Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We will listen very carefully to the professionals, but the reason for making modernisation of the NHS such a priority is simply that this country now has European levels of health spending but does not have European levels of success in our health service. Of course, what we want is a level playing field for other organisations to come into the NHS. What we will not have is what we had from Labour, which was a rigged market.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister think it is a sign of success or failure that unemployment is rising and employment is falling?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course every increase in unemployment is a matter of huge concern, and that is why we are launching the biggest back-to-work programme that this country has ever seen, the Work programme.

There are some very disappointing figures today, particularly on youth unemployment, and I am sure we will talk about that in a moment, but there are some mixed pictures. The claimant count has gone down for the third month in a row, the number of vacancies is up and the average of the independent forecasts published today sees growth revised upwards. The biggest task for this Government, and frankly for this country, is to get to grips with the long-term structural problem of youth unemployment, which has been going up for years in our country and went up by 40% under Labour.

[Edward Miliband]

After that complacency, when 50,000 people have lost their job, it is no wonder they rumbled the Prime Minister in Oldham. The truth is that he is cutting too far and too fast, and British people are paying the price.

The Prime Minister mentioned youth unemployment. It is at its highest since 1992, yet he is abolishing the future jobs fund and the new programme does not even come into force until the middle of the year. After these figures, why does he not change his mind, reinstate the future jobs fund and help create an extra 100,000 jobs this year?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I hope we can get into the curriculum the idea that we should fix the roof while the sun is shining. What we heard at the weekend from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was interesting: he has now had nine months to digest Labour’s mistakes, and he has come up with the answer that they did not spend too much and they did not borrow too much, and his message to the British people is, “Vote for me and we’d do it all over again.”

[Edward Miliband]

Can the Prime Minister guarantee that under his NHS plans hospital waiting times will not rise?

[The Prime Minister]

We want waiting times and waiting lists to come down. [Interruption.] The whole aim of these NHS reforms is to make sure we get the value for the money we put in. [Interruption.] I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman this: it is clear now that Labour—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I would love to know what your answer was, Mr Speaker.

The point is this: we are putting the money in—£10.6 billion extra during this Parliament; money that, by the way, the Labour party does not support—but we want to get value for that money because, frankly, today we do not have the right outcomes for cancer and for heart disease. We want to do better. Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of reform, or is he going to oppose it all?

[Edward Miliband]

I notice that the Prime Minister did not answer the question. Patients want to know something quite simple: how long will they have to wait for treatment? They all remember waiting for years under the last Conservative Government, and they know that we now have the shortest waiting times in history because of what the Labour Government did. If the Prime Minister thinks his reforms are so good, why cannot he give us a simple guarantee that waiting times will not rise?

[The Prime Minister]

Waiting times will rise if we stop putting the money into the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman’s shadow Chancellor is not here today, but this is what he said about our plan to increase NHS spending by more than inflation every year: “There is no logic” or rationale to it. That is the answer: we get investment in the NHS from this coalition Government, but we would get cuts from the Labour party.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister cannot make a guarantee because he has abolished the guarantees. He has abolished the guarantees that Labour brought in, such as the 18-week waiting list guarantee. He is taking the “national” out of the national health service. Patients are worried, and doctors and nurses say his reforms are extremely risky and potentially disastrous. Why is he so arrogant as to think he is right and all the people who say he is wrong are wrong?

[The Prime Minister]

First, the right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong: the waiting time points he made are written into the NHS constitution and will stay under this Government. So, first of all, he is wrong. The second point is that we will not be able to get waiting times down and improve our public health in this country unless we cut bureaucracy in the NHS. That is what this is about. We are spending £1.4 billion—a one-off—to save £1.7 billion every year. That will save £5 billion by the end of this Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman opposes the reforms, where will that money come from?

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister has obviously not noticed that people are not convinced by his reforms. Even the GP sitting on his own Benches said this is like tossing a hand grenade into the NHS. Is not the truth that, just like on every other issue, we get broken promises from this Prime Minister? He is breaking his promise on no top-down reorganisation of the NHS; he is breaking his promise on a real-terms rise in NHS funding; he is breaking his promise for 3,000 more midwives; and he is breaking his promise to put patients first. It is the same old story: you can’t trust the Tories on the NHS.

[The Prime Minister]

It is the same old feeble pre-scripted lines. The right hon. Gentleman practises them every week; I am sure they sound fantastic when they are spoken before the bathroom mirror. The facts are these: this Government are putting the money into the NHS, but the Opposition do not support that; this Government are cutting the bureaucracy in the NHS, but they do not support that; and this Government are reforming the NHS so that we get the best in Europe, but they do not support that. So this is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy: no to the money, keep the bureaucracy, do not reform the NHS. I would go back to the blank sheet of paper.

European Council

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on last week’s European Council. Britain had three objectives at this Council: first, to help bring stability to the eurozone, which is in Britain’s interests; secondly, to make sure that Britain is not liable for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect; and thirdly, to build on the progress we made with the 2011 EU budget, with tougher settlements in the years to follow.

Let me address each of the three objectives in turn. First, no one should doubt that stability in the eurozone is in our interests. Nearly half our trade is with the eurozone, London is Europe’s international financial centre, and no one can deny that the eurozone faces very real challenges at the moment. We see that in the Irish situation, and with Spain and Portugal paying interest rate penalties in the financial markets. Britain’s approach should not be simply to say, “Well, we told you monetary union would require fiscal union,” and leave it at that. We want to help the eurozone to deal with the issues it faces. We have a clear interest in other member states taking fiscal and structural action and in the cleaning up of banks’ balance sheets. The fact that we have set out a path to deal with our own deficit and seen our own interest rates come down lends weight to our argument.

Following the dinner, at which leaders of all the EU countries had a wide-ranging discussion on the state of the eurozone, eurozone leaders issued a statement saying that they

“stand ready to do whatever is required”

to return the eurozone to stability. Part of that is the new permanent mechanism for assisting eurozone countries that get into financial difficulty. Enabling eurozone countries to establish such a mechanism is in our interests, but how that mechanism is brought about is equally important. After the October Council I made it very clear to the House that any possible future treaty change would not affect the UK, and that I would not agree to it if it did. I also said that no powers would be transferred from Westminster to Brussels. At the Council we agreed the establishment of a permanent mechanism with a proposed very limited treaty change. This change does not affect the UK, and it does not transfer any powers from Britain to the European Union.

Secondly, on the issue of liability for any potential bail-out of the eurozone in future, Britain is not in the euro and we are not going to join the euro, and that is why we should not have any liability for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect in 2013. In the current emergency arrangements established under article 122 of the treaty, we do have such a liability. That was a decision taken by the previous Government, and it is a decision that we disagreed with at the time. We are stuck with it for the duration of the emergency mechanism, but I have been determined to ensure that when the permanent mechanism starts, Britain’s liability should end, and that is exactly what we agreed at the European Council.

The Council conclusions state that this will be a “stability mechanism” for

“member States whose currency is the euro”.

This means it is a mechanism established by eurozone countries for eurozone countries.

Britain will not be part of it. Crucially, we have also ensured that the current emergency arrangements are closed off when the new mechanism comes into effect in 2013. Both the Council conclusions and the introduction to the decision to change the treaty itself—the actual document that will be presented to this Parliament for its assent—are clear that article 122

“will no longer be needed for such purposes”

and that

“Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes.”

Both the Council conclusions and the decision that introduces the treaty change state in black and white the clear and unanimous agreement that from 2013 Britain will not be dragged into bailing out the eurozone. Before the Government agree to this treaty change, Parliament must, of course, give its approval—and if this treaty change is agreed by all member states, its ratification in this country will be subject to the terms of our EU Bill, and so will be subject to primary legislation.

Thirdly, let me turn to the issue of the EU budget. Securing a tight budget for the future remains my highest priority for the European Union. I believe that it is a priority shared by the vast majority of people in this country. At the last Council, we managed to do something that we have not done in previous years. We were faced with a situation where the Council had agreed a 2.91% increase—that was not the UK’s position; we had wanted a tougher settlement, but we were outvoted—yet the European Parliament went on and called for a 6% increase. Instead of just splitting the difference between what the Council asked for and what the Parliament called for, which is what happened last year, Britain led an alliance of member states to reject decisively the European Parliament’s request. We insisted on no more than the 2.91% increase that the Council had previously agreed. Many predicted that this would be impossible and that Britain would be defeated, but we succeeded, which will save the British taxpayer several hundred million pounds compared with what could have happened.

