Iain Duncan Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Sept 2026 · World Suicide Prevention Day · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is reading out a list of very good charities; I congratulate her on securing this debate. May I draw her attention to Ripple and Alice Hendy, to whom we at the Centre for Social Justice gave an award? Her “brown shield” technical device means that every time someone searches for a harmful site, something pops up to tell them where they can go for help and support. That has had a huge effect and needs to be rolled out further into schools and so on. I know that the hon. Lady knows that charity.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Conflict in Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, Dr Allin-Khan, to serve with you in the Chair for this vital debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) on securing it. It is a sad fact of life in Parliament that we have not debated this issue enough, including on the Floor of the House of Commons, because the death toll in Sudan dwarfs anything else that is going on around the world at the moment, despite the amount of time that we spend discussing issues other than this one. I absolutely agree with the figures that the hon. Lady cited about the terrible death toll in Sudan, which is something in the order of 400,000, yet I suspect that even that is an underestimate. If it is, perhaps between 1 million and 1.5 million people in Sudan have been killed or wounded just in the direct conflict. Then, of course, there are all the people who have been displaced; she also gave those figures and I absolutely agree with them, too. Today, I will focus on following the money, because it seems to me that if we were to stop the money, we would stop the war. In particular, I will focus on the role of the UAE in all of this, which I think is an abomination. Frankly, the UAE’s Administration is a disgraceful one anyway, and I will go on to say why. It is now absolutely clear, from the work of the prominent human rights organisations and many media outlets that have conducted investigations into RSF fighters, that those fighters are using weapons supplied by the UAE. If not manufactured in the UAE, the weapons are certainly re-exported to them on a regular basis and in vast numbers, along with ammunition. Furthermore, Colombian mercenaries have arrived in Sudan, who were no doubt recruited from an organisation that is very close to the leadership of the UAE. In September 2025, the Government of Sudan estimated that the number of Colombian mercenaries in Sudan was getting on for 500, but other estimates suggest that the real number is between 1,500 and 2,000, and growing. We believe that that is the direct result of what has been happening in the UAE. The Global Security Services Group is the organisation contracted to hire those people, and it is also involved in the supply of weapons. The GSSG is owned by an Emirati businessman, Mohamed Hamdan Alzaabi, who has business interests in security firms jointly with Ahmed Mohamed Al Hameeri, the secretary-general of the UAE’s Presidential Court. The links to what is going on in Sudan have been very clearly established. GSSG continues to be closely tied to the Government of the UAE. Its website states that it is the preferred security provider for the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Presidential Affairs, and there is evidence that two military bases in Abu Dhabi were used as training facilities for mercenaries—the list goes on. My question to the UK Government is this: why in heaven’s name are we not sanctioning key operatives in the UAE now? I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, and I say that it is high time that we imposed sanctions on those key UAE operatives. We can also look at the links back to Sheikh Mansour, who has well-documented ties with the leader of the RSF, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, and has even been described as Hamdan Dagalo’s closest ally in the UAE. In March 2023, Premier League clubs, apparently unanimously, that they would not allow individuals involved in human rights abuses to own clubs, yet Mansour is still in charge of Manchester City. The question is, why, and why are the Government so determined not to pursue these individuals? I suspect that the reason involves a lot of money in investments and the ownership of football teams, but that should not stop the Government from pursuing these people, because the UAE would be very suspect in that. Even if that were not enough, the UAE is involved in the most appalling abuse. British citizen Ryan Cornelius has spent 18 years incarcerated, even though the UN has claimed that that is completely wrong and unjudicial and that he should be released. The Abu Dhabi bank has continued to pursue him, and he has not seen his family for close on 19 years now. He is a British citizen, but how often have representatives of successive Governments, when they have visited the UAE, named him or said anything about him? The answer is “Very rarely.” All they do is tokenistically raise the issue and move on, as they pursue more money. We know that Mohammed Ibrahim al-Shaibani, who is the chair of the Dubai Islamic bank and head of the Dubai Ruler’s Court, is responsible for Ryan’s detention for 18 years and is very close to the leadership of UAE. It is time that we cracked down on this organisation and showed it to be the pariah that it is. It is behind all that is going on in Sudan and the abuses of British citizens who should be released. Unless the Government are prepared to step up, sanction key individuals, and prevent them from owning football teams, investing in the United Kingdom and enjoying their shopping trips here, we will not be the nation that we should be.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Falkland Islands: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  When the Government deal with our allies and friends the Americans, they might remind them about the disputed islands that they are in charge of—Wake Island, Navassa Island, Bajo, Swains Island, Guantanamo Bay—all of which have been supported by the United Kingdom. Should we think about not supporting them? Of course not, but we might just mention them. When we retook the Falklands, the British Government had at their hands 52 frigates and destroyers and well over 100,000 soldiers and naval personnel. Does the Minister not think that the best message we could send would be to get our defences back up?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Has the Secretary of State been made aware of the case of Joshua Wong, a Hong Kong resident who is being prosecuted by the Administration in Hong Kong using the national security law? The Secretary of State will know that Hong Kong has trashed the Sino-British agreement and decoupled the concept of common law from rights and responsibilities. All Joshua Wong has done is to ask for the same rights and privileges that we in this country hold dear. Will the Secretary of State take up that case with the Chinese Government and say to them, “Enough is enough. It’s time to stop chasing peaceful protesters?”

