Intelligence Services Commissioner

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

In accordance with section 59 of the regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, I have agreed to appoint the right hon. Sir Mark Waller as Intelligence Services Commissioner from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2013.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 January.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Andrew George]

The NHS is facing massive reorganisation, while at the same time seeking the greatest savings in its 62-year history. Respected professional medical bodies warn about the risks to public service of giving private companies the easy pickings. Before pursuing that gamble will the Prime Minister reflect carefully, informed by clinicians and the coalition programme that we agreed last May?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

First, I think it is a good idea to listen to the answer before reading out the next question. Let me deal specifically with the future jobs fund. We looked very carefully at it and found that it was expensive, badly targeted and did not work. We now have the figures for the future jobs fund. It was five times more expensive than some other employment programmes, it lasted for six months and, within one month, 50% of those taking part were back on benefits. Hardly any of the jobs under the future jobs fund were in the private sector. The scheme in Birmingham, for instance, had just 2% of its jobs in the private sector. Far too many were make-work jobs in the public sector, and they were not solving the problem.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

This week, a parents’ campaign group in Battersea moved a big step closer to starting a new free school. Their campaign is supported by Wandsworth council and enjoyed cross-party support before the general election. I hope that my right hon. Friend will join me not only in wishing the new Bolingbroke academy well but in saying to the unions and other people running a campaign of vilification against those parents that it is time to back off.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks for many in supporting the opening up of our education system and saying to academies and free schools, “You are welcome to come in and provide a great education for free to children and parents in our country.” I have to say that it is a very big choice for the Labour party whether it sticks with the programme of reform and opening up education, or whether it sides with the trade unions.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Q2. Leaked figures that I have managed to get hold of show—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Calm down. The leaked figures show that police forces in Wales must cut their numbers by 1,600 police officers and staff. The South Wales police force told me this morning that in that one force 688 officers are going to have to disappear. The Prime Minister said on 2 May last year that he would outlaw any front-line cuts. Why is he backing down on his promise?

[The Prime Minister]

I find that the best way of calming down is by reading the hon. Gentleman’s poetry—I find that very instructive. All police forces are facing a difficult financial settlement. I accept that. The context for all this is the vast budget deficit that we were left and the huge mess that we have to clear up. I have the figures for the South Wales police force. Next year, it must find a 5% cut. That will take it back not to some figure of the 1980s, but to the spending it had in 2007-08. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said that it is quite possible to make those sorts of reductions—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman asks a question, he should have the manners to listen to the answer. The fact is that HMIC said that it is possible to achieve those reductions while not losing front-line officers. That is what needs to be delivered.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s social security reform programme is the first serious attempt since Beveridge to get back to the principle that—to coin a phrase—we should be offering people a hand up and not a handout?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. This is a very bold and radical reform that basically will mean that every single person who is on welfare will always be better off in work or always better off doing more hours of work. Even the Opposition would accept that so many reforms have simply moved the poverty trap up the income scale. We should always make it worth while for people to work harder or to work more, and that is what our reforms will do.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Q3. Fuel prices in Northern Ireland currently average 135p per litre and rising, forcing many motorists to go into the Republic of Ireland to fill their vehicles, which is a major loss to the British Exchequer. Because of the land border, will the Prime Minister consider introducing in Northern Ireland a rural rebate scheme similar to that in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand the cross-border problem that the hon. Gentleman raises and that fuel smuggling between Northern Ireland and the Republic has been a real problem. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury would have heard him ask for the expansion of the scheme that was in the Budget. Obviously, we are looking hard at how we can help families and motorists with their fuel and motoring bills. However, I would say this: everyone should remember that the last four increases in fuel duty were all put through in the last Labour Budget.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I know that, like me, the Prime Minister is a fan of the teaching of British history in schools. Does he think that when the political history of the past 13 years is written, it will advise pupils to borrow, borrow and borrow through the boom, or will it advise them to learn from Labour’s mistakes?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister. A 10-year-old constituent of mine came to observe Prime Minister’s questions last week, and asked me afterwards, “Why do so many people shout their heads off?” It is rude and it should not happen.

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Prime Minister, our Government say that we want to help disabled people back to work. Two years ago, my constituent, Mr Robert Oxley, a father of four, had a serious motorcycle accident, which resulted in one leg being amputated and the other leg no longer functioning. A year later, he recovered and his firm gave him back his job, which he has been able to continue for a year through disability living allowance and Motability. Regrettably, those in charge, including callous cretins on the tribunal, have taken away his DLA and took away his Motability car on Monday, and he is now out of work—or he will be. May I ask the Prime Minister where in that story the words “fairness” and “all in it together” feature?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to take up the hon. Gentleman’s case. We have all seen cases in our constituencies where tribunals have come to conclusions that completely fly in the face of common sense. I am very happy to take up that case, have a look at it and see what can be done. We should do what we can to help disabled people, particularly with the mobility needs that they have. Having filled out those forms myself, I know just how soul destroying and complicated it can be and how much we need to help people who cannot get around to make sure that they do.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

Q4. The Prime Minister will be aware that my constituents in inner-city Manchester have some of the worst health and, brutally, die younger than people in other parts of the country. If he will not give a guarantee about waiting lists nationally, will he make a solemn and binding pledge to my constituents that at least in the inner cities waiting lists will not go up, either in number or in time?

[The Prime Minister]

The pledge I would make is this. As the hon. Gentleman has just revealed, we have health inequalities in our country that are as bad as those in Victorian times. Let us be frank: we have those after a decade of increased money going into the NHS and we are not getting it right. That is the reason for carrying out these reforms. If we just stay where we are, as seems now to be the policy of the Labour party, we will lag behind on cancer, we will lag behind on heart disease and his constituents will die younger than mine because we do not have a fair system. Let us reform it and sort it out.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Did my right hon. Friend tell the Prime Minister of France last week that Britain will never permit fiscal control of its economy by the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

The short answer is yes.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Q5. The Prime Minister has repeated his claim that the Government are putting more money into the NHS, yet the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust has been told that it must make cuts of 16% over the next four years. Why?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me remind the hon. Lady that her own shadow Chancellor said that there is “no logic”—[Interruption.] This is an answer. He said that there is “no logic” or rationale to our policy of real-terms increases in the NHS. What we are cutting in the NHS is the bureaucracy of the NHS. Since 2002, under Labour, the primary care trusts and the strategic health authorities increased their spending on themselves—on their bureaucracy—by 120%. We can go on spending this money and not put it into patient care and better public health, but I think that that is wrong. That is why we are making these changes.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Q6. Severe disruptions to train services in the winter of 2009 led to David Quarmby carrying out an urgent service and severe weather audit. This winter saw massive disruption to services, with Network Rail leaving trains stranded south of the river, causing a 75% cut in peak services over Christmas for my constituents. What steps are the Government going to take to shake up Network Rail and bring about a radical improvement to our train services?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has commissioned an independent audit of how transport operations performed during the worst weather in December. We have to look at some particular issues, such as the frozen third rail that affected so many services. She is right to call to account Network Rail and the train operators. We want to make sure that they improve the service that they provide and the way in which they communicate with the public when things are not going right.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Q7. Does the Prime Minister see the conflict of interest in private health care companies, which stand to benefit most from his health care reforms, donating £750,000 to the Conservative party? Is that what he means by “We are all in it together”?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman the big difference between the health reforms that we are proposing and what the Labour Government did. The Labour Government rigged the market in favour of a few hand-picked independent private sector suppliers. That is what they did; what we are saying is that there should be a level playing field. Before the hon. Gentleman complains about it, he should have a look at his own party’s manifesto—and I quote it almost directly— which said that the private sector should be allowed into the NHS alongside the NHS. Those are the words from the Labour manifesto, written by his right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Will Tony Blair’s correspondence with George Bush be published before Mr Blair’s next appearance in front of the Iraq inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will know that there is a long-standing convention, quite rightly, that a serving Prime Minister does not and cannot order the release of papers that refer to a previous Prime Minister. That is why the Cabinet Secretary will be looking at this issue, which is a matter for him. Anyone unhappy with the conclusions is clearly able to write to Tony Blair to make their views known. For my own part, I hope this inquiry can be as open and clear as possible so that we get to the bottom of the very important issues it is looking at.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Q8. As the Prime Minister will be aware, I spent most of my working life in schools and colleges, so I have overwhelming evidence of the benefits of the education maintenance allowance. It brings benefits to teenagers from modest backgrounds in terms of their employability skills and in raising their achievement. May I urge the Prime Minister to go back to the position when he pledged to support EMA, so that we can support our economy as we move forward?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the problem is that we want more people to stay on in school, but we have to look at the working of the current system. The Labour Government commissioned research and found that 90% of those on EMA would have attended school in any event. We also have to look at the context in which EMA was introduced into this country. Let me cite what the hon. Gentleman’s parliamentary colleague, the former Prime Minister said at the time:

“We will fund this major advance in educational opportunity from savings that we have made from our success in reducing… debt.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 29.]

Is it any surprise that we are having to look at these spending programmes and work out how to get better value for money to clear up the mess we have been left?

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

Q9. My constituents in Corby and East Northamptonshire are still suffering today from the disastrous top-down housing targets imposed by the Labour Government. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Localism Bill will restore planning power to local people in Corby and east Northamptonshire?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The failure of top-down housing targets was that they not only created huge unease around the country but did not result in the building of very many houses, as house building fell to such a low level. Our more local version will make sure that where councils go ahead and build houses, they will benefit from doing so.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

While we all welcome the comparative calm during the referendum in southern Sudan, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that hundreds of thousands of southerners are seeking to move back home from the north? Will he ensure that they have the maximum protection as well as the maximum of humanitarian aid?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight what a relative success the process has been so far, given some of the warnings made about the dangers of the referendum and the process being followed. Part of the reason for that—I pay tribute to previous Governments as well—is that the countries that care about the Sudan and want this to work well have put in a huge amount of effort. I include my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who chaired the key meeting on the subject at the United Nations. I will certainly listen to what was said, and we should make sure that the movement of people is carried out in the best way possible.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

Q10. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as part of the NHS reforms we must tackle straight away the fact that senior management in both NHS trusts and primary care trusts are being rewarded for failure by being promoted or given large pay-offs and that it should stop now?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There have been too many occasions on which a manager in the NHS has failed in one PCT or strategic health authority and gone on and failed in another. One answer to this issue is the greater transparency that we are bringing to all such arrangements so that people can see how much they are paid, what the results are and how successful they were before they go on and land another well-paid job.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The Government announced this week that they will not extend to Northern Ireland the UK rules on political party donations at this time. Will the Prime Minister clarify what was the greatest driver for that decision? Was it the security concerns or the lobbying of local parties that simply do not want to be exposed to transparency?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look carefully at what the hon. Lady says. The security situation in Northern Ireland is a very difficult and sensitive one at the moment and the Government are giving it a huge amount of time and attention to try to help the devolved authorities in everything they are doing to combat the terrorist threat, but in terms of the specific question she asks perhaps I can write to her and give her a considered response.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Q11. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there have been some pretty disgraceful delaying and filibustering tactics at the other end of the corridor in an attempt to delay the introduction of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Will he assure the House that the Government will make no concessions to those who filibuster?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right: we should not make concessions to a bunch, mainly of former MPs, who are supposed to be supporting the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who wants the AV referendum to take place. I have to ask him how, if he is so in favour of the referendum and thinks it so important and so wants to stand on a platform, he has lost control of his party?

