Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Miliband Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have had welcome news over the summer: exports are up 5.8% on a year ago, business confidence is at its highest level since January 2008, consumer confidence is up and all the figures on construction, manufacturing and services are going in the right direction. We must not be complacent—these are early days—but it is because of the tough decisions that this Government took that we can now see progress.
We ought to remember that Labour Members told us that unemployment would go up, but it has come down, and that the economy would go backwards, but it has gone forwards. It is time for them to explain that they were wrong and we were right.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of Prince George. I wish all of them all the happiness in the world.
At the G20 summit in St Petersburg tomorrow, will the Prime Minister do everything he can to get other countries to match the UK’s important aid commitment to alleviate the humanitarian emergency in Syria, given that almost one third of Syrian families have been forced to flee their homes and yet the United Nations has less than half the resources it needs?
The Prime Minister
Of course I will be taking that action. Britain has a very proud record on humanitarian aid, not just in this conflict, but in many previous conflicts. In this one we are the second largest aid donor. We have spent more than £400 million. At the G20 it will be very important to make a number of points clear: our absolute revulsion at the use of chemical weapons, our desire for a peace process and, above all, the need to get donor countries together and make sure that they live up to their responsibilities and that we do everything we can to help the Syrian people in their hour of need.
Edward Miliband
The civil war in Syria and the refugee crisis are having profound consequences not just in that country, but across the middle east, specifically in Jordan, Turkey and Iraq and especially in Lebanon, where the population is up by 25% since the civil war began. What specific support, beyond the welcome humanitarian assistance that the Government are providing, can Britain give to those countries to help them deal with the burden on their infrastructure, economies and wider societies?
The Prime Minister
I have seen for myself, having been to a refugee camp in Jordan, how great the pressures are. That refugee camp is now one of the biggest cities in that country. We have well-funded embassies and diplomatic networks, and very close relations with Lebanon and Jordan, as well as with the Turks. We are doing everything we can to help and advise them. We are well placed to do so, because we are spending serious money on the humanitarian aid programmes.
However, at the end of the day, what we need is a solution to the Syrian crisis. We need a peace process to be put in place. We also need to be absolutely clear about our revulsion to chemical weapons and should ensure that our aid programme is giving the Syrian people protection from the appalling chemical weapons attacks that they have suffered.
Edward Miliband
The revulsion at the chemical weapons attacks is shared in all parts of this House, as the debate last Thursday made clear.
I want to come on to an issue that the Prime Minister raised, which is getting the talks going between the warring parties. The opposition Syrian National Council is meeting the Foreign Secretary in the next couple of days. Will the Prime Minister tell us what work he is doing with the Syrian National Council to make the talks in Geneva happen?
The Prime Minister
What we are doing with the Syrian National Council is twofold. First, we want to support those elements of the Syrian opposition that support a pluralistic, democratic and free Syria. That is what our engagement with them has been all about. We go further than that, however, because we recognise that the so-called rebels who back those views also deserve our support through training, assistance and advice. The truth is this: we will not get a peace process in Syria unless President Assad realises that his regime is under some sort of pressure and threat not just from the rebels, but from the millions of Syrians, whom we must stand up for, who want democracy, freedom and a better future for themselves and their children. It is those people whose side we should truly be on.
Edward Miliband
There is no difference across this House on the need to stand up for the innocent people of Syria. The question at issue—[Interruption.] The House has approached this issue, so far, in a calm and measured way, and we should carry on doing that. The point at issue is how to stand up for those people. There are big barriers, as we have found out over the past year or more, to the Geneva II peace talks happening. Is there not a case for immediate talks between those countries that are backing the rebels and those countries that are backing the regime? That happened during the civil war in Lebanon and it would at least provide a basis for discussions.
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Britain should use all its diplomatic muscle in discussions with those countries that have backed the regime and by joining with countries that back the rebels and the opposition to try to bring those talks about. That is why I have had repeated discussions with President Putin, for instance, most recently last Monday, and why I travelled to Sochi to see him specifically to discuss this issue.
However, I come back to this point: it is all very well the countries that support either side wanting peace talks to take place, but we also need those involved in the conflict in Syria to recognise that it is in their interests for a peace process to begin. I think that we can convince the Syrian National Council that it is in its interests, because a transition could lead to genuinely free elections and change for Syria. However, we need Assad himself to realise that it is in his interests, because there is no victory that he can win against his own people. For that to happen, we need to take, and the world needs to take, a very tough response to things such as chemical weapons attacks. I accept that Britain cannot be and will not be part of any military action on that front, but we must not in any degree give up our utter revulsion at the chemical weapons attacks that we have seen and we must press that point in every forum of which we are a member.
Edward Miliband
Nobody disagrees about our revulsion at the use of chemical weapons. As I say, the question is how to deal with it. What I said to the Prime Minister was, given the difficulty of getting direct talks moving between the Syrian Government and opposition, is there not a case for getting the regional partners involved? We all know the role that Iran has played in fuelling this conflict. However, given that successful diplomacy involves talking to those with whom we profoundly disagree, what is the Government’s position on Iran participating either in a contact group or as part of the Geneva process?
The Prime Minister
As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, he will be meeting the Iranian Foreign Minister when he is in New York for the UN General Assembly. However, let us not forget what Iran has done to our embassy and to our country. We should not put that on one side.
The point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that of course we all want these peace talks to take place and we all want Geneva II to happen, but we cannot want it more than the participants in Syria’s bloody conflict. We have to make sure it is in their interests that the talks go ahead. That is why, although diplomacy is important, the work we do with the Syrian opposition who support democracy and a pluralistic, fair and free future for Syria is also important. They are standing up for millions of Syrians who have been bombed and blasted out of their houses. Those are the people we need to talk to, in the refugee camps in Jordan and elsewhere, to see how they feel and how badly the rest of the world is currently letting them down.
Edward Miliband
Nobody disagrees with that, or indeed about the view we take of Iran’s behaviour. The question is, how are we going to bring the parties together, including the regional parties?
Finally, does the Prime Minister accept that there remains support across the country for Britain taking every diplomatic, political and humanitarian effort to help the Syrian people? Last week’s vote was not about Britain shirking its global responsibilities, it was about preventing a rush to war.
The Prime Minister
Last week the House of Commons voted clearly, and I have said that I respect the outcome of that vote and will not be bringing back plans for British participation in military action. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must bring to bear everything we have in our power—our diplomatic networks, our influence with other countries and our membership of all the key bodies such as the G8, the G20, the UN, the EU and NATO. My only regret from last week is that I do not think it was necessary to divide the House on a vote that could have led to a vote, but he took the decision that it was.
Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons
Edward Miliband Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I beg to move manuscript amendment (b), leave out from ‘House’ to end and add—
‘expresses its revulsion at the killing of hundreds of civilians in Ghutah, Syria on 21 August 2013; believes that this was a moral outrage; recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons; makes clear that the use of chemical weapons is a grave breach of international law; agrees with the UN Secretary General that the UN weapons inspectors must be able to report to the UN Security Council and that the Security Council must live up to its responsibilities to protect civilians; supports steps to provide humanitarian protection to the people of Syria but will only support military action involving UK forces if and when the following conditions have been met that:
(a) the UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, are given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria;
(b) compelling evidence is produced that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
(c) the UN Security Council has considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
(d) there is a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
(e) such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
(f) the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action, and that any such vote should relate solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.’.
I start by joining the Prime Minister in expressing revulsion at the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians in Ghutah on 21 August. This was a moral outrage, and the international community is right to condemn it. As the Prime Minister said, everyone in the House and most people in the country will have seen the pictures of men, women and children gasping for breath and dying as a result of this heinous attack. I can assure hon. Members that the divide that exists is not over the condemnation of the use of chemical weapons and the fact that it breaches international law; nor does it lie in the willingness to condemn the regime of President Assad. The question facing this House is what, if any, military action we should take and what criteria should determine that decision. That is what I want to focus on in my speech today.
It is right to say at the beginning of my remarks that the Prime Minister said a couple of times in his speech words to the effect that, “We are not going to get further involved in that conflict. This does not change our stance our Syria.” I have got to say to the Prime Minister, with the greatest respect, that that is simply not the case. For me that does not rule out military intervention—I want to be clear about this—but I do not think anybody in this House or in the country should be under any illusions about the effect on our relationship to the conflict in Syria if we were to intervene militarily. As I say, and as I shall develop in my remarks, that does not, for me, rule out intervention, but we need to be clear-eyed about the impact that this would have.
Let me also say that this is one of the most solemn duties that this House possesses, and in our minds should be this simple question: in upholding international law and legitimacy, how can me make the lives of the Syrian people better? We should also have in our minds—it is right to remember it on this occasion—the duty we owe to the exceptional men and women of our armed forces and their families, who will face the direct consequences of any decision we make.
The basis on which we make this decision is of fundamental importance, because the basis of making the decision determines the legitimacy and moral authority of any action that we undertake. That is why our amendment asks the House to support a clear and legitimate road map to decision on this issue—a set of steps that will enable us to judge any recommended international action. I want to develop the argument about why I believe this sequential road map is the right thing for the House to support today.
Most of all, if we follow this road map, it can assure the country and the international community that if we take action, we will follow the right, legitimate and legal course, not an artificial timetable or a political timetable set elsewhere. I think that is very important for any decision we make. This is fundamental to the principles of Britain: a belief in the rule of law and a belief that any military action we take must be justified in terms of the cause and also the potential consequences. We should strain every sinew to make the international institutions that we have in our world work to deal with the outrages in Syria.
Let me turn to the conditions in our amendment. First—this is where the Prime Minister and I now agree—we must let the UN weapons inspectors do their work and let them report to the Security Council. Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, yesterday said about the weapons inspectors:
“Let them conclude their work for four days and then we will have to analyse scientifically with experts and then…we will have to report to the Security Council for any actions.”
