National Security Vetting

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

National security vetting is a critically important control for protecting UK interests. It is important for our domestic security, for the protection of sensitive information, and for the protection of critical sites and individuals assessed to be at risk from terrorism. It facilitates information sharing with international partners, and defence and intelligence co-operation.

Vetting arrangements should be as transparent as national security considerations allow. Consequently, a copy of “HMG Personnel Security Controls” has been placed in the Library. This describes the vetting checks that may be made in order to safeguard national security. It describes a renewed emphasis upon a proportionate approach to vetting in terms of the application and decision-making process, to ensure that vulnerabilities are properly managed, subjective judgments are not made, and grievances can be heard. This statement replaces the Statement of Vetting Policy made on 15 December 1994, Official Report, columns 764-766W.

Intelligence-Gathering Techniques

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The annual reports of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Christopher Rose, (HC 168), the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Paul Kennedy, (HC 341), and the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Peter Gibson, (HC 342) have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament.

There is, rightly, a considerable level of public interest in the use by public authorities of covert intelligence-gathering techniques. The Government are committed to ensuring that public authorities only use these powers when it is necessary and proportionate to do so. The commissioners play an important role in monitoring the use of these powers by public authorities, and ensuring compliance.

It is regrettable that systematic failings have been noted by the Interception of Communications Commissioner in some prison establishments, and that a small number of errors have occurred elsewhere. As the commissioners themselves make clear, the details of these incidents cannot be disclosed publicly for security reasons. Following the practice of many years, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Northern Ireland and Defence have been provided by the commissioners with a detailed description of and explanation for these errors. The Government are satisfied that appropriate action has been taken to address these failings.

I extend my thanks to Sir Christopher, Sir Paul and Sir Peter, and to their staff, for their work on these reports.

Machinery of Government Changes

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Three Machinery of Government changes are being announced today affecting the responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency in England; responsibility for Directgov; and responsibility for the Licensing Act 2003. Legislation to give full effect to some of these changes will be brought forward in due course.

Food Standards Agency in England

The Government recognise the important role of the Food Standards Agency in England, which will continue to be responsible for food safety. The Food Standards Agency will remain a non-ministerial department reporting to Parliament through Health Ministers.

In England, nutrition policy will become a responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health. Food labelling and food composition policy, where not related to food safety, will become a responsibility of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Directgov

Responsibility for Directgov will transfer from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

The Licensing Act 2003

Responsibility for the Licensing Act 2003, except in relation to regulated entertainment, will transfer from the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to the Home Secretary.

Further details of these changes, and other recent significant changes, will be published in due course and copies will be placed in the House Libraries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 July.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to our soldiers who have died in Afghanistan over the last week. They are Bombardier Samuel Robinson, 5th Regiment Royal Artillery; Marine David Hart, 40 Commando Royal Marines; and a Marine from 40 Commando who died yesterday. We also pay tribute to the three soldiers from 1st Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles who lost their lives yesterday and to their comrades who were injured. We believe this incident was caused by the actions of an Afghan soldier betraying his Afghan and international comrades. I spoke to President Karzai about this issue yesterday, and a joint investigation by the Afghan authorities and international forces is under way, which will cover every aspect of the incident and the lessons to be learned from it.

I have to say that there should, however, be no knee-jerk reaction and no change in our strategy. We must continue to work with the Afghan army to create a stable Afghanistan able to maintain its own security and to prevent al-Qaeda from returning. At this very sad time, our thoughts should be with the families and friends of all these brave servicemen. What they do on our behalf is brave, courageous and shows their dedication and professionalism. It is right that we pay tribute to them.

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

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I would like to echo the warm words of the Prime Minister about our service personnel serving abroad.

Will the Prime Minister join me in praising One NorthEast and Redcar and Cleveland Labour council for helping develop a £600,000 regeneration plan for the market town of Guisborough in my constituency in order to help small business? Is it not the case, however, that for those who run small businesses, the Government’s VAT increase is the real jobs tax?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. I know he used to work for Ashok Kumar, who was widely liked and respected across the House of Commons. What we are doing to help small business is to cut the small business rate of corporation tax. We think that is the best help we can give. The future for small business will, of course, also be helped by our local enterprise partnerships, which we think will be much more focused, much more local and will deliver better than the regional development agencies they replace.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Loughborough university student union rag committee, which as well as providing many volunteers to local groups has this year raised more than any other rag in the country—more than £1 million, including raising £34,000 in one day for the Royal British Legion? Is not this an example of the big society in action?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right. Sometimes students can get a bad press for what they do, but we can see from the example of Loughborough that they have focused on doing things for other people and raising money for charity. They should be congratulated.

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

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Bombardier Samuel Robinson, 5th Regiment Royal Artillery; to Marine David Hart, 40 Commando Royal Marines; to the Marine from 40 Commando Royal Marines who died yesterday; and to the three soldiers from 1st Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles who lost their lives yesterday and those who were injured. Everyone will share the Prime Minister’s concern about what happened. It is right to have a thorough investigation, but as he said, we must not lose sight of the importance of the work our troops are doing in Afghanistan.

May I ask the Prime Minister about Northern Ireland? Although it is now highly unusual for people in Belfast to see such violence on their streets, everyone will be worried about the events of recent days. Will the Prime Minister update the House and tell us what discussions he has had with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? Although this is a devolved responsibility, will he join me in paying tribute to the professionalism and bravery of the men and women of the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join the right hon. and learned Lady in paying tribute to that police service. Anyone watching the pictures on our television screens last night could see how brave and how restrained the police were in the way that they dealt with behaviour that was, frankly, completely unacceptable. To update the House, last night was the third night of violence, the most serious of which was in the Ardoyne district in north Belfast. Over 80 police officers have been injured after being attacked with, for instance, petrol bombs, pipe bombs and bricks. The police came under fire on Sunday night, and shots were fired again last night. The police have been forced to retaliate with battle rounds and water cannons, but, as I have said, I think that anyone who watched what they did or who, like me, has had a briefing from David Ford, the Policing and Justice Minister, will know that they acted with real restraint.

I keep in touch regularly with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has been in Belfast as well, to ensure that everything that needs to be done is being done. As the right hon. and learned Lady knows, however, this is a devolved issue, and, having devolved policing and justice, we should allow David Ford and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to give the lead that they are indeed giving.

[Ms Harman]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his answer. I reiterate what I said earlier: we will continue to support and work with the Government in their efforts to ensure a peaceful future for all the people of Northern Ireland.

This week the Government published their White Paper on the national health service. They say that they will get rid of targets. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether patients will keep their guaranteed right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks of seeing their GP?

[The Prime Minister]

May I first make one further response on the Northern Ireland issue, with which I think everyone will agree? Now that we have a police service that is fully representative of the whole community in Northern Ireland, there is no excuse for anyone not to co-operate with that police force. We all know that in the end these things are not dealt with just by the police; they have to be dealt by the communities as well, working with the police to bring people to justice for completely unacceptable behaviour.

As for the NHS, what we have decided is that we will keep targets only when they actually contribute to clinical outcomes. We all want to see a higher cancer survival rate. I am afraid that, after 13 years of Labour government, we have not the best cancer outcomes in Europe, and we want the best cancer outcomes. That means rapid treatment, yes, but it also means rapid follow-up, and it means people getting the radiotherapy, chemotherapy and drugs that they need. Those are all essential. The one thing that we on this side of the House will do is continue to put real-terms increases into the NHS, whereas I understand that it is now Labour policy to cut the NHS.

[Ms Harman]

Quite apart from the anxiety of having to wait, results are best if treatment starts as soon as possible. That is why it is important to be diagnosed and to see a specialist quickly.

The Prime Minister has not answered the question. The whole House will have seen that. He has dodged the question, just as his Health Secretary did. This is what the Health Secretary said in the House when he, too, was dodging the question:

“I have not said that we are abandoning any of the cancer waiting-time targets at the moment”.—[Official Report, 29 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 698.]

I ask the Prime Minister to give us a straight answer. Will cancer patients keep their guarantee to see a specialist within two weeks—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

For some people, two weeks is too long. That is the whole point. If a target contributes to good clinical outcomes, it stays; if it does not, it goes.

Now let the right hon. and learned Lady answer a question. Is it your policy—[Interruption.] I know that the right hon. and learned Lady is not involved in the leadership election, which basically involves sucking up to the trade unions, but she is capable of answering a question. Is it Labour policy to cut the NHS?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I hope that the right hon. and learned Lady will confine herself—as I know she will want to do—to her role, which is not to answer questions but to ask them.

[Ms Harman]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister has still not answered. He is obviously ditching the guarantee for cancer patients, but he has not the guts to admit it to the House. Perhaps he can be more straightforward with this question. The White Paper says that his reorganisation of the NHS will mean extra up-front administration costs, but it does not give the figure. Surely he must know the figure. How much extra will it cost next year?

[The Prime Minister]

We are cutting £1 billion of administration from the NHS. We are cutting administration costs by 45% over the next Parliament. Obviously Labour Members cannot answer questions, because they have no answers, but perhaps it is not unfair to point out that they are now defending the bureaucracy of the NHS. We say that the primary care trusts and the strategic health authorities—all that additional bureaucracy—should go. We want the money to be spent on treatments, on patients, on doctors and on nurses. The right hon. and learned Lady is left defending the vast bureaucracy that saw the number of managers go up far faster than the number of nurses. Is that still Labour policy?

[Ms Harman]

The Prime Minister is talking about longer-term speculative savings, but he has not answered my question. It is no good him resorting to his usual ploy of asking me questions. I am asking about the real costs of his reorganisation next year—the very time when he says his priority will be cutting administration and cutting the deficit. The White Paper admits that there will be extra costs because of loss of productivity, staff relocation and redundancy. Does the Prime Minister stand by what he said just a few months ago about NHS reorganisations? He said:

“The disruption is terrible, the demoralisation worse—and the waste of money inexcusable.”

[The Prime Minister]

We are not reorganising the bureaucracy; we are scrapping the bureaucracy. Is it really Labour’s great new tactic that the right hon. and learned Lady will be left defending the bureaucracy of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities and all the quangos and all the bureaucrats, all of whom are paid vast salaries and huge pensions? Is that the new divide in British politics: they back the bureaucracy, we back the NHS? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) should calm himself. If he is trying to catch my eye, he has not got much chance at this rate.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Voluntary organisations and charities were not responsible for the banking crisis, nor for the financial crisis left by the last Labour Government. As we both value voluntary organisations and charities, will the Prime Minister discuss with his Treasury colleagues how the increase in VAT that those organisations have to pay can be refunded to them?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly have those conversations with the Treasury, and we will want to do everything we can to help what used to be called, rather condescendingly, the third sector but I believe is the first sector: the excellent charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises that do so much for our country. One thing we should do is look at funding them on the same basis as the Government fund themselves. The Government are always very generous with their own bureaucracy, and they need to recognise that so often these first sector organisations have the right answers to the social problems in our country.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Q2. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that firefighters and police officers, who we all rely on to undertake dangerous and physically demanding jobs, will retain the ability to retire and access their occupational pensions before reaching state pension age?

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to the House? I will look very carefully into what she says. As she knows, we have a review of pensions taking place, which is being carried out by the former Labour Minister, the former Member for Barrow and Furness, who has great expertise in this area. He will be making two reports, one before Christmas and another in the new year, where we can look at the issue of public sector pensions and try to reach some fair resolutions—and I think that is something all parties should be involved in.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister consider having another conference call with Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook, whose site is currently hosting the group “RIP Raoul Moat”, where a whole host of anti-police statements are posted? Can the Prime Minister have a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg about removing this group?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As far as I can see, it is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer—full stop, end of story—and I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man. There should be sympathy for his victims, and for the havoc he wreaked in that community; there should be no sympathy for him.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Q3. In 2005, the pupils of Joseph Leckie community technology college made a DVD depicting their crumbling school. The Labour Government gave them £6 million. Morally and legally their legitimate expectation was to have their funding continued, so please will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for Education to take some time out from his “I am sorry” tour of the country to meet me in Walsall South and explain his decision—the fifth version—to Joseph Leckie school, and also to Alumwell business and enterprise college?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be happy to meet the hon. Lady, whom we should all welcome to this House. Presumably, she has come here to keep an eye on her brother and to see what he has been up to. Let me just say this about the apology tour. I think there is something quite refreshing about a Minister who makes a mistake, comes to the Dispatch Box and makes an apology. [Interruption.] They have got their hands in the air—the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) has got his hand in the air. Can anyone put their hand up if they ever remember him apologising for anything, ever? He can start by apologising for the fact that for the last three years, he has been telling us that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) is actually the best thing since white sliced bread, and now we are being told that he is mad, bad and dangerous.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

The BBC Trust has described BBC 1 and BBC 2 as boring. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gaiety of the nation would be immeasurably enhanced by the televising of a 17-part psychodrama called “New Labour”, with Lord Mandelson playing himself?

[The Prime Minister]

I think—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Much as it might be fascinating to hear the Prime Minister’s reply, I do not think it is a matter of Government responsibility at all.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Q4. Taking account of the measures in the Budget and the briefing the Prime Minister has received from the Treasury, does he believe that unemployment in the north of England in 12 months’ time will be higher or lower?

[The Prime Minister]

What you can see from the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast is that, according to it, there will be a fall in unemployment in every year during this Parliament. That is because, like others—like the OECD, which made it so clear yesterday that the Budget is courageous, responsible and right—we are putting this country back on the path to prosperity from the complete picture of ruin that the last Government left.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Q5. Thanks to the massive deficit left by Labour, all but two departmental budgets are to be cut by between 25% and 40%. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether we are about to see a 40% reduction in the funding sent to Brussels, and is the European budget also to be cut?

[The Prime Minister]

It is very true to say that all international organisations have to recognise that, as we make painful budget reductions in this country, they should be looking to their budgets also. I have to say that one thing we will not be doing is giving up part of the rebate for absolutely nothing in return, which is what Labour did.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Phase 2 of the Ministry of Defence strategic defence review is currently reporting back. Under consideration for closure and cutback in Scotland are two of three airbases, the only Royal Marine base in the country, minesweepers on the Clyde and aircraft carrier contracts—and that is before we even get to the Army. We expect regimental and battalion amalgamations and the remaining command functions at Cragiehall to go, and there is also the question of the future of Fort George and the Territorial Army network. Does the Prime Minister not understand that this is a wholesale destruction of conventional defence capability in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, we have to have a defence review, as the Opposition recognise. I always find the position of the Scottish National party on this quite confusing. I did not think that the SNP was in favour of having a British Army, a Royal Air Force or the British Navy. Perhaps if the policy has changed—[Interruption.] What we will be having is a defence review, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to make a submission to it he is very welcome to do so. I am sure it will be taken extremely seriously.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Q6. As far as I am aware, it is not standard practice in the public sector for workers to fund and equip their offices out of their own pockets, and then to negotiate a bureaucratic obstacle course in order to get the money back—if they are lucky. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks this a good system for Members of Parliament, or whether it is undermining efforts of MPs in all parts of this House, who want to offer a good service to their constituents?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend asks a popular and well-placed question—[Interruption.] I will answer him seriously; I think it is important. What we wanted to have and what is necessary is a properly transparent system, a system with proper rules and limits which the public would have confidence in, but what we do not need is an overly bureaucratic and very costly system. I think all those in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority need to get a grip of what they are doing, and get a grip of it very fast.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

May I, along with my colleagues on these Benches, pay tribute to those who have lost their lives in recent days in Afghanistan—I join the Prime Minister in that—and to the police officers in Belfast who have been injured? May I specifically mention a Gurkha who lived in my constituency and was killed, tragically, over the past days? I visited his home last night, speaking at length to his family and, in particular, his father. They were very proud of the fact that he had achieved so much in his short life. His ambition was to be an officer with the Gurkhas. He was commissioned this year, he went to Afghanistan in March and he died in July. Can the Prime Minister assure this House that whatever investigation is held will be thorough and that details will be given to the family? May I say in closing that this House will know that, when it comes to the Crown forces, young men and women of Northern Ireland have never been found wanting? Today, we have lost another son and we hope it is the last.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman pays a very eloquent tribute to his constituent. He is right to say that we need an inquiry that gets to the bottom of what happened in this tragic, although I believe isolated, case. There is nothing you can say to parents who have lost a child that will help with the sense of grief and loss; there is nothing you can do. But it is important that they get the information to try to help achieve some sort of closure on what has happened. That is one of the many reasons why this review will be so important. Let me just say that there are now about 5,000 British troops that are fully partnered with Afghan forces, working together day and night. When we hear their stories about how well they are working together it does gives us hope that we are building an Afghan army that we will be able to hand over to. We must not lose sight of that, in spite of all the difficulties.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Q7. Three years ago, the Conservative council in my constituency recognised the need for a new primary school. It identified the site and, having sorted out the financial mess that the Labour council had left before it, committed the funding. Despite being left the funds, the Labour council leader is now publicly failing to commit to building this school. Does the Prime Minister agree that my constituents should conclude that this is the reality: the Labour party is saying one thing and doing another, and is endangering schoolchildren’s education?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes not only an important local point, but a very important national point, which is that Building Schools for the Future did nothing for primary schools. There is actually a growing problem of a shortage of primary school places, which was not being addressed by the previous Government but which will be addressed by this Government.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

Q8. The Prime Minister will be aware of members of his own party using parliamentary rules to try to undermine the national minimum wage. Can he, here and now, dedicate himself to maintaining the national minimum wage, not only ensuring its support, but ensuring that it increases in line with inflation in the years to come?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We support the national minimum wage, we support its regular updating and that is one of the many good things set out in our coalition agreement.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Q9. In south Acton, the Acton Community Forum is piloting an extremely good scheme called “Generations Together”, which is all about encouraging each generation to pass on its own skill sets to each other; basically, it is about getting the community to help itself. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is an excellent example of what the big society is all about?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. I have to say to Labour Members, who sort of sigh every time an hon. Member actually mentions a worthwhile charity, voluntary body or project that is doing something in their communities, that we are going to change the way we do politics in this country. Instead of endlessly talking about the money that goes in, let us talk about the outcomes that come out. I think that that is a better way of doing things.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Q10. I am delighted to report that GCSE pass rates have doubled in Westminster in recent years and four brand-new schools have opened. This week, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that he was “terrified” of his children attending a local school. May I ask him to swallow his fear and instead join me in acknowledging the enormous progress that has been made, particularly in London’s secondary schools, in recent years?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to say that my children attend a local school in Conservative-controlled Kensington and the other part of her constituency, Conservative-controlled Westminster. Of course there are good schools in London and of course progress is being made, but like any parent looking at the state of secondary education, you want to know that there are going to be really good schools, really good choice and a diversity of provision. That is what we are going to ensure and I hope that the hon. Lady will vote for it when the time comes.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Is the Prime Minister aware that I and colleagues had the privilege of a visit this week from the Royal Anglian Regiment. Will he join us in thanking them for their amazing professionalism and for the work that they do for us?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly do that. The regiment’s members have served in Afghanistan on a number of occasions and on one occasion I met them in Helmand province and heard them speak about some of the incredibly difficult decisions that they had to take and some of the very brave things they had done. We should recognise that we have been in Afghanistan in one form or another since 2001. Many soldiers are going back again and again. That puts pressure on them and on their families and it just means that we need to redouble everything we do to support their families and our brave servicemen and women.

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

Q11. Dr Kieran Breen, the director of Parkinson’s UK, has been on the BBC this morning discussing the start of a clinical study in Oxford using skin cells. All of us in this House want to see ongoing research into finding answers to degenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that despite the global economic conditions this Government will not cut back on their funding for medical research?

[The Prime Minister]

No one wants to see reductions in those programmes—they are very important—but, like everything else there is a comprehensive spending review—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members making that point—whoever was standing here right now would have to look at public spending programmes and make sense of them. I have to say that they should perhaps listen to the speech that the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary is going to make this afternoon. Quite rightly, he is going to say that fighting

“the cuts is a tempting slogan in opposition…But if that is all we are saying the conclusion will be drawn that we are wishing the problem away.”

We have a new problem in British politics. They are called “deficit-deniers” and I am looking at a whole row of them.

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

Q12. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case of Mr Nur and his family, who have moved into a £2,000 a week house in Kensington at taxpayers’ expense, is exactly the sort of thing that the coalition was elected to fight against?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The housing benefit situation, particularly in central London, has got completely out of control. The idea that a family should be able to claim £2,000 a week for their house is an outrage for people who go to work every day, pay their taxes and try to do the right thing for their family. That is why we will cap housing benefit levels from April next year so that the maximum that can be claimed will be £400 a week for a property with more than four bedrooms. Many people on ordinary incomes will look even at that £400 and find it to be very generous help for people. Every penny of that comes out of hard-earned taxes.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Q13. The coalition agreement mentions rural fuel derogations. My constituents in the Outer Hebrides pay more fuel tax per litre than just about anybody in the UK. However, there is no mention of VAT in the coalition agreement, and that will affect road transportation. Is it not reasonable, surely, to ask for a rural fuel derogation before January, when the VAT rise comes in, in the interests of respect and fairness?

