Sir Iain Duncan Smith

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

The complete record

5,369 held · 4,458 searchable for Sir Iain Duncan Smith. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.

This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.

1. “Our partnership was further underlined in November 2023 when His Majesty King Charles III welcomed President Yoon and the First Lady of the Republic of Korea for a state visit to the United Kingdom, celebrating 140 years of diplomatic relations. During that visit, both nations reaffirmed their collaboration in diplomacy, trade, vehicles, military co-operation and artificial intelligence. We must continue to strengthen those economic and strategic partnerships with South Korea, Japan, India, the United States and other democratic allies to ensure that our prosperity and freedoms, which we too often take for granted, are not undermined by the rising threat from the authoritarian states that I have listed: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, to name but the key ones. What of the north?”

   House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

2. “In June 2019, the world watched as President Trump shook hands with Kim Jong Un and took 20 steps into North Korea, becoming the first sitting US President to set foot in the hermit kingdom. Just a single line of concrete blocks in a heavily militarised zone separates two nations and millions of lives—a division between freedom and tyranny. That must serve as a warning, especially in light of the war in Ukraine, that we must all do what we can to ensure that history does not see another divided Korea. In the south, a democratic and prosperous nation has arisen, which is now the world’s 13th largest economy it is one of our most important allies and friends, with which we fought shoulder to shoulder during the Korean war.”

   House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

3. “My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a shocking concept. A state like that is run for the purposes of the leader, their military chiefs and nobody else. I will come back to some of those figures. It is worth reminding ourselves that poor Lord Alton, the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, is languishing in hospital with a broken back as a result of an accident. I am sure that otherwise he would be watching this debate. We send him our best wishes. Since the uneasy armistice in 1953, the Korean peninsula has stood as one of the world’s most volatile and divided regions. It is a grey zone between two vastly different states.”

   House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

4. “We are not only commemorating the 75th anniversary; we will have to relive it and remind ourselves that there is nothing more expensive than freedom. It is not free.”

   House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

5. “It engages in transnational repression of human rights activists and illicit arms smuggling, and it continues to pour vast resources into weapons of mass destruction. Only a few weeks ago, we saw the leaders of the axis of authoritarian states gathered in Beijing, arm in arm with President Xi, claiming that they would be the new world order. If people did not freeze at that sight, understanding that it is a genuine challenge, then on the 75th anniversary of the Korean war we should remind ourselves of the sacrifice of the brave British, American and other United Nations troops who stood up in the face of tyranny and managed to secure freedom—if not all of it, at least enough to give hope to those who live outside it.”

   House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

6. “My worry today is that we might look at China and Korea and say, “These are far and distant countries now, and therefore we have to look after only ourselves.” That would be a sad and shabby day for this country. I appreciate the comments by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but our commitment to freedom is a global commitment. At this year’s UN General Assembly, the DPRK regime spoke of “human dignity and prosperity” and claimed that it was committed to international peace and security, yet the same regime continues to conduct intercontinental ballistic missile tests—it has launched eight short and medium-range ballistic missiles this year alone—while carrying out large-scale cyber-attacks, including the recent theft of $1.5 billion in cryptocurrency.”

   House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

7. “We have been sanctioned because we believe that unless the west stands up now to the growth of the totalitarian states—Russia, North Korea, Iran and China—we will face the loss of the freedoms that we profoundly believe necessary for democracy to flourish and for people’s rights and liberties to be upheld. This is not just a debate about Korea, north or south; it is a debate about our ability, capability and determination to recognise threats and never give in to them, wherever they lie. If there is one thing that the British Government and the British people should be proud of, it is our unrivalled sense of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, which we have always stood up to uphold.”

   House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

8. “I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is right to ask that question. We should apply ourselves to everything that is needed to ensure the freedom of South Korea, its Government and its people. We did it once; we should be prepared to do it again. It is worth noting that Korea now sits next to one of the growing threats, on a scale of power and potency that we have not seen since the cold war; that is, of course, China. Its ambitions in the area are to dominate all these spheres from Taiwan to Korea. I have been campaigning on the subject, as have many other Members in this Chamber. Some of us are sanctioned; others not yet.”

   House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

9. “While we watch the despotism of North Korea carry on unabated, what do we say to those British troops and others of the United Nations force—the Glosters and the other brave men who died? What do we say to those who did not come home? Was it all in vain? The answer is no. For them and their spirit, all I will say is “Southward, look, the land is free.” Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the 75th commemoration of the Korean War.”

