Iain Duncan Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the small charity sector. It is a great privilege to serve under your stewardship, Sir Roger. I am astonished and happy to see that so many Members take the small charity sector seriously, because it is a serious issue. As you will specifically know, Sir Roger, the sector is critical to everything that we do. The Government can do only a certain amount; the two other groups that aid the people and support the natural fabric of society are families and small community groups and charities. Small charities do much more than even the large charities that we hear all the headlines about. The charities that do the most are the ones about which we probably know the least. The purpose of this debate is to find out about them and discuss what we can do to help them. I want to start with a few facts and figures that may astound colleagues from all parties. First, the “UK Charity Insights Report” found that 30%—fewer than a third—of charity leaders think that the sector is in a healthy position. Some 44% of charity leaders cite cost rises as one of their main challenges, up from 14% four years ago. We know that that is the case for many charities. Demand for charities’ services is growing, with 83% of charities recording an increase in demand over the last 12 months. Only one in 10 charity leaders said that they have been able to smoothly meet the rise in demand. The “UK Giving Report 2025” said that although donations from the public to charity increased to £15.4 billion in 2024, which is quite remarkable, really, only half of people say that they donated to charity in the previous 12 months. That, obviously, is to do with levels of income. I am not making a party political point; this is just a statement about the situation for these small community groups. The downward trend is evident across all age groups, but it is especially pronounced among young people. A little more than a third of 16 to 24-year-olds say they donated or sponsored in the past 12 months, compared with 52% in 2019. The small charity sector has been doing fantastic work, but it has been healthier. I hope that it can become a focus for us and the Government. It is a delicate flower and we need to nurture it in everything that we do.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Small Charity Sector · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an excellent debate, not least because all parties have been represented in it, and all parties have spoken with one voice. We value the incredible efforts made by local community groups and charities, but all of us also recognise that much more can be done to release them and to recognise some of the incredible schemes that they have come up with—I named a number of them. There have been many suggestions about the best way to do that. There have been comments about the need to modernise gift aid, and to uprate the thresholds of the gift aid small donations scheme, so that charities that receive small cash donations can get gift aid-style repayments of tax. That is a useful idea that has been put forward. There is also the whole idea of placed-based giving. Small charities are embedded in communities throughout the UK, and it is important that local and placed-based giving is encouraged so that smaller charities are supported and can continue delivering their vital services. I also picked up a general concern, which is quite right, about the fall-off of corporate giving in the UK towards the small charities sector. The big problem is that—forgive me, I cannot remember who made this point—something in the order of 80% of charitable giving goes to about 20% of all charities. They are the big charities that are staffed up with lots of people to lobby us and to always come in and see us. The small community groups and charities, however, that do 80% or more of the work often do not get access to that. Rewarding companies for supporting charities and community groups in their local areas would be a very good way of increasing corporate giving. Only 25% of British businesses donate to charities in the form of time, cash or goods. An estimated £4.26 billion was donated by British businesses in 2024, and that was flatlining. I say to the Minister that we need to do more to encourage a greater level of local support and giving, because philanthropic giving is vital. I mentioned in my opening remarks that we need to look at what the USA does in its tax structure for charitable giving. Particularly, we want to look at small community groups and charities benefiting from that, and raising more money given directly by those individuals, who are rewarded for that because it is a common good. This debate has been an excellent opportunity. I recommend that anybody who wants to inform themselves more about the policy work speaks to the Centre for Social Justice. All parties are welcome to look at this. I hope to have a chance at some point to meet the Minister to discuss with her any possibilities that we can raise. I have one abiding thought. Recently, we held another of our annual awards where we give out money to winning charities in six categories—money matters to small community groups and charities. I have to say that it was one of the most moving experiences that I have had. I listened to people who have grown their support groups out of tragedy in their own families and communities, and have risen to that and overcome it. Alone among all other reasons, it is not the structure or organisation, but the beating heart of small community groups and charities that helps us survive out there. It is time that we motored on in recognising them and making sure that they get a proper fair crack at what is out there to help them deliver their great services. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the small charity sector.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the right hon. Lady’s ambition, but where in all this will she retain the power to do something about councils that simply fail completely? An Ofsted report of my local council referred to it as disjointed and having weak co-ordination and limited accountability. It also talks of services falling short, parents being ignored and EHCPs never being granted when they should be. This is the reality for many of the parents that I meet. They are petrified. Will the Secretary of State explain what can be done about local councils’ failure? She speaks about EHCPs, but I have talked to parents recently and they are very worried. They struggled to try to get an EHCP, and now they are worried that somehow they will lose it. Could she reassure those parents that that will not happen?