Business of the House

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all that he has done as a fantastic Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. He has been diligent and brought in new innovations, and he has been a great addition to business questions every single week. I thank him sincerely for all he has done and wish him all the best in the future.

I am sorry that those who had debates scheduled will not be having them. In whatever capacity I can, I will ensure good facilitation between his tenure and the new tenure of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your service. We have known each other for a considerable amount of time—perhaps too long. This is not a valedictory speech on my part—I will be standing and I intend to come back here on 5 July—but I wish you very well for a very happy future.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I am sad that I was not asked to be a member of the hairdressing club—I simply cannot understand why. None the less, I would like to raise a couple of matters with her. The sudden election means two important matters that were passed into the Criminal Justice Bill by unanimous consent are in danger of falling: the cuckooing amendment, which will make it an offence to threaten people and take their household from them in order to run crime from there; and the dangerous cycling legislation, which will bring cyclists within the criminal justice system and the highway code. There was no opposition to either amendment, so will she take them forward for discussion? I do not know whether it is feasible, but can those two amendments get through the wash-up just as they are?

Finally, a hospital project in my constituency is being signed off this coming week and building is due to start on the scheme, for which my constituents have fought for over 50 years. Considering such projects need to be signed off by officials rather than Ministers, can work that was ready to go start anyway? Will she check that out for us?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising these important matters. He was right that those two measures had huge—unanimous—support across the House, and I will certainly make sure that all those involved in the wash-up process have heard what he has said today.

I will also send my right hon. Friend’s office some advice about the ongoing work and the status of it and whether it can continue through the next few weeks.

Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Nobody has been appointed to those roles. I understand that, on points of principle that have already been mentioned, many Members feel strongly that it should be Members of this House who form the panel. Others take a different view. These are the matters that we need to discuss, but I can tell my hon. Friend that no one has been appointed to those roles.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I was not planning to take part in this debate, but I was reading through the notes and my concern—returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—is that we are in a difficult and delicate area. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House talks about confidentiality, and the key to all this is process. It is about how it will actually work, not what we might wish it to be. Of course we have a duty of care to staff and to each other; I hope that that is a given. Working within that, we need to remember the reputational damage that has been done in previous cases. The police have done this themselves, where individuals who subsequently died lost their reputations unfairly because of allegations that turned out to be wrong and unjust. My concern is that we are trespassing slowly into the criminal code, which is not perfect. We have to be really careful here, because reputational damage is the end for Members of Parliament. Their reputation often cannot be regained, and their character is all. How do we protect that if people are going to be sent away? How can they not do the work in their constituencies and still retain their reputation as Members of Parliament? These are important issues.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Even if a scheme looks good on paper, it is the practical issues about how it will operate that matter. He refers to particular things that a particular police force has done. If they are part of the scheme, Members will want to have trust and confidence in their ability to play their part. It is well understood that Members of Parliament have a unique vulnerability to false allegations. My right hon. Friend will know that there are Members who are currently off the estate for various reasons on a voluntary basis. I feel strongly that in those circumstances —particularly when investigations are taking a long time—their ability to represent their constituencies should not be compromised. I want to thank the Procedure Committee and others who have done work to bring forward the option of a proxy vote for Members who find themselves in those circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, and I have made a clear note for us to consider it in our further deliberations following this debate.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I want to follow that up, as one of the points made earlier was important. We know of previous problems where cases have been brought against people and we later discover that the witness was not credible, with that leading to serious and significant difficulties, even in the criminal justice system. That is sure to happen in the same way here. Is there anything in these proposals that talks about trying to figure out at any stage whether the witness is credible, what the record has been and so on—or is that left completely for the police to decide?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that our criminal justice system could do with improvements, I heartily agree. We are talking about a situation where criminal justice proceedings—an investigation—are taking place, and the police, along with the Crown Prosecution Service, are responsible for that. Even now, they will, at a certain point, let the House authorities know if a Member is being investigated, and we do not have an adequate process for responding to that.