   House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

10. “Ordinary men—some who had fought in world war two, others who were young and inexperienced—fought for a concept of freedom, esoteric in some senses perhaps. As Gladstone once said, during the dispute over Moldavia and Wallachia in the late 19th century, there is no greater bulwark against tyranny than the breasts of free men and women. He was right, for that concept has made South Korea prosperous and democratic, giving its people the right to live in freedom—a right that their families and colleagues in the north do not have. It is surely for us to recognise and pick up that torch of freedom, and stand today with those around the world who yearn for freedom, not least those in North Korea. I finish with this thought.”

    House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

11. “This has been a remarkable debate, Mr Twigg. We have demonstrated the best of politics in Westminster, as we can when we choose to. We have come together to commemorate and celebrate the actions of our forebears and the results in the present. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part, because they all brought something unique and special. Some spoke for those honoured in their constituencies who never came home. Others, such as myself, honour the memory of the sacrifice that our forebears made, its purposes and reasons. We recognise and commemorate today the fact that 75 years ago British troops fought for Korean freedom, in a country and for a people far, far away, about which many if not all those troops knew next to nothing.”

    House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

12. “As has been mentioned, the spokesman for the Prime Minister, when asked whether China was a threat, referred to the DNSA’s statement, which said that China conducts “large scale espionage operations” that “threaten the UK’s economic prosperity and resilience, and the integrity of our democratic institutions”. By anyone’s definition, that would mean that China is a threat. I am a sanctioned Member of this Parliament. That is what this is all about: I have been spied upon, and I have had a wolf warrior from China follow me around the world and impersonate me very threateningly. Does the Minister think that I ought to refer to China as a threat?”

    House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

13. “I commend the right hon. Lady for her statement, which covered everything precisely. I disagree with one or two of those who have come out against her on this matter. I simply say this: when the partial assessment was done, everybody centred on what happened in Amsterdam, but when they played a game in Istanbul there was no trouble at all. It is a bit partial to choose one bit of evidence over the other. I simply say that with the rise of antisemitism now in the UK, the right hon. Lady is making the right decision to protect those people.”

    House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

14. “I just want to re-emphasise the point that my hon. Friend is making about the growth of the threat. Is he aware that China today has 130 times the capability to build naval ships that America does? One shipyard in China in this last year has built more naval ships than the whole of the United States. We talk about the threat to the South China sea. It is done.”

    House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

15. “On the argument about the money, which comes up throughout all this and which we had in the last debate, the Government have used a dodgy system to calculate it. It is called the GDP deflator. Their own actuarial department has dismissed that completely because, of course, it is all about a forecast of where social issues will go on an island that will never have anything to do with us after all this, so we have no idea how to predict it. Finally, clause 5 makes this whole debate meaningless, because the Government can change anything they like whenever they wish to, so what the heck are we doing debating this even now?”

    House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

16. “As I was in government at the time, I can answer the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane): the golden decade proposed by the then Chancellor, with whom I did not get on very well, was a disaster. If anything should have been learned by that, his Government should have learned that when you sup with the Chinese, you better have a very long spoon, because they suck you in. We got nothing out of those 10 years, and now look at us.”

    House of Commons20 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

17. “Why we have not done that up until now is a complete mystery to me. That is surely something we should get on with straightaway, because we can act on it immediately.”

    House of Commons15 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

18. “I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, and we have encouraged the last Government and the present Government to be much more aggressive about their sanctions regime. When we look at the number of people who have been sanctioned, it does not compare to what the United States and many others have done. First, it is long overdue that the whole business of the money from the Chelsea sale was settled; it beggars belief that we have not managed to get that one done. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—the ex-Prime Minister, rather; some of us live in hope. The shadow fleets could easily be attacked by sanctioning British marine insurers who have insured those ships. Without that insurance, they will not be put to sea because they will have no financial backing for it.”

    House of Commons15 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

19. “The note we have here talks about protection from repeated investigations “unless there are compelling reasons to do so”. My concern with things like that is that they are little hooks that allow development through legislation, instead of being powerful tools to do what the Secretary of State says. I therefore urge him right now to be very clear when this legislation comes forward that this cannot be broken through and to tie down the definition of “compelling”.”

    House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

20. “Obviously the devil lies in the detail in these things, and never more so than in Northern Ireland. Before the Bill comes eventually before us, we really cannot say for certain whether it is good, bad or indifferent, as is often the case. I will raise two points. First, I will mention the agreement—I find it a little wishy-washy—over Ireland’s role in all this, which, as has been said by my hon. Friends, has a huge amount of history attached to it, given that Ireland has previously refused to hand over people who really were guilty of the most vexatious, disgusting attacks on civilians and soldiers. It does seem to me rather peculiar. We will wait and see what that actually means. Ireland says it is committed—I would love to see what that commitment actually means. Secondly, I will mention vexatious prosecutions.”

    House of Commons14 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

21. “Instead, are we meant to believe that the deputy National Security Adviser was allowed to involve themselves in substantial matters of national security in this case, but apparently not to discuss these substantial matters of national security with the National Security Adviser? This seems to me to be a matter of substantial absurdity.”

    House of Commons13 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

22. “As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, the 2021 and 2023 integrated reviews were very clear. All the officials and security services said that China was a significant threat. That was sufficient not only for Ministers but for officials to give to the CPS. The question is why they did not. The question I really want to ask is about the absurdity of the role, or lack of role, of the National Security Adviser. The Government say that he was not involved in any matters of substance, but is it not the role of the National Security Adviser to be involved in all matters of substance when it comes to national security? What is the point of a National Security Adviser who does not involve themselves in matters of national security, as in this case?”

    House of Commons13 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

23. “My right hon. Friend has mentioned the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. In case the House thinks it is a Conservative organisation, can I explain that it has Members of Parliament from all parties in this House, that 53 countries are involved and that it has co-chairs from both the left and the right? It is wholly above party politics, but is all about the threat from China.”

    House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

24. “Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter what happened or did not happen, a Prime Minister—a leader—has to shoulder the responsibility? It is absolutely appalling that they would then blame the staff around them. It is their responsibility, and they answer to the House—no excuse.”

    House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

25. “My right hon. Friend is making an important contribution. Does he not agree that although there is a tendency to say that it is about what we can do in the future, this debate is about what has gone wrong in the past, about the Government’s role in it, and about the Prime Minister shouldering responsibility and taking us through what he knew?”

    House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

26. “The point keeps being raised about the three-week gap that is coming, but the reality is that key Select Committees can continue to investigate this issue through the recess, which they should, and could call the Prime Minister to give evidence, so that we do not wait three weeks, with the Government hoping that it dies. That is the key.”

    House of Commons16 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

27. “It is absolutely key, furthermore, that until we define China as what it is—a persistent threat that targets individuals, like me and others, and states—this will be a shame and a blot on our reputation as a strong state against terrorism.”

    House of Commons15 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

28. “It cannot, therefore, be for a lack of evidence that this has been dropped by the CPS. The key here was the whole idea of the Official Secrets Act defining that work as against an enemy—that is the key. So why in heaven’s name did the Government not take the opportunity, when it arose after the China audit, to raise China into the upper tier, as they did with Russia, North Korea and Iran? The Minister speaks of threats, but he does not say that China is a threat; he says it is a “challenge”, which is a ludicrous position to take. I honestly feel today that this Government have let you down, Mr Speaker—the Speaker of this Parliament—after you bravely stood for people like me to protect us against the overtures of the Chinese. They have let down Parliament. Nobody knows now whether they are safe, because these charges have been dropped.”

    House of Commons15 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

29. “I make the following comments as somebody who has been sanctioned and hounded by the Chinese Government all the way through the past few years. I was briefed by the security services at the beginning that this was a slam-dunk prosecution—they were clear that they had met every single requirement within the Official Secrets Act. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said earlier, the deputy national security adviser was very clear in his assessment of the information communicated by the two characters who were being prosecuted that at least 10 of the 34 charges that were laid were absolutely about passing secure information to the Chinese intelligence agency that would be “directly or indirectly, useful” to the Chinese state. That is very clear.”

    House of Commons15 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

30. “Also, European nations must be told that they cannot buy any more oil or gas that has been run through India or wherever. That has to stop. We have to make that work. And we have to make sure that, at the end of it all, Russia pays a penalty right now and understands that. Will the British Government please take the opportunity, when the US President comes over, to say, “Enough is enough. Please act and get this thing done”?”

    House of Commons10 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

31. “I commend the hon. Gentleman’s statement on our support for Poland. Of course we have to support Poland; it is quite right that we should do so. May I return the hon. Gentleman to the main issue here, which is Russia’s intense bombing attacks on Ukraine? I recently came back from Ukraine. Every night in Kyiv, Lviv and other towns, people are being killed by this brute. This is just an example of what is going on across the border on a greater scale. This question remains for us. Have the Government really made overtures to the US President to say that the time is over for constant statements that say that we may do something, we will do something and we will have sanctions? Surely, we now have to get the US to massively up the level of sanctions. That is what Russia fears.”