[The Prime Minister]

We are looking at the rural fuel issue and obviously the hon. Gentleman has a friend, as it were, in the Treasury in the Chief Secretary, who also has a large rural Scottish constituency. I know that the issue will be considered seriously and that discussions will be had. When we have something to say, we will come back and talk about it.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Q14. In the week of the NHS White Paper, will the Prime Minister resist calls—wherever they come from—to cut the NHS budget?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Yes, we have to take difficult decisions but, when we look at the NHS, we know that there are expensive drugs coming down the track, expensive treatments and an ageing population, and more children born with disabilities and living for longer. There are cost pressures on our NHS that mean that even small real-terms increases will be an heroic thing to achieve. I think that the Opposition have completely lost touch and lost their senses to think that you can somehow cut the NHS.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

As a former head teacher, I endorse the commitment given by the Prime Minister to improving discipline in schools and in education more widely. May I ask him what special measures he, as the Head of Government, plans to invoke in relation to his Education Secretary, who has failed to do his homework properly on five occasions in the past week?

[The Prime Minister]

In the week of the Mandelson memoirs—to get a lecture on ill discipline. We used to say that the Labour Government were dysfunctional and shambolic and that they were all at each other’s throats, but we were wrong—it was much, much worse than that.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

Q15. The Prime Minister will be aware that former Para and Teessider, Anthony Malone, has languished in an Afghan jail for more than two years and is still being held in lieu of payment of an outstanding debt. Given that his imprisonment is potentially in breach of international law, will the Prime Minister put pressure on the Afghan Government to secure Mr Malone’s release?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this case, which is worrying. I can assure him and Anthony Malone’s family and friends that the British embassy continues to raise this case with the Afghan authorities. The ambassador in Kabul has raised the case with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and we are in discussions at the moment with the Afghan Attorney-General about why Anthony Malone continues to be detained. If my hon. Friend keeps in touch with my office, we will keep in touch about developments in this case.

Treatment of Detainees

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the Royal Marine who died on Thursday, the soldier from the Royal Dragoon Guards who died yesterday, and the soldier from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment who died from wounds sustained in Afghanistan in Birmingham yesterday. We should constantly remember the service and the sacrifices made on our behalf by our armed forces and their families, keep them in our thoughts and prayers and thank them for what they do on our behalf.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our intelligence services and allegations made about the treatment of detainees. For the past few years, the reputation of our security services has been overshadowed by allegations about their involvement in the treatment of detainees held by other countries. Some of those detainees allege that they were mistreated by those countries. Other allegations have also been made about the UK’s involvement in the rendition of detainees in the aftermath of 9/11. Those allegations are not proven, but today we face a totally unacceptable situation. Our services are paralysed by paperwork as they try to defend themselves in lengthy court cases with uncertain rules. Our reputation as a country that believes in human rights, justice, fairness and the rule of law—indeed, much of what the services exist to protect—risks being tarnished. Public confidence is being eroded, with people doubting the ability of our services to protect us and questioning the rules under which they operate. And terrorists and extremists are able to exploit those allegations for their own propaganda.

I myself, the Deputy Prime Minister and the coalition Government all believe that it is time to clear up this matter once and for all, so today I want to set out how we will deal with the problems of the past, how we will sort out the future and, crucially, how we can make sure that the security services are able to get on and do their job to keep us safe. But first, let us be clear about the work that they do. I believe that we have the finest intelligence services in the world. In the past, it was the intelligence services that cracked the secrets of Enigma and helped deliver victory in world war two. They recruited Russian spies such as Gordievsky and Mitrokhin, and kept Britain safe in the cold war. They helped disrupt the Provisional IRA in the 1980s and 1990s.

Today, these tremendous acts of bravery continue. Every day, intelligence officers track terrorist threats and disrupt plots. They prevent the world’s most dangerous weapons from falling into the hands of the world’s most dangerous states. And they give our forces in Afghanistan the information that they need to take key decisions. They do this without any public—or, often, even private—recognition, and despite the massive personal risks to their safety.

We should never forget that some officers have died for this country. Their names are not known; their loved ones must mourn in secret. The service that they have given to our country is not publicly recognised. We owe them, and every intelligence officer in our country, an enormous debt of gratitude. As Minister for the intelligence services, I am determined to do everything possible to help them get on with the job that they trained to do and that we desperately need them to do.

However, to do that, we need to resolve the issues of the past. While there is no evidence that any British officer was directly engaged in torture in the aftermath of 9/11, there are questions over the degree to which British officers were working with foreign security services who were treating detainees in ways they should not have done. About a dozen cases have been brought in court about the actions of UK personnel—including, for example, that since 9/11 they may have witnessed mistreatment such as the use of hoods and shackles. This has led to accusations that Britain may have been complicit in the mistreatment of detainees. The longer these questions remain unanswered, the bigger will grow the stain on our reputation as a country that believes in freedom, fairness and human rights.

That is why I am determined to get to the bottom of what happened. The intelligence services are also keen publicly to establish their principles and integrity. So we will have a single, authoritative examination of all these issues. We cannot start that inquiry while criminal investigations are ongoing, and it is not feasible to start it while so many civil law suits remain unresolved. So we want to do everything that we can to help that process along. That is why we are committed to mediation with those who have brought civil claims about their detention in Guantanamo. And wherever appropriate, we will offer compensation.

As soon as we have made enough progress, an independent inquiry, led by a judge, will be held. It will look at whether Britain was implicated in the improper treatment of detainees, held by other countries, that may have occurred in the aftermath of 9/11. The inquiry will need to look at the relevant Government Departments and intelligence services. Should we have realised sooner that what foreign agencies were doing may have been unacceptable and that we should not have been associated with it? Did we allow our own high standards to slip, either systemically or individually? Did we give clear enough guidance to officers in the field? Was information flowing quickly enough from officers on the ground to the intelligence services and then on to Ministers, so that we knew what was going on and what our response should have been?

We should not be for one moment naive or starry-eyed about the circumstances under which our security services were working in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. There was a real danger that terrorists could get their hands on a dirty bomb, chemical or biological weapons, or even worse. Threat levels had been transformed. The urgency with which we needed to protect our citizens was pressing. But let me state clearly that we need to know the answers, if things went wrong, why, and what we must do to uphold the standards that people expect. I have asked the right hon. Sir Peter Gibson, former senior Court of Appeal judge and currently the statutory commissioner for the intelligence services, to lead the inquiry. The three-member inquiry team will also include Dame Janet Paraskeva, head of the Civil Service Commissioners, and Peter Riddell, former journalist and senior fellow at the Institute for Government.

I have today made public a letter to the inquiry chair setting out what the inquiry will cover, so Sir Peter Gibson can finalise the details with us before it starts. We hope that it will start before the end of this year and report within a year. This inquiry cannot and will not be costly or open-ended; that would serve neither the interests of justice nor national security. Neither can it be a full public inquiry. Of course, some of its hearings will be in public. However, we must be realistic; inquiries into our intelligence services are not like other inquiries. Some information must be kept secret—information about sources, capabilities and partnerships. Let us be frank: it is not possible to have a full public inquiry into something that is meant to be secret. So any intelligence material provided to the inquiry panel will not be made public, and nor will intelligence officers be asked to give evidence in public.

But that does not mean we cannot get to the bottom of what happened. The inquiry will be able to look at all the information relevant to its work, including secret information; it will have access to all relevant Government papers, including those held by the intelligence services; and it will be able to take evidence—in public—including from those who have brought accusations against the Government, and their representatives and interest groups. Importantly, the head of the civil service and the intelligence services will ensure that the inquiry gets the full co-operation it needs from Departments and agencies. So I am confident the inquiry will reach an authoritative view on the actions of the state and our services, and make proper recommendations for the future.

Just as we are determined to resolve the problems of the past, so we are determined to have greater clarity about what is and what is not acceptable in the future. That is why today we are also publishing the guidance issued to intelligence and military personnel on how to deal with detainees held by other countries. The previous Government had promised to do this, but did not, and we are doing it today. It makes clear the following: first, our services must never take any action where they know or believe that torture will occur; secondly, if they become aware of abuses by other countries, they should report it to the UK Government so we can try to stop it; and thirdly, in cases where our services believe that there may be information crucial to saving lives but where there may also be a serious risk of mistreatment, it is for Ministers, rightly, to determine the action, if any, that our services should take. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Defence Secretary have also today laid in the House further information about their roles in those difficult cases.

There is something else we have to address, and that is how court cases deal with intelligence information. Today, there are serious problems. The services cannot disclose anything that is secret in order to defend themselves in court with confidence that that information will be protected. There are also doubts about our ability to protect the secrets of our allies and stop them ending up in the public domain. This has strained some of our oldest and most important security partnerships in the world—in particular, that with America. Hon. Members should not underestimate the vast two-way benefit this US-UK relationship has brought in disrupting terrorist plots and saving lives.

So we need to deal with these problems. We hope that the Supreme Court will provide further clarity on the underlying law within the next few months. And next year, we will publish a Green Paper which will set out our proposals for how intelligence is treated in the full range of judicial proceedings, including addressing the concerns of our allies. In this process, the Government will seek the views of the cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee. I can announce today that I have appointed my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) as the Chair of that Committee for the duration of this Parliament.

As we meet in the relative safety of this House today, let us not forget this: as we speak, al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen are meeting in secret to plot attacks against us; terrorists are preparing to attack our forces in Afghanistan; the Real IRA is planning its next strike against security forces in Northern Ireland; and rogue regimes are still trying to acquire nuclear weapons. At the same time, men and women, young and old, all of them loyal and dedicated, are getting ready to work again around the world. They will be meeting sources, translating documents, listening in on conversations, replaying CCTV footage, installing cameras, following terrorists—all to keep us safe from these threats. We cannot have their work impeded by these allegations, and we need to restore Britain’s moral leadership in the world. That is why we are determined to clear things up, and why I commend this statement to the House.

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

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the Royal Marine who died on Thursday, the soldier from the Royal Dragoon Guards who died yesterday, and the soldier from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, who died from wounds sustained in Afghanistan yesterday? Our thoughts are with their grieving families.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement. The use of torture is morally abhorrent and has no place in this country or in any civilised society. It is against our law in this country, and indeed it is one of only a small number of offences that can be brought to court in this country no matter where in the world the offence was committed. It is a grave crime against humanity, and its prohibition is embodied in international law. There must be no hiding place for those who practise it and no excuse for those who turn a blind eye to it. The United Kingdom should always be at the forefront of international efforts to detect and expose torture and to bring those responsible for it to justice. To play our part in leading the world, we must lead by example.

I reiterate our condemnation of the US Guantanamo detention centre. It is clearly in breach of the law, which is why it is not on the US mainland and why we made great efforts to secure the release of British nationals and British residents from Guantanamo—the only country that successfully brought back its citizens. With our having secured the release of all our citizens and all but one of our residents, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is continuing the efforts that we made to bring back the final remaining British resident who is still detained?

May I agree with the Prime Minister that it is right that anyone who takes part in or aids and abets torture is criminally liable and must be accountable for their actions and responsible to the criminal courts? There is, of course, a criminal investigation under way, which was referred to the police by the then Attorney-General Baroness Scotland. Will the Prime Minister confirm that that investigation will proceed to its conclusion independently and unimpeded?

I agree with the Prime Minister that it is right that we have proper accountability for our security services, and I reaffirm our support in that respect for the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I welcome his appointment of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) to chair the committee. He will undertake that important work with the integrity and commitment for which he is respected in all parts of the House, ensuring that the ISC plays its part in the strong framework of accountability that includes accountability to Ministers; to the heads of the agencies; to the two commissioners for the intelligence services, both retired High Court judges; to the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Carlile, to whom I also pay tribute; and to the courts.

I welcome the publication today of consolidated guidance for intelligence officers and the military on the questioning of suspects held overseas. That was a complex process, which we committed to and was under way, so we are pleased that it has been completed with publication today.

I hope that the administrative inquiry led by Sir Peter Gibson, who is one of the Intelligence Services Commissioners, which the Prime Minister has announced today, will help bring the matter to a conclusion. Can he tell the House a bit more about the terms under which the inquiry will be conducted? What will it be able to do that the Intelligence and Security Committee is not able to do? Will the inquiry have extra powers that the ISC does not have, and if so, what?

The Prime Minister has told the House that the inquiry will be able to have some of its hearings in public; the ISC, of course, can do that. He has told the House that the inquiry will be able to look at all the information relevant to its work, including secret information. As I understand it, that is the case with the ISC. He says that it will have access to all relevant Government papers, including those held by the intelligence services, and I very much hope that that will be the case for the ISC. He also says that it will be able to take evidence in public, including from those who have brought accusations against the Government and their representatives and interest groups. That is, of course, the case with the ISC too. He concluded that the inquiry would have the full co-operation of the civil service and intelligence services, and of course we hope that that is always the case with the ISC.

The Prime Minister has confirmed that concluding the question of criminal responsibility will take precedence, and that the administrative inquiry will start only when the criminal investigation and any proceedings thereafter are concluded. As he said, there are currently under way a number of cases in the civil courts in which former detainees are taking action against members of the security services. Can he clarify more specifically the effect of the mediation in advance of the administrative inquiry on these cases? Can he confirm that those cases will not be superseded by the inquiry, which would need the consent of the plaintiffs and any future plaintiffs? Can he clarify the circumstances in which compensation might be awarded if the courts ultimately found that there was no liability?

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the importance of the Human Rights Act 1998, which enshrines in British law the European convention on human rights and the protections that article 3 affords:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”?

Will he affirm to the House today his support for the Human Rights Act, which ensures that, when there is a breach of human rights, including the right not to be tortured, the victim can take action in our courts rather than spending up to seven years taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg? Will he reaffirm that it is never right for us to deport from this country those who would face torture in their home country?

I invite the Prime Minister to reaffirm the UK’s support for the work of the United Nations to end torture, including the convention against torture and the 2002 optional protocol, which establishes an international system of inspections for places of detention.

So that the security services can proceed with their important work to protect this country, with all inquiries concluded, will the Prime Minister confirm how long he expects the inquiry to take from when it starts work? He said that it would take no longer than a year. We hope that it can start as soon as possible, but will he explain how he believes that it will be able to start before the end of the year?

I endorse the Prime Minister’s support for the difficult and often dangerous work of our security services. The whole country has reason to be grateful to officers from all branches of the intelligence services for their fearless work throughout the world to keep this country safe.

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her response and questions? She is right to pay tribute to the security services. It is because we revere and respect what they do that we want to get on with the inquiry and get it done. To answer one of her questions, that is why it is limited to a year, and I hope that it gets started before the end of the year.

Let me deal with the questions in turn. I agree with the right hon. and learned Lady about torture—we have signed countless prohibitions against it, we do not condone it anywhere in the world, and we should be clear that information derived from it is useless. We should also be clear that we should not deport people to be tortured elsewhere, but we should redouble our efforts—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be doing that with the Home Secretary—to ensure that we can have guarantees from other countries so that we can deport people to them knowing that they will not be tortured.

On Guantanamo, we are making efforts on behalf of the case that the right hon. and learned Lady mentioned. As she probably knows, it involves a UK resident rather than a UK national.

On whether the current criminal case can continue unimpeded, yes, of course it can. It is a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities.

The right hon. and learned Lady made several points about the Intelligence and Security Committee. I thank her for her comments about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington. He will do an excellent job and it is an important committee. However, in answer to why there is an inquiry rather than the Intelligence and Security Committee doing the job, the inquiry will be led by a judge and will be fully independent of Parliament, party and Government. That is what we need to get to the bottom of the case. The fact that it is led by a judge will help ensure that we get it done properly. Although I have ultimate respect for the Intelligence and Security Committee, during the previous Parliament, there was such a run-around between the Government and the Committee—not about holding an inquiry, but about publishing the guidance—that I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Lady is taking the right line on that. It is much better to have a judge-led inquiry—[Interruption.] She has not taken a position, and I am pleased to hear that.

The right hon. and learned Lady asked why we should try to mediate civil cases. We want to clear the decks, get the inquiry done and sort out the problem, so why not try to mediate the existing civil cases, roll them up, deal with them, hold the inquiry, get to the bottom of what happened, and set out the guidance for the future so that we remove the stain on Britain’s reputation and ensure that our security services can get on with the work? I do not see an alternative; I think that the Government have gripped the matter quickly and comprehensively. I think that is the right answer so we can move on.

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

Anyone who has been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee would want to join in the tributes to all three services that the Prime Minister and the acting leader of the Labour party paid. The Prime Minister has struck a delicate balance between competing interests. Perhaps the most powerful reason for having a judge rather than the committee—apart from the volume of material that must be examined—is the primary need to ensure public confidence and an outcome that satisfies the public that everything has been done fully and impartially to get to the bottom of the allegations.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the way he puts that. Public confidence is essential and there are competing interests. I do not want to hide that from people. That is the reason for not having a full judicial inquiry. We want a judge-led inquiry, but at the same time, we need to have regard to the importance of the security services and their work, and to the fact that a lot of what they do must, by its very nature, remain secret.

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

The Prime Minister referred to his hope that the inquiry could be established by the end of the year if the mediation process leads to the court cases being removed from the equation. Is not that very naive? What possible incentive would people have to come to an agreement unless they are to be given very large amounts of money? At this time of public concern about the finances, will he clarify what he is proposing? How much money will be available, and what happens at the end of the year if people do not accept a mediation process? Does no inquiry start?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that what would be naive is to try to mediate in public, which he is inviting me to do. I do not think that that would be sensible. To try to answer his question as directly as I can, I think there are two things that those involved in such cases might want, one of which is compensation if they feel that they have been mistreated. Mediation can deal with that, but the second thing they might want, which the inquiry goes to, is some recognition of what went wrong—if something went wrong—and to know what we are going to do about it. Therefore, the two-stage process of the mediation and the inquiry is the right answer.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and in particular the warm and justified support that he gave to the intelligence services? In the previous Parliament, the Intelligence and Security Committee produced two reports, neither of which was published. The first was into the rendition and interrogation of Binyam Mohamed, and the second was into the guidance and treatment of detainees. Will he confirm that both reports will be made available to the inquiry? Will the guidance that he is publishing today be the same guidance that was in force for the past decade, or will it be the revised guidance to which the Home Office and Foreign Office were opposed until as recently as last April?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend served on that Committee and knows its work extremely well. To answer his questions, it is right that the reports to which he refers will be made available to the inquiry. The guidance we are publishing today is neither the past guidance nor the guidance the ISC looked at: it is indeed new, amalgamated guidance, which is public, and I urge him to read it. We are not publishing the ISC report from the previous Parliament on the last set of guidance, because that would be slightly misleading—it is a report into guidance that no longer exists. That is the right approach, and I ask him to look at the guidance to see what he thinks.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and in particular his support for, and reaffirmation of, the very brave work of the security services. He will be all too well aware of the likely impact of the inquiry on communities here in Britain, because of the events that it deals with. As the inquiry progresses, I ask him to be conscious of the need to explain, to be as transparent as possible, and to be aware of the impact on our communities here in Britain of some of the allegations that may be made in relation to events that occurred elsewhere.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady makes an extremely good point, and all right hon. and hon. Members can play their part. Different communities in our country will welcome what has been said today as an effort to get to the truth and the facts, and to find out what happened to make sure it cannot happen again. That will be welcomed, and I am sure she will be able to play her part in that.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. It was courageous and very thoughtful, and the inquiry is a huge step forward as it can draw a line under a sorry affair that has been eroding public confidence in our security services, which do such good work on our behalf. Will he clarify that the remit that will be given to the inquiry will be broad enough to encompass all allegations of complicity in rendition, including on rendition flights, the use of Diego Garcia and the transfer of prisoners in theatre?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can confirm that the inquiry will be able to look at all those issues, including rendition, extraordinary rendition and the case that my hon. Friend mentions involving Diego Garcia.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

As a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. What he proposes to deal with the past is correct and what he proposes for dealing with the future is correct. However, I have some concerns about the present. Before the inquiry is established, some cases will arise in which there may be some doubt about an issue that has arisen and the dangers to public safety in this country. Can he give the House an assurance that when ministerial involvement is necessary—and I accept that that is a good way forward—it will, in such cases, be dealt with speedily?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. All the published guidance in the world cannot deal with all the incredibly difficult circumstances in which our brave intelligence officers find themselves in different parts of the world. The guidance is there as guidance. It is as clear as it can be, but it is right that there are circumstances in which decisions are referred to Ministers. In the end, Ministers are accountable in Parliament and are able to make those decisions. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is a good one: if that happens, it may need to happen very speedily, and we will put in place arrangements so that that can happen.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister on coming to such a fast decision on this important issue and I support what he had to say today, including his commendation of our intelligence services. Will he reinforce what I think underpinned much of what he said, which was that this tribunal will be able to follow the evidence wherever it goes; that it will not only have access to people and papers, but to in camera court records that relate to this; and, when it comes to conclusions, it will be the decision of the tribunal, and the tribunal alone, as to what is published in the national interest?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those points and for his support on this issue. It was important to reach a speedy conclusion, because this has been hanging over us for too long. We are not dealing with issues that we have inherited from 2007, 2008 and 2009. These go back some way, to after 9/11, and it is important that we grip them. He asked whether the inquiry would be able to look at court records, and I am sure that the answer to that is yes. As for what will be made public, it will be for Sir Peter to draw up his report. He can follow the evidence exactly where it leads, he can look at secret documents and all the intelligence information, but the report will be to me—and in the end, as Prime Minister and Minister for the intelligence services, I have to make a decision about what should be put in the public domain. It is my intention to publish the report—that is what I want to do—but I have to have regard for what is in the national interest and in our security interest, and that is something that I will have to decide.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On the eve of the fifth anniversary of 7/7, no one in this House is likely for one moment to underestimate the acute terrorist threat, but is it not a matter of great concern that one of our most senior judges, the Master of the Rolls, said this year in court that British security officials

“appear to have a dubious record when it comes to human rights and coercive techniques”?