The criminal justice system has many significant flaws, which I would dearly love to help fix, but we have the system that we do. We have to be in a position where we trust that system, as far as we can, to give us information when the police feel that is warranted. We need to look at whether or not this system works. There is plenty of time, not only this evening, but before we have the votable motion and then if we decide to vote for the process to be tested and developed, for further opportunities to do that. I am happy to take away the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman and others, which are reasonably expressed. That is what the debate is for.

Business of the House

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

First, let me thank all Members who took part in events to celebrate International Women’s Day, and put on record that our thoughts are with all those women around the world who are standing up for human rights and democracy, particularly schoolgirls in Iran, who are facing the most brutal oppression. I thank everyone for the announcements on International Women’s Day. The Government have made many, and the Opposition too. I was buoyed by the shadow Chancellor’s pledge that Labour will end the “blokey culture” that lets men dominate the top positions—said with a distinct lack of self-awareness, I might add. I can no longer boast that we have had three female Prime Ministers on this side of the House because, happily, female leadership is becoming the norm in all political parties, bar one. For the sake of the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), I hope that changes soon.

Let me turn to the hon. Lady’s point about small boats. On civil servants, she will know that the Home Secretary has distanced herself from that language—she did not say that. We put on record our thanks to all civil servants for the work that they do. Before the debate descends to unfortunate depths, I want to remind the House that in the last two decades 300 people have lost their lives crossing the channel. They have been hit by cars, crushed by lorries, suffocated inside containers, electrocuted and hit by Eurostar trains, and drowned at sea. Many more died en route to the channel. I remind the House that in one night, more people died crossing the Mediterranean than were lost on the Titanic.

Deterring and preventing such horrors is the right thing to do. A good outcome requires some pragmatism and a reality check from everyone in this House. We want to honour our moral obligations to particular people. We want to help those who would otherwise not survive in refugee camps, as we did during the Syria conflict. We want a system that works well and is not overwhelmed. That is pragmatic, moral and compassionate. That is where the country is at and where their Government are at. It is where the Labour party claims to be, but its actions tell a different story. Labour says that it wants to stop the boats, but it is not prepared to help us do it. It is both for and against free movement, strikes, appearing on picket lines and nationalisation.

I say to the confused British public, “Look at what Labour Members do, not what they say. Are they discouraging strikes? Did they vote for minimum service levels to protect your interests? Did they support our measures to protect border security? Did they support tougher sentences for heinous crimes or the deportation of foreign criminals? Will they help us to stop the boats? If they answer no, how can they be on your side?”

Labour is borrowing from the Gary Lineker playbook. It is a party of goal-hangers and the occasional left-wing striker, hanging around the goalmouth, poised to seize any opportunities and take an easy shot—but that only works if the ball is in the right half. This country does not need goal-hangers; it needs centre-forwards. It needs people who put in the hard work, who take tough decisions, who grip a problem and work out how to solve it, and who create those opportunities. That is what we are doing. It needs a team captain who knows his own mind, has a plan and knows what colour his football shirt is. Labour might be up at half-time, but the second half is yet to be played.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I will not follow my right hon. Friend down the centre-forward path, as Tottenham did not succeed yesterday, but may I draw her attention to something in The Daily Telegraph today? Although the Government did not announce it at the Dispatch Box, we now understand, finally, that their position on the Wuhan lab leaks and on China’s involvement is that the location of the outbreak was “coincidental”. That Government policy has never been stated publicly, so will she make time for a Government statement, or preferably a debate, on whether the Government believe that China poses a threat and that the leaks from the labs may well have been the reason why millions died?

[Penny Mordaunt]

May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on the Spurs result?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House want answers to these important questions, which have huge implications for our national security—as an aside, he will know that the integrated review refresh will appear shortly. I will certainly take up his question with the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because I know that people are interested not just in the statements that this Government make, but in our assessment of what other Governments have said on this important matter. I undertake to write to him this afternoon on those points.