    House of Commons10 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

32. “Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) did, that this does not work, it must stop, and the Government must think again.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

33. “I congratulate the Minister on his new position May I get one little moment of agreement here? The Government say they abide by the law. Given the opt-out that we had, the original judgment was specifically not found in law, because we did not allow the ICJ to rule on Commonwealth issues. The question is a matter of law, so if the Minister is suggesting to the House that other actions would have taken place, they would have been unlawful. In what world was it necessary to block off those by assuming that this was law? It was not lawful.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

34. “I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Just to settle this whole argument about net present value, the reason it simply cannot be used for a long-term treaty obligation is that it is necessary to make a really heavy estimation of what will happen socially and economically in that area. It is just about possible to use some of that in the UK, where the Government control certain aspects, which they will not control after this treaty is signed. That is why it has been recommended that it not be used for long-term effects when not within the UK. That is why the actuarial department advised going for the total amount, not this net present value.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

35. “Before my right hon. and learned Friend moves on to the spectrum, may I bring him back to UNCLOS? As I understand it, article 298(1)(a) and (b) give us specific exemptions from UNCLOS judgments across all those areas. That is relevant to the UK in “disputes concerning military activities…by government vessels and aircraft…in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities” in those areas. On that, the Government’s argument on UNCLOS falls, surely.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

36. “The Government is relying on the cost-benefit analysis used for social projects. There is particular concern about long-term projects, and a real dispute about whether such a method can predict precisely, or even reasonably well, the overall cost in the long term. There is a lot of concern about whether that is the right way to go. Add to that the fact that the Government are trying to predict what will happen in Mauritius, under the Mauritian Government, over the next many years. This is a 99-year deal, and there is no way on earth that we have any control.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

37. “On the money, I have never seen a Government as unable or unwilling to tell us exactly how much things cost or are worth. They are normally quick to do so, and to blame the other side, or whatever—it does not really matter. Everybody has been chasing the Government for that information, and now we discover that they have gerrymandered the figures for the overall statement. The total cost is nearly £35 billion, and we need to deal with total cost. Let me remind the Government of the problem with what they call the GDP deflator and the so-called social time discounting method. The Government Actuary’s Department has dismissed that as a real way of calculating cost for this kind of issue, and it has re-emphasised the fact that understanding the total cost is the only way to look at a long-term treaty.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

38. “That was an advisory judgment, because the Court cannot make an absolute judgment on anything to do with our relationships with the Commonwealth, either existing or previous; that is an important point. We keep coming back to this check on what would happen. The idea that everybody will dispute with us on that is simply nonsense. From a legal perspective, I think the Government have come unstuck in this debate. I have sat through many debates in this House, and it is rare that a Government completely come unstuck on a case of legalities. The second bit that the Government have come unstuck on is the money. On the legal side, they will not tell us exactly what the situation is. There have been hints, proposals and suggestions that somehow we were in a desperate situation.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

39. “and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, within UNCLOS, clear for all to see, is a complete let-out for the UK Government when it comes to the case that they suggest would be brought against them under UNCLOS. The threat simply does not exist. I repeat that there are two exemptions, under article 298(1)(b) and 298(1)(c). The first has the UK opted out of “disputes concerning military activities…by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities”. The same applies under 298(1)(c) in relation to matters taken up by the UN Security Council. The important point is that the threat does not need to be recognised, because ultimately this comes back to the original International Court of Justice ruling.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

40. “There were little suggestions here and there that a judgment would lead to certain things. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam has been absolutely right on that. Today, I thought that the door slightly opened. I have known the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for a long time, and his name is a good description of his solidity and purposefulness. The Minister who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), made the point that the legal threat was to do with UNCLOS. I was intrigued by that, because, as I just said to my right hon.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

41. “I know that they are very fearful of this deal as it stands. My other point is that this arrangement is vague about what happens after 99 years. We are supposed to guess, or believe that we can trust Governments to make the right decisions. The statement on the rights of the Chagossians is completely missing a sense of where they will be, what they want and how we will bring that about. I pay tribute to the Member who made a good intervention on that point. Let me quickly deal with the legal case, and then I will discuss the cost, and China and Russia. The Government have been peppered with requests non-stop since this process began to explain the legal threat that meant that we would be in real trouble if we did not seal a deal—any deal. Right the way along, they would not exactly explain.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

42. “Just to make a small comment on the previous speech, I have been here a little while, and I have never once stopped regretting taking a Government handout to speak in support of the Government, because more often than not, it rebounded on me. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and many others have made clear, there are two elements to this issue. Before I start on that, I want to say something about the Chagossians. They are the last people to have been seriously consulted about any of this. The way that we behaved to them back in the 1960s was appalling. It should never have happened, and there was no need for it to have happened. They should have been able to stay on the archipelago, and we should have supported them in that. They must be a part of this.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