Did not experience in Northern Ireland over 30 years demonstrate time and again that torture only helps terrorism, and certainly does not help to undermine it?

[The Prime Minister]

There is no suggestion that British agents, officials or security service personnel were in any way involved directly in torture. It is important that we get it straight that that is not what is being said. The hon. Gentleman’s general point is right: we do not keep ourselves safe and secure—or promote the things in which we believe—if we drop our standards. We both served on the Home Affairs Committee that met in those difficult days straight after 9/11, and I remember—I am sure that he does, too—the great pressure there was on everybody to find out what was going to happen next. We should remember, as we carry out this inquiry, the pressures that were on security services across the world to try to prevent a repeat of those dreadful events.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Will the previous findings of the Intelligence and Security Committee on all these matters be, partly, the building blocks of the inquiry? Will the Prime Minister also concede that the test that he has rightly reserved to Ministers represents a classic moral dilemma, because while taking every possible step to ensure that Britain has in no way assisted or abetted torture, a decision has to be made on how to relate to the services of regimes whose conduct we do not trust, but who may hold information vital to the safety of the people of this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the previous ISC findings will be enormously helpful to the inquiry. However, let me try to clarify a bit further what Ministers would have to decide—although hon. Members can also read the guidance published today. It is not that Ministers would be consulted in cases of torture, because torture is ruled out completely. This difficult matter refers to cases of so-called mistreatment, of which there is no proper definition: it can range from things that we would probably consider to be torture, such as waterboarding, to factors such as an inappropriately sized cell. That is why there is some need, in the very difficult circumstances with which one of our agents could be faced, for that level of discretion. That is the sort of moment we have to try to consider and get right, and not be over-bureaucratic about.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the establishment of this inquiry and the appointment of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). The Prime Minister is right to praise the work of the security services, but will he also acknowledge the work done by the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism unit? Given that, as a distinguished former member of the Home Affairs Committee, he has accepted one of the Committee’s recommendations—the establishment of the National Security Council—will he consider the second recommendation in that area, which is for the Government to allow intercept evidence in court proceedings?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very keen on recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. Another of its excellent recommendations was a border police force. On intercept, we all, I think, want to see that happen. We all want more of those accused of terrorism to go through the court process, and to be tried, convicted and imprisoned—and intercept evidence would be hugely helpful. However, it is extremely difficult to do. One of the greatest enthusiasts in the last Parliament—apart from myself—for intercept evidence being available in court was the former Member for Folkestone, Michael Howard. He was on that Committee, but did not find a way to make this happen, so let us not overestimate how easy it is to do; it is not easy at all.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s approach. Does he agree that recent years have shown that targeted surveillance and intelligence are much more successful at defending a free society than an ever greater extension of guards, guns and gates? This is why his work is so important. We need intelligence services that command universal respect and get to the truth as quickly as possible.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. We need a robust and hard-nosed defence of our liberty, which means having security services that can work properly. That is why today’s announcement is important. However, we do not need what I would call ineffective authoritarianism, of which we had a bit too much under the previous regime—although I do not want to get political, as this is not a political day.

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

Holding the Executive to account is supposed to be the role of Parliament, not of judges or independent inquiries. Does the Prime Minister not think it about time, therefore, that the Intelligence and Security Committee was made a Committee of the House, appointed by the House, not one appointed by, and reporting to, him?

[The Prime Minister]

I have only been doing this job for a few weeks, and I am very happy to look at that issue. I know that it has been discussed before. Can we change the nature of the Intelligence and Security Committee? Can we help it to do its job even better? I am very happy to look at that. However, I do not think for a moment that we should believe that the ISC should be doing this piece of work. For public confidence, and for independence from Parliament, party and Government, it is right to have a judge-led inquiry. I say to Opposition Members who take a different view that these events relate to 2002-03. If the ISC was the right answer, why on earth did it not come up with it in the previous years?

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

The gathering of intelligence is not the same as the gathering of evidence: sometimes intelligence is required much more urgently and in a hostile environment. Could the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that after the inquiry is over, he will think very carefully before reintroducing any extra guidelines or regulations for our intelligence services that might prevent them from doing the job that they do so well at the moment?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend has experience of these issues and thinks about them a lot. All I would say is that there is no doubt that there are serious allegations about what happened in the past. I do not want to pre-empt the report, but one thing that it needs to do is ask how we stop such things happening in future. One way to stop them is by having better guidance, so that our security services have a clearer understanding of what is and is not acceptable. That is not easy, and inevitably some people will say that the guidance is quite bureaucratic. I totally accept and understand that, but we have to have some way of trying to prevent what happened from happening again.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister know how many civil cases there are, and what the position would be if claimants did not wish to go to arbitration?

[The Prime Minister]

There are about a dozen cases, as I understand it. Obviously it will be better if the mediation is successful, those cases are rolled up, and we then go into the inquiry. Clearly the police have a view that the inquiry should not start until the criminal case is completed. I would hope that the civil cases can be dealt with through mediation, but if they are not, we will have to come back and consider what is appropriate.

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

I commend the Prime Minister for his excellent statement, which I am sure will be greeted with some relief by the intelligence services, not least because he is standing by the control principle, which it is so important to restore—that is, the principle that intelligence lent to us by our allies should not be passed on, leaked or released through the courts, as has been happening, thereby damaging our intelligence relationships. Will he give an assurance that if it becomes necessary to amend the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998, he will not flinch from doing so in order to protect our relationships with our allies?

[The Prime Minister]

The intelligence services do welcome the statement today; obviously I have worked closely with them on this issue. From their perspective, what I have announced will not be without difficulties or a painful process of examination, but it will get them to a better situation—one in which we can deal with this stain on Britain’s reputation and allow their officers to get on with the vital work that they do. My hon. Friend is right about the control principle. It is a simple point: if other countries do not feel that we will protect the intelligence information that they give us, they will not give it to us any more—and if they do not give it to us any more, we will not be as effective at keeping people safe. The control principle is therefore vital, although I do not think that it has anything to do with the Human Rights Act. We shall address that matter next year, through a Green Paper that can be debated and discussed in the House, because it is not easy to find a way to protect secret information in an open liberal democracy, but we have got to do it.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, welcome the statement by the Prime Minister and pay tribute to the gallant, dangerous and largely unrecorded work of our security services, which has saved the lives of many individuals, including people in this House. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the inquiry is short and sharp, and is not allowed to drift beyond the remit that he has outlined in his statement today or sap the morale of our security services, which can be put down by inquiries that are largely used as propaganda tools by their enemies? On the judicial proceedings, will the Prime Minister ensure that, like the previous Administration, he will consult, and that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) consults Privy Council members from Northern Ireland on security and intelligence matters, so that their voice is heard on those points?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. As for the reassurances that he seeks from me, first he asked whether the inquiry would be short and sharp. The answer is yes: it is limited to a year. Do we want to make it clear that the inquiry will not sap the morale of intelligence officers? Absolutely: the purpose of getting on with the process within the first couple of months of a new Government is to try to clear this issue away. It is not easy and it will take some time, but it is better to start now, with an ordered process—the mediation, the public inquiry, the guidelines for the future—in order to try to put our security services and our safety on a much better footing.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

If the inquiry team believes that, for the sake of the credibility of the inquiry, intelligence material should be put into the public domain, and if it is safe to do so, can the Prime Minister confirm that he will allow that to happen?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very good question. The answer is that if it is safe to do so, yes of course. This is not some political witch hunt to get at Ministers from a previous Government; that is not what this is about. Likewise, it is not about trying to cover up bad things that might have happened. It is about trying to get to the bottom of what happened, to explain the context and to get the information out there. As the Minister for the intelligence services, however, I have to have regard to what it is safe to release, and that is a responsibility that I have to take very seriously.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware, from the general tenor of the questions this afternoon, that his statement is very welcome throughout the House? He is to be commended for it. Can he confirm that the 46 documents originating from the CIA—about which there has been a lot of discussion—will be made available not only to the inquiry but perhaps more widely as well?

[The Prime Minister]

The point is that the inquiry can follow the evidence wherever it leads—but let me be clear that it is not an inquiry into what the US authorities have done. It is an inquiry into what UK personnel may or may not have done. It is important that we get that straight. The stain, if you like, on the British situation is the allegations of complicity, and of what our personnel might have witnessed or in some way been complicit in. That is what we have to deal with. We are not trying to have some great inquiry into the practices and procedures of other intelligence services; that is not what the inquiry is about.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It will be even more warmly welcomed by Mrs Zineera Aamer and her children —the family of Shaker Aamer, the last UK resident in Guantanamo Bay. They are also my constituents. They are British citizens, and they have suffered greatly over the past eight years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it adds urgency to the case that, in the event of the inquiry deciding that it wants to take evidence from Mr Aamer, he should, ideally, be available to give it?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point on behalf of her constituents. As I said in my statement, there will be opportunities for public evidence to be given to the inquiry, including from those who are making allegations against UK personnel. It is important that that is available, but as I said, a lot of this inquiry will not be held in public, because of the nature of what it is investigating.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister and wish him well with the inquiry. I think that it is the fifth to have been set up since 9/11 and Iraq. If this one can bring some closure and draw a line, we would all be a lot happier. He made a point about mediation. Could part of that process involve encouraging certain gentlemen not to go out around the country supporting Islamists and jihadi principles and practices? That is a real problem. If they are free in our country, it is better that they do not encourage others to do things that are not very helpful.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman and I would probably agree on the need to confront and defeat those who put forward extremist Islamist arguments. That is something that we have to do for the good of our country and for the good of the world. He asked whether an inquiry could draw a line under all this. All I would say is that I do not think there has yet been a proper attempt to look systematically at the set of allegations about whether British personnel were in any way complicit because of the things that they witnessed or were involved in. That has not been done, and it needs to be done. I would ask people who disagree: what is the alternative? Do we really want to let the civil cases roll on year after year, and have the people in our security services jammed up with paperwork trying to fight them? It is much better to clear them away and get to the bottom of this, to ensure that those people can get on with the job that they do so well.

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

I think that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will understand the approach to mediation in some of the civil cases, but does the Prime Minister accept that the situation is a bit more controversial when it comes to compensation, particularly if no wrongdoing on the part of the security services has been proven? Will he therefore agree to having at least some level of transparency after these processes have been completed, perhaps by publishing the amounts of compensation involved—or at the very least by not exempting that information from the Freedom of Information Act 2000?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is a difficult process. Nobody wants to pay compensation that is not warranted. I would say two things to him, however. One is that it is getting increasingly difficult for the security services to defend themselves in the civil actions, because the information that they would use to defend themselves would then be made public. They do not want that to happen, so they do not bring the information forward and they cannot therefore win the case. The second thing that I would say to him is that the point about mediation is that it is a private process, and if we start advertising our mediation strategy—or, indeed, our mediation outcome—it is not necessarily going to make mediation very easy in future.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I, too, very much welcome the statement, and I find it extraordinary that, after the Labour years, a Conservative Prime Minister is making it. The Prime Minister says that he does not want to be political, but perhaps I can encourage him just a little bit. Given the Labour party’s refusal, when in government, to accept claims of torture, and its various attempts to try to make all this go away, does he not believe that former Ministers and Secretaries of States should appear before the inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

It will be a matter for the inquiry to decide who it wants to see as witnesses, and it will be able summon whoever it wants. Let me stress again that this is not some attempt to draw former Ministers into some great argument; that is not what it is about. If the inquiry wants to talk to Ministers to ask them what information made it, or did not make it, to their Departments, of course it can. Above all, this is a clear attempt to get to the bottom of what happened in those very difficult years in very difficult times when allegations were made which, as the hon. Gentleman says, need to be addressed. I am pleased that our new Government have set up what I think is the right process for doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for acknowledging dimensions of this issue that the previous Government either denied or dithered about. Does he also accept, however, that not all of us can join in the canonisation of the security services, because many of us believe that they were complicit in some of worst crimes carried out by both loyalists and republicans in Northern Ireland? Can the Prime Minister address the peculiar sequence that now seems to be in front of us: mediation, compensation, then investigation by this inquiry—and then, presumably, adjudication and publication thereafter? Might that not be a self-frustrating sequence?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope that it is not. We have spent some time looking at this issue, trying to find the right way to deal with it, and we think that mediation, followed by the judge-led inquiry, is the right way to get to the bottom of it. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the security services, I would ask him to take a wide view and look across the years, across the history and across what the security services do today—not just in Northern Ireland but right across our world—to help keep people in this country, and indeed in this House, safe. I think we should end on the note of paying tribute to those brave men and women—they are never known about, and some of them die in this cause and cannot be mourned properly by their families—and of thanking them for what they do on our behalf.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

G8 and G20 Summits

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8 and G20 summits which took place in Canada.

First, I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the seven British servicemen who have lost their lives in the last week: from 40 Commando Royal Marines, Sergeant Steven Darbyshire; from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, Colour Sergeant Martyn Horton, Private Douglas Halliday, and Private Alex Isaac; from the Yorkshire Regiment, Lance Corporal David Ramsden; and from the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, Bombardier Stephen Gilbert, who died from injuries he received in an explosion earlier this month; and we also remember the soldier from 101 Engineer Regiment who died yesterday. As the country marked Armed Forces day this weekend, people did so with tremendous pride but also with great sadness. We must never forget what these men, and so many of their colleagues, have given for us, and our thoughts should be with their friends and their families.

As I have said, I am determined that our forces will not stay in Afghanistan a day longer than necessary. I led a discussion at the G8 where we made it clear that we

“fully support the transition strategy adopted”

by international partners. We are not after a perfect Afghanistan—just a stable Afghanistan able to maintain its own security and prevent al-Qaeda from returning. So the G8 sent a collective signal that we want the Afghan security forces to

“assume increasing responsibility for security within five years.”

The presence of large-scale international forces cannot be an indefinite commitment. We need to get the job done and bring our troops back home.

Let me report to the House on the main conclusions of the G8 and G20. I have placed copies of the communiqués in the Library so that people can see the details of what was agreed. The G8 is a good forum for the leading democratic economies to give proper strategic consideration to the big foreign policy and security issues. It has also played a vital role in helping the richer nations to improve the future of the poorest people in our world.

In my view, those two vital functions of this forum should continue. I want to take each in turn. On the big security issues, we discussed the middle east peace process and agreed the importance of putting pressure on both sides to engage in the proximity talks, with the aim of creating the conditions for direct talks later this year. President Obama specifically said that he would make this his priority in the coming months. While the changes Israel have proposed are welcome, they do not go far enough, and the communiqué says that the current arrangements in Gaza

“are not sustainable and must be changed.”

On Iran, UN Security Council resolution 1929 was welcomed. The communiqué states that all countries should “implement it fully.” Since the G8 includes Russia, I believe that this was significant. The UK also made the case for all members of the G8 to have positive engagement with Turkey, which could have a key role to play both in resolving the Iran issue and in encouraging progress on middle east peace. We also discussed North Korea, deploring and condemning the sinking of the Cheonan, and the vital topics of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

On development, while the G8 has played an important role in increasing aid spending by the richest countries in the world, some of those countries have not met commitments that they set out. I stressed the importance of transparency and accountability, and the accountability report that has been published sets out what countries have done in meeting their commitments. While not perfect, it represents good progress in ensuring that countries cannot make promises without being held accountable for them and for failing to meet them.

Even at a time when our countries face difficult budget decisions, it is important that we maintain our commitment to helping the poorest in the world. The UK is maintaining its commitment to increase spending on aid to 0.7% of gross national income. That gives us the opportunity to exercise leadership on behalf of the poorest. At the same time, in order to take the public with us, we also need to ensure that every penny will reach those who need it most. That means transparency and accountability along the lines that we are introducing. It also means that the projects we support must be deliverable, practical and measurable, addressing the causes of poverty and not just alleviating the symptoms.

The Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health agreed at the G8 is a case in point. Today in the United Kingdom, the chances of dying in pregnancy and childbirth are 1 in 8,200. In parts of Africa they are as high as 1 in 7. That is something we can change and must change, and the resources agreed, including a big contribution from the UK, could lead to an additional 1.3 million lives being saved. As the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood points out, if we save the mother we save the family, and if we save the family, we build a stronger society and a stronger economy.

I turn to the G20, which is now clearly the right forum for all the leading economies of the world to discuss the vital economic issues. The key goal of the G20 is to continue the recovery of the world economy and secure sustainable growth. The argument proposed by some that deficit reduction and growth are mutually exclusive is, in my view, completely wrong. The whole approach underlined by the International Monetary Fund for this G20 and the subsequent meeting in Seoul is about how the world should maximise growth through the right combination of three things: deficit reduction; tackling imbalances, particularly through actions by emerging economies; and structural reform in the advanced economies. There was broad agreement on all three, which is reflected clearly in the communiqué.

On deficit reduction, the G20 agreed that

“those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation”

and that there was a risk that

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

The advanced G20 economies committed to at least halve current deficits by 2013 and stabilise Government debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016. While we agreed that the speed and timing of deficit reduction will vary with national circumstances, the verdict of the G20 was unequivocal: for countries with large deficits, the time to act is now. Britain has one of the largest deficits in the G20, and the summit specifically welcomed the plans set out in our Budget last week.

On addressing the fundamental imbalances, China’s recent decision to move towards greater exchange rate flexibility is clearly very welcome. On financial reform, the G20 agreed a set of principles on bank levies to ensure that the financial sector makes a

“fair and substantial contribution towards paying for any burdens associated with government interventions to repair the financial system”.

That is very much in line with the plans for a bank levy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget. On ensuring that the banks in all countries can withstand future crises, we also agreed that

“the amount of capital will be significantly higher and the quality of capital significantly improved”.

The new standards should be finalised by the Seoul summit in November. The Basel accord took 10 years; this looks like it could be completed in a little over one.

Although the drawing up of clear, robust new rules is essential, it is important that they are not implemented too quickly. We do not want a further monetary squeeze or a reduction in bank lending at this stage of the recovery. The biggest stimulus we could give the world economy today is the expansion of trade. While the G20’s agreement to extend its pledge that no additional trade barriers should be put in place is welcome, continued failure to make progress on Doha is deeply disappointing. It has now been eight years in negotiation, and frankly, there can be little confidence that as things stand the round will be completed rapidly. That is a tragedy, because a completed trade round could add $170 billion to the world economy.

The UK led the working session on this issue at the G20. One potential way of making progress is to try to add to the benefits of the round, including more things in it, so that all parties can see reasons for going that final mile. This was supported by President Obama, and the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, suggested that all trade negotiators should return to the table and consider, vitally, both what it is they really need from the round and what it is they are prepared to offer to get it moving again. This should lead to a report at the Seoul meeting in November. In my view, too many people still see this as a zero-sum game, where one country’s success in exports is somehow another country’s failure. This is nonsense: everyone can benefit from an increase in trade flows. We will play our part in breaking the logjam, and I want this country to lead the charge in making the case for growing trade flows around the world.

On climate change, while the G8 communiqué was strongly positive on limiting the rise in global temperatures to less than 2°, the G20 communiqué was more limited. This is partly because some countries do not see the G20 as the forum for discussing this issue. In discussions, it was also clear that there was widespread disappointment at the way that Copenhagen failed to deliver a legally binding global deal. We must not give up on this, and we will be playing our full part in pushing for a successful outcome at Cancun.

This long weekend of summitry was a good opportunity to build Britain’s bilateral relationships. Among others, I had useful meetings with President Obama, President Hu of China, Prime Minister Singh of India and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey. In building a very strong friendship with our leading European partners, I also suffered the exquisite agony of watching England lose 4-1 to Germany in the company of my good friend Chancellor Merkel and the German summit team. While I cannot recommend the experience of watching England lose football to Germany in the margins of a G20 summit, I do commend this statement to the House.

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

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the service personnel who have died in Afghanistan since we last addressed the House: from 40 Commando Royal Marines, Sergeant Steven Darbyshire; from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, Colour Sergeant Martyn Horton, Private Douglas Halliday and Private Alex Isaac; from the Yorkshire Regiment, Lance Corporal David Ramsden; from the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, Bombardier Stephen Gilbert; and the soldier from 101 Engineer Regiment who died yesterday. Our thoughts are with their families as we remember them and acknowledge the deep debt of gratitude we owe them.

May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? The G8 and G20 summits covered many issues of importance to the United Kingdom, not least the need to work internationally to sustain the UK economic recovery that began last year. The G20 declaration rightly identifies the G20’s

“achievements in addressing the global economic crisis”,

saying that the G20’s

“efforts to date have borne good results. Unprecedented and globally coordinated fiscal and monetary stimulus is playing a major role in helping to restore private demand and lending.”

Now that the Prime Minister has joined other G20 leaders in endorsing those pro-growth policies that have put the global economy back on the road to recovery, will he acknowledge the role of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), in shaping that approach and winning support for it at the G20, thereby laying the foundations for that recovery internationally and here at home?

Is it not inconsistent for the Prime Minister to sign up to this approach abroad while continuing to denigrate that approach here at home? We welcome the G20’s commitment to

“‘growth friendly’ fiscal consolidation plans”

and the target of halving deficits by 2013. Will he confirm that this target is entirely consistent with deficit reductions that the Office for Budget Responsibility showed would have been achieved by 2013 under our plans? Will he confirm that nothing in the G20 statement provides any justification whatever for his choice to cut the deficit further and faster? Indeed, is it not the case that only last week President Obama called on world leaders to

“learn from the consequential mistakes of the past when stimulus was too quickly withdrawn and resulted in renewed economic hardships”?