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Q12. Owens Road Services, a haulier from south Wales working in Blaenau Gwent, has a fleet of 270 lorries. Last year, it bought nearly 11 million litres of fuel, paying more than £6 million in fuel duty, and it has shouldered a 14% increase in fuel bills in the past year. What is the Prime Minister going to do about high fuel bills?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, there is the point that the fuel duty increases were all part of the previous Labour Government’s Budget. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members shaking their heads; they all supported the Budget and voted for it at the time. However, there is another answer, which is that we should look at Britain’s hauliers and see how we can help them with a discount for those that are British-based. We are looking into that and at what can be done, because for many years British hauliers have been disadvantaged against their continental counterparts and we would like to put that right.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that what has happened in Burnley with the closure of our accident and emergency unit and the transfer of a children’s ward to Blackburn will not happen when people power takes over, with our GPs, to change the national health service?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Under the previous Government and the previous arrangements, hospital closures and decisions were driven by bureaucrats in Whitehall, strategic health authorities and PCTs, and they did not depend on decisions that patients and GPs were making about the structure of health services in this country. That is the big change we are making. In future, the success of hospitals and health centres will depend on the choices that people make with their GP; that is the big change and it will drive a better health service.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Q13. The north-east illegal moneylending team has a record of catching loan sharks and setting up credit unions in Easterside, Middlesbrough to encourage saving and safe lending. Worryingly, after all that hard work, the Department for Communities and Local Government website has signposted vulnerable people to loan companies offering rates of up to 2,689% APR. In the light of that, will the Prime Minister please meet me to review his decision on the closure of that team?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to arrange a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and the DCLG to discuss this issue. I think there is unity across the House that we should try to encourage credit unions and try to get people out of the hands of loan sharks. That is our policy and that is what we want to do, so I shall happily arrange that meeting.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Q14. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments earlier about the Localism Bill. Can he confirm that its provisions will apply to applications for onshore wind farms such as those on the Dengie peninsula in my constituency? One of them has already been described as harmful to the local environment, and it is deeply unpopular with the local community.

[The Prime Minister]

I can give my hon. Friend a positive answer. The Localism Bill addresses that issue. As well as doing that, it is important that where local communities are affected by things such as onshore wind, they should make sure that they benefit from those developments. The Localism Bill brings a whole new approach that will much better settle this difficult debate than what has been done until now.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Q15. Today, there is an order before Parliament to proscribe the TTP—Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan—the Pakistan Taliban. Just one week into the term of office of the Prime Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the right hon. Gentleman demanded to know why my right hon. Friend had not proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir. Just eight months into the Prime Minister’s term of office, can he explain to the House why he has not fulfilled his manifesto commitment?

[The Prime Minister]

We could put it another way round: why did the last Government have 13 years, yet the Pakistani Taliban were never banned? It has taken us eight months to do what they failed to do in 12 years.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Competition and Policy (Media, Broadcasting, Digital and Telecoms Sectors)

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Responsibility for all competition and policy issues relating to media, broadcasting, digital and telecoms sectors has been transferred from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport.

This includes:

merger and competition cases in these sectors;

sponsorship of the telecoms sector, mobile and fixed;

sponsorship of all content industries, including computer games and publishing;

telecoms policy, including implementation of the EU framework;

broadband policy and delivery (including Broadband Delivery UK);

internet policy and governance, including implementation of the Digital Economy Act;

spectrum;

BT Pension Crown Guarantee;

responsibility for sponsorship of Ofcom (except in relation to postal regulation); and

full responsibility for the digital TV switchover and digital radio action plan.

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will retain responsibility for postal regulation; sponsorship of telecoms equipment manufacturing and the wider electronics, IT services and software sectors. He will also continue to work with the Cabinet Office as part of the national cyber-security programme.

The Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, formerly a joint Minster, will now report solely to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. He will continue to work closely with Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

European Council

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

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

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

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

“stand ready to do whatever is required”

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

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

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

“member States whose currency is the euro”.

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

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

“will no longer be needed for such purposes”

and that

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

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

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

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

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

“the action taken in 2011 to curb annual growth”

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

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

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

As a happy Back Bencher, I congratulate the Prime Minister on winning the budget battle with the European Parliament, where there was clearly no splitting the difference. Enlargement was also on the agenda. On Turkey, does he agree that the problems that many predicted would have occurred by now do not seem to have materialised? However, we still seem to have deadlock, with no new chapters being opened and no progress being made on the Ankara protocol. The General Affairs and External Relations Council said last week that progress is now expected without further delay: how does he see that materialising?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that we should push for progress with Turkish accession—and we are. I raised this with the Hungarian Prime Minister when he came to Downing street last week, because Hungary is going to hold the future presidency of the European Union. We have to win the argument in Europe—too many are opposed to Turkish membership. I think that all the arguments are in favour and that we should push this as hard as we can and keep opening those chapters to show that we are doing so in good faith.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Before the Prime Minister boasts so much about freezing the budget, he might reflect on the fact that although that will save the British rebate, it means the common agricultural policy will not be reformed for several years. It also means that there will be no money for our new partners in east Europe. From Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, British leadership was based on acts of solidarity with poor, incoming members of the EU. The Prime Minister is the first one to sign up to the Sarkozy-Merkel agenda of being as mean as possible to our new friends and allies in east Europe.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept that the only way we can make progress with helping partners in eastern Europe is by having an ever-rising EU budget. Indeed, there are countries in eastern Europe that support the position we take that the budget should not go up and that we should spend the money better. As I have argued before, we should be making more progress on transparency and using it as a weapon to shine a light on the EU budget and some of the disastrous ways in which it is spent. It is an absolute counsel of despair to say that the only way we can help other countries in Europe is with an ever-rising budget: it is not.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Whilst the new bail-out mechanism has thankfully comforted the markets, do not many of our EU partners need to rein in their public spending, follow Britain’s example and introduce some meaningful financial austerity measures?

[The Prime Minister]

To be fair to other countries in Europe, the conversation around the Council table is very much about the action that everyone is having to take. Britain has set quite a pace in setting out a five-year programme about how we are going to do this and what we have seen in Britain is market interest rates coming down since the election, whereas in other European countries they have sometimes gone up. What is required is some credible fiscal plans. Fiscal consolidation alone will not settle down the eurozone but that has to be a part of it.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is clear that, despite everything the European Union has done, the euro is still in crisis—and that crisis will not end any time soon. Has the Prime Minister been aware of or involved in any private discussions about how the euro might be deconstructed in a controlled way?

[The Prime Minister]

We had a very good discussion at the dinner, which involved all EU members, not just eurozone members. As someone who has never supported Britain’s joining the euro and who has always had concerns that the currency area was not optimal—as I said in my statement, I would make the argument that with a single currency, a move towards a single fiscal policy was needed, but that was never done—I must say it is profoundly not in Britain’s interest to see the break-up of the eurozone. If that happened, there would be very bad consequences not just for eurozone countries, but for Britain. We should take a hard-headed, practical view and recognise that 44% of our exports go to eurozone countries. If that broke up, it would be bad for Britain. We should be making positive suggestions about what eurozone countries can do to make sure that they get the stability and growth that we all need. There is fiscal consolidation, active monetary policy, cleaning up bank balance sheets, getting ahead of the markets and showing that we want this to be a success. That is what needs to happen and, as I say, standing on the sidelines and saying, “Well, we told you this wasn’t a great idea” is not the right approach.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful, Mr Speaker. I really only came here to wish the Prime Minister a happy Christmas. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many of us that the present financial mechanism is unlawful, and that Britain is exposed until 2013 while the black hole of Portugal and Spain opens up before us? Does he therefore think there are serious grounds for challenging the unlawfulness of it and not exposing the British electorate to the prospect of having to contribute to that while suffering such severe austerity cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your leniency. No European statement would be complete without a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). He may have a good point. Article 122 of the treaty refers to help in the case of natural disasters and other emergencies. There are some people who question whether it should have been used in this way to support eurozone countries.

That argument was had and was conceded under the previous Government in two ways. First, they agreed the establishment of the mechanism. Secondly, if we go back to the Nice treaty, it was the then Europe Minister, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is in his place, who argued from the Dispatch Box that it was perfectly okay for article 122 to go to qualified majority voting, which is where we are today. So in two ways the previous Government made a bad mistake. As I say, we are clearing up the mess and we will certainly do that from 2013, but the mechanism remains in place till then.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Was there any discussion at the Council of the case of Sergei Magnitsky, who was working on behalf of a British investment firm in Russia and was tortured and murdered a little over a year ago? I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that there was a vote in the European Parliament last week, supported by MEPs from all parties in this House, to say that those who took part in his murder, who have not faced any criminal prosecution at all, and those whose corruption he unveiled should be banned from the European Union, and that Senator McCain in the United States of America is supporting a similar ban. Will he support a ban?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government continue to raise all these cases and issues around them with the Russian authorities. Our embassy in Moscow is closely watching developments in the cases of Mr Khordorkovsky and Mr Lebedev, and we remain very concerned about Mr Magnitsky’s case, as raised by the hon. Gentleman. We await with interest the conclusion of the official investigation into the case, which was announced by President Medvedev in November 2009.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on a robust performance in Brussels. Resisting the Parliament’s demand for an extravagant budget was absolutely the right thing to do. As he looks ahead towards the justified freeze on the budget post-2014—and not just because of the weather—can he assure us that it does not mean that the budget will be frozen, but that subsidies that are not justified and expenditure that is wasted will be replaced by, for example, expenditure on energy and climate change issues, which are both the priority of this Government and ought to be the priority of the European Union as well?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which goes to the point made by the former Europe Minister, the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), which is that we must do better at trying to re-order the priorities of the European budget, but I do not accept that we can do that only by allowing an increase. I accept that we are taking a tough position, because we are trying to get a freeze with major partners for 2014 to 2020, but we also want budget reform and reform of the CAP. We are in the vanguard of arguing for that because we want to see the money better spent. It is right to set out down this path and try to achieve those goals.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will recall that six months ago he and other EU leaders set out the Europe 2020 strategy as a successor to the Lisbon agenda, which was agreed in 2000. Is he confident that nothing discussed at the weekend will affect the benchmarks that were set in June? With the European Union, what is important is not just getting an agreement, but making sure that countries meet benchmarks on jobs and growth.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which is that we should not amend those benchmarks, but the Europe 2020 document is slightly disappointing, because Europe’s real problem is that it has become uncompetitive, has expensive welfare systems and overbearing pension systems and is not complete as a single market. We need a more robust conversation in Europe about how we get growth—how we reform and improve the structure of our economies to get growth. Europe 2020 is only part of that, and we should be more ambitious for next year.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

As another happy Back Bencher, may I convey the thanks of the British taxpayer for the hundreds of millions of pounds that the Prime Minister saved us over the weekend? However, I should be interested in the clarification of an issue. The problems in the eurozone are likely to occur between now and 2013. What is the extent of Britain’s liability under the emergency arrangements signed up to by the previous Labour Chancellor?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is a happy Back Bencher. The answer to her question is that a mechanism was established under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, allowing the European Union to spend the headroom between its budget and the money it can spend under the previous financial deal on such bail-outs. The headroom was €60 billion, some of which has been used with respect to Ireland, and the mechanism is established under qualified majority voting. That is the problem we face, so we are dealing with that in the fastest way we can by saying that, when the new mechanism comes in, it will rule out action under the old mechanism. Of course, as they like to say in Limerick, we shouldn’t have started from here.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Why is the Prime Minister so besotted with the idea that he wants Turkey in the European Union and, possibly, the eurozone? Eighty million Turks will be on the move, and it will not be two-way traffic. How can that improve financial stability?

[The Prime Minister]

I know lots of people in Turkey I would willingly swap with the hon. Gentleman. Maybe we could have a transfer. I would make a serious argument, however, which is that, if we want the European Union to be a force for stability in our world, we should try to include a country that wants to look to the west, is a democracy and wants to be part of the European economy. All those would be great advantages for the European Union.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister clarify whether the minor treaty amendment will specifically exclude Britain from any liability, or whether that will merely be implied? Will he also ensure that article 122 is never used again for that purpose under the treaty? The reason I ask so specifically is that the previous practice of Europe has not always been to do precisely what it has implied it might do, and we really want to have that nailed down.

[The Prime Minister]

I think my hon. Friend asks absolutely the right question, because there is a history in Europe of such agreements not always being stuck to, and of there being a rather federalist ratchet. That was why I was very clear that we needed language, not just in the European Council conclusions, about article 122 not being used in future. I actually wanted it in the article that will be presented to this House for us to look at as a treaty amendment, so, in what is called the recitals—don’t worry, I’m not going to start singing—or the introduction to the article, it says:

“As this mechanism”—

the new mechanism—

“is designed to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as whole…Article 122…of the TFEU”—

the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—

“will no longer be needed for such purposes. Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes.”