• 1 Sept 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Detention of UK Nationals Abroad · Hansard source

  More

  I raise the cases of Ryan Cornelius and Jimmy Lai—both United Kingdom citizens—to the attention of the Foreign Secretary, who I welcome to his position. Ryan Cornelius has been incarcerated for 19 years—trumped-up charges by a corrupt regime that is supporting a war in Sudan at the moment. In his case, will the Government first bring sanctions against that regime to persuade, or force, them to release this man, as he should have been? In the case of Jimmy Lai, would the Foreign Secretary also threaten clear sanctions? I now know that Sebastien Lai wants to see the Prime Minister. Would the Foreign Secretary please say to the Prime Minister that he should see him because, again, Jimmy Lai has been wrongly incarcerated by a despotic regime?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  Who wrote this?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  Friday was a funny day. I heard the news very early in the morning that Ann had died, and I was utterly surprised about that because she had seemed perfectly fit the last time I saw her, so I gave my condolences and spoke about it on the radio. Sadly, later that day, just after lunch, I discovered that it was not just sad but a tragedy—a tragedy that a phenomenal woman, and a former Member of this House, should have been murdered in her own home for reasons we know not what. The news allowed me to think back to this woman who was a force of nature. She was impossible to argue with, because she never accepted that she was losing the argument, until finally she was able to turn it 180 degrees and make you feel guilty that you had even dared to argue with her. A particular memory is that during the Maastricht debates, when, I have to confess, I and one or two others here were deeply rebellious, Ann lectured me from the Dispatch Box—she was in government—about how I should support the Maastricht treaty and the European Union, which rather worried me. It is rather ironic that she went over to Reform. I thought to myself, “Now there’s somebody who takes collective responsibility more seriously than she even had to.” It was rather remarkable. Ann was a remarkable woman in many, many ways. I got to know her during shadow Cabinet, when we would debate and argue. She argued as robustly in shadow Cabinet as she did across the Dispatch Box. Whether you were Labour or Conservative, if you disagreed with her, you were the enemy—you got used to it. It was phenomenal, because she was so certain about the way that she was. Ann embodied something else: the passion that is necessary for us in this Chamber to make our arguments without the fear of any other person doing something to us. Another thing she embodied, and completely demonstrated, was our unique responsibility to our constituents and the nature of the personal contact we make with them, which I do not think is replicated almost anywhere else. We go into their homes. I do not ask for security when I go into someone’s home. We go to see them if they are too ill to come and see us. We all do that, and we do not want to lose it. We do not want the epitaph of her terrible murder to be that we withdrew from the nature of who we are and what makes this place so great. We need to reiterate, and the Government and the Home Secretary need to specify, to all the social media companies that they must do something to close down the visceral, violent language that some people use in attacking others personally, as they did over Ann’s murder, which shocked me. We must get on top of that, because it is the root of violence and death. It is not only Ann who was murdered. It is not only Jo Cox and my good friend David Amess who were murdered. As the rack of shields in the Chamber shows, terrorists have murdered many in our party. If we want to stop that, we have to be bold and we have to be clear. We will not accept being shut down, stopped from performing our duties or silenced in any way, because that is what Ann would have approved of.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  It is all about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I fully understand that the Government want to regulate some of that employment to ensure that people are protected, but the Employment Rights Act is so all-consuming and far-reaching that there is not just the cost—estimated at about £5 billion—for companies and businesses but the knock-on effect for those who need a job but can no longer be employed, as well as for those who would employ them but will have to close their businesses. Flexibility is critical in employment—it always has been. It has always been a case of, “What is the risk in hiring you? Do you have the experience? Can you do the job? Can I afford to pay you the wages? Do I have to do half that job for you as a result?” For small businesses, that is a real problem. The Employment Rights Act has been a real nightmare. The issue is not just that £5 billion cost but the way in which that impacts on economic growth. Regulating employment is not an isolated issue that does not affect anything else; it affects growth in the economy. I talked earlier about the triple whammy. With business rates alongside that, businesses face even higher costs and problems. They are being regulated a great deal, they do not have flexibility in employment, and they have to pay more. The third critical issue in our motion is the cost of energy in the United Kingdom, which is astonishing. We have the highest energy costs in the developed world—it could be said that we have the highest energy costs in the world as it is—and a huge amount of that is to do with the ridiculous helter-skelter drive to get to clean energy no matter what. We are now threatening businesses with fines—the car industry gets fines if the right cars are not produced—and energy costs are so high that businesses can no longer manage to manufacture goods here. We will need to manufacture goods when we need to spend the money that we do not have at the moment but will have to have for the defence industry. That is a manufacturing case, yet none of those industries says that it can afford to expand its manufacturing base because the cost of energy is so high. Those three things are critical. I therefore support the Opposition’s motion. I finish with one single fact. We have all been talking rather blithely about what we did in those summers and how we got our first jobs, but it is worth reminding ourselves that for the generation going through now, the flexibility, opportunities and ability to earn are far less than they have ever been. When we talk to our children, we discover how difficult employment is for them. We can talk to them about being able to earn the right money, about being able to pay for a house or about sky-high rents. This is a serious problem. If we want to face it and take it on, we should think of the old health dictum, “do no harm”. I say to the Government that when they pile those three massive burdens on to industry and the individual, they are doing great harm to those we need to protect. My advice to the Government is simply this: think again about the triple whammy and reduce the burden they have put on industries.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  It is always good to speak with the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on the Front Bench. Were we discussing the threats that we face or the problems we have with China and the desperate way that they have undercut the market using slave labour, we would be on the same side of the House completely. My respect for him is enormous. However— [ Laughter. ] I do want to talk about today’s subject. I was not planning to say anything about summer jobs, but my first experience of one was in Italy, where I had been studying. I had gone to the coast to find a job. All I could find was a job working as a plongeur, as it were, in the dishwashing section of a restaurant. I was a useless waiter and got told to stop sitting down and talking to those who were eating, so I was sent back to the kitchen. During the evenings I had nowhere to stay, but I had managed to borrow a Fiat 600—an old one that I could start with the end of a teaspoon—and I drove it round to the car park and used to sleep in the back. It was wonderfully cheap but not exactly very comfortable. I am not quite sure what I learned from that—I did learn a few lessons, but I am not prepared to divulge them all here. Washing in the sea was one of them, though I have to say I am not sure how that has stood me in any good stead for the last few years. We will move on from that. We can overstate the lessons to be learned from a job, but being in work does teach young people about working to get a salary, turning up on time, as colleagues have said, and recognising that if they do not do so, the employer has every right to get rid of them. That is the key bit that we constantly talk to our families about. I want to come back to the problems that we face. When I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when we came to power in 2010, we had just had a huge, difficult recession. We had high unemployment, and we had to get that unemployment down. I say to the Government is that the cost of all their problems is not one issue alone—it is when they fail to realise the impact of one change after another on what is ultimately the most at-risk group. I agree completely with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) that the most at-risk group is young people. When the Government make changes to employment regulation, add on costs and change people’s rights, it is always younger people who are the most affected. They are the easiest to move out of employment, and they are almost invariably the last ones in. They are also the most expensive to look after while they are in work—for a good reason. When I used to tour the jobcentres I spoke to young people who were there looking for a job. I used to ask, “What is the biggest hurdle that you face?” They would say that every time they go in front of an employer, the employer would ask them what experience they have in work. They would say, “I have no experience.” Then the employer says, “Well we cannot take that risk. I am looking for someone else, so you will not get the job”. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, not only is it a marginal cost but it is also about the complete lack of experience and the risk that an employer takes on when they hire the younger person. The triple whammy of the national insurance charge, particularly on part-time work, the Employment Rights Act and the rise in the minimum wage are the vice that is squeezing this situation. Any one of those we probably could have got through, but to have all three of them hitting employment is the real problem that we face, and unemployment is the result. Youth unemployment at 16.2% is staggering. We used to pride ourselves on having a lower youth unemployment than the rest of Europe, but that is not necessarily the case now. The latest figures show us categorically that now have three times the NEET rate as the Netherlands has. The Netherlands is probably