Sir Iain Duncan Smith
MP for Chingford and Woodford Green · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I raise the cases of Ryan Cornelius and Jimmy Lai—both United Kingdom citizens—to the attention of the Foreign Secretary, who I welcome to his position. Ryan Cornelius has been incarcerated for 19 years—trumped-up charges by a corrupt regime that is supporting a war in Sudan at the moment.”
“Has the Secretary of State been made aware of the case of Joshua Wong, a Hong Kong resident who is being prosecuted by the Administration in Hong Kong using the national security law?”
“A particular memory is that during the Maastricht debates, when, I have to confess, I and one or two others here were deeply rebellious, Ann lectured me from the Dispatch Box—she was in government—about how I should support the Maastricht treaty and the European Union, which rather worried me.”
“It was phenomenal, because she was so certain about the way that she was. Ann embodied something else: the passion that is necessary for us in this Chamber to make our arguments without the fear of any other person doing something to us.”
“We need to reiterate, and the Government and the Home Secretary need to specify, to all the social media companies that they must do something to close down the visceral, violent language that some people use in attacking others personally, as they did over Ann’s murder, which shocked me.”
“Friday was a funny day. I heard the news very early in the morning that Ann had died, and I was utterly surprised about that because she had seemed perfectly fit the last time I saw her, so I gave my condolences and spoke about it on the radio.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,453 lines we hold for Sir Iain Duncan Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 26 of 90.
“Today, I and others met Sebastien Lai, the son of Jimmy Lai—the ex-owner of Apple Daily who languishes in prison. I remind my right hon. Friend that Jimmy Lai is a British citizen and a British passport holder, and he now faces a trial at the end of the year in which, under the new national security laws, he can be incarcerated for life. And for what? For publishing truth to power. Will my right hon. Friend please direct his Government, particularly the Foreign Office, to warn the Chinese Government, as the Americans have already done, with the threat that if they persist, the use of common law in Hong Kong will be taken away?”
“Each Minister should sign off every single bit of correspondence to MPs, and anything else is simply substandard, if the Minister does not mind my saying so.”
“I apologise to the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for not being here earlier, but I did let him know that I was delayed. May I say with the deepest respect, because nobody respects the Department more than me, that I just do not think this correspondence is working? We got a call in my office the other day to say that it would not now be writing to us, because people were too hard-pressed in the Department to write to anybody and they would make a quick call. We did not want a call; we want correspondence. When I was in the Department, the Secretary of State and Ministers all signed off their own correspondence, and nothing went out of the door that they had not read and checked. That had added value in that we knew what was going on in the Department.”
“How can the issue not be a security risk for three Departments, but be a security risk for the rest of them? Surely Departments are hiding behind section 24 because they are embarrassed about having an awful lot of Hikvision cameras. Will the Leader of the House remind No. 10 and the Cabinet Office that they have an obligation to answer genuine questions, and to declare the number of such cameras that they have? As a result of those cameras, all of us are at risk when we enter those Departments.”
“I have made a series of freedom of information requests about the Government’s possession and use of Hikvision cameras, which security advisers have declared to be a security risk. I made an FOI request of every Department, and then requested a revision of any decision to refuse to answer. All bar three Departments answered by invoking section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which protects information on grounds of security; that is, Departments said that it would put national security at risk to let me know whether they had any such cameras, how many they had, and what they were doing about them. However, that cannot be the case when three Departments—the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Wales Office—answered completely openly, and talked of getting rid of the cameras.”
“How is it that yesterday the Prime Minister, who previously said that China posed a “systemic threat”, has now moved to saying it poses “a systemic challenge”, and that our strongest policy statement now, in terms of our reputation and relationship with China, is that we are going to be “robustly pragmatic”? Can he please explain to me how “robustly pragmatic” will worry the Chinese any one bit?”