That seems to me to be quite a good belt and braces—no need, no use; and it is not just in the Council conclusions, but in the introduction to the treaty article itself.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

This seems to have been a pretty significant Council, as a result of which we will have treaty changes that will involve legislation here. Treaties cannot be amended, so we will have a debate but not be able to amend them. Is the Prime Minister aware that, for this Council, the House did not have a pre-Council debate in the Chamber, on the basis that the Leader of the House said—and the Foreign Secretary will whisper to the Prime Minister—that it is Back-Bench business? If the Prime Minister takes Europe seriously, how on earth can he defend a discussion on something as significant as that being Back-Bench business?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is so astute about this House she even knows when I am being whispered to while sitting down. I am hugely impressed because she is absolutely right. I answer her in two ways. First, the new Backbench Business Committee—some of its members are in the Chamber—has 30 days a year in which to discuss such matters. Secondly,—this is the important thing—at this Council, we agreed the type of treaty change and gave some clarity about what needs to be done. However, there is now a proper process, which means that this Parliament has to be formally consulted, which it will be, before the treaty change goes through and there will then be a proper process of parliamentary approval. It is all very well the shadow Chief Whip chuntering from the Front Bench, but I do not remember the previous Government being anything like as generous as to give 30 days for the consideration of Back-Bench business. We just dreamed of such things in those days.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I say that I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart): it is extraordinary that we did not have a pre-Council debate. I also wish to press my right hon. Friend on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). The Prime Minister said that we will not have liability for the eurozone after 2013, and we very much hope that that is correct. However, the European stabilisation mechanism seems to be an open-ended liability. On 22 November, the Chancellor said:

“we would certainly not be in favour of somehow replenishing it”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 43.]

Are we going to refuse to replenish the European stabilisation mechanism while it continues to exist?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, the stabilisation mechanism is based on the difference between the European budget and its headroom. That is a fact set out in the decision made by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). The debate in Europe at the moment is about replenishing the other facility. That is known as the facility rather than the mechanism, which, of course, Britain is not in. That is a eurozone facility, and there is a debate in Europe about whether that should be topped up and increased. Obviously, from our perspective, we are keen on Europe using the facility rather than the mechanism.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The permanent mechanism will not be introduced until June 2013. Meanwhile, we are left with this temporary mechanism, which is widely viewed as inadequate to the task. That is likely to mean repeated austerity measures on behalf of Spain, Portugal and perhaps others who are caught in this contagion. That cannot be good for the United Kingdom and its export performance. What is the Prime Minister doing to raise our case at a European level?

[The Prime Minister]

I would make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, as I have described, there is the mechanism, which has that headroom. However, eurozone countries should be using the eurozone facility. We do not have a say over eurozone member states’ financial and fiscal policies, so it makes much more sense for eurozone countries to raise that money and subsidise each other if that is what they choose to do. That is what the eurozone facility, which is hundreds of billions of euros, rather than €60 billion, is there to do. I make one other point to the hon. Gentleman: only a limited amount can be done to help countries just by making these transfers. There must be fundamental reforms in those countries, whether that involves cleaning up banks, dealing with labour markets, having more active monetary policies or making their fiscal policies real. All those things will make a difference.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

In noting the Prime Minister’s considerable achievements in the European Council, does he agree that it is critical that Britain plays an important role in creating a vibrant, dynamic European economy, so that we can get on with the job of being competitive with the far east and other growing economies?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and this also relates to the previous question. Of course, everyone in Europe wants to see higher growth rates. That is one of the ways we will get deficits down and ensure that we have more jobs in our countries. However, Europe needs to ask itself, “How can we get higher growth?” That should be done by completing the single market, extending it to services, taking a more forward position on the Doha round and, frankly, stopping some of the things that the European Union is currently doing that add massive costs and burdens to business. At the European Council dinner, I pressed the point very strongly that unless Europe starts making those decisions, people will not take its growth strategy very seriously.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister has not referred to one of the most important issues that is currently going on internationally, and I would be grateful to know whether it was considered and discussed in the European Council—that is, the deteriorating situation in west Africa, specifically the fact that the former defeated President of Côte d’Ivoire, with the support of the military and brutal thugs, is clinging on to power and threatening to expel the United Nations from that country. What is the European Union, with its common security and defence policy, going to do to assist the African Union and the UN to restore democratic government in Côte d’Ivoire?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We did discuss at the European Council the problems in Côte d’Ivoire, and we took a very clear view, which is that everyone there should accept the result of the election and support the United Nations, as we support the United Nations and its continued presence in that country.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

What progress did my right hon. Friend make in persuading other countries in the European Union of the merits of a single market in services, not just for their companies here but for our companies there?

[The Prime Minister]

This is an argument that we can win and have got to win in Europe. We now have like-minded Governments who want to see completion of the internal market, progress on services and progress on Doha, with countries like the Netherlands, Finland and Germany all wanting to see a more open-market Europe. We have to push this very hard, because it is the growth agenda. Clearly, fiscal stimulus is not available to Europe because everyone has such large budget deficits. The best stimulus that we could give to the European economy and our economy is to make these structural changes.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Do I take it from the Prime Minister’s statement and the facility that he has shown in his answers for using Euro-jargon that he has gone native on Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very sorry—I will do my best. It is extremely difficult when there is a mechanism, a facility, and article 122, which used to be article 100 before it was changed by QMV in the Nice treaty. [Interruption.] There is also the recital, and as I said earlier, I am not going to sing. There is a lot of junk that you have to mug up on, but the basic principles are simple—get in there, stand up for your country, and do a good deal.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

A structural lack of competitiveness is one of the fundamental problems underlying the current crisis. Can the Prime Minister say whether there was any discussion of the Lisbon 2020 agenda and how it will differ from the original Lisbon agenda in 2000, which failed dismally to make Europe the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world by 2010?

[The Prime Minister]

We did discuss the 2020 agenda. I think there is a feeling among a number of other Heads of Government that it is all very well—it has some good targets and a lot of sensible things about investing in skills and education and the rest of it—but it does not really do the hard things that we need to do in Europe to make our economies more competitive with those in the far east. That is the agenda that we need now—not just easy-to-agree targets and headlines but the tough things we need to do to make us more competitive.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

In opposition, the Prime Minister spoke regularly about the need for radical reform of the common agricultural policy, but there is no reference to it in the statement he made today. Can he assure the House that, in pursuit of this alliance with France and Germany over the budget, he is not abandoning the principles of CAP reform that are shared across this House?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There has been no back-stairs deal between us and the French. What has happened is that the French and the Germans have agreed with us that, with all the difficult things we are doing in our own countries, it is a real priority to stop the endless rise in the EU budget. That has been done without any guarantees about what happens or does not happen to CAP reform. I remain passionately committed to reforming the CAP. That is right for Europe and for Europe’s farmers, and it would leave room in the European budget to spend the money in a more sensible way.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

May I just put it on record that I am a very jolly Back Bencher, particularly as I received the Prime Minister’s Christmas card this morning? Along with the vast majority of my constituents, I would very much have welcomed a cut to the EU budget. However, back in the real world, will the Prime Minister confirm that the decisions and arguments he has made in the past few weeks are good for the long-term future of the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend; I am glad that Royal Mail is working effectively. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are shouting, “Where are ours?” Any unhappy Back Benchers who do not feel that they are getting enough love from their Front Benchers can join the love train and get a “Happy Christmas” card from me.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Bankers’ bonus payments rankle with ordinary hard-working families. Did the Prime Minister discuss—formally or informally—with his colleagues at the summit making a collective EU agreement to limit bankers’ bonus payments?

[The Prime Minister]

Normally, there are long discussions about banks and bonuses. We had a lot of discussion about the need to improve the performance of banks, their balance sheets and their lending practices, but there was no long discussion about bank bonuses. There have been good international agreements on bank bonuses, and we have added to them in this country through the bank levy, which will raise more in every year than the previous Government’s bonus tax raised in just one year.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is best for the poorer countries of eastern Europe, which were mentioned earlier, is best for people in this country? That is economic recovery in Europe. Although he rightly says that fiscal changes alone will not deliver that, without fiscal changes and restraint not only by Governments but by the EU, there will be no sustained economic recovery.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Some Labour Members talk as if there were a choice between going for growth and dealing with the deficit. The truth is that the deficit must be dealt with to get the confidence that is needed for growth. If Labour Members sat in the European Council and argued that deficits were not a problem, their fellow socialists in Portugal, Spain and Greece, who are in difficult circumstances, would think that they had gone completely and utterly mad.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

During the summit, did the Prime Minister talk to Government leaders about the growing levels of unemployment in some European countries, the increasing severity of public spending cuts and the impoverishment of working-class families, which is growing as a result? Did they discuss the danger of the whole of Europe tipping into recession because of the drive to cut public expenditure and lay off public sector workers, whereas the socially just thing to do would be to maintain social levels of expenditure?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes—of course we had that conversation. We had a conversation about how we can create growth and jobs in Europe. However, if one listens to the left-wing leaders of Portugal, Greece and Spain talk about the problems in their economies, they say that they know that they must deal with their deficits and show that they have a plan to get their deficits down. At the moment, their interest rates are rising higher and higher, making growth more difficult. The idea that there is an alternative socialist wonderland where one can forget about how much money one is borrowing is for the birds.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am the happiest of Back Benchers now that we have a Prime Minister who stands up for British interests in Europe—although I have not received a Christmas card. Does the Prime Minister agree that the biggest scandal of the previous Labour Government was their surrender of Mrs Thatcher’s rebate, the result of which is that we will pay £41 billion to the EU in the next five years, which is twice what we paid in the previous five years?

[The Prime Minister]

The card is in the post. I want to make my hon. Friend not just happy, but ecstatic. He is right about the rebate. We now get lectures from the Labour party, saying that we were not tough enough on the European budget. That is from the people who gave away the rebate and in return got absolutely nothing.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

The eurozone economy is vital to manufacturing and defence firms in Pendle, which export products across Europe and the globe. Alongside currency fluctuations and economic uncertainty, many businesses say that red tape and bureaucracy is the main challenge that they face. Was that issue addressed at the European Council?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad that my hon. Friend asked that, because it is exactly the point that I made at the dinner of the 27 member states. We have to go through what would make a difference in creating more growth in the European Union. Of course, there are positive things that we have to do, such as completing the single market and extending it to services. However, there are also things that we should stop doing. There is a problem of endless directives coming through that add to the cost of business. There are some things that Europe must stop doing to give businesses the chance to invest and expand.

Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (11th Report)

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I have today published the 11th report of the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

The report provides an account of the Committee’s work in giving advice about appointments that senior Crown servants and former Ministers wish to take up after leaving Crown service. The report covers the period 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010.

Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Draft Cabinet Manual

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, has published today the draft Cabinet Manual on the Cabinet Office website: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/cabinet-manual.

The draft Cabinet Manual is intended to be a source of information on the UK’s laws, conventions and rules that affect the operation and procedures of Government.

Twelve weeks have been allowed for comment (until 8 March 2011).

Copies of the draft Cabinet Manual have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and also in the Vote Office.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 November.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Guardsman Christopher Davies of 1st Battalion the Irish Guards, who died on Wednesday 17 November in Afghanistan. He was the 100th British soldier to die this year, a reminder of the high price we are paying for the vital work that is being done. Christopher was an utterly professional and highly respected soldier and we send our deepest condolences to his families and his loved ones.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Michael Connarty]

I associate myself and my colleagues with the condolences that the Prime Minister passed on and I also express sympathies to the families of those involved in the New Zealand mining disaster, two of whom come from Scotland.

Does the Prime Minister share my concerns that, although good restaurants pass on 100% of tips to their staff, some are using bogus tronc or kitty schemes to avoid paying national insurance while ripping off up to 14% of their staff’s tips? Will he personally stand up for fair tips and agree to meet me and a delegation of hospitality workers to discuss the need for the promised one-year review of the operation of the law on tips?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to mention the tragic accident at the New Zealand mine. What has happened is immensely sad. I spoke to the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, this morning and I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the 29 miners who lost their lives and with their families—particularly Peter Rodger from Perth and Malcolm Campbell from St Andrews. I know that our high commission and the consular officials are in touch with their families and doing everything to help at what must be an impossibly difficult time.

