Supporting High Streets

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tom Tugendhat

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

Forgive me, but I do not agree. I can see that transport connections and the £2 bus link—which has now gone up by 50% under this Government—was crucial to helping small businesses survive in rural areas, but businesses that were taking in younger people as new starters are not hiring them because of cost. The cost of any change that may be needed in the business, which may evolve or shape itself differently, means that effectively it is not worth the risk. We see this again and again.

The tragedy is that I am not telling this House anything new. This speech could have been given anytime in the past 50 years. The reality is that we have tried all these experiments, and we know how they work: they end up with rising unemployment, rising debt burdens and fewer public services. We know where this goes.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The real problem in all this is that the Government imposed a national insurance increase on businesses. The second problem is what they have done for businesses that might have taken on new starters by lowering that threshold. It has been an absolute killer on both counts for businesses, so there is a reason why they are not taking on new starters at the moment.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the reality of what this Government have done. I understand that they have decided to defend the established strength of unionised and employed workers. I get it, but they have chosen specifically to punish incoming workers, young people and those who are trying to enter the labour market. That is the choice they have made. They have also chosen to defend established businesses—those businesses that can pay a large amount for human resources functions—rather than the smaller businesses that innovate and start up. Again, that is a choice that they have made, and let us not ignore the fact that it was a choice. They have chosen the large company, the institution, the established worker, and they have decided to punish the high street.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Tom Tugendhat

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me in giving a prediction. Two families have swapped leadership of Mauritius over the last 60 years. Does he see any reason to doubt that the same two families will swap leadership over the next 60?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is exactly the point. There are serious concerns about the uncertainties surrounding future growth and societal wellbeing. If there are such concerns when it comes to UK predictions about the UK, imagine how difficult it is to predict what will happen in Mauritius, so this should be dismissed.

It is interesting that after not answering the question for so long, suddenly the Government have popped up with a new device. They say that if we do not accept the figures, we are completely dismissing the Green Book, but the overall cost is not a Green Book issue, because this is about paying somebody money outside the UK, not about controlling cost. That is why the Green Book has never been used for this purpose before, and never will. I simply say to the Government that the money side of this has fallen apart again.

I come to the third element. As I said earlier, we have had no real vote or debate on the treaty, as opposed to the Bill. The old CRaG system has been rushed through, without a vote. I have to tell the Minister, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, that that is simply appalling, given that we are dealing with something as strategically important as this treaty.

Clause 5 of the Bill, which is a very flimsy document, is entitled “Further provision: Orders in Council”. Anybody who reads that will have a sudden intake of breath. The whole point of this Bill is negated by clause 5. What is the point of debating the rest of the Bill, given that clause 5 says that at any stage, and under any circumstances, the Government can change it all by Orders in Council? Absolutely everything can be changed by Orders in Council, with no vote and no dispute. If the Government decide to go in a different direction, they do not have to consult Parliament any more.

The sweeping powers in the Bill are ridiculous. When the Minister was in opposition, he used to spend his whole time moaning—quite rightly—about Governments who give themselves such powers. Even by the standards of previous Governments, this Bill is pretty astonishing. It is a massive sweep. This is not really democracy any more; it is monocracy. In other words, we have given up debate and dispute, and we have handed things over to one person—the Prime Minister. I say to the Government that the Bill is appalling, and they really need to rethink it. We simply cannot go through with something as appalling as this. I can remember the Maastricht debates, and various others in which we spent a long time debating clauses on the Floor of the House. That was the right thing to do, because such issues are important. International treaties are vital to our wellbeing, and the Bill simply does not work.

The last thing I want to say is on China. I would say this, because I am sanctioned by China, as are some of my hon. Friends. I suspect that others will be sanctioned as well in due course. If they carry on working with me in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, they are bound to be sanctioned, and I look forward to their joining us at that table. There is no way on earth that China does not benefit from this Bill. China has its eyes on the very important flow of commercial traffic that runs just below the Chagos islands, which it has always wanted to be able to block, control or interfere with.

The Chinese already have a naval base in Sri Lanka, which they got by default on the back of the belt and road initiative, due to non-payment. For a long time, they have been looking at how, under their arrangements with Mauritius, they will eventually be able to intervene. They are two or three steps further forward as a result of this Bill. It does not secure us against that absolutely, because we gave up absolute security and control when we decided to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius.