Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn
Indeed, my hon. Friend is right. There is an established convention, and I fear that the Government were trying to breach that convention with their actions yesterday. I welcome the parliamentary convention that has developed since the Iraq war, whereby the Government are expected to seek the approval of the House before they commit forces to action.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Duncan Smith
It is. Following the intervention by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), I wish to clarify the difference between this most recent operation and what happened in 2013—
Mr Speaker
First, the right hon. Gentleman should sit down when I am on my feet. Secondly, in deference to his very great seniority, I will hear him if it is a short sentence.
Mr Duncan Smith
In 2013, America and Britain had not gone to the UN and were planning to; with this most recent operation, we had been to the UN and it had been vetoed.
Mr Speaker
It is an extremely interesting debating point but, if I put it very politely, as a point of order I am afraid it would be, in old-fashioned O-level terms, an unclassified.
The Prime Minister
I will make just a little more progress.
As the exception makes clear, there are also situations when coming to Parliament in advance would undermine the security of our operations or constrain our armed forces’ ability to act quickly and decisively. In these situations, it is right for the Prime Minister to take the decision and then to be held accountable to Parliament for it. I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith).
Mr Duncan Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend; I know she wishes to make progress. I was struck by the intervention by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) on his leader when he asked the very specific question about whether, under the motion, any change in embedded forces, for example, would deliver the necessity of a parliamentary vote. May I connect that with the question raised about legislation, because surely it would be the case that had the Government decided not to have a vote, an injunction would almost immediately follow under that legislation, thereby absolutely puncturing a hole through Government action when that was necessary and leaving complete confusion for us and our allies?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In this area in particular, clarity of decision is crucial. It is crucial not just for Government, but for our armed forces personnel, as we are asking them to put their lives on the line for us.
Syria
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues.
I recognise that the issue of refugees, particularly child refugees, has been of concern to Members across this House for some time, and has been raised in this Chamber on a number of occasions. We took the decision that we could help and support more children and more refugees in general—men and women, as well as children —by acting in the region, and, as I have said, we have become the second biggest bilateral donor to the region. But we also took the decision that there were a number of refugees who were particularly vulnerable and who perhaps required particular medical support, and that it was right to bring them to the United Kingdom under our commitment to the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which we have been putting in place and continue to put in place. We are operating a number of other schemes to bring refugees—children in particular—here to the United Kingdom, but we continue to ensure that we are supporting the greatest possible number of refugees by acting in region, and that continues to be what we should be doing.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the issue of Parliament. I am sure he would recognise that it is always necessary for the Government to be able to act when decisions need to be taken, but to ensure that if a decision is taken that has not been discussed by Parliament, an opportunity for Parliament to discuss it and ask questions on it should be given at the first opportunity. That is exactly what we have done in this particular circumstance. We have also been as open as possible in terms of publishing the legal basis on which we have taken this decision, making information available to a number of parliamentarians on a Privy Council basis, and trying to ensure that we provide the maximum possible briefing, commensurate with the fact that some of the intelligence on which we are operating cannot be shared with Parliament. We will be as open as possible with this Parliament and, as I have said, I will continue to answer questions from this Parliament on this issue.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Given my right hon. Friend’s narrow target of stopping the Syrians using chemical weapons further and given the need to take swift action, I commend her for taking that action, notwithstanding the fact that others have criticised her for not coming to Parliament. Coming to Parliament is a must, and the Prime Minister has done that today and will do it later on as well. I also want to raise the issue that the Russians and the Syrians are blocking the OPCW from going into the target area, and I understand that a lot of clean-up and change is happening while that block is in place. I therefore have a simple question for my right hon. Friend: given the confusion among some about who is the greatest threat to world peace, does she think it is Russia or America?
The Prime Minister
I think that people are seeing the actions that Russia has taken in support of the Syrian regime. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, efforts are being made in Syria to ensure that it is not possible for OPCW inspectors to go in to ascertain the truth about what happened in Douma. We took a decision, and we made an assessment, together with our allies. The three parties that took part in the strikes agreed that all the evidence we had seen—from open-source reporting, and from the reporting of non-governmental organisations and the World Health Organisation—suggested that this was a chemical weapons attack. As I have indicated, a number of pieces of information and intelligence showed that it was highly likely that that was undertaken by the Syrian regime.
My right hon. Friend is right that more could have been done by the OPCW if Russia had not vetoed the resolution in the United Nations Security Council, and it would be possible to make greater efforts on the ground now to establish what happened in Douma if Russia and the regime were not blocking the opportunity for the OPCW to go to the site and if efforts were not being made by the regime to ensure that material from the site was not available for analysis. It is quite clear that every effort is being made. As I pointed out in my response to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, it is perfectly clear that Russia is preventing, stopping and blocking our opportunities to ensure that we can properly hold to account those responsible for chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
Syria
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am going to keep my remarks brief, Mr Speaker, as previous speakers have done justice to a huge range of subjects. I shall try to stick narrowly to the subject of the Government’s role. First, I should like to compliment the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing the debate. I listened with great interest to her speech and will make a couple of comments about some of the things she said, but I will not follow her down that road, if she will forgive me. I want to deal specifically with what took place in the past few days and the reasons for it.
It is important to get the background absolutely straight and to consider what led to the Prime Minister having to take this decision. Sometimes it is easy to skate over some of these things. I was looking at the House of Commons Library paper on this, which is well worth reading. It lays out in considerable detail the number of times that the Syrians have broken all the accords they made on chemical weapons. It goes on to point out, as the Prime Minister did, that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons does not apportion blame, even when it inspects. It was supposed to be going in fairly shortly, but it is now blocked from going in and we have deep suspicions about the reasons for that. There is a major effort to clear up what is in there and to get rid of people who might be able to show that they have been attacked by these weapons.
Russia has vetoed every single resolution in the Security Council. Something else that is quite interesting, and that has not come out so far, is that in December 2017 an attempt was made to get an extension of the OPCW-United Nations joint investigative mechanism’s mandate. That would have enabled the JIM to look at what was going on and would have given it the power to apportion blame. The Russians vetoed the extension of that mandate without a single question, and it was clear that they did so because they did not want that investigation to take place.
It is worth reminding ourselves that, back in 2013—when I was a member of the Government—the Government came to the House to ask for a mandate to attack areas of command and control or of chemical stockpiles. I was sad to see, when the House voted against that motion, that there were some party politics involved. However, I am not going to revisit the past, other than to say that I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given due regard to the lesson from that. We had to take action then, and serious consequences flowed from our not doing so. Back in 2013, Assad was on the back foot. There were some quite reasonable groups—I do not say that lightly—opposing him, including the Free Syrian Army. Yes, some of the more extreme groups were there, including the jihadis, but there was perhaps an opportunity to influence the direction of what might happen in Syria.
The rejection of the motion in 2013 was probably the single most devastating blow to Syria, and it has led to serious consequences. It emboldened President Assad to believe that he could go on doing what he wanted. The Russians then persuaded President Obama not to pursue the matter by guaranteeing that President Assad would produce no more chemical weapons, and that he would never use such weapons even if he had them. Of course, they have failed completely on that. So perhaps they are complicit in the use of chemical weapons; I begin to wonder whether they are, as they have used them so liberally elsewhere, particularly here on our own home soil in Salisbury.
The vote also gave the Russians the green light to pursue their own agenda aggressively in Syria, and to make the war even worse than it might otherwise have been. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) mentioned the appalling attacks on hospitals, and he was absolutely right to do so, but the question is how closely Russia has been involved in the deliberate targeting and bombing of hospitals and other civilian areas. We are beginning to see all of that in this.
The final bit about the vote in 2013—I hope the House really considers this—is that it opened the door to the takeover of most of the opposition to Assad by jihadi groups, who were untrammelled and un-resisted. With America stepping back, the reality was that the rest was left to the influence of Russia. We then ended up dealing with the worst of all worlds, with Daesh attacks both in Syria and subsequently in Iraq. That shut down many of the options that might well have been available to us.