The hon. Gentleman has been a long-standing campaigner on the issue of tips and has done some excellent work on it. It is right that tips should be distributed to staff and should not be used to top up the minimum wage. They should not be diverted in any way. The law is very clear: tips must not be used to back up the minimum wage and enforcement officers should take action to ensure that that does not happen. The hon. Gentleman should meet Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers and they can look at the important code of practice that was produced and ensure that the hospitality industry is meeting it.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend take steps to sort out the mess in Parliament square, particularly ahead of 29 April? Does he think that it is reasonable that visitors to London from home and abroad should be faced with a no-go area surrounded by a campsite?

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

Q2. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, during the international negotiations regarding the economic situation in Ireland, at any point anyone suggested that countries with large deficits should slow down the rate at which they are reducing them?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend asks a very good question. In the G20, the G8 and European Councils, there is absolutely nobody who thinks that if they have a big budget deficit they should do nothing about it. The only people who seem to be taking that view are the Opposition, who now have a new approach. They are having a policy review, and the Leader of the Opposition says:

“In terms of policy…we start with a blank page.”

That would be a great help at the G20.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Q3. UK Border Agency funding to support immigration and related work at the ports unit in Stranraer and Cairnryan ceased yesterday, with the commitment that all such work would be dealt with in Northern Ireland. Without additional resources at that location, I believe that that cannot work. If in the coming months the ports unit in my constituency does not see a reduction in immigration-related cases, will the Prime Minister revisit the issue?

[The Prime Minister]

What we do at our borders is incredibly important. I spent some time yesterday with the Home Secretary at Heathrow airport, meeting UK Border Agency staff. They do a fantastic job, and I want to help them go on doing it. I shall look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says—[Interruption.] The answer is that what we are going to do is make sure that immigration work is done in Northern Ireland rather than at Stranraer, but I shall look very carefully at that to make sure that the system is working.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a proper and well planned international rescue plan for the Irish economy would be far less damaging to the wider economy of this country than some of the possible dire alternatives?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Every man, woman and child in Ireland spends more than £3,000 each year on British goods and services. Our economies are very intertwined—very interlinked—and it is right that we take part in helping to ensure stability and growth in the Irish economy.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Q4. In the context of “We are all in this together”, could the Prime Minister explain why he proposes to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, which protects some of the poorest workers in the country, while at the same time he is protecting from public scrutiny the salaries and bonuses of major bankers in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

We have looked very carefully at all the quangos and tried to work out which ones need to stay and which ones need to go. That was long overdue. We have a minimum wage and a tax credit system, and there are so many quangos that are not adding value that it makes sense to give taxpayers value and scrap the ones that are not doing anything.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain why at every turn—the City of London, the investigation order, economic governance of Europe and the stabilisation mechanism—the coalition Government under his premiership are acquiescing in more European integration, not less? And there is no repatriation of powers.

[The Prime Minister]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I think he is wrong. Under the approach of a previous Government, we would have caved in when the European Parliament asked for a 6% budget increase. We have not, and we have fought that increase—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s views about the views of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), and I hope the House does.

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Edward Miliband]

indicated dissent.

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the Movember campaign, in which men grow moustaches for the month of November to advance awareness of prostate cancer. Will he join me in congratulating the almost half a million people worldwide, many in the UK, who are on track to raise £25 million this year in sponsorship? Given how good we look, will he consider joining us next year?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on such a magnificent specimen—the moustache that he has grown. It is absolutely right to raise awareness of prostate cancer. The campaign is a very good charitable move. I can see that some of his neighbours along the Bench have followed his example, as have some of the people in my protection team. They are all to be commended for raising awareness about a real killer that we need to do more about.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

Q5. I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Guardsman Christopher Davies who, sadly, lost his life in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister will be aware of problems with post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by many service personnel and veterans across the United Kingdom. Will he now give a commitment to implement in full the report prepared by his hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), which makes key recommendations to help our veterans and service personnel with that dreadful condition?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are implementing in full the report of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). He did an excellent report, particularly about mental health issues and how we need to invest in them, both in the forces and in our NHS, and we are carrying out those recommendations.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Can the Prime Minister inform the House how much foreign students contribute to the economy, how many jobs they create by being here, and how much their fees support funding for higher education for domestic students?

[The Prime Minister]

Foreign students make a big contribution to British universities and to the British economy, but the Home Secretary and I went to Heathrow yesterday to talk with UK Border Agency staff, and the one thing that they all raised was the problem of bogus students coming to the UK—people arriving at our borders who have a visa and who are claiming to go and do an MA or a BA, but who cannot speak English. The problem is that Border Agency staff cannot stop them, because they already have the visa. I am convinced, as I have said at the Dispatch Box before, that we can control immigration properly by cutting down on bogus students and people coming here without a reason, while helping the UK economy at the same time.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Q6. Does the Prime Minister agree that the £162 million sports budget is a price worth paying for the health and fitness of our schoolchildren?

[The Prime Minister]

Everyone wants to see an expansion of competitive sport in schools, and I feel absolutely passionately about the issue. The fact is the approach we have taken for the last decade has meant that only one in five—one in five; that is pathetic—of our children is playing competitive sport against other schools. There is a choice in politics: to go on with an approach that is failing, or to make a change and do it differently. [Interruption.] They are shouting on the Opposition Front Bench, because they know that their record was one of lots of money spent but complete failure.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Q7. The issue of workplace bullying is highlighted in an article in the New Statesman this week. It states: “Ed Miliband’s team are terrified of Ed Balls and Yvette. They think they’re going to…kill him…because they”—

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Q8. If the Prime Minister is so keen to put a cap on immigration, why did he earlier state that he gave his 100% backing to Turkey joining the EU? Surely he knows that most immigration to Britain comes from the EU. Does he not think that there is a stench of hypocrisy about the Government’s immigration policy?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong, for a very clear reason. If we look at immigration, we find that migration between European countries and the UK is broadly in balance. The excess immigration all comes from outside the EU. The current figures—under the last Government—are for net migration into the UK of 200,000 a year, and that is 2 million people across a decade. In our view, that is too high, it needs to be cut and a cap is a very important part of that.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Q9. What assessment has the Prime Minister made of Len McCluskey’s statement that “there is no such thing as an irresponsible strike”?

[The Prime Minister]

I think he is completely and utterly wrong, and the world is in a slightly mad place when someone who supports Militant Tendency can be elected to the largest union in the country on 17% of the vote. Indeed, that same union basically picks the leader of the Labour party and pays all his bills. It is completely wrong, and if the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is going to be a reformer he had better do something about it.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Despite being slightly ahead of the curve in the moustache stakes, may I take the Prime Minister back to an exchange that we had in June? Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), much more needs to be done to help our troops who return from conflict. I know the Prime Minister is very concerned about that. I am very concerned about it, and I hope that more will be done. In particular, there are so many people now returning who become homeless, and medical services are necessary, so will he please commit himself to making an urgent statement on the matter before long? Time is running on.

[The Prime Minister]

The Government are very closely focused on that issue. It is not just about medical services, as the hon. Gentleman says; it is also about long-term mental health needs. In the US, veterans are contacted every single year to check up on their mental health status. When we look at the mental health problems that came out of the Falklands war, where, tragically, more people killed themselves after the Falklands, it is estimated, than died in the war, we find that we are storing up a huge problem for the future because of the incredibly active service that people have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to prepare for the situation now. The Government are fully aware of that; I am very aware of it myself. I am not sure about a parliamentary statement, but we do want to legislate on the military covenant and then make sure that it goes through everything that the Government do.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Q10. Does the Prime Minister, like the shadow Chancellor, believe that the 50p tax rate should be temporary?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I agree with the shadow Chancellor. The interesting question is whether he agrees with the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has two policies on tax, the graduate tax and the 50p tax, and his shadow Chancellor does not agree with either.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q11. Before the election, the Prime Minister pledged not to cut education maintenance allowance and the Deputy Prime Minister pledged to vote against tuition fees. Can the Prime Minister now explain to my 17-year-old constituent Lauren Bedford the difference between a pledge and a promise?

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say to the hon. Lady’s constituent is that we inherited a complete mess from the previous Government. We have a choice—we can deal with it or we can end up in a situation like in Ireland and other countries of not just cutting education maintenance allowance but cutting everything. We are going to replace it with something that is more targeted on those who need the money to stay on at school—that is in the best interests of her constituents and everyone else.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

Stepping Stones Nigeria is a children’s-based charity in Lancaster. It works with its Nigerian partners to rescue children who are accused of witchcraft and often, if they were left, would be persecuted or killed, and have recently been subject to a great deal of intimidation. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to do whatever it can to assist the children’s-based charities in Nigeria?

[The Prime Minister]

We have very close relations with Nigeria, and I am sure that the Foreign Office will be interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. The charity to which he refers does an extremely important job.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Q12. Is the Prime Minister aware that in Four Hills nursing home in Ruchill in my constituency there are some of the 60,000 people across this country whose quality of life will be shattered because of his Government’s decision to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance? How can he possibly justify this cruel cut of either £18.95 per week or £49.85 per week to some of the most decent people who have paid their taxes all their lives?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that we make sure that disability living allowance is paid consistently to people who are in hospital and to people who are in care homes, and that is what we are doing. As I understand it, the Labour Front Bench supports this change—yes? Nod? On a previous occasion, the leader of the Labour party said that he supported our changes to disability living allowance—or is this another area where it is back to the blank sheet of paper?

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Now that the Government have brought forward details of their new homes bonus, will the Prime Minister join me in applauding councils such as Rugby borough council, which is proceeding with proposals for substantial development?

[The Prime Minister]

I do think this is important. For years, we were spending lots of money on housing but not building any houses—why? Because there was no incentive for local authorities and few incentives for house builders. We are changing that so that even though the resources are limited, a lot more house building will go ahead.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Q13. I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that education is a powerful agent for social mobility. While I welcome in principle the pupil premium, emerging details seem to suggest that taken together with the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance, it could deter some young people from staying on in education. Will he agree to meet a delegation of experts to address that very specific problem?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes this extremely seriously, as do I. I have seen the letter that he has written to the Education Secretary, who I am sure would be happy to meet him to discuss this. Basically, what is happening is that we are seeing per-pupil funding that is not being cut, and on top of that we are going to see the £2.5 billion of the pupil premium. That will mean overall that the education budget rises by £3.6 billion across this Parliament. That is a substantial funding increase. I am sure that the pupil premium will have the positive effect that the right hon. Gentleman wants and that I want, but I am also sure that he can look at the detail of it with the Education Secretary.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Q14. I have recently been meeting many charities in my constituency, such as Rumbles catering project and Indigo Children, many of which have expressed concern at the reduction of local authority funding and the time lag between the opening of the big society bank. Can the Prime Minister assure me that that big fund will be quick and easy for those charities to access?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can. The point that my hon. Friend raises is exactly why we are introducing a £100 million transition fund to help charities that might be affected by difficult decisions by local authorities to help them through that time. That is exactly why we are doing it, and I expect that we would have the support of the whole House in doing so.

[Mrs Siân C. James (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister explain to me how the closure of the Identity and Passport Service information office in my constituency will enhance safety and security in this country? It is possibly going to be replaced by a risk-assessment system, which surely cannot be right. It surely cannot be safe and secure.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to look into the individual case that the hon. Lady mentions and write to her, but the truth is that we are having to make savings right across the public sector, which means big changes in the way that we do things. In each case, we should be looking at ensuring that the effect that we want is delivered by the money that we spend. We have to do that across the public sector, and any Government would have to do that, but I am happy to take up her individual case.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Q15. The residents of Glossop and Tintwistle in my constituency have suffered for years due to excessive traffic. As we try to get the best we can from the meagre resources left by the Labour party—[Interruption.] What words can the Prime Minister offer as encouragement to those residents of the possibility of a bypass in the future? Will he or a Minister visit Tintwistle with me to see the situation?

[The Prime Minister]

The Opposition do not like to hear about the mess they left this country in. Just in case they are in any doubt, we will be talking about the mess they have made not in five months’ time, but in five years’ time too.

