The Government's Plan for Brexit

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I will, I hope, be brief. I support the Government’s amendment, and wish to make it clear that I believe that making great pace in getting ourselves through the process and into the negotiations is the key for whatever the Government do now.

Most people, including the Opposition, fail to define what leaving the European Union actually means. They keep saying that they will not and do not want to frustrate the will of the British people and that that means they do not want to delay the triggering of article 50. But in the same breath—with respect to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)—they go on to qualify what leaving actually means. When listening to him, the definition I heard was that he wants to be a member of everything that we are in as members of the EU now, with one or two small changes—so he does not actually want to leave. In that sense, the purpose behind what the Opposition are doing speaks more of their own problems than of the negotiations that the Government will embark on once we activate article 50. I will say more on that in a moment.

I make no bones about the fact that I voted and campaigned for the UK to leave the European Union. I believe that it is necessary for us to understand what we mean by that—to define it, and then to act on that, as some of my colleagues have already said. Leaving the European Union at its most basic will mean that we will no longer be subject to European law. From that flow the other elements that were debated during the campaign. The public most clearly want to take back control of their borders with the European Union and to take back control of the money raised from them in taxation. Those things cannot happen if we are subject to European law. This, then, is the key element: leaving the European Union means that we are no longer subject to the jurisprudence of European law. That is really quite important. The failure of the Opposition to accept that means that they are not really in favour of leaving, and have not even accepted that we are leaving; they are debating how we stay in with modifications.

On that principle, I remind the House that the Centre for Social Justice published a report about why people voted to leave, called “48:52”. That report made it very clear—even many remainers have said the same—that the public wanted control of migration and they wanted sovereignty returned. I was quite surprised by their using and agreeing with the word “sovereignty”. We are always being told in this House that no one out there cares about sovereignty and that it is an esoteric issue debated only here by obsessed politicians who cannot get away from the fact that no one talks about it out in the country. In fact, sovereignty was the key element that the people spoken to for the report all agreed that they wanted—to take back control, the phrase that we use endlessly when debating this matter.

We are therefore clear about what people wanted. When people say we do not know what the public wanted, that is simply not true. They do a disservice to the general public if they cannot understand what they meant when they voted to leave the European Union. The public were very clear on that. I have heard the Liberals go on about how people voted to leave but did not vote for a destination. Leaving is a destination. It means we are in control of ourselves. This country is not moving. It is staying where it is, but we will no longer be subject to European law. Playing silly games does not help anyone to believe that, fundamentally, politicians understand what they are going through.

Given all that, there is no point during any of the negotiations in our trying to ask the European Union for something that it simply cannot and will not give us. This is the main point. There is no point going to the EU and saying, as a point of special pleading, “We want to be out of the European Union and are going to be free to make our own laws, but will you let us stay in the single market, and can we stay in the customs union?” I fully understand the position of those of my colleagues who want to stay in those elements. That is a wholly reasonable position, but if we are leaving the European Union, staying in those two things does not stand. More importantly, I would not want to, because that would again bring us under the control of the acquis communautaire, and not being so is one of the main reasons for leaving. The Opposition asked for enough detail. The strategic aim is on those points—that is enough detail.

On the customs union, I come back to this simple point. Why would the United Kingdom want to stay in the customs union when one of the key elements behind making the important decision to leave the European Union was getting back the opportunity to make our own trade arrangements with other countries? I would rather we stayed in than stay in the customs union. It seems completely pointless to embroil ourselves in the customs union—to go through all the rigmarole, arguments, debates and rows, only to find that at the end of the day we do not have the jewel in the crown of our making free trade arrangements.

On that point, I have something interesting to say to the House. I discovered the other day that there are now no fewer than five elements of legislation—three Bills, I think, and two amendments to Bills—going through both the House of Representatives and the Senate that pave the way for a free trade agreement between the US and the United Kingdom. So much for the current President’s view that we will be at the back of the queue. It appears that the legislators in Congress see us wholly at the front of it. They know the reason why: we are the great free trading nation of the world. We believe in free trade, and that is the direction in which we want to take ourselves, and, I hope, many others. For us, the rest of the debate, once we get through that and understand its relevance, is about process.