I am in favour of the House being consulted, but the House also has to give a little leeway to the Executive when it comes to moments such as last week, when it was quite clear that urgent action needed to be taken. Urgent action is based on deep intelligence and if it is not taken quickly, there could well be further consequences later. Such circumstances are difficult, and it behoves a Government to ensure that the action they take is narrowly targeted and therefore effective in its limited regard.
Had the Government been proposing a wider operation, such as the one conducted against Daesh in Iraq or in northern Syria, they would certainly have had to come to the House to explain the nature of that. Last week was an exception; an Executive do need the ability to take such action and then come to the House to explain it and, as the Prime Minister rightly said today, take the consequences of the House’s view about that action, including whether it was justified both legally and in moral terms.
The really important point here, which we do not talk about enough, is the reality that Russia sits like a great beast behind all of what is happening. Without Russia’s involvement in Syria, much of what is going on would not be happening today. Russia’s direct and selfish involvement, which is only about its procurement of a decent-weather port in the Mediterranean and its ability to position its aircraft in Syria and to involve itself in the region, has led it to get involved in some of the worst activities that it is possible to imagine, and with complete indifference to the world order.
If we look back over what Russia has done, we see not just its invasions of Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia and so on, but its involvement in chemical warfare. In 2013, the Russians guaranteed that Syria would not use chemical weapons again. What kind of a guarantee is that, coming from a nation that poisoned the President of Ukraine, killed Mr Litvinenko by radiation, and went on to use a nerve agent to attack Mr Skripal and his daughter on British soil? That is the kind of guarantee given by a criminal to another criminal, and yet we should somehow allow it to be the protector it has not been. It suits Russia’s purposes to have Syria able to do as it pleases; that does not matter to Russia at all.
I say to the hon. Member for Wirral South that her speech was full of fine principle, which I of course absolutely sign up to and back her on, but even that fine principle prompts some serious questions. The most serious relates to what she said about keeping open the corridors of aid and about ensuring that the air is protected from attacks, because she immediately encounters the question: what do we do about the Russians? It is the Russians who have failed to allow—
Mr Duncan Smith
I am not going give way. The hon. Lady is my constituency neighbour, but—
Mr Duncan Smith
I am going to answer it myself, if the hon. Lady does not mind. I always find that they are the best answers.
I simply say to the hon. Member for Wirral South—this is exactly the point—that we come back to realpolitik. The Russians are sitting right at the heart of the problem and, while they are still able to control it, the Prime Minister is left with having to make this kind of decision: to say that we will not tolerate the use of such weapons, even if the Russians are behind it. That is the important point.
We have to pursue an aggressive position towards Russia. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, Russia is not just producing disinformation but is lying outright about what has been going on. We need to pursue the money, and we need to put it to our European colleagues that they have to think carefully about the use of energy from Russia. It is the energy Russia sells to Europe and others that sustains this tiny economy to build its weapons and to produce its chemical warfare. If we can cut the money to Russia, we begin to cut its ability to interfere in nations such as Syria, Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia and others. The world will be a better place if Russia is restricted on that basis, and I urge my right hon. Friends to do so.
I fully accept the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took her decision, and she was right to do so. She was right in that sense to take the decision without coming to Parliament, and she is right to come to consult Parliament today. I hope we back her fully.
Several hon. Members rose—
European Council
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
First, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of steel. As I said in my statement and at the European Council, we want to work with the EU in talking to the United States, to make the EU’s temporary exemption from those tariffs into a permanent exemption. I referenced, as did the right hon. Gentleman, that there is a need for us to deal with the question of overcapacity in the steel market. That is best dealt with in multilateral forums, which is why at the 2016 G20 a forum was set up that included China sitting around the table. The work of that forum should continue and we need to address that issue on that multilateral stage.
The right hon. Gentleman raised various other issues. He will know that membership of Euratom is legally linked to membership of the European Union. We are putting in place the arrangements necessary to ensure that we can continue to operate with others in that area.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about clarity on citizens’ rights. The December joint report and the report on the implementation period that was agreed last Friday do precisely that: they provide clarity for citizens as to what their rights are going to be.