Business of the House

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Let me first put on record my praise for, and pride in the performance of, Wales and England. I know that many Members have already paid tribute to their performance to date in the World Cup.

I note that later today we will have a Backbench Business Committee debate on World Aids Day, and I am proud of the fact that the UK is one of the largest donors to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I pay tribute to all the healthcare professionals who have done so much in recent years to reduce infections, as well as the organisations with which they work—in particular, the Terrence Higgins Trust, the National AIDS Trust and the Elton John Aids Foundation.

The hon. Lady mentioned the debate on standards that will take place on Monday week. As well as supporting the bulk of the Standards Committee’s recommendations, the Government will take further action, which I hope the House will also welcome. We will publish the motion—soon? [Laughter.] Very swiftly.

The hon. Lady referred to urgent questions. We have just been given an excellent example of responses to urgent questions by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who was more than capable of answering the supplementary questions and whose approach to such challenges will, I think, have given Members a great deal of confidence.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Government’s record of supporting women, in particular, in the workplace. I am very proud of our record of getting 2 million more women into work since 2010, by means of a raft of measures, but there is more that we wish to do.

As I said in my statement, the Online Safety Bill will be returning to the House. This is a vital and world-leading piece of legislation. It focuses particularly on protecting children and stamping out illegal activity online, which are top priorities for the Government. It is groundbreaking legislation, and it delivers on our manifesto commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world in which to be online. We are tabling a recommittal motion, and the recommitted measures will come back to the whole House for a second Report stage. That will take place swiftly, allowing proper scrutiny. This is an established parliamentary procedure—it has been used before—and it will ensure that the Bill can be strengthened while also ensuring that Members have the opportunity to take part in a full debate on the changes to the Bill.

All other business will be announced in the usual way—soon—and I can tell the hon. Lady that that means 8 December.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I have made a series of freedom of information requests about the Government’s possession and use of Hikvision cameras, which security advisers have declared to be a security risk. I made an FOI request of every Department, and then requested a revision of any decision to refuse to answer. All bar three Departments answered by invoking section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which protects information on grounds of security; that is, Departments said that it would put national security at risk to let me know whether they had any such cameras, how many they had, and what they were doing about them. However, that cannot be the case when three Departments—the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Wales Office—answered completely openly, and talked of getting rid of the cameras.

How can the issue not be a security risk for three Departments, but be a security risk for the rest of them? Surely Departments are hiding behind section 24 because they are embarrassed about having an awful lot of Hikvision cameras. Will the Leader of the House remind No. 10 and the Cabinet Office that they have an obligation to answer genuine questions, and to declare the number of such cameras that they have? As a result of those cameras, all of us are at risk when we enter those Departments.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I know that he thinks deeply about such issues. Whatever the security policies of those Departments, I can see no reason why he, a Privy Counsellor, should not be briefed by the Departments on Privy Council terms. I will write on his behalf to the Cabinet Office to ask that that happens.

Business of the House

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising these matters, which are clearly going to be extremely stressful for his constituents and others across the country. I know that the new Secretary of State, who is back in that Department, is very much looking at this agenda and has had a huge focus on trying to get some practical things to happen for people, particularly those who have no hope of repaying those arrears. I will write to my right hon. Friend and ask him to contact the hon. Gentleman’s office.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Is it still possible for us to have a full debate in Government time on the threat posed by China, both domestically and internationally? After all, it was at the indulgence of the Speaker that three urgent questions were granted—twice when the Government failed to make a statement on the violent attacks on peaceful democracy campaigners in Manchester, and the other day on the appalling activities of Chinese police inside our country. It is thanks to the Speaker that we actually had any discussion of that here. Then there are the Confucius institutes spying on Hong Kong and Chinese students, on which there has still been no statement from the Government. All this depends on the integrated review, which the Government said they were going to change to make China a “threat” rather than a “strategic competitor.” Given that that country is guilty of genocide, arresting peaceful democracy campaigners in Hong Kong, trashing international treaties, slave labour, threatening Taiwan with invasion, attacking Christians, threatening its neighbours, taking over the South China seas and threatening us here domestically, do we not honestly think the Government should take this seriously and have a full debate?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising these matters and for all the work he has done to shine a spotlight on these appalling practices. It is bad enough to watch human rights abuses, intimidation, violent assault and other things taking place on their soil, but these things should never happen on our soil. I will certainly write to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Office, because this will be of concern to a number of Departments, and ensure that his well-made points, which I am sure are supported by many in this House, are heard by those Departments.