43. “China has its eyes on the very important flow of commercial traffic that runs just below the Chagos islands, which it has always wanted to be able to block, control or interfere with. The Chinese already have a naval base in Sri Lanka, which they got by default on the back of the belt and road initiative, due to non-payment. For a long time, they have been looking at how, under their arrangements with Mauritius, they will eventually be able to intervene. They are two or three steps further forward as a result of this Bill. It does not secure us against that absolutely, because we gave up absolute security and control when we decided to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

44. “I can remember the Maastricht debates, and various others in which we spent a long time debating clauses on the Floor of the House. That was the right thing to do, because such issues are important. International treaties are vital to our wellbeing, and the Bill simply does not work. The last thing I want to say is on China. I would say this, because I am sanctioned by China, as are some of my hon. Friends. I suspect that others will be sanctioned as well in due course. If they carry on working with me in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, they are bound to be sanctioned, and I look forward to their joining us at that table. There is no way on earth that China does not benefit from this Bill.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

45. “Absolutely everything can be changed by Orders in Council, with no vote and no dispute. If the Government decide to go in a different direction, they do not have to consult Parliament any more. The sweeping powers in the Bill are ridiculous. When the Minister was in opposition, he used to spend his whole time moaning—quite rightly—about Governments who give themselves such powers. Even by the standards of previous Governments, this Bill is pretty astonishing. It is a massive sweep. This is not really democracy any more; it is monocracy. In other words, we have given up debate and dispute, and we have handed things over to one person—the Prime Minister. I say to the Government that the Bill is appalling, and they really need to rethink it. We simply cannot go through with something as appalling as this.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

46. “I come to the third element. As I said earlier, we have had no real vote or debate on the treaty, as opposed to the Bill. The old CRaG system has been rushed through, without a vote. I have to tell the Minister, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, that that is simply appalling, given that we are dealing with something as strategically important as this treaty. Clause 5 of the Bill, which is a very flimsy document, is entitled “Further provision: Orders in Council”. Anybody who reads that will have a sudden intake of breath. The whole point of this Bill is negated by clause 5. What is the point of debating the rest of the Bill, given that clause 5 says that at any stage, and under any circumstances, the Government can change it all by Orders in Council?”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

47. “That is exactly the point. There are serious concerns about the uncertainties surrounding future growth and societal wellbeing. If there are such concerns when it comes to UK predictions about the UK, imagine how difficult it is to predict what will happen in Mauritius, so this should be dismissed. It is interesting that after not answering the question for so long, suddenly the Government have popped up with a new device. They say that if we do not accept the figures, we are completely dismissing the Green Book, but the overall cost is not a Green Book issue, because this is about paying somebody money outside the UK, not about controlling cost. That is why the Green Book has never been used for this purpose before, and never will. I simply say to the Government that the money side of this has fallen apart again.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

48. “In conclusion, I honestly think that the Government need to pause this, go back to the drawing board, and say, “We got it wrong”, but I say this in answer to the endless briefing they have given Labour Members on what the Conservative party did about the Chagos islands in government. I have reached the conclusion that no matter who is in power, I am in opposition, so I can categorically tell the House that, whatever else happened, this was quite rightly ended by Lord Cameron when he became Foreign Secretary. Some of us made it very clear that this should not have gone ahead for many of the reasons that I have laid out. I end by saying to the Minister that it is no good coming back later and saying, “I wish we hadn’t done this.” Now is the time to stand up and say, as the hon.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

49. “The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Chinese Government have a long-term plan. In fact, they are very clear about what they wish to do. If anybody does not think that China poses a threat on all these issues, what were they doing last week when, on our television screens, we saw President Xi, with the North Korean dictator on one side and the Russian dictator on the other, talking about a new world order? That continues to be the Chinese Government’s purpose. They should have been taken into the upper tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Why are they not there? My suspicion is that this was not done because it might well have ended the whole negotiation on the Chagos islands, as there would have been huge interventions, and we could not possibly have done aught else but stop the negotiation.”

    House of Commons9 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

50. “Fight for the souls and the hearts of those who honour freedom. Do not betray them with shabby deals, as we did in 1938, when we sold land of those we had no right to. The third bit, which I will finish on, is very simple: “Si vis pacem, para bellum”—“If you would have peace, prepare for war”—because if we are unready, you can bet that the others will not be. What is it that our fighter pilots taught us, those brave men who went on to fight through the rest of the war like my father and others? They said: “Never again find yourself in a situation where you have to put young men and women under fire because politicians failed to recognise what they had to do early on.””

    House of Commons2 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →