Tributes to the Speaker

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

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.

Leaving the EU: Workers’ Rights

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Most eccentric behaviour by the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). It is not necessary to raise one’s hand, as though in a classroom. It is quite sufficient for the hon. Gentleman simply to stand. I do not know what he did when he was at Eton, but he does not have to worry about that now. I am glad there is a beatific smile on the face of the hon. Gentleman. That itself is a source of some solace.

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

May I say to my right hon. Friend that the question from the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) is completely at odds with reality? If Labour Members look very carefully at wanting to remain in the EU, it is the judgments of the European Court of Justice that Professor Mary Davis of Royal Holloway, University of London—a Labour historian—has said will be a thunderclap to the left, because, with imported workers, they put business rights over workers’ rights. So, if this case is exactly what they say it is, they should be wanting to accelerate our departure from the EU to get back full control of workers’ rights to the UK.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and Extension Letter

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I had not planned on speaking, but I just wanted to make a clear point that “Match of the Day” trumps anything else as far as I am concerned every time. Will my right hon. Friend explain something to me? It finally appears to be the Opposition’s position, although I am never clear whether that will change next week, that they want to have a second referendum. Will he explain what anybody could say to the British public when they say, “We didn’t trust you last time. Now you have to trust us that we will trust you again on a second referendum.” How could they possibly believe or trust British politicians again?

[Mr Speaker]

I must tell the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) that he shares that penchant with the late and great Anthony Crosland, who greatly enjoyed watching “Match of the Day”. He would often have colleagues around the dinner table in his home and they would be discussing political matters, but moments before “Match of the Day”, Crosland would make it very clear that all further political discussion must cease as he proposed to watch the programme. He would usually don a bobble hat while doing so.

Prime Minister's Update

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to Members of the House to calm themselves. I just called the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. He is entitled to put his question, and the rest of us are entitled to hear him. Mr Iain Duncan Smith.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his very good put-down of the shallow Leader of the Opposition? I understand that his Government have changed the root origin of the term “yellowhammer” to describe the botched attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to dispatch his own deputy. I received and saw in my constituency, as others did recently, leaflets from the Labour party calling for a general election now. Can my right hon. Friend give me any reason why we are not having an election at this point? Does he think for a moment that it could be because the Leader of the Opposition fears his own party just as much as he fears us?

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That point stands on its own and requires no response from me.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a small question on the basis of your judgment. As this whole issue of Queen’s consent hangs on whether, when this House triggered article 50, the statute covered and assumed the right under article 50(3) to extend and accept that extension, or whether that right still remains a Government prerogative under the prerogative powers. In a court case on 19 August, Lord Justice Hickinbottom of the Court of Appeal ruled categorically that it did not assume such a thing in the case brought by the English Democrats and ruled that the Government still retained the prerogative rights under article 50(3).

Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you have seen that ruling and whether you would take consideration of that prior to Third Reading, when I gather a final decision will have to be made.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My initial response is that we are guided in these matters by House rules in respect of Queen’s consent. It would be a mistake to think that they are extrapolated from or dependent upon judicial interpretation of the kind he references. We have our own procedures in relation to Queen’s consent, and what I am saying is consistent with those procedures.

I will certainly reflect further on the point the right hon. Gentleman has made, but it is not something that has a bearing on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Business of the House

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There are, of course, Greek antecedents of the word “archaic”—a concept and fact with which the Leader of the House himself will be closely familiar. However, I think I can say, without fear of contradiction and for the avoidance of doubt, that the word “archaic” as it is now spelt originated in the 19th century, and in France. By the standards of the Leader of the House, it is distressingly modern and also—I say this simply as a matter of fact—of foreign origin. He will have his own views about that matter and others.

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

I start by welcoming my hon. Friend—I do not think he is yet “right hon.”—to his post. I think he will bring modulated and very moderate tones to these debates. One thing is for certain: having a seat in business questions will now be an absolute must. I welcome my hon. Friend in that regard.