The right hon. Gentleman referred once again to the Northern Ireland border. We are very clear and have set out proposals and ways in which we can ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. We were also very clear in the December joint report, to which both the United Kingdom and the European Union signed up, that there should be no hard border down the Irish sea—in effect, that the internal market of the United Kingdom should be retained—and that all aspects of the Belfast agreement should be respected. We continue to do that.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the fact that the implementation period was a Labour party idea. May I remind him of two things? First, the concept of a smooth and orderly withdrawal from Brexit was first referenced in my Lancaster House speech in January 2017. Secondly, I seem to remember that the day after the referendum result in 2016, the right hon. Gentleman wanted to trigger article 50 immediately. There was no suggestion of an implementation period then, was there? So, there we go.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talked about changes of opinion. This is the Leader of the Opposition who says that he wants us to continue to be in a customs union, but at the same time refuses to accept the competition policy that is a necessary element of being in a customs union. It is the right hon. Gentleman who, when the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), backed a rerun of the referendum, kept her in her job, but sacked the then shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), when he backed a rerun of the referendum. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Conservative party in government that is getting on with delivering on the wishes of the British people and delivering a Brexit that works for everyone.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for her strong stance on the Russian attacks over the past couple of weeks? That strong stance has shown to the rest of the world that we take action and point the finger when there is evidence, but that we do not have a never-ending dialogue, as was recommended by the Leader of the Opposition, with those who would harm us the most. Did she take further steps in those Council meetings last week to recommend to the Germans that they look again at this pipeline directly to Russia?
Salisbury Incident
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
May I, once again, thank the right hon. Gentleman not just for the tone of his response, but for the comments that he has made? I reassure him that, of course, any legislative proposals we bring forward will have due scrutiny in this House. May I thank him for his constructive offer to work with the Government on this issue, because it is a matter that should concern us across the whole House? I reassure him that, although I made reference to a number of allies who have spoken in support of the United Kingdom on this, others have done so, too? Canada and Australia, for example, have also been very clear that a robust response is appropriate. Once again, I welcome the comments made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for her strong leadership and for rising to this challenge? Some in positions of leadership have also risen to the challenge, and I am only sorry that others in such positions have fallen well short.
In the conversations my right hon. Friend is due to have with her allies, which she is quite right to have, will she raise with the German Government the issue of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline on which they are engaged with the Russians? It will cut revenues for Ukraine and eastern Europe and give Russia an unparalleled ability to bully those countries in the future. If Russia is, as we now believe, a rogue state, will she try to persuade our allies in Europe and elsewhere not to treat with it or help to make it better off?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. One of the things we will be discussing with our allies is how we ensure that the robust message about the act that has taken place on UK soil is consistently given, and continues to be given, by all our allies. Nord Stream 2 is regularly discussed at the European Union Council, as my right hon. Friend would, I suspect, imagine.
Salisbury Incident
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am sure that everybody in the whole House sends their best wishes to all those who have suffered as a result of this incident and wish for their recovery. In the case of Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, I read a quote that I was not surprised by because I have heard it from so many police officers who have been in dangerous situations before; he said that he was merely doing his job. We are grateful to him and all our police officers and emergency services for doing that. We do not comment on the threats in relation to individual cases, but of course the police and others always look to ensure that we are taking these matters fully into account and taking them very seriously.
