven murderer—a proven serial murderer—killed in the process of carrying out another murder, is classed as a victim. Imagine that happening in the rest of the UK. Imagine a bank robber, already a murderer, who is shot while trying to rob another bank. Do we think he is a victim? That is outwith the politics of Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, however, he is classed as a victim. When the Secretary of State talks about victims’ families, he is, in many cases, referring to the families of IRA terrorists. Frankly, if the Government’s legislation matched their rhetoric, the word “victim” would always be preceded by the word “innocent”. If we were talking about innocent victims, many of our differences would evaporate. But that is not the truth. Indeed, the other side of this argument—Sinn Féin and IRA sympathisers—know this. The DUP proved it last September when it moved a motion in Stormont to put “innocent” in front of the word “victim”. The motion was voted down by Sinn Féin and its allies because they know that they depend on this massive confusion, in the rest of the world, over what a victim really is.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman changes the subject, from what the letter of comfort was given for to what it was not given for, which does not prove anything about the letter of comfort. What is the case is that the judge said at the time that he could not rule on the case because the state had made a promise to Mr Downey, and that prevented the case. We also have the Queen’s grant of mercy, which is an amnesty, and people were released early, which is another form of amnesty. For the Secretary of State to say that the Good Friday agreement did not involve amnesties is simply in defiance of the facts.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very good point about that specific case. The judge also criticised the allocation of legal aid for that case. He said that he could not understand how legal aid was given for such a futile case. Is it not a problem that the legal aid rules in Northern Ireland drive a machine that harms our soldiers?

• 19 Jan 2026 · SEND Support: Access · Hansard source

  More

  Early access costs money. Last year, children with special needs in the East Riding of Yorkshire were funded to less than £1,000 per capita—the lowest level in England. Camden received £3,565 a head. The Government’s grant proposals increase East Yorkshire by £30 a head. They increase Camden by £267 a head, nearly 10 times as much. How on earth does the Secretary of State expect East Yorkshire to provide early access or anything else, when funding is as tight as that?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Iran: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  This despicable regime goes in for state terrorism at home and abroad, and its principal instrument for terrorism abroad is the IRGC. This is now the sixth time that I have called on Prime Ministers and Ministers to proscribe the IRGC. The excuse given historically is that we want to keep our embassy open, but the embassy is now shut, demonstrating how futile that argument is. When will we proscribe that terrorist organisation?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  In light of what was essentially a very sensible statement, may I ask the Minister a point of clarification? She talks about data technology and innovation, but have the Government considered an experiment in mandatory black box technology for very young drivers? The AA and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association say that that could save money and reduce the number of accidents by 35%.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  It is not unusual, I know. My hon. Friends might not like my mentioning this primary case, because it undermined a part of the Thatcher Government’s activities. It was the case of Clive Ponting. He was the civil servant who gave out the information that the Belgrano was sunk while it was leaving the Falklands, not arriving. The judge in that case instructed the jury to find him guilty, but they found him not guilty. Why? Because they made a moral judgment about the powers and rights of the state over the citizen. We cannot replace that with any judicial mechanism. My comment to the Minister is that I sympathise with the size of the problem, and she is right to try to take it on. I am glad she is doing so, and I will support her in what she does, but she should not tackle the problem by wrecking the system. Justice delayed is justice denied, but summary justice is not justice at all.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by commending my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)? I do not always agree with him—I am not quite Anna Soubry—but on this issue, he struck exactly the right tone. I speak as somebody who has criticised the Ministry of Justice, under all parties, rather vigorously for 30 years, and he struck exactly the right tone in saying that the system has to be put right, given the failures over 30 years and more. We have to address this matter but not take the fundamentals out of the system in the process of doing so. May I do something unusual and commend the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller)? She made a very well thought-through speech.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I am not just standing to give my hon. Friend a minute. Does he agree with me that even if we accept what it says, being sent down for a couple of years can destroy a life?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is being characteristically overgenerous to the Government when he talks about the requirement for modelling. This is not a “Mastermind” question; it is simple arithmetic. Three per cent of trials are by jury. If we do away with half of them, which is more draconian than even the Government are talking about, and there is a difference of 20%, the maximum difference it could make to the throughput of the court system is 0.3%. It will make no difference whatsoever to one of our most fundamental issues, yet it will throw away the most fundamental tenet of our justice system.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Frankly, the hon. Lady highlights yet another problem with the magistrates court. The point is that if we are going to implement a big, systemic change, we should not change the fundamentals. That should be done as a separate testable exercise later, after we have tried everything else. Let me come back to the expertise of juries. It is illegal in Britain to talk to jurors about what happened in the jury room—it is not allowed—but there is a spectacular lacuna in that. One of the most complicated financial cases was the Jubilee line fraud trial, which collapsed. As a result, it was possible to interview the jurors. This case was in an area where it is said that jurors cannot cope: complex financial law. They were asked, “Couldn’t you cope? Was there a problem?” When they were asked if they could not understand the case, they answered unequivocally, “Oh yes, we could understand the case. It was the lawyers who couldn’t understand the case.” That is precisely what the outcome of that analysis was. The Minister resisted publishing the model, which is understandable. I can see why she is doing that. She wants it to be presented properly and transparently, I hope, but she has made the decision already, so at the very least, she should tell us the size of the saving and the size of the change. In my judgment, it is less than half of 1%—a point that I made in an intervention earlier. She may disagree. Well, let us see what she thinks the size of the saving really is, because we are expected to take this on trust, and we should never change something that is so fundamental to our constitution and justice system on trust. I do not think the Government’s policy will move the dial at all. There is one other systemic issue that I want to raise. Again, my hon. Friends might not like it—

