Iain Duncan Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I simply do not agree with the hon. Lady on that reading. The professional bodies are completely divided, and most have come out in opposition to the nature of this legislation. It is all very well for her to say that, and I appreciate her right to say it, and I hope she gets to speak later, but I just do not agree with it. As was said earlier in the debate, the whole issue of mental capacity is not dealt with properly in the structure of this Bill. The hon. Member for Spen Valley talked about this earlier, and she was absolutely right. Even the amendments that were proposed were not always accepted, and we are left now with some areas that will be deeply troubling. We simply cannot accept that the Lords must make these changes for us, for we have to make them first. That is the key. The one big important area here—I absolutely agree with my constituency neighbour the Health Secretary on this—is that we talk a lot about choice in dying, but how is that choice informed if palliative care in the UK is simply not good enough? Again, the Mother of the House spoke about this, and there are so many people affected: the most vulnerable; the people furthest away from institutions; and the ones who understand least how to work the health service or their local authority, and who rely mostly on us to try and break through. They will be faced with this problem more than almost anybody else, because they look in fear on these institutions. I helped to set up a children’s hospice, which I think was the first in London. There have been many more since, but children’s hospices, as we know, are really badly treated by Government spending, pretty much no matter who is in power. They have less than anybody else. Haven House, which I helped to set up and raise money for, has given a very strong quote, which I think represents much of what most of those hospices have said: “We would fully agree that a change in the law would have very significant consequences for the delivery of palliative care services and would be challenging given the existing resource pressures that we face. The hospice sector is experiencing significant financial pressures and the exceptional palliative care services we provide are not financially sustainable. The introduction of assisted dying would create new and demanding requirements for palliative care services and hospices in particular. It is therefore vital, whether or not the current legislation is passed, that the government takes urgent action to resolve” this matter. That is the case today. We cannot just say, “Well, that’s not our problem. Palliative care can be changed.” The trouble is that we have been unable to make the necessary changes to palliative care because we take such parti pris positions. That is the problem we face. I will end with this. I will vote against the Bill, mostly because I believe it is fundamentally unworkable and will lead to huge problems. We have seen what has happened elsewhere internationally—Canada, Oregon and various other places—where legislation slides and slides again as more and more amendments have to be made because these things are not workable. To those who have any doubt, I simply say this. This is Third Reading; it is not Second Reading—it is not an “in principle” debate. We had that debate, and now we have to decide whether we should send this unworkable piece of legislation to another place, which is unelected, to make the decision for us because we cannot come to a conclusion. We cannot let this go through.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Chinese Embassy Development · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government what assessment she has made of the United States Government’s national security concerns regarding the proposed Chinese embassy development at Royal Mint Court.

• 14 May 2025 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Lords amendment 2B resulted from the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which includes cross-party membership from this House. I see some of its members in the Chamber now. Lord Alton and other members of the alliance, including me, who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government have worked tirelessly on the amendment, and others have done likewise on other amendments. Let me say to the Minister that the problem we face at present is that we seem to be attacking this issue piecemeal. When the Conservatives, my own party, were in government, I had a big fight with them to secure a ban on slave-labour-made products in the national health service, and it sits there, in the health service, thanks to cross-party involvement. Now we have a provision in the Great British Energy Bill to block modern slavery, but the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which we helped to enact when I was in the Government, needs to be massively updated in this area because it has no teeth. Unless it is beefed up, what we will have is piecemeal work from officials. If we are to embrace this idea—I know that the Government were tentative about it, but frankly all Governments do this, and the reality is that it has gone through—our objective should be, “How do we make this the case for every single product that is introduced, so that all of Government, including local government, are not allowed to involve themselves in modern-day slavery?” A huge amount of this applies to China, but some of it applies to other countries. Let me also say to the Minister that this is the beginning, not the end. We must ensure that the lesson that is learned is that we must be paragons of virtue when it comes to modern-day slavery and that we will stand up for those who have no voice. If we go about buying products made through modern slavery, which undercuts the free market dramatically because no salaries are paid, we not only destroy the concept of the free market but cause people to be imprisoned by making our casual purchases. There are solar arrays all over the country today that contain a modern slavery element—namely, the polysilicon. What are the Government going to do about that? What are they going to do about something that is already in existence in the UK? It is a big question. The Government have only just opened this door, and I think that if they want to stand by moral purpose, which is exactly what a Labour Government would claim to do, they must take this forward. They must say, “Do you know what? We are going to table amendments in all those areas that get rid of this and amend the Modern Slavery Act.” If they do that, they will be right, because this really is the issue of our time. The issue of the cost of products should not outweigh that of the cost of lives. We have turned a blind eye for far too long, and we must now face up to our responsibilities. America has given us a lead, turning the balance of proof on its head by ensuring that companies make the correct declarations, because they are assumed to have slave labour elements in their products—and those products are not just arrays. Companies have to prove to the Government that their supply chains are clear, and those supply chains are tested using a New Zealand company called Oritain. I suggested its services to the last Government, who were not keen to take them up at that stage, but I offer them to this Government now, because they have to do those tests and force companies to tell the truth, rather than casually saying, “This is what we are told.” If the Government do that, they will begin to stand up for this one. The Opposition, I am sure, stand ready to assist them in all this, as do all the other parties. This is a real moment, when we, as a Parliament, can say, “That is it. No more backsliding; no more pretence. We will fight modern slavery wherever it exists, because it is a tool of oppression and a tool to break the free market.”