The G20 calls for growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, but how is it growth friendly to cut investment allowances for manufacturing firms, to scrap the regional development agencies and to cut back on investment in high-tech, export-oriented British firms such as Sheffield Forgemasters? How is it growth friendly for his Government to take an approach that the OBR says will cost 100,000 jobs?

With President Obama and major emerging economies, including India and Brazil, warning against the risk of Budget cuts too early and too deep, is it not clear that on the question of timing and content, the summit’s conclusions on deficit reduction amount to no more than an agreement to disagree? Given the risk of deflationary policies in the eurozone and the fact that growth forecasts in the United States have been revised downwards, is not weak demand the major threat to growth? Is it not the case that Government policy should still play a part in sustaining demand? Is it not clear, given that demand in our export markets again looks fragile, that the assumption of a 40% increase in UK exports, on which last week’s Budget plans were based, looks very optimistic? To which markets does the Prime Minister expect that 40% increase in exports to go?

The Opposition welcome the G8’s commitment to support the international security assistance force’s efforts in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister recognised in his statement, this will be a crucial year for Afghanistan, with the Kabul conference and elections in September. Because military effort must pave the way for, and go alongside, a political settlement in Afghanistan, will he update the House on preparations for the Kabul summit and Afghan elections?

Surely there is agreement on both sides of the House that we do not want our troops to stay in Afghanistan one day longer than necessary. We look forward to when the Afghan Government can guarantee their people’s stability and security, and thereby make us safer, as the Prime Minister has said previously. Will he therefore clarify his remarks on Afghanistan? He said:

“We can’t be there for another five years”.

Does the Prime Minister believe that that assists our troops in their task in Afghanistan? What effect does the Defence Secretary believe the Prime Minister’s comments will have on the morale of our troops fighting day by day on the ground in Afghanistan? Is it not the case that, as the Defence Secretary has said, setting artificial time scales is a very dangerous game to play?

May I now turn to the G8 approach to tackling global poverty? Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep frustration within the development community at what it sees as a major retreat by the G8 on its commitment to help the poorest? In particular, how can he, as one of the G8 leaders, justify the decision to drop the commitment of the 2005 Gleneagles summit to increase aid by $50 billion by 2010? That G8 commitment was hard won by the previous Labour Government. Is he aware that Save the Children called that “shameful”, and that Oxfam described the G8 statement as being

“lower than our lowest expectations”

on maternal mortality?

Writing on the eve of the summit, the Prime Minister said:

“Too often these international meetings fail to live up to the hype and promises made”,

but instead of strengthening the resolve of G8 leaders to deliver the promised action, he has allowed them to renege on their promises. Does that not reflect badly on his international leadership, for which the very poorest will pay a heavy price? Can the Prime Minister tell us how hard he tried to get the other world leaders to stick to, and deliver, the Gleneagles promises? He apparently told journalists that as

“the new kid on the block”,

he was focusing on a different aid target, namely the UN’s 2015 millennium development goals. Will the Prime Minister attend the key UN summit on the millennium development goals this September in New York? If he is not planning to do so, could he reconsider his decision in order to put the G8’s and the world’s efforts towards achieving the millennium development goals back on track?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her response.

We are preparing for the Kabul summit by having repeated conversations and meetings with President Karzai and others. I have met him twice since becoming Prime Minister, once here in the UK and once in Afghanistan, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend that important meeting.

The right hon. and learned Lady asked me to clarify the perfectly obvious statement that British troops should not be in Afghanistan in five years’ time. Let me put it to her the other way around. It was a Labour Government who took us into Helmand province in 2005. Is she really saying that 10 years later we should still be there? We want to get the job done, train up the Afghan army and police and bring our troops back home. She would be better advised to seek cross-party agreement on that than to take the position that she has chosen.

The right hon. and learned Lady then made some remarks about global poverty. Of course I deplore the fact that some G8 members have not stuck to the promises that they made at Gleneagles in 2005, but the slippage that she was trying to blame on the new Government took place between 2005 and 2010. The person to whom she wanted me to pay tribute—I would be delighted if he could be bothered to turn up to the House—was either Chancellor of the Exchequer or Prime Minister during that time.

The right hon. and learned Lady asked me to attend the UN summit on the millennium development goals in September in New York. I was intending to do so, but for reasons of paternal health—we have been talking about maternal health—I hope that I will be otherwise engaged in the UK, as we are having a baby. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be at the summit and doing a very good job.

The right hon. and learned Lady’s whole premise on which she based her argument about the G20, the need to tackle deficits and get growth is completely wrong. The whole point about the G20 is that if you combine fiscal consolidation in the countries that need it with expansion and dealing with the imbalances from emerging economies, you can maximise world growth. That is what it is about. She says that there is no case for going faster in those countries with excessive deficits—on the IMF figures we have the biggest deficit of all—but the Labour party is now completely isolated on this issue. The G20’s view is that

“it is clear that consolidation will need to begin in advanced economies in 2011, and earlier for countries experiencing significant fiscal challenges at present”—

and that is the UK. So the Labour party is isolated from the G20.

Let us see how Labour is getting on with the US. Tim Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary, said about the UK Budget:

“I think they’ve got the right balance, the right objectives and I think they’re demonstrating that again you have to act so that people can see you’re committed to follow through”.

So Labour is now isolated from the Americans. What about the Europeans? José Manuel Barroso, the President of the Commission, said in Toronto that there is no more room for deficit spending. So Labour is now isolated from the Europeans.

Let me end with the IMF, because that is where we would have ended up if that lot had stayed in power. The IMF was clear:

“In this regard, credible and coherent fiscal plans should be clearly communicated as soon as possible. There is a pressing need…for fiscal consolidation in G-20 advanced economies”.

If that is not done, it could, says the IMF,

“weigh on the recovery and raise market pressure in an environment of elevated uncertainty about sovereign debt risks.”

There we have it. Whether it is the US, the EU or the IMF—and I could add in the OECD—the Labour party is now completely and utterly isolated.

As for quoting President Obama, here is one I prepared earlier. He said that

“we have been very impressed with the leadership that David Cameron has shown thus far. He has, I think, taken a series of steps on some very tough issues and…is prepared to make…decisions on behalf of…his country.”

The right hon. and learned Lady’s attempt to claim that somehow we are not completely in tune with the US, the EU, the G20 and the IMF is an attack that simply is not going to take off.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

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

Is part of President Obama’s message to the leading industrial countries of continental Europe not to move too rapidly or too severely in cutting back on public expenditure or the money supply lest they precipitate a slump, as occurred in the case of Credit Anstaldt, as a result of applying similar policies, led by Germany?

[The Prime Minister]

The message is clear: countries that face big fiscal challenges have to address those challenges. Let me put it the other way around: for countries like us, with an 11% budget deficit, further fiscal action—or, indeed, no action—could lead to a serious problem with our economy. Where I agree with my hon. Friend is that when we tighten fiscal policy, as we should, that should be accompanied by a loose monetary policy. That is why I made the remarks that I did about the importance of not bringing in the banking rules too quickly, and why the Bank of England’s positive response to the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced is so encouraging. However, for Britain, the right measure, as the G20, the EU and the OECD say, is to deal with our deficit. If we do not, we could be in real danger.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I was going to congratulate the Prime Minister on his first foray into the G8 and G20, but he has already congratulated himself.

In his discussions with the Canadian Prime Minister, did they talk about the consequences for ordinary men and women of too rapid a deficit reduction and, in particular, the reduction in Canada in the late 1990s, when the environmental services budget in Ontario was cut by $200 million and the town of Walkerton experienced the most enormous impact, with disease and, regrettably, death from E. coli? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is not grandiose announcements but the consequences for people in their lives with which we need to be concerned?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and his probably justified rebuke, which was well put. However, at the risk of quoting another Prime Minister, Stephen Harper did say that the UK Budget

“highlighted the very fiscal consolidation that we’re trying to steer the G20 towards,”

so there was strong support from the Canadians for what we are doing here. As we do the difficult job of dealing with the record deficit that we inherited, we of course have to do everything that we can to protect the poorest and ensure that we stimulate regional growth, a subject that we will be talking about tomorrow. However, I keep returning to this point: not acting would be more serious for the UK economy and would lead to greater hardship for people.

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

By what criteria will it be judged that Afghanistan is sufficiently stable to allow us to withdraw our troops, and how long will it be before we are talking to the Taliban, as suggested over the weekend by General Sir David Richards?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me try to answer both those questions briefly. The way to judge progress in Afghanistan is in terms of the basic level of security, stability and governance. So in Helmand, for instance, as we see districts that are under good provincial governors, with lead Afghan control over security, that is the time when we can judge that the job is getting done, and there is some prospect of some of that happening this year. As for talking to Taliban, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts it, a process of reconciliation and reintegration is taking place, where Taliban who are prepared to stop fighting and accept the basic tenets of the Afghan constitution can be reintegrated back into society. That should happen. That political track, which runs alongside the training of the Afghan army and the military surge, is vital, and we need to push further and faster on it.

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

May I push the Prime Minister slightly harder on the issue of Afghanistan and talking to the Taliban? It is true, as he says, that those who want to lay down their arms can be welcomed back, but there may be many who are not, but who will nevertheless be required to do so, in the event of a political situation being arrived at, which all of us in this House know is the only eventual outcome for Afghanistan. There is a limited amount that the Prime Minister can say, but it would be good if he could reassure the House that, come the right moment and in the right way, the British Government will indicate their willingness to talk?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put his question. This is one of those things that it is better to get on and deal with, rather than endlessly theorising about it. There is a huge difference between that part of the insurgency that is linked to al-Qaeda and is extremist in its ideology, and what has become in some parts of Afghanistan an insurgency based on the way in which particular tribes have been dealt with or on particular local issues. There is a difference between the two, and we need to bear that in mind in this important political track that we have embarked on.

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

My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that none of us wants to stay in Afghanistan a moment longer than is necessary, but does he agree that we have to get our priorities right between leaving and succeeding? If our priority is to leave, that will make it harder to succeed, whereas if our priority is to succeed, that will make it easier to leave.

[The Prime Minister]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend on that. Transitioning provinces and districts to Afghan control should be done on the basis of the facts on the ground and the capacity that they have to do that, rather than on the basis of a timetable. Having said that, I do not see anything wrong with saying, “This is a task that has to take place over the coming years, but we should not be there, for instance, for five years.” That is a perfectly fair point to make—[Interruption.] I can hear chuntering from the Opposition. The last Government set quite a lot of interim short-term targets, and I think that is where the problems have come from.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of his statement. I associate the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru with the condolences that he expressed at the beginning of his statement. President Obama has set a timetable for beginning the draw-down of US troops from Afghanistan, as have the Canadian hosts of the G20. If that is right for the United States and for Canada, why is it wrong for the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a difference between what Canada has decided and what President Obama is undertaking. Canada has set a firm deadline for withdrawing all its troops from combat and other operations, and that date is firmly set in stone. President Obama has spoke about a review towards the end of this year and, from July 2011, he hopes to be drawing down the surge in troops that has taken place this year. That is very different from what the Canadians are discussing. We are part of that US surge. We surged our troop numbers, as the US did—albeit by less, but we still have around 10,000 in Helmand. We, too, should be looking at progress at the end of the year, and at that July 2011 date. However, I would rather give the House and the people of this country the certain knowledge that we are not going to be there in five years’ time in the role that we are now. Between now and then, however, let us try to deliver on the ground as best we can, and train up the Afghan national army and the police in order to deliver that security and bring our troops home. And let us do it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) suggested, on the basis of the facts on the ground.

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

I know that the Prime Minister wants the existing strategy to be given more time to succeed, but will he accept that, if it shows little sign of progress in the next few months, or even the next year or so, there should be an alternative to recommending total withdrawal? Total withdrawal would take us back to square one, and the existing strategy would mean our continuing to take excessive casualties. There has to be, and there could be, a middle way, and I hope that he will consider that if he sees that the present strategy is not moving in the direction that he would like to see.

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend is working hard on the middle way option, and that he is going to do further work on it. Of course I shall look carefully at what he produces. I would say to him that the surge in troop numbers has made a difference on the ground. In the parts of Afghanistan where previously it was impossible to step outside a military base, it is now possible to walk around the towns and visit the markets. I went to a training college, the last time I was in Helmand. The previous time, I went to a wheat seed distribution centre. Both times, I was able to have some freedom of movement. So there is some progress, and I think that this is the right strategy. We should use all that we have, this year, to give it every chance of success.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister prayed in aid the International Monetary Fund earlier, but he did not quote the IMF boss, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who has warned that fiscal retrenchment wrongly done would cost 60 million jobs globally. How many of those 60 million jobs will be lost among the world’s poor, and how many will be lost among the poor of this country?

[The Prime Minister]

I discussed that with the IMF over the weekend. Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s own interventions in the debate at the G20 were very strongly in favour of fiscal consolidation, particularly for the countries—such as Britain—with the largest budget deficits. I looked around that table at the G20. According to the IMF’s figures, our budget deficit, at over 11 per cent., is the biggest. The answer to the question “Do they mean us when they are talking about excessive deficits?” is “Yes, they do.”

The key point made by Dominique Strauss-Kahn and others is that this is a package. If we are to maximise world growth, which will bring more jobs and livelihoods, we need a combination of fiscal consolidation in the countries that require it and measures to deal both with the imbalances in the developing world and with the structural problems in the developed economies such as Germany’s. That is what needs to be done. Dominique Strauss-Kahn is recommending exactly the sort of action that we are taking here in this country.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

In the context of international development, the publication of the accountability report is very welcome, as is the specific commitment on maternal and child health. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that a commitment by the international community to a robust and specific process will be necessary in New York in September if we are to have any hope of achieving the millennium development goals by 2015?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need a process of continual checking up on the progress being made towards the MDGs. Now, in 2010, we are two thirds of the way towards the final point, and we should be doing better. We chose maternal and child health at the G8 because those are two of the goals that we are furthest from meeting.

I, too, welcome the document to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I encourage my colleagues to read it. While it is not perfect, it sets out pretty clearly on pages 15, 16 and 17 what countries promised to do and what they have done. That is progress. We have all sat here and heard reports of the great things achieved at G8 summits, but this document holds countries’ feet to the fire and asks, “Did you do what you promised to do? If you did not, you must think again.”

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is right to draw attention to the likelihood of deaths in pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa, but does he not think that the summit was a little bit complacent about the immediate and very serious problem of food shortages throughout that area, and the consequent large migration flows as people desperately seek somewhere to live and something to eat? Is there not a real sense of urgency when one in six of the world’s population are suffering from food shortages, the largest number in history?

[The Prime Minister]

I would not say that the summit was complacent. It was my first G8 summit, and I was struck by the fact that about half the sessions were opened up to visiting leaders from the African Union, Algeria, Egypt and elsewhere in Africa, so that they could keep reminding the richest countries in the world of what they had promised to do. The G8 cannot substitute for the work of the United Nations and other food programmes—it is not an emergency organisation—but I do not think that it is complacent about these challenges. At least, for the first time, it is checking up on itself a bit more, and that can only be a good thing.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Prime Minister Harper has reiterated his plans to start withdrawing Canadian troops from Afghanistan next year. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with Prime Minister Harper about retaining Canadian troops who are in non-combat roles, such as the medical teams and their air troop transport helicopter teams?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to ask that question. A discussion has been held. However, I think we should put on record the fact that no one can accuse Canada of not playing an incredibly positive role in NATO. It has experienced a very large number of casualties in relation to the size of its population. It has made its decision about 2011, and we should not seek in any way to gainsay it over that. Of course we can all do what we can to encourage it to go on playing a role of some kind, perhaps medical or related to training, and obviously it will play a role in terms of development. However, I think that my hon. Friend’s point was well made.

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

I realise that watching the football with Angela Merkel cannot have been much fun for the Prime Minister, not least because—I think—he was not even born in 1966, and therefore could not console himself with the memory of that achievement.

In his statement, the Prime Minister mentioned Turkey and its important role in relation to the middle east process in Iran. Has he had any discussions with fellow European heads of state about the fact that if we go on making it difficult for Turkey to accede to the European Union, it may well turn its back on Europe, in which case we will be the losers?

[The Prime Minister]

I have had those conversations at both the G8 and the G20. It is good that there is all-party agreement in this House that we should do everything we can to encourage Turkey into the European Union, to anchor her into the west in all the ways we can. Clearly there is a disagreement—a disagreement that is not going to go away—between France and Germany on the one hand and Britain on the other about Turkey and the EU, but irrespective of those positions we should all be doing what we can to encourage Turkey to feel part of Europe and of the direction we are taking. The role she can play in terms of Iran and the middle east peace process is very important, but she will not be so inclined to play that role if Europe turns her back.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that if we are to succeed in Afghanistan, we need unity of purpose. How concerned is he, therefore, by the resignation of General McChrystal and of key Ministers in President Karzai’s Government, and by the extended leave being taken by the UK special representative to Afghanistan?

[The Prime Minister]

On the issue of the Ministers resigning from President Karzai’s Government, he has put in place quite talented replacements. On the issue of Stanley McChrystal, he is a very talented general who we believe had delivered the right strategy. I was consulted on the issue twice by President Obama, but in the end it was about what General McChrystal had said about the US Administration in the interview in Rolling Stone magazine, so it was an issue between the US Administration and Stanley McChrystal, rather than necessarily a matter for me.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has had three international outings and he has acquitted himself very well; it would be churlish not to acknowledge that. Ahead of them, he wrote in the Financial Times on 17 June:

“It is shocking that…women still do not have equal rights in the workplace. This is not just unfair; it makes no sense—because it deprives our economies of their full potential as workers and consumers.”

Will he therefore agree, in this spirit of bipartisanship, that having the gender pay audits that have been suggested in both the public and private sectors would be a way of getting rid of that huge problem?

[The Prime Minister]

We have supported—and, indeed, before the election we put forward a case for—gender pay audits, particularly based on those companies where any unfairness is found. The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, quoting from my FT article, which is that that is one of the structural reforms that we in the west in the developed world should be carrying out in order to increase our growth rates, and as the right hon. Gentleman is being so friendly, I shall have to take away his thoughts and think about them again.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

Whether it be Afghanistan, the global economy or, indeed, tackling climate change, the G8 and G20 summits are becoming useful vehicles for tackling global issues, but they make decisions that are then passed on to an organisation created just after the war, the United Nations, which is woefully out of date. Were there any discussions about updating the United Nations so that it can tackle these issues much better?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. The UN Secretary-General was, of course, at the G20 meeting and made a number of contributions, but my hon. Friend is right that the architecture of international relations is badly out of date. We have the rise of India, we have the enormous strength of Germany and Japan, and we have the great growth of Brazil, yet none of those countries is on the Security Council. We have to recognise that it is all very well all of us—we all do this—saying that we must share global leadership with India and China, but if we are going to share global leadership we need to change these institutions. This was discussed. It is fantastically difficult because people have so many vested interests—as, indeed, do we—but I do think that it is absolutely right for countries such as India and Brazil to have the sense that they should be on the UN Security Council.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I praise, of course, the troops who have died and those who, sadly and unfortunately, are likely to die in the future, but is it not the case that there can be hardly a single Member who believes that a military victory in Afghanistan in any meaningful sense is likely to come about even in another nine years? Therefore, is it not all the more important to start negotiations sooner rather than later, as suggested by General Richards? I think the Prime Minister should recognise that there is growing concern in the country at large about what is happening and the number of deaths in Afghanistan.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We are all concerned about the number of casualties in Afghanistan. He is also right in that when we look across history at fighting insurgencies, in very few of them has there ever been a complete military victory—it is a combination of what happens militarily and in the country at large and what happens in terms of some sort of reconciliation process. That is important. We are committed to the reconciliation process and would like to see it go further and faster, but as I said, it is important to maintain a distinction between Taliban linked to al-Qaeda, who would have the terrorist training camps come back and who want world terrorism, and people involved in insurgency for any number of other reasons. Yes, of course there must be a political track and of course we should develop it, but we need to differentiate the sorts of Taliban we face.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that our global banking system remains incredibly risky, and that bearing in mind how long it has taken to get previous Basel agreements in place, it may be necessary to take steps to protect our particular vulnerability to the banking sector before then?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to put in place a system whereby banks have to ask themselves whether they have enough capital to withstand the sort of shock they suffered in 2008 and 2009. That is what needs to take place, and it is being put in place relatively quickly, but the rules need to be drawn up and agreed, and there may then be a pause before they are actually introduced, because at the moment the great risk is shrinkage of the monetary base—a shrinkage of bank lending—at this very sensitive time in our recovery.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

How can the Prime Minister retain his optimism after 11 British deaths in 10 days? How can a stable Afghanistan be built on the crumbling foundations of an election-rigging president and his criminal family, on an Afghan army that is mercenary and drug-addicted and on a police force that is depraved and entirely corrupt? We are in the end game position, as Canada and the Netherlands have explained. At the end of the Vietnam war a question was asked that should haunt us all now: who will be the last soldier ordered into battle to die for a politician’s mistake?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has long taken that view, but even though he makes that case he wildly overstates it. If we talk to British soldiers who serve with the Afghan national army they say that those soldiers are brave, they work hard and they are committed. Yes, of course we need to improve recruitment from all parts of the country, but I do not think it is fair to characterise the army as he does. There have been problems with the Afghan police force, but when we go to Afghanistan we see police trainers from European and American countries doing good work. I do not accept that all is as bleak as the hon. Gentleman puts it. We have had a number of casualties, which are heartbreaking in every individual case and it is heartbreaking that there are so many, but we have to remember what we are doing in Afghanistan. It is not creating the perfect society; it is training up the Afghans so that they can take care of their own security and we face fewer attacks from terrorist groups trained in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the fact is that today the number of threats coming from that area is reduced, because of what we have done in Afghanistan and because of what the Pakistan Government are doing in Pakistan. Of course we should not be blind to people’s concerns, but we should try to take people with us on the success there has been in reducing those threats.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will know that business growth is vital for the Chancellor’s plans and that credit is vital to business growth. The Governor of the Bank of England warned on Friday that lending to business remained weak and there was a risk of “disruption of credit”. The G20 proposals could cause banks more serious concern in that respect, so what will the Prime Minister and the Government do to make sure that small and medium-sized enterprises receive the credit they need to ensure growth in this country over the next three years?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and the concern that we should have about the economy is not the fiscal tightening that needs to happen, but to ensure that the banks are lending and that monetary policy is working effectively. Of course, monetary policy is not just interest rates—the price of money—but we also have to think about the quantity of money, which is bank lending. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget made a number of improvements to the credit lending schemes. I think that we can look to see whether there is even more that should be done, but let me repeat that the key thing that we were trying to do at the G20 was not to enforce credit rules now that would restrict lending, but to put in place the measures for the long term that will stop the catastrophe that we suffered in 2008 and 2009. That is the key. In Europe, we are stress testing the banks to ensure that they have adequate capital. Again, that is important: we need to ensure the soundness of the banking system, because that is part of the key to recovery.