We also agreed a new principle that from now on, the EU budget must be in line with what we are doing in our own countries. We did this by taking the initiative and galvanising others to join us. We sent a clear message that when we are making cuts at home, with tough decisions on pensions, welfare and pay, it is simply not acceptable to go on spending more and more and more through the European Union. At this Council, I wanted to keep up the momentum on the EU budget by forging an alliance with like-minded partners and starting to work towards securing a tougher settlement for future budgets.

At the weekend Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and I, together with the Prime Ministers of Finland and the Netherlands, sent a letter to the President—[Hon. Members: “That’s an alliance?”] Well, it involves the three largest countries in Europe. We sent a letter to the President of the European Commission setting out our goals for the 2012 and 2013 budgets and the longer-term financial perspective, which covers the rest of this decade right up until 2020. It states clearly our collective view that

“the action taken in 2011 to curb annual growth”

in European spending should be “stepped up” in 2012 and 2013. Together, we say that there must be a real-terms freeze in the period 2014 to 2020. I want us to achieve a decade of spending restraint in Europe, and the three biggest powers in Europe—the three biggest net contributors to the budget—have committed to that. I believe that this is an important step forward.

There are two problems that Europe must urgently address. The first is that the eurozone is not working properly. It needs major reform, and it is in our interests not to stand in the way of that. Indeed, as I have argued, we should be actively helping the eurozone to deal with its issues. Secondly, Europe as a whole needs to be much more competitive. Collectively, we must press ahead with measures that will help European countries pay their way in a world where economic competition internationally is becoming ever fiercer. We must expand the single market in areas such as services, press forward on free trade and, crucially, avoid burdening businesses with costly red tape. We must promote stability, jobs and growth. That is the agenda that this Government are pursuing in Europe, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I want to ask him about three issues: the agreement on the European budget, the treaty change, and the wider but perhaps most fundamental question of all, European growth.

First, on the budget, I welcome the call for restraint in the European budget in the years ahead. On the budget for this year, we heard from the Prime Minister after this Council, in his own modest way, rather what we heard after the previous Council: he applauded the outcome because he said that it avoided the ultimate sin of European negotiations—simply “splitting the difference” between positions. But that rather depends on whose positions we are talking about.

Let me remind the Prime Minister of some rather inconvenient facts. He originally wanted a freeze in the budget, whereas the European Parliament wanted a 5.9% increase. He did not just want a freeze back in August; he was still arguing for one days before the previous European Council in October. Perhaps he can tell the House what figure splits the difference between 0 and 5.9%. By my reckoning it is about 2.9%, which is the outcome we ended up with after his negotiations. So after all his rhetoric, his grandstanding and his description of this as a “victory for common sense”, we have ended up splitting the difference. I congratulate him on his heroic achievement.

We welcome the Prime Minister’s support for the treaty change agreed at the Council. It is right that the eurozone should replace its ad hoc arrangements with a more permanent mechanism, but we have to ask why the Prime Minister has to fall over himself to try to justify accepting a fairly minor change. He is simply showing—I congratulate him on this—a sensible piece of what might be called “Europragmatism”. Of course, his problem is that, before the election, he claimed to be not the Europragmatist but the great Eurosceptic. We all remember his cast-iron guarantee, and his promise that if there was any chance at all of a reopening of the treaty and a referendum on Lisbon he personally would make it happen. The Foreign Secretary admitted in November that this treaty change offers a pretext for a referendum, but it would clearly be absurd to use it to try to derail the whole of Lisbon. That is the problem—the Prime Minister’s absurd position before the election, and the fact that he was believed.

The Prime Minister also used to say that he would take the first opportunity to repatriate powers over employment and social legislation to Britain, but we heard nothing of that in his statement. It is no wonder that his Back Benchers are not very happy with him on Europe, because he led them up the garden path. He said, “I am one of you. I feel your pain. I am the great Eurosceptic.” Can he explain, most of all for the benefit of his Back Benchers, why he has abandoned those pre-election commitments? We know that he has broken his promise to parents on child benefit and to young people on education maintenance allowance, but things have got so bad that he is even breaking his promises to his own Eurosceptics.

Let me turn to the economy. The agreement on a permanent crisis mechanism for the eurozone after 2013 does not address the challenges faced by Europe’s economy right now. I think that he and I would agree on that. Does he agree that eurozone members should do more to promote stability in the eurozone before 2013? Does he also agree that we need European action to promote growth for there to be any chance of serious export growth in the United Kingdom? The Prime Minister’s plans, with VAT set to rise and spending cuts kicking in, rely on an extra £100 billion of exports to the UK over five years. More than 50% of exports, as he said, are to Europe, but the European Commission forecasts slowing growth next year.

In our view, the Prime Minister should be doing more to work with colleagues in Europe to improve prospects for growth. He should do three things in particular: first, he should argue that all countries engaging in fiscal consolidation, including Germany and the UK, should do so at a pace that supports economic growth domestically and across Europe as a whole; secondly, he should ensure that those countries facing problems, including Ireland, are not locked into repeated rounds of austerity measures, with higher taxes and lower spending hitting the growth those countries need to pay down their debts and recover; and, thirdly, he should ensure that Europe’s voice in the G20 argues for a growth-oriented strategy. Given the nature of his statement, people will wonder whether he sees the connection between his optimistic forecast about exports and growth and the summit he attended this weekend.

The Prime Minister’s problems on Europe reflect his wider domestic approach. He breaks his promises and thinks one can reduce an economic policy to a pure deficit reduction policy with no focus on growth and jobs. In 2011, he needs to stop spending his time in Europe trying to grandstand and start engaging on a growth agenda for Europe and Britain that can help us here at home.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about grandstanding, but for the past couple of years we were told endlessly that we were going to be isolated in Europe, that we would have no allies in Europe and no friends in Europe, but when we put together an alliance of the three biggest countries in Europe for budget restraint, the first thing he ought to do is stand up and congratulate us.

Let me take the right hon. Gentleman’s three questions in turn. First, on the budget, he talked about some inconvenient facts. Let me give him some inconvenient facts from last year. Last year, when we had a Labour Government, a 3.8% increase was proposed by the European Council and supported by that Government. The European Parliament then came forward with a 9.8% proposed increase, and they split the difference so the budget went up by 6%. That is what happened last year, supported by Labour. The difference between that and what we achieved is hundreds of millions of pounds. That is what this Government’s actions have saved. When it comes to changing positions, I note that in her statement after the European Council the shadow Foreign Secretary said that “Labour voted against” this budget rise “from the beginning”. That is simply not true—Labour MEPs opposed our call for a freeze in the European Parliament.

Secondly, on treaty change, the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that this very limited treaty change is in our interests so we should support it. We should use this opportunity to get rid of the risks of Britain being drawn further into eurozone support in the future. We are liable to that because of the weak actions of his Government before the last election. It is absolutely right that we use our negotiating capital to make sure that Britain is not liable when the new mechanism comes in. What we are doing, once again, is clearing up the mess left by Labour.

The third issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised was the economy. He says that we should call for measures that will achieve greater stability in Europe, but that is exactly what we are doing. Just imagine what stability we would get in Europe if he were sitting at the Council table saying that we should not be bothering with deficit reduction. We would be putting ourselves in the same camp as Ireland, Portugal and other countries.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman tells me how unhappy my Back Benchers are, but I would swap their unhappiness for that of his Back Benchers any day of the week. I am sure that they will want to remember that important thing at Christmas time—always keep your receipts in case you want to exchange for something bigger.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I will always defend the right to protest and the right to protest peacefully. It seems to me entirely fair that people should protest, but I have never seen why they are able to sleep in Parliament square. I have had many discussions with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I think 29 April is too far a deadline by which to get this problem sorted out.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Guardsman Christopher Davies of 1st Battalion the Irish Guards. He died providing heroic service to our country, like all our other troops. We pay tribute to him and send our deepest condolences to his family.