“May I congratulate our friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on successfully securing this urgent question? He raises a series of very important points. We all absolutely and rightly condemn the brutal treatment yesterday of Ed Lawrence, the BBC cameraman, that saw him dragged away and beaten. I have seen a text from him to a colleague saying that he was beaten hard during the course of his detention. With all the other issues that have been raised—the chasing and incarceration of journalists in Hong Kong, the crackdowns and genocide on the Uyghur—there is now an endless litany of China’s bad behaviour, so I simply ask my hon. Friend the Minister this.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I raise one specific issue that is directly linked with this? I discovered one day ago—overnight, almost—that the Government had tabled amendment 60, which will add certain offences to the list of offences that are not eligible for statutory defence for victims of modern-day slavery. Whether or not this amendment improves the Bill, the truth is that we have had no chance to scrutinise it at all, and it will be done today and gone. My concern is that this is a delicate area, often dealing with people who have very great problems, and I simply want to ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it is feasible for us to raise a complaint that this is becoming an abuse of the House.”
“Either the definition of what constitutes legal services needs to be tightened up very carefully, or the exemptions should be struck out as the amendments require. I would like some indication from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that the Government will look seriously at the matter in the Lords and act on it. An exemption for legal services is unnecessary and will lead to lobbying by the back door; I am sure that all sorts of terms will be found that are covered by “legal services”.”
“I am sorry if there are practising lawyers present in the House, but if I know anything at all about how lawyers work, they will find ways to exercise the process of lobbying on behalf of organisations and individuals with no right to be here. They will not call it lobbying; they will find some term that is covered by “legal services” and then get on with it. That will also be a way of getting around the Crown prerogative. I would be grateful if the Minister looks at the issue carefully and understands that there is a problem. I have talked to a lot of lawyers, and most of them believe that the exemption for legal services is not necessary. There is no reason why they should be exempted; the rules should apply directly to them.”
“I accept that the amendment will make it into the Bill today, but I want to see what comes back from the other place once the Lords have managed to probe it and find out about it. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government suddenly needed to put it in the Bill. My amendments would strike out subsections (1)(b) and (2)(b) of clause 68. The Government seem almost to have cut and pasted some of the US legislation and possibly the Australian legislation. I know that the exemption for legal services appears in that legislation, but I am concerned. My amendment is a tightening-up exercise. I really wonder why we think it necessary to provide such a general exemption for legal services.”
“I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not take that long. Before I speak to the amendments in my name and those of other hon. Members, which are quite narrow, I want to address Government amendment 60, which I am quite surprised to find in the Bill. Peculiarly, it sets out a series of offences to which it is no longer a defence to claim modern slavery. I am surprised that many of them are not already captured elsewhere. Some of them are very general, such as “entering a prohibited place” and “foreign interference: general”. I always get worried when I see the Government tabling amendments that say things like “in general”, because it really means that they want to do something else that we do not know about.”
“All this depends on the integrated review, which the Government said they were going to change to make China a “threat” rather than a “strategic competitor.” Given that that country is guilty of genocide, arresting peaceful democracy campaigners in Hong Kong, trashing international treaties, slave labour, threatening Taiwan with invasion, attacking Christians, threatening its neighbours, taking over the South China seas and threatening us here domestically, do we not honestly think the Government should take this seriously and have a full debate?”
“Is it still possible for us to have a full debate in Government time on the threat posed by China, both domestically and internationally? After all, it was at the indulgence of the Speaker that three urgent questions were granted—twice when the Government failed to make a statement on the violent attacks on peaceful democracy campaigners in Manchester, and the other day on the appalling activities of Chinese police inside our country. It is thanks to the Speaker that we actually had any discussion of that here. Then there are the Confucius institutes spying on Hong Kong and Chinese students, on which there has still been no statement from the Government.”
“Will he therefore take back to the Government, and to the Foreign Office, the message that it is high time they showed some strength and acted immediately to get rid of the diplomats responsible in Manchester, to investigate these police stations and kick them out, and to do the same with the Confucius Institutes? Otherwise, we look like we are dragging our feet compared with our neighbours.”
