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 33 of 90.
“I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having tabled this new clause. It speaks of the decency of what we represent here in this House, and I support him in that. Does he agree that right now, many of the individuals he is referring to are desperately looking to us for some hope of freedom? We as this, the mother of all Parliaments, need to offer them the chance of that freedom.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing it. I have just discovered that the United States Government have finally decided on a diplomatic boycott of the winter Olympic games in China. As you will know, many Members on both sides of the House who are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China have called for the UK Government to do the same. It is a matter of distress and annoyance to us that my Government have failed so far to express a view on the issue. Has the Chair received any signal that the UK Government are likely to come to the House and say whether they—both Ministers and officials—will also boycott the winter Olympics? They should do it now.”
“It has now been published that, in a number of speeches back in 2014, President Xi drove his authorities to carry out the genocide that is going on in Xinjiang among the Uyghur. China is a country that has trashed an international treaty with the United Kingdom over Hong Kong and is arresting everybody who disagrees with it and persecuting them. What more does it take for my Government to make a clear decision that they will not attend the winter Olympics and will not allow officials to do so? The other day, the Leader of the House indicated that no tickets had been bought. That is not good enough. Can we now have a clear answer that we will not attend and neither will our officials?”
“As co-chair of the all-party Magnitsky sanctions group, I want to make sure that in the end, when the Government implement those, at the heart of it is an ability to stop people bringing money into our sport that actually degrades it and comes in very dangerous and dodgy circumstances.”
“I welcome the report from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She and I share a passion in that we are both season ticket holders at Tottenham—and you have to be passionate about football if you are a season ticket holder at Tottenham at the moment. Yes, absolutely, the part about the regulator and all the other bits and pieces in the report are important. I agree a little bit with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) with regard to the money. One of the areas that is really critical is that a successful league attracts money.”
“Given the outrageous information emerging from a Sheffield Hallam University study on the slave labour used in the mining of rare-earth materials that are used here in our solar array supply chains, and the Chinese Government’s terrible record on the Uyghur genocide, Tibetan slave labour, and the threats to Hong Kong and Taiwan, will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on whether this Government—any Government—should boycott the winter Olympics, which should never have been awarded to that despotic regime? May we have an urgent debate, please?”
“It is quite clear that this matter is not going to be ended at a stroke. The reality is that, even though we are no longer a part of the Dublin convention, the Dublin convention is completely broken. Across Europe, lots of countries are happy to see migrants travel across their country—as long as they do not stay—into somebody else’s jurisdiction. That has led to the problem we face now, with those electing to come to the UK ending up in France. Can the Home Secretary assure us today that she is putting the greatest pressure on the French Government to allow us to work with them in their territorial area, through patrol systems and ships, and/or members of the police or armed forces, to help them and support them? Does she agree that they should do that because it would help them as much as it would help us?”
“Will my hon. Friend look seriously in the White Paper at the abusive use by gambling companies of VIP rooms, through which companies deliberately target those who are gambling massively and losing massively to encourage them to gamble more and lose more? It is an immoral practice. Will he make certain in the White Paper that the Government will deal directly and immediately with this issue?”
“I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate. I will also take this opportunity to say exactly how brave Richard has been throughout this ordeal, on behalf of his whole family. He is here today. As I am a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions, I wonder whether the hon. Lady might ask the Government this question in due course: how is it that the United States, Australia, France and Germany have all now successfully negotiated the release of their citizens who were arbitrarily detained in Iran, yet we have made no progress? Perhaps she could challenge the Government on that.”
“I welcome the Minister to her place. If we look back over the past few months, even the past year or so, we see very much that the resistance early on by the UK Government with Huawei, when other Five Eyes countries were banning it, has led to a remarkable back-cost for replacing all this stuff because we failed to take an early decision. While the amendment may not be perfect, it indicates clearly a big weakness in the Government’s position, even in this very good Bill. If Five Eyes countries, which are our main allies in intelligence, spot there is a problem, we should pause, investigate the reasons why, and then come back to the House with the reasons why we disagree or agree. The amendment aims at doing that, so perhaps the Government should think about amending the Bill in such a way.”
“With respect, these are not specific partners; these are our closest allies when it comes to intelligence sharing. They do not get any closer than this. Working with them, as we do in sharing intelligence, means that using systems for sharing that intelligence would corrupt our own ability. I wonder whether the Minister could just slightly reset: these are not just partners.”
“Is the main point in all of this that this was not a market failure? Although an industrial strategy is important, in reality this is a national security failure. Huawei has undercut the market progressively for nearly 15 years through its subsidies, breaking every rule and driving every company out of business. The single biggest problem we face is having a proper functioning market that requires those involved in it to obey the rules. China does not, and everyone has paid lip service to that. Is that the real problem?”
“Other Five Eyes members had already said that this was not on, but we seemed to disregard their views. So I simply say that this is not about gilding the lily; it is about reminding the Government that they must abide by these provisions. I should also make the point that there are many other companies to which we should be giving real consideration right now, and which are being looked at and banned by the Five Eyes—such as Hikvision and ByteDance—and I urge the Government to think again about those as well.”
“Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I would not regard this as “gilding the lily”. I do not much like lilies and I think they could do with a bit of gilding, but I think that this is more a case of locked doors, and if the amendment is about putting an extra door into the security panoply, I think it is important. I will be brief, but last year, along with many others, I had very strong arguments with the Government about Huawei, and we were disregarded, disregarded, disregarded. The Government even led out all the great security experts who told them that they could control everything, saying, “Don’t worry, we can manage the risk”—until it finally became apparent to them that they could not. We faced that at the time.”
“Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) earlier was not an argument against any kind of strategic review or industrial policies; it was the argument that if a nation is in a sense rogue, in terms of its ability to stay within the market, and subsidises companies deliberately for strategic effect, that is why the number of companies will fall from 15 to three in the free world, which is what happened in this case. I think the amendment is about the need to recognise the fact that diversification, if not pursued deliberately, will lead us into the hands of a country like China, which then forces us eventually to have only one vendor on price, because that country has subsidised it. As for Lords amendment 5, I heard the argument of my right hon.”
“I will be brief, as much has been said already. However, I want to say a bit to my hon. Friend the Minister about Lords amendment 4. I also, by the way, want to recognise my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who is no longer a Minister but who was in charge of much of the Bill’s passage. I thought that he did an excellent job. It is a very good Bill which is long overdue, and there is much to praise in it. I think that Lords amendments 4 and 5 are worthy of a little more assessment. Lords amendment 4 does have merits, because it recognises that there is a real problem about diversification. The point that I was trying to make to the hon.”
“And now that thou art lying, my dear old Carian guest, A handful of grey ashes, long, long ago at rest, Still are thy pleasant voices, thy nightingales, awake”— that is the important thing, Mr Speaker: he will be with us forever.”
“The front page was all about David, and on it was written, “Like you. You bastard.” In fact, I did think he might have done it, because it was spelled “Barsted”. Even in that threat, I think there is a sense of irony. In conclusion, let me say that for David’s family, this is a tragedy, which this deranged, hateful and violent individual has brought to them, unwarranted and without cause. David taught us something very important that they can remember. He believed not in the power of position, but in the power of purpose. Mr Speaker, “They told me, Heraclitus, they told me you were dead, They brought me bitter news to hear and bitter tears to shed. I wept as I remember’d how often you and I Had tired the sun with talking and sent him down the sky.”
“I was struck when the media had finished talking about David and then said, “And he was a man with very strongly held beliefs,” as though that was an aside that they wanted to bury. We come here because we have strong beliefs, and we should be proud of that. We argue with each other because we are the point where people can see us debate these things, have power of emotion and be angry about them—this place is a cockpit of that—so that they do not have to do it outside, violently, elsewhere. I believe the point that David was making was that we need publicly to show each other the respect that those ideas are greatly held. We respect each other, but we do not dislike or hate each other. That is not for us, and it is not for that that he lost his life. I have been told that today, a document came through the door of my constituency office.”
“There was not an alliance that he could not form; even if there was not an issue on which he could form it, he would form it. [Laughter.] My point is that this is who we are. We are often, as Jo Cox said, more united by the things we believe in than necessarily divided. The fact is that we are in this place because we argue with each other about our ideas. The important feature of this place is that we may disagree with arguments, but we do not disrespect the motives of those who hold them. This is a lesson to us that we need to be careful here what we legitimise in what we say about our colleagues. They are not evil people. Nobody in this Chamber is an evil individual. They have strong beliefs.”
“[Laughter.] He did tell me directly afterwards that he had retired finally from a long time in government and thought that he would have more influence elsewhere; actually he spent a very short time in government, but that did not bother him in the slightest. On a more serious note, I want to say that David has shown us the way—the way of co-operation. Most Members in this place know that we get things done by co-operating across the Floor. Little is talked about that, Mr Speaker, as you know, but it is the embodiment of who we are in this place. We cannot get stuff done by ourselves, so we form alliances. Whether it is on modern-day slavery or, in my case, gambling harms, we go on, we form alliances and we eventually move things and get them done. David was the architect of that.”
“After I ceased being Leader of the Opposition— I have to say, with respect, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the current Leader of the Opposition that no matter how much he is enjoying it now, it really is not what it is cracked up to be— [Laughter.] I have to tell him that. [Interruption.] That is what I thought, too. I had to go and speak at an event for David, and he patted me on the shoulder and said, “Are you going all right?” I said, “Yes, fine,” and he got up and introduced me by saying, “I’m so pleased to have Iain Duncan Smith here; he has just slid down the greasy pole”—and then he carried on.”
“I put this to him, saying, “You are accused of going to the opening of an envelope,” and he said, “I damned well hope so, because I wrote it to them so I could go there in the first place.” When the Conservatives won Basildon Council—for the first time, I think—David was there. It was not enough for him just to be with the councillors when they went in; he formed a conga that took the whole of the newly elected council through the council buildings and into the chamber. His sense of humour was always there, preceded by that megawatt smile that he could turn on. For most of us in this Chamber, it is hard work sometimes being able to smile enough, but for David it was hard work not to smile, and he would smile even in some of the most difficult circumstances.”
“I am going to be, or at least intend to be, brief; after all, pretty much everything about David has been said, but that does not mean I cannot repeat it. I knew David for 29 years. When I first came into this place in 1992, he was outstandingly and unfailingly kind, conscientious and generous, even to new Members who had arrived here eight years after him. I remember that very clearly. Later on, when I got to know him better, I recalled that a constituent of mine had referred to David, when he represented Basildon, as somebody who would go to the opening of an envelope.”
“It is one that by its very nature reduces the overall cost, because the more we get people into work, the lower the overall cost of the money we put in.”
“I do feel it is necessary for us to re-examine the investment levels in UC. I recognise that the Government made the right decision at the beginning of the pandemic to invest in universal credit to ensure that those who were naturally going to be falling unemployed as a result of the problems that came from the pandemic would receive a higher level of support. When I resigned from the job that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now holds, I did so on the basis of two or three things. My No. 1 basis was that the Treasury took a significant sum—much the same as the uplift—out of universal credit. I always made the point very early on that when we put money into universal credit we are investing in a dynamic process.”
“It also changes the terms of the debate on the manifesto, because no manifesto could have predicted the kind of crisis we have just been through. We need to get a rational and stable debate about these things. It is important to recognise the huge amount we have done for pensioners since the arrival of the triple lock; increases for pensioners have been remarkable, and so many more pensioners have been lifted out of poverty. These are success stories the Government should be able to talk about and recognise that there has to be some flexibility, so I am not going to end up at odds with the Government on this—quite the contrary, as I recognise all that fully. However, I want to speak to the amendment that I tabled alongside the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green).”
“I am grateful to be called so early in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a huge admirer and supporter of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, as she knows. I have some personal views on this subject, which I will explain. I tabled my amendment because I felt we needed to debate what the right level of investment in universal credit is. I have to say from the beginning that I otherwise support the idea that the Government have to make changes to the triple lock. What goes missing in a lot of these debates is the fact that we have just suffered the biggest blow to the economy as a result of covid—I accept that fully. We debate these things without realising that, but I recognise it and it changes the terms of the debate.”
“Such a move will almost certainly be beneficial; this winter and into the spring, while we see the effects of the fall-out of moving from the furlough scheme and of the other difficulties on energy pricing and some food pricing, which is going to rise, it will protect those who are most vulnerable, while giving people an opportunity to work, with work being the very best way out of poverty. I am going to finish by simply saying that this is an important matter and I hope my right hon. Friend will take our amendment, which was not selected, as justification in her negotiations with the Treasury to secure a better investment in the taper.”
“Friend the Secretary of State, in her discussions with the Treasury on these matters, will make the point that it needs to make sure that those on universal credit are able to move through it faster and that therefore investment in the tapers would benefit both the Treasury and those who are seeking to get work, by making that pathway easier. That will complement what is being done for pensioners at the moment under the terms of ending of the triple lock for one year.”