I also join the Prime Minister in expressing deep sadness about the deaths of the miners who were tragically killed in the underground explosion in New Zealand, including the two miners from Scotland. I know from my constituency the risks that miners take when working underground and our hearts go out to the miners’ families and friends.

I also thank the whole House for the good wishes on the birth of my second son, Samuel. In particular, I thank the Prime Minister and his wife Samantha for their very generous gifts—[[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I shall keep the gifts secret. I also thank the Deputy Prime Minister.

I want to turn to a decision that has been made in advance of the education White Paper, on which there will be a statement at 12.30 pm. Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep concern among schools, families and leading sportsmen and women about the Education Secretary’s decision to take away all the funding from the highly successful school sport partnerships? Will the Prime Minister overrule the Education Secretary and reverse the decision?

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back and I congratulate him again on the birth of baby Samuel. I very much know what it is like—the noise, the mess, the chaos and trying to get the children to shut up. I am sure that it was lovely to have two weeks away from it all. He is very welcome.

On the point about sports funding, in the White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will announce later we are taking a very different approach. We are taking a lot of the specific grants that were spent on specific subjects and putting them into basic school funding. That means that the schools budget is going to go up by £3.6 billion over this Parliament. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that what we experienced over the last decade was a lot of money being put into school sport but without seeing a lot of progress. [Interruption.] We did not see a lot of progress. Let me give him one figure: the number of schools offering rugby, hockey, netball and gymnastics actually fell under the previous Government. That approach did not work and it is time for a new one.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister will come to live to regret that answer, because he should not believe the nonsense that the Education Secretary is telling him about this. Since 2002, we have seen an increase from 25% to 90% in the number of kids doing more than two hours of sport a week. We have seen 1 million more kids doing competitive sport between schools and—I would have thought the Prime Minister would support this—we have a network of 200,000 volunteers from the school sport partnerships. I say to him: that sounds like the big society to me. Why is he undermining it?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what we have ended up with after 10 years of that approach. Only two in every five pupils play any competitive sport regularly in their school. That is a terrible record. Only one in five children plays regular competitive sport against other schools. The approach that Labour took for all those years did not work. The time for endlessly telling head teachers what to do and how to spend their money is over. It is time to trust head teachers, give them the budget and let them decide how to make sure that we have great competitive sport within school and between schools.

[Edward Miliband]

If the Prime Minister will not take it from me, perhaps he will take it from Jo Phillips, the school sports co-ordinator in Chipping Norton school in his constituency. In a letter to me, she said:

“I am devastated to witness the potential demise of this legacy with the sweep of Mr Gove’s pen. I wish that he had spoken to me, the teachers in our partnership, our students, our parents and our local sports clubs and providers”.

I say to the Prime Minister: this is frankly a daft decision that he should U-turn on as soon as possible. I am afraid that it sums up this Education Secretary: high-handed, incompetent and unfair. Why does the Prime Minister not get a grip on it?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that last year the proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds playing sport went down. That was after all the money that Labour spent and all the initiatives. It simply did not work. What we are doing is protecting the playing fields under our planning rules and taking back the vetting and barring scheme that stopped so many people from taking part in school sport. Again, there is a fundamental difference. Labour’s approach was specific grant after specific grant, wrapping teachers and schools in red tape and not making any progress. We take a different approach: putting the money into the schools budget, growing it by £3.6 billion, holding a schools Olympics and promoting school sport. That is the way that will make a real difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Also, we will make sure that future bail-out mechanisms should not involve non-euro countries such as Britain having to make those contributions. That is something we will secure in Europe.

[Edward Miliband]

Does the Prime Minister agree that just as it is right to disclose top salaries in the public sector, so too it must be right to require banks to disclose the number of employees paid salary and bonuses of more than £1 million?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we do agree with that. The last Government commissioned the Walker review. David Walker has carried out that review and made his report. He has made it very clear that he thinks we should make progress with the transparency agenda at the same time as other European countries. That is a view we think should be taken into account.

[Edward Miliband]

indicated dissent.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the fact is that he was part of the Government who appointed David Walker. I would rather listen to someone who knows something about banking than someone who knows nothing about anything.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister will have to do better than that. He is demanding transparency—rightly—from the public sector, but unless we have transparency in the banking system, shareholders cannot exercise their duty to clamp down on unacceptable bonuses. The Business Secretary issued a statement on Monday, when news of the climbdown was in the offing. He said:

“Transparency is key to creating confidence in any commitment from our banks to behave more responsibly on pay and bonuses.”

Why will the Prime Minister not listen to his Business Secretary?

[The Prime Minister]

We agree with the approach of transparency. That is why the Walker review was set up, and that is why we should examine what Walker has to say. I will take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about lots of things, but not when it comes to the banks. He was in the Treasury when the previous Government did not regulate the banks properly. He was in the Treasury when they set up the tripartite system that failed. He was in the Treasury when they had the biggest boom and the biggest bust. He was in the Treasury when they gave Fred Goodwin—the man who broke the Royal Bank of Scotland—a knighthood. I would go back to the blank sheet of paper, if I were you.

[Edward Miliband]

I will compare my record in the Treasury any time to the Prime Minister’s—he was there on Black Wednesday.

Is this not just typical of the Prime Minister? Before the election, he promised “a day of reckoning” for the bankers. We passed the legislation. It is there for him to implement. It is not very much to ask. All that the legislation requires is that the banks publish the number of people—not even their names, as the Chancellor used to call for—getting pay and bonuses above £1 million. It does not make sense to wait for Europe. Why does the Prime Minister not show a lead and just get it done?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to contrast his record in the Treasury. [Interruption.] Yes, let us remind people that when he was in the Treasury the Government built the biggest budget deficit of any G20 country. We had the biggest boom and the biggest bust. It was his Government—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] It was his Government who set up the Walker review, and he should listen to what it has to say. The right hon. Gentleman has nothing to say about the deficit. He has nothing to say about regulation. He is just the nowhere man of British politics.

NATO Summit

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the NATO summit in Lisbon, which I attended at the weekend.

No one can doubt that NATO has played an absolutely critical role in preserving peace in Europe since it was founded in 1949, but the test for NATO now is whether it can meet the challenges of the present and of the future. That means real change—not just signing communiqués about change, but showing real political will to bring the necessary changes about. I believe that NATO can be just as relevant to protecting our security in the future as it has been in the past, and my interventions were focused on that future.

Effectively, there were three summits: a meeting of all the coalition countries involved in Afghanistan; a summit on the planned reform of NATO; and a NATO-Russia Council. I want to take each briefly in turn.

First, on Afghanistan, the summit with President Karzai, the UN Secretary-General and countries from across the globe represented there was a powerful visual reminder that Britain is part of an international coalition of 48 nations in Afghanistan. We are there because the Afghans are not yet capable of securing their own country from terrorists, and those terrorists threaten the security of the rest of the world. So, it is for our own national security that we help them.

At the NATO summit, each and every one of the 48 nations in the coalition reaffirmed its “enduring commitment” to the mission in Afghanistan. Britain is the second-largest contributor to that mission, with over 10,000 troops, many of them risking their lives in the most dangerous parts of the country. The arrival of additional international security assistance force troops in the south has allowed us to transfer Musa Qala and Sangin to the US Marines. That in turn has allowed us to focus our forces in central Helmand, sharing the burden more sensibly and removing the overstretch our forces have suffered since 2006. Working alongside Afghan forces, that has helped us to drive the insurgents out of population centres in central Helmand, and, as hon. Members have heard in the House from reports by my right hon. Friends, we are making good progress.

We want to transfer security responsibility for districts and provinces to Afghan control as soon as the Afghan security forces are ready, and the summit reached important conclusions about the timetable for this transition. It will begin in early 2011 and meet President Karzai’s objective for the Afghan national security forces to lead and conduct security operations in all provinces by the end of 2014.

This commitment on transition is entirely consistent with the deadline we have set for the end of British combat operations in Afghanistan by 2015. By 2015, Britain will have played a huge role in the international coalition and made massive sacrifices for a better, safer and stronger Afghanistan. We will have been in Helmand, by some way the toughest part of Afghanistan, for nine years—a period almost as long as the first and second world wars combined. Last week, we lost the 100th member of our armed forces in Afghanistan this year. This is the second year running that we have reached such a tragic milestone.

The bravery and sacrifices of our forces are helping to make this country safe. But having taken such a huge share of the burden, and having performed so magnificently since 2001, I believe that the country needs to know that there is an end point to all this, so from 2015 there will not be troops in anything like the numbers there are now, and, crucially, they will not be in a combat role. That is a firm commitment and a firm deadline that we will meet.

The NATO summit also committed to a long-term relationship with the Government of Afghanistan, and Britain will be at the forefront of this commitment. Beyond the end of combat operations in 2015, we will go on having a relationship with Afghanistan based on aid, development, diplomacy, trade and, if necessary, military training and support.

On the reform of NATO, we agreed a new strategic concept to equip NATO for the security challenges of the 21st century. Just as in our new national security strategy, NATO will shift its focus and resources still further from the old, cold wars of the past to the new, unconventional threats of the future, including counter-terrorism, cyber-security, failing states and the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Crucially, NATO agreed to develop a new ballistic missile defence system for Europe. This will help to protect the UK and our other European allies from the growing threat from countries such as Iran that are developing ballistic missiles. It will be in place by the end of the decade, paid for within NATO’s existing resources.

Just as Britain’s strategic defence and security review set out plans to make the Ministry of Defence much more commercially hard-headed in future, and to adopt a much more aggressive drive for efficiencies, so this summit agreed significant efficiencies for NATO itself. These include cutting the number of command posts from 13,000 to fewer than 9,000, reducing the number of NATO agencies from 14 to just three and ensuring that all decisions taken at this summit are funded from within NATO’s existing resource plans. These changes will save Britain tens of millions of pounds and will allow NATO to focus its efforts on the front line.

There was also a discussion at the summit on co-operation between the EU and NATO. It is crazy that, because of procedural wrangling, the only security issue these two organisations can discuss when they meet is Bosnia. Everyone wants a solution to the Cyprus problem, but we simply should not allow it to go on holding up practical co-operation between the EU and NATO.

It was a very powerful sight to see countries that came together to protect themselves from the Soviet Union now sitting down and discussing sensible co-operation with Russia and with the Russian President. Although the Soviet Union broke up years ago, relations between NATO and Russia have been strained in recent years. Two years ago, missile defence for Europe caused a major split in relations with Russia, but now it is an issue on which we are actually working together.

The NATO-Russia Council also agreed practical co-operation on Afghanistan, enabling NATO to use routes through Russia to support our armed forces on the ground and working together to develop improved helicopter capabilities for Afghan security forces.

There will remain challenges in working with Russia. President Obama and I both raised the issue of Georgia. Two years after that conflict started, it is time for Russia to abide by the ceasefire agreement and withdraw its troops from Georgian territory, but I judge it right that we do not let this and other bilateral concerns prevent us from working together where it is in our interests, so we will work with Russia on countering drug trafficking, on tackling Islamic extremism and on countering proliferation, and in the G8 and the G20. The summit also praised the courage that Presidents Obama and Medvedev have shown in agreeing a new strategic arms reduction treaty, and agreed that early ratification would be in all our interests.

In 1949, the alliance first said that “an…attack against one” is “an attack against…all.” Today, the threats that we face are different, and the world is more uncertain, but NATO remains the bedrock of our collective defence. The future of this alliance is vital for our national security, and the summit was focused on that future: on securing an Afghanistan able to look after its own security; on reforming NATO for the 21st century; and on establishing co-operation with Russia on our vital security interests. Above all, I believe that this summit has shown that our alliance remains rock solid and that Britain’s commitment to it is as strong as ever. I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. As the main part of it focused on Afghanistan, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all our troops, including the 345 who have died during the conflict. They showed the most extraordinary courage, and we honour them. I also pay tribute to the thousands who have been wounded; they cope with the most serious injuries with an extraordinary bravery and courage.

The best way we in this House can support our troops is by seeking at all times to build unity of purpose, and I am determined to do that on the issue of Afghanistan. In that context, we support the outcome of the NATO summit on Afghanistan. We strongly support the Afghan security forces taking full security responsibility in 2014, which was originally agreed at the London conference at the beginning of this year and was reiterated at the NATO summit. I also agree with the Prime Minister that his objective of ending combat operations by British troops by 2015 is right, and indeed is a logical counterpart to the plan that was set out for full security responsibility.

I do, however, have three questions to ask the Prime Minister about Afghanistan. First, as I am sure he will agree, the point is not simply to set a timetable but to ensure that it can be set successfully, so we must do all we can to improve the conditions on the ground. He mentioned the difficulties in Helmand province and said it was one of the hardest provinces to hand over to Afghan control. May I therefore ask him to tell the House what milestones he will use to track progress in the transition plan for Helmand? Clearly, key to that will be building up the Afghan army and, indeed, making it more representative. That has been a particular issue in the south, including the under-representation of the southern Pashtuns.

Secondly, the Prime Minister said after the summit that we might continue to play a training role for Afghan forces after 2015. May I ask him to say a little more about that? As he will know, the nature of training in Afghanistan is such that it often involves front-line exposure, so perhaps he will say more about whether troops may effectively be in some fighting role beyond that date.

Thirdly—I know the Prime Minister will agree with this, as well—a political settlement is clearly essential to achieving a stable Afghanistan by 2015. We warmly welcome NATO’s endorsement of the Afghan-led reconciliation programme. Does he agree that that requires reconciliation with those elements of the Taliban willing to abide by Afghanistan’s constitution, as well as engagement with Afghanistan’s neighbours, including, of course, Iran and Pakistan? What discussions has he had with President Karzai about ensuring that that reconciliation moves forward rapidly over the next 12 months?

I turn to the other major item of discussion at the summit, the relationship between NATO and Russia. The Prime Minister is clearly right that we should seek to improve our relationship with Russia but continue to raise the concerns that he mentioned, including on Georgia. We welcome the joint work on the new missile defence system, and he is right to say that that development shows how the world has changed since the cold war, as it will involve co-operation with, rather than the isolation of, Russia.

Britain is of course a nuclear power, and in our view will remain so in a world in which others possess nuclear weapons, but that also brings responsibilities. Does the Prime Minister agree that the starting point for the discussion on nuclear weapons should be serious and committed multilateralism, with the ambitious long-term aim, originally set out by President Obama in 2009, of a world without nuclear weapons? May I not only invite the Prime Minister to give support to the new START treaty with Russia, but ask him what his position is on the aim of removing tactical nuclear weapons—essentially a cold war legacy—from continental Europe and Russia?

Finally, the “new strategic concept” for NATO, as it is called, is also to be welcomed, because it understands the new threats that the world faces. The post-war Labour Government, as the Prime Minister indicated, were a founder member of NATO, and our belief in the importance of multilateral co-operation is enhanced, not diminished. Does he agree, though, that the lesson of Afghanistan is that although NATO is a military alliance, when it comes to dealing with fragile states and preventing terrorism, it must pursue its objectives in the knowledge that military means can be successful only alongside political, civilian and humanitarian development?

I end by saying to the Prime Minister that we welcome the outcomes of the summit and will work co-operatively when he seeks to do the right thing, working through NATO for British security and international peace and stability, most importantly in Afghanistan.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and for the way in which he put them. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to our armed forces and to mention the wounded. It is absolutely clear that people are coming back from Afghanistan with very bad injuries—often they have lost one, two and, sometimes, three limbs. We must not just look after and rehabilitate them now, but be thinking now about how we are going to help these people for the rest of their lives. They want to lead extremely active lives, and so they should.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to have unity of purpose on Afghanistan. I hope that we can keep that up. I will do everything I can to try to help make that possible. It is very powerful, when we go to speak to our troops in Afghanistan, and in maintaining public support, that there is genuine bi-party consensus.