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

The Prime Minister mentioned that he had four useful bipartite meetings. Did he meet Juan Manuel Santos—the President-elect of Colombia—or did he indicate that he would meet him when he goes on tour? He is a gentleman who, as Defence Minister, dressed his troops as members of the International Committee of the Red Cross, carried out the extra-judicial murders of 2,000 innocent civilians and bombed Ecuador, where there is, I believe, a murder warrant out for him. Did the Prime Minister, or will he, raise those issues on behalf of concerned people in the UK who follow them very closely?

[The Prime Minister]

I did not meet the President-elect; I did meet the current President, President Uribe, who was at the G8 session on tackling corruption and the drugs trade, where there was a presentation from him and I had a conversation with him. I will take away the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and reflect on them when I have the conversation—I am sure that I will—with the President when he is not just the President-elect but the President.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Did the Prime Minister find time during the G20 summit to speak to the leaders of Russia and China about the ongoing diplomatic issues with Iran? May I urge him to work closely with those traditional allies of Iran to ensure that we try not to go anywhere near the military action that some hawkish nations want?

[The Prime Minister]

I had very positive meetings with President Hu of China and President Medvedev of Russia. We discussed, particularly in the Russian meeting at quite some length, the Iranian situation. It is encouraging that the Russians have voted for the sanctions resolution in the UN—resolution 1929—and it is important to show a united face to the Iranians about the unacceptability of their acquiring a nuclear weapon. The point is that nobody wants military action, by Israel or anyone else, to take place, and that is all the more reason for taking the sanctions route and trying to maximise the pressure and change the balance for Iran, to raise the costs for it of having a nuclear weapon. That is what this is all about.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Almost 80 years ago, countries across the world adopted policies of fiscal tightening and gave us the inter-war depression—the slump, with millions of people thrown out of work. We are now adopting policies of collective deflation. Is the Prime Minister not at all fearful that history might repeat itself and that we might see millions back unemployed?

[The Prime Minister]

It is quite difficult to talk about deflation when monetary policy is as loose as it is and when interest rates are as low as they are. This is where, with respect, the Labour party has not understood enough of the argument. We have to tighten fiscal policy in the UK. We are borrowing 11% of our gross domestic product. If we started borrowing more, or indeed we stood still, we could face the situation that others in Europe face—it is that serious—so where the demand should come from is by the combination of a fiscal tightening but with loose monetary policy. That is not the same thing that happened in the 1930s. The additional mistake made in the 1930s was to have trade wars, and hon. Members could hear from my statement just how hard this country is fighting to ensure that that does not happen.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

As one of the many millions of disappointed football fans around our country today, may I thank the Prime Minister for raising the issue of goal-line technology? Does he agree that, when it comes to tackling the deficit, it is the Opposition who have taken their eyes off the ball?

[The Prime Minister]

That was an ingenious way of bringing goal-line technology into a statement on the G20, and I am amazed by your latitude, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] There was no point blaming the referee; as I said, we were not robbed, we were beaten. However, to Chancellor Merkel’s credit, every time Germany slotted another one past us, she apologised.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the only occasions in the past 25 years when England have beaten Germany at football have been under a Labour Government? When does he expect that we will be able to do that again?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

At the rate you are going, never.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

In the Prime Minister’s absence last week, he might have missed two surprising events. First, the shadow Chancellor made a speech that contained lots of criticism, but not one recommendation for reducing the deficit. Secondly, we saw a five-minute silent cameo from the former Prime Minister, although amazingly, for such a fiscal champion, it was during Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said in his statement that the G8 sent a collective signal that “we want the Afghan security forces to ‘assume increasing responsibility for security within five years’”—he did not say “full responsibility”. He said later on that he wanted to give an indication that we will be out of Afghanistan in five years. Does that mean that we will be out of Afghanistan regardless of the situation in that country in five years’ time—full stop?

[The Prime Minister]

The point is that for many years after our troops have left, we will have a strong relationship with Afghanistan that will involve diplomacy and aid, and perhaps even helping to continue to train Afghan forces. However, in answer to the question of whether we should be in Afghanistan by then in the way that we are now, with large-scale military deployment and all the rest of it, no we should not. We should by then have trained up the Afghan army and police force, and seen an improvement in governance, so that we can bring our troops back home.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I read on page 3 of the G20 communiqué that fiscal consolidation plans should be credible and clearly communicated. Did the Prime Minister get the chance to read any of the weekend papers that suggested that the majority of the British people support the Budget and agree with some of the spending plans, which shows that our message is definitely getting across to all but Labour Members?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes the important point, which the International Monetary Fund also makes, that if we carry out fiscal consolidation and demonstrate that we have a plan and are getting on with it, that can enhance confidence. Confidence is the key to growth. If we are going to get people to spend and invest, they need to know that the Government have a plan for getting us out of the mess that we inherited, so that is key to getting our economy moving.

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

When the Prime Minister was discussing the banking levy at the G20, did he explain to his colleagues why he was so lenient on the banks? Instead of taking the axe to public services, he should be asking the banks to contribute more to address the mess that they created, instead of letting them off the hook.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the hon. Gentleman missed the previous Parliament, but he could have read about some of the things that took place. During that Parliament, we argued for the introduction of a banking levy even if others did not follow suit. The position of the Labour party, although I am sure that it is changing by the minute, was that, under the great disappeared—the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—we had to wait for full agreement from every single country in the world. That was not our policy. We have introduced a banking levy, and quite rightly too.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I urge caution on my right hon. Friend when it comes to Turkey’s membership of the European Union? Unless we have already left the EU by that stage—I can but hope—Turkey’s membership could lead only to the British taxpayer being asked to put his hand further in his pocket and further strain on immigration into this country.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Not complete agreement.

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman says, there is not quite complete agreement on this issue, but as I would say to the French President or German Chancellor, even if people do not agree with me that Turkey should be a member of the EU, we should be straining every sinew to think of ways of encouraging Turkey to play a full role in the affairs of our continent. It is a member of NATO, and we have a strong bilateral relationship and a trading relationship with the country. Turkey wants those relationships with us, and we should do everything that we can to enhance them.

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

Has not the Prime Minister been a little selective in his quotes from the IMF? Did it not say clearly that there is a lack of co-ordination at the G20, that there are premature consolidations, particularly in Europe, and that if there were greater co-ordination between the G20 and other economies it would add 2.5% to world growth and create 8 million jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right in one regard: the upside scenario posed by the IMF adds to growth and to jobs, but that scenario includes fiscal consolidation by countries such as Britain. I do not want to bore him with quotes from the IMF, but it said:

“Fiscal deficits and debt in some advanced economies reach unacceptably high levels… Sound fiscal finances are essential to sustain recovery”.

A key point from the declaration says that those countries

“with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation.”

That is what the IMF is saying about us. Yes, there needs to be action across the board, including by emerging markets and developing countries which have very high surpluses, not just fiscal surpluses but trade surpluses. In a way, that is what the G20 was about—trying to get people to put into the process what they need to put in. From us, that is fiscal consolidation; from the Chinese, it is dealing with their surpluses. Not everyone acted as much as we did—Germany included.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The communiqué says that the present situation in Gaza is not sustainable and must be changed. Was there any discussion at the summit about practical assistance that international organisations could offer Israel to ensure that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza but weapons smuggling is stopped?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. There were discussions about what could be done, such as having international bodies at the various crossing points to try to examine what is being brought in. The change that has taken place is encouraging on one level because instead of effectively banning everything, Israel has listed those things that it will not allow in, which should lead to increased humanitarian capacity in Gaza. That has a very long way to go, and everybody knows that we are not going to sort out the problem of the middle east peace process while there is, effectively, a giant open prison in Gaza.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Were there any discussions about the possibility of one of our European neighbours falling into further recession? In that eventuality, what contingencies would be considered?

[The Prime Minister]

There are great concerns, particularly in the eurozone, about the sovereign debt and other problems that countries face. We should be constructive. As I have said before, I do not think that we should join the euro. In my view, we should never join the euro. However, the eurozone is important to us, and those countries sorting out their problems is important to us. We should not stand in their way if they want to take steps to do that. The key point for us is not putting more money in and not passing powers from London to Brussels. Inasmuch as those countries find ways of sorting out their problems, we should back them.

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

Also in the newspapers this weekend were comments by Professor Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel prize-winning economist, who predicted the global financial meltdown, that announcements in our Budget will, at best, make Britain’s recovery from a recession longer, and, at worst, put us into the double-dip recession that we said would occur. Does the Prime Minister agree that we ignore Professor Joseph Stiglitz at our peril?

[The Prime Minister]

One can find any number of economists taking any number of different views. I say that as someone who studied under them. In the end, if we look at what the IMF says, at what the OECD says, at what, as I quoted, the Americans and the European Union say and at all the advice we have had from the Bank of England and the Treasury, we see that it is important to deal with our deficit. Unless we do that, we will not get confidence, and unless we have confidence, we will not get growth.

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

Apart from the military operation in Afghanistan, what steps are being taken to win over the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan? Linked to that, what steps are the Government of Afghanistan taking to reform the madrassahs, the religious schools, which are often seen as a breeding ground for radicalism?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about religious education. It has been more of a problem in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. In terms of improving the quality of life for Afghans, it is worth remembering why the Taliban succeeded in the first place. They succeeded because there was no law and order, and no system of justice. Effective district governance and security, being able to go about one’s daily life, are key. Of course we want to see things such as girls going to school and better observance of human rights, but we should prioritise those things that I think the Afghans themselves would prioritise, which is safety and security.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

That was a bit wide of the summit, but not, I am sure, of the Prime Minister’s capacities.

[The Prime Minister]

There are parts of sport and politics that probably should not mix. It is no laughing matter; it was very depressing. For all of us who wanted England to do well, it was heartbreaking to watch. At least we can say, “We weren’t robbed—we were beaten.” It was not all down to the disallowed Lampard goal—we were beaten fair and square. An interesting point that was made while I was watching was how much German football institutions put into youth training and their football academy. I am sure there are things that our own game, independent of the Government, as they should be—we only want to take credit when they win—can learn from that.

G8 and G20 Summits

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Following the meetings in Canada I am placing the communiqués for the G8 and G20 in the Libraries of both Houses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 June.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Marine Paul Warren from 40 Commando Royal Marines, who died on Monday, and to the member of 40 Commando Royal Marines who died yesterday. We should constantly remember, and show our support for, the services and sacrifices made on our behalf by our armed forces and their families.

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.

[Lisa Nandy]

The coalfield communities regeneration programme breathed new life into places such as Wigan after the devastation caused by the pit closures in the 1980s. Michael Clapham’s review is very welcome, but the decision to freeze the funding will devastate our economy all over again. Can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that he is not simply seeking to close down the coalfields all over again?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. Let me first of all congratulate her on her election to this House, and say how much we want to make sure, in spite of the difficult decisions that we have had to make in the Budget, that we go on helping and regenerating communities that face difficulties. I have visited the site in Wigan where the new Lads and Girls club is to be built. That is the result of excellent joint work between the private and public sectors, and we need many more projects like it. We will have more to say about that next week.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Q2. The Prime Minister will be aware of the vital contribution of the 23,000 Territorial Army and other reservists who have fought in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans in the last six years. So far, 22 have lost their lives in those operations, and the ones who survive are twice as likely to get post-traumatic stress disorder than their regular counterparts. What recognition and support can my right hon. Friend give to the thousands of employers who routinely allow staff to volunteer, train and engage in reservist activity and who, by doing so, are critical to our military success in those operations?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the contribution that our Territorial Army plays in serving our country. He is also right to remind us how many people have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are some 600 volunteer reservists serving today. Standing up for our armed forces is not just a Government responsibility: it is a social responsibility, and something that we should all do. We should pay tribute to those businesses that help people to volunteer and take part. We should remember their service in doing that as well.

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

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Marine Paul Warren from 40 Commando Royal Marines, who died on Monday, and to the member of 40 Commando Royal Marines who died yesterday? They fought with bravery and they died in the service of their country.

The Chancellor announced yesterday that the Government will bring forward relinking the basic state pension to earnings to 2011 rather than 2012. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much money the Treasury has set aside to pay for that next year?

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, what the Chancellor did yesterday was more complex than that. He said—[Interruption.] This is an extremely important point, and hon. Members will want to listen. We have a triple lock in place to make sure that the pension upgrade is at the highest level possible. Next year, therefore, because of what we expect will happen with the retail prices index, the pension will be upgraded and increased along with it. When the right hon. and learned Lady gets to the Dispatch Box the next time, will she confirm that Labour’s plans were to uprate benefits by less than the consumer price index?

[Ms Harman]

There was nothing complicated at all about the question, but it was one that the Prime Minister did not seem to want to answer. The answer is that the Government have not set aside a single penny for that big promise to pensioners. Next year prices are due to go up more than earnings, so bringing forward the earnings link by a year does not give pensioners anything extra. But although pensioners get nothing from that change we all know they will pay more in VAT. The Chancellor promised to provide help for pensioners. I am sure that pensioners, including those in the Southwark Pensioners Action Group, or SPAG, which the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), knows well, will want to know: are pensioners better off or worse off as a result of the Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the right hon. and learned Lady that there is a danger in asking the second question without having listened to the first answer. The first answer is that the pension will be uprated by RPI, which is likely to be higher than earnings next year. In terms of how much money we are putting into the state pension system—[Interruption.] How much, they ask? We are putting in £1 billion over the Parliament—£1 billion. What a contrast. In 13 years, Labour never linked the pension back to earnings. We have done it in two months.

[Ms Harman]

The Prime Minister is not being straight about this. We know that there will be no increase in the pension from linking it with earnings a year early. A pensioner will not benefit from the cut in tax from raising the personal allowance either, because they do not get that if they are over 65, but they will pay more VAT. The Chancellor promised to help pensioners. Will the Prime Minister not admit that pensioners will be worse off under his Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

Perhaps I could recommend to the right hon. and learned Lady the Budget Red Book, although in her case I suspect it is the unread book. If she looks at page 41, she will see £1 billion going into the state pension system in this Parliament. What a contrast. We all remember the 75p increase for pensioners. Under our triple lock system, that can never happen again.

[Ms Harman]

Page 41, table 2.1, item 48 states:

“Basic State Pension: introduce triple guarantee”.

Money set aside: zero. The Prime Minister is not being straight about his promise to pensioners.

Can I ask the Prime Minister about families with children? Families with children, with an income of less than £40,000, may be breathing a sigh of relief that they still have their tax credits, as that was on the news last night. But is it right? Can he confirm that—as he promised in the election—families on less than £40,000 will not lose their tax credit?

[The Prime Minister]

What we are doing is making sure that the less well-off families get the most money. What a contrast again. Since 2004, child poverty went up by 100,000 under a Labour Government. In this Budget, child poverty does not go up by a single family.

[Ms Harman]

Once again, the Prime Minister is not answering the question. The truth is that, despite the Chancellor’s promise, the Budget small print shows big cuts in eligibility for tax credit. The Prime Minister promised that no family on less than £40,000 a year would lose child tax credit. Will he admit that that is not the case? Will he admit that there are families on a joint income of £30,000 who will lose all their tax credits?

[The Prime Minister]

The point that the right hon. and learned Lady has got to address is who left us in this mess. Who left a budget deficit of £155 billion, with absolutely no proposals to deal with it? Who put forward—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister. This level of barracking is unacceptable, and I can tell the House that it is detested by the electorate. It must stop.

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Who put forward £50 billion of cuts, without outlining a single penny piece? The whole country can see what is happening here: one party put us into this mess; two parties are working together to get us out of it.

[Ms Harman]

I think that what the electorate detest is broken promises, and people will want to know how the right hon. Gentleman’s Budget will affect them. He was not straight with pensioners. He was not straight with families. He was not straight on VAT. When the Chancellor got up to present his Budget, he proclaimed:

“I am not going to hide hard choices…in the small print of the Budget documents. The...public are going to hear them straight from me, here” —[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]

Is not the truth that that was his first promise and that he broke it even before he sat down?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Lady talks about broken promises. We remember, “No more boom and bust.” What happened to that promise? We remember, “Prudence with a purpose.” What happened to that one? We remember, “We’ll protect the poorest,” when Labour took away the 10p tax rate. The fact is that the Labour party has got absolutely nothing to say about the biggest problem facing this country, which is the massive budget deficit. It might be adopting Greekonomics, but we are sorting out the problem.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Given the size of the structural deficit that we have inherited, how many apologies has the Prime Minister received from Opposition Members for what they have left behind?

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I welcome my hon. Friend, who, I know, will speak with great passion for his town of Blackpool? We should congratulate it on its footballing success recently. On that note, I am sure that the whole House will want to show its support—[Interruption] yes, including all Members—for the England team this afternoon in their key game.

I have not yet received a single apology for the appalling mess that we have been left, but at some stage, the Labour party will have to wake up and realise what a mess it made of the British economy.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Q3. Will there be fewer police officers at the end of this Parliament compared with the number that we have today?

[The Prime Minister]

What we want to do— [Interruption.] Opposition Members have got to start getting serious about the task that we face. We want to do everything that we can to keep police officers on the streets, to have money going into our schools and to keep up spending on our hospitals, and the only way that we are going to be able to do it is if we deal with the problems of excessive welfare spending. So if hon. Members want to see police on the streets and if they want to see well-funded schools, they have got to back us on housing benefit and on welfare reform. That is the way that we can keep spending up.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Daily Mirror on highlighting the terrible 172% increase in unemployment in Tamworth during the recession? Further, will he encourage that august journal to place the responsibility for that grizzly legacy squarely where it lies?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I think that I am right in saying that it was in Tamworth that I came face to face with the Daily Mirror chicken, which was one of the most enjoyable episodes of the election. He is right about the unemployment figures, and one of the most important things that we have got to do is to introduce our work programme, which will be the biggest, boldest scheme in the history of this country to get people back to work. That is what needs to be done, and that is the best route out of poverty.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q4. A 25% cut in public spending in Wales, together with a hike in VAT, will hit Wales especially hard. Does the Prime Minister now accept that he and his Liberal friends have let Wales down?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept that at all. The worst thing for Wales would be to continue with the budget deficit and rising debt, and to see our economy slide down. The choice in terms of the Budget is the road to recovery from this party, or the road to ruin offered by the Labour party.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Is the Prime Minister aware of the interesting progress in the European project for fusion research, of the opportunity for a materials testing facility to come to the United Kingdom, and of the suitability of Dounreay to deliver that work? Will the Government support such an application?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about scientific issues. It is important that we lead in such areas. His constituency, with Dounreay, obviously has a huge technical edge, so I shall take his representations seriously.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Q5. I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the send my friend to school campaign, in which my young constituents at Victoria primary school in Airdrie are involved and about which they will be writing to him this week. The campaign aims to ensure that the Government direct the £8.5 billion that was committed by the previous Labour Government towards universal primary education by 2015. The matter will be discussed on 7 July at the education summit in South Africa, which is tied in with the World cup. Has the Prime Minister personally spoken to President Zuma and other African leaders about their pledges, and will he confirm that a review of the Department for International Development’s funding will not compromise our pledge?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I welcome the hon. Lady following her election; I think that I am right in saying that she is the youngest Member of the House of Commons. She is quite right to talk about the millennium development goals and aid spending. It is good that it is common cause across the House of Commons that, despite the difficult decisions that we will have to take, we should meet the target of 0.7% of gross national income. We are committed to doing that, which means that we can continue to support the poorest people in the poorest countries. We will be addressing such issues this weekend at the G8 in Canada.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Q6. Yesterday, there was support on both sides of the House for raising the income tax threshold by £1,000. Does the Prime Minister agree that a Government who do that have to explain where the money is coming from?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I noticed yesterday that everyone in the House supported the idea of raising the income tax threshold so that we take 880,000 people out of tax altogether. If people are going to support such a pledge, which could cost as much as £4 billion, they have to say where the money is coming from, but so far we have not heard about one penny piece of one saving from any Labour Front Bencher. In terms of Labour’s election for leader, it does not matter who that is, because they are not giving any figures to show where they would find cuts. Until they do that, they simply will not be taken seriously.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Q7. The building work for the new £20 million maternity supercentre in Bolton is pretty well finished, but may I be assured that the Government’s decision to review the making it better programme in Greater Manchester will not affect the expansion, and particularly the funding, of Bolton’s Princess Anne maternity unit?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely nobody is proposing closing the new unit that has been set up. The hon. Gentleman will know that decisions that were taken about Greater Manchester in the previous Parliament caused a huge amount of pain in that vital part of our country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is asking the NHS to ensure that we meet the needs of patients locally, instead of just conducting top-down reviews that lead to the closure of much loved units.