In relation to Russia, we have a very simple approach, which is, “Engage but beware.” This shows how right it is that this Government have been cautious in relation to its arrangements with Russia. In my Mansion House speech last November, I set out very clearly the concerns that we have about the activities of Russia. It is a matter that I have discussed with fellow leaders at the European Union Council. We must all be very well aware of the various ways in which Russia is affecting activity across the continent and elsewhere. There can be no question of business as usual with Russia.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of party donations. I will say two things to him. First, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the weekend, you should not tar everybody who lives in this country of Russian extraction with the same brush. Secondly, there are rules on party political donations, and I can assure him that my party and, I hope, all parties follow those rules.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about Magnitsky powers. I have been challenged previously on this question. We do already have some of the powers that are being proposed in relation to the Magnitsky law. However, we have already been talking with all parties about the amendment that has been put down, and we will work with others to ensure that we have the maximum possible consensus before the Report stage.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of police capabilities and resources. Not only are Wiltshire police involved in this, but they have support from neighbouring forces, as would normally happen when an incident takes place which requires that extra capability. But crucially, at a very early stage, it was decided that counter-terrorism police should take over the responsibility for this because the counter-terrorism police network has capabilities that are not available to regional forces, and they are indeed in charge in relation to this.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury City Council are working with Public Health England, with the NHS locally and with the police to ensure that there is maximum information available to members of the public—the chief medical officer has herself reassured members of the public that the public health risk is low—and to ensure that the proper arrangements are being put in place to help the police to get on with their inquiries. That is important. The police are still working on investigating this, and we should ensure that they have the time and space to be able to conduct those investigations.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for rising to this occasion as she should? Many in this House would wish that the Leader of the Opposition had abandoned party politics and done just the same.
My right hon. Friend is quite right: if the response from the Russian ambassador is simply not credible, she is right to expect the House to back her in taking the most severe action as is required and commensurate. She is also right to remind the House, and the country, that this country—Russia—is now as close to being a rogue state as any. It occupies Crimea; it has helped to occupy eastern Ukraine; and it has created a hell on earth in Syria, and is even now overseeing worse action. This is a country locking up its members of the opposition. Frankly—we have learned this lesson before—if we appease a country like this, we can expect even worse.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He is absolutely right. Nobody should be in any doubt about the various activities that the Russian state is involved in across the continent of Europe and elsewhere and the damage that that is doing in so many different places. He is absolutely right that that is why it is important that this Government—this country—stand up very clearly and not only call out actions by Russia but also ensure that we have a robust response to them.
UK/EU Future Economic Partnership
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition raised a number of issues. First, he raised the issue of steel tariffs and the position of the United States of America, and I spoke to President Trump about this yesterday. May I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are much more likely to get a positive result by engaging with the United States of America than by standing on the sidelines sniping and shouting at them, as he always does?
The right hon. Gentleman talks about workers’ rights and other standards. We have been very clear: this Government are not just maintaining workers’ rights, but enhancing them; and we are committed to maintaining high environmental standards. He asked whether we want a deal that was tariff-free. I gave him the statement in advance, so if he had read it, he would know that I referred to tariff-free access in my statement. He talks about ideological crusades, and I have to say that only person in this House—[Interruption.] Well, not the only person, because the shadow Chancellor is also on an ideological crusade.
There is a fundamental flaw at the heart of what the Leader of the Opposition has chosen as his approach towards the European Union and the post-Brexit relationship. He talks about free trade agreements with the European Union, yet he is clear that he would go against one of the key elements of ensuring that we could have such trade deals, notably the issue around state aid. He would tear up rules on state aid and fair competition, as he does not believe in fair competition—that is perfectly clear.