I listened very carefully to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras as he spoke for the Opposition, and I understand deeply the problem the Opposition have right now. The Conservatives were in opposition for a number of years and we were often divided. I was a Leader of the Opposition and I remember it very well. Leading the Opposition is like herding cats and there are a lot of cats sitting on the Benches behind him. They are divided about what they want. They are exposed in a simple position of not really wanting to leave, but recognising that 70% of them now sit in constituencies that voted overwhelmingly to leave. They are focusing on the fact that they run the risk, politically, of being in danger when the next election in called.

I understand fully Labour Members’ need to somehow try to confuse the issue with this particular agreement in relation to the amendment. However, the Government amendment is very clear. It sets a date by which article 50 has to be invoked. By not voting against the amendment, the Labour party will be giving the Government a blank cheque to go forward and invoke article 50 without any real caveats. I am wholly in favour of that, I have to say, because I support the Government, but I did not think Labour Members were supporting the Government. I welcome them to that position, although some of my hon. Friends absolutely deplore them for doing so. I see from the shaking of heads that many on their own Benches deplore the weakness they seem to have shown, but I congratulate them—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was momentarily distracted by another hon. Member speaking to me. The right hon. Gentleman was a beneficiary for a few seconds, but I am afraid his time has now elapsed.

Article 50

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As usual, I want to accommodate the enormous interest of the House in this important statement and will strive to do so, but I must say to the House that questions and answers must be brief from now on.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the passage of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 the then Foreign Secretary, now the Chancellor, made it unequivocally clear that the purpose of the Bill that was being passed into law was to give to the British people the absolute right to decide whether we stayed in or left the European Union? At no stage was that unclear. Does my right hon. Friend therefore deplore all those, including 70 Opposition Members, who now say that that decision does not stand and that we should fight to stay in the EU regardless of the public’s decision?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Monday 14th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. From all the evidence, we know that children in workless households grow up without the aspiration to achieve, something they might have if they grow up in driven families who are in work. They are almost certain to repeat the difficult lives of their parents and we want to turn those lives around. Since 2010, the number of workless households in the social rented sector has fallen by more than 280,000 to a record low. It is worth remembering that when we took office in 2010 the number of households where no one had ever worked had nearly doubled under the previous Labour Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Angus Brendan MacNeil. He is not here. Where is the fellow? I call Naz Shah.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

21. What assessment his Department has made of the effect of recent changes to benefits on levels of child poverty.

State Pension Age

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Well, all I can assume from that rather pathetic response is that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) did not think that his urgent question would be granted and that, after he heard that it had been granted, he scribbled away massively, because it was utter idiocy. I want to be kind to him, because he has made a career out of being Mr Angry at the drop of a hat. I remind him—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear this, but I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. Let me remind him of exactly what his party was about before he took over as the Opposition spokesman. Let me—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) ought to know better, because he is a statesman—or, at any rate, a statesman of sorts—and should not conduct himself in an unseemly manner. As for the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), I have told him before to be careful: if you have that hot curry too often, it tends to have an effect upon your demeanour in the Chamber.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am also worried about the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell). He has been here a long time and I want him to have a very good retirement, but he needs to calm down or he will not make it at this rate.

I remind the Opposition that the questions that the hon. Member for Pontypridd asked were all answered by his party when it was in government. It was the Labour Government who raised the state pension age—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like being reminded of that. They did not have an independent review before they did it. They did it arbitrarily and set a set of dates, but they did not ask an independent reviewer to look at them. We are doing that now. That is what we were asked to do, and I think we are being reasonable about it.

It is also worth reminding the hon. Gentleman of what the then shadow Pensions Minister, Gregg McClymont, said when this statutory review—it is, I repeat, statutory—was passed by the Pensions Act 2014. He said—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, I am doing it, but the hon. Gentleman’s party agreed with it. He should calm down, or he will never make it to state pension age. Gregg McClymont, the then Opposition spokesman, said at the time,

“we do not oppose the Bill”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 870.]

