National Security Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Iain Duncan Smith

Report stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As hon. Members can see, there is quite a bit of interest in the debate. I am introducing an initial six-minute speaking limit, which I am sure will be reduced to accommodate everybody.

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

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not take that long.

Before I speak to the amendments in my name and those of other hon. Members, which are quite narrow, I want to address Government amendment 60, which I am quite surprised to find in the Bill. Peculiarly, it sets out a series of offences to which it is no longer a defence to claim modern slavery. I am surprised that many of them are not already captured elsewhere. Some of them are very general, such as “entering a prohibited place” and “foreign interference: general”. I always get worried when I see the Government tabling amendments that say things like “in general”, because it really means that they want to do something else that we do not know about. I accept that the amendment will make it into the Bill today, but I want to see what comes back from the other place once the Lords have managed to probe it and find out about it. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government suddenly needed to put it in the Bill.

My amendments would strike out subsections (1)(b) and (2)(b) of clause 68. The Government seem almost to have cut and pasted some of the US legislation and possibly the Australian legislation. I know that the exemption for legal services appears in that legislation, but I am concerned. My amendment is a tightening-up exercise. I really wonder why we think it necessary to provide such a general exemption for legal services. I am sorry if there are practising lawyers present in the House, but if I know anything at all about how lawyers work, they will find ways to exercise the process of lobbying on behalf of organisations and individuals with no right to be here. They will not call it lobbying; they will find some term that is covered by “legal services” and then get on with it. That will also be a way of getting around the Crown prerogative.

I would be grateful if the Minister looks at the issue carefully and understands that there is a problem. I have talked to a lot of lawyers, and most of them believe that the exemption for legal services is not necessary. There is no reason why they should be exempted; the rules should apply directly to them. Either the definition of what constitutes legal services needs to be tightened up very carefully, or the exemptions should be struck out as the amendments require. I would like some indication from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that the Government will look seriously at the matter in the Lords and act on it. An exemption for legal services is unnecessary and will lead to lobbying by the back door; I am sure that all sorts of terms will be found that are covered by “legal services”.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Points of Order

Debate between Nigel Evans and Iain Duncan Smith

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. An email from Mr Speaker has just arrived in our offices. I understand the key issue is that he has been contacted by MI5, and is now warning Members of Parliament that an agent of the Chinese Government has been active here in Parliament—working with a Member of Parliament—obviously to subvert the processes here. As a Member of Parliament who was sanctioned by the Chinese Government, as others were, this is a matter of grave concern to me. I therefore rise to make three important points.

First, will this now lead to a serious overhaul of the accreditation procedures here in the House of Commons? They are clearly too slack if these people get in, either through all-party parliamentary groups or with individuals.

Is it possible that we will have a statement from Mr Speaker, from the Chair, about the risks? I am one of those who has done a lot to try to help Hong Kong Chinese who are fleeing the Communist regime. We have the names and numbers of people here in the UK, which leaves me worrying that some of them have been accessed by such an individual. That would put their lives and families at risk, and I am deeply concerned, because my activities may well have been traced, as well as those of my colleagues and friends.

I understand the latest news is that this individual is not to be deported and no further action is to be taken. How can a foreign, despotic and despicable power, which is hellbent on reducing many people to penury, put somebody into this mother of Parliaments and that individual have nothing done to them other than not being allowed into Parliament? That is surely not good enough. Could there be a statement from the Government on what they plan to do and, with respect, a statement from Mr Speaker from the Chair?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me forward notice of it. As he knows, it is not the policy of the Chair to comment in detail on any security matters, and I will certainly not be doing so today. As for any statement either from the Chair or, indeed, from a Minister, I have been given no notification whatsoever. Should that change, I am certain that Members will be notified in the usual way.

On the third point, we do not discuss the detail of security issues on the Floor of the House. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the House authorities are in regular contact with the appropriate Government agencies on this matter, and we will update our advice and activities as necessary.

Point of Order

Debate between Nigel Evans and Iain Duncan Smith

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing it.