At the very beginning of the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, he asked about the withdrawal agreement—the draft legal text on the withdrawal agreement that was published by the European Union last week—and he referred to my speech last Friday as if it was about the same thing. I have to tell him that it was not, actually, so may I just explain? There are three issues and three elements of the process at the moment. We are negotiating the final arrangements for the implementation period, which we hope will be agreed in March—we certainly intend that they will be. Alongside that, we are looking at the legal text of the withdrawal agreement—Michel Barnier has made it clear that, on his timetable, we would be looking at October for that—and we now want to start negotiations on the future economic partnership and the future security partnership.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the European Court of Justice. The jurisdiction of the Court in the United Kingdom will end. We will bring back control of our laws to this Parliament—to this country—unlike the Labour party’s position, which is to remain in the single market and, in effect, remain under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. We will also take control of our borders, unlike the Labour party’s position—[Interruption.] Well, Labour Members do not seem to know what their position is. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Labour party would bring free movement to an end, but at the same time the shadow Brexit Secretary said that “easy movement” would continue. We know that Labour Members would not bring back control of money, because they have said that they would pay whatever it takes to the European Union regardless.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about delays. This Government are focusing on making a success of Brexit and on delivering for the British people, but Labour has nothing to offer. Labour voted against moving on the negotiations in the European Parliament. Labour Members twice voted against the Bill that delivers Brexit in this Parliament; now they have gone back on what they promised on the customs union; and over a week ago the shadow Chancellor said that Labour would keep “all options open” on whether or not to have a second referendum. This Government and this party are clear: there will be no second referendum. We are delivering for the British people, and we are going to make a success of it.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I thought was an excellent speech—clear and determined, giving the European Union a very clear sense of direction. I thought that perhaps the most important point in the speech—the point voted on in the referendum—was about taking back control, so does she agree that bringing back to a British Parliament all decisions about our arrangements is exactly about delivering on that? When she gets into negotiations about trade arrangements with her European counterparts, will she remind them that cake exists to be eaten and cherries exist to be picked?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that when people voted in the referendum to leave the European Union, they voted to take back control of our borders, our money and our laws. We are absolutely clear that when we have left the European Union, decisions over our laws and standards will be for this Parliament to take. We will take back control.
Carillion
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman spoke to this issue with the seriousness it deserved and in a constructive fashion. I can give him two assurances. The first is that the Government are certainly going to continue to pay the wages—salaries, as well as those of suppliers and subcontractors—in respect of UK Government contracts in Scotland, in the same fashion as occurs anywhere else in the UK. Secondly, as I think I said in my statement, the Government will be in discussions with the official receiver about the future provision of those services. I believe we will end up with a situation in which some are transferred to an alternative external contractor but others are taken in house by a Department or other agency of government.
On contact with the Scottish Government, we have had regular and constructive communications with them throughout the period in which the UK Government have been monitoring Carillion. Our priority has been to maintain public and essential services in every part of the UK, whether those are the responsibility of UK Government Departments or of devolved bodies. This morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke to Keith Brown MSP, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, and assured him of the UK Government’s determination to support the Scottish Government in responding to the concerns of pension stakeholders, employees and contractors in Scotland, as well as those everywhere else in the UK.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his swift and urgent action on this issue. I urge him to pay no attention whatsoever to the politicking coming from the Opposition Benches, because it was of course Labour Members who, when in government, drove the process of private sector involvement hard. They did so for a very good reason: they said that it brought expertise that does not exist in the public sector to the running of these kinds of contracts.
Nevertheless, as we look into these matters—I am sure there will be a review—we should bear in mind two elements that when I was a Minister it always struck me were missing in the public sector. The first is direct contract management on a very regular basis, the lack of which was often the reason why some of these contracts drifted. That needs to be looked at very specifically. Secondly, the Government—probably the Cabinet Office—might want to think about having some kind of capability to review regularly the situation for companies that are engaged in large public contracts, to see what their status is on a wider basis.
Mr Lidington
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his suggestions. I note that the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), said today that his Committee is going to launch an inquiry into Government procurement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) makes some important points about the need to have a look at how successive Governments have conducted the procurement process. I hope he will understand if I say that today, and in the immediate future, my wish is for Ministers and officials to focus above everything else on the continuity of the provision of public services and on doing all that we can to give help and reassurance to employees, subcontractors, suppliers and pension holders. There will be an occasion to return to some of the broader questions posed by my right hon. Friend.
European Council
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
First, I welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has said that threats and intimidation should not form part of our political life. I agree with him, but what he said will seem a bit rich to those of my colleagues who were candidates in the general election, and who suffered from the Labour party.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about the date of our leaving and phase 1. He said that the phase 1 agreement was vague. In fact, it is the result of significant work over a number of months. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at it carefully, he will see that it is detailed in relation to citizens’ rights. It gives reassurances to EU citizens here in the United Kingdom and UK citizens living in the EU 27 that they can carry on living their lives as they have done, and that their life choices will be respected.
The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the transition period—the implementation period—was somehow a Labour idea. He should look at the Lancaster House speech, in which I was very clear about the need for a smooth departure from the European Union. The financial settlement that we agreed in phase 1 is in the context of agreeing the final deal and reaching the final agreement. He talked about dates for our leaving. I note that he said that we should have triggered article 50 the day after the referendum. That would have meant that there was no time to prepare our negotiating position and we would be leaving the EU in six months without having done the proper work to make sure that there was that smooth and orderly progression, and that we did not disrupt our economy in the ways that the right hon. Gentleman has talked about.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether trade deals could be signed. I referred to that in my statement. He asked about the transition period, and about the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. We will be leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019, and we will therefore be leaving the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy on that date. The relationship that we have with the European Union on both those issues continuing through the implementation period will be part of the negotiation of that period, and work will start very soon.
Then, of course, the right hon. Gentleman asked about workers’ rights. Again, I set out in my Lancaster House speech, and have confirmed on a number of occasions since, that this Government will not only maintain but enhance workers’ rights. If the right hon. Gentleman is so worried about workers’ rights, why did the Labour party vote against the very Bill that brings workers’ rights in the EU into UK law?
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend that attacks on MPs’ family members, particularly in vulnerable conditions, should be absolutely outlawed from the very beginning.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether she has read Mr Barnier’s statement—made in the last couple of days—in which he set out the EU’s position in the run-up to the next two phases of discussion? Can she confirm that the Government have neither discussed that nor agreed it, and that therefore it is not Government policy?
The Prime Minister
I had noticed Michel Barnier’s comments, particularly in relation to the negotiations on the trade deal. We will start the negotiations on that as a result of the decision taken last Friday by the European Union Council. I can tell my right hon. Friend that one of the senior members of the negotiating team has today made it clear that the United Kingdom can indeed have its own bespoke agreement for a future trade relationship with the European Union. Indeed, that point was also made by the Prime Minister of Italy, Paolo Gentiloni, in an article he wrote in the Financial Times last week. If anybody cares to think about it, every trade agreement is a bespoke agreement between the parties concerned—they have similar elements, but are specific to the various countries concerned. That is certainly what we will be looking for in our negotiations with the EU.
Brexit Negotiations
Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm in this House that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I have to say to him that this is not the first time that I have made that statement in this House; he can google it and find from Hansard how many times I have said it. Indeed, if he had listened to and looked at my statement, he would have learned that I said that “the joint report reaffirms our guarantee that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.”
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the circumstances and anything that relates to Northern Ireland being given to Scotland. Northern Ireland is, of course, in a different position from Scotland: it is the only part of the UK that has a land border with a country that will remain in the European Union, and it is in fact already the case that there are a number of unique and specific solutions that pertain to the island of Ireland, such as the common electricity market and the single phytosanitary area. Various resolutions have already been put in place to recognise that physical relationship between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman asks yet again for the UK to stay in the single market and customs union. I said, again, in my statement that we will be leaving the single market and the customs union, and we will be doing that because we will be putting in place the vote that took place in 2016 to leave the EU. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman: he talks about the statement I have made and the commitments of this Government, but it would be good for him to stand up and say he supports, as I have in this statement, the continued constitutional and economic integrity of the whole United Kingdom.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on driving through an improved agreement on Friday, which many thought would not be feasible. She has been incredibly clear in the past about the fact that the two-year period that follows our departure will be an implementation period. Is it still the Government’s position that that implementation phase will be used to implement all that has been agreed, and not, as some say, just to carry on with no change at all?
The Prime Minister
The point of the implementation period is exactly as my right hon. Friend says—namely, to ensure that the changes necessary for the new relationship to work can be put in place. Examples include the registration of EU citizens here in the UK, which the Home Office will be running during that period. It is also about ensuring that businesses and citizens have the confidence and reassurance of knowing how they will be operating during that period, that there is no double cliff edge for businesses and that they have a smooth process of change. That is the point of the implementation period. Further details of it will be negotiated in the next phase, and I am pleased that the European Commission and the President of the EU Council are clear that that should start immediately.