“Every other country that has them is now investigating with a view to getting rid of them—Canada, Chile, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the USA are all about to kick them out—but we have still not undertaken a full investigation. Even in Scotland, the First Minister has decided to investigate the Glasgow site; we have done nothing about the two sites here in England. I simply say to my right hon. Friend—with the best intentions, because he is sanctioned, like I am, by this brutal regime—that we have testimony from endless people, we have a Chinese Government who have set up these police stations, we have Confucius Institutes bullying Chinese students here, we have seen them beaten up on the streets in the UK, and we wonder very much whether they feel safe.”
“I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting the urgent question and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing it. I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box; he should duck his shoulders, because he is responsible for none of what I am about to say. May I simply say that we are seeing a litany of general excuses from the Government, albeit not from him directly? A week ago, they had to be dragged to the House twice to talk about the punishment beating that was meted out in Manchester—no statement was offered—and now we have another UQ. This business about these police stations has been well known and well documented for ages.”
“This is about everything it does, such as the trashing of Hong Kong, the Uyghurs, taking over the South China seas and the attacks on people like me and others, including the Minister, as sanctionees. Will he make sure, first of all, that we lift China back into that bracket as a threat, treat them as a threat and do not excuse it? For those of us who are sanctioned, it would be marvellous if the Foreign Office or even Parliament were capable of giving us any advice about what happens to our families when they have to travel. I find it remarkable that when we ask them that question, we have no idea of what limitations that poses on us, even today.”
“First and foremost, there is no question that in the Government and even in Parliament we have become incredibly sloppy about any idea of security. The carrying of telephones—just switched off—into meetings is a security risk, because they can be switched back on and used as microphones. We know that. I have seen Government Ministers carrying telephones into meetings in their back pocket. That should be stopped. All those phones should be taken off them. We can do many things, and GCHQ is very clear about the penetration of our enemies into our space. My main point is that in all of this—the Minister is reviewing the integrated review—why in heaven’s name was China not seen as a threat when we did the original review?”
“Also, importantly, will the Government now proscribe the IRGC once and for all, to tell it that its behaviour will no longer be tolerated and that there are more sanctions to come?”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this urgent question and I thank you for granting it, Mr Speaker. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that Iran is now quite clearly a pariah state, which means that all our policy towards it must be directed on the basis that we cannot deal with it in the same way as any other state. It supplies Russia with weapons, it is now linked to China, it is developing nuclear weapons and the brutality that we have seen meted out to those who are peacefully protesting—as their human rights would allow them to do here—is appalling. Can I urge my hon. Friend, in response, no longer to continue with the JCPOA, because it is giving Iran succour while it is still developing nuclear weapons?”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to make a statement on the role of the Chinese consul general, who it now appears took part in the assault of Bob Chan.”
“He should ignore what other people and officials might say about being careful of tit for tat, get to the Dispatch Box and simply say, “They will leave the United Kingdom. Anyone involved in that attack is not welcome, and the ambassador will be informed of that forthwith.””
“I now urge the Government to be much clearer than just using diplomatic language; I urge them to make it clear, in the light of this new evidence, that it is not just unacceptable that any consular individual should have taken part in anything like this, but that any consular individual who is proved to have been a perpetrator of this outrageous and violent attack on Mr Chan will immediately be made persona non grata and sent back to China. The Government have the diplomatic power to dismiss them. Whether or not there are criminal proceedings, the fact is we do not want them here in the UK and they must go. I urge my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box and show the resolution that is necessary to send that message to China.”
“Mr Chan gave a statement to the media for the first time yesterday. His wife and child were in the room, and it was a very moving statement. He spoke of how badly bruised and damaged he is, and how frightened he is. I thought it was very brave of him, because he now fears being targeted by the Chinese Communist party here in the United Kingdom. Overnight, we discovered that the consul general has admitted that not only did he take part in the attack but that he was responsible for, in his own words, pulling Mr Chan’s hair and tearing his scalp. That is the consul general, let alone the others who were there. I have worked with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and others in this House to help Hong Kong refugees, and I credit the Government for their work to get those with British national overseas passports over here.”
“Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question, which follows Tuesday’s urgent question secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). It is worth reminding the House of what happened in the Chinese consulate’s grounds on Sunday, where there was an appalling attack on a peaceful protester. We saw appalling videos of Bob Chan being dragged into the consulate’s grounds and seriously abused, and it now appears that the consul general played a part in that physical attack. Mr Chan is a Hong Kong refugee whom we have welcomed over here. I and others on both sides of the House are working together to help people get out of Hong Kong, and that community now feels very frightened by what the Chinese Government’s representatives are doing in the UK.”
“Can I therefore ask whether it is feasible for us to get the Minister back to the Dispatch Box to ask why they were not told that, if they do not follow our rules, they will get expelled, and to say that all those responsible for the assault in Manchester will be expelled from this country?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for catching your eye on this, and I seek your guidance. Yesterday, the Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories was, in a way, dragged to the House to answer a question about what the Government would do over the brutal attacks that took place inside a consulate in Manchester, in which Chinese representatives were assaulting an individual, and also tearing things down and creating vandalism outside. The Minister said that the officials would be called to the Foreign Office to meet a Minister of the Crown, instead of which we discover today that they met an official, who simply rapped them over the knuckles by saying they should stand by the freedoms we have in this country.”
“He said: “My head, face, arm, body and back are hurt—especially my back. It is very painful.” He said that he struggles at the moment even to sit down. That is happening on British soil. The Government has now got to step up and answer this simple question, asked earlier by my hon. Friend: has the Secretary of State not just called on the chargé d’affaires but hauled in the ambassador directly to see him? Will the Secretary of State now be prepared to expel the consul-general and any of those found to have been part of that punishment beating and vandalism? All I want is a simple, “Yes. If there is evidence, we will expel them.””
“First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on getting the urgent question. I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on pursuing it, quite rightly. I do not understand why the Government could not have put forward a statement today, even if that was to say what they have said today. I am afraid it really does show a little bit the Government dancing away from this in the hope that something else will turn up. We have spoken to the individual who was hauled in, and I want to mention a couple of points from the statement that he is giving the police. He confirms categorically that the guards at the gate hauled him in, tore his hands and his hair, and beat him. He said that at least four people were kicking him and, for one minute at least, tearing his hair.”
“The critical issue here is that all of the alliance must remain united on the idea that we have a plan, but it is for the Minister to judge whether we would ever use nuclear weapons, not for us to say whether we would, and the alliance would stay together.”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position. What has happened over the past few days is a war crime if ever there was a war crime, and I hope that the Government and the whole alliance will now commit to the pursuance of all those responsible for the deliberate targeting of civilian areas. There can be no respite and we should be sanctioning anybody we think has had anything to do with it. I agree that ambiguity is not the same as no plan. The purpose behind what Putin is doing now is to split the alliance—everything he does is to split the alliance. What he wants is for part of the alliance to get wobbly and worried about the potential use of nuclear weapons and to start calling for negotiations.”
“I think that the Government have somehow got themselves into a position of being conflicted over their stance on Iran. This terrible case—the murder of a young woman—calls into question all the actions of Iran, across a wide spectrum. We talk about the morality police, but it is not the morality police but the Iranian Government who have imposed this desperate situation on Iran. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will pursue full criminal actions against the appalling abuses that are taking place, and take this to the United Nations at once?”
“If I may pursue that a little further, we have always known that Russia sees what we used to call tactical nuclear weapons as war-fighting weapons rather than strategic ones. Although NATO has said it will not be bullied, in truth, NATO is not directly involved in this conflict. What does my right hon. Friend think might happen if Russia were to use one of those weapons as a way of deterring it? What does that do to the alliance’s position?”
“It is when we surprise them by trying to say that there is no threat, when there is a major threat, that it is critical. We should be honest about that. Finally, China is watching. China invaded the South China sea and not a single thing was done about it. It has militarised it and very little was done about it. It is brutal to its own people at home and we have done very little about it. I simply say that the rules and lessons that we learn from Ukraine should have been learned in the 1930s. If we appease dictators who are hellbent on invasion and destruction, we lose the freedoms that we fought for. That is what this is all about.”