Business of the House

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady pointed out that we would be opposite each other again for the pre-Adjournment debate. I am not sure whether the word that she used was “jewel” or “duel”. I look forward to whichever it turns out to be, but it certainly feels like a duel this morning. The hon. Lady is back with a vengeance, and it is good to see her in her place.

The hon. Lady began by asking about a COP15 debate. That is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. The Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), said he wanted to have that debate, and there will be an opportunity to reschedule it at some point in the near future. We will try to work with the Chair of the Committee to deliver it.

The hon. Lady went on to talk about defence, and about defence spending. I hope she will recognise that we are the biggest spenders on defence in Europe. We are the second largest contributor to NATO, after the United States. We are exceeding the 2% GDP target. We have committed ourselves to £24 billion of increased defence spending over the next four years. We are world leaders in defence spending, and our armed forces are recognised around the world as the highest-quality armed forces available to any nation on this earth. That is a record of which to be enormously proud, and it is being demonstrated in Ukraine, whose defence services are making use of UK tech as we speak.

The hon. Lady then raised the subject of P&O. As she will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was at the Dispatch Box yesterday explaining how he was going to deal with what was no less than a brazen breaking of employment law on the part of the chief executive. The way in which P&O has treated its own staff can only be condemned as despicable, and my right hon. Friend has urged it to reconsider, but yesterday he set out a nine-point plan consisting of a series of commitments to protect seafarers in the future. I should be happy to read it to the House, but it is available in Hansard. My right hon. Friend should be commended for the action that he is going to take.

When it comes to education, I think we should recognise that progress has been made, but there is further progress to come. We should be proud of and support the £5 billion education recovery fund and the schools White Paper, but even the Secretary of State for Education will acknowledge that there is more to be done, and I think that if the hon. Lady keeps an eye on the Dispatch Box she will see, in the near future, the Secretary of State announce action to continue the improvement in our education services.

The hon. Lady finished by talking about the cost of living and the challenges that we face. She will know that, given what is happening in Ukraine and its impact on global energy markets, a huge ripple is taking place in the value of energy across the world. We are well aware of that, which is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood here last week and set out his plans to try to help hard-working people and their families. Taking 5p off fuel duty was a big step—it means £5 billion a year less tax—and support is being provided through other mechanisms as well.

However, the best way out of poverty is through work. The fundamental difference between us and the Opposition is that we believe in a hand up while they believe in a handout. The best way for people to escape from poverty is by working and being able to keep more of their income and pay less tax, and the way in which we are making that possible means that those with the broadest shoulders carry the burden of taxation.

The hon. Lady wants us to impose a windfall tax on energy companies. Those companies are already paying 40% tax, which is nearly double what other sectors pay. There are 200,000 people employed in the sector. A windfall tax would disincentivise companies from making investments and push up the cost of energy, and the lowest-paid and most vulnerable people would find themselves picking up the tab. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has ensured that the lowest paid will be taken out of tax altogether or will pay less tax, and I think that that is fair.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I want to raise an issue affecting my local area. It involves the North London Waste Authority and the unwanted building of a huge incinerator in Edmonton. Not a single Member of Parliament in the area, Labour or Conservative, actually wants the incinerator, and we do not need it and the fumes that it will emit.