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

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he has held with the US Administration to ensure that BP remains a strong and viable company?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I have had two discussions with President Obama so far, including a very good telephone call last night. I made the point, especially in the earlier phone call, that of course BP wants to pay for the clean up and to stop the oil gushing into the gulf, and recognises that it must pay money in respect of fishermen and others who have lost their livelihoods, but we want to ensure that the company remains strong and stable for not only our benefit, but the benefit of the United States. I believe that 40% of the company’s shareholders are in the US, while 39% are in the UK, and it employs more people in the US than it does in the UK, so it is in all our interests that it is strong and secure in the future.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Q8. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that, in April 2012, there would be no more children living in poverty than there are today. Unfortunately, two thirds of the cuts in tax credits and benefits come after that date. Will the Prime Minister give the House his forecast of the number of children who will be living in poverty by the end of the Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say to the hon. Lady is that, for the first time in any Budget—certainly since I have been in the House—we have actually published the distributional tables on what happens to income. Labour never did that; we have done it for 2012-13. As for what happens towards the end of the Parliament, I am pleased to say that there will be at least another three coalition Budgets, which we look forward to introducing, to make sure that we go on to protect the poorest in our country.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

In the closing days of the previous Parliament, Anthony Steen trafficked through the House the Anti-Slavery Day Act 2010 to highlight the problems of human trafficking. The Government are required to announce a day for anti-slavery day. What progress has been made on that front?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I admired the work that Anthony Steen did. We have not set a date and he gives me an important reminder that I must get back to my office and make sure that we do.

[David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Q9. For more than 20 years, Sky News has provided an excellent source of impartial news and analysis. Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that, whoever ends up owning BSkyB, it will not be allowed to turn into Fox News, and that there is no room here for shouty, reactionary propaganda passing itself off as fair and balanced news?

[The Prime Minister]

The very idea of shouty, reactionary propaganda being passed in the House of Commons is an appalling thought. As I am sure we all recognise, these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who will be looking at them very closely.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Can the Prime Minister confirm that, until yesterday’s Budget, the benefits for some of the poorest in society were to be increased at a rate less than inflation, and therefore cut in real terms?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Labour Government’s plans were to increase benefits by less than consumer price inflation next year. They left a £300 million—they do not know this, the dupes behind the Front Bench—[Interruption.] I think dupes is an accurate description of what I am looking at. There was a £300 million black hole, and you do not have to be a “Star Trek” fan to know that when you are in a black hole, you should stop digging.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Q10. In the interests of informing the dupes behind either Front Bench, and in response to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), will the Prime Minister agree to publish the tables for the years following the one that has been published in the Red Book, which is very welcome, so that we can advise him on how to improve the impact of his policies on child poverty?

[The Prime Minister]

What a pity the hon. Lady never made that point in 13 years of Government. Where were the distributional tables in the Budget after Budget that we—the poor dupes who were sitting at the back—had to listen to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) give over and over again? We have published the table for the first time. Between now and the years the hon. Lady talks about, there will be further Budgets, where we will make further progress in helping the poorest families in our country.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does the Prime Minister agree with several generals, many members of the public and me that Trident should be included in the strategic defence and security review? Does he agree that if there is a case for retaining it, that would come out in the review; and if there is not a case, it should not be kept?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will know that that matter was carefully negotiated in the coalition agreement between our two parties. My view is clear: Britain should retain the nuclear deterrent and we should always keep that insurance policy against great danger. Although I think that there is a case for looking at the costs of the Trident system and seeing how we can bear down on them, I do not believe that we should have the wider review that he suggests.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Q11. Yesterday, we were told that resolute action was necessary to deal decisively with our country’s debt. Does the Prime Minister believe that it is acceptable that Members’ allowances are being paid to Members of the House who neither take their seats nor participate in the work of the House? When will that injustice be remedied, as he promised before the election?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. My views about this issue are on the record, and they have not changed. I would like to see if we can make the argument. There is not a case for Sinn Fein Members not to take their seats. I think that at the moment we let them off the hook, so I would like to re-examine the argument and see if we can find a new way of doing this.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Q12. Saturday is Armed Forces day. In my constituency of Hexham in Northumberland we have hundreds of Royal Artillery servicemen who have recently returned from Afghanistan and will receive the freedom of the town. When they are off duty, they will receive multiple discounts from dozens of stores, restaurants and pubs that are doing their bit locally. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is everyone’s duty, not just in the House but all around the country, to go the extra mile and show the gratitude that we all have for our brave troops?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, this is something that the whole country needs to do, not just the Government. Yes, we have our responsibilities to make sure that we are living up to the military covenant and are doing all that we can for our armed forces and their families, but it is something that communities, individuals and businesses can do, too. I understand that in Hexham, there will be a nine-hour forces celebration. When those servicemen and women are off duty, there will be discounts, as he said, from restaurants and pubs, so I expect that it might get a bit lively, and I am sure that he will join in the fun.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

A consequence of yesterday’s Budget and VAT rise is £26.5 million of new overheads for the NHS in Scotland. Having promised to ring-fence health spending, will the Treasury now cover those costs, or will this be another broken promise, just like Lib Dem opposition to a VAT rise before the election?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, our action on national insurance contributions has saved the NHS money, which would not be available under a Labour Government. The point I would make is that that benefits Scotland. The fact that we are protecting the NHS and NHS spending means that money will be available in Scotland as well. The shadow Health Secretary has said that health should not be protected, and that the NHS should be cut. That is now, take note, the official position. The Leader of the Opposition is nodding—cutting the NHS is now official Labour policy.

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

Q13. What the military purpose is of routine foot and vehicle patrols in Afghanistan.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are conducting a counter-insurgency operation in Afghanistan. He asked specifically about the military purpose of routine foot and vehicle patrols in Afghanistan. If we are going to win the counter-insurgency and succeed in what is called “war amongst the people”, we have to be among them, protecting them from the insurgents. That is how we are going to create a more stable and peaceful Afghanistan, from which we will be able to return, leaving the Afghan forces in control.

[Dr Lewis]

Does the Prime Minister accept that there are other ways of fighting counter-insurgencies that do not involve sending out uniformed personnel along predictable routes, day after day, to be sniped at and blown up? Will he request that his military advisers focus on long-term strategies that could achieve our strategic aims without having to pay such an unnecessarily high price?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters, and I have arranged for him to meet senior officials and military advisers, so that he can explore his ideas with them. All that I would say is that the team that President Obama has put in place, and the team that we have in place of military and civilian leaders, have brought great impetus to the campaign. It is difficult to see, if we are trying to fight a counter-insurgency, how we can do so without having a number of active patrols to protect the people from the insurgents.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Q14. Bearing in mind the Opposition’s claim that in Europe, Britain is now isolated, will my right hon. Friend indicate how on earth he managed to secure both French and German agreement to the announcement in relation to the bank levy in the Budget yesterday?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In the Budget yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced unity between the French, the Germans and the British on introducing a bank levy. The one group of people who are isolated, and who say that we have to wait for the rest of the world before we can ask our banks to make a proper contribution, are the Opposition. Once again, they have no proposals to fill the enormous black hole that the Government are getting to grips with.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

The Office for National Statistics reported that while the richest 10% spent £1 in every £25 of their income on VAT, the poorest 10% spent £1 in every £7 of their income on VAT. How, then, can the Prime Minister justify his oft-repeated refrain that we are all in this together?

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say to the right hon. Lady—it is an important point and the Red Book sets it out—is that the richest 10% will pay in cash terms 15 times as much in VAT as the poorest 10%. The important point to take into account and look at is the Budget as a whole. In the Budget as a whole, we can see that the richest pay the most both in cash terms and as a percentage of their income. What we have done, by massively increasing child tax credits, is to ensure that there is no increase in child poverty. What a contrast that is with the figures since 2004. The Labour party put up child poverty by 100,000. That is the difference.

European Council

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Trooper Ashley Smith from the Royal Dragoon Guards, who was killed in Afghanistan last week. He died serving our country, and our thoughts are with his family and friends. We have also heard news this morning that a member of 40 Commando Royal Marines has died from his injuries. He is the 300th member of the British armed forces to lose his life as a result of the conflict in Afghanistan.

When such a tragic milestone is reached, we should re-emphasise our support for our armed forces and for all that they do. Inevitably, some will use this moment to question our mission and our purpose there. We are paying a high price, but let me be clear: we are in Afghanistan because the Afghans are not yet capable of securing their own country from terrorists. It is for our own national security that we help them. When they can do it alone, we will leave. In the meantime, we must give our armed forces everything they need to get the job done, and that includes our unequivocal support right across the country.

With permission, I should like to make a statement on last Thursday’s European Council. It was rightly focused on securing the economic recovery, and it was unanimous that this required early action on budget deficits. The Council also dealt with Europe’s growth strategy, the need to sort out the problems in the eurozone and our approach to the G20. It also delivered important progress on Iran. I would like to take each point in turn.

On deficits, the conclusions from the Council could not be clearer. Delaying action would entail “major risks”, and the Council called on member states to meet budgetary targets “without delay”. Since the last European Council, the problems in Greece and the scale of the sovereign debt crisis have become apparent to almost everyone. That is why there is such unanimity across the EU for early action. It is also why President Barroso paid tribute to the efforts the UK Government, saying:

“Consolidation is necessary for confidence and without confidence there will be no growth.”

On growth, the Council agreed a new strategy called Europe 2020. This follows on from the Lisbon agenda, the aim of which was to make Europe the most competitive market in the world. The document has some worthwhile objectives, including raising the level of research and development and improving education. This should not interfere with national competencies, so I secured explicit agreement that the new strategy must be

“fully in line with the relevant Treaty provisions and EU rules and shall not alter Member States’ competences”.

We should be clear that all the strategies in the world cannot conceal the fact that EU countries all need to get to grips with the real problems that harm our competitiveness—not by endlessly setting targets, but by taking action. This includes action on the extent of our debts, on the affordability of our pensions and on the scale of our welfare dependency. Europe has never lacked strategies, but European countries have frequently failed to deliver them.

We will also continue to press for the real stimulus that European economies need—that is, more trade, more international investment and more action to break down the barriers to business. This means pushing for agreement on Doha, reforming and completing the single market and making the process of trade easier. Even without Doha, there is a huge amount that countries across the world can do to facilitate trade. I want Britain to be one of the driving forces in helping to bring this about.

Next is the eurozone. Britain is not in the euro, and, let me be clear: we are not going to join the euro—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—but a strong and successful eurozone is vital for the British national interest. Already, about half our exports go to the EU, four fifths of them to the eurozone. As this House is aware, however, with the situation in Greece and the need for a support package from the other eurozone members, there is no doubt that the eurozone as a whole faces real challenges. So I was generally supportive of the Council’s efforts to strengthen the eurozone governance arrangements, but I was equally determined to ensure our national interests are protected.

On budget surveillance, let me be clear: the UK Budget will be shown to this House first and not to the Commission. Of course, we will share projections and forecasts, just as we do with the International Monetary Fund and other international bodies: so, co-ordination and consultation, yes; clearance, no, never.

On sanctions, for those who breach their economic obligations, the Council agreed that

“Member States’ respective obligations under the Treaties will be fully respected”.

Because of this, and because of the special opt-out negotiated by the last Conservative Government, sanctions cannot be applied to the UK under the current framework.

Sorting out the eurozone and adding to its governance arrangements is clearly vital for Europe. There may well be significant changes coming down the track. Whether they require treaty changes or not, our position will be the same: we will back measures that will help sort out the eurozone; we will not back measures that pass power from the UK to Brussels. As we are not members of the euro, we will not back measures that draw Britain further into financial support for the euro area.

On the G20, the EU Council discussed our priorities for the upcoming meeting. As well as taking action on the deficit, the Council also agreed about the importance of reforming the financial system. It is vital that the meeting in Canada back the right action on reserves and on capital.

On the issue of a banking levy, the European conclusions were helpful. We wanted the Council to endorse the idea of countries introducing a levy on financial institutions to ensure they make a contribution to rebuilding public finances. We did not want the Council to mandate a particular form of levy or how the money raised should be used. I am pleased to say the Council conclusions reflect that approach.

On Iran, we argued that it is time for action, not just words. The Council conclusion refers to measures, including restrictions on trade, banking, transport and the oil and gas industry. Final agreement will be reached at the Foreign Ministers’ meeting.

The Council also reached important conclusions on Iceland’s application to join the EU. This country should be a good friend to Iceland and a strong supporter of continued EU enlargement. But Iceland does owe the UK £2.3 billion in respect of the compensation paid by the Government to UK investors, following the collapse of its banking sector. We will use the application process to make sure that Iceland meets its obligations, because we want that money back.

Finally, it is important that even in difficult times we support people in the poorest countries who suffer from the most severe poverty. The European Council reaffirmed its commitment to achieving development aid targets by 2015 and, supported by the UK, to review that annually.

The Council delivered good outcomes for Britain. Our citizens do not want new structures to talk about things, but a new resolve to do things, such as getting a grip of our massive budget deficit, developing the single market and building the conditions for strong, sustainable and balanced growth. That is what the Council was all about. I commend the statement to the House.

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

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the two soldiers who have lost their lives: Trooper Ashley Smith from the Royal Dragoon Guards; and a Royal Marine from 40 Commando Royal Marines. As the Prime Minister has said, 300 members of our forces have now given their lives in Afghanistan in the service of our country. We pay tribute to their bravery and honour their sacrifice, and our thoughts are with their families. I strongly agree with the Prime Minister about the cause for which our soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan: they are fighting there to keep our streets safe here. That is why the Opposition join the Government in support of our troops and their mission. As we approach Armed Forces day, let us remember all our servicemen and women, whether they are stationed abroad or at home. Their skill and courage are unsurpassed.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. First, may I endorse his support for the summit’s declaration on Iran, which again shows that on issues of international concern, we who are EU member states have a bigger impact when we combine our efforts? Does he agree that while the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran remains a matter of the utmost concern, the international community is now more united than ever before in searching for a peaceful solution, and that the active EU diplomacy we have seen in recent years has played an important part in that? Will he tell us whether there is a timetable for further EU action on Iran? Will he confirm the importance not only of sanctions and diplomatic pressure, but of international engagement with the people of Iran? Will he therefore give an undertaking that the BBC Farsi service will be protected from any threats to the budget of the BBC World Service?

Secondly, may I also welcome the EU summit’s strong commitment to meeting the millennium development goals by 2015 and the Prime Minister’s endorsement of that? The terrible crisis of drought, food shortages and starvation in Niger is a vivid reason why we must have international action on development. Will he not be a stronger voice in the EU, for the whole of the EU to make development a priority, if his Government continue to prioritise development? Following the Labour Government’s commitment, the European Commission recommended that all EU member states should consider legislating to enshrine the 0.7% aid target, which the Labour Government established. Will the Prime Minister take forward in this Session of Parliament the Bill that we introduced to make that target legally binding?

Is it not the case that we can only be effective in Europe if what we say and do there is matched by what we say and do at home? In that regard, may I commend the Prime Minister on his reference in his pre-summit article to what he describes as the

“shocking inequality of women in many parts of Europe”

and what he says is the “urgent need for change”? If he recognises the “shocking inequality” of women elsewhere in Europe, can he act on it here? Will he show Europe that he means at home what he says in Brussels by committing himself to implementing the Equality Act 2010 as soon as possible and to pressing on with the plan to make employers publish the gender pay gap?

What will the Prime Minister do about his Tory MEPs who clearly have not got the message at all and abstained in the vote on the millennium development goals, and who voted against measures to combat gender inequality only last week? He thinks it is “shocking”, but they seem to be all in favour of it.

The Council focused on economic growth, and I welcome the summit’s adoption of the Europe 2020 strategy for growth, which stated that

“priority should be given to growth-friendly budgetary consolidation strategies”

and that

“increasing the growth potential should be seen as paramount to ease fiscal adjustment in the long run.”

In other words, it said, “Don’t undermine growth when you’re cutting borrowing”, and, “You need growth to be able to bring borrowing down.” According to the official summit conclusions, one of its main objectives is

“to unlock the EU’s growth potential, starting with innovation and energy policies”.

We agree with that. That is what the Prime Minister signed up to in Brussels. However, he is doing something very different here at home. How does it help growth to cut business investment support, and how does it

“unlock the EU’s growth… starting with… energy”

to cancel the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters allowing it to build the next generation of nuclear power stations? Does this not mean that Europe, as well as the United Kingdom, will lose out as South Korea and Japan proceed with that work?

Let me turn to the important question of financial services. We welcome the intention to implement a new system of levies and taxes on financial institutions, and to explore an international approach. May I ask the Prime Minister to say more about the progress report on the work of the taskforce on economic governance? There is a British representative on it, and the taskforce has implications for the United Kingdom as well as for eurozone countries. Which, if any, aspects of enhanced economic governance might be applied to the United Kingdom?

This was the Prime Minister’s first European Council. He is now representing our country in Europe. So is it not time for him to have a sensible rethink about the wisdom of continuing to exclude himself from the grouping of centre-right political leaders? The European People’s party includes President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel, and the Prime Ministers of Sweden, Italy, Poland and many other countries; but instead of meeting them to prepare for the summit, the Prime Minister has a meeting with one Polish MEP to prepare for Britain’s contribution.

The general election is over. The right hon. Gentleman is Prime Minister now. Will he put aside his pandering to his Europhobic Back Benchers and agree with his Liberal Democrat coalition partners on this point? That is what would be in Britain’s interests.

[The Prime Minister]

Well, the right hon. and learned Lady is right about one thing: the general election is over.

The right hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right about Iran. We do need great unity on this issue; and Europe forging ahead together with a very strong statement about sanctions, then introducing sanctions, is right. She asked when it would be finalised. That will happen on 26 July, at the Foreign Affairs Council, and the sanctions should come into effect in October.

The right hon. and learned Lady asked about the BBC service in Farsi. I can confirm that it will continue to be funded well, because it is important. We should be looking at all the elements of soft power and how we project our influence in the world, and that is clearly one of them.

The right hon. and learned Lady mentioned the millennium development goals and the importance of prioritising development. We agree with her about that. It was on the insistence of the British, among others, that we put the annual review of development assistance into the Council conclusions, partly so that we could ensure that other countries are living up to the obligations under which they place themselves. We will continue to do that, although we are clearing up the most almighty financial mess at home. As for making it legally binding, we agree with that, and will produce plans to make it happen.

The right hon. and learned Lady spoke about consistency, and about the importance of recognising the gross inequality of women. We will set out measures for greater transparency, including transparency in pay. We are in favour of that.

The right hon. and learned Lady mentioned our MEPs at great length. I can tell her that I will be keeping a careful watch on what Labour MEPs vote for, because they do not always vote in a sensible way.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

What about the Liberal Democrats?

[The Prime Minister]

We will be having a look at them too.

The right hon. and learned Lady also spoke at great length about borrowing. She mentioned the dangers of falling behind South Korea. I have to say that if we followed her advice, I think we would be falling behind North Korea, but let me say this to her about the issue of borrowing. The Council’s conclusion could not be clearer. It said:

“We reaffirm our collective determination to ensure fiscal sustainability, including by accelerating plans for fiscal consolidation where warranted”.

Where is it more warranted than in Britain, where Labour left us with a £155 billion public sector deficit?

It is interesting that, following the sovereign debt crisis and what has happened in Greece, the Labour party is completely isolated in Europe in not believing that we need to take early action on the deficit. Every other country is having to take this sort of action, including painful action. The right hon. and learned Lady does not have to talk nonsense because she is not taking part in the Labour leadership election, so she should talk some sense and recognise that we have to get our deficit in order, we have to take action and it is the right thing to do.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

The Council called on the Foreign Ministers at their next meeting to implement the United Nations sanctions against Iran. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is a big step in the twin-track strategy of combining sanctions with engagement and assistance, and does he have in mind any event or date that would trigger a definitive assessment of whether or not the twin-track strategy against Iran is actually working?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. The key is to try to get the maximum number of countries behind the most specific list of sanctions possible. I think that what we have had in recent years is a lot of talk about sanctions and a lot of commitments to sanctions. Now is the time for countries actually to come up with what they are specifically going to target in terms of bank accounts, trade finance, oil and gas works and the rest. That is what should happen. My hon. Friend asked for a specific date as to when this should be assessed; I think it is an ongoing process. What we are trying to do here is tip the balance in the mind of Iran in terms of making progressing with a nuclear weapon more expensive, in order to get it to think again. There is no one date for that; it should be continually assessed.