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  The whole point of the debate is to ensure that we know where the money comes from, that we know how it has been gained, and that the individuals must pay a penalty if they are involved in what is illegal or inhuman. The key point is that all those matters can be picked out by the Magnitsky sanctions. I mentioned Myanmar earlier. Despite historically leaning on sanctions against Myanmar’s military junta for its role in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity against its civilian population after the 2021 coup, the UK has failed to target the State Security and Peace Commission, the military’s successor to the UK-sanctioned State Administration Council. Without additional sanctions, the State Security and Peace Commission, which was established in an attempt by the military to rebrand itself and rebuild financial ties with international partners, has effectively succeeded in its mission. That is exactly what we should have been tackling through the sanctions available to us, but we have not done so. Finally, last month the UK placed sanctions on four senior commanders of Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces suspected of involvement in heinous violence against civilians in the city of El Fasher. However, no action was taken against their key military and diplomatic backer, the United Arab Emirates, or their chief commander. That highlights a broader, troubling trend: to date, only a fraction of Magnitsky sanctions have ever been applied by the UK Government to perpetrators from countries considered strategic allies of the UK. That is a very important point to make; politics have an awful lot to do with this issue. As reported by REDRESS, several of the most notorious human rights abusers and corrupt actors, including in Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, China, Eritrea, the UAE and Egypt—we have mentioned Russia, too—have not been sanctioned by the UK. I will now come to some examples of individuals and contexts that remain unsanctioned despite overwhelming evidence of involvement in corruption and serious human rights issues. Let me deal now with China. While the UK imposed sanctions on four individuals and one entity involved in China’s violent repression of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang in 2021, it never acted on detailed evidence received from human rights organisations. REDRESS— I know, because I have seen the evidence—previously submitted it to the FCDO, calling for targeted sanctions on the following individuals and entities for their involvement in serious human rights violations in Xinjiang. All of the following are sanctioned by the US—our ally—but not by the UK. The persons recommended for designations are: Chen Quanguo, party secretary of the Xinjiang Chinese Communist party and the key driver of the policy of genocide; Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps; Sun Jinlong, former political commissar of the XPCC, who was sanctioned by the US on 31 July 2020; Peng Jiarui, deputy party secretary and commander of the XPCC, sanctioned by the US on 31 July 2020; and Huo Liujun, former leader of the Public Security Bureau, sanctioned by the US on 9 July 2020. As somebody sanctioned by the Chinese Government myself—like you, Madam Deputy Speaker—for raising the issues of Xinjiang at the time, I think that that is a major omission. These are the key people—close almost to President Xi himself—who, when sanctioned, will really feel it. They are locked out of America, but have not been locked out by us. Will the Minister therefore outline what steps the FCDO will take to ensure that sanctions are consistently applied to all actors involved in human rights abuses and corruption?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have a Conservative council to criticise, although I would criticise it if it had done that. It was a Labour council that introduced these charges, and they have had a dramatic effect on those who would have come to shops. A small bookshop that has been there for many years is now thinking about calling it a day. That is a real problem, and it is bonkers to add that to the other problems these businesses have. Something that ruins high streets and causes real problems is the inability of local authorities to control the number of adult gaming centres on the high street. I and many others are campaigning to get the Government to allow local authorities to make a decision about that, rather than being overridden. I hope the Government will look at that in due course. The big thing that is affecting our high streets above all else is the crime and shoplifting going on. We have had a huge problem in our main shopping centres. These people go into shops and are violent. They threaten the shopkeepers, who are often pressed to the wall while they take thousands of pounds—this is not £1 or £2; thousands of pounds of goods are robbed from shop shelves. Those who are shopping are also threatened, and it drives people out of the high street. We have tried hard to bring this all together, so that the shops report the crime and the police are there for it, but despite that, this crime is still rising. One of the biggest problems is that when a shoplifter is arrested, they say that they wish to be tried in the Crown court. They know full well that the backlog in the Crown court is so great that they will be out on the street again that afternoon. The Government should consider carefully whether shoplifters should be allowed to do that, and whether magistrates courts, which do not have a backlog, should be doing summary charges on shoplifters in criminal cases—with limits, obviously—which would get them off the street that day, not back on the streets committing crime again.