The key factor is the existence of all the criteria that would normally cause the Government to haul in a project. The cost of this project has doubled from £600 million to £1.2 billion; this is meant to be a competitive bid, but that is not the case because the same organisation is still going to be involved; and, finally even the chief executive of that organisation now says that this is excessive and unnecessary.

Given the latest information that the chief executive of the North London Waste Authority has received a salary increase from £300,000 to more than £600,000, it is clear that the organisation is out of control. It will not tell us what remuneration its officials—who are councillors—are receiving.

Why is it that not a single Government Department is prepared to stand up, haul this project in and call it to account, as would be done in the case of any other such project? People are burning public money, literally, on projects that are not wanted by the public and will pollute the atmosphere. Given the COP26 issues, why is that still happening, and may we have a debate about it now?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. I note that he secured a Westminster Hall debate on it in February. I am sure that local taxpayers will be very concerned about what he has reported to the House, and I shall be happy to take it up with Ministers on his behalf after this session.

Business of the House

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

When anyone is reminded of the Good Law Project, one of course remembers that it is led by an infamous fox murderer who goes out in a kimono and bashes poor harmless foxes to death in a cruel and unusual fashion. I seem to remember that that did not lead to a prosecution—I may be wrong. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take that to a judicial review to consider more serious sanctions. I am glad to say that the Government are toughening up on laws on animal cruelty, which may be of interest to the Good Law Project leaders.

On the very serious issue the hon. Gentleman raises about the channel crossing disaster, we are having a day and a half of debate on that on Report, which will cover legal routes of entry and toughening up on illegal routes of entry. It is a United Kingdom-wide policy, so I hope we will have the support of the SNP in doing that.

On the mainstay of the hon. Gentleman’s question, this time he got so furious that he started giggling at his own fury. I have found out why he is so upset this week. It is not because he is waiting in eager anticipation for St Andrew’s Day next year, which will of course be a proper celebration for him and his right hon. and hon. Friends. The reason he is so grumpy today is a new opinion poll that shows that the proportion of voters who ranked the constitution in their preference for the Scottish Government’s top three priorities fell by eight points to 13%; and fewer than one third of SNP voters, 28%, ranked independence on their hierarchy of priorities. It is a sad day for him today. I will not tease him for being grumpy. He is justifiably being grumpy, because his sandcastles are gently being washed away by a tide of Unionism.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

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?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these issues. The Government have been very clear about the human rights abuses against the Uyghurs, and about what has been going on in Hong Kong and the failure of the communist Government of China to follow the joint declaration that was agreed in the 1980s. The whole issue of religious toleration—so not just the Uyghurs, but what has happened in Tibet—is rightly raised very regularly in this House, and it is right that the communist Government are reminded of their moral obligations. However, the UK Government have long had a policy of thinking that sporting boycotts do not work and that it is a matter for the International Olympic Committee to decide whether the athletes go—[Interruption.] As regards whether Government Ministers would wish to go to the People’s Republic of China, I can tell my right hon. Friend that no tickets have been booked.

Business of the House

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I entirely agree with that. We will work on this as fast as possible. We took up suggestions from the Backbench Business Committee for next Thursday, which would ideally be the Backbench Business day.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I urge my right hon. Friend to recall the cross-party concern about the misbehaviour of many online betting companies and the growing drive towards addiction as a result of that misbehaviour? Given that, will he encourage the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to call in the Gambling Commission, which now refuses to release the name of the individual who owns Betway? Nobody knows where its money comes from, and it seems absurd that in this circumstance we cannot now find out. It is time we got to the bottom of this.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend has been a formidable champion on this and played a crucial role in reducing the maximum stake for fixed odds betting terminals, which was of great importance to many people. I know that the issues he raises are of concern across the House. I have heard what he has said, and I will make sure that the relevant Department knows too.