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I am losing the House, piece by piece, but that is okay. The Minister should pay some attention to the detail of the speech by the hon. Member for Chichester, because she made some extremely important points. As for the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), he and I have fought together on some spectacular cases of miscarriage of justice—successfully, I think, in the biggest ones—but I do not agree with him that the Government’s policy does not address matters that are morally fundamental to the justice system, because the jury system is absolutely fundamental, for a few reasons that I will touch on in a minute. The Minister has a difficult job. Bluntly, her Department—not just the Ministers, but the Department itself—has not done a very good job of managing the system over decades. The system failures have been serially spectacular, and I recommend that she look back at some of the National Audit Office reports. I commissioned one when I was Chair of the Public Accounts Committee; it is the longest NAO report that I can remember and the most complex, because these matters are systemically complex and do not lend themselves to off-the-cuff answers. She talks about modernisation, which is often important, but it should not be at the price of taking out the most important building block in our justice system—one that the rest of the world, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, has been copying for centuries. Of course, the majority of the judiciary does not agree with restricting jury trials. When I raised this matter with the Justice Secretary—I think I did so in oral questions on one occasion—I asked him whether he had read the report by Mr Rivlin KC, which does a formidable job of forensically taking apart the Leveson recommendations. One of the points he makes is that Leveson is making judgments—quite properly, as a very distinguished judge of very long standing—but he is not making them on the basis of empirical data. There was very little empirical data behind what Lord Justice Leveson argued, and it is really important that we look at that. I recommend to the Minister that she read Mr Rivlin’s note. He was the head of Southwark Crown court, which has one of the highest throughputs in the country, and he put this point to all his judges. Not one of those working, active judges agreed with Leveson. Implicit in Leveson’s comments, and certainly in what the Minister said, is an underlying idea that juries are not quite up to it in certain cases. It is suggested that they cannot quite cope, particularly in technical and financial cases. Well, I have handled about a dozen miscarriage of justice cases over the course of the last decade or two, and in not one of them was the jury the source of the error. More often than not, it was a misdirection by a judge or an error of the system, or the court case was allowed to get out of control in some way or another—I will come back to an example or two in a minute. It was pretty much always down to the judge, and sometimes to the lawyers in court, but not to the jury. The risks involved in restricting jury trials are significant. When the Minister is modelling the numbers—she talks about the speed of the magistrate system—she should look at the appeal rates for magistrates’ decisions and the number of appeals in which the magistrates’ decisions are overturned.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has stated many times that the previous Government’s legislation in this area had no support from political parties in Northern Ireland. Can he tell the House which political parties support his legislation?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has said that veterans will have Government support. I am sure that is what he intends, but the hard reality is that the Bill that he is defending will lead to coroner’s court inquiries into decisions taken in a fraction of a second, 40 years ago. The best way to look at that issue is to look at what has already happened, as described by the senior judge who oversaw the judicial review of the Coagh inquiry: “In this challenge, this Court is being asked to slow the passage of time down, to analyse events in freeze-frame and to address the issue of absolute necessity in slow-motion…It is ludicrous to suggest that this court should analyse the events of the day in question in that manner”, but that is what will happen with Loughgall and all the other issues that will come before the courts, and our brave and honourable soldiers will be humiliated through that process. That is why the process is the punishment.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is widely reported that the Home Secretary is a strong supporter of robust reform of the European Court of Human Rights. A large number of countries on the European continent share our concerns over that. Has she discussed them with any of her opposite numbers? In particular, where does she see the common interest in reforming the Court?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I refuse to call this property relief on what is an absolutely new tax, but will the Minister tell us if the agricultural property tax threshold will rise in line with agricultural land prices?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Jury Trials Proposal: Impact · Hansard source

  More

  The Justice Secretary quite rightly says that justice delayed is justice denied, but summary justice is no justice at all. He based much of his argument on the views of the eminent Lord Leveson, but has he read the analysis of that review by Geoffrey Rivlin KC, who went through the report in expert detail and described much of it as unfounded and misguided because it was based on poor data. If the Justice Secretary has not read it, will he please do so before he comes back to the House?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since 2017, Members’ hands have been tied when it comes to amending the Finance Bill because successive Governments have failed to include a general amendment of the law as the first resolution, which for centuries allowed unrestricted amendment of the Budget. For example, a Back-Bench amendment to the 1977 Finance Bill forced the Government to index income tax personal allowances against inflation—something that is topical now. That sort of change is much more difficult under the current arrangements. The Hansard Society and I have both written to the Chief Whip about this matter, but can you provide advice on how the House can ensure that in future years we can recover those fundamental rights that have been arrogated by the Government?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Criminal Court Reform · Hansard source

  More

  When the Secretary of State took office, he swore an oath of office, which reads: “I…do swear that…I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”. That last bit matters. Governments of his party, my party and—before they get too sanctimonious—the Liberal Democrats all starved the courts, from Blair to now. The Secretary of State has to put that right, because if he does not get sufficient extra sitting days, this problem will not be solved. When I say “sufficient extra”, I do not mean 1,000 days, or even 5,000 days; we need an increase of an order of magnitude. Instead, he is undermining a bulwark of our constitution. In the words of Lord Denning: “It has been the bulwark of our liberties too long for any of us to seek to alter it.” Why will the Secretary of State not go and have his argument with the Treasury and solve this problem properly?

• 19 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister knows that, last week, nine four-star generals made it plain that yesterday’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is doing harm to the British Army already. The most acute damage is being felt by the Special Air Service. It is already affecting its recruitment, retention, morale and operational effectiveness. As a result, lawyers acting for the SAS Regimental Association have sent a letter before action to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know of no precedent for this in the entire history of the British Army, and this reflects—because it is so important—how important it is, so may I make a plea to the Prime Minister? Will he involve himself personally to ensure that 60, 70 and 80-year-old soldiers, who have carried out actions that most of us would view as heroic, are not persecuted in the coming years, because now it is a matter not of national security, but of national honour?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No. I am sorry, but I do not have time. People knew that the system would not be accepted, which is why Gerry Adams asked for an “invisible system” for dealing with on-the-runs. Why are they on the run? They are on the run because they are criminals, and this was a secret system to deal with it. In contrast, 300,000 of our soldiers defended democracy in Northern Ireland. They defended law and order, democracy and the innocent citizens of Northern Ireland, whom we often forget in this. They acted as the direct opposite of the IRA, the gangster organisation that terrorised all communities in Northern Ireland. By the way, I mean “all communities”; remember that the IRA killed a very large number of Catholics to terrorise that community. Yet today those who upheld the law face relentless legal pursuit, while those who broke the law received leniency, letters and legal shelter. Let us not forget that the IRA are also protected by the fact that witnesses, or would-be witnesses, against them know that they risk murder if they turn up. I was in Omagh a few weeks ago, and I met a policeman who was shot—six times, I think—only a couple of years ago by the Real IRA, or the New IRA or whatever label they have today. Instead of attacking those who served, we should honour them, their service and their patriotism. We should not treat them worse than the killers they defeated. This House must say, “Enough. Enough moral inversion, and enough rewarding of terror, while hounding those who defended the public.” We are told that the Bill is necessary because Northern Ireland will not support alternatives, but when real leaders must choose between consensus and justice, they choose justice. This Bill must not rest on appeasement. The world watches while Britain chooses today. Its allies watch with concern, and its enemies with enthusiasm, as they plan future decades of lawfare against our best soldiers. If we do not speak up to protect both our current service personnel and our veterans, the innocent will suffer in future, and we will find ourselves unable to defend our nation.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is a terrible Bill. Its central failing is that it will lead to the persecution of patriotic, innocent British soldiers whose only sin is defending our democracy with heroism and skill. What it will do is recreate a circumstance in which soldiers are treated unfairly by the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) referred to the case of Soldier B and the judge’s dismissal of it as a “ludicrous” challenge funded by legal aid. I have known Soldier B for 30 years; I count him as a friend. He is tough and clever yet, even for him, being dragged through the courts for four years and more, on what is effectively preparation for a murder charge, would have been unbelievably stressful. The point my hon. Friend made is that the process is the punishment: four years of stress and wear and tear. In Operation Banner, our soldiers assiduously obeyed the yellow card rules, but in Northern Ireland the courts have sometimes interpreted those rules as requiring our soldiers to take almost suicidal risks. We are dragging men in their 70s and 80s through coroners courts in Belfast, and judging them by a standard that makes no sense in a military context. To illustrate this, let me share with the House a single case that highlights what can happen to soldiers under these circumstances. On 16 March 1978, in the middle of the night, two SAS soldiers were manning a covert observation post. They saw two men in combat clothing moving toward them. One of our soldiers, David Jones, stood up and challenged the men. The IRA gunman immediately shot him down in a burst of gunfire. That story would have been at the back of the mind of every soldier who subsequently served in Northern Ireland. They made their decisions in the face of the risk of immediate death. It is a measure of their professionalism that hundreds of terrorists were arrested alive under the circumstances, given that the soldiers could have been killed. Today’s debate is actually about morality. It is about whether this House chooses justice over political convenience, truth over revisionism, and loyalty over the cynical rewriting of history. The Government claim that today’s problems arise from legislation passed by the previous Government, which allegedly created an amnesty for terrorists. Really? What are the facts? Labour, under Blair, effectively gave a de facto amnesty—maybe it is challengeable in law—to at least 650 terrorists, who had carried out more than 3,000 killings. Early release schemes, on-the-run letters and the royal prerogative of mercy collectively created a vast secret system of de facto immunity. It was secret because the Government knew that people would not accept it.