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  I instinctively agree with my hon. Friend’s constituent, even though I have never met him, but I wish him well—I was worried that I should have remembered meeting him, but I realise now that I have not, so there is no early onset. If the Government really wanted to raise national insurance, surely they should have made a major change by not imposing it on small retail outfits, and certainly not small shops and shopkeepers. It has been a disaster, frankly, and it has added massively to the bills. Another huge problem for these businesses is the rise in electricity costs, which is not necessarily to do with the strike price of gas but is massively down to the fact that we are now charged huge amounts on our bills simply to subsidise the unbelievably high-paced drive to get to net zero, which will affect many of them. I recommend that the Government look again at the hospitality sector, which has lost 100,000 jobs. As has been said, 100,000 jobs lost in any other industry would have been a major issue debated on the Floor of the House. It is a huge number. This is an industry where many people start their businesses, and these pubs, restaurants and so on are high points on our high streets. Added to all this, Labour councils seem incapable of understanding why parking charges are a real problem for these businesses. The council in my area now levies very restrictive parking charges on high streets. The trouble is that many high street businesses rely on passing trade—somebody who wants to get one thing pulls in for 15 minutes of free parking, goes over to another shop and buys something there before getting back into their car. Free parking encourages people to do that. My high streets—particularly Station Road—have seen a significant fall-off in trade simply because of those parking charges being imposed. It is not helpful.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Just to make a small comment on the previous speech, I have been here a little while, and I have never once stopped regretting taking a Government handout to speak in support of the Government, because more often than not, it rebounded on me. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and many others have made clear, there are two elements to this issue. Before I start on that, I want to say something about the Chagossians. They are the last people to have been seriously consulted about any of this. The way that we behaved to them back in the 1960s was appalling. It should never have happened, and there was no need for it to have happened. They should have been able to stay on the archipelago, and we should have supported them in that. They must be a part of this. I know that they are very fearful of this deal as it stands. My other point is that this arrangement is vague about what happens after 99 years. We are supposed to guess, or believe that we can trust Governments to make the right decisions. The statement on the rights of the Chagossians is completely missing a sense of where they will be, what they want and how we will bring that about. I pay tribute to the Member who made a good intervention on that point. Let me quickly deal with the legal case, and then I will discuss the cost, and China and Russia. The Government have been peppered with requests non-stop since this process began to explain the legal threat that meant that we would be in real trouble if we did not seal a deal—any deal. Right the way along, they would not exactly explain. There were little suggestions here and there that a judgment would lead to certain things. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam has been absolutely right on that. Today, I thought that the door slightly opened. I have known the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for a long time, and his name is a good description of his solidity and purposefulness. The Minister who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), made the point that the legal threat was to do with UNCLOS. I was intrigued by that, because, as I just said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, within UNCLOS, clear for all to see, is a complete let-out for the UK Government when it comes to the case that they suggest would be brought against them under UNCLOS. The threat simply does not exist. I repeat that there are two exemptions, under article 298(1)(b) and 298(1)(c). The first has the UK opted out of “disputes concerning military activities…by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities”. The same applies under 298(1)(c) in relation to matters taken up by the UN Security Council. The important point is that the threat does not need to be recognised, because ultimately this comes back to the original International Court of Justice ruling. That was an advisory judgment, because the Court cannot make an absolute judgment on anything to do with our relationships with the Commonwealth, either existing or previous; that is an important point. We keep coming back to this check on what would happen. The idea that everybody will dispute with us on that is simply nonsense. From a legal perspective, I think the Government have come unstuck in this debate. I have sat through many debates in this House, and it is rare that a Government completely come unstuck on a case of legalities. The second bit that the Government have come unstuck on is the money. On the legal side, they will not tell us exactly what the situation is. There have been hints, proposals and suggestions that somehow we were in a desperate situation. On the money, I have never seen a Government as unable or unwilling to tell us exactly how much things cost or are worth. They are normally quick to do so, and to blame the other side, or whatever—it does not really matter. Everybody has been chasing the Government for that information, and now we discover that they have gerrymandered the figures for the overall statement. The total cost is nearly £35 billion, and we need to deal with total cost. Let me remind the Government of the problem with what they call the GDP deflator and the so-called social time discounting method. The Government Actuary’s Department has dismissed that as a real way of calculating cost for this kind of issue, and it has re-emphasised the fact that understanding the total cost is the only way to look at a long-term treaty. The Government is relying on the cost-benefit analysis used for social projects. There is particular concern about long-term projects, and a real dispute about whether such a method can predict precisely, or even reasonably well, the overall cost in the long term. There is a lot of concern about whether that is the right way to go. Add to that the fact that the Government are trying to predict what will happen in Mauritius, under the Mauritian Government, over the next many years. This is a 99-year deal, and there is no way on earth that we have any control.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.