“I intervened earlier about recognising that Russia sees tactical nuclear weapons as war-fighting weapons, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) also mentioned. That has always been part of Russia’s principal view. Instead of dancing around that sometimes and saying, “Well, we’re not going to be scared by rhetoric,” we should recognise that it is not rhetoric; they believe that to be the case. The question is whether they will decide to do it and whether the military will do it. Our answer to that must be to say, united, that if Putin ever does that, we will continue to bear down on him regardless and to give Ukraine the equipment and tools it deserves. If we are clear about that and about the possibilities, the public will be with us.”
“I would like to hear from the Government that we categorically believe that the only person who should ever be capable of talking about negotiation is Volodymyr Zelensky—not anyone in any country in the alliance, because all we do is help Putin. That is key to all that we do at the moment. To get through and make sure that we are stronger, all of us in the west, united, should surely talk to our public about the difficulties that they will face as a result of the war in Ukraine and of our need to support it despite those difficulties—the cost of living that we are trying to intervene on at the moment; the problems with energy costs and spikes; and the difficulties that they may see with higher food prices. We need to be honest with them. I say to the Minister that we need a second bit of honesty too.”
“There is some indication of politicians in the west feeding that. The other day, senior politicians in Italy were talking about why we should reduce the sanctions, because they were hurting us more than they were hurting him. As has been mentioned, there has also been talk in some other eastern European countries. He thinks it is working and he wants to double down. I will make one small criticism. In her remarks, the US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, still talked about getting to a point where there can be negotiation and a negotiated settlement. I think that is quite wrong, because any talk about negotiation feeds Putin’s view that he will split the alliance.”
“That freedom is not free; it comes at a huge price, and not only in the violence and the desperate depredations of the war brought about by the despot Putin. We need to readjust our thinking about defence spending to ensure we have the right equipment to support those who face something similar in future. This comes at a big price for us as we go into the winter months. As has been said, President Putin faces disaster, and yet his actions show that he still believes he has one card up his sleeve: the ability to split the alliance as we get towards winter. It is interesting that, even though India is moving away from Putin, China is indifferent, in a way, to where he is, and there was condemnation at the UN General Assembly the other day, he still thinks that if he puts the pressure on, the west will begin to break.”
“I recognise that others want to speak, and I will try to be as brief as possible. In a way, this debate is simple, because it is ultimately about the sovereignty, independence and self-determination of the Ukrainian people. All else is but a support to that simple position, and everything we do must be about securing that. Back in the 19th century, Gladstone made a very simple statement, which should underwrite all that we do on the matter. When he spoke about the attack of the then Turkish empire on Moldavia and Wallachia, he said that there was no greater bulwark for freedom than the breasts of free men and women. That is the truth of where we are today, and that is what we see happening in Ukraine—free men and women fighting in their homeland for the defence of their families and of that freedom that we take for granted.”
“Now, for that union of hearts, if the House will indulge me, I want to quote WH Auden with a few changes: “Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone, Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone, Silence the pianos and with muffled drums Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.” She was our North, our South, our East and West, Our working week and our Sunday rest, Our noon, our midnight, our talk, our song. We thought that love would last forever: we were wrong. May God bless her and keep her, and hold her in our hands, and may we bless the royal family. God save the King.”
“Churchill had read the verse out, and I started to speak it. As I did, she started speaking it as well. I just want to share it with the House: “sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate!” She said it perfectly. She then smiled slightly, and I detected a little dampness in her eye. Then she moved on. It suddenly struck me that that was exactly her. She was the ship of state. We looked to her for everything good, and in difficult times. She loved the Union with a passion, and she loved Scotland, I think, probably most of all. That is who she was—she was that ship of state, and somehow too often we took her for granted, but she never complained, and she always gave us service.”
“That was something to relish. The other anecdote I want to share with the House is slightly different. I was in a Privy Council meeting, and for some reason we were offered drinks at the end. It did not happen very often, so I took full advantage and ordered a whisky. The Queen came round to talk to us, and when she came to me, I, like everybody else, was as nervous as anything, but I stumbled through. Then I said, “I’ve just been reading some stuff about one of Churchill’s speeches”—I had suddenly recalled something he had said in 1941. President Roosevelt had sent a note over with the person he had just defeated in his third election, and Churchill said that, in it, he had written in his own hand a verse from Longfellow. Now, remember that in 1941 we did not know whether we would survive.”