I have just discovered that the United States Government have finally decided on a diplomatic boycott of the winter Olympic games in China. As you will know, many Members on both sides of the House who are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China have called for the UK Government to do the same. It is a matter of distress and annoyance to us that my Government have failed so far to express a view on the issue. Has the Chair received any signal that the UK Government are likely to come to the House and say whether they—both Ministers and officials—will also boycott the winter Olympics? They should do it now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for his earlier mention of it to me. I have not received any information to date that the Government intend to make any statement on that or any other matter this evening, but should they change their mind, Members will be notified in the usual way and there will be a scrolling announcement on the Annunciators. In any event, the Minister on the Treasury Bench has heard the point of order, and I am sure she will bring it to the attention of the relevant Ministers. Should a statement be made, either tomorrow or later this week, the House will be informed in the usual way.

Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No.4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 February 2021 in the last Session of Parliament (Armed Forces Bill: Programme), as varied by the Orders of 23 June 2021 (Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No. 2)) and 13 July 2021 (Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No. 3)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Leo Docherty.)

Question agreed to.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Iain Duncan Smith

2nd reading
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to be called so early in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a huge admirer and supporter of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, as she knows.

I have some personal views on this subject, which I will explain. I tabled my amendment because I felt we needed to debate what the right level of investment in universal credit is. I have to say from the beginning that I otherwise support the idea that the Government have to make changes to the triple lock. What goes missing in a lot of these debates is the fact that we have just suffered the biggest blow to the economy as a result of covid—I accept that fully. We debate these things without realising that, but I recognise it and it changes the terms of the debate. It also changes the terms of the debate on the manifesto, because no manifesto could have predicted the kind of crisis we have just been through.

We need to get a rational and stable debate about these things. It is important to recognise the huge amount we have done for pensioners since the arrival of the triple lock; increases for pensioners have been remarkable, and so many more pensioners have been lifted out of poverty. These are success stories the Government should be able to talk about and recognise that there has to be some flexibility, so I am not going to end up at odds with the Government on this—quite the contrary, as I recognise all that fully.

However, I want to speak to the amendment that I tabled alongside the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). I do feel it is necessary for us to re-examine the investment levels in UC. I recognise that the Government made the right decision at the beginning of the pandemic to invest in universal credit to ensure that those who were naturally going to be falling unemployed as a result of the problems that came from the pandemic would receive a higher level of support.

When I resigned from the job that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now holds, I did so on the basis of two or three things. My No. 1 basis was that the Treasury took a significant sum—much the same as the uplift—out of universal credit. I always made the point very early on that when we put money into universal credit we are investing in a dynamic process. It is one that by its very nature reduces the overall cost, because the more we get people into work, the lower the overall cost of the money we put in.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. You will remember that your amendment was not selected. A passing reference to it is fine, but please do not go into it in detail.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I understood that as the amendment is on the Order Paper, I have at least a right to speak to it, even though it was not selected.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

No, you have got that wrong. You are not allowed to speak to an amendment that has not been selected. You can make passing reference to it, in the generality, in a Second Reading debate—that is fine—but you cannot go into it in detail.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

In that case, I am going to make passing reference to it, and I will leave the Chair to decide whether or not that passing reference is more substantial. I shall pass through universal credit carefully and make full reference to the statement that has been made or the passing of this on Second Reading.

I want to make a simple point, and I am not going to hold the House up for too long. The point of the amendment I tabled but which was not selected and the purpose of today’s debate is to ensure that those of working age who are receiving security, support and benefit from this Government get the right level of support. We know that the changes made to the triple lock will ensure that a saving is made to the Exchequer against what was unpredictable at the time and resulting from the increase in pay that will happen as a result of the easing of the covid restrictions and the bounce back that is taking place. I also recognise that one problem we have as a result is that those of working age are going to have to pick up a bigger burden, which is why the universal credit uplift should be reviewed, and reviewed very quickly.

The point I simply make, in line with the idea that the pensioners are taking some of this burden, is about universal credit itself: if that money, or some of it, is moved towards the tapers, we will have a reality where more people move into work. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in her discussions with the Treasury on these matters, will make the point that it needs to make sure that those on universal credit are able to move through it faster and that therefore investment in the tapers would benefit both the Treasury and those who are seeking to get work, by making that pathway easier. That will complement what is being done for pensioners at the moment under the terms of ending of the triple lock for one year. Such a move will almost certainly be beneficial; this winter and into the spring, while we see the effects of the fall-out of moving from the furlough scheme and of the other difficulties on energy pricing and some food pricing, which is going to rise, it will protect those who are most vulnerable, while giving people an opportunity to work, with work being the very best way out of poverty.