the closest type of economy to us in Europe; it is often quite flexible, and it often looks to the UK to import some of its flexibilities. The reality, therefore, is that the group who will suffer—they were always going to—is young people. Without that work experience, they will not go on to get that job they want—in fact, it is the job that they need—as a starter job. Turning to apprenticeships, an individual apprentice is now much more likely to get a full-time job and go on to earn more money than somebody who has studied at university. The collapse of the relationship between university and a brilliant career will fundamentally change the nature of who we are as a country if people who go to university with the promise that they would earn much more money than they would ever have to pay in debt then find that is a broken concept. That is a matter for both sides of the House. We must deal with it. I have family who are paying off debts. The astonishing interest rate on those debts has become staggering, and it is trapping them—they are unable to look at buying houses or anything else. That is the pressure on those people, and sometimes what they earn at work is not enough for them to be able to get by and do well. The Opposition’s motion, which I will come to, is really important. The point is that we have to make a change. The Government may want to have young people in work and want there to be those so-called Saturday jobs, but Alan Milburn says in his report that the “first rung has thinned. The clearest examples are the decline of the Saturday job…For earlier generations, these were…the routes through which young people first entered working life. They provided income, but they also helped young people build confidence, learn the habits of work and show employers what they could do. For too many young people now, those opportunities are weaker or have disappeared altogether.” We did not really need the Milburn report to know that—we knew what was going on—but his saying that must be telling for the Government. The Government have overstepped the reality. For example, zero-hours contracts were flexible and were liked by the vast majority of those who had them. Older adults—mostly those with caring responsibilities—liked the flexibility of being able to go to hospital appointments or take those with disabilities to hospital appointments one week, while on other weeks they could work, doing more hours to make up the money. That flexibility helped them. It also helped students coming out to do all the big jobs in entertainment, hotels and short-term affairs such as Wimbledon. It is travesty that the Government have tightened that up. They need to learn from this. I stress again that most people liked the idea of zero-hours contracts as they gave them flexibility in work that allowed them to get work experience, which they could sell when going to get a full-time job, as well as the chance to earn some money to subsidise themselves while doing other work, studying or whatever. It is astonishing that the Government have got rid of that. My party’s motion rightly mentions the astonishing high street business rates. We rightly talk about wanting to protect our high streets against competition from online retail and so on, and the majority of those part-time, small jobs are on the high streets. Those small businesses and shops need people to help them make their business grow, but business rates for some of the shops on the high street in my area have risen by 60%. It is unbelievable to think that a small business will be able to survive a 60% increase. That business has to make choices, which mean that not only can it no longer hire someone, but it has to lay people off—it can no longer keep them in employment. We have seen dramatic layings off and closures on the high street for the simple reason that people cannot afford to run their business.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  It is always great to have the Minister at the Dispatch Box; we always have a lot of fun. I have had to juggle this issue myself, so I want to ask him a very important question: does he honestly think that making the starting rate for national insurance payments almost half the previous rate has no effect on part-time employment? Does doing so not discourage those who would like to give people starter jobs? It makes that much more difficult; surely that is the reality.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  I have always thought that a zero-hours contract was a terrible name for what is actually flexible hours. There was always an ideological opposition to it, but in practice over two thirds of those who were on the contracts—adults as well, often with caring responsibilities—loved the idea of being able to work when they could but not having to do so when they could not manage it. That is the kind of flexibility that is necessary in an economy. It was loved by people in Europe, who wanted to do the same but never got around to it.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Russia: Level of Threat to UK · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister agreed that he would use all his might to tackle the shadow fleet tankers that were coming through British territorial waters. Since then, one has been taken, and just under 200 shadow fleet tankers have passed through our waters with nothing happening. Are the Government serious about stopping these tankers? Are they so serious about it that they will revisit the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which they seem to think prevents them from boarding the tankers?