“We know that the changes made to the triple lock will ensure that a saving is made to the Exchequer against what was unpredictable at the time and resulting from the increase in pay that will happen as a result of the easing of the covid restrictions and the bounce back that is taking place. I also recognise that one problem we have as a result is that those of working age are going to have to pick up a bigger burden, which is why the universal credit uplift should be reviewed, and reviewed very quickly. The point I simply make, in line with the idea that the pensioners are taking some of this burden, is about universal credit itself: if that money, or some of it, is moved towards the tapers, we will have a reality where more people move into work. I hope that my right hon.”
“In that case, I am going to make passing reference to it, and I will leave the Chair to decide whether or not that passing reference is more substantial. I shall pass through universal credit carefully and make full reference to the statement that has been made or the passing of this on Second Reading. I want to make a simple point, and I am not going to hold the House up for too long. The point of the amendment I tabled but which was not selected and the purpose of today’s debate is to ensure that those of working age who are receiving security, support and benefit from this Government get the right level of support.”
“Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that often in the briefings used there is a kind of mistake in that they talk about this as being an unemployment benefit? It is not, because it combines tax credits, so putting investment into this is more likely to get people through and into work than taking it out. That is the point I was going to make but was not able to.”
“May I, through the Minister, pass on my congratulations to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), on her appointment? In line with the whole issue of fraudulent adverts, there is also the big issue of the appalling behaviour of gambling companies and their advertising, which causes huge problems and addiction for many young people. May I, through the Minister, ask the new Secretary of State whether she would take a meeting with families bereaved as a result of gambling addiction?”
“It should have the powers that, say, the Treasury Committee has, to dig into where the regulators go and whether they are getting the balance of economic advantage right in those regulations. May I ask him and the Government to think again? They have got rid of one regulatory committee, but there is definitely the need for another here to provide trust in the way we regulate.”
“I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement. Our report was put together independently, taking full evidence from various areas of industry, services and so on. It represents their views about how best to resolve this issue. They include many who were strong remainers at the time of the debate, as well as those who voted for Brexit. There was no delineation. They all recognise where we are now and how we take advantage of it. I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to that and I thank my noble Friend Lord Frost for being so serious about implementation. One recommendation that I think is vital, and which the Bank of England was very clear it would like to see to help it in its heavy lifting, is to have a committee in the House that reports back on regulation/deregulation to follow up on all this.”
“It will lead to disputes in families and real problems about children’s mental health in the opposite direction, as they are put under pressure. I wonder whether he and the Government will think again about this. Without serious, clear guidance, it will lead to children being in a worse state than they would have been without the vaccine.”
“I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, but I want to return to the issue of where the children will make this decision. The reality is that we have parents taking responsibility for their children, and at the end of the day we say we are going to ask them whether or not they give consent for their child on this matter. However, where there is a dispute, we say that the school will decide whether or not that child has the capacity to make that decision. This is the point: the pressure will grow on the child. There is no way of legislating for this greater good concept that says, “The school may be in trouble, and your class may be in deep difficulty, if you do not take the vaccine.” I simply say to my hon. Friend that this is a real problem for us.”
“The representative of the Government who have sanctioned us, trolled us, broken some of our email accounts and taken our characters around the world is coming to Parliament next week, and I think that is unfathomable.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to colleagues for this brief intervention, but I have heard that the all-party parliamentary China group has invited the ambassador of China on to the estate next week. As one of many in this place who has been sanctioned by the Chinese Government, I find that reprehensible, because Mr Speaker himself condemned the sanctioning of Members of Parliament here in very strict terms. I have notified the chair of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), as well as the vice-chair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who I see in his place. I wonder if you would give your view, Mr Deputy Speaker, about whether such a visit should happen.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Has he noticed that the Chinese Government, since our departure from Afghanistan, have used Afghanistan to up their threats to Taiwan, with hundreds of overflights threatening the Taiwanese and telling them that, when the war comes, the US will not be there to support them? Could my right hon. Friend take this opportunity, from the Dispatch Box, to say to the Taiwanese and others that we fully support their right to democracy and self-determination and we will be there to support them no matter what the Chinese say, and could we persuade the Americans to do the same?”
“May I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to the statement that the President of the United States made the other day? Does he not agree that that took on the terms of a sort of shameful excuse? Given that the President had blamed the Afghan armed forces, who have lost nearly 70,000 troops in trying to defend Afghanistan, and given that corruption had stripped away much of the pay, money and support of those forces, the American decision to withdraw aircraft cover was almost certainly going to lead us to this situation. Does he not think that that is shameful?”
“The US non-partisan Afghanistan study group came forward and said that over the past 18 months the US had suffered no casualties at all. It had withdrawn directly from the frontline, and the same for the UK. We were giving support, help and aid to those on the frontline, including the 70,000 members of the Afghan forces who died and of whom we should be incredibly proud today.”
“The visions on television sets the other day were very much redolent of 1975. No matter what Secretary of State Blinken said, the parallels with the Americans’ departure from Saigon were shocking, but also very true. My point is that the way we withdraw matters almost as much as the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan—I will return to that in a moment. The chaotic, ghastly departure, the way that people were falling off aircraft in their determination to get away, and the helicopters shipping people out, say terrible things about the values that we hold and those we wish to protect. This is a shame on all of us, not just America but also the whole of NATO, and here for us in this House. We know that US support for the military in Afghanistan had evaporated and there was pressure to leave, but there was a better way.”
“It could have kept a number of forces there at a much lower cost, supporting those on the frontline, and we could have supported it in doing that. I ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, did we at any stage demand that the US Government review their decision? Did we say to them that this was wrong, or that we must find a way to support what we have started in Afghanistan? I am proud of what our troops achieved and I know they will feel deserted at this point. I did not serve in Afghanistan, but I served in Northern Ireland and I know what the feeling is. However, I say that today those who died rise in glory because they gave something to the Afghans—hope. We must find a way of ensuring that it is not dashed.”
“There is no doubt that that is an infamous statement to make. Those men and women lost their lives trying to uphold what we had brought to Afghanistan, and we should be proud of them. I say to the American President—the Government and even the Opposition leadership are perhaps reluctant to say this—that he has no right to use excuses and base them on people who have lost their lives, and done so bravely. The withdrawal of air support was critical at that moment. The moment that that went, the Taliban got a green light and knew they were going to go in and that the Afghan forces could not be supported. That was a critical decision. It was done in a hurry, and it was wrong. As I said earlier, the Afghanistan study group said that there was no need for this precipitate departure by America.”
“Yes, there are costs and there is a better way in Afghanistan, but in the chaotic rush and despicable retreat from Kabul, we have heartened and emboldened those who would bring democracy down. When pressed about the matter, President Reagan said: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction… It has to be fought for”. I hope the US listens to that quote. We in this House take liberties for granted. We must speak out. America must come back and we must send a signal immediately that we will not give way, that the totalitarian states of China and Russia cannot win in the end and that Islamic extremism cannot find a bolthole. Yes, we want to say that the Taliban must step up, but what will we do about it? We must put means behind words. The House must make that happen.”
“I criticised America for what has happened, but I also know that they are our greatest and best allies, and the best hope of freedom. We need to bring them back. The British Government’s job is to bring the Americans back to realise their commitment. All those years ago, John Kennedy said: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” That should enshrine our purpose. Democracy and human rights are delicate flowers. They are not the natural state of being unless they are defended, and we must defend them wherever they are.”
“Let me read what the Global Times, the mouthpiece of the Chinese Government, said yesterday about Taiwan: “From what happened in Afghanistan, those in Taiwan should perceive that once a war breaks out in the Straits, the island’s defense will collapse in hours and US military won’t come to help.” That will have gone out according to President Xi’s directive. The Chinese know what they are dealing with. They now believe that we will not stand up for freedom and democracy. We have encouraged totalitarian and terrible, oppressive states to believe that we are in full retreat. After Saigon, America left the global stage for a decade and there were terrible consequences, including those in Iran. We cannot allow that to happen again.”
“We do. The problem is that we and the Americans have pulled out. We now have to find a way to support people. Those who need to come here must come, the doors must be open and we must do what we have to do. The west, upholding democracy, the rule of law and human rights, is in retreat. We have now opened the door to the Chinese and the Russians, who by the way kept their embassies open, fully staffed, throughout the whole of this, with permission from the Taliban. The Chinese have recognised the Taliban and we see the Chinese Foreign Minister meeting them. What are we dealing with here?”