The weapons inspectors are in the midst of their work and will be reporting in the coming days. That is why today could not have been the day on which the House was asked to decide on military action. It is surely a basic point for this House that evidence should precede decision, not decision precede evidence. I am glad that, on reflection, the Prime Minister accepted this yesterday.
Now it is true—some have already raised this issue—that the weapons inspectors cannot reach a judgment on the attribution of blame. That is beyond their mandate. Some might think that that makes their work essentially irrelevant. I disagree. If the UN weapons inspectors conclude that chemical weapons have been used, in the eyes of this country and of the world that will confer legitimacy on the finding beyond the view of any individual country or any intelligence agency. What is more, it is possible that what the weapons inspectors discover could give the world greater confidence in identifying the perpetrators of this horrific attack.
The second step in our road map makes it clear that there must be compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the attack. I welcome the letter from the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee today, and I note the Arab League’s view of President Assad’s culpability. Of course, as the Prime Minister said, in conflict there is always reason for doubt, but the greater the weight of evidence the better. On Tuesday we were promised the release of American intelligence to prove the regime’s culpability. We await publication of that evidence, which I gather will be later today. That evidence, too, will be important in building up the body of evidence to show that President Assad was responsible.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition has said that he might be able to support military action of the kind that the Government are contemplating. He has put in his amendment a list of the requirements, virtually all of which, as far as I can tell, appear in the Government’s own motion. Why can he not, therefore, support the Government’s motion, in order that this House could speak with a united voice to the world on this matter?
Edward Miliband
I will develop in my remarks why I do not think that is the case. In particular, I would point to the fact that the Government’s motion does not mention compelling evidence against President Assad, and I will develop later in my remarks the fifth point in our amendment, which is very, very important—the basis on which we judge whether action can be justified in terms of the consequences.
The third step is that, in the light of the weapons inspectors’ findings and this other evidence, and as the Secretary-General said, the UN Security Council should then debate what action should be taken, and indeed should vote on action. I have heard it suggested that we should have “a United Nations moment”. They are certainly not my words; they are words which do no justice to the seriousness with which we must take the United Nations. The UN is not some inconvenient sideshow, and we do not want to engineer a “moment”. Instead, we want to adhere to the principles of international law.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s doctrine that evidence should precede decision; that is a stark change from at least one of his predecessors. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Does he believe that the evidence that has been presented to us today by the Joint Intelligence Committee is compelling or not?
Edward Miliband
I think it is important evidence, but we need to gather further evidence over the coming days. That is part of persuading the international community and people in this country of President Assad’s culpability, and I think that is important. Let me also come to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, though, because the Prime Minister raised it too. I am very clear about the fact that we have got to learn the lessons of Iraq. Of course we have got to learn those lessons, and one of the most important lessons was indeed about respect for the United Nations, and that is part of our amendment today.
On the question of the Security Council, I am also clear that it is incumbent on us to try to build the widest support among the 15 members of the Security Council, whatever the intentions of particular countries. The level of international support is vital, should we decide to take military action. It is vital in the eyes of the world. That is why it cannot be seen as some sideshow or some “moment”, but is an essential part of building the case, if intervention takes place.
Dr Huppert
The Leader of the Opposition is right that the UN Security Council should not be just a sideshow, but why does his amendment merely say that the Security Council should have voted on the matter, rather than that it should have voted in favour of some intervention?
Edward Miliband
I will come directly to that question. It is because there will be those who argue that in the event of Russia and China vetoing a Security Council resolution, any military action would necessarily not be legitimate. I understand that view but I do not agree with it. I believe that if a proper case is made, there is scope in international law—our fourth condition—for action to be taken even without a chapter VII Security Council resolution. Kosovo in 1999 is the precedent cited in the Prime Minister’s speech and in the Attorney-General’s legal advice; but the Prime Minister did not go into much detail on that advice.
It is worth noting that in the Attorney-General’s legal advice there are three very important conditions. The first condition is that there must be
“convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress”.
The second is that
“it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved”.
That is a testing condition, which we need to test out in the coming days and the coming period. Thirdly,
“the proposed use of force must be…proportionate…and…strictly limited in time”.
So the Attorney-General concludes in his advice—it is very important for the House to understand this—that there could be circumstances, in the absence of a chapter VII Security Council resolution, for action to be taken, but subject to those three conditions. That is the case that must be built over the coming period. These principles reflect the responsibility to protect, a doctrine developed since Kosovo which commands widespread support.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right; I did not cover everything in my speech. I could have gone into more detail on the Attorney-General’s advice. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the three conditions. I just thought for the clarity of the House, for those who might not have had time to read it, I would point out that the very next sentence of the Attorney-General’s advice is:
“All three conditions would clearly be met in this case”.
Edward Miliband
Well, that is the Attorney-General’s view—[Interruption.] That is the view that needs to be tested out over the coming period. Of course that is the case and a judgment will have to be made. Additionally, the responsibility to protect also demands a reasonable prospect of success in improving the plight of the Syrian people, and that responsibility is an essential part of making this case. That takes me to the final point of the road map we propose.
Glenda Jackson
I am referring to the fourth paragraph of our road map. My right hon. Friend has already touched on the fact that any action must be legal, proportionate and time-limited, but the amendment goes on to say that it must have “precise and achievable objectives”. Will he detail what those objectives are?
Edward Miliband
I am coming exactly to that point, which is that the Government need to set that out in the coming days. That takes me precisely to the final point of the road map. Any military action must be specifically designed to deter the future use of chemical weapons; it must be time-limited with specific purpose and scope so that future action would require further recourse to this House; and it must have regard for the consequences of any action. We must ensure that every effort is made to bring the civil war in Syria to an end, and principal responsibility for that rests, of course, with the parties in that conflict, and in particular President Assad.
Edward Miliband
I want to make a bit more progress.
The international community also has a duty to do everything it can to support the Geneva II process, and any action we take—this is the key point—must assist that process and not hinder it. That is the responsibility that lies on the Government and their allies—to set out that case in the coming period.
There will be some in this House who say that Britain should not contemplate action even when it is limited, because we do not know precisely the consequences that will follow. As I said, I am not with those who rule out action, and the horrific events unfolding in Syria ask us to consider all available options, but we owe it to the Syrian people, to our own country and to the future security of our world to scrutinise any plans on the basis of the consequences they will have. By setting a framework today, we give ourselves time and space to scrutinise what is being proposed by the Government, to see what the implications are.
Edward Miliband
It depends on the case that has been set out and the extent to which international support has been developed—[Interruption.] I say to hon. Members on the Government Benches who are making strange noises that it is right to go about this process in a calm and measured way. If people are asking me today to say, “Yes, now, let us take military action,” I am not going to say that, but neither am I going to rule out military action, because we have to proceed on the basis of evidence and the consensus and support that can be built.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) asked an important question that I feel the right hon. Gentleman did not answer fully. Paragraph (e) of the Opposition amendment refers to “precise and achievable objectives”, which I assume means that he has in mind precise and achievable objectives. Can he please detail what they would be?
Edward Miliband
Yes I can, because the amendment goes on to say,
“designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria”.
Paragraph (e) also states that
“such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region”,
so any proposed action to deter the use of chemical weapons must be judged against the consequences that will follow. Further work by the Government is necessary to set out what those consequences would be.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
On consequences, I am listening carefully to the Leader of the Opposition and he is effectively making a strong case against military action. The consequences of the military action envisaged are very unquantifiable, because the objectives are, frankly, pretty soft in terms of degrading and deterring and of the link between military effect and the actual effect on the ground. He has also linked this to the consequences for the Geneva II process, which can only be negative.
Edward Miliband
I am saying to the hon. Gentleman and the House that over the coming period, we have to assess in a calm and measured way—not in a knee-jerk way, and not on a political timetable—the advantages of potential action, whether such action can be taken on the basis of legitimacy and international law, and what the consequences would be.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Listening to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, any reasonable human being would assume that he is looking to divide the House for political advantage. What has happened to the national interest?
Edward Miliband
That intervention is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. I am merely trying to set out a framework for decision for the House. My interest all along has been to ensure that the House of the Commons can make the decision, and do so when the evidence is available. Some in the House believe that the decision is simple—clearly there are such Members on the Government Benches. Some think we can make the decision now to engage in military conflict. Equally, others believe we can rule out military conflict now. I happen to think that we must assess the evidence over the coming period. That is the right thing to do, and our road map sets out how we would do it.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is one thing to not rule out military action, but is not the problem with the Government’s motion that it asks for an in-principle vote for military action now, before we hear what the inspectors say and before the UN processes take place?
Edward Miliband
I say to my hon. Friend and the House that this morning, it was noticeable that the Government motion would be presented, if it was voted for—this is an important point—as the House endorsing the principle of military action. That is why I do not feel ready to support the Government motion, and why I believe the Opposition amendment, which sets out a framework for decision, is the right thing to vote for.
Angus Robertson
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in advance of previous conflicts, such as the intervention in Afghanistan, political parties in the House were briefed in detail, and on Privy Council terms, on the nature of the evidence on why there should be intervention? Can he confirm that there have been no such briefings in advance of this vote?
Edward Miliband
I have had the benefit of briefings with the Prime Minister, but I am sure that he, having heard the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, will want to extend that facility to him and other minority parties.
Edward Miliband
I will not give way.
As I was saying, by setting this framework today, we will give ourselves the time and space to assess the impact that any intervention will have on the Syrian people, and to assess the framework of international law and legitimacy. As I have said, I do not believe that we should be rushed to judgment on this question on a political timetable set elsewhere. In the coming days, the Government have a responsibility, building on what the Prime Minister did today—but it is also more than what he did today—to set out their case for why the benefits of intervention and action outweigh the benefits of not acting.
Edward Miliband
No, I want to make this point.
I do not rule out supporting the Prime Minister, but I believe he must make a better case than he has made today on this question. Frankly, he cannot say to the House and to the country that the Government motion would not change our stance on Syria or our involvement in the Syrian conflict. It would, and the House needs to assess that.
Our amendment sets out a road map from evidence to decision that I believe can command the confidence of the House and the British public. Crucially, the amendment would place responsibility for the judgment on the achievement of the criteria for action—reporting by the weapons inspectors; compelling evidence; the vote in the Security Council; the legal base; and the prospect of successful action—with this House in a subsequent vote.
I hope the House can unite around our amendment, because I believe it captures a view shared on both sides of the House, both about our anger at the attack on innocent civilians, and about a coherent framework for making the decision on how we respond.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
May I thank my right hon. Friend and the shadow Foreign Secretary for the measured approach that they are taking on this very serious issue? Does my right hon. Friend agree that any reckless or irresponsible action could lead to full war in that area? We must understand from previous conflicts that war is not some sort of hokey-cokey concept; once you’re in, you’re in.
Edward Miliband
That is why there must not be a rush to judgment—my hon. Friend is entirely right.
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Gentleman speaks of a road map. Does he not appreciate that the first stage in our response to the atrocities is what we do in the Chamber this afternoon? Given that his perfectly legitimate concerns about consequences, evidence and so on are met by the Government motion, may I urge him to support the motion so that we can send a united, strong message to Assad and others? Otherwise, we will undermine our national security.
Edward Miliband
We will not support a Government motion that was briefed this morning as setting out an in-principle decision to take military action. That would be the wrong thing to do, and on that basis we will oppose the motion. We could only support military action, and should only make the decision to do so, when and if the conditions of our amendment were met.
We all know that stability cannot be achieved by military means alone. The continued turmoil in the country and the region in recent months and years further demonstrates the need to ensure that we uphold the fate of innocent civilians, the national interest and the security and future prosperity of the whole region and the world. I know that the whole House recognises that this will not and cannot be achieved through a military solution.
Whatever our disagreements today, Labour Members stand ready to play our part in supporting measures to improve the prospects for peace in Syria and the middle east: it is what the people of Britain and the world have the right to expect. But this is a very grave decision, and it should be treated as such by this House, and it will be treated as such by this country.
The fundamental test will be this: as we think about the men, women and children who have been subjected to this atrocity and about the prospects for other citizens in Syria, can the international community act in a lawful and legitimate way that will help them and prevent further suffering? The seriousness of our deliberations should match the significance of the decision we face, which is why I urge the House to support our amendment.
Edward Miliband
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There having been no motion passed by this House tonight, will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that, given the will of the House that has been expressed tonight, he will not use the royal prerogative to order the UK to be part of military action before there has been another vote in the House of Commons?
Mr Speaker
That is of course not a matter for the Chair, but the Prime Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and he is welcome to respond.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Miliband Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I think there will be widespread support around the country for modernising this great public service, for getting new capital into the service and for ensuring that 10% of the shares go to the people who work for Royal Mail. Remarkably, it was proposed by the Labour party when it was in government, but of course, because the trade unions now oppose it, Labour has to oppose it too—fresh evidence today that it is still in the pockets of its trade union paymasters.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Let me first join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Andy Murray for his fantastic victory—following Virginia Wade’s victory in 1977. It was a fantastic achievement; he showed extraordinary determination, and the whole country is incredibly proud of him.
As the Government consider party funding reform, will the Prime Minister tell the House how much his party has received in donations from hedge funds?
The Prime Minister
The problem is, they’re paid to shout and they’re doing nothing about it.
Edward Miliband
I do not think the Prime Minister wanted to answer the question, did he? So let us give him the answer: the Conservative party has received £25 million from hedge funds. Now, next question. In the Budget, the Chancellor gave hedge funds a £145 million tax cut. Can the Prime Minister tell us: was it just a coincidence?
The Prime Minister
The top tax rate under this Government is going to be higher than it ever was under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, but let me tell him this important point. There is a big difference between donations to the Conservative party and donations to the Labour party, and the difference is this: donations to the Labour party buy votes at your conference, buy candidates and MPs in this House, and pay for the votes that gave him his job. They paid their money, they bought their votes, they put him in his place, and that has not changed a thing.
Edward Miliband
I will tell him what the difference is: 6p a week in affiliation fees from ordinary people up and down this country, against a party funded by a few millionaires at the top. And what is—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Ellis, you find it so difficult to control yourself. I am sure you did not when you were practising at the Bar. Calm it, man! Get a grip of the situation!
Edward Miliband
What is shameful about it is that the Prime Minister does not even know about the extra tax cut he gave to hedge funds. He says he wants reform, so I have a proposal for him. I am willing, as I have said before, to have a £5,000 limit on donations from trade unions, businesses and individuals, as part of a fundamental reform in the way our parties are funded. Is he willing to do that?
The Prime Minister
First of all, let me deal with—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] I will answer. Let me deal with 6p a week—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
Let me be frank with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a problem with a £5,000 cap, and it is this. It would imply a massive amount of taxpayer support for political parties; and frankly, Mr Speaker, I do not see why the result of a trade union scandal should be every taxpayer in the country paying for Labour.
Edward Miliband
So there we have the truth: the Prime Minister is ducking funding reform. He does not want it to happen. Let us test his willingness to reform in this House. Current rules allow MPs to take on paid directorships and consultancies, as long as they are declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and Members on both sides of the House abide by those rules. I say: in the next Parliament—this will affect both sides of this House—MPs should not be able to take on new paid directorships and consultancies. Does he agree?
The Prime Minister
I think that what matters is that everything is transparent and open. Those are the rules we agreed. The right hon. Gentleman made me an offer—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman made me an offer. Let me make him an offer. If he wants change, there is a Bill coming to the House of Commons next week that will cover trade unions. If he wants to legislate to move from opting out to opting in, if he wants to give union members a chance to choose whether to donate and to vote on whether they should give to Labour, we will legislate. Will he accept that offer of legislation? Yes or no?
Edward Miliband
I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman will have to do a lot better than that. He must answer the question on second jobs—[Interruption.] Let me tell him and all the Members opposite that between now and the general election, they will be subject to this test: do they support second jobs, new directorships and consultancies—yes or no? That is the test. Let us try the right hon. Gentleman with another test. I say—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The question must be heard, and the people whom I might have thought about calling to ask a question who are shouting from a sedentary position might just as well leave the Chamber.
Edward Miliband
As well as ending new directorships and consultancies, there should be a limit in the next Parliament on how much people can earn on top of their MP’s salary, as happens in other countries. The public would expect nothing less. What does the Prime Minister say?
The Prime Minister
What is interesting is that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to talk about the trade unions stitching up parliamentary selections. He does not want to address that, but that is what this scandal is about. Let us ask what has actually changed since yesterday. Will the unions still have the biggest vote at the conference? Yes. Will they still be able to determine the party’s policy? Yes. Will they still have the decisive vote in choosing the Labour leader? Yes. Those are the facts: they own you lock, stock and block vote.
Edward Miliband
This is a man owned by a few millionaires at the top of society, and everyone knows it. Here is the difference between him and me: I want action on second jobs; he does not. I want party funding reform; he does not. I am proud that we have links with ordinary working people; he is bankrolled by a few millionaires. The party of the people. The party of privilege.
The Prime Minister
It is not the party of the people; it is the party of Len McCluskey. That is the fact—[Interruption.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Miliband Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The way to celebrate the NHS’s 65th birthday is to go on investing in it as this Government are with an extra £12 billion, but also to be on the side of patients. That is why we are introducing the chief inspector of hospitals, who will make a real difference. Yes, we do need to end the culture of secrecy and cover-up that we had under Labour.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I am sure I speak for everyone in this House when I say that there is deep concern about what we have witnessed over the past few days in Egypt, including appalling violence and deaths, just a year on from free elections. I begin by asking the Prime Minister for assurances that all the appropriate steps are being taken by the Government to guarantee the safety of UK nationals in that country.
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance—and also to safeguard our embassy in Cairo. I should add that we are advising British nationals against all but essential travel to Egypt, except for the Red sea resorts, as set out on the Foreign Office website.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that these are deeply disturbing scenes. The level of violence is appalling. We should appeal to all sides for calm and to stop the levels of violence and particularly the sexual assaults. It is not for this country to support any single group or party; what we should support are proper democratic processes and proper government by consent.
Edward Miliband
I agree with the Prime Minister. All of us want to see a peaceful resolution to the present crisis. Therefore, can the Prime Minister tell the House what work is being done, even at this late stage, by the UK and indeed the European Union to encourage the Egyptian Government to secure a negotiated political solution to this crisis in advance of today’s Egyptian army deadline?
The Prime Minister
What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that very clear messages have been sent to President Morsi—including by President Obama, who spoke with him directly; we have also been communicating through our ambassadors—that, yes, he has a democratic mandate and we respect that, but democracy also means ensuring that everyone has a voice and leaders have a responsibility to represent all Egyptians and show they are responsive to their concerns. That is what the Government need to do in order to bring about peace and stability in that country.
Edward Miliband
I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s answer and I know that he and the Foreign Secretary will keep the House updated in the coming days.
Let me turn to another subject. The country will need 240,000 extra primary school places by 2014. Can the Prime Minister assure parents that that will not be met by increasing primary school class sizes?
The Prime Minister
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we put in place through the spending review the additional money for 500,000 extra school places, so we should be able to provide those school places without seeing an increase in classes.
Edward Miliband
But class sizes are rising. When the Labour Government came to office, the number of infants being taught in class sizes of over 30 was a quarter. When we left office, it was just 1.8%. It has doubled on the Prime Minister’s watch—that is the reality for lots of parents.
Under the Prime Minister’s plans, one third of new schools are being built in areas where there are surplus places. Can he explain to parents in areas where they are struggling to get their children into primary school why he is spending money building schools where there are already plenty of places?
The Prime Minister
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he left the biggest budget deficit in Britain’s peacetime history. We have had to make difficult decisions. That is why we have cut welfare, that is why we have cut areas of spending—but we have made education a priority. That is why the amount of money going into our schools is going up and not down. That is why we are funding half a million extra school places. That is why this Government have built 200 new school buildings since taking office.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about new schools going into different areas. What that is code for is Labour’s opposition to free schools. We want more new, good schools. Their policy is still the same as John Prescott’s policy—remember that? The trouble with good schools is that everyone wants to go to them. Well we want good schools, but, as ever, his questions are written by Len McCluskey of Unite.
Edward Miliband
As always, this Prime Minister has no answers to the questions that he is asked. If he will not answer me, maybe he will answer David Simmonds, who is the Conservative spokesman for the Local Government Association. This is what Mr Simmonds says:
“We know of schools that are literally falling down and still have to compete with brand new builds down the road”—
in other words, in areas where there are surplus places. Is not the truth that while the Prime Minister is pouring millions of pounds into building new schools where there are already places, the only way he is going to meet the shortage in other areas is teaching kids in Portakabins and increasing class sizes?
The Prime Minister
The fact is that the last Labour Government cut primary school places. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what this Government are doing. The education capital budget is £21 billion over the next six years: that is what we are doing. What is so interesting is that he is taking his script from the trade unions, who do not like choice, who do not like new schools, who do not like free schools—they want to control everything. But we know one organisation they have got control of. We see it in black and white—they have taken control of the Labour party.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is the usual, very low-grade, very substandard, very unnecessary heckling. If the session has to run longer, it has to run longer. Let us try to observe some decorum, which the public can respect.
Edward Miliband
Let us have a debate about ethics. This is a Prime Minister who had dinners for donors in Downing street. He gave a tax cut to his Christmas card list, and he brought Andy Coulson into the heart of Downing street. The idea that he is lecturing us about ethics takes double standards to a whole new level.
In this one policy on schools we see the hallmark of this Government: they make the wrong choices on tax and spending. The millionaires’ tax cut, the top-down reorganisation of the NHS, and schools in areas where there are surplus places—and all the time they repeat the meaningless mantra, “We’re all in this together.”
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman goes up and down the country speaking for Len McCluskey. No wonder the former Home Secretary calls them “the party of the graveyard”. I have the press release here: “How Unite plans to change the Labour Party”. [Interruption.] I know you are paid to shout by Unite, but calm down a bit. This is what it says: “We give millions of pounds to the party—the relationship has to change” and
“We want a firmly class-based and left-wing general election campaign”.
That is what this week shows: too weak to sack his Health Secretary, too weak to stand up for free schools, too weak to stand up to the Unite union, too weak to run Labour, and certainly too weak to run the country.
Afghanistan and EU Council
Edward Miliband Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
May I start by associating myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Afghanistan? I join him in paying tribute to our troops for the extraordinary job they have done over the last decade. I join him, in particular, in remembering all those who have lost their lives—and their families and loved ones as well. It is right that the Government have set a date for the withdrawal of our forces from Afghanistan, but it is also right that the international community, including the UK, continues to make a contribution to Afghanistan’s long-term security post 2014.
Let me ask about post-2014 arrangements, political stability in Afghanistan and co-operation with Pakistan. On the arrangements for 2014 and after, can the Prime Minister provide a bit more detail on the specific nature of the UK forces’ role? Can he say whether, beyond officer training, there will be further responsibilities for any UK forces? Can he say at this stage what objectives will determine the length of stay of any residual UK force? On political reconciliation in Afghanistan, I agree with him about the importance of a proper political process. Can he tell us what the prospect is, in his view, of getting the political talks on track—including with the Taliban, which he mentioned in his statement—and on what timetable that might be possible, given the end-2014 deadline for our combat forces?
Turning to relations with Pakistan, I join the Prime Minister in recognising the vital bilateral relationship between Pakistan and the United Kingdom. I also join him in expressing the belief that the UK will need to build strong working relationships with the newly elected Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, especially with regard to the future of Afghanistan. There is wide support across this House not just for an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan, but for a regional settlement involving Afghanistan’s neighbours. That was the reason for the Prime Minister’s Afghanistan-Pakistan Chequers summit five months ago. In the communiqué there was a commitment to building
“a peace settlement over the next 6 months.”
Can the Prime Minister say what progress has been made since and what more can be done to achieve that goal?
Let me turn to the European Council. I join the Prime Minister in welcoming Croatia’s entry into the EU, the start date for EU-Serbia accession negotiations and the association agreement with Kosovo. On the European budget, the House was right to vote for a real-terms cut last October, and we support the recent agreement on the European budget and rebate, including the European Parliament’s agreement. It would be a shame to let this occasion pass without quoting the Prime Minister’s flowery words at his press conference last week. I am sure the House will be interested to hear that he said that
“in this town you have to be ready for an ambush at any time, and that means lock and load and have one up the spout”.
I have to say that that sounded more “Carry On up the Council” than “High Noon”, but let us leave that to one side.
Let me turn to the discussions on youth unemployment, which was supposed to be the main subject of the summit but which formed only a small part of the Prime Minister’s statement. There are 26 million people looking for work in the European Union, and nearly 6 million unemployed young people. Nearly 1 million of those young people—one in six across the European Union—are here in Britain. Targeting any extra resources at tackling youth unemployment is welcome, but does the Prime Minister really believe that the response was equal to the scale of the challenge?
At the press conference after the summit and again today, the Prime Minister said the Council had agreed to take action
“very much along the line of Britain’s…youth contract”.
That is worrying news. Last year, the Prime Minister launched the Youth Contract, which he said was
“going to do enormous amounts on youth unemployment”.—[Official Report, 9 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 24.]
So will he explain why a survey of 200 employers last week revealed that none of them—not a single one—had used the Youth Contract to hire a young person? The Youth Contract is not the solution to Europe’s unemployment problem. Frankly, the summit did not mark the long-overdue recognition that the current economic approach across the EU is leaving millions of young people without employment or prospects, and fearing for their future.
Of course we should look at EU regulation, as the Prime Minister proposes, but does he seriously believe that that is the solution to youth unemployment, including in Britain? The European economy is struggling and the British economy has not grown as the Government promised. That is why nearly 1 million young people are still looking for work here in Britain. That is also why long-term youth unemployment is up by 158% since he took office and why his Youth Contract is failing. The truth is that the Prime Minister can hardly argue effectively for action in Europe on youth unemployment when he is so transparently failing here at home.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response. Let me take his questions in turn.
First, on the post-2014 position in Afghanistan, we have not taken any decisions beyond those that I have described on the officer training academy and the force protection that will go with that, and on the funding of the Afghan forces going ahead. In terms of other commitments, I would make the point that this country has played a very big part but we have also paid a very big price. So I think it is right to focus on the one thing we have been asked to do by the Afghans, and we will take pleasure in running the officer training academy rather than looking for ways to go beyond that.
On the political process, the timetable is urgent and we want the meetings to take place as rapidly as possible. I spoke to Mr Rabbani, who runs the High Peace Council and who is ready to meet and speak to the Taliban. We have to accept, however, that the opening of the Doha office and the way in which that was done and advertised have caused a setback and are deeply unpopular in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the idea of a peace process, and of getting them to talk, is right, and I believe that it will happen.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Pakistan and the democratic transition. I also agree with what he said about the trilateral process, which has helped to move the agenda forward. Since Chequers, for instance, there has been progress on the release of prisoners so that talks can take place, and other discussions on conferences, borders, police and military co-operation have also made progress.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the EU, and mentioned my rather “flowery” language. The point I was trying to make is that we have to recognise that 27 other countries want to get rid of the British rebate, and we can add to them the European Council President and the European Commission. That is why you have to make sure that you take a tough approach and that you are ready for anything. We know that Labour’s approach is to go in with their hands up and waving a white flag. That is what you get. The difference between us is that we have kept the rebate while they gave so much of it away. That is the truth.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about youth unemployment. Let me point out to him that youth unemployment in the UK is down by 43,000 this quarter and down 60,000 since last year, but we are not in the slightest bit complacent. He asked about the Youth Contract, and 100,000 young people have used work experience, which has got many of them off benefits and into work. Our Work programme, according to the figures announced yesterday, has seen 320,000 people getting work. That makes it almost twice as successful as the flexible new deal.
In terms of international comparisons, over the last year youth unemployment fell faster than in the USA, Germany, Canada, France and Italy. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Youth Contract, and I have already told him that 100,000 young people are getting work experience. I know that Opposition Members think that that is not worth while, but we on the Government side think it is worth while.
What I thought was interesting about the right hon. Gentleman’s response was that we heard not a word about the referendum that we are going to discuss and debate on Friday. I think I know why. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is not in favour of a referendum; the shadow Chancellor has said that it is pretty stupid not to have a referendum; his chief adviser has said that it is conceivable that they might have a referendum—mind you, his chief adviser thinks all sorts of things are conceivable. Now the Labour leader has a new approach, announced in The Sunday Times—that Labour is not going to talk about a referendum. I think I can sum up the right hon. Gentleman’s policy in three words: weak, weak, weak.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Miliband Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Following the Parliamentary Commission on Banking, can the Prime Minister confirm that he supports its important recommendations on bonuses and criminal penalties, and that he will use the banking Bill to implement them?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do support both those measures. Obviously we need to take time to read this excellent report, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) for the excellent job that he has done. Penalising, including with criminal penalties against bankers who behave irresponsibly—I say yes. Also, making sure that for banks in receipt of taxpayers’ money we can claw back and have a ban on bonuses—I say yes too.
Edward Miliband
On the specific issue of criminal penalties, I am glad that the Prime Minister supports the proposal, but will he confirm for the House on this important issue that the Government will put down the appropriate amendments to the banking Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, to make sure that this gets on the statute book as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
We will be using that Bill to take these important steps. The key thing is that we have the opportunity, first, because we said there should be a parliamentary inquiry that could be done rapidly, rather than a public inquiry, which the right hon. Gentleman supported. If we had done that, we would just about be getting going with the inquiry. Instead, we have a good inquiry and good results, and we can have strong legislation too.
Edward Miliband
Just to be clear about this, if the Government do not put down the amendments on criminal penalties in the banking Bill, we will and we will make sure they happen.
The Prime Minister praises the Parliamentary Commission on Banking, but let us turn to one of its recommendations from last year’s report. It said that the Government should legislate for a general power to break up the banks, breaking up high-risk casino banking from high street banks. We think it is right, the commission thinks it is right, but the Government are so far refusing to implement—[Interruption.] The part-time Chancellor is trying to give some advice to the Prime Minister. We think it is right and the commission thinks it is right, but the Government have so far refused to implement that recommendation. Why are the Government not doing it?
The Prime Minister
Let me say first that I would rather listen to my Chancellor than listen to the right hon. Gentleman’s neighbour the shadow Chancellor. We remember his advice. Mortgages of 125% from Northern Rock: that is fine. A knighthood for Fred Goodwin: that is fine. The biggest banking bust in British history: that is fine. The shadow Chancellor was the City Minister when all that went on, and it is this Government who are clearing up the mess. As I have said, we would not have these results without the excellent inquiry that was commissioned by this Government, and we would not be able to legislate if we did not have the excellent banking Bill provided by this Government.
As for the right hon. Gentleman’s question, we are putting a ring fence around retail banks, something which, in 13 years of a Labour Government, the right hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor never got round to doing, although they were both in the Treasury.
Edward Miliband
We are really not going to take lectures from the guy who was the adviser on Black Wednesday in 1992.
The Prime Minister had no answer to the question about retail and investment banking. Perhaps he can do better on the issue of bonuses and the banks. Last week’s figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that in April bonuses in business and financial services were 64% higher than they were a year ago. Why does the Prime Minister think that is?
The Prime Minister
Bank bonuses are about a fifth of what they were when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury. They have been going down, not up.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the issue of banking, perhaps he will reflect on the fact that the Labour Government’s other City Minister, Lord Myners, had this to say today: “The Government of which I was a member certainly has to take some culpability for the fact that the regulatory oversight of the banks was not as effective as it should be.” He went on: “To do otherwise would be to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate.” Perhaps the next time the right hon. Gentleman stands at the Dispatch Box, he will apologise for the mess that Labour made.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister is asking questions, Mr. Speaker. He is preparing for opposition.
Let us talk about what people were saying in 2008. We all remember the speeches, do we not, Mr. Speaker? Let me quote from “David Cameron: A Conservative Economic Strategy”. In March 2008, the Prime Minister said:
“As a free-marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you to hear me say that a significant part of”
the problems of the last decade
“has been…too much regulation”.
There we have it: the Prime Minister wanted less regulation of the City.
Let us return to the question about bonuses. The fact is that bonuses in the City were up by 64% in April—and why? Because the Prime Minister has cut the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p. People took their bonuses in April, and were given a massive tax cut as a result. Will the Prime Minister confirm that 64% figure, and the fact that people are being given a massive tax cut as a result of his decision?
The Prime Minister
First, let me give the right hon. Gentleman the figures. In 2012-13, City bonuses will be 85% lower than they were in 2007 and 2008, when those two were advising, or working in, the last Government, and had responsibility for regulating the City. It does not matter what the right hon. Gentleman says; he cannot get over the fact that they presided over boom and bust, the collapse of the banks and the failure to regulate. We remember what they said in 2008: they said “No more boom and bust” . They referred to
“ a… golden age for the City”.
That is what they said. They cannot hide their dreadful record, and they ought to start with an apology.
Edward Miliband
The whole House will have noted that the Prime Minister cannot deny the figures that I read out to him. He does not even know the facts. Bonuses are up so that people can take advantage of his massive cuts. Here is the truth. For all his tough talk, the reality is that the Prime Minister is dragging his feet on banking reform. Business lending is still falling, bonuses are rising, and while ordinary families are suffering, he is giving a massive tax cut to the bankers.
The Prime Minister
Just another display of extraordinary weakness! Labour had 13 years to sort out this problem and did absolutely nothing. It is this Government who have introduced the banking Bill, this Government who have introduced the ring fence, this Government who have put the Bank of England in charge of regulating credit in our economy. Instead, what we ought to be getting from the right hon. Gentleman is an apology and a thank you to us for clearing up the mess they left.
G8
Edward Miliband Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s statement. Let me start by commending him on holding the summit in Northern Ireland. Fifteen years ago, holding a G8 summit in Enniskillen would have been unthinkable. Peace has transformed Enniskillen, and the location of this summit alone is testament to what can be achieved through politics and dialogue. It is a credit to all the people of Northern Ireland.
Let me take the G8 issues in turn. On hunger and nutrition, it is completely unacceptable that there is enough food in the world for everyone, yet 1 billion people still go hungry and 2.3 million children die every year from malnutrition. I therefore welcome the agreements and commitments made during the hunger summit. The task must now be to ensure that these commitments will be delivered. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are right to stick by our pledge of 0.7% aid as a proportion of national income and does he further agree with me that we should be using all the moral force that we gain from that position to urge others to follow suit?
On trade, we welcome and support the launch of negotiations on a free trade agreement between Europe and the United States. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will tell all his colleagues, including the Cabinet, that this is a timely reminder of the importance for jobs and prosperity of staying in the European Union?
On tax havens, the Prime Minister said that one of his goals was to make sure that there will be public registries of who owns companies and trusts. What blocked getting agreement on that at the G8? Will he clarify whether the agreement reached by rich countries on information sharing, which he mentioned in his statement, will from the outset apply to developing countries? As the IF campaign has said,
“a summit focussed on transparency can’t justify keeping this information secret”
from poorer countries.
Let me turn to the devastating situation in Syria. It was right for the Prime Minister to prioritise this crisis and make it the focus of this week’s talks. We welcome the announcements of additional humanitarian relief, in particular the doubling of UK aid. However, as the Prime Minister has said, the answer to this humanitarian crisis is a political solution. All of us recognise the scale of the challenge of bringing together an international community that has been deeply divided on this issue, and there are no easy options.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that it was
“a strong and purposeful statement on Syria”.
Although we welcome the centrepiece of that statement being a commitment to the Geneva II conference, will the Prime Minister explain why there was no agreement on its starting date? It is being reported that the conference is now being pushed to July or even later in August. Based on his discussions this week, could he now tell us when he expects the conference to take place?
On the substance of Geneva II, the Prime Minister has spoken today about the importance of the agreement in Enniskillen on a transitional governing body with full Executive authority, based on the maintenance of key institutions of the state and an inclusive political settlement. Does he accept, however, that every one of those commitments featured in the Geneva I communiqué back in June 2012? The Prime Minister spoke of this G8 providing a moment of clarity on Syria, but will he set out how in concrete terms yesterday’s statement moves us closer to a political settlement?
On arming the rebels, the Prime Minister now says that it is not his policy to do so. Given that the Geneva conference has already been delayed, is he able to envisage any circumstances in which he would seek to arm the rebels before the conference takes place?
Given the limited nature or the progress achieved this week, does the Prime Minister still maintain that focusing so much time and effort in the days and weeks preceding the summit on lifting the EU arms embargo was the right way to spend political capital and energy?
The reality is that we did not witness the long-hoped-for breakthrough on Syria at the G8 summit, and we need to be candid about that. None of us should doubt the difficulties of the choices that confront this Government and all Governments around the world. The Prime Minister knows that, on the steps agreed this week to tackle terrorism and on the issues of Afghanistan and, indeed, Libya, I have given him my full support. May I urge him in the months ahead, however, to proceed with the greatest possible clarity on his strategy and purpose and to seek to build the greatest possible consensus across this House?
The Prime Minister
First of all, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about holding the conference in Northern Ireland. That was not without its difficulties and questions were asked, but not only was it a very successful and very well-managed and well-run conference—I pay tribute to everyone who was involved in it—but I think it was also one of the most peaceful G8s in terms of demonstrations. It was rumoured that one of the six tents in the place where all the tents were going to be put up belonged to some Dutch folk who happened to be on holiday. I also read this morning that one of the hopeful shopkeepers in Enniskillen had stocked up on vegan meals only to find that the protesters did not turn up in large enough numbers, so he now has a large supply going spare. It is a remarkable part of our country and it was good to bring the G8 to County Fermanagh.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said on the aid pledge. It is right that Britain has made and kept its promises, and we use that to bring others up to the mark. Of course, the G8 always publishes an accountability report. A lot of these communiqués are impenetrable, but this is very simple and straightforward on who has promised what and whether they have kept that promise. We should go on publishing those reports. I say to any sceptics that for every pound they pay in tax, only 1p of it goes to overseas aid. I think that that is a good investment in the future of the world.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the trade issue. It is good that we have made a start on EU-US trade and disappointing that we have not completed the Canada negotiations. He mentioned the single market. Of course, it is of benefit to Britain that we are in the single market as a trading nation and able to take part in deals with other parts of the world.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of public registries of beneficial ownership and asked why we had not achieved public registries everywhere. For many G8 Governments and leaders, this is a new issue at the top of the agenda. I am absolutely convinced that central registries of ownership are vital if we are to cut out corruption and corrupt payments from developing countries, and if we are to get to the bottom of tax evasion. We put that on the agenda, and every G8 country has agreed to an action plan, and some have committed to immediate registries. We must keep pushing on that agenda because it is so vital. We will consult on whether our registry should be public—I look forward to the consultation getting going—but no one should underestimate the importance of having a registry so that the tax authorities can get to grips with those problems.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about tax information change—yes, it will be open to poorer countries, but we must help them to take part and carry on with the programmes we have to help poorer countries to collect their taxes.
On Syria, the date of a conference was discussed, but the decision was taken that the most important thing is to get the substance right on the role of the transitional authority, its powers and such like, rather than set too quick a date, which might set us up to fail. Obviously, there is a real sense of urgency and we all want to see it happen in the weeks ahead.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the differences between Geneva I and the position we are now in. I would make two points to him on that. The Russians were backing off the idea of a transitional authority with full Executive powers, but have now fully reaffirmed it. That is important because no one wants to take part in negotiations that are for negotiations’ sake—they must be about something—and a transitional authority will not work unless it has full Executive power, including over the armed forces. As I said in my statement, the language and approach on chemical weapons is new, as is the language on humanitarian aid. Those new things were achieved at the G8.
I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to provide consensus on issues of foreign policy—we should always try to do that, and I hope we can re-forge that consensus in the months ahead—but the point I would make to him is this: I think that lifting the arms embargo in the EU was right. It sent a powerful signal that there is not a moral equivalence between Assad on the one hand and the official opposition, who want a democratic Syria, on the other. That has helped to add to the pressure. There is a huge danger that people will fall into the trap of believing Assad’s argument, which is that the only alternative to him is terrorism and extremism. We should stand for something else in the House and in this country—we should stand up for people who want democracy, freedom and the sorts of things we take for granted right here.
EU Council and Woolwich
Edward Miliband Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement.
I want to start where he did: on the EU summit and its conclusions on tax avoidance. We need international agreement on transparency, transfer pricing, tax havens and other issues. We welcome the steps forward on transparency. Will he tell us whether he agrees that we need proposals for fundamental reform of the corporate tax system to prevent profits being artificially shifted from one country to another? Does he also agree that while seeking international agreement is undoubtedly the right way forward, measures, including measures on transparency, should still be introduced if international agreement is not reached? Will he confirm that Britain will act if we cannot obtain international consensus?
Let me turn to the devastating violence in Syria that continues unabated. I share and recognise the Prime Minister’s deep concern about what is happening. The number of Syrian refugees who have fled the conflict has now reached 1.5 million, half of them children. As so often happens, the most vulnerable are paying the price of war. This is a situation where there are no good options. The question is this: which is the least worst option?
Despite the enormous obstacles, we believe that a comprehensive peace deal still remains Syria’s best chance of ending the two years of violence; in particular, American and Russian efforts to bring Syria’s warring parties around the negotiating table this month in Geneva. The peace conference is due to take place in the coming weeks, but the Prime Minister did not refer to it in his statement. Will he explain why? The conference remains the best—indeed, at present, the only—immediate hope of limiting the violence and achieving an inclusive political settlement, so its success must not be put at risk. In light of that, will he explain his view of the risks that lifting the EU arms embargo may pose to the prospects for any peace talks?
The Prime Minister says that there are safeguards on the end-use of those weapons. Will he set out to the House what those safeguards are? However well motivated, is not the danger of this course of action that it will lead to further escalation, as has been illustrated by Russia’s response in recent days? The Prime Minister is of course right that the international community cannot continue to stand by while more innocent lives are lost, but in the action we take we must also agree that our primary aim must be to ensure a reduction in the violence. Finally, on using the flexibility of the lifted arms embargo, will he assure us that he will come back to the House before any decision is made by the British Government to arm the opposition in Syria?
Let me now join the Prime Minister in expressing our total revulsion at the vile murder of Drummer Lee Rigby. He served his country with the utmost bravery and was killed in an act of the utmost cowardice. All of our thoughts are with his family and friends. Our thoughts are also with our troops, who serve with incredible courage all around the world and have seen one of their own murdered. I also join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our police and security services, who do such a vital job.
I would also like to join the Prime Minister in what he said in the days after the murder of Lee Rigby, singling out for special praise the members of the public, including Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, who intervened to try and protect Lee Rigby. They showed the true face of our country, as did the quiet determination of local leaders and residents in Woolwich, which the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and I have all seen for ourselves, not to allow their communities to be consumed by division and hate. As the Prime Minister said, in the past 10 days we have seen attempts by some to use this evil crime as justification to further their own hate-filled agenda and attempt to ignite violence by pitting community against community. They will fail because the British people know that this attack did not represent the true values of any community, including Muslim communities, who contribute so much to our country.
Governments must do three things after such an attack, and we will support the Government on all of them. First, they must bring the perpetrators to justice, which is why we welcome the swift court appearance of the suspects. Secondly, they must seek to bring people together in the face of attempts to divide us, and thirdly they must learn the lessons of the attack. We therefore welcome the ISC investigation and the taskforce on extremism, which I agree with the Prime Minister should look again at issues of radicalisation and helping communities to take a stand against extremism—issues covered in the original Prevent strategy. Will he confirm whether the taskforce will look into earlier intervention—in other words, not just on university campuses—to prevent young people from being radicalised and whether the taskforce will heed the calls from youth workers to look more carefully at the link between violent extremism and gang-related activity, which was something raised with us when we visited Woolwich last week?
In the light of recent events, will the Prime Minister update the House on his current view on the need for legislation on communications data? Whatever the origin and motive of terrorists, our response will be the same—the British people will never be intimidated. Across every faith and every community, every part of the country is united, not divided, in its abhorrence of the murder of Lee Rigby. We have seen people try to divide us with such acts before. They have failed, and they will always fail.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the dreadful events in Woolwich and for the strong cross-party support that he has given throughout this period.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about reform of corporate taxes. I agree that we need to take action. It is best if it can be international action, and we should use the G8 summit to drive the agenda, as we have already been doing in the EU, but of course we do not rule out taking action over and above what other countries have done. If possible, however, it is best to pursue it internationally.
On Syria, there is an honest disagreement between us. I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no good option and that a negotiated settlement would be best—I have been doing what I can to help bring the parties to the table and look at all the ways we can make it work—but the question for us is this: how do we maximise the chances of a successful political transition and political process? Do we maximise those chances by allowing Assad to dominate militarily and showing that our words of support for the opposition are just that—words and no more? I do not think that that is the right approach, which is why the EU’s decision to lift the embargo—but only, of course, on the official Syrian opposition, not on the regime—is, I think, the right step.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Russian response. We should not, for a minute, be naive about the Russian position on Syria; it has been consistent for a very long time: it has always supplied, and continues to supply, arms to Syria. As far as I can see, that has not changed at any point in this process. Finally, he asked whether we would come back to the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly updates the House on this matter, and will continue to do so.
On Syria, I would add one final point. Those who argue against amending the arms embargo and doing more to support the opposition are making some of the same arguments used in the Bosnian conflict 20 years ago. We were told then, as we are now, that taking action would have bad consequences, but not taking action is a decision too, and in Bosnia it led to the slaughter of up to 200,000 people and did not stop the growth of extremism and radicalisation, but increased it. We should be clear, however, about the nature of what is happening in Syria today. It is not just a tragedy for Syria; it could end up being a tragedy for us, too, if we do not handle it properly.
I applaud what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Woolwich events and all that needs to be done in response. He was right to praise the community groups that came out strongly and condemned what happened. On the issue of communications data, I think we need a frank debate in the House. There is a problem in that, currently, about 95% of serious crimes involve the use of communications data. This is not about the content of a fixed or mobile telephone call, but about the nature of the call: when it was made, who made it and when they made it. As telephony moves from fixed and mobile telephony on to the internet, our intelligence and police services will have a problem. We need to address that problem, and we should do so sensitively and carefully, looking at all the non-legislative options, but I hope for a measure of cross-party support, on both sides of the House, to try and get this right, because we will suffer if we do not.
The right hon. Gentleman asked some other specific questions. I am pleased that he welcomes the ISC investigation. With its new powers and responsibilities, it is the right body to carry it out.
On the taskforce, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is no monopoly of wisdom on this issue. We will accept ideas from all sides of the House about what needs to be done to prevent radicalisation. We should look at early intervention, and he is right that the connections between gang violence and violent extremism, and between criminal gangs and violent extremism, all need to be looked at. If we can bring the House together to look at these things, we can make real progress in stopping young minds being perverted with this violent extremism.
Debate on the Address
Edward Miliband Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to those who have died in Afghanistan since we last met: Corporal William Thomas Savage and Fusilier Samuel Flint, both from the Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, and Private Robert Murray Hetherington from 51st Highland, 7th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland. They died on patrol serving our country and remind us all of the dangers that our troops face, day in, day out, across Afghanistan. They showed the utmost courage, and our thoughts are with their families and friends.
As the House meets for the first time this Session, I pay tribute to all our troops who are bravely serving our country. They are the best of British. Let me also repeat that the Opposition support the mission in Afghanistan and the timetable for the withdrawal of our troops, who have given such extraordinary service to our country.
As is customary, I pay tribute to those Members of the House who have died since the last Queen’s Speech. Sir Stuart Bell was the son of a miner. He became a lawyer and then represented Middlesbrough for nearly 30 years. He was a kind, decent man who was passionate about Europe, and he served with distinction as a Church Commissioner. For Members who want to read about his years in the House, he wrote an autobiography. With tongue in cheek, it was called “Tony Really Loves Me”. At times, I know exactly what he meant.