Nothing can be done in this Session, but I want to raise a particular issue. With Lord McColl, I am a co-sponsor of a Bill to change the process relating to modern-day slavery. I ask and urge my hon. Friend to press his colleagues at the Home Office, who have to date been utterly mealy-mouthed about the changes necessary to give victims of modern-day slavery the opportunity to come forward without fearing arrest and incarceration. Will he press his colleagues at the Home Office to urgently bring forward the Bill’s provisions as soon as possible, to improve the quality of the lives of those who suffer most? [Interruption.]

Investigation of Veterans

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is hovering—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I recognise that I arrived slightly late, but I wondered—

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I am in a generous mood, so in recognition of the right hon. Gentleman’s military background and former leadership of his party, I think the House should indulge him.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and I apologise that I came in when the Minister was already on his feet. I served in Northern Ireland and in what was then Rhodesia. I received a general service medal for one campaign, and a separate campaign medal for the other—as has been said, they were both operations. We were sent to Northern Ireland, and I lost friends, particularly Robert Nairac—I am sorry I was not here when he was mentioned. I do not know how I can honestly, and with a clean heart, say that my Government represent the best interests of ex-servicemen and women who have served their country. I simply state to the Minister this simple principle: when natural justice collides with the law, we change the law.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to the House to give the right hon. Gentleman the respectful attention that he probably wants and I think he should have.

Points of Order

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

On account of his seniority I will take a further point of order from the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will not push his luck.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I respect the Chair and I would never push my luck with you. I do not challenge the decision by any means, and it is your right to make it from the Chair, but over the past 24 or 25 years I have on a number of occasions, particularly during the Maastricht debates, asked the Clerks whether we could amend a Business of the House motion. I was always told categorically that precedent says it is not possible and, therefore, there was no point seeking to do so—I say that only as a statement.

Because this has a big impact on the Government’s ability to get their business, regardless of Brexit, will the instruction go to the Clerks that, in future, a Back Bencher wishing to amend a “forthwith” motion will now have such an amendment allowed and accepted against any business in the House?

[Mr Speaker]

It seems entirely reasonable for me to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I would like to reflect on that matter. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Order. Members cavil as though there is an assumption that there should be immediate and comprehensive knowledge of all circumstances that might subsequently unfold. It may be that there are Members who feel they possess such great wisdom and, if so, I congratulate them upon the fact. I do not claim that wisdom, so I am giving what I absolutely admit is a holding answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I will reflect on the point, but if he is asking whether I think it is unreasonable that people might seek to amend a Business of the House motion, I do not think it is unreasonable. If, in future, Back Benchers were to seek to do so, it would seem sensible to me to say, “Let us look at the merits of the case.”

Finally, in attempting to respond not only to the right hon. Gentleman but to some of the concerns that have been expressed, I understand the importance of precedent, but precedent does not completely bind, for one very simple reason. [Interruption.] I say this for the benefit of the Leader of the House, who is shaking her head. If we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change. Things do change. I have made an honest judgment. If people want to vote against the amendment, they can; and if they want to vote for it, they can.

Future Immigration

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Obviously, I have not had a chance to read the White Paper, but much of what he said today is moving in the right direction. I hope he agrees with me that one of the problems with discussing migration over the past two decades has been that any time it is mentioned, people immediately accuse those who ask about reducing it of being racist. We have to bring an end to that level of debate, which has led to much of the frustration to which the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) referred earlier, about the way the debate has been conducted. As one of those who voted leave, it was clear to me throughout that people did not want an end to migration; what they wanted was controlled migration. That is what I hope my right hon. Friend delivers today.

As far as I can see, the core bit that has caused the greatest problem has been the immediate access to social security benefits for people coming from the European Union. That has caused a big problem. Many businesses have, I am afraid, abused the process, getting them to come in and live in often quite squalid conditions, driving wages down for those who have much higher costs. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to deal with that issue to make sure that that is not a way of bringing in cheap labour? When he gets lectured by businesses and by others who say the health service cannot cope, will he remind them that for the past two decades—[Interruption.] This is a very important point.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman’s point may be important, but it does need to be framed in the form of a question—briefly.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that businesses have failed to invest in training and skilling the domestic population, with the result that only 15% of those who start life at entry level work will ever move beyond entry level work?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) was inadvertently erased, but I will come to him momentarily—he need not fear.