On transport expenditure, we are spending £30 billion on transport investment. That is more than the Labour party planned, and it means that there will be schemes that can go ahead. I wish my hon. Friend well with the work that he will be doing with the Department for Transport.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

It is now nearly four years since the collapse of Farepak left hundreds of people in Makerfield and thousands of people throughout the country without a Christmas. They have not yet received one penny in compensation or a satisfactory explanation. Will the Prime Minister meet me to bring this sorry affair to a conclusion as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

I well remember the case the hon. Lady mentions, and it happened at a time that brought misery to many families who had saved and who were expecting to have a good Christmas, and did not get it. It was a particularly tragic case. I will sort out for her to have a meeting with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to see whether, as she says, we can bring this sorry episode to a close.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

NATO Summit

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

While we can warmly welcome the NATO-Russia agreement to co-operate on ballistic missile defence, is it not disappointing that NATO and Russia have not yet decided to begin talks on the multilateral disarmament of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe? Does the Prime Minister recollect that it was the previous Conservative Government who abolished British tactical nuclear weapons on the grounds that they had become militarily useless? Is it not now time for NATO and Russia to look at that at the European level?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that is possible. The problem has been, as my right hon. and learned Friend well knows—he has great expertise in this—that relations between NATO and Russia have been extremely strained in recent years. At the weekend, I observed a proper thawing of that situation, with President Medvedev happy to sit down and discuss what NATO and Russia could do together. I think his view is very much that this should be an expansive agenda whereby we can look at more and more areas that we can discuss.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I agree with so much of what the Prime Minister has said, but there is one area about which I continue to be concerned. Why did he feel he had to say publicly that there would be a deadline of 2015? A timetable for 2014 had already been set, and he knows that some Government Members, including even some Ministers, have struggled and still struggle to use the same words as he does. Why did he feel that he had to say publicly that there is to be a complete end to the combat mission in 2015?

[The Prime Minister]

That is absolutely the right question to ask; let me answer it as clearly as I can. I think that the British people, having paid such a high price in Afghanistan, want some certainty that there is an end point. That is the first reason. I wanted to be clear that the operation will not go on for ever. I am confident that we will succeed in our goals by 2014, which will enable end-of-combat operations and much lower numbers in 2015, but I wanted to make it clear to people so that they can see that there is an end point.

There is a second reason. I think the alternative to having that deadline is endless pressure to set very short-term deadlines for transitioning this province or district at this time. I would rather we had a proper, worked-out process and plan to deliver that. I think that the 2015 deadline helps us to do that and that it gives people confidence that, 14 years after going into Afghanistan in 2001, there is an end point. I am glad I think I heard support from the Labour Front Bench for that.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

May I press the Prime Minister again on the deadline? Can he conceive of any circumstances in which he would modify or depart from the deadline for the withdrawal of British combat troops that he has again confirmed today?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I do not see any reason to modify it—that is part of the reason for setting it—but I am confident, looking at the tactical progress that we are making on the ground, where the concentration of forces in central Helmand has made a real difference, and with the increased number of US forces and the great commitment made by the 48 ISAF partner countries, that we will be able to complete that transition between 2011 and 2014. However, the deadline is a deadline.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister rightly emphasised that NATO is committed to a world without nuclear weapons, if that is achievable, but he also mentioned biological and chemical weapons. Is NATO as seized of the importance of getting rid of those weapons systems, because in many ways they—certainly biological weapons—are far more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give that assurance, and not just NATO but the G8 has a good programme on that front. That is vital, and it is exactly the sort of forum in which such weapons can be discussed.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Please will my right hon. Friend clarify the extent of the agreement between Russia and NATO on ballistic missile defence, because having a jointly developed and jointly deployable system would be a major breakthrough?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me clarify this point. For some time, NATO has wanted a defensive system, partly because of the threat of new ballistic missile states such as Iran. We believe that it is in NATO’s interest to provide that territorial defence for our own countries. That was a great source of tension with Russia, but now it is a source of co-operation. Russia has its own ideas for combining its system with ours, and we have our own ideas on what co-operation should take place. Those sets of ideas are still some way apart, but the positive thing is that discussions are under way on how we can work together.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister told us that the Afghans are not yet capable of securing their own country from terrorists. Does he seriously believe that the Afghans taking a lead role in provinces within four years will mean that Afghanistan will be secure from terrorism?

[The Prime Minister]

I am a little bit more optimistic than the hon. Gentleman. The case today is that Afghanistan ground is forbidden to al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda training camps. Post-2001, there were training camps in Afghanistan, but there is none now because of the action that the allies and the Afghan security forces have taken. The question is this: if the allies withdrew now, would the Afghans be able to sustain that? The answer today is no, but the answer by 2014 should, we believe, be yes. Of course there is a lot more help to be given and a lot more capacity to build, and a lot more troops and police need to be trained up, but we can see some success already, because the number of plots that we face from that part of the world has declined, partly because of the action we have taken.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the positive outcome of the summit and, in particular, on the fact that the United States has moved away from 2011 as the date for withdrawal, and towards 2014. However, is not Iran the elephant in the room? It does not appear in the declaration—at least not in substance. Will my right hon. Friend say what the attitude of his partners is towards Iran and, in particular, towards sanctions, which, at the end of the day, is the only weapon that we have?

[The Prime Minister]

There has been good progress on that. The UN Security Council resolution on Iranian sanctions was helpful. The European Union went beyond that and introduced further sanctions. When you look around that room, with all those NATO partners and ISAF partners, you see that there is a pretty good consensus on the need for sanctions and the need to apply them properly. There is a conversation that we go on having with allies such as Turkey about the importance of not seeing any slippage in the sanctions. There are some early signs that they are having some effect on the Iranian regime, but we have to keep that up. As my hon. Friend says, we do not have many other weapons to force a change of mind on the Iranians. The sanctions are a weapon that we have, and we should use them to the best of our ability.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister not agree that the greatest causes of problems in this world are poverty, instability and the competition for resources? The NATO summit has set itself on a path of nuclearisation, a missile defence system and an alliance that includes virtually all the major industrial countries of the world. Should we not be looking in the other direction, towards peace, disarmament and a stable world based on those objectives, rather than towards vast expenditure on new nuclear weapons and missile defence?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be clear about where I think the hon. Gentleman is right and where he is wrong. He is right that we should be doing more to tackle poverty the world over. That is one of the reasons why we have committed to spend 0.7% of our gross national income on aid. Britain has very effective aid programmes, and we should be encouraging other NATO allies to do the same. However, where he is wrong is to believe that all conflict and problems come from poverty. Some of the problem of Islamic extremism is related not to poverty but to ideology. We have to recognise that we have to confront and defeat that ideology.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The Prime Minister said that every one of the 48 nations in the coalition had reaffirmed its enduring commitment to the mission in Afghanistan. On sharing the burden and removing the overstretch of our forces in Helmand province, which of the other 46 countries, apart from the United States, have service personnel serving alongside our personnel in Helmand?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

In Helmand, there have been very courageous efforts by the Estonians and the Danes, who have fought very effectively alongside our troops. The Canadians, as someone mentioned, were stationed in Kandahar, and they will be moving from a combat role to a training role. It was not that long ago that France had an uplift in its troop numbers, so I do not think that it is right to cast too many aspersions about other NATO allies. We are certainly the second largest contributor by quite some way. It is important that we encourage others to do what they can, even where countries are pulling back from a combat role. It was quite notable that the Canadians invested more in a training role than people were previously expecting. There is a good spirit among the ISAF nations, as we want to see this through successfully and everyone has to play their part.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be widespread support in the country for the deadline—the end time—that he has fixed for the conflict? However, even if we can successfully withdraw after four years, for British troops that means another four years of bloody fighting in what he himself calls the most dangerous part of Afghanistan—Helmand. I appreciate that we cannot push him on the details now, but over those four years will there be a continued effort to see, rather than a military outcome, an overall political accommodation with the Taliban?

[The Prime Minister]

There are two elements to the reconciliation process. There is what is called reintegration, at the lowest level, where tribes that have perhaps taken up arms against the Afghan national army and the allies are being encouraged to put down those arms and join a political process. Sometimes tribes took up arms not because they were Taliban supporters, but because of local conflicts. The higher level—reconciliation, as it were—is much more like a political process. That has to be Afghan-led, and, as I said, it has to be based on de-linking from al-Qaeda, giving up violence and accepting the basic tenets of the Afghan constitution. In the end, those people want the same as everyone else, which is an Afghanistan that is not stationed full of foreign troops, so I hope that we can make progress on the political front, as the hon. Gentleman says.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Like any serviceman or woman who has spent time in Afghanistan, nothing would make me happier than seeing a speedy resolution to this conflict. Does the Prime Minister agree, however, that if we are to meet this ambitious timetable, we must focus on capacity building in the provinces, which is key if we are to have a sustainable future in that country?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has served in Afghanistan and knows the country well, and he is completely right. As I have said, there are two elements involved. The first is the security forces training the police and the army, but on its own that does not provide enough capacity. We also need good governance, and one feature that we should look at closely is the progress of better governance in Helmand province itself. Governor Mangal has done an extremely good job there and is well supported by the British, and it is important to have good governors in place to ensure the stability that will enable us to leave.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister mentioned the EU-NATO partnership and the fact that there had been discussions. The French press reports said that it was still completely unclear what we were doing. Can he shed any more light on what this now amounts to, post-summit?

[The Prime Minister]

There was a very lively exchange at the NATO leaders’ dinner on this issue. I am a pragmatist, and it just seems to me that, given that there is an EU mission to train the police in Afghanistan and a massive NATO mission to train the army and the police there, the fact that NATO and the EU cannot talk to each other on these issues because they do not have permission to do so, apart from in Bosnia, is simply crazy. One of the reasons for this problem is the fact that the issue of Cyprus is used by both sides in the debate, and the EU-NATO relationship is used as a proxy for that. I am sure that everyone in this House wants to see a settlement of the Cyprus dispute, but we should not allow that to bung up relations between the EU and NATO. An outbreak of pragmatism is required and, because this was discussed at the dinner, we all instructed our NATO ambassadors to go back and try to do better, so that we can try to unfreeze that conflict.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on setting such a firm deadline for the ceasing of combat operations but, given the problems that we had in Basra in 2006, how will we use the next three years to ensure that we pin down the United States and British military to facilitate the transition?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who knows a huge amount about that country—I do not want to give an advert for his book, because I am sure that it has sold well enough already. The point is that by setting the deadline early, we are giving a clear signal to our friends and allies in NATO about the role that Britain has played—we should remember that we have played a very big role and taken a very large number of casualties—and about our intentions. The key to a successful transition is focusing on training the Afghan army and police, as well as the governance that I have spoken about, and being clear about our intentions. We cannot make it up with only six months to go; we need to say now what Britain’s commitment is and what it will be in the future.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

So, to sum up, does the Prime Minister agree that he has done a dodgy deal with Karzai and the Taliban, got into bed with that ex-KGB man, Putin, and already done a deal with the French to share our defence? Was that rainbow coalition in the Tory manifesto?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes me sound terribly busy, anyway. I think I will just leave it at that.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The new NATO strategic concept approved at Lisbon rightly states that, as long as other countries have nuclear weapons, so will the NATO alliance. Some of us would like to see the same apply to the United Kingdom. What reassurance was my right hon. Friend able to give to our NATO allies that Britain’s Trident replacement programme will go ahead after the next election, given that, if the Liberal Democrats were again to hold the balance of power, that would almost certainly not happen?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend and I go back years on this issue, to the time when we almost shared an office. At that time, we were fighting a very unilateralist Labour party that wanted us to give up our nuclear weapons and get nothing in return. The assurance that I can give my hon. Friend is that I believe that while others have nuclear weapons, we should retain ours. That is why I said what I said in the statement. He is being a little unfair, however, because in this Parliament, we will be spending many tens or even hundreds of millions of pounds on the preparation for our Trident replacement—which is on schedule to go ahead—to ensure that there is continuous at-sea deterrence and no capability gap between the deterrent that we have now and the deterrent of the future. The Government, including the Liberal Democrats, are fully committed to that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on raising the matter of Georgia with President Medvedev. When the right hon. Gentleman visited Tbilisi in 2008, he said that this was an illegal invasion. It certainly was, and it still is today. May I urge the Prime Minister to be a bit more robust in some other respects with the Russians? Corruption is so endemic at the very highest level in Russia that British businesses find it very difficult to do business there. Will he expressly raise the human rights issues, particularly in respect of the trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev?

[The Prime Minister]

I take what the hon. Gentleman says very seriously. We are trying to have better relations with Russia—that is, I think, in our interest—but without trying to gloss over the bilateral impediments to those relations. When I have met President Medvedev, I have raised the Litvinenko case and other concerns, which is also right. At the same time, we must try to overcome some of these problems and raise the cases that the hon. Gentleman mentions. The impediments to relations between Britain and Russia are well known, but that does not mean that we should fail to speak about those and other things and try to have a slightly better relationship than we have had up to now.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister rightly touched on the importance of guaranteeing Afghanistan’s northern distribution network. Does he agree that security in Tajikistan is particularly important if we are to have any prospects of withdrawing within a reasonable time frame, and that it is also important in developing NATO’s relationships with Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. If we want to leave behind a secure and stable Afghanistan, relations with its neighbours are crucial. Many people make the point that NATO and ISAF are making a tremendous effort in Afghanistan and that many of the country’s neighbours will benefit from a stable Afghanistan, but are not making a contribution. I think it is up to them to contribute, but also up to us to try to bring the neighbours together to make sure they demonstrate the equity they have in a stable Afghanistan for the future.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Is it not apparent that the number of trainers for the Afghan police and army is woefully inadequate? Will the Prime Minister tell us what the timeline will be and what priority will be given to increasing the number of trainers by all the countries concerned?

[The Prime Minister]

We are making very good progress in training up the Afghan police and army. We are a little ahead of schedule. The key thing about this NATO summit was to get other countries to commit to adding to the training mission. There were some very welcome developments, such as the Canadians who, in pulling back on the combat forces front, committed to the training mission. As I said, Britain added another 320 trainers. I think we are on target to deliver the sort of Afghan national security forces we need to complete our drawdown by 2014.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

To be honest, I have always questioned whether foreign combat troops can ever win a war in Afghanistan. What does the Prime Minister say to those who argue that setting a deadline just incentivises the Taliban never to negotiate?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it incentivises the Afghan Government to recognise that we are serious about handing over a country for them to run. It also shows the Afghan security forces that they are going to have to learn to stand on their own two feet. Let me make two additional points. First, there is a serious amount of time to elapse between now and the end of 2014 when all this has to be completed. This is not some rapid deadline; there are a lot of years between now and then to make it work. Secondly, Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary has said about the US forces:

“I think anything that remains after 2014 would be very modest and very much focused on the kind of train and advise and assist role”.

So I do not think we are putting ourselves apart from the consensus on this matter.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Further to the answers given to both my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) and to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), will the Prime Minister provide some specific figures—either to the House today or later through the Library—on how many additional trainers and instructors each of the NATO countries has committed to Afghanistan?

[The Prime Minister]

I should be happy to place that information in the House of Commons Library or write to the hon. Gentleman. In the run-up to the summit everyone was asked to make extra contributions, and my understanding is that we made ours and that a number of other countries did the same. However, I should be happy to provide the information so that the hon. Gentleman can see exactly how we will secure the size of Afghan security forces that we need.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

How will the ethnic and regional composition of the Afghan national army and police force be maintained in the long term?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, which is a difficult one. Not only has there been an insufficiency of Pashtuns in the security forces, but there has been an insufficiency of Pashtuns from Helmand and elsewhere in that part of the country. That means that we must make a greater effort to recruit and retain them, but I think that as they see progress on the ground they will be more likely to want to serve.

Let me make clear that we are on track to achieve the 2011 goal of 171,600 in the Afghan national army—the current force is 138,000—and to reach the October 2011 target of 134,000 in the Afghan national police, who currently number 120,000. Plainly, those are not unrealistic objectives, but the point about the ethnic make-up is important.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is right to say that the country has paid a tremendous debt to Afghanistan in terms of the cost to our country. He said earlier that he would send a message to our friends and allies by setting a deadline, but he also sends a message to our enemies by setting that deadline. What impact does he think the deadline will have on al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Does he think that it will make them more likely to want to negotiate?

[The Prime Minister]

The point is that the Taliban have suffered huge reverses in Helmand and southern Afghanistan, particularly over the past year, and a serious attrition in their numbers. As for what I have said, I have not been talking about 2010, as my predecessor did, or about 2011; I have been talking about 2015.

I think the Taliban know that they are losing militarily and suffering huge attrition in their numbers. They should also know that, as well as the military hammer that is hitting them, there is the option of a political process allowing them to reintegrate at a low level, and that, with the Afghan Government, there are opportunities for reconciliation at a higher level. If we look across the world at the way in which counter-insurgencies have ended, we see that they have normally ended through a combination of military might and a political process, and I believe that the same applies in this instance.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Turkey has always been important to the defence of NATO’s southern flank, and, given the ongoing concerns about Iran’s intentions, it will continue to be so. Does that not confirm that it is in all our interests for the United Kingdom to be the best possible friend to Turkey in Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I think it important for us to send a message to the Turks that, as far as we are concerned, they should be sitting in the tent as well as guarding the camp, and I therefore believe that, as well as being good NATO members, they should be encouraged into the European Union. They are a key ally—a key NATO ally. Given our relations with Iran, it is important for them to be staunch in terms of sanctions and trade with Iran, because that will send the clearest possible message to their neighbour.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Sometimes the Prime Minister just cannot win. If he sets a deadline, they say that he is encouraging the Taliban; if he does not set a deadline, he is accused of drift. Does he agree that our brave men and women in Afghanistan will warmly welcome his statement?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. There is another point to be made. The Taliban trade on the idea that foreign forces will never leave Afghanistan. By setting a deadline such as this and being clear about transition, we are saying to Afghans throughout the country, “We want good relations with your country—we think that it is an important country for Britain to have strong relations with—but we do not want our forces to be there for ever, and neither do you.” That is a very important message.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

In the context of NATO reform and NATO into the future, does the Prime Minister see a growing role for NATO in relation to such matters as securing trade routes and counter-piracy, which are essential to our domestic economic prosperity?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. NATO was for years focused very much on territorial defence of Europe against the Soviet Union and, sadly, when we look at the defence postures of different countries in NATO, including our own to some extent, we see that there is still too much legacy-asset thinking—about tank battles in Europe, for instance, rather than securing sea lanes, fighting cyber-attack, combating terrorism and securing failed states on the other side of the world. So a big shift needs to take place in NATO, and I think this weekend’s summit was important in helping bring that shift about.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Did the Prime Minister have a chance to discuss with President Obama and others in NATO the very worrying news coming out of North Korea of the discovery of a state-of-the-art uranium enrichment plant?

[The Prime Minister]

I discussed that issue with President Obama and others at the G20 summit in the Republic of Korea, because obviously that country is so close to the line of control that what happens in North Korea is very much on everybody’s minds. What we want is a return to the six-party talks and to put pressure especially on North Korea’s neighbours to try to get that country to go down a more sensible path.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no amount of skill and courage by our troops at the sharp end can substitute for muddled command and control structures, especially at the military-political interface, and that to avoid the kind of mistakes that disfigured the early years in Afghanistan we need the kind of reforms that he introduced nationally with the National Security Council and which he is now pressing for, and got a first stage for, at the NATO conference?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has huge expertise in this area. I think that NATO in Afghanistan did initially suffer from having a slightly divided command between an ISAF mission to secure Afghanistan and Operation Enduring Freedom to combat al-Qaeda, particularly in the Tora Bora. It has taken some time to have a more unified command and a greater focus on what was necessary not only militarily, but politically and diplomatically. I think that the whole process is now much better run and managed, but we must make sure we make the most of the remaining few years that we have in order to ensure we can hand over a stable and secure Afghanistan.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister and all colleagues for their co-operation.

G20 Summit

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on my visit to China and the G20 summit in Korea. First, however, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in welcoming the liberation, at last, of Aung San Suu Kyi. Her tenacity and courage in the face of injustice has been truly inspiring. I spoke to her this morning to pass on the congratulations of everyone in this country on her release and her remarkable stand on democracy and human rights. We must now work to ensure that her release is followed by freedom for more than 2,000 other political prisoners in Burma and that this becomes the first step towards the people in Burma genuinely being able to choose the person whom they want to run their country.

In China and Korea, my main focus was on jobs and growth. In China, I led one of the biggest and most high-powered British business delegations ever. This helped to win new business for Britain worth billions of pounds, involving businesses all over the UK and cities across China. We strengthened our ties on trade, education and culture, all the while raising our concerns with China on issues such as human rights where we have a difference of view.

In Seoul, Britain had four priorities, the first of which was to continue to win recognition for the importance of fiscal consolidation, with those countries with the greatest deficits taking the fastest action. The second priority was to get a clear commitment from all countries to fight protectionism and take the steps necessary to boost global trade. The third priority was to help move development issues up the G20 agenda, and the fourth was to address the global imbalances that were at the root of the global financial crisis and which still hold back growth in the world economy.

I believe that we made good and important progress on all four of those priorities and I will now take each in turn. First, on fiscal consolidation, it is now perfectly clear what the consequences are if we ignore the dangers of large deficits—we see markets questioning our economy, interest rates rising, confidence falling and the economy back in the danger zone. That is where Britain was only a few months ago, but because of the measures we have taken that is no longer the case. Countries with larger deficits need to act on them and do so now. That was exactly the view of the G20. In Seoul, we agreed that

“failure to implement consolidation would undermine confidence and growth.”

We also agreed to

“formulate and implement clear, credible, ambitious and growth-friendly fiscal consolidation plans”.

There can be no clearer statement of our collective intent.

Secondly, on trade, as the world comes out of recession with some countries moving more slowly while others, including the new emerging powers, forge ahead, there are inevitable pressures in some quarters for protectionism. The G20 has been a vital forum in fighting to keep markets open. Increasing trade is the biggest boost and the biggest stimulus we can give to the world economy. It does not cost any money, it is not a zero-sum game and it creates wealth and jobs. So, against a background of rising protectionist pressures, the G20 reaffirmed its determination to learn the lessons of the past and avoid the trade barriers and beggar-my-neighbour policies that wrecked the economy in the 1930s. It refreshed its commitment

“to keeping markets open and liberalizing trade and investment as a means to promote economic progress for all”,

and pledged to

“roll back any new protectionist measures that may have arisen”.

On the Doha round, let me say that it is incredibly frustrating that this trade round is almost 10 years old and that world leaders say again and again that it is going to be completed, but that the situation still remains stalled. The longer it has gone on the more difficult it has got, because the world economy has changed so fast that the deal has become outdated. Both developed and developing countries are looking for more from the round. I do not want to raise hopes artificially but I think that some real progress was made in Seoul.

The language of the communiqué refers to 2011 as the “critical window of opportunity” and crucially refers to the “end game” of the negotiations. As I proposed at the Toronto summit, we have to make the deal bigger by having a wide, across-the-board negotiation. What changed at this summit is that the US said that if a good and fair deal comes forward it will be taken to Congress, so we all instructed our trade negotiators to put more on the table so that a deal can be done. I am determined that Britain should do everything it can to push this agenda forward.

Thirdly, on development, it is right that the G20 is now playing a bigger role in this issue. As well as the very richest nations, the new emerging powers have a huge role to play in helping some of the poorest people and countries. There is a real recognition of the importance of trade, infrastructure and finance in the Seoul agreement. I also raised the importance of continuing our aid programmes. Britain is keeping its promises on aid and I pressed others to do the same.

On the trade agenda, together with South Africa and with Ethiopia and Malawi, which were there to represent Africa, Britain mobilised the G20 behind

“the vision of a free trade area”

for Africa. Only 10% of Africa’s trade is within the continent of Africa, so knocking down the trade walls between African countries can help unleash economic growth, which will benefit them and us, too.

Fourthly, on imbalances, there are huge trade surpluses in some countries and deficits in others. According to the IMF, such balances are forecast to get worse, not better. Alongside protectionist pressures, we have seen the sign of so called “currency wars”. The G20 agreed the Seoul action plan, which included agreeing to move

“towards more market determined exchange rate systems”

and to refrain from “competitive devaluation of currencies”. However, the issue of trade imbalances goes beyond currencies. Just as countries with big budget deficits must cut public spending, which is right for them and for the world economy, so countries with big trade deficits need to save more, consume less, and export more. If that is not accompanied by higher consumption by surplus countries, world growth will be lower and protectionist pressures higher and we will repeat the mistakes of the past. In the end, it is as simple as that. By acting together, we can maximise world growth and cut world unemployment. Imbalance is not some obscure economic issue; it is about jobs.