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

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the 300th member of the British armed forces who lost his life, not least because he lost it in my constituency of Birmingham, Edgbaston, where the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine and the medical facilities are located?

On the European Council meeting and the Prime Minister’s response, he was very positive about the 2020 agenda. Given that the 2010 Lisbon agenda was vacuous, useless and did not deliver anything, why does he think the 2020 agenda, which is going to build on that, will produce anything more useful?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, may I agree with what the hon. Lady says about the medical facilities in her constituency? Like her, I have been to the Selly Oak hospital and what is done there is incredibly impressive, as is the fact that our returning servicemen and women have access to all the many excellent hospitals in Birmingham, so that all the specialities can be dealt with.

On the 2020 document, I did not think that I did sound that enthusiastic about it, because like the hon. Lady—I suspect we agree about this quite a lot—I am rather suspicious of these strategies, as what really needs to be done is greater action within each European Union country to deal with the problems of our lack of competitiveness. That is about welfare dependency, the scale of our pensions obligations and our uncompetitive tax rates. Sitting around and strategising is one thing, but what we really need to do is roll up our sleeves and get on with the work of making our economies more competitive; otherwise, 2020 will join Lisbon in being dreams that are unfulfilled.

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

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether there was any discussion at the Council about the European security and defence and policy, and in particular whether, either at the Council or later, he had any discussion with President Sarkozy about the possibility of closer defence co-operation between the United Kingdom and France? Would that not be a very good memorial to General de Gaulle?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right in raising this issue. It was not specifically discussed at the European Council, but I discussed it over lunch with President Sarkozy when he was here for the de Gaulle commemoration. There are some real opportunities, because when we look at the defence needs of Britain and France, we see that we both have effective armed forces, we both have a nuclear deterrent and we both have important naval forces. There is room for more collaboration and co-operation. This has fallen down in the past because we have often talked a big game, but nothing has happened. What we should do is start with some smaller projects, where we begin to collaborate and work together and show this makes sense, and then we can take the work forward. But I think this is good for both of us when we want to maintain strong defences, yet we know that we both face—if I can put it like this—issues of affordability.

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

The Prime Minister referred to enlargement of the European Union only in the context of Iceland, but was there any discussion about what is happening in the western Balkans in relation to membership of the EU not just for Croatia, but for the other states of former Yugoslavia?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Sarajevo recently. The hon. Gentleman will find that there is great enthusiasm on the Government side of the House for further enlargement of the European Union. Obviously, Macedonia is a candidate country, and, obviously, we want Croatia—and, in time, others—to join the EU. It struck me, at my first European Council, just what a positive difference enlargement has made, particularly in relation to members from central and eastern Europe, who, on many issues, take a similar view to us and can be very useful allies. This is an agenda that we want to push forward. In terms of maintaining stability and peace in the western Balkans, anchoring those countries into the European Union is a thoroughly positive thing to do.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Prime Minister referred to economic recovery. There are currently as many as 30 European directives in the pipeline which will deeply affect our financial regulation and economic governance, nearly all of which are by qualified majority voting and co-decision. There is also the issue of European social and employment legislation. How will my right hon. Friend—and, of course, the Chancellor tomorrow—regain and retain control over those economic issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good and reasonable point. There are threats to our competitive position coming from the European Commission and, more particularly, from the co-decision procedure and the great strength that had been given to the European Parliament under the Lisbon treaty. It makes our work harder, I have to be frank. In relation to the de Larosière package on financial regulation, a reasonable compromise was reached, but the European Parliament has unpicked that and made it much more burdensome from the British point of view. Now, there is no alternative to having to fight back to the compromise that we left. It is not a satisfactory situation. One thing on which my hon. Friend and I agree is that the Lisbon treaty was not a step forward.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to service personnel. These tributes resonate especially in my constituency, which has suffered the single biggest loss of UK service personnel aboard Nimrod XV230 in Afghanistan.

While he was in Brussels, did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to congratulate Mr Bart De Wever, the winner of last week’s Belgian general election? Does the Prime Minister join me in wishing both Flanders and Wallonia well as neighbours and partners within the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

Getting involved in potential grief between Flemings and Walloons is an area that I do not want to head into, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the fallen, and I warmly congratulate him on the judicious way in which he balanced British and European interests at the European Council. Did he have an opportunity to discuss the accession of Turkey to the European Union? Will he confirm that, not least because Turkey continues to play a very important role in world affairs, that continues to be a cardinal act of British policy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about supporting Turkish membership of the European Union. I think that we should back it wholeheartedly. It is very important for the future of Europe and for the future of Turkey. It was not specifically discussed at the European Council, but we should all be concerned by the signs that Turkey is beginning to look in other directions, and we should be doing all we can to anchor her into the European Union. The decision that the Turks have taken regarding Iran is depressing from that point of view, so it should continue to be our policy to support Turkish membership wholeheartedly and to try to persuade others to do the same.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

On tackling the deficit in pensions obligations, did the Prime Minister discuss his review of state pensions in the UK, and can he confirm that that extends to the armed forces pensions schemes?

[The Prime Minister]

What I can confirm is that the former Member for Barrow and Furness, John Hutton, is going to lead this review, which is looking at pensions within the state sector. It is a very important piece of work and I am sure that its terms of reference will, in time, be placed in the House of Commons for the hon. Gentleman to look at.

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the striking unanimity on urgent deficit reduction shows how right the Government are to get on with it? May we take it from his statement that Britain’s liability towards future eurozone stability will not extend beyond the measures agreed by the former Chancellor on 9 May?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give that assurance. It is absolutely our view that we should not go further than the last Government, in our view, mistakenly went. Britain has advantages from staying outside the euro. I have never supported our membership of the euro and never will, because I have always believed that, once we join the euro, the pressures for single economic government get greater and greater, and that is what we are seeing within the eurozone. But it is in our interests for the countries of the eurozone to sort out their problems. We should not stand in their way, as they try to do that. Our conditions should be that we will not support something that transfers power from Britain to Brussels, and we will not support something that takes us further into financial support for the eurozone, but we should be in favour of measures to make sure that that zone works.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

European investment funds have played a major part in boosting jobs and the economy in Liverpool and other parts of the north-west, with the Northwest Regional Development Agency playing a major role in ensuring that they come to the region. Was there any discussion about how that can be continued?

[The Prime Minister]

We did not discuss regional policy specifically. It is important that we make sure that investment continues into the regions, and the hon. Lady will know that we have announced plans for how we think we can do even better than the regional development agencies have done. I recently read out a list about some of the very wasteful amounts of spending they have been engaged in. What we want is real money going into our cities to make sure that development takes place. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) shouts about Sheffield. I ask her to look at the shareholder structure of that organisation to see who would really benefit from that not very well thought through piece of financial engineering.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments on progress on Iran, but does he agree that the future of Afghanistan is also important to all members of the European Union? Does he agree that it is time that some of our European partners did more to share in the sacrifices of blood and treasure that our forces are making there?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it is one that we should, and do, make all the time in the EU and NATO. As he knows, one of the things we should push for is the reform of NATO, so that we get a common operational fund so that countries such as Britain that are making such a big contribution do not have to pay twice. So we believe in trying to do this. We should also be clear to other countries, which perhaps feel that they cannot do more in the front line, that there is huge amount of logistic support—helicopters, transport and other support—that they can do now and that is incredibly welcome.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Did the Prime Minister show a little bit of gratitude for the decisions of the Labour party conference and people such as Labour Members who decided not to join the eurozone many years ago, showing great foresight and calling on the then Chancellor to write out the five conditions that kept us out? There must be a little part of him that is envious of that.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not want to sound uncharitable, but I remember that the last Conservative Government negotiated the opt-out from the single currency that gave us the ability to stay out of the single currency, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who, in difficult circumstances, made the argument against the single currency. What I remember, when the hon. Gentleman was sitting on the Government Benches rather than on the Opposition Benches, is the then Government wasted about £30 million on preparations for joining the euro. I could have given them that advice for free: do not join it.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on showing some leadership in Europe once more—Britain is grateful—and will he confirm to the House and the public at large that, having drawn red lines in the sand on our position in this country, he will never give them up just to further his own career after the House?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can confirm—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not know what the former Minister for Europe had for breakfast, but perhaps we should be on it—or, alternatively, perhaps we should not.

[The Prime Minister]

I am not going to go there; neither am I applying for some European supernumerary position and all that, but it is important that we set out clearly what we want to achieve. But I say again that we are not against members of the eurozone sorting out their own affairs. We should not stand in their way. We want a strong eurozone; we just do not want Britain to be part of it in joining the single currency, and we also do not believe that we should give it further financial support. Those are the keys that we must stick to.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

In this era of pan-European budget consolidation, will the Prime Minister confirm that he will insist, in the spirit engendered by the words, “We are all in this together”, that the continually rising European Commission budget benefits from considerable shrinkage in future?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I say first how glad I am that my hon. Friend decided to quit the European Parliament and to join us here in the Westminster Parliament, although he left the European Parliament just at the moment at which it has given itself a large dollop of extra power? I absolutely agree with him: the next European budget needs to be at worst a freeze and at best a reduction. I do not say that because of any particular ideological animus; I say it because we will be making difficult budget decisions here in the United Kingdom, and our constituents will not understand if we make budget reductions in the UK, but the European budget increases—it just will not wash.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister made a statement on the formal business at the European Council, but as it was his first Council meeting, would he like to share with us, in the privacy of the Chamber, how he really felt about being there, in terms of his attitude, support and work with other leaders? Did he get a feeling that those leaders understood that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom do not want any more powers to go to Europe, and indeed want to get some powers back as soon as we can?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that there is a good understanding in the European Union of the British position, and an understanding that we are practical, logical, sensible people. We think that the European process of integration has gone too far and should not go further, but we also want to be constructive and positive. The hon. Lady asked for my impressions. One of the things that does strike one is that enlargement has been a success for the United Kingdom, in terms of being able to drive our national interests forward; that is helpful. The other impression is about the primacy of the economic problems that Europe faces. It is a really difficult situation that some European countries face, and grappling with that, with the future of the euro and the eurozone, and with how it will work, will consume an enormous amount of attention in Europe. I thought that there was a general approach—positive, from our point of view—that the organisation should now be about action, substance and political will, rather than endless treaties, processes and institutions. If that could be the case for the coming few years, I, for one, would be very grateful.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

After the Prime Minister’s constructive discussions with European leaders, and the European Commission President’s emphasis on fiscal consolidation and structural reform, is he feeling isolated in Europe, as Labour Members suggested he would?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely the opposite. What is interesting is that, since what has happened in Greece and the problems of sovereign debt, European Union members are pretty much unanimous that one has to take action on budget deficits, and one has to do it now. The risk is falling confidence; that people will not lend us money; and going the same way as Greece. The one group of people who now seem to be completely outside that consensus are those in the British Labour party. They, for reasons of political advantage—or pretend political advantage—are the last people who think that one does not need to deal with the budget deficit. That is very short-sighted and very wrong, and I think that they will come to regret it.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

If the Prime Minister is telling us that there is widespread agreement across Europe that deficits need to be cut, can he tell us exactly what progress was made in getting his European partners to agree that the money with which we subsidise the European Union will be cut? I am talking about not just the costs of the bureaucracy, but the subsidy that we give every year to the EU.

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes quite a robust view on this, but I have to say that, from where I stand, the previous Government gave away £7 billion of the British rebate and got nothing in return, in terms of a proper review of the common agricultural policy. As I said, when it comes to financial perspectives for the EU, we have to constrain the spending of the organisation, particularly as we will be constraining the spending of pretty much everything else.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Could the Prime Minister tell the House how he was received in Europe now that we have a British bulldog representing the interests of Britain, instead of the former Prime Minister, who was like a French poodle?

[The Prime Minister]

Perhaps when it is a person’s first European Council, they give them a slightly softer ride. If Britain states our positions clearly, and if we work hard, particularly with allies in France and Germany, to put forward our positions and why they matter so much to us, we can meet with success, but we should have a positive agenda. As well as protecting our competences and keeping ourselves out of the single currency, we should have a positive agenda about trade, Doha and completing the single market, because all our economies need the stimulus that trade and investment can bring. There is no money left in the European kitties; one can see that by looking at the other leaders sitting around the table, and at how they are feeling, given their own budget deficits. So the best stimulus that we can have is free trade, Doha and completing the single market.

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

As a matter of record, will the Prime Minister say that, at the European Council, there was absolutely no discussion whatsoever of the risks to economic growth from cumulative or excessive spending cuts across Europe, or was he just not listening to those bits?

[The Prime Minister]

I was focused and listening to every minute of the discussions. We want to get it right in dealing with deficits and encouraging growth, but the conclusions make it clear that those countries with really bad deficit problems have to take action. When one sits at the table and looks at the problems in Greece, and at the difficulties in Spain, one asks oneself who has the biggest budget deficit, and the answer is Britain, because we were left it by the Labour party.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) accused the Prime Minister of pandering. Does the Prime Minister agree that the only people who are behaving like pandas, which have notoriously bad vision, are the Opposition, who have signed away so much over the past 13 years?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Over the past 13 years, we have had a succession of treaty changes, whether Nice, Amsterdam or Lisbon, but we have not had the action that we needed to complete the single market to make the differences that would help our economy. We should aim for fewer institutional changes—not more treaties—and getting things done in Europe that will benefit the British economy.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Understandably, much of the discussion focused on economics and the financial situation, but may I ask whether, in his discussions with Iceland, and in future discussions at the International Whaling Commission, the Prime Minister will make sure that the previous Government’s long-standing position on a moratorium on whaling is upheld, and that there is no diminution to allow a resumption of commercial whaling?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Two things stand out. First, if Iceland is to join the European Union, which has a ban on whaling in its waters, it must accept that what it does is incompatible with membership, so that would have to change. Secondly—I raised this in my meeting with the President of the European Commission—it is important that, if Europe discusses its position on whaling, countries should be able to vote against any form of resumption of commercial whaling without being in danger of some sort of infraction proceedings. I made that position absolutely clear.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

May I ask the Prime Minister how warm a welcome he received in Europe, bearing in mind the fact that he went over there to get commitments on our behalf, whereas his predecessor used to travel over there to concede our powers?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We must take a clear approach and talk with other European leaders about our concerns, as it is an organisation in which people are fundamentally trying to help one another, rather than do one another down. If we are clear about why we have red lines and what they mean, it is perfectly possible, when we have built up alliances, to get them agreed. This country should always stand up for itself in Europe. We do not aim to be isolated, but there will be occasions when we are on our own. It is important that we are prepared to stand up and say what we think when that happens.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I press the Prime Minister to say a little more about his discussions in the European Council on the banking levy, and where that leaves those of us who are desperate for action on global poverty and climate change, particularly the introduction of a so-called Robin Hood tax?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for that question. There was a long discussion about the issue of a transaction tax, and great support for that within the European Council. I was keen to make sure that countries such as the UK that want to introduce a banking levy, and that would like international agreement but nevertheless want to go ahead in any event, should be able to do so without being bound by the EU to introduce a particular sort of tax or to spend the money in a particular sort of way. That was achieved.

If the hon. Lady looks at the EU Council’s conclusions, she will see that they say that we should continue to explore and develop the case for a transaction tax, which is sensible. However, I must tell her that it will be difficult to get international agreement for such a tax, which is why Britain is right to take the approach that it has taken.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

There did not appear to be any agreement on the future shape of the European External Action Service. How can Britain’s best interests be advanced in that respect?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Obviously, our party did not support the Lisbon treaty or the creation of the European External Action Service. I am very keen that resources are not badly spent or badly used on the service. Not much progress has yet been made. We will work to try to ensure that the service increases nation states’ ability to project themselves in the world, and does not become an expensive bureaucracy.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Nadhim Zahawi.

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

Will the Prime Minister tell the House the number of countries in Europe that have understood the difference between emergency financial help and structural change of their economy? The only party left to understand the difference is the Opposition.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. All the countries of Europe understand the need for action to reduce budget deficits and have signed up to the 2020 document, which, as I said, has good things in it, but the real action that we all need to take to make sure that the countries of Europe are not stuck in a slow-growth uncompetitive position as against Brazil, Russia, India, China and all the future fast growers, is to look at our real problems—our structural problems, our high costs, our high taxes—and to work out that we will have to take difficult decisions to make Europe more competitive, so that we can pay for the public services and the higher living standards that we all want.

Saville Inquiry

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is publishing the report of the Saville inquiry—the tribunal set up by the previous Government to investigate the tragic events of 30 January 1972, a day more commonly known as “Bloody Sunday”. We have acted in good faith by publishing the tribunal’s findings as quickly as possible after the general election.

I am deeply patriotic; I never want to believe anything bad about our country; I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our Army, which I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear: there is no doubt; there is nothing equivocal; there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong.

Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of Support Company who went into the Bogside

“did so as a result of an order… which should have not been given”

by their commander. He finds that

“on balance the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army”

and that

“none of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm”.

He also finds that

“there was some firing by republican paramilitaries... but... none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties”,

and that

“in no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire”.

Lord Saville also finds that Support Company

“reacted by losing their self-control... forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training”

and acted with

“a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline”.

He finds that

“despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers… none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers”

and that many of the soldiers

“knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing”.

What is more, Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying. The report refers to one person who was shot while

“crawling… away from the soldiers”

and mentions another who was shot, in all probability,

“when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground”.

And the report refers to a father who was

“hit and injured by Army gunfire after he had gone to… tend his son”.

For those looking for statements of innocence, Saville says:

“The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries”,

and, crucially, that

“none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting”.

For those people who were looking for the report to use terms like murder and unlawful killing, I remind the House that these judgments are not matters for a tribunal, or for us as politicians, to determine.

These are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say, but we do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth. So there is no point in trying to soften, or equivocate about, what is in this report. It is clear from the tribunal’s authoritative conclusions that the events of Bloody Sunday were in no way justified.

I know that some people wonder whether, nearly 40 years on from an event, a Prime Minister needs to issue an apology. For someone of my generation, Bloody Sunday and the early 1970s are something that we feel we have learnt about rather than lived through. But what happened should never, ever have happened. The families of those who died should not have had to live with the pain and hurt of that day, and with a lifetime of loss. Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The Government are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces, and for that, on behalf of the Government—indeed, on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.

Just as the report is clear that the actions of that day were unjustifiable, so too it is clear in some of its other findings. Those looking for premeditation, those looking for a plan, those even looking for a conspiracy involving senior politicians or senior members of the armed forces, will not find it in this report. Indeed, Lord Saville finds no evidence that the events of Bloody Sunday were premeditated. He concludes that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland Governments, and the Army, neither tolerated nor encouraged

“the use of unjustified lethal force”.

He makes no suggestion of a Government cover-up, and he credits the United Kingdom Government with working towards a peaceful political settlement in Northern Ireland.

The report also specifically deals with the actions of key individuals in the Army, in politics and beyond, including Major-General Ford, Brigadier MacLellan and Lieutenant-Colonel Wilford. In each case, the tribunal’s findings are clear. The report does the same for Martin McGuinness. It specifically finds that he was present and probably armed with a “sub-machine-gun”, but concludes

“we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire”.

While in no way justifying the events of 30 January 1972, we should acknowledge the background to the events of Bloody Sunday. Since 1969, the security situation in Northern Ireland had been declining significantly. Three days before Bloody Sunday, two officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary—one a Catholic—were shot by the IRA in Londonderry, the first police officers killed in the city during the troubles. A third of the city of Derry had become a no-go area for the RUC and the Army, and in the end 1972 was to prove Northern Ireland’s bloodiest year by far, with nearly 500 people killed.

Let us also remember that Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the service that the British Army gave in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007. That was known as Operation Banner, the longest continuous operation in British military history, which spanned 38 years and in which over 250,000 people served. Our armed forces displayed enormous courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Acting in support of the police, they played a major part in setting the conditions that have made peaceful politics possible, and over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives to that cause. Without their work, the peace process would not have happened. Of course some mistakes were undoubtedly made, but lessons were also learnt. Once again, I put on record the immense debt of gratitude that we all owe those who served in Northern Ireland.

I thank the tribunal for its work, and thank all those who displayed great courage in giving evidence. I also wish to acknowledge the grief of the families of those killed. They have pursued their long campaign over 38 years with great patience. Nothing can bring back those who were killed, but I hope that—as one relative has put it—the truth coming out can help to set people free.

John Major said that he was open to a new inquiry. Tony Blair then set it up. That was accepted by the then Leader of the Opposition. Of course, none of us anticipated that the Saville inquiry would take 12 years or cost almost £200 million. Our views on that are well documented. It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness, but let me reassure the House that there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past.

However, today is not about the controversies surrounding the process. It is about the substance, about what this report tells us. Everyone should have the chance to examine its complete findings, and that is why it is being published in full. Running to more than 5,000 pages, it is being published in 10 volumes. Naturally, it will take all of us some time to digest the report's full findings and understand all the implications. The House will have an opportunity for a full day's debate this autumn, and in the meantime the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence will report back to me on all the issues that arise from it.