The right hon. Gentleman asks three questions; let me try to answer each of them. First, on the milestones for progress between 2011 and 2014, there are, effectively, three different things. We have to look at the build-up of the Afghan army and police, and check that that is on track. We have to look at the progress of governance in the districts and provinces of Afghanistan. We also have to ask ourselves whether what we are about to transition is genuinely irreversible. What we do not want, which is why I have avoided setting short-term deadlines, is to make a move that is then somehow reversed.

On the future training role, we have done very well to staff up the training mission—allies made a lot of commitments on that at the NATO summit. Britain has added another 320 trainers. I very much see this as training and not combat. By that stage, we will be looking at something that is much more a training mission, and not quite as much embedding as we have now.

Reconciliation is vital. Almost all insurgencies the world over have been ended by a combination of military means and a political settlement. It is the moment at which one is hitting the nail very hard in a military sense that one should be taking steps towards reconciliation. This is for the Afghans to lead. The three vital things are that anyone who wants to reconcile must break with al-Qaeda, must renounce violence and must accept the broad outlines of the Afghan constitution. I discussed this with President Karzai at some length. He is enthusiastic about this agenda. If we follow those guidelines, we can make real progress, and that is exactly what we should aim to do.

On Russia, yes, I think we should be serious and committed to multilateral disarmament. The statement spoke about moving towards a world without nuclear weapons. I have always believed that Britain should not give up weapons in the hope that it might somehow unlock this process and make it come about. We should be absolutely clear: we are a nuclear power for very good reason. We should work towards that goal, but we should not be naïve in throwing away our weapons in the hope that others will do so.

In terms of Afghanistan, there are many lessons to learn, but one of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made is absolutely right: we need to make sure we are effective militarily, but at the same time we always have to look at development, governance and political processes. I think NATO is quite well equipped to do that. We should be thinking also about how we can make sure that we reform what we do so that the battalions that we send in are able to do so-called “hot” development, as well as actual war fighting. It is in the early days when the military goes in that it can form a real impression that it is going to be digging wells, building schools and making a country more pleasant to live in, at the same time as securing it from terror. That is one of the big lessons to learn, as the right hon. Gentleman says.

European Council

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? I also thank him for the briefing statement that he gave me on Saturday on the developments following the discovery of explosive materials, including those at East Midlands airport. I join him in thanking the security services, the police and others for the work that they do to protect innocent people here and abroad. I also want to assure him that he has the full support of the Opposition in his efforts to tackle terrorism and keep the nation safe.

On Europe, Labour Members think that it is in the national interest for Britain to be strongly engaged in Europe on issues from terrorism to climate change, and from the global economy to human trafficking. We all know that the Prime Minister is in a slightly tricky predicament on Europe. He has his old friends and his new friends on the Front Bench. I want to tell him very sincerely that we are here to help him. We know that he held some pretty strong views on Europe in the past, but we are willing to ignore his previous convictions, just as long as he is as well.

Let me start with the Council’s conclusions on economic governance. We welcome any sensible proposals for greater co-operation to ensure economic stability across Europe. In principle, we also welcome the idea of putting in place clear arrangements for providing help to eurozone countries that get into trouble, rather than relying on an ad hoc approach. The Prime Minister is also right to say that eurozone countries should take financial responsibility when those circumstances arise. He was right to say in his statement that these new arrangements would not apply to Britain, but they might affect Britain. We have an interest in stability in the eurozone but also in supporting growth in what is our largest export market. Can he therefore assure the House that, as well as protecting Britain from those provisions, he will engage in discussions to ensure that the right balance is struck between the need for stability and the need for growth in the eurozone?

In the context of these reforms, I do not think the Prime Minister made it clear in his statement whether, if proposals are made for treaty change as a result of the amendments, he is prepared to accept the changes without a referendum. He used to imply that if treaty change were ever back on the table, he would have a referendum, but he seems to have abandoned that position. Will he confirm that that is the case?

The Prime Minister also used to imply that he would use the opportunity of treaty change to bring back the British opt-out on employment and social legislation. I think that is a pledge he made for this Parliament. Labour Members do not believe that this is a necessary or sensible course of action. He was silent on this issue during his statement. Can we therefore assume that his previous red lines on this issue were not raised by him at any time in these negotiations, and can he confirm that he does not intend to raise these red lines—or what were his red lines—in the coming months in the context of any possible treaty changes that might take place? Again, we will support him if he takes the right course.

Secondly, on the G20 summit in Seoul, which will discuss the prospects for the world economy, the Prime Minister will know that an increase in trade accounts for almost half of the growth forecast that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts for the United Kingdom next year. Can I ask what discussions were had at the European Council about the uncertainty in the world economy and how Europe plans to do its bit to ensure that economic demand is sustained?

Thirdly, on the Cancun conference on climate change, I have to say—I think the Prime Minister will agree—that the prospects do not look bright for completing the unfinished work of Copenhagen. May I urge him on to show greater leadership on this issue—[Interruption.] Leadership, which is not just about some huskies, but is real leadership on this issue. Can he say what he will be doing personally to advance a deal on finance, which is a crucial precondition of progress and a key objective of the Cancun summit?

Let me turn next to the EU budget. The Prime Minister has offered what we might call an interesting version of events. He confirmed that, in August, the 2.9% increase was put forward by the Council of Ministers and 20 countries voted for that—Britain was not one of them; it voted against that. The Prime Minister tells us in his statement today that “before the Council started, we began building an alliance to take a different approach”—different from the Parliament—“and insist on 2.9%”. The question I ask the right hon. Gentleman is when he took that view. On 20 October, he told this House:

“We have called for a cash freeze in the size of the EU budget for 2011 and we are working hard to make this case across Europe.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 938.]

He was not saying that 2.9% had been agreed and that he had lowered his sights; he was telling us that he was still working for a freeze. Three days later he repeated this to the Daily Mail—a reliable source:

“We need to start working on trying to keep next year's budget down. It should be a freeze or a cut.”

That was his position at that time. So I have a simple question: when did the Prime Minister change his position on this issue? He certainly did not tell the House; he certainly did not tell the Daily Mail—and one would have thought that he would have kept it informed. As far as we can gather, it was sleeves rolled up, full steam ahead and when it came to 2.9%, it was “fight them on the beaches”. Now the Prime Minister has said that he changed his position.

Now, the Prime Minister has agreed to 2.9%. What does he say about something he originally voted against? One would have thought that he might be slightly sheepish about this—but not a bit of it! He actually says that he has “succeeded quite spectacularly”. If that is his view of spectacular success, I would hate to see what happens when things go wrong in his negotiations in Brussels.

What about the letter that the Prime Minster brandished as having been signed by 13 member states, supporting 2.9%? I do not think that is a spectacular success. Twenty countries were supporting 2.9% in August, so this is seven fewer countries than were originally supporting that increase. The only big difference is that Britain, which used to be against the 2.9% increase, is now for it. Let me say to the Prime Minister, in words that my grandmother might have used, that I admire his chutzpah on this issue. Is not the truth about it that he wished he could come back and say, “No, no, no,” but in his case, it is a bit more like, “No, maybe, oh, go on then, have your 2.9% after all”?

What is the deeper truth about the Prime Minister’s position? I have to say that I am disappointed in him, because he has fallen back into his old ways. It is more ludicrous grandstanding on Europe, which ends up proving futile and fooling no one. The Prime Minister said that he would provide for a referendum on Lisbon if there was an opportunity; he has abandoned that position. He said that he would repatriate powers; he has abandoned that position. He said that he would obtain a freeze in the EU budget; he has abandoned that position.

The Prime Minister has obviously not learned the lesson, because he left the summit bragging again, saying that he was a Euroscpetic. When will he recognise that anti-European bluster and PR are no substitute for a decent, engaged European policy? He should be leading the way on climate change, signing the directive on human trafficking, and working with European Governments to sustain demand in the global economy. The Prime Minister may have abandoned some of his previous convictions, but his rehabilitation on Europe has a long way to go.

[The Prime Minister]

If mine was chutzpah, that was brass neck.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how I was getting on with my new friends and my old friends. Let me put it in a way that he may understand: we are just one big happy family. It is brotherly love on this side of the House; it really is. The problem is that we are living with the decision of the right hon. Gentleman’s old friend, Tony Blair, who gave away £8 billion of rebate and received nothing in return.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would ensure stability in the eurozone. Of course we want to do that, as I said in my statement. He said that this did not affect Britain in terms of the treaty change, and he was quite right about that. He asked whether this should lead to a referendum. The point is that we are not passing any powers from Britain to Brussels: this limited treaty change does not affect the United Kingdom. However, I cannot take a lecture on referendums from someone who could have provided a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but failed to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what we were getting in return. We are getting progress on the budget, which we never saw in a month of Sundays under a Labour Government. Let me say something about the issue of the budget, and the points that he made. Let us contrast the position now with what happened last year under a Labour Government. Last year under a Labour Government—[Interruption.] It is very instructive to look at what happened last year and what happened this year.

Last year the European Council voted for a 3.8% increase. The Labour Government supported it. The European Parliament proposed a 9.8% increase. The Council then agreed a 6% increase, and the Labour Government supported it. That is the difference between last year and this year. Last year we had a feeble Government who would not stand up for Britain; this time we have a Government who will.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, the point is that the previous Government gave away some £8 billion of rebate and got nothing in return. I am clear that we will not accept any increases in the EU budget in the next seven-year financial perspective. We have called for a cash freeze in the size of the EU budget for 2011 and we are working hard to make this case across Europe. Just yesterday, I spoke to the new Dutch Prime Minister as he is another ally in trying to ensure that, as we make difficult decisions at home, we do not spend extra money on the EU budget.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I want to start by asking the Prime Minister about something that the Justice Secretary said. Unfortunately, he has become part of the “squeezed middle” due to the logjam on the Tory Front Bench. Three weeks ago, the Justice Secretary—a former Chancellor—said:

“I do not rule out the risk of a double-dip recession”.

On the same day, the Prime Minister said that the UK economy was out of the danger zone. Which of them is right?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me compliment the Justice Secretary because he has something that I am not sure the Leader of the Opposition has yet acquired, which is bottom.

If the Leader of the Opposition read out the full quotation from the Lord Chancellor he would find that it referred to western Europe as a whole. That is the point. Perhaps he would like to read out the whole quote now.

[Edward Miliband]

The—[Interruption.] Let me be very clear about this. The Justice Secretary said:

“I do not rule out the risk of a double-dip recession”

because of global fear and crisis. He was talking about the United Kingdom. It is a very simple question for the Prime Minister. Who is right? Is it the Justice Secretary when he does not rule out the risk of a double-dip recession? Or is the Prime Minister saying that the Justice Secretary has put his foot—or his Hush Puppy—in it? Is he saying that the Justice Secretary was wrong to say that there was a risk of double-dip recession in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition must ask the questions and I must answer them, but he must—if I may say so—ask a complete question which should include the complete quotation. Have another go.

[Edward Miliband]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want time for Back Benchers, especially those on the Order Paper. Let us make some progress.

[Edward Miliband]

Look, the Prime Minister knows as well as I do that there are risks in the global economy, including to the United Kingdom. The Chief Secretary revealed yesterday that half a million jobs will be lost as the result of the Chancellor’s announcements today. What people who are in fear of losing their jobs will want to know is what the consequences of the spending review will be for them. They will think that this spending review will be a failure if it leads to rising unemployment next year. Will the Prime Minister say that he agrees with them that the spending review will be a failure if unemployment were to rise next year—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a much better question; I think we are making some progress. The whole point of the Government’s approach is to take the British economy out of the danger zone, which is where it was left by the last Government. This is very important: the choice that we were left with when we came into power was to accept what the last Government had set out, but this is what was said about that. The Governor of the Bank of England said that it was “not a credible plan”, the CBI said that it was not a “credible path”, the OECD said that it was a “weak fiscal position”, and the IMF said that it was not good enough. We had a choice: should we keep what we were left with or should we take bold action to get Britain out of the danger zone? That is what we have done. That is what today is all about, and it is time that the right hon. Gentleman asked something relevant to that.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister began by saying that it was a good question, then he said that it was irrelevant. Which is it? Let me give him another—[Interruption.] I know that he is getting advice from the Chancellor; he can answer the questions himself. Let me try the Prime Minister on another question, because he did not answer that one.

The Energy Secretary, who does not seem to be around—[Hon. Members: “He is here!”] Oh, he is there. Excellent. I am glad that he is here. The Energy Secretary says that the Government should not be “lashed to the mast” of the Government’s tax and spending numbers were economic circumstances to change. Does the Prime Minister agree? In particular, if at the end of November the Office for Budget Responsibility were to forecast a rise in unemployment next year, does the Prime Minister think that the tax and spending judgments of the Government should change? Yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

First, to respond to what the right hon. Gentleman said about me and the Chancellor, I know that it is a novel concept, but in this Government the Prime Minister and the Chancellor speak to each other.

On unemployment, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—which we have established and which is fully independent—is forecasting that unemployment will fall next year, the year after and the year after that. It is forecasting that employment—[Interruption.] One question at a time, please. The right hon. Gentleman is very eager. The Office for Budget Responsibility also forecasts that employment will rise next year, the year after and the year after that. That is the independent forecast, and one of the reasons for that is that we have taken the economy out of the danger zone. He asks about the Energy Secretary, but what is interesting about this Government is that two parties have come together in the national interest to sort out the economic mess that was left by the other. That is what has happened, and that is why there is real unity in this Government in dealing with the mess that we inherited.

[Edward Miliband]

Let me give the Prime Minister another chance, because the truth is that the global economic outlook is uncertain, as the former Chancellor admits—the Prime Minister does not really want to admit it—and it could affect the UK. The question that people will be asking as they watch these exchanges is this: if things change, and if unemployment were to rise next year, will the Government revise their tax and spending plans? It is a simple question; the Prime Minister can just say yes or no.

[The Prime Minister]

Where the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right is that we live in a dangerous world economy, and the outlook for the world economy is choppy and difficult. That is what the Justice Secretary was talking about and what the Chancellor has been talking about. The question for the Government is this: in an uncertain world economy, are we taking the British economy out of the danger zone? Are we doing the right thing to protect the long-term interests of people’s jobs and livelihoods? That is what we are doing. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is thoroughly irresponsible, and I think he probably knows it.

[Edward Miliband]

This is very interesting, because the Prime Minister used to say that he was a different type of Conservative, but I have given him the chance to say that he will change his plans if unemployment rises, and he has ducked the chance to do so. We all remember the catchphrases: “If it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working”; “Unemployment is a price worth paying.” He sounds exactly like that. What we have is a Prime Minister lashed to the mast of the tax and spending plans. Should he not admit it? He is taking the biggest gamble in a generation—with growth, with people’s jobs and with people’s livelihoods.

[The Prime Minister]

We all remember some catch phrases: “No more boom and bust”—remember that one?—and “Prudence with a purpose”, which left us with the biggest budget deficit in the G20. We remember that, and who was the economic adviser at the Treasury at the time? He is sitting right there—[Interruption.]

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Edward Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I shall give the hon. Gentleman all the figures he requires.

First, even though the Ministry of Defence will get real growth in its budget next year, the Department will face some significant challenges, so the MOD will cut its estate, dispose of unnecessary assets, renegotiate contracts with industry and cut its management overheads, including reducing civilian numbers in the MOD by 25,000 by 2015. We will also adjust and simplify civilian and military allowances. The new higher operational allowance stays, but there will be difficult decisions, although these will be made easier by the return of the Army from Germany. Taken together, all those changes in the MOD will save £4.7 billion over the spending review period.

Getting to grips with procurement is vital. The Nimrod programme, for example, has cost the British taxpayer more than £3 billion; the number of aircraft to be procured has fallen from 21 to nine; the cost per aircraft has increased by more than 200%; and it is more than eight years late. Today, we are announcing its cancellation.

Secondly, from military intervention to conflict prevention, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the immense financial and human costs of large scale military interventions, and although we must retain the ability to undertake such operations, we must get better at treating the causes of instability, not just dealing with the consequences. When we fail to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention, the costs are always far higher. We will expand our capability to deploy military and civilian teams to support stabilisation efforts and build capacity in other states and we will double our investment in aid for fragile and unstable countries so that by 2015 just under a third of the budget of the Department for International Development will be spent on conflict prevention.

Thirdly, we need to focus more of our resources not on the conventional threats of the past but on the unconventional threats of the future. So, over the next four years we will invest more than £500 million of new money in a national cyber-security programme. That will significantly enhance our ability to detect and defend against cyber attacks and it will fix shortfalls in the critical cyber infrastructure on which the whole country now depends. We will continue to prioritise tackling the terrorist threat both from al-Qaeda and its affiliates and from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland. Although efficiencies will need to be made, we are giving priority to continuing investment in our world-class intelligence agencies and we will sharpen our readiness to act on civil emergencies, energy security, organised crime, counter-proliferation and border security.

Fourthly, and crucially, we need to move from armed forces that are over-stretched and under-equipped to the most modern and professional flexible forces in the world. We inherited an Army with scores of tanks in Germany, but that was until recently forced to face the deadly threat of improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan with Land Rovers designed for Northern Ireland. We have a Royal Air Force hampered in its efforts to support our forces overseas by an ageing strategic airlift fleet and we have a Royal Navy locked into a cycle of ever smaller numbers of ever more expensive ships. We cannot go on like this.

The White Paper we have published today sets out a clear vision for the future structure of our armed forces. The precise budgets beyond 2015 will be agreed in future spending reviews. My own strong view is that this structure will require year-on-year real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015. Between now and then the Government are committed to the vision of 2020 set out in the review and we will make decisions accordingly. We are also absolutely determined that the Ministry of Defence will become much more commercially hard-headed in future and will adopt a much more aggressive drive for efficiencies.

The transition from the mess we inherited to that coherent future will be a difficult process, especially in the current economic conditions, but we are determined to take the necessary steps. Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role, so we will retain a large, well-equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015—7,000 fewer than today. We will continue to be one of very few countries able to deploy a self-sustaining, properly equipped, brigade-sized force anywhere around the world and to sustain it indefinitely if needs be. We will also be able to put 30,000 into the field for a major, one-off operation.

In terms of the return from Germany, half our personnel should be back by 2015 and the remainder by 2020. Tank and heavy artillery numbers will be reduced by about 40%, but the introduction of 12 new heavy lift Chinook helicopters, new protected mobility vehicles and enhanced communications equipment will make the Army more mobile, more flexible and better equipped to face future threats than ever before.

We will also review the structure of our reserve forces to ensure that we make the most efficient use of their skills, experience and outstanding capabilities. That review will be chaired by the vice-chief of the defence staff, General Houghton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who has served for many years in the reserves, will act as his very able deputy.

The Royal Navy will be similarly equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We are procuring a fleet of the most capable nuclear powered hunter-killer Astute class submarines anywhere in the world. Able to operate in secret across the world’s oceans, those submarines will also feed vital strategic intelligence back to the UK. We will complete the production of six Type 45 destroyers —one of the most effective multi-role destroyers in the world. We will also start a new programme to develop less expensive, more flexible, modern frigates. Total naval manpower will reduce to around 30,000 by 2015—that is a reduction of 5,000—and by 2020 the total number of frigates and destroyers will reduce from 23 to 19. However, the fleet as a whole will be better able to take on today’s tasks—from tackling drug trafficking and piracy to counter-terrorism.

The Royal Air Force will also need to take some tough measures in the coming years to ensure a strong future. We have decided to retire the Harrier, which has served this country so well for 40 years. It is a remarkably flexible aircraft, but the military advice is clear: we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan. RAF manpower will also reduce to around 33,000 by 2015—again, that is a reduction of 5,000. Inevitably, that will mean changes in the way in which some RAF bases are used, but some are likely to be required by the Army as forces return from Germany. We owe it to communities up and down the country who have supported our armed forces for many years to engage with them before final decisions are taken.

By the 2020s, the Royal Air Force will be based around a fleet of two of the most capable fighter jets anywhere in the world—a modernised Typhoon fleet, fully capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, and the joint strike fighter, the world’s most advanced multi-role combat jet. The fleet will be complemented by a growing number of unmanned aerial vehicles and the A400M transport aircraft together with the existing fleet of C-17 aircraft and the future strategic tanker aircraft. This will allow us to fly our forces wherever they are needed in the world.

As we focus our resources on the most likely threats to our security, so we will remain vigilant against all possible threats and we should retain the capability to react to the unexpected. As we cut back on tanks and heavy artillery, we will retain the ability to regenerate those capabilities if need be; and while in the short term the ability to deploy air power from the sea is unlikely to be essential, over the longer term we cannot assume that bases for land-based aircraft will always be available when and where we need them, so we will ensure the UK has carrier strike capability for the future. This is another area where I believe the last Government got it badly wrong. There is only one thing worse than spending money you don’t have, and that is buying the wrong things with it—and doing so in the wrong way. The carriers they ordered were unable to work effectively with our key defence partners, the United States or France. They had failed to plan so carriers and planes would arrive at the same time. They ordered the more expensive and less capable version of the joint strike fighter to fly off the carriers. And they signed contracts, so we were left in a situation where even cancelling the second carrier would actually cost more than to build it. [Interruption.] I have this in written confirmation from BAE Systems.

That is the legacy we inherited—an appalling legacy the British people have every right to be angry about, but I say to them today: we will act in the national interest. We would not have started from here, but the right decisions are now being made in the right way and for the right reasons.

It will take time to rectify these mistakes, but this is how we intend to do so. We will build both carriers, but hold one in extended readiness. We will fit the “cats and traps”—the catapults and arrester gear—to the operational carrier. This will allow our allies to operate from our operational carrier, and it will allow us to buy the carrier version of the joint strike fighter, which is more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons. We will also aim to bring the planes and the carriers in at the same time.

Finally, we cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge, so we will retain and renew the ultimate insurance policy—our independent nuclear deterrent, which guards our country round the clock every day of the year. We have completed a value for money review of our future deterrent plans, and as a result we can do the following. We can extend the life of the Vanguard class so that the first replacement submarine is not required until 2028; we can reduce the number of operational launch tubes on those new submarines from 12 to eight; we can reduce the number of warheads on our submarines at sea from 48 to 40; and we can reduce our stockpile of operational warheads from fewer than 160 to fewer than 120.

The next phase of the programme to renew our deterrent, the so-called “initial gate,” will start by the end of this year. But as a result of the changes to the programme, the decision to start construction of the new submarines need not now be taken until around 2016. We will save around £1.2 billion and defer a further £2 billion of spending from the next 10 years. So, yes, we will save money, but we will retain and renew a credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent that will stand constant guard over our nation’s security.

Finally, the immense contribution of our highly professional special forces is necessarily largely unreported, but their immense capability is recognised across the world. We are significantly increasing our investment in our special forces to ensure they remain at the leading edge of operational capability, prepared to meet current and future threats, and maintaining their unique and specialist role. This enhanced capability will allow them to remain at “extremely high readiness” for emergency operations.

We were left a budget £38 billion overspent, armed forces at war, overstretched, under-equipped and ill prepared for the challenges of the future, and the biggest budget deficit in post-war history. I believe we have begun to deal with all these things, sorting out the legacy and fitting Britain’s defences for the future. I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces? I also want to pay tribute to their families, who sustain their loved ones as they prepare for, serve on and recover from operational service. They are the best of Britain, and we should recognise that in the House here today. We must ensure that their interests are protected in all the decisions we make.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance notice of his statement—in today’s papers, yesterday’s papers, Sunday’s papers, Saturday’s papers and Friday’s papers. It almost did not matter that I got his statement at 3.15 pm because I had read so much of it in the newspapers, but, as someone who takes Parliament seriously, I have to say to the Prime Minister that the process of announcement of the review has been a complete shambles. I genuinely hope he will learn the lessons from it.

On issues of defence and national security, we will always seek to be constructive. I believe the Prime Minister approaches the challenge of national defence, as all Governments have done, with the right intentions, and it does neither our politics nor our armed services any good to imply anything different. That is the approach I shall follow today.

The cuts announced today clearly represent a significant reduction in our defence spending, but what matters in our defence spending is what the money does for our defence and security needs. That is what I want to focus on today. First, I remind the Prime Minister of the concern expressed by the Defence Secretary in the letter to him. He said that

“this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR”.

The Prime Minister will know that the concern that the Defence Secretary expressed was expressed not just by the Defence Secretary, but by the Chair of the Select Committee, by many Members of the House and by many independent observers.

Is it not instructive that the strategic defence review of 1998 took 15 months to complete and involved much greater consultation and in-depth study? May I ask the Prime Minister to respond to the widespread perception that the review has been driven only by short-term considerations? Does he think, on reflection, that it would have been better to have had a longer-term strategic defence review, continuing after the spending review?

Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister about the most immediate and pressing issue of Afghanistan? I reiterate that we support the mission in Afghanistan and will work in a bipartisan way with him to stabilise the country and bring our troops home safely. I was reassured by what he said in his statement about Afghanistan, but may I ask him for some further assurances that he has been told by the Chief of the Defence Staff that no decision announced today will in any way undermine or disadvantage our military operations in Afghanistan?

I welcome what today’s statement said about delivering new equipment, but may I raise with the Prime Minister the issue of extra helicopters? People will remember that he made much of the issue of helicopters in the previous Parliament. The order, as I understand it, was for 22 extra helicopters, but the document produced today states on page 25 that “12 new Chinook helicopters” will be ordered. I simply ask the Prime Minister to explain the discrepancy between the 22 helicopters that I believe he wanted in the previous Parliament, and the 12 that have been ordered.

Thirdly, I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that a key part of preparing for the challenge of the future is the targeting of limited national resources on the most pressing threats. He mentioned terrorism in his statement, and the national security strategy identified terrorism as a tier 1 threat. Given that today’s announcement forms only a partial response to yesterday’s national security strategy, can he assure the House that nothing announced tomorrow in the changes to the Home Office budget will in any way undermine or weaken our ability to counter terrorism in all its forms?

Fourthly, on the issue of preparing our armed forces for future challenges, we agree that savings can be made on the legacy cold war capability, such as in the number of Challenger tanks and in heavy artillery. However, I seek reassurance from the Prime Minister that he is content that the decisions made today do not in any way compromise our ability to support current operations and defend our interests round the world. In particular, what does the capability gap arising from the scrapping of our Harriers and the withdrawal of Ark Royal mean for our force projection, which was made much of in the national security strategy document yesterday? What does it mean for our ability to defend our overseas territories? In that context, will he also reassure the House that the best strategic decision for the next decade really is for Britain to have aircraft carriers without aircraft, which is the decision he announced today?

May I also ask the Prime Minister about two things that he did not mention in his statement? Will he confirm what he did not tell the House but what I think is set out on page 19 of the review—that he is today announcing a one-third reduction in the number of troops that Britain can deploy on both short-term and enduring bases? Will he also take the opportunity to respond to the huge disappointment that there will be in south Wales, following the decision announced in a written ministerial statement this morning to terminate the defence training college at St Athan, which he personally promised would go ahead?

Fifthly, there will be concerns that the review has failed to address strategically the important questions about the future of our nuclear deterrent. All parts of the House support the retention of the nuclear deterrent, alongside progress in multilateral disarmament talks, but can I say—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Ellwood, these constant sedentary heckles are not necessary, they are not welcome and they do not help you.

[Edward Miliband]

There will be concern that the Prime Minister has announced a whole range of decisions on Trident, despite telling us for months that it was not part of the strategic defence review. He made much of the issue of the procurement budget, but will he confirm that by choosing to delay Trident, he is creating a large unfunded spending commitment in the next Parliament—precisely the problem he told us he wants to get away from in procurement.

We will help the Prime Minister and his Government as they seek to do what is best for our country’s security, but many people will believe that this review is a profound missed opportunity. It is a spending review dressed up as a defence review; it has been chaotically conducted and hastily prepared; and it is simply not credible as a strategic blueprint for our future defence needs.

The Opposition will support him where we can, but we will also give his strategy serious scrutiny, and where necessary and appropriate we will subject it to the principled and responsible opposition it deserves.

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about our armed forces. Anyone who does my job or that of Defence Secretary knows that we have in our armed forces the bravest of the brave, some of the most professional and dedicated people, and everyone in this House looks up to them and is proud of them.

I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is here at all, because of course today is the day of the TUC rally that he promised to attend. I am very glad that he got his priorities right, and I am sure that all the trade unionists who voted for him will fully understand.

The right hon. Gentleman complained that I had not got him the statement early enough, but I got the document to him two hours ago, which I do not remember his predecessor being very quick to do, but there we are. I might be being unfair.

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman should have started his statement with one word—“sorry”: sorry for the £38 billion of overspend in the MOD; sorry for the fact that the previous Government left more civil servants than we had sailors or airmen; sorry for the £2.3 billion that they spent on refurbishing the Ministry of Defence; and sorry for the completely unsustainable promises that they made.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions, and I shall try to answer every single one. He compared this review with the 1998 review, but one crucial difference is that the 1998 review did not include the funding to go with the promises that were made. Yes, we have made tough decisions in this review, but the funding is there to meet the promises that have been made.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the review was all about short-term considerations, but I have to say that we have made some long-term decisions: to invest £650 million in cyber at a time when one is making cuts is a long-term decision; to sort out the future of the carriers is a long-term decision; and scrapping many tanks and heavy artillery involves difficult but long-term decisions. On his idea that we should take longer over it, I have to tell him that these decisions do not get any easier by just putting them off. We have had a proper process—a national security process. I note that during his leadership election, he said:

“I think there is a strong case for carrying out our own Strategic Defence Review so that we can give appropriate scrutiny to the Government’s plan”.

I have not seen that review; perhaps it will emerge eventually.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about no decision doing damage to what we are doing in Afghanistan, I made it clear in my statement, and I make it clear again to him now, that that has been absolutely uppermost in my mind.

The reason I kept talking about helicopters in the last Parliament is that every time I went to Afghanistan, that is what the troops on the ground were worried about. Now, talking to our troops on the ground—I did a video conference call with the commander of our forces in Helmand only a few days ago—one finds that that is not their concern; they now have the helicopters they need. Let me answer specifically the point about the Chinook order. There was no order for Chinook helicopters—it was this Government who have had to fund that. The number of Chinooks is going from 46 to 60, and we will also be refurbishing the Puma helicopters to add to capacity.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Home Office budget; he will have to wait until tomorrow for that. However, I would stress again that this decision—this document—was brought about by the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the International Development Secretary and the Business Secretary sitting round as a National Security Council making the right decisions. On his question about being able to produce 30,000 forces in theatre, that was in my statement.

Let me address very directly the issue of the capability gap, because this has been the most difficult decision for the Government to take. There is no gap in our flexible posture. With our air-to-air refuelling and our fast jet capability, we have the ability to deploy force around the world, but I accept that there is going to be a gap in carrier strike. The alternative would be to keep the Harriers but not to keep the Tornados. I think that that would be the wrong decision. The Harriers, in any event, would have to be in Afghanistan, not on an aircraft carrier. The Harrier, while a brilliant aircraft, is not as capable as the Tornado. There are fewer Harriers than Tornados, so there would be a question as to whether they could sustain the action in Afghanistan. The premise underlying the question is not right. The current carriers are not equivalent to the future carriers that we are building. I have to say to hon. Gentlemen who may think, “Well, why not try to keep all of them—the Tornados, Harriers and Typhoons—and develop the joint strike fighter?”, that that would be prohibitively expensive. As I say, it is the sort of decision that was taken in the last Parliament just to push these things off into the future. We have to make the tough decisions now to line up our forces for the future.

The right hon. Gentleman’s last question was on Trident. I have been saving that up for the end because I was so excited by his questions. We held a value-for-money review on Trident because we really wanted to find out what money we could save, and we are saving money, including £700 million in this Parliament—that is money available to invest in other things, and it does nothing to risk our Trident replacement. I believe that Trident is vital to our nation’s security and, having looked at all the evidence, that a proper full replacement of Trident is the right option for the future. These are responsible decisions, well made. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is now running away from the Trident replacement that he supported, that that would be a profound mistake for this country.