Trade imbalances have also led to an imbalance of funds—a wall of money in the east and a wall of debt in the west. That was part of the problem that helped pump up some of the bubbles that led to the crash that affected us all. As part of the Seoul action plan, we agreed that we would

“pursue the full range of policies to reduce excessive external imbalances and maintain current account imbalances at sustainable levels.”

The issue of imbalances will never be solved overnight, but the key thing is that it is being discussed in a proper, multilateral way, with some progress being made.

On other issues, the summit also delivered important progress on financial regulation and the reform of global institutions. To those who say that the G20 is not effective, I say that the last Basel accord on capital ratios, Basel II, took nine years. With the G20 behind it, Basel III has been done in just 18 months. Reform of the IMF to make it more representative of the global economy has been discussed year after year. The G20 has finally got the deal done.

On climate change, President Calderon briefed the G20 on the plans for Cancun and we received a report from the UN Secretary-General’s high-level advisory group on climate change financing.

This summit delivered important progress in managing the tensions that are present in the global economy. In my visits to China and the G20 summit, we have protected and promoted our national interests. We have taken vital steps towards the strong, balanced and sustainable global growth that we need. We secured recognition for acting on the deficit, support for more action on trade and development and agreement on working to rectify the imbalances that threaten global economic stability. Ultimately, this will win more jobs and growth for Britain, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and advance notice of it. We should all agree with what he said about Burma. As we celebrate the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi, we must remember that there is still a long journey before there is a free and democratic Burma. I also welcome the release of Paul and Rachel Chandler. I am sure that the whole House wants to send them its best wishes. I welcome the Prime Minister’s work on his visit to China.

Turning to the G20 summit, I welcome the South Korean Government’s success in keeping development on the agenda. Development aid is important for the lives it saves, but, as the Prime Minster says, it makes an important contribution to global growth. I also welcome the fact that he pressed the G8 countries that were in Seoul to keep their promises on aid, as we are.

Turning to climate change, will the Prime Minister tell us how the promises made at Seoul will be turned into action at Cancun? We welcome the continuation of work to reform the financial regulatory framework that was set in motion at previous G20 meetings. The increased stringency of the Basel committee’s capital requirements is a welcome step in making banks across the world more stable, but further work is needed to implement those reforms, and we recognise that that is difficult. Will the Prime Minister tell us how to balance the need for financial stability with the need for economic recovery and growth?

We all know that, for the UK, global economic growth is always important. We are a trading nation. Jobs in this country depend on strong exports, which in turn depend on a growing global economy. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that that dependence is even greater because of the decisions that he has taken on the economy here at home? Cutting public spending and increasing VAT will dampen domestic demand, and that will hit jobs. The Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that because of the cuts that he is making, Britain must increase exports by more than £100 billion just to sustain growth and jobs. How can that happen if our export markets are failing to grow?

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the global economy on which we are now even more reliant is fragile? That is why this G20 was so important. The most recent figures show that growth in our largest export market, Europe, has halved and that the US is still facing high unemployment and slow growth. Does he acknowledge that with growing disagreements between major economies about currencies and trade restrictions, co-ordinated action through the G20 is more important than ever? Does he recognise that this G20 was a missed opportunity?

No one expected the problems to be solved overnight, but it is a problem that the summit provided no co-ordinated action to support jobs and growth worldwide, little progress on reaching agreement on currencies, particularly between China and the US, little assurance by way of anything practical to prevent a resurgence of protectionism, and no concrete action to restart the Doha round of trade negotiations.

This was the fifth G20 summit since the global financial crisis hit in 2008. During that time, the UK provided leadership for co-ordinated global action. Why did the Prime Minister fail to offer that leadership in the run-up to and at Seoul at such a crucial time for jobs in this country and for the global economy? The question that everyone is left asking is, what was his strategy? What was he aiming to achieve? Did he have any proposals for jobs and growth? What were they?

No one expected that the summit would be straightforward, but the problem is that no one even knew what the Prime Minister was trying to do. Tonight he will say in a speech that Britain is

“at the centre of all the big discussions. Producing the ideas.”

So what were his ideas for the G20 and what did he say in those big discussions? Is it not the case that because he has not taken action on jobs and growth in Britain, he cannot lead in the debate about jobs and growth internationally? Is it not the truth that because he refuses to recognise that the economic crisis was global, he cannot engage with international efforts to tackle it? Britain needed to send a statesman to that summit, but all we sent was a spectator. By watching from the sidelines of the G20, the Prime Minister has let Britain down.

[The Prime Minister]

Oh dear. First of all, it is lovely to see the right hon. and learned Lady back.

On the Chandlers, I very much agree with what the right hon. and learned Lady said. I spoke to Paul Chandler this morning. It is hard to imagine what that family has been through, and it is great that they are now safely in Kenya and are soon to fly home. I am sure the whole House will want to wish them well.

Let me try to answer all the right hon. and learned Lady’s points. On development, which is something that Britain very much puts on the agenda at such meetings—I spoke up very firmly about the pledges that we had made—she is right in one sense. We talk about global imbalances. There is a huge imbalance between the rich world and the poor world, and if we can get people in the poorest parts of the world to join the world economy, we will all benefit.

On climate change, the key point is we are prepared to sign up to another Kyoto-style period, but we have got to have global agreement where others agree to sign agreements as well. That is the point that we will continue to push. The right hon. and learned Lady raised a point about the introduction of the Basel III accords and how we balance wanting safety in our financial institutions with an increase in bank lending. That is one of the reasons why Basel III is phased in the way it comes in.

The right hon. and learned Lady raised the issue of the deficit and made the usual accusation that, in Britain, we are acting too fast in dealing with it. I just think that Labour is completely wrong about this. The alternative to dealing with the deficit would not be some beautiful period of uninterrupted growth; it would involve putting ourselves in the same category as countries in which interest rates are rising and confidence is falling. That is the alternative, and that is where she and her party would have landed us.

The right hon. and learned Lady said that there were great disagreements over currencies, but if she looks at the language of the communiqué—perhaps next time she will read it before writing her script—she will see a lot of agreement on not having competitive devaluations over imbalances. She is right to say that this issue is not going to be solved overnight; I said that in my statement. We are asking different countries to do different things in order to achieve a maximum global outcome. That is tough and difficult, but there was progress at the summit. I also heard direct from the Chinese about their plans to rebalance their own economies.

The right hon. and learned Lady asked what we had brought to the table. The idea of a pan-African trade deal was not on the G20 agenda; we put it on the G20 agenda. The idea of pushing further ahead on Doha by making the deal bigger was a French, German and British initiative that we did at Doha and that pushed the Americans and others to go further. On the issue of imbalances, the key compromise to get the Americans and the Chinese together was again something that was pushed very much by the Germans and the British.

I think that the right hon. and learned Lady is completely wrong about this. If Labour had been at this G20, it would have been completely isolated over the issue of the deficit. Everyone else in the room was signing a communiqué on how we have to take early action on deficits. That is the consensus, but Labour is completely outside the consensus. One group of people represented at the meeting was the International Monetary Fund, and I suspect that if she had been there, she would have been locked in a room with them.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Did the G20 discuss the situation of the Irish banks which, because of the potential knock-on effects, could pose as great a threat to the world economy as did Lehman Brothers, AIG and Goldman Sachs in September 2008? If so, what view did the Prime Minister’s colleagues take of Chancellor Merkel’s stated determination not to allow her taxpayers to bail out the gamblers who made great fortunes by taking the risks that have created the present crisis, even if that led to the default of national banks?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. The issue of Ireland was not specifically discussed at the G20. A statement was issued by a number of European Finance Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about the mechanism that will be put in place in the eurozone, because there was a concern that what had been thought about was having a negative impact on Ireland. Obviously, eurozone and European Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers at these gatherings always meet and discuss the health of the European economy and the eurozone. I do not want to speculate about another country’s finances. I recognise that the Irish are taking very difficult action to try to get their own fiscal situation under control. Like the United Kingdom, they obviously have very large banks that have got themselves into difficulty and that have to be managed out of the process. We very much hope that all that will take place.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s warm words on the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, but, a little to the north and east, in China, a fellow Nobel peace laureate, Liu Xiaobo, is rotting in a communist prison. Why did not the Prime Minister have the guts to mention his name and call for his release in public?

[The Prime Minister]

What I did, which was the right thing to do, was to have a very frank exchange about human rights with the Chinese in the meetings that we had, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that nothing and no one was off the agenda.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

May I associate myself and colleagues with the warm words about Aung San Suu Kyi and congratulate the Prime Minister on his mission to China?

I have read the communiqué, which contains an undertaking to ensure that we have a

“resilient financial system by reining in the past excesses of the financial sector and better serving the needs of our economies.”

What does that mean in practice for ending in the G20 excessive bank profits and bonuses and excessive use of tax havens?

[The Prime Minister]

There is very strong agreement that we need to deal with the issue of tax havens. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an announcement about that while he was in Seoul. We can see real progress in the G20 on the nuts and bolts of regulation, particularly of levels of capital through the Basel accords, but also progress covering the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions. National steps should also be taken, and I know that he very much supports the bank levy that we have put in place, which is raising serious money. In a way, it is saying to the banks that it is right that they should now be making a contribution as we deal with our fiscal deficit.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I, too, very much welcome the great news from Burma.

Industry and manufacturing remain at the heart of the Welsh economy. With the pound having weakened against a basket of currencies—it is down 25% since 2007—we should really be looking for an export-driven recovery. What has the Prime Minister been able to secure, through the recent trade mission and the G20 talks, that will aid that recovery and hopefully help Welsh and English manufacturing and industry?

[The Prime Minister]

A series of deals were agreed while my ministerial colleagues and I were in China, including a very large deal involving Rolls-Royce. It is also worth remembering that the trade mission that President Sarkozy spoke of included a very large Airbus deal, which I know has very positive effects for Britain and indeed Wales.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that our export performance needs to improve. Obviously we have seen a change in the level of our currency, but I am focusing on ensuring that all the things that UK Trade Investment and the Government can do to help our exporters are in place. I will go on leading missions to fast-growing parts of the world. So far, in six months, I have been to Turkey, a very fast-growing economy that some people call “Europe’s BRIC”—a reference to Brazil, Russia, India and China. I have been in the largest trade delegation ever taken to India, and now in the largest one to China. I am going to keep up with that. I think it is important that we get behind our exporters and help them to create jobs in our countries.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, should there be a rescue operation for any eurozone member under the European financial stability pact, the only reason why there is a danger that Britain may be required to contribute under qualified majority voting is that the last Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer shamefully signed up to that requirement after the election but before the coalition Government were formed?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The European financial stability mechanism, which was established just before this Government came to office, was established on the basis of qualified majority voting. It allows money to be spent with a budget that lies between the European budget and the own resources ceiling is, and yes, that money could be distributed in the way that he says.

That is not to be confused with the European financial stabilisation facility, which does not involve the UK. I also point out to my right hon. Friend that the treaty amendment that the European countries are looking at will not affect Britain’s potential contributions. However, he is right that the financial stability mechanism was established before this Government came to power and very much against our advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to discuss with President Obama and others the situation in Yemen? After the bomb was discovered at East Midlands airport, the Prime Minister rang President Ali Abdullah Saleh, and he knows that the situation is absolutely desperate there. What help can we give countries such as Yemen?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I did discuss that with President Obama. What is happening in Yemen should be absolutely at the top of the list, because of the al-Qaeda threat that is coming out of that part of the Arabian peninsula. President Obama and I agreed that we have to take a mixture of steps. One of the problems is encouraging President Saleh to see that the al-Qaeda threat is a threat to his own country and needs to be top of the list of what he wants to address. Obviously Yemen also faces problems with rebels in the south and Houthi rebels in the north, but we have to convince it that the al-Qaeda threat is a threat to all of us and to the security of the world, and that is what we will do through aid, through the Friends of Yemen process and through every other means at our disposal.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The deputy leader of the Labour party asked my right hon. Friend what his agenda is. Is his agenda that when he returns in triumph from his 10th or 20th G20 conference, he can tell the House that he has turned round our economy by creating a small-government, flat, low-tax and privatised economy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend gives me an extremely good script. My agenda at such gatherings is to stand up for Britain’s national interests. Above all, as a trading nation, that is about keeping the markets of the world open, and making sure that British business can create wealth and jobs around the world. That is the agenda we should have. When we are trying to get our economy growing at home, it is very important that we focus on those things that most help us back here in Britain.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say about competitive devaluation and rebalancing the Chinese economy. Will he say precisely what the Chinese agreed to do about the renminbi, and what he thinks is the most desirable action?