• 29 Jan 2025 · Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I want to make a very simple point. I do not agree with the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has taken. We spent a number of years debating this question with our Government, and we eventually came to this conclusion and the proposal went into the White Paper. Yes, of course there are issues, but are they worth our trying to block the idea of the statutory levy? The answer is no. Research will be vital to understand how many people are affected, how they are affected, and the extensions in effect on those that have suffered. I have met an endless number of families who have been ripped apart by early suicides, by problems and by bankruptcies, because, unbeknown to them, somebody in the family was addicted to gambling to the extent that, late at night, they basically trashed their own family. This is where we intended to go. It was my whole original drive, and it was backed by the evidence-based findings of the then all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm. I understand many of the points that my hon. Friend made, some of which have been reiterated endlessly by the gambling industry, but may I say one thing about trusting the gambling industry? I would not place much store on that. It had years to get the voluntary levy right. The good ones contributed; the bad ones did not—or when they did, it was peanuts. The statutory levy was required, otherwise the money was not going to many of those community groups and charities—I have met very many of them—who disburse the money and work to get this done. I would simply say to my hon. Friend that I hope that Her Majesty’s Opposition will think very carefully about today, because it is important to get this legislation through. Yes, it is not without its faults. I recognise that there is an increase in the percentage it will raise that will affect high street betting shops, which are not the wealthy, massive offenders. We know that—that is where the pressure should come. I am in principle supportive of this legislation, because of the evidence we found. I want to make one final point; I really want to press the Government on this. Will the Government confirm that GambleAware will have no role in influencing the future work, framework or shape of the research undertaken by UKRI under the statutory levy? GambleAware is far too close to the gambling industry. We need to make sure there is independence, based on the evidence we have of the harms, and more evidence that we can gather. I urge the Government to make sure that GambleAware is not party to that, so that this research will therefore be clearly independent.

• 16 Dec 2024 · United Front Work Department · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I apologise if that was the case. Yang Tengbo—H6—was, in fact, not a lone wolf. He was one of some 40,000 members of the United Front Work Department, which, as the Government know, the Intelligence and Security Committee report last year said had penetrated “every sector” of the UK economy, including by spying, stealing intellectual property, influencing, and shaping our institutions. Our agents say they are now frustrated by the lack of action, but they do not seem to have the tools they need to deal with the issue. One of those tools is staring us in the face. Will the Government commit to putting China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and will they do it now? There is no need for delay. The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, or IPAC, found that H6—Yang Tengbo—is already well known as a United Front member, and that he is known to others who are already deep in the political establishment. Parliamentarians are exposed to the United Front on a regular basis. Will the Minister remedy this today, and accept that China is our most prominent security threat and that all action must take priority? My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who was the previous Security Minister, has said publicly that the Home Office was ready to name China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which would have forced United Front members like H6 to register or face serious consequences. Given that doing so is an available option, why have we not done it yet? Is it true, as is being reported by papers, including The Times , that behind the scenes the Government are now under pressure from banks, the wider business community and Government Departments not to do it? When it comes to a member of the royal family, I simply say this: how was it that somebody who was known to the security forces was allowed to get so close to a member of the royal family without proper scrutiny exposing them? Finally, I note that the Prime Minister said today in response to the issue that we will “co-operate where we can”, particularly on environmental issues, and “challenge where we must”, particularly on human rights issues. If the Prime Minister means that, why are we still buying from China huge numbers of solar arrays that have demonstrably been made using slave labour? Surely his statement is clearly incorrect; far from challenging China on human rights, it now appears that we are turning a blind eye. Why is that?