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

There was a recent announcement about extending contracts for rental homes to three years and losing the six-month rental position. May I urge the Treasury to look carefully at that? The last thing we want is fewer rental homes on the market and higher costs, as that would also have an impact on welfare costs.

Tributes (Speaker Martin)

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I rise, very briefly, to join your tribute, Mr Speaker, which I appreciated very much.

On two occasions in my time in the House, I had cause to work closely with Michael Martin. The first occasion was when, after my Maastricht rebellions, I was banished by the Whips Office—they were able to do that in those days, as Mr Speaker will know—to an in-House Committee which met but infrequently. They thought that would be a punishment, but it was an absolute pleasure because Michael was the Chair of the Committee. He greeted me and said, “I know why you are here and it is not because you are interested in the running of the House!” He then regaled me with tales of the pipe major and many of the pipers in the Scots Guards, with whom I had served, and their chequered careers; the number of times they had gone up in the ranks and down in the ranks due to too much post-piping whisky. He offered to give me an example of just how they maintained their rank while playing well and he did just that. We missed a number of committee hearings as a result of his piping—I do not know who chaired them, by the way, even to this day—but he seemed less than interested in that and more interested in the piping side of things. I got along with him famously and the Whips never knew what a pleasure it was to be banished to that Committee.

The second occasion was when I had the misfortune to be elected leader of the Conservative party. I was the first Catholic to be elected as leader. I know just how difficult being the Leader of the Opposition is, particularly if one’s party wants to have an argument in an empty room most of the time, which I have some sense of, if not a little pleasure in. Michael took me to his room and chatted away to me about the difficulties. During our conversations, we settled on the fact that both of us were the first Catholics to serve in our positions. He was very proud of that, as was I.

Our roles did not quite end in the way we might have wished and that is one thing that I am very sad about. This House was going through a very difficult time and it was inevitable that the Speaker would, to some degree, become a focus of that. I want to put on record my view that this decent man was taken to task in a way that I did not think were his just deserts. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He took on his shoulders a lot of what had happened. I think his early departure is something the House may someday want to look at and ask whether it was fair to him in the way that he had been to it.

I am sad at Michael’s passing. He was a decent man and a good man. We did not necessarily treat him with the respect and decency he deserved, and I am sorry for that.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very warmly for what he has said. I think the reaction of the House shows that colleagues feel the same.

Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope it is a point of order.

[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]

Order. No, that is not a point of order.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

indicated dissent.

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Within the context of equity of spending, I wonder whether, after this snow event is over, my right hon. Friend will ask some serious questions about, or even have a review of, why we still seem to be in no way prepared for such events. For example, I discovered yesterday that Heathrow is busy offloading flights because it cannot cope, whereas—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Is this about regional flights?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, regional flights. What I am saying is that, given all of that, airports such as Gatwick and others are able to cope. Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is ridiculous that some airports are simply unable to cope while others across the UK can?

Points of Order

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman can always discuss these matters, if he wishes, over a cup of tea with the Minister, if the Minister can spare the time to do so. I do not want to get into a detailed examination of all past motions. Suffice it to say—this is important—that there is a very recent motion passed by this House. If I may very politely say so to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, I did not say that it was my advice that the motion was binding or effective; as Speaker, I ruled that it was binding or effective. That, I can say to the hon. Member for Glenrothes, irrespective of other motions, remains the fact.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for pressing you for a further clarification, but I do so simply because it may help the House. If a motion of contempt applies in respect of a motion, and a subsequent motion amends the original motion, does that negate any charge of contempt relating to the requirements made previously of the Secretary of State?