[The Prime Minister]

There are two points, the first of which is on what is in the communiqué. Everybody signed up to avoiding competitive devaluations and moving towards market-led exchange rate systems. I accept that those are words, but they are positive. The fact is that China and America are discussing their differences and issues in a multilateral agenda. The second point is that it is in the interests of China itself, and indeed in its five-year plan, to see a growth of domestic demand as the next driver of its economy. That is good news for Britain, America and the deficit countries, but it is also in China’s own national interest. We should try to flag that up whenever we talk to the Chinese about that.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend accept my enthusiastic applause for his principle of free trade, the growth of small businesses and all that goes with that in international affairs? Will he explain how he will achieve that without achieving competitiveness in the European Union—the imperative competitiveness to which he has referred in the past—and deregulation, including the repatriation of social and employment legislation from the EU to the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. My point—this is perhaps the point of difference between us—is that although I think the EU has taken too many powers and become too federal, as it were, I believe that at the moment quite a lot of like-minded EU Governments are on the centre and centre right of politics. They want deregulation, competitive markets and an agenda that means that we can reform the structures of our economies and get growth. That is true of the Germans, the Dutch, the Swedes, the Danes and many others. They are natural allies for us and we should push forward the deregulation agenda in Europe. I intend to do so.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

Is the Prime Minister confident that there will be no currency war? If there is a currency war, how will it affect Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, we will not benefit from pressures between America and China over trade and currencies. They are the No. 1 and No. 2 economies in the world, and it is in our interests to anchor them in the G20 where we can discuss those things rationally, rather than see the eruption of trade and currency wars. No doubt there are big protectionist pressures in the world today, but they are very much against our interests, because we export more per head of population than most other countries in the world. We must therefore keep those markets open. That is why we must work so hard through forums such as the G20 to make sure that that happens.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I hope the Prime Minister had the opportunity to visit the Great Wall—he knows from our previous discussions how important ancient boundaries are to me.

In answering other hon. Members’ questions on the currency issue, the Prime Minister has repeatedly referred to positive progress between China and America. Will he take every opportunity to ensure that the voice of this Government is felt keenly in those discussions?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I was worried for one minute that he was about to build the Great Wall of China along the Tamar river. For those of us who still enjoy holidaying in Cornwall, that would be a bad step—we might not be allowed in!

We should not overstate our influence, but nor should we understate it. Britain is an economy and country that is listened to in such forums. We are always in the vanguard of arguing for free trade and against protectionism, and we try to bring countries together, as we did with the Germans, to try to help to broker agreement on imbalances, and to make sure that the G20 can move forward.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I understand the Prime Minister’s point on protectionism and the imbalance. There has been good news about exports and we need to keep that market open, but how do we protect British industry from imports from countries such as China that have very low-wage economies?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that would be a mistake; I do not believe that protectionism works. If we took the view in this country that we should raise some trade barriers to Chinese goods, we would just be putting off the day when we have to be more competitive, work out how to get up the value chain and produce goods that the Chinese want to buy. I am more optimistic; I think that when we see the Chinese economy develop and we see a growing Chinese middle class, we will find that they will want the goods, brands and services that we produce in this country. I think that we should be more confident, recognising that free trade has been a great growth motor for the world economy and is not something we should fear.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Although nobody in the British Government is suggesting bailing out the Irish economy, is it not the case that 40% of UK trade takes place within the eurozone and that a stable Ireland and a stable eurozone is very much in the UK national interest?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Not only that, but Ireland is an enormously important trading partner for Britain. It is a fact that we export more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. That is a rebuke to us, because we have to do better with those other countries, but Ireland is an extremely important trading partner, and stability and success in the Irish economy is very much in Britain’s interests.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for making representations to free Aung San Suu Kyi. He said that nothing was off the agenda. Will he say whether he discussed Iran in general and, specifically, the case of Sakineh Ashtiani?

[The Prime Minister]

I did have discussions about Iran, particularly with the Chinese, but also with other world leaders at the G20. The point we are continually pushing is the importance of maintaining the sanction regime and making sure it holds, because it is potentially having a huge impact on the Iranian regime and we should keep it up. I did not raise the specific case that the hon. Lady mentions, but I have raised it in other ways with others.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that as part of our plan to rebuild the broken economy left to us by the Labour party, supporting science and technology-based companies, of all sizes, is vital? What practical measures are in place following the confirmation of the free trade agreements that he got at the summit?

[The Prime Minister]

First, we are not making reductions in the science budget. It is being frozen in cash terms, and that is absolutely right. Secondly, the next group of Ministers to go to China will include my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science. He will go out there for specific talks, because the Chinese want to examine the specific areas where they can link up with us. In terms of scientific research, Britain already does more partnering with Chinese scientists than many other countries.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Two years ago, the then British Prime Minister galvanised world leaders to prevent a worldwide recession from turning into a worldwide slump. Because of this Prime Minister’s cuts in public spending, companies in my constituency will rely more on the export market and his policies will throw at least 1 million people out of a job. Can he explain to the House how his being a spectator at this year’s G20 summit will assist the companies in my constituency to secure the foreign orders that they desperately need?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to help businesses in his constituency, he should stop talking the British economy down. Whatever he says about the previous Prime Minister, who is not here today to join in the discussions, the fact is that the right hon. Gentleman left Britain with the biggest budget deficit in the G20. When we looked at the countries around that table, which included those such as Argentina, we found that we had a bigger budget deficit than they did. That is why we are having to deal with the deficit—the mess that the previous Prime Minister left behind.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My constituents in Dover and Deal will find the Prime Minister’s focus on jobs, money, the national interest and sorting out our house refreshing. Will he tell the House more about how his work with India and China and trade missions there has helped our economy? Did it strengthen us at the G20?

[The Prime Minister]

Some people say that it is quite old-fashioned to pile an aeroplane full of business leaders and fly them off to India, China and the rest of it. I do not agree. It is important to try to bash down the door in order to secure trade in different countries, and the enthusiasm and energy that you show does actually have an impact, because you want to make sure that Indian universities are looking to link with British universities and Indian firms are looking to link with British firms. So, yes, making a bit of noise and taking a good team of business leaders over does make a difference, and I think that we will see trade, jobs and two-way investment as a result.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One of the inequalities in the world is the tax haven status that many territories enjoy. It has a profoundly deleterious effect on the economies of some of the poorest countries in the world, so does the Prime Minister believe that Cayman should maintain its tax haven status, or will he take action to prevent it from retaining that status?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We do work hard to try to deal with the issue of tax havens, because every pound not paid in tax to the UK is a pound that we have to raise from somewhere else, and we have been working hard on that agenda. We have just done a very good agreement with Switzerland, and that will result in a huge amount of extra tax revenue being collected.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the billions of pounds’ worth of deals done on his recent trip? Will he pay tribute to UK Trade & Investment’s role and please ensure that it keeps replicating that improved performance for British business and, particularly, Yorkshire business over the coming months?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to speak up for UKTI. It does an incredibly important job linking British businesses with businesses the world over. One of the things that I have found in the past is that, while other Ministers visiting this country have always had a very clear list of the bilateral deals on which they have wanted to see progress and action, we in this country have not been as good at that. It is about time that we were, and I am making sure that that happens.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor has been promising international progress on the financial activities tax since way before the summer. Why did the Prime Minister fail to make more progress on that issue at the G20?

[The Prime Minister]

That issue is being discussed, but it is a difficult issue on which to get agreement from all G20, or even all EU, members. That is one reason we pushed ahead with the bank levy. The previous Government took the view that a bank levy could not be introduced until everyone agreed, but we would not have that revenue, and we would have to find it from somewhere else, if we had not taken the right, unilateral and brave action to put in place a bank levy.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming to Westminster today the large delegation of Indian chief executives, many of whom he met on his trip to India in July, who are here to discuss ways of deepening trade and investment ties between the UK and India?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a very impressive team of Indian CEOs, some of whom are here to discuss climate change, green-tech jobs and how we can exchange technology and investment between our economies. That is an incredibly promising agenda. We have a very good green-tech sector and a lot of expertise in technology, and many other countries—India, in particular, perhaps—would like to see that technology brought to bear in their own countries, which, again, means jobs for them, jobs for us.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Keeping the economies of low-income countries open is one thing, but growth is quite another. What agreements was the Prime Minister able to make on infrastructure investment for low-income countries?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

One of the things that we are able to do, by having an aid budget that is rapidly growing and meeting our 0.7% target, is to make infrastructure investments in developing countries, and we will go on doing that. It gives Britain some leverage in the world, because you are able to look around that table and ask others to step up to the mark and meet the promises that they have made.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend think that this country might export more to China if more of us spoke Chinese? If so, does he think that the matter should be looked at in the education system?

[The Prime Minister]

I do. My hon. Friend is entirely right, and that is why the Education Secretary, who was on such robust form earlier, was in China with me, signing an agreement with the Chinese Government on the teaching of English in China, but also the teaching of Mandarin in our schools. It is extremely—[Interruption.] The Education Secretary speaks perfect English; I do not know what hon. Members are talking about. However, I think that the agreement is a very important step forward.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

For much of the past decade, Ireland was held up by Conservative Members as an example of the direction in which we should have been taking our economy. Now, because Ireland has followed a strategy that largely involves having the same medicine that the Prime Minister is recommending for this country, it is seeing markets questioning its economy, interest rates rising and confidence falling. What lessons has the Prime Minister learned from the situation in Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that the biggest lesson is that the Irish followed one key new Labour policy, which was to join the euro. Fortunately, new Labour did not have the courage and bravery to follow through its own manifesto and listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), who fought a very strong campaign to keep us out of the euro.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome the language in the communiqué on imbalances and the recognition that more needs to be done. Given the clear language in the communiqué and the support for dealing with deficits, can the Prime Minister think of any credible group that now opposes action on the deficit?

[The Prime Minister]

It is difficult to find a group that is against dealing with deficits. I think that even Cuba has now recognised that we need to take action—and that is the point. The G20 is united in the fact that we need to deal quickly with large and excessive deficits. That was the conversation around the table, and that is what is in the communiqué. There is only one group of people I can think of who would have been in the deficit denial corner: the Labour party.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

On aid, does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as the altruistic aim, there is also self-interest, both in reducing the number of lawless places in the world and increasing gross world product, which benefits everybody? Does he agree that in these difficult times the case must be made repeatedly to the public that such investments are perfectly rational, when well-targeted and, crucially, when the G20 is acting in concert?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. We have to make this argument, because there is no doubt that a lot of people in our country look at a growing aid budget and think that that is money not well spent; they think that that money should be spent elsewhere. We have to make the argument that this is not just a moral argument about relieving poverty in the poorest parts of the world; it is also about avoiding conflict and about investing money upstream so that we do not end up with the Afghanistans and other broken countries. When we look at places such as Yemen and Somalia, it is quite clear that we need to have active aid programmes to try to help stitch those countries back together before we reach more serious problems.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The House will have admired the Prime Minister’s evasive action on the issue of Ireland. He must be aware that it was the very strong view of the previous Government that we should not go into the euro and we were successful in that respect. What lessons, apart from that, can he now draw from the Irish situation? The Irish have been exemplary in every respect in pursuing the course that he has embarked on, and they have ended up in the mess they are in at the moment.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not want to make life difficult for the Irish at a time when they are trying to take difficult decisions about their own economy. However, they had a consumer boom, a property boom and badly regulated banks—some of the mistakes made by the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was briefly a member—and they added to that the issue of euro membership. I always think that the great lesson from the exchange rate mechanism is that the euro is the exchange rate mechanism without an exit, and that is the problem.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Assembly of Western European Union (UK Delegation)

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Assembly of Western European Union is as follows:

Robert Walter MP (Leader)