Tributes to the Speaker

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

First, I want to apologise for not having been here at the beginning of these tributes, Mr Speaker. I had to engage in a podcast with the Father of the House. It was a joint podcast. I say that, but he took up at least 90% of it, so it was joint in the sense that it is joint whenever you sit to hear him and you ask him to speak briefly and he does exactly that!

At the outset, I also want to say a farewell to you, Mr Speaker. We have known each other for a significant amount of time. I believe you once referred to me as a “sea green incorruptible”. You may or may not recall that. I am not sure to this day quite what you meant by it, but I had been rebelling against the Government then for some time and I fancy that you thought that was a good thing. It was on the back of that that when I became leader I employed you in the shadow Cabinet, as shadow Chief Secretary. It was not altogether a happy period. I recall being approached by one particular colleague of ours, who will remain nameless but who upbraided me in the Lobby, saying “It is fantastic that you have got somebody who is really campaigning on the rights for gay people and out there speaking on all these subjects. I was thinking, “Oh, very good, thank you.” He then said, “Do you think we could have a shadow Chief Secretary when you next get to the appointments for the shadow Cabinet?” I think he was not altogether enamoured of your journey, but it was certainly a journey, one that you have taken personal ownership of. You have been part of changes that have come about, all of which have been overdue. I fancy that your legacy in this matter will also therefore be recorded by everybody, notwithstanding your period in the Chair.

On that note, I wish briefly to deal with the idea of legacy. I recall a quote from “Julius Caesar”:

“The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones”.

I wish to reverse that process and simply say that there is much that you have done in this House that will stand the test of time and will return this House, in a way, to where it probably was many, many decades before, before it became too subjected to the concept of the overarching power of the Executive. I was a little tongue in cheek there. When I was, unexpectedly, in the Cabinet for six years, I regularly used to curse you in the mornings at about 9 o’clock when I heard that you were about to grant an urgent question—I think such questions came at noon—and I had to give you some reason why we should not have the UQ. Almost invariably I was told by your office that you had read what I had put but not required that it was the case and had granted the UQ. During that period, I do not think any Minister would not have been frustrated, annoyed and angry. However, having returned to the Back Benches, I have to congratulate you on reinvigorating the UQ, turning it from being an unusual event to being a very standard one, and I hope I have taken advantage of that. Of course the Government do not like that. When one is in government, surrounded by all the decisions one has to take and things one has to do, coming back to the House and being forced to answer questions is a nuisance, but it is a nuisance that really does matter.

I recall being frustrated as a junior Back Bencher on many occasions because I could not get in on a question and I thought that I had been pushed to one side, that everybody senior had got in and that the usual rules had applied. Any Member coming in here now will not have any knowledge of how it was before and they will just be used to standing and getting called. I often say to such Members, “It was very different in the old days. You might stand for three separate questions not related to each other and still not get called. Eventually you would approach the Chair and the Chair would say, ‘Next time we will call you. And you would then argue, ‘Well, I may not have an interest in the next question” but you would still have to come in and stand. Banishing that and getting rid of that process will stand as an important legacy of yours, because it allows non-Privy Counsellors to get their word in. I have one word of slight advice: my general rule is that in this place after about an hour there is absolutely nothing that anybody is going to get up to say that has not already been said at least three or four times. You have been incredibly tolerant that even on the fifth time it is worth hearing and sometimes quite important.

In that regard, your use of this place and your reforms of this place were overdue. I also remind colleagues that you came in at a difficult time; this House was in shame. The expenses scandal was all that people in the country saw and thought of us in this place. They thought all of us were corrupt and involved only for our own sakes, which is completely untrue but was overarchingly the view. As you know, Mr Speaker, people come here because they genuinely believe that they want to do good and to try to improve the quality of life for their constituents and for citizens around the country. To some degree, we are still suffering from that view. We needed the reforms such as opening this place up, letting younger people come here, using the education service and expanding that process, and giving colleagues the power to bring Governments to the Dispatch Box so that they could ask those questions and force Ministers, even in difficult moments, to answer the most difficult questions of the day. That is a set of vital reforms and I cannot see any future Speaker reversing them, nor should they, because they are absolutely structural.

We have not always agreed on everything, Mr Speaker, nor should we; I confess there have been times when I have been somewhat frustrated. However, as colleagues have said, this is not really about being frustrated about the decisions; it is about whether or not somebody is consistent in the process they engage in. The one thing you have been absolutely consistent in is your belief that Back Benchers have the right and should have the power to be heard, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, and of whether they sometimes say things that might be an abhorrence. You believe that they have the right, because they were elected to this place, to be heard here without fear or favour. Restoring that process will be your greatest legacy, so I wish you a good retirement—although I suspect it will not be retirement and you will have some other kind of career. Perhaps you will be speaking across the States, where I gather you are becoming quite a celebrity on the speaking circuit. Whatever else you do, I know you will bring to it longer speeches, with words that nobody has ever understood or heard before. Notwithstanding that, people will be fascinated by them, as I have always been by your approach at the Chair. So I wish you the very best of fortune, and I consider it in a way a privilege to have been in this House when these reforms have taken place, and you were the architect of them. Thank you.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you very much indeed.

Business of the House

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

During his comments, the hon. Gentleman made the remark, “If only the Nats were more reasonable.” Well, that is something to be looked forward to, but I think it may be in the next world rather than in this that it finally comes. But the Nats in their unreasonableness are at least very straightforward; they want to stop Brexit and have always been very clear about that. Although I disagree with them, I respect their position. There is no false pretence in what they say. It is a position they hold. They are not using procedural mechanisms to try to frustrate what 17.4 million people voted for. They are absolutely upright and straightforward in their opposition. I disagree, but I respect the honesty of that position. And they are certainly not on thin ice because they have opposed Brexit the whole way through.

The responsibility of the devolved Administrations is a very important issue. This Government respect the rights and responsibilities of the devolved Administrations, but the devolved Administrations ought also to respect the rights of the United Kingdom Government. The conduct of treaties and the agreement of treaties is a matter for the United Kingdom Government. Some of the detailed implementing legislation may require legislative consent motions, but the two are different and separate concepts. Therefore, what the Prime Minister said was absolutely right.

The hon. Gentleman asked if 31 October is still the date on which we will leave. That is still the date set in law. We do not yet know what the European Union will do. The European Union knows that the request for an extension is not the Prime Minister’s request. It is the request of the Benn Act. Her Majesty’s Government do not want an extension. Let me say it again: Her Majesty’s Government do not want an extension and are making every preparation to leave on 31 October.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman wondered what had happened to the withdrawal agreement Bill. I think the answer lies with Sir Percy Blakeney:

“They seek it here, they seek it there

Those parliamentarians seek it everywhere

Is it in heaven, or is it in hell?

That demmed, elusive Brexit Bill”.

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Whether Sir Percy Blakeney is searching for it or not, for all the consideration about, and requests for, extra time—some of which were quite reasonable about hours—when I listened to the radio this morning, I discovered the Labour party spokesperson saying that what Labour really wanted was weeks and weeks of further debate. Surely that can only be with one purpose: to stop Brexit altogether. I therefore wondered if we might have a debate in the coming week about the rationale and motivation of those who seek extra debate.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily good and valid point, which relates to what I was saying about the Scottish National party—that it is very straightforward about its position, which is that it does not want Brexit. The Labour party is in a more difficult position because some of its voters want Brexit, particularly in the midlands and the north of England, and some of its voters, especially in Islington, do not want Brexit. Labour Members are torn between the two and are therefore using all sorts of formulations to try to persuade us that they want that which they do not want. What they want is to frustrate Brexit, and that is what they are trying to do.