“One was the two-bar electric fire, which had around it a very strange piece of cardboard in the shape of flames and coloured with yellow and red crayons—I suspect by somebody in the palace. It surrounded the fire, and I thought that was peculiarly dangerous; notwithstanding that, I am sure it had a purpose. The other thing was the Tupperware radio sitting next to her. I had not seen one since my parents smashed their last one. She very sweetly asked me how I was, being clearly sympathetic about what had happened. I just shrugged and said, “Well, Ma’am, nobody died and I’m still here,” whereupon she roared with laughter. The funny thing was that she then paused and looked at me, not sure whether I had actually made a joke. I laughed too, and then she laughed again—whether at me or with me, I could not figure out.”
“Finally, when she came down, I came to the realisation that, actually, it was not that the British public were angry that she was not there; it was that they needed her there to be able to show their own emotion, because she was the focus for all of that. When she came, everybody cheered and applauded—she was there, and they could now grieve properly, because she was the focus for that grief. Of course, we all have anecdotes. When I ceased being leader of the Conservative party—it happens quite a lot, so I think the Queen was pretty used to it—she kindly asked me to take leave of her officially. I thought that was pretty kind—nobody else wanted me to, so it was decent of her to do that. When I came to the palace, and I was ushered into her small personal sitting room, I was struck by two or three things.”
“I thought that that was a remarkable moment, when the country came back from where it was to recognise that duty and service. The other moment was when Diana, Princess of Wales, tragically died in that terrible car accident. Again, everybody gathered outside Buckingham Palace and demanded that the Queen should come. It got more and more shrill, with the newspapers banging on about how she had to come back. But there she was in Balmoral, trying to do what almost any grandmother would want to do—to put her arms around her grandchildren, comfort them and protect them from what she knew was going to descend upon them.”
“I remember particularly that period when two of her sons faced marriage break-ups that were widely reported in the newspapers and the media, with everybody speculating in public about all that was going on. I wonder how many in this House could ever have borne something like that—such a tragedy for their mother—in such a public domain. Then, to top it all, Windsor Castle burned down, a place she loved deeply and felt responsible for. In a way, nobody seemed to take her into consideration until, approaching a speech—with a cold, interestingly—she said that that year had been her annus horribilis. I think that the public stopped. We all paused and realised that we had forgotten that we actually owed her as much duty and service as she had shown us without complaint.”
“There is no question but that she learned that service and duty at the knees of her father as he overcame his own difficulties and put his country and their service first. That is something that is quite often forgotten. A couple of things come to mind. So often, we have taken Her Majesty for granted. We expect her to be there. In the same way, whenever anything good or bad happens in our country, the crowds gather at Buckingham Palace. Whether she was there or not, they gathered; it was almost as though they could touch the railings and draw from them some sort of succour, support or mystical help. There they were again, last night, in pouring rain outside Buckingham Palace. In all of that, we often forgot that she was also a human being with her own family issues and problems.”
“So much has already been said and I do not intend to repeat it much, but I do want to say that it is a sad day for all of us. It is tragic news, bringing to an end a remarkable career spanning 70 years, endless Prime Ministers and endless Leaders of the Opposition, too. For those 70 years, Her Majesty carried out her duties with charm, humility—not often mentioned, but real humility—and also endless humour. She was quite remarkable in a way. She learned that from someone whom we have not mentioned today, her father, who in his own way was someone who never expected to be the monarch and who suffered a very significant problem, a speech impediment, yet showed her that it was possible to rise above the challenge and to deliver one’s service to one’s country at an incredible time.”
“I ask him to commit the UK Government, at a minimum, to immediately doing all the sanctioning that the US Government have done. They have the evidence and we have the ability to do it. I simply ask that at the end of this debate he says, “Yes, we haven’t done enough, but now we are going to do all of it immediately.” If he can say that, then he will certainly please us, and he will send hope of freedom to many around the world.”