That was Labour’s position on the statutory requirement to review the state pension age. Baroness Sherlock said:

“It is vital that the way the state pension age is reviewed is…seen to be fair”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2013; Vol. 750, c. 146.]

That is exactly what we are doing.

It is Labour that instituted the rises in the state pension, raised women’s state pension age and went for the equalisation of state pension age. In government, it started to do the responsible things, but in opposition it is utterly irresponsible and pointless.

I have one final comment to make to the hon. Member for Pontypridd. As I stood up, somebody said to me—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) are both rather cerebral academics. I cannot believe that they would conduct themselves in this manner in a university seminar. If they would not do so there, they should not misbehave here. Whatever they think of what the Secretary of State is saying, they must hear it.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Exactly, Mr Speaker, thank you. I say to the hon. Member for Pontypridd that, as I stood up, somebody told me—rather unfairly, I thought at the time—that he is shallow. Sadly, I now think that he gives shallow people a bad name. His response was pathetic and the urgent question was asked by an Opposition who have no policy and who jump around opposing everything and racking up spending commitments. No wonder they haven’t a hope in hell of being in government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend must not dare tempt me in that direction. What is really important is that we run our economy here in the UK for the benefit of citizens of the UK. We have made our position clear: we want to ensure that those who have not been here for a certain period of time and have not contributed are not able to draw upon our benefits system.

[Mr Speaker]

On the whole, because the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is dextrous, he was just about within order, but I counsel colleagues that they should take great care, as a general principle, not to shoehorn their personal preoccupations into questions to which they do not obviously relate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I missed the question, Mr Speaker. There was a lot of noise, so I did not hear it.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady was asking about the treatment of someone who has a third child through rape.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My apologies to the hon. Lady. May I say to her that we will come back with our exact reasons and rationale for how we will decide that? The reality remains, however—and this is, I believe, popular among the public—that those who make choices and take responsibility for them want everyone else to do the same as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

My constituent, Mr Colin Fraser, has degenerative Parkinson’s disease. He came to see me at my constituency surgery just over a week ago in a very shaken and devastated state after having had the mobility component of his personal independent payment reviewed. According to the Department’s own guidelines—[Interruption.] This is an important issue. The guidelines state that cases involving claimants with severe neurological conditions such as motor neurone disease, dementia and Parkinson’s should be “paper based” and not subject to interview. My constituent was subjected to very intimidating behaviour and I would like the Secretary of State to look very carefully at his case and, in a wider context, how people are dealt with in such situations.

[Mr Speaker]

With relation to employment.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We do conduct reviews and I would be very happy to review that particular case, if the hon. Lady wants to take it up with me. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), has already met Parkinson’s UK to discuss how we can improve and modify the system so that it helps people much better. We are always looking for ways to improve it, and I and my hon. Friend would be very happy to speak to the hon. Lady about this particular case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really helpful question. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that in this particular circumstance, the needs of these particular migrants, in many cases in desperate trouble, will be met by the money in the aid budget. We have no plans to change that. My hon. Friend cannot tempt me to say more, but following is a statement in which he might like to catch the Speaker’s eye.

[Mr Speaker]

Of course, there is no obligation on colleagues to ask helpful questions.

Child Poverty

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The Opposition, and particularly the hon. Gentleman, have scored a massive own goal today. They tabled the urgent question before the statistics came out, so certain were they and their friends on the left that the statistics would show a massive rise. They were wrong. They cannot accept that our welfare reforms, which they never made in their time, are working.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am committed to the purpose of getting people out of poverty and ending the process of families being in poverty. Most of what I have done over the past 10 years has been dedicated to doing that. The trouble with the Labour party is that it is wedded to this income measure. Its whole policy was skewed as a direct result of that.

Our reforms have tackled the root causes of poverty. Employment is up by over 2 million since 2010. I remember the hon. Gentleman saying that employment would fall as a direct result of our changes. The level and rate of children in workless households is at a record low. The proportion of households in social housing that are in work is the highest it has ever been since records began. The rate and level of children in workless households is also at a record low. That is tackling the root causes of poverty.