[Mr Speaker]

That is perfectly reasonable. I have known the right hon. Gentleman long enough to know that he has a fertile mind and likes to explore all possible avenues. I hope that he will forgive me for resorting to my usual response to what I regard as a hypothetical question, which is to pray in aid the wisdom of the late Lord Whitelaw, who was known to observe, on I think more than one occasion, “Personally, I prefer to cross bridges only when I come to them.” That is probably the safest course in virtually every sense.

Universal Credit

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, I say with crystal clarity to the House that Members who arrived after the statement began should not be standing and will not be called, which is in conformity with long-established practice in this House. I have often said it; I do not know why it is so difficult for some people to grasp, but that is the reality of the matter.

Secondly, there is heavy business to follow, with a large number of colleagues wishing to participate in the continuation of the Budget debate, so I implore colleagues to be pithy in their questions. I know that the Secretary of State will be correspondingly succinct by way of reply. I am keen to move on at as close as possible to 12.30 pm.

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

In support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, may I say that the whole roll-out of universal credit was set up deliberately to allow the Government to respond to any problems and make the necessary changes? I will not rehearse my views about some of the previous Budget discussions, but I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having secured from the Chancellor what is nearly £1.5 billion to help the roll-out process, particularly the transferring of people who are on housing benefit and, of course, the waiting days, which will help enormously by giving flexibility to advisers.

Universal credit is not just about getting people into work. It was deliberately designed to find the people who have the greatest problems and, alongside universal support, to help change their lives. I urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at universal support to ensure that it is rolling out alongside universal credit to make the roll-out a success. I give my congratulations again to a very good Secretary of State.

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House said what she did in response to representations that were made by Members on both sides of the House in the specific context of earlier Opposition day debates, the motions for which were not binding. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but the Leader of the House, in a perfectly procedurally legitimate fashion, about which people can have different political opinions, offered to the House an indication of the intended Government handling of situations of the kind that occurred in recent weeks. Today’s debate was on a different type of motion, and therefore I would go so far as to say that I think it wrong to conflate tonight’s motion, with the instruction that it contains, with the Leader of the House’s response to a different set of circumstances a week or so ago. The situations are different and the response offered then should not necessarily be thought to apply to the situation now.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I quite enjoy voting in this place, but it was our determination not to do so. As I was listening to the debate—you were not in your Chair at the time, but a deputy of yours was—I thought the Government responded to this point and said that they would not choose to ignore this binding motion. Some of these points of order seem to be asking whether or not this House of Commons is in fact a court of law, which it is not. Any Government, in choosing not to vote against a motion, therefore accedes to the idea that it is bound by the process and will respond in due course. Given that basis and the earlier response, I must say, Mr Speaker, that I think your earlier pronouncement was an end to the matter, as far as I can see, because it is quite clear that the Government have to respond.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The Government do have to respond. He is quite right that I was not in the Chair, though of course the Chair is seamless—there was a distinguished occupant of the Chair at the time—and I have received advice on what took place when I was not in the Chair. I think, from an earlier point of order, there was some exchange about what constituted, and what did not constitute, ignoring a motion. Suffice it to say that enough has been said tonight. Points of order have been raised. I think that I have given a clear indication of what the general practice has been and what I would do if I were approached in writing, and it is right and proper, as the right hon. Gentleman implies, that we leave it there for tonight.

Grenfell Tower

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate the level of interest in this extraordinarily important and grave subject. May I appeal to colleagues to help me to help them? There is a premium upon brevity, which I feel sure will be brilliantly exemplified by Mr Iain Duncan Smith.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the actions she said that she and the Government will take. Our hearts and prayers go out to all those who have suffered so terribly and who will continue to suffer in the days to come.

I ask the Prime Minister to add one further remit to the public inquiry: to look at whether the whole process of retrofitting old tower blocks is viable at all and at whether there is a better way to house and support tenants in these areas without the use of the many incredibly badly designed and very faulty tower blocks. Will she ask the public inquiry to look carefully at whether it is feasible to bring some of the blocks down and provide more family friendly housing?