We have also lost Malcolm Wicks. Malcolm was one of the deepest thinkers in the House, a brilliant Minister and one of the nicest people one could meet. He faced his illness with the utmost bravery. Right to the end, he was passionate about his constituency, his politics and his country. Both Stuart and Malcolm are sorely missed by us all, as well as by their families and friends.
Let me turn to the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address. The hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) proposed the Address with great skill and wit, and drew on his 20 years’ experience in the House. As he said, he has decided to stand down from Parliament. He will be remembered, certainly by me and, I think, by others, for showing the utmost courteousness and decency to all Members from across this House of Commons. He is to be congratulated on the campaign that he has just launched to inspire more young people to take up careers in engineering and technology, which, as he said in his speech, has long been an interest of his. The campaign has cross-party support and deserves to have that support.
As the hon. Gentleman demonstrated, he has always been on the moderate, and now somewhat unfashionable, wing of the Conservative party. He worked for Lord Walker and Sir Edward Heath before entering the House. It was that voice of moderation that on Friday sought to find what might be called a third way in the Conservatives’ response to the UK Independence party. He tweeted, and this is certainly original:
“I hold clowns in high regard and respect their role”.
The hon. Gentleman shares his name with another prominent figure in public life. The other Peter Luff was the long-time chairman of the European Movement. So exasperated did the hon. Gentleman become by the attacks on him from angry Eurosceptics that he signed one letter:
“Peter Luff, MP for Mid Worcestershire and NOT the Peter Luff who used to run the European Movement—he’s somebody else about two years older than me!”
Unfortunately, the gist of the reply was: “Dear Peter, we are well aware of the existence of two Peter Luffs. And we don’t like either of you.” Today, there could be no confusion as to his identity. He performed his role uniquely well.
Let me turn now to the seconder, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams). Despite being elected to this House eight years ago, he will be pleased to hear that today, by tradition of the Gracious Speech, he occupies the role of young rising star. That is certainly his pedigree. He was a councillor at 26 and the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Bristol aged 28.
The hon. Gentleman made reference to the fact that he was the first openly gay Liberal Democrat MP. I say to all right hon. and hon. Members that anybody who wants instruction on the reason for the Government’s Bill on same-sex marriage should read the hon. Gentleman’s incredibly moving speech on Second Reading, in which he talked about his teenage years growing up as somebody who was gay in his part of the world. He was surely right when he said:
“Equality is not something that can be delivered partially—equality is absolute.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 176.]
On this side of the House, we second that view.
The hon. Gentleman has also, according to his website, chosen to use the power of Parliament to campaign on other important issues, including the use of consultants by multinational firms to avoid tax. It turns out that he is very well qualified to do this—what was his job before entering this House? He was a tax consultant to multinational firms.
To be fair, the hon. Gentleman has never been afraid to take on his opponents. He was once confronted by angry protesting students outside his office before the top-up fees vote, but he did not hide away. He took up the megaphone, got on a soap box, looked the crowd directly in the face and, in true Liberal Democrat style, told them that he had not yet decided how he was going to vote. Today he spoke very well, and I am sure that he will be pleased to hear that after listening to his speech, I am happy to add my endorsement to his prospects for ministerial office.
While I am paying compliments, I will not let the day pass without paying tribute to the most successful football manager the world has ever seen, a great supporter of the reds, we might call him: Sir Alex Ferguson, phenomenally talented at his job, winner of 13 championships, and who can teach us all about hard work and dedication.
That takes me to the question that must be asked about this Gracious Speech: whether it is equal to the scale of the challenge our country faces and whether it matches the scale of disillusionment about the direction of the country that we all heard during the county council elections. The real lesson of UKIP’s vote and of the two thirds of people who did not vote in those elections is a deep sense that the country is not working for them. They see a country where things are getting worse, not better: 1 million young people without work, low growth, falling wages and squeezed living standards.
The question about this Gracious Speech is, do the Government understand the difficulties that the people of Britain face? I have to say, the signs are not good. At the weekend, the Government sent out the Foreign Secretary. He told us that the elections had sent a clear message to the Government, but his answer was to “shout louder” about their achievements. In other words, it is a version of the old tune: the Government have a communications problem. No, the Government have a reality problem. All the twists and turns with UKIP—insulting it, ignoring it, imitating it—will not work while that remains the case.
This Gracious Speech was the Government’s chance to answer. It should have contained action to get our young people working again, action for real banking reform, action to get growth moving and action genuinely to confront the cost-of-living crisis, but it failed on all those counts.
Edward Miliband
I will make a bit more progress.
The country has big problems, but this Queen’s Speech has no answers. The Government may have legislated for five years in office, but they are out of ideas after just three.
Let us think of the young people we all met during the election campaign and imagine what they feel, looking for a job in Britain 2013, and how their families feel when they cannot find one. Britain cannot afford to waste their talents. The Prime Minister promised change, but things have got worse, not better. There are now four times more young people claiming benefits for more than a year than when the Work programme was introduced. What does this Gracious Speech offer to those young people? Absolutely nothing—no change. Where is the job guarantee for Britain’s young people? It is not there. Where are the rules tying Government contracts to providing apprenticeships? We support High Speed 2, but when the Government are handing out the contracts to get the line built, why do they not require companies to take on apprentices? That would be good for young people, good for business and good for our country.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to apologise to the House and the nation for his personal contribution to the economic mess that the coalition Government inherited?
Edward Miliband
It is all very well having a Whips’ question, but the Government are borrowing £245 billion more. Three years, no growth, a flatlining economy—that is the record of this Chancellor.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said we have borrowed more, but will he answer in the House the question he would not answer on Radio 4—how much more will he borrow?
Edward Miliband
This Government are borrowing more. Of course a temporary cut in VAT has a cost and would lead to a temporary rise in borrowing—[Interruption.] Let me say this: that would get growth moving in this country and would be much more likely to get the deficit down. That is the difference. The International Monetary Fund is in town, and what is it telling the Chancellor? It is saying, “Change course. Your plan is not working.” That is the reality.
I am glad that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) intervened because I will come to his point later in my speech. He advocates not just a pact with UKIP but a coalition—Deputy Prime Minister Farage in place of the Liberal Democrat leader.
Edward Miliband
I will make a bit more progress.
Let us consider small businesses in this country. We all hear the same story as we go around the country—that banks make life harder for them, not easier. The Prime Minister promised change but things have got worse, not better. Small businesses do not need to be told that lending to business is falling month on month—they know it. It fell again by £4.8 billion in the three months to February, and no one listening today will be given hope that anything will be different now.
The cross-party Banking Commission called for a clear ultimatum to Britain’s banking system. It said, “Change the culture”—[Interruption.] The Chancellor is intervening from a sedentary position; just be patient. The Commission said, “Change the culture: deliver for business, or we will break high street from casino banking across the board.” It called for a clear answer, but what have we got? Another fudge from the Chancellor. The Government said that the all-party Banking Commission was the answer, but they have not even introduced its recommendations.
What did the Conservative chair of the Banking Commission say on 11 March? He said:
“the Government rejected a number of important recommendations. The commission has examined these again, alongside the Government’s explanations for rejecting them…We have concluded that the Government’s arguments are insubstantial.”
That is the Chancellor all over, and he is wrong on the banks. The Banking Bill also fails to deliver a regional banking system that will deliver for British businesses, not rip them off.
On living standards, we all met many people in this campaign who are struggling to get by. At least the Government now acknowledge that there is a living standards crisis in the country, but there is no real action to tackle that in the speech today. The Prime Minister promised change, but things have got worse, not better. The Government spent the local election campaign, and before, trying to tell people that they are better off. However, people are not better off; they are worse off and they know the reality—wages are down £1,700 since the election. One group, of course, is better off—the people sitting opposite on the Government Front Bench, owing to the millionaires’ tax cut. No wonder the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) says that this Government—not my words, but his—look
“privileged and out of touch”.
He also says:
“Please, please no more old Etonian advisers.”
I think he is right; it is time for some diversity. Let us have someone from Harrow in the Cabinet as well.
When it comes to living standards, the Work and Pensions Secretary said that wealthy pensioners are meant to be handing back their winter fuel payments. I have a suggestion for the Prime Minister: why does he not set an example and hand back the tax cut he has given himself? It would be the big society in action. For everyone else, however, the speech has no answers—no action on train fares, no action on payday loans, and no action on private pension charges. People are worse off under the Tories.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talks about living standards, yet this Government have taken 3,000 lower earners from my constituency out of tax altogether, and cut taxes for 40,000 lower earners. Why did he vote against that?
Edward Miliband
I respect the hon. Gentleman because he is serious about those issues, but I am afraid that his intervention shows the problem. There is no point in telling people that they are better off when his constituents in Harlow know the reality. They are worse off, and they voted Labour at the local elections—he would have lost his seat in a general election, which is bad news for him.
All hon. Members know the housing difficulties that families face. For all the press notices from the Government, homes just are not being built. Again, the Prime Minister promised change, but things have got worse, not better.
Edward Miliband
I will not give way for the moment.
Housing completions are at their lowest level since the 1920s. Since this Government came to power, 89,000 construction workers have lost their jobs. There are no answers to Britain’s housing crisis in the Queen’s Speech.
Edward Miliband
I will not give way for the moment.
Clearly, many people raised the issue of immigration during the campaign. The Government’s proposals are limited measures that they have announced before, but the Opposition will look at them. However, I want to mention one very important measure missing from the immigration Bill. The Bill fails to tackle the issues of jobs and pay, which are at the heart of people’s concerns. The problem is the employers who use cheap labour, through both illegal and legal migration, to exploit and undercut workers who are already here. Let us be frank. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will know of many examples brought to them by constituents. There has been only one prosecution since 2010 for failure to pay the minimum wage, but that does not reflect the reality across the country. We will therefore seek to amend the immigration Bill to take action on the problems of employers not paying the minimum wage; recruitment agencies that use only overseas labour; and slum landlords using overcrowded housing for—again—both legal and illegal migrants. There is nothing on that last problem in the Bill.
Edward Miliband
I will give way in a moment.
There are no measures in the immigration Bill on those problems, but why not? There are no measures because they would conflict with the Government’s economic approach. They believe in a race to the bottom when it comes to wages and conditions. The truth is that the Bill will not solve the growth crisis or concerns about immigration.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman mentions immigration. Does he accept that the net migration of 2.2 million people under the Labour Government plus the large numbers of migrants who were disguised by the end of embarkation controls represent a population movement unprecedented in the modern era?
Edward Miliband
Yes, I would accept that, as I have said on many occasions.
Let me move on. The reality is that none of the measures in the Gracious Speech will solve the—[Interruption.]
Edward Miliband
I will give way, but let me carry on for a minute.
None of the measures in the Gracious Speech will solve the growth crisis that the country faces. Even the Chancellor must recognise that having forecast 6% growth over the past two and a half years, 1% growth is not good enough. Let us look at what is happening to our young people and our businesses, and the squeeze on living standards. His failure on growth is the explanation for what is happening to people in this country. I say this to him: instead of fighting to stop the IMF telling him to change course, he should follow its advice and do so.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman’s alternative Queen’s Speech would cost more than £28 billion. How would he pay for that? Would he borrow more?
Edward Miliband
I dealt with that question earlier, which the hon. Lady would know if she had been listening. There is no point in me dealing with the Whips’ question.
Steve Brine
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps this will be third time lucky. As usual, he makes a lot of spending commitments. I realise Martha does not understand him, but I do not think I do, either. If he were Prime Minister, would he borrow more or less?
Edward Miliband
I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands. This Government are borrowing more— £245 billion more.
The problem with this Government is that they always stand up for the wrong people. From the people who brought us the millionaire’s tax cut, we have the latest measure here today.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Government have been an absolute disaster for the country, and that living standards are going down, but why are people not flocking to the Labour party, which would win less than 30% on the latest projected share of the vote? Surely people should be going to the Labour party, not to UKIP.
Edward Miliband
I do not think the SNP should be boasting about the opinion polls at the moment.
Who does the Gracious Speech stand up for? From the people who brought us the millionaires’ tax cut, today we have the latest instalment. This is what they used to say—and the hon. Member for Bristol West made reference to this—about cigarette packaging:
“It’s wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets...children should be protected from the start.”
That was the previous Health Secretary, now Leader of the House. Of course, that was before they hired their new strategist, Mr Lynton Crosby—the one whose company worked for big tobacco. Now what has happened? They have dropped the Bill.
The Prime Minister used to say that lobbying was
“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.
That was before the scandal happened to him—dinners for donors in Downing street. Now what has happened? They have dropped the Bill.
On the communications Bill, the Prime Minister had a chance to tackle powerful media monopolies, the ones that brought him Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks. Now what has happened? What a surprise, they have dropped the Bill. With such a short programme, he can hardly say that there was no room. It is hardly a timetabling issue; it is a problem of whose side he is on.
The reality is that the Prime Minister cannot provide the direction the country needs because he stands up for the wrong people. If his excuse is that he has dropped those Bills because of the people behind him, we will help him. If he wants a Bill on cigarette packaging, we will help him get it through. We could easily do that. I know that he is worried about rebellion by his side, but if he wants a Bill on cigarette packaging, and there is scope to have one, let us do so. It is the right thing to do for public health and for the country. The Prime Minister believes that, but he has a problem on his side: we will vote with him and get it through. If he wants a communications Bill, again we will help him get it through. Even the Deputy Prime Minister might help him get it through, because he wants a communications Bill. If the Prime Minister wants a Bill on lobbying, but Lynton Crosby has said he should not annoy his own side, we will help him.
The reality is that the Prime Minister cannot provide the answers the country needs, because he has lost control of his party. As someone once said, he is in office but not in power. What does his party spend its time talking about? Not youth unemployment, not the NHS, not the living standards crisis. The one subject it is obsessing about, day in, day out, is Europe and UKIP. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who does not seem to be in his place, has characteristically led the charge. He says that it is time to stop insulting UKIP. Instead, he wants an electoral pact with them. The hon. Member for North East Somerset has gone further—he is nodding. He wants a coalition right now with UKIP. They used to call them clowns: now they want to join the circus.
Conservative MPs forget something. The whole point of the Prime Minister’s Europe speech in January was to “head off UKIP”. Tory MPs were crowing that the UKIP fox had been shot. It was job done, mission accomplished. Only it was not. The lesson for the Prime Minister is that you cannot out-Farage Farage. Banging on about Europe will not convince the public, and the people behind him will keep coming back for more—a Europe referendum tomorrow, drop same-sex marriage, the demands go on. They will never be satisfied.
Every day the Prime Minister spends dealing with the problem behind him, he is not dealing with the problems of the country. No wonder this Queen’s Speech contains no answers. Three wasted years, and today is another wasted chance. This was a no-answers Queen’s Speech from a tired and failing Government—out of touch, out of ideas, standing up for the wrong people and unable to bring the change the country needs.
Tributes to Baroness Thatcher
Edward Miliband Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in commemorating the extraordinary life and unique contribution of Margaret Thatcher. I join him, too, in sending my deepest condolences to her children, Carol and Mark, the whole family and her many, many close friends.
Today is an opportunity for us to reflect on Margaret Thatcher’s personal achievements, her style of politics and her political legacy. As the Prime Minister said, the journey from being the child of a grocer to Downing street is an unlikely one, and it is particularly remarkable because she was the daughter, not the son, of a grocer. At each stage of her life, she broke the mould: a woman at Oxford when not a single woman in the university held a full professorship; a woman chemist when most people assumed scientists had to be men; a woman candidate for Parliament in 1950, against the opposition of some in her local party in Dartford, at the age of only 24; a woman MP in 1959 when just 4% of MPs in the whole of this House were women; the only woman in the Cabinet when she was appointed in 1970; and, of course, the first woman Prime Minister. It is no wonder she remarked as early as 1965 in a speech to the National Union of Townswomen’s Guilds conference:
“In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.”
I am sure some people in this House—and no doubt many more in the country—will agree with that sentiment.
Having broken so many conventions as a woman, it cannot be a coincidence that she was someone who, in so many other areas of life, was willing to take on the established orthodoxies. Margaret Thatcher’s ability to overcome every obstacle in her path was just one measure of her personal strength, and that takes me to her style of politics. We can disagree with Margaret Thatcher, but it is important to understand the kind of political leader she was. What was unusual was that she sought to be rooted in people’s daily lives, but she also believed that ideology mattered. Not for her the contempt sometimes heaped on ideas and new thinking in political life, and while she never would have claimed to be, or wanted to be seen as, an intellectual, she believed and showed that ideas matter in politics.
In 1945, before the end of the war, she bought a copy of Friedrich Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”. There is even a story that she suggested that Conservative central office distribute it in the 1945 general election campaign. She said:
“It left a permanent mark on my own political character”,
and nobody can grasp Margaret Thatcher’s achievements, and Thatcherism, without also appreciating the ideas that were its foundation and the way in which they departed from the prevailing consensus of the time. In typical homespun style on breakfast TV she said in 1995:
“Consensus doesn’t give you any direction. It is like mixing all the constituent ingredients together and not coming out with a cake…Democracy is about the people being given a choice.”
It was that approach which enabled her to define the politics of a whole generation, and influence the politics of generations to come.
The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I all came of age in the 1980s, when people defined their politics by being for or against what she was doing. It is fair to say that we took different paths. Thirty years on, the people of Britain still argue about her legacy. She was right to understand the sense of aspiration felt by people across the country, and she was right to recognise that our economy needed to change. She said in 1982:
“How absurd it will seem in a few years’ time that the state ran Pickfords removals and the Gleneagles Hotel.”
She was right. In foreign policy, she was right to defend the Falklands and bravely reach out to new leadership in the Soviet Union, and something often forgotten is that she was the first political leader in any major country to warn of the dangers of climate change, long before anyone thought of hugging a husky.
But it would be dishonest and not in keeping with the principles that Margaret Thatcher stood for not to be open with the House, even on this day, about the strong opinions and deep divisions there were, and are, over what she did. In mining areas such as the one I represent, communities felt angry and abandoned. Gay and lesbian people felt stigmatised by measures such as section 28, which today’s Conservative party has rightly repudiated. It was no accident that when the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) became leader of the Conservative party, he wrote a pamphlet called, “There is Such a Thing as Society.” On the world stage, as the Prime Minister rightly said in 2006 when he was Leader of the Opposition, Margaret Thatcher made the wrong judgment about Nelson Mandela and about sanctions in South Africa.
Debates about Margaret Thatcher and what she represented will continue for many years to come, which is a mark of her significance as a political leader. She was someone with deep convictions and was willing to act on them. As she put it:
“Politics is more when you have convictions than a matter of multiple manoeuvrings to get through the problems of the day”.
As a person, nothing became her so much as the manner of her final years, which saw the loss of her beloved husband, Denis, and her struggle with illness. She bore both with the utmost dignity and courage—the same courage that she showed decades earlier after the atrocity of the Brighton bombing. I will always remember seeing her at the Cenotaph in frail health but determined to pay her respect to our troops and do her duty by the country.
Whatever one’s view of her, Margaret Thatcher was a unique and towering figure. I disagree with much of what she did, but I respect what her death means to the many, many people who admired her, and I honour her personal achievements. On previous occasions, we have come to this House to remember the extraordinary Prime Ministers who have served our nation. Today, we also remember a Prime Minister who defined her age.