I am going to finish by simply saying that this is an important matter and I hope my right hon. Friend will take our amendment, which was not selected, as justification in her negotiations with the Treasury to secure a better investment in the taper.

Trade Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Iain Duncan Smith

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There is a three-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions from now.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is a very short time, so I will do my level best to get my three points across.

I just want to say something about the procedure today. Of course, we would not be sitting here if it was not in order for these proceedings, but there are different ways to be in order, and the reality of bundling together all these things into one motion—an amendment tabled by the Government—means that of course there is no way we will get to vote on the Lords amendment on genocide. I simply point out that fact. It reminds me that this little dispute is a little bit like the Handforth parish council one, and it is always a good idea to read the Standing Orders. I have read them, and they tell me what has happened: the Government have deliberately blocked this. I am sorry, but that is what this is. No point of order on that one; that is the reality. I simply say to my hon. Friends that I have been here long enough, and this is beneath them. I wish they had thought again, and I hope they do not try this one again.

I respect my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy enormously, as he knows, but I must pick up on a few points that he made, as I did table an amendment. First, he extols the virtues of the Government amendment and attacks the idea that the courts could make the judgment, as that would impinge on our position as a Parliament. Yet literally yesterday, in answer to a parliamentary question about whether genocide was a matter for the courts, the Foreign Office said:

“It is the policy of the UK Government that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for competent courts rather than Governments or other non-judicial bodies.”

I ask my right hon. Friend: what is a Select Committee? Is it a judicial or a non-judicial body? If it is a non-judicial body, the Government amendment puts the power in the hands of a non-judicial body. What are we doing? We are running in circles just to avoid the reality.

My point is that we have been a little insulting about judges in the amendment that my right hon. Friend is talking about. I have my own differences with judges, but I remind the House that when we need an impartial taking of evidence and judgment—Savile, Grenfell, Hillsborough or any of the other cases—we turn not to Select Committees but to a judge. Why do we do that? First, because we assume that they are impartial and secondly, because they are trained to take and deal with evidence. We are not; we are partial—that is why we are here. We have Select Committees and we have prejudices, and that is the point.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nigel Evans and Iain Duncan Smith

Report stage & Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) Nothing in this Act changes the effect of any rule of law or any enactment in force before the date on which this Act is passed in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of—

(a) the People’s Republic of China, or

(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”

This amendment is intended to ensure the provisional arrest arrangements proposed under this Bill do not apply to extradition requests from China and/or Hong Kong.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) The power to make further amendments under this Act may not be used to make any provision in relation to—

(a) the People’s Republic of China, or

(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”

This amendment would prevent the power to make amendments under this Bill being used in relation to China and/or Hong Kong.

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) The power to make further amendments under this Act may not be used to make any provision in relation to the United States of America.”

This amendment would prevent the power to make amendments under this Bill being used in relation to the USA.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 13, at end insert “except in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of—

(a) the People’s Republic of China, or

(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of China and /or Hong Kong of the powers under the Extradition Act 2003 in relation to British overseas territories, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, in relation to any changes made by this Bill.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 13, at end insert “except in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of the United States of America.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of the USA of the powers under the Extradition Act 2003 in relation to British overseas territories, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, in relation to any changes made by this Bill.

Government amendment 11.

Clause 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Annual statement on provisional arrests—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, at the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement setting out how many individuals have been arrested under provisions within this Act.

(2) The statement must include a list of each incident broken down by protected characteristics of each person arrested, as defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report in similar terms covering each subsequent 12 month period, within six months of that period ending.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement setting out how many individuals have been arrested under provisions within this Act, broken down by characteristics of each person arrested.

New clause 2—Review of the Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 as amended by this Act

(2) That person may, from time to time, carry out a review of the provisions of this Act and must send a report on the outcome of such a review to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after completing the review.

(3) A review under subsection (2) may, in particular, consider operational effectiveness

(4) The person appointed under subsection (1) must carry out and report on the first review before the end of the period of 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament as soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied that doing so will not prejudice any criminal proceedings.”

This new clause requires the changes made by this Act to be kept under review, and the first review of the Act to be carried out within a year of its being passed.

Government amendment 12.

Amendment 16, page 3, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—

‘(4) The “designated authority” is the National Crime Agency.”

This amendment would define the “designated authority” as the National Crime Agency.

Amendment 4, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) Regulations under subsection (7) may not add the People’s Republic of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China as a specified category 2 territory.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of China and Hong Kong of the proposed power under section 75B(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 to add to the list of specified category 2 territories under Schedule A1 on whose authority a valid extradition request may be made.

Amendment 9, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) Regulations under subsection (7) may not add the United States of America to the list in Schedule A1 of specified category 2 territories.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of the USA of the proposed power under section 75B(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 to add to the list of specified category 2 territories under Schedule A1 on whose authority a valid extradition request may be made.

Government amendments 13 and 14.

Amendment 17, page 6, line 42, leave out “Liechtenstein” and insert “All the Member States of the European Economic Area”

This amendment would allow for all EEA Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) to be inserted into new Schedule A1.

Amendment 10,  page 7, leave out line 2

This amendment would remove the USA from the proposed list of specified category 2 countries to which the provisions of this Bill will apply.

Government amendment 15.

Schedule stand part.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I rise to speak to amendment 1, but with it are a whole bunch of other amendments that I have tabled alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). I had intended when I originally tabled them to speak on the basis that the Government needed to act, but since then they have acted—and that is never a bad thing. Although I, with my colleagues, may well have provoked the Government to act, I still want to speak, because things are happening at the moment which mean, I hope, that the Government will pay full attention to further action that may be required, stretching across extradition and into sanctions.

I thank the Government for finally agreeing to rule out the extradition arrangements with Hong Kong, but it is worth noting what has been going on since the imposition of the national security law, which is now making the lives of many in Hong Kong a misery. More than that, they now fear very much indeed not only for their lives but their liberty in a way that none of us here, I sometimes think, could possibly imagine—what it is like to live in such an environment.

We have a historical relationship with Hong Kong, and we have a legal right, under the Sino-British treaty, to have an opinion and view on what is happening in Hong Kong. No matter what the Chinese Government may say, that is our right in international law. The imposition of the national security law runs counter to that arrangement—that treaty. On that basis, the Government have acted correctly in cutting off any potential problem that may arise as a result of the use of the extradition agreement—but there is more, even now, as we speak. Quite recently, we have seen action against a number of people who have done nothing other than use the kind of rights that we would take for granted in this House. Jimmy Lai, the owner of the largest pro-democracy publication in the city, has been charged with undermining the state. There have been arrests of young activists, some of which we have seen on television, but others go on. There have been media posts and people holding blank pieces of paper at protests. People have been arrested in shopping malls for sedition. The targeting of Hong Kong activists overseas is going on apace and gathering pace, as is retrospectively applying the law to supposed crimes that took place before it even came into force, which I find remarkable—perhaps I should not, but I do.

There are then all the elements that the UK Government will find themselves having to deal with, and I believe all the devolved Administrations are united in this sense as well. The evidence around censorship is really quite astonishing. References to the Tiananmen Square massacre have now been removed from all textbooks and all materials that might say anything at all about it—they are simply blanked out. There is a new cultural revolution, with teachers and students being asked and encouraged to spy on each other. If somebody says the wrong thing, or something that is considered the wrong thing, or if someone is remembered to have said the wrong thing, all such talk invokes the use of the security law. There is a new national security centre in Shenzhen to re-educate those who do not comply. Benny Tai, the organiser of the yellow umbrella protest, which is a peaceful movement—I stress that these are all peaceful movements—was fired from his teaching post at a university simply because he was party to that movement. The censorship of university content is now gathering pace, as they are filleting out anything that references any concerns or issues around the nature of China, and even its historical nature.

The latest issue that should concern the Government completely is that we are now seeing problems for journalists from the free world. I say the free world because it is not just a western issue; it is an issue of all those who believe in rights and freedom around the world, whether they be in the far east or in the west. The New York Times has to relocate its staff, completely—lock, stock and barrel—to Seoul after the visa renewal of a senior journalist was rejected; the threat was clearly there that the rest would follow. A senior journalist at the Hong Kong Free Press had their visa rejected. The Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Hong Kong described the trend as a weaponisation of visas by China. We even saw on the news the other day that the Australians are being heavily targeted—brutally targeted—and not only with sanctions; their journalists are now having to flee the country. In fact, two journalists who were due to leave were stopped from leaving and ended up in the consulate. They have now finally left, but the authorities wanted to question them for writing stuff of which they did not approve.