The truth is that the Opposition have egg all over their face today. I find the hon. Gentleman’s comments close to rank hypocrisy, because they comprehensively failed to meet their own targets, despite dumping huge sums of money into the welfare system. They did nothing to transform people’s lives. They missed their own target to halve child poverty by 2010. Under the Labour Government, in-work poverty rose by 20%, even though they ploughed money into the welfare system, increasing welfare spending by 60%. Let me remind the Opposition how they did that. Tax credit spending rocketed in the years before each election. In 2003-04 it rose by 60%, and in 2004-05 it rose by 7.2%. Then, strangely, between elections it went flat and even fell slightly. Then just before the 2010 election, it rose by 14.4% and then 8.5%.

The reality is that we set out in our manifesto that we need to look at new measures of child poverty. Looking at life chances is the right way to do it, to get to the root causes of why people get into poverty. The current measures led the last Labour Government to a benefit system that gave families an extra pound here or there just to push them above the poverty line but did nothing to transform their lives.

Let me give an example of a family who are officially in poverty under those measures, with parents who have huge drug problems. When they go over the line, according to the measurement, they are not in poverty, but because the parents are likely to spend all their money on drugs, the children do not get fed. The reality is that the measurement is not of that family’s life chances but only of the income transfer.

At the beginning of the last Parliament, I started a debate about whether the current measures were a sensible way of directing Government efforts towards changing people’s lives. We undertook a consultation in 2012 and 2013 that received a wide range of responses, with a broad consensus that the current measures did not recognise the range of actions needed to improve children’s life chances. As a result, the Government have a clear manifesto commitment on child poverty—we will work to eliminate it and introduce better measures to drive real change in children’s lives by getting to the root causes.

I believe that we have a proud record of tackling the problem. We have raised the minimum wage faster and further than the last Government did and focused on supporting families, improving educational attainment, supporting people into work and allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Today’s figures are a vindication of our approach, and as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), whom I see in his place, said this morning:

“Most of the electorate…find the definition of poverty…as defined by academics and politicians to be utterly bewildering.”

I have always believed passionately in a welfare system focused on changing lives. Today shows that not only has Labour lost the election, it has lost the argument. No wonder it is referred to as the welfare party. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There has been a very considerable cacophony in the Chamber. I can advise the House that at least three dozen colleagues are seeking to catch my eye on this important matter. I want to try to accommodate the level of interest, but we have business questions to follow and then a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport, before we embark on a significantly subscribed debate following the Anderson report, so there is a premium on brevity from both Back and Front Benchers. I hope that we will be given a tutorial in that by Sir Oliver Heald.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the best figures in his and my time in the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad to see Labour concentrating on statistics and benefits when the central insight that the Government have had, which is working, is that this is all about work, education and tackling barriers to employment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. When I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat—that is the situation. I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that subtlety did not quite work. When I see a process of constant page turning, that is a source of anxiety to the Chair. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the thrust of the matter has to be a series of questions. Once we get beyond that to a series of comments or rhetorical questions, I feel that the hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the House and in the interests of himself, can appropriately resume his seat. We are very grateful to him.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I had been looking at those sheets of paper and assumed there was a bit more to come! I welcome the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) to his post. I agree that there is always more to be done. We want to eradicate poverty and child poverty. I think the figures show that we have made good progress, but I am not complacent.

The Scottish nationalists have campaigned, obviously, for independence, but they have many of the levers in their hands, and if the hon. Gentleman complains about poverty and child poverty in Scotland, my question would be: to what degree have the Scottish Government acted to make some of the changes that he wants? He made a couple of points, but my point would be that employment in Scotland is at a record high, which has not been the case in the past after a recession. The work that we have done to get people back into work, including those in workless households and in social housing, has been a huge success. It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that across the board in the UK, some 800,000 fewer people are in relative low income before housing costs, and 300,000 fewer children are in relative low-income households.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about reforming the benefit system so that it has a connection with the tax system; I can tell him that universal credit is exactly what he is hoping for. So far, we have had a bit of resistance from his Government. I hope he will now go back and say, “Let’s go for this full time.”