The whole point of this issue then comes into focus. It is the co-operation of the Chinese officials that I find perhaps the most galling. In the announcement by Chief Executive Carrie Lam that they were postponing the LegCo elections that were due to take place on Sunday 5 September—the weekend just gone—she cited covid cases as a reason for the delay. I have heard a few excuses in my time but that one really did take the biscuit, because so many other countries have had elections, both local and national, even during the covid saga. It is also worth pointing out that the Hong Kong rate of infection is lower than pretty much any of the countries that have held elections already. The idea that they can latch on to covid as some kind of excuse for cancelling elections had nothing to do with the reality; the reality was that they did not approve of the opposition and wanted to stop the election so that they had time to make sure they arrested the key elements so that they would never be able to stand. Many members of the opposition have fled here to the UK and I have met and seen them.

There are two points, really, that dismantle the whole process. I made the point earlier that a number of countries—dozens, I think—have held elections. It is part of the total crackdown and acquiescence with what is in essence an illegal process going on in Hong Kong. That brings me to the next phase. The Government are right to have reacted and to have ceased the extradition procedures, but yet more needs to be done. I like to think this is something that unites us all. The sanctions that come from the Magnitsky amendments need seriously to be deployed by the Government. When I was most recently in the Chamber for exchanges on this issue, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government would review other actions that need to be taken with regards to Hong Kong, and that they would take it as the situation develops. The situation has been developing. It has been developing at a pace which, if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security will forgive my saying, is faster than the Government or the Foreign Office seem to be able to move. We have nothing to lose anymore by holding back. It is not as if the Chinese Government are going to turn around and thank us, because they already think that we have caused problems, so my answer is: let us get on with it.

The deterioration of the situation has accelerated over the summer, and the US Government have already sanctioned Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible for the implementation of the new law and for human rights abuses. I urge my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary, who is not here, to move on to that and listen to Nathan Law, who fled directly after the Hong Kong Government did not agree to him standing. Others have also had to flee, and they have all called for those sanctions to be applied. I hope that the Government will listen to people whose lives have been under threat and whose families are still in Hong Kong and yet are brave enough to call for such sanctions, knowing full well that that might bring further problems for them.

South Woodford Post Office

Debate between Nigel Evans and Iain Duncan Smith

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the proposed closure of South Woodford post office.

It is a privilege, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I will try to take interventions from colleagues who also have a direct interest in the subject of this debate: the proposed closure and removal of South Woodford Crown post office in my constituency. In 2016, the Post Office announced the closure of 31 Crown post office branches. In January this year, a further 37 Crown post offices were identified for closure, putting approximately 300 jobs at risk, including at the South Woodford Crown post office. That has caused huge and legitimate concern among many of my constituents.

I want to go back to 2008—

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman warms up, I suspend the sitting for 15 minutes while a Division takes place in the House.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Iain Duncan Smith

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Further to that point of order, I call Mr Iain Duncan Smith.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Far be it from me to suggest an answer, but the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) might like to reflect on the fact that his party did not vote on the programme motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

My response to the original point of order is that I am operating under the programme motion that this House voted for; I can do nothing other than that.

Clause 10

Responsibility for children and young persons

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Iain Duncan Smith

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The programme motion—

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Mr Duncan Smith.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It might be of assistance to the House to remind those who were not in the Committee that every single clause was debated there, and we have also had two days on Report, which is almost unprecedented.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

This seems to be a continuation of the debate on the programme motion, which was decided on Monday. It was agreed by the House so this is not a matter for the Chair. Let us now move on, in the short time we have, to Third Reading.

Third Reading

Welfare Reform

Debate between Nigel Evans and Iain Duncan Smith

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I believe that the programme that we have set out and the timings that we have set for it—it starts next year in the summer—will help all those who need support to get back into work. We can debate or argue about the gap, but my general view is that as employment rises and as we start that process, we will see more people going back to work, and we will be able to support them in a better way than through the previous programmes, which we believe actually cost more money than they returned.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before we move on to the next statement, it might be convenient to remind the House that only those who are here for the statement can ask questions about it, and, just as before, I ask for single questions and pithy answers please.