This report and the inquiry itself demonstrate how a state should hold itself to account and how we should be determined at all times—no matter how difficult—to judge ourselves against the highest standards. Openness and frankness about the past, however painful, do not make us weaker; they make us stronger. That is one of the things that differentiates us from the terrorists. We should never forget that over 3,500 people, from every community, lost their lives in Northern Ireland, the overwhelming majority killed by terrorists. There were many terrible atrocities. Politically motivated violence was never justified, whichever side it came from, and it can never be justified by those criminal gangs that today want to drag Northern Ireland back to its bitter and bloody past. No Government I lead will ever put those who fight to defend democracy on an equal footing with those who continue to seek to destroy it, but nor will we hide from the truth that confronts us today. In the words of Lord Saville:

“What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland.”

Those are words we cannot and must not ignore, but I hope what this report can do is mark the moment when we come together, in this House and in the communities we represent; come together to acknowledge our shared history, even where it divides us; and come together to close this painful chapter on Northern Ireland's troubled past. That is not to say that we must ever forget or dismiss that past, but we must also move on. Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years and all of us in Westminster and Stormont must continue that work of change, coming together with all the people of Northern Ireland, to build a stable, peaceful, prosperous and shared future. It is with that determination that I commend this statement to the House.

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

May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? As he said, it is more than 12 years since the then Prime Minister Tony Blair set up the Saville inquiry to establish the truth of what happened on what became known as Bloody Sunday. For the 14 families whose loved ones were killed, for the 13 who were injured, for the soldiers and their families, for all those whose lives would never be the same again, the report has been long-awaited. We all recognise how painful this has been, and the Prime Minister has been clear today. He said that there is no ambiguity, that it was wrong; he has apologised and we join him in his apology.

I also join the Prime Minister in thanking Lord Saville and all those whose work contributed to the report. The report speaks for itself and it speaks powerfully.

I remind the House of what Tony Blair said on the day that the House agreed to establish the Saville inquiry. He said that Bloody Sunday was a day we have all wished “had never happened” and that it was “a tragic day” for everyone. I reiterate his tribute to the dignity of the bereaved families, whose campaign was about searching for the truth. He rightly reminded the House of the thousands of lives that have been lost in Northern Ireland. May I restate our sincere admiration for our security forces’ response to terrorism in Northern Ireland? Many lost their lives. Nothing in today’s report can or should diminish their record of service. They have been outstanding.

The Prime Minister has acknowledged that the Saville inquiry was necessary to establish the truth and to redress the inadequacy of Lord Widgery’s inquiry, which served only to deepen the sense of grievance, added to the pain of the families of those who died and were injured, outraged the community and prolonged the uncertainty hanging over the soldiers. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for reminding the House that the setting up of the Saville inquiry played a necessary part in the peace process. Does the Prime Minister agree that, notwithstanding the considerable cost of this inquiry, its value cannot be overestimated in both seeking the truth and facilitating the peace process? Does he believe that Saville has now established the truth?

How the Government handle the report is of great importance, so I thank the Prime Minister for committing to seek a full day’s parliamentary debate on it. Will he consider allowing for a period of time between the debate in each House, so that what is said in this House may be considered before the debate in the Lords? When will he be in a position to say what, if any, action will be taken in Government as a result of the findings of the Saville report? What will be the decision-making process, and will the process be as transparent as possible?

The Prime Minister must recognise that some will no doubt raise the possibility of prosecutions. The prosecution process is independent, but has he been asked to consider the question of immunity from prosecution if we are instead to take things forward by a wider process of reconciliation? Is the time now right to move towards a process for reconciliation, building on the work of the Consultative Group on the Past, chaired by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley? Can there now be a comprehensive process of reconciliation to address the legacy issue of the troubles, such as that proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Does the Prime Minister agree that that is what is now necessary?

The peace process is a great achievement by the people of Northern Ireland as well as by politicians. It is a process built on the value of fairness, equality, truth and justice. This House has played its part, not least in agreeing to the Saville inquiry. The Belfast agreement, the St Andrews agreement and, of course, this year’s Hillsborough castle agreement are all great milestones on the path to a lasting peace. Does the Prime Minister agree that the completion of devolution just a few weeks ago is relatively new and fragile and still requires great care? Our response to Saville must be as measured as it is proportionate. We have sought the truth; now we must have understanding and reconciliation.

May I conclude by expressing the hope that while people will never forget what happened on that day, this report will help them find a way of living with the past and looking to the future?

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for what she has said? I do not think there are any significant divisions between us on this vital issue and, as she said, how we respond to this matters: it matters for the peace process, it matters for the families and it matters for our country. She is right that the value of this is getting to the truth. Of course we can argue about the process, the time and the money, but that is secondary to the issue of the substance, and the substance is about getting to the truth on this issue. The right hon. and learned Lady raised a number of specific questions, and I shall try to deal with them.

The idea of leaving a period of time between the debates in the Commons and the Lords is very sensible, and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to look at that—although, of course, we are not responsible for timings in the Lords. In terms of the action the Government should take, I should point out that this report is 5,000 pages long; as the right hon. and learned Lady has seen, it is the most enormous document, and it will take some time to go through all of it and identify all the points that need to be responded to. That will be led by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland. They will consider it and come to me with suggestions for what needs to be followed up, and I think we will have to see how others respond to this very full report too.

The right hon. and learned Lady raised the question of prosecution. She is right, of course, to say that these are decisions for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take in Northern Ireland and that should be entirely independent. On the issue of immunity, I am informed by the Advocate-General that the evidence given to the inquiry is subject to the undertaking given by the Attorney-General in February 1999

“that evidence given by witnesses to the Inquiry would not be used to the prejudice of that person in any criminal proceedings except proceedings where the witness is charged with giving false evidence.”

I think that is the right position.

The right hon. and learned Lady will know that we do not agree with some parts of the Eames-Bradley report, particularly the idea of universal recognition payments; we do not think it is right to treat terrorists and others in the same way. I think that it is right to use, as far as is possible, the Historical Enquiries Team to deal with the problems of the past and to avoid having more open-ended, highly costly inquiries, but of course we should look at each case on its merits. May I thank her again for the way in which she has responded to this important statement for Britain, for Northern Ireland and for a peaceful future for our country?

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said, it is very important to have a measured and proportionate response to this report, both in this House and in Northern Ireland. Is it not, therefore, important that the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland, on both sides of the divide, show leadership in that respect? One thing that we do not want to do is see the Army return to the streets of Northern Ireland, and to avoid that situation coming about again we must have the correct response to this report. It will take time to digest, because it is 5,000 pages long and raises many issues. We have to look at this issue and the whole report, and we must do justice to it. That will take time and a reasoned approach.

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on being elected as the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs? He has had a long interest in this part of our United Kingdom, and I know that he will do an excellent job. The point he makes is entirely right: how we respond to this as party leaders—this applies to all parties—will make a huge difference to the way that this is seen and understood. It is a highly charged and highly emotional issue, even 38 years on, and in our response we have to be responsible for what we say and how we say it. I think that it is important that everyone recognises that.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

As the political development Minister in 1998, when this inquiry was started, I think that I was right in agreeing with it. Having listened to the Prime Minister’s statement, all of which I agree with, I believe that, despite the costs and the length of time, it was right for this report to come forward today, after all these years. Does the Prime Minister agree that the chief priority, still, for Northern Ireland is its peace process and that all parties in Northern Ireland must agree with that process and with the way we go forward? Will he undertake to take personal charge of ensuring that that peace process continues, despite what he rightly calls the “shocking” revelations of this report?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman served with great distinction as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I know his commitment to the Province and to the peace process. He is right to say that the peace process still needs to be given our priority. I was keen to get to every part of the United Kingdom within the first 10 days or so of becoming Prime Minister, and I did go to Northern Ireland, where I met party leaders, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree, as a former Secretary of State, that it is important for us to give responsibility to our Secretaries of State and to ensure that, in the first instance, they are leading the process and making sure that the peace process moves forward—it is moving forward. It has been challenged many times over the past decade, and I am sure that today will be another fresh challenge. But I hope that the way that people respond to this report will make sure that, as I said in my statement, we can draw an end to this very painful chapter in Northern Ireland’s history.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Every soldier should be responsible for what actions he takes through the sight of a gun and every officer must bear responsibility for individual orders that they give, as must members of the IRA and other terrorist organisations. What steps will the Prime Minister take to make sure that the Saville inquiry report is used to draw a line under the past and ensure that peace remains in Northern Ireland, and is not used as a tool for propaganda by politicians to hit each other over the head with?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I know that my hon. Friend served in Northern Ireland in the Army, and I pay tribute to that. I think that how people respond will be a matter for them. I cannot stop people—as he put it —hitting themselves or indeed even each other over the head with this report. What I hope can happen as a result of today, given the clarity of the report and the lack of equivocation, is that whatever side of the arguments or whatever side people have been on, they will be able to draw a line under what happened and recognise that very bad things happened on that day; it was not justified and it was not justifiable, and there is no point quibbling or arguing with that. As I said, of course people in Northern Ireland will go on looking back to the past, because of the painful memories and also because of the information that has not yet come out, but at the same time as doing that it must be possible to look to the future. In my view, Northern Ireland has a very bright future.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

May I thank the Prime Minister for his clear statement? From talking to representatives of the families a short while ago, I know that they would want to be associated with those thanks.

This is a day of huge moment and deep emotion in Derry. The people of my city did not just live through Bloody Sunday; they have lived with it since. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a day to receive and reflect on the clear verdicts of Saville, and not to pass party verdicts on Saville?

The key verdicts are:

“despite the contrary evidence given by soldiers, we have concluded that none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers. No one threw or threatened to throw a nail or petrol bomb at the soldiers on Bloody Sunday”.

A further verdict is:

“none of the casualties…was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury.”

Of course, there is also the verdict that

“the British Army fired the first shots, these were not justified and none of the subsequent shots that killed or wounded”

anyone on Bloody Sunday “was justified.” In rejecting so much of the soldiers’ submissions and false accounts, the report highlights where victims were shot in the back or while crawling on the ground, or shot again when already wounded on the ground.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that each and every one of the victims—Bernard McGuigan, 41; Gerald Donaghey, 17; Hugh Gilmour, 17; John Duddy, 17; Gerard McKinney, 34; James Wray, 22; John Young, 17; Kevin McElhinney, 17; Michael Kelly, 17; Michael McDaid, 20; Patrick Doherty, 31; William McKinney, 27; William Nash, 19; and John Johnston, 59—are all absolutely and totally exonerated by today’s report, as are all the wounded? These men were cut down when they marched for justice on their own streets. On that civil rights march, they were protesting against internment without trial, but not only were their lives taken, but their innocent memory was then interned without truth by the travesty of the Widgery tribunal. Will the Prime Minister confirm clearly that the Widgery findings are now repudiated and binned, and that they should not be relied on by anyone as giving any verdict on that day?

Sadly, only one parent of the victims has survived to see this day and hear the Prime Minister’s open and full apology on the back of this important report. Lawrence McElhinney epitomises the dignity and determination of all the families who have struggled and strived to exonerate their loved ones and have the truth proclaimed.

Seamus Heaney reflected the numbing shock of Bloody Sunday and its spur to the quest for justice for not only families but a city when he wrote:

“My heart besieged by anger, my mind a gap of danger,

I walked among their old haunts, the home ground where they bled;

And in the dirt lay justice, like an acorn in the winter

Till its oak would sprout in Derry where the thirteen men lay dead.”

The Bloody Sunday monument on Rossville street proclaims:

“Their epitaph is in the continuing struggle for democracy”.

If today, as I sincerely hope it does, offers a healing of history in Derry and Ireland, may we pray that it also speaks hope to those in other parts of the world who are burdened by injustice, conflict and the transgressions of unaccountable power?

The Prime Minister’s welcome statement and the statement that will be made by the families on the steps of the Guildhall will be the most significant records of this day on the back of the report that has been published. However, perhaps the most important and poignant words from today will not be heard here or on the airwaves. Relatives will stand at the graves of victims and their parents to tell of a travesty finally arrested, of innocence vindicated and of promises kept, and as they do so, they can invoke the civil rights anthem when they say, “We have overcome. We have overcome this day.”

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman spoke with great power and great emotion on behalf of his constituents and his city, and I would like to pay tribute to the way in which he did that, and to the service that he has given to them. He spoke about the healing of history, and I hope and believe that he will be right. I know that he represents many of the families who lost loved ones that day, and he has always fought for them in a way that is honourable and right, and has always, in spite of all the difficulties, stood up for the peace process and for peaceful means.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, he is right that the Widgery report is now fully superseded by the Saville report; this is the report with the facts, the details and the full explanation of what happened, and it should be accepted as such. In terms of the people who were killed on that day, they were innocent of anything that justified them being shot; that is quite clear from the report. Let me read it again:

“none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting.”

That is what Saville has found. I hope that that is some comfort to the families, and to the people in Londonderry who have suffered for so many years over the issue, and that, as the hon. Gentleman says, we can now draw a line, look to the future and build Northern Ireland as a prosperous part of the United Kingdom.

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

May I congratulate not only the Prime Minister but the Leader of the Opposition on their opening statements today, which, I have to say, were two of the most statesmanlike contributions I have heard on any subject in more than 13 years in this House?

On the question of possible prosecutions, may I draw to the House’s attention one fact? There was a sniper on the IRA side who killed something like two dozen British soldiers, but who was arrested only a relatively short time before the Good Friday agreement was concluded. As a result of that man’s conviction, he received a very long sentence, but served only a very short sentence. Should it not be borne in mind that that man, after all he did, is now out on the streets, a free man, before anybody starts calling for prosecutions of people, even though they did very wrong things a very long time ago?

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the statements by me and the Leader of the Opposition? I know that he cares deeply about this issue, too. What I would say to him about the very strong point that he makes is that the Good Friday agreement included clauses that were incredibly painful for people on all sides to cope with. The idea that someone who had murdered—and, as my hon. Friend said, murdered perhaps more than once—would serve only two years in prison was incredibly painful for people to understand, but these things had to be done to try to end the long-running conflict and to bring people to pursue their goals by peaceful means. That is what the peace process is about.

In terms of making a contrast between that and what soldiers have done, I am very clear that we should not try to draw an equivalence between what terrorists have done and what soldiers have done, because soldiers are operating under the law—operating for a Government. We should not draw equivalence. On the issue of prosecutions, I can only repeat what I said to the Leader of the Opposition, and I also make the point that it is important that I do not say anything today that would prejudice either a criminal prosecution or, indeed, a civil action, were one to be brought.

Let me end, again, on the point about the painful decisions that had to be made in the peace process. We all, particularly on the Conservative side of the House, know people who have been affected. The first person I ever wrote a speech for was Ian Gow, who was murdered by the IRA. It is incredibly painful and difficult for people to put behind them what happened in the past, but we have to if we are to make the peace process work.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and of course it will take some time fully to divulge the contents of the Saville inquiry. The events of 30 January will live with the surviving relatives for the rest of their lives. Thousands of other surviving relatives have had to do likewise. They have had no costly inquiries and no media interest, and there have been 10,000 other bloody days in Northern Ireland’s recent history. Murder and mayhem were caused by the Provisional IRA in the days, weeks and months before Bloody Sunday. Indeed, the two police officers whom the Prime Minister mentioned were murdered in the immediate vicinity of the march just three days before that march. I am glad the Prime Minister mentioned them today on the Floor of the House, because Lord Saville did not. That is an unfortunate and deeply regrettable omission.

We did not need a £200 million inquiry to establish that there was no premeditated plan to shoot civilians on that day. We did not need a report of such length to tell us that as a result of IRA actions before Bloody Sunday, parts of the city “lay in ruins”. Many have said that the difference between Bloody Sunday and the other atrocities that I have alluded to was that Bloody Sunday was carried out by state forces, whereas other murders were carried out by terrorists.

There has been no similar inquiry into the financing of the Provisional IRA at the inception of that organisation by another state—the Irish Republic. That Irish state acted as a midwife at the birth of an organisation responsible for murdering many thousands of UK citizens.

Soldiers answered questions in the course of the Saville inquiry. The 2IC of the Provisional IRA, Martin McGuinness, appears not to have answered questions. The public will want to know from today what he was doing with a Thompson sub-machine-gun on the day of Bloody Sunday. Does the Prime Minister agree that the sorry saga of the report is finally over and done with, and that we should look forward, rather than looking back?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree that we should look forward rather than back, and I hope the report will enable us to do that. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to refer, as I did in my statement, to the 1,000 members of the Army and security services who lost their lives during the troubles, and all that they did to try to keep Northern Ireland safe and secure. Of course he is right to refer to the many thousands of families who have lost loved ones through terrorism and who have not had an answer and have not had an inquiry into what happened to their loved ones. When it comes to answering questions, yes, it is important that IRA members and people who were responsible for things even now come forward and answer so that people can at least bury those whom they lost. Of course that is important.

I hope, as well, that the hon. Gentleman will understand that there is something about Bloody Sunday—about the fact that 13 people were shot by British Army soldiers and died on that day—that necessitated a proper inquiry. That is what the report today is about. Yes, we must come up with the answers to other people’s questions and yes, we have to go through with the historical inquiries team to try to settle those issues of the past, but let us not pretend that there is not something about that day, Bloody Sunday, that needed to be answered clearly in a way that can allow those families—all those people—to lay to rest what happened on that day.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his courageous and honourable statement and, through him, Lord Saville for a very clear and unequivocal report which has, at last, answered the questions to which 27 families have been waiting for answers for so long. Does the Prime Minister agree that, given that the truth is the precondition of closure, justice and reconciliation, we now have the best possible way to move on because we have, at last, the truth about all those events on that terrible day?

Does the Prime Minister have any plans, when we have all had a chance to digest the report, to go to Northern Ireland and to Derry not just to express the solidarity of the whole House with the people there, and to confirm our support for the troops who for so long did honourable things in the name of the democratic Government, but to encourage the families of the bereaved and all those who, since that day in Derry and beyond, have worked so hard to make sure that Northern Ireland will never again have the terrible past that it had, but always have the prosperous democratic future which events such as Bloody Sunday made much more difficult, but which, in spite of adversity, so many people, including the women of Northern Ireland, did so much to achieve?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly agree. This is about trying to heal the wounds of the past. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)—the former leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, who represents so many of the families in his constituency—put it, people in Londonderry have not just lived through it, but lived with it. That is the point, and that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) makes.

In terms of going to Northern Ireland, I am keen that as Prime Minister I should visit Northern Ireland regularly, and as I said, I have already been there in the relatively early days of my being Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in Londonderry two weeks ago and met the families, and he has plans to go back and do that again. I know that many people support Derry’s bid to be the European city of culture, and that is another part of the healing process in closing that painful chapter around the past.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his very considered and thoughtful comments in respect of this particularly sensitive report. Since Bloody Sunday the families have had to live with not only the consequences of what unfolded in that short period, but the consequences of the many speculative reports and so on, which were produced following the events and which compounded their pain. So I am glad that, today, this report would seem to be a start in delivering for them the truth that they required and, I hope, the justice that they needed to be able to rebuild their lives.

The tragic events of that afternoon clearly and irrevocably changed the direction and course of the lives of people who were immediately affected by it, but it also cast a very long shadow over the society in which all of us live. Therefore I seek the Prime Minister’s assurances that, given how polarising the incident has been throughout politics and society in Northern Ireland, he will listen carefully to all the voices surrounding it, give people time to consider the content of the report fully and encourage them to take the time to read it in full before reaching conclusions on it. Can he also reassure us that he will deal with the Northern Ireland Executive and discuss with the Ministers there who have responsibility for individual victims how he intends to take forward the wider project of dealing with the legacy of the past?

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Lady on her election victory as the new Alliance MP for Belfast East? What she said was extremely sensible. The report is comprehensive and people should take time to study it, but it will take time for them to engage properly with all the information. Our key aim was to try to get it out as fast as we could in a reasonable way, to give the families and others advance sight of it and to try to publish it in one go properly. Mercifully, for a report as complicated and detailed as this, there have been relatively few leaks, and I hope that people can see it, read it and fully engage with it.

The hon. Lady says that people should read the report, but I also recommend the summary document, which is some 60 pages long and incredibly clear. That is why I reached my conclusion about there being no equivocation. When one reads the summary, whatever preconceived ideas one brings to the whole area and to what happened, one is given an incredibly clear sense of what happened and how wrong it was. I hope that, whatever side of the argument people come from, a report as clear as this will help them to come to terms with the past, because it puts matters beyond doubt. In that way, as I said, I think that the truth can help to free people from their preconceived ideas.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the beginning of his statement that that period of the 1970s was something that people of his generation had learned about. In the period between 1971 and 1975, we lost more members of the British Army than we have during the past four years in Afghanistan, such was the bleakness of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

I was born in the Royal Victoria hospital on the Falls road in Belfast in the latter part of the year that the events unfolded in Derry/Londonderry, and the events in Northern Ireland at that time shaped very many of us. One of the great joys of returning to Northern Ireland today is talking to young people, in their teens, for whom even the most recent events of the troubles themselves are something that they study and do not remember. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if civic leaders and politicians in Northern Ireland take the lead of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), this could be a cleansing opportunity of historic proportions, whereby the process of normalisation in Northern Ireland can continue and young people will never have to go back to the dark days of the 1970s?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope that my hon. Friend is right. As I said, I think that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) spoke extremely clearly and passionately, and there should be a chance of working for a shared future. That is what we want in Northern Ireland.

The point that my hon. Friend makes is right. Every year—every month—that goes by with the peace process working and without a return to violence further embeds a culture in which we do things by political means and we get normal politics in Northern Ireland. That is what we should be aiming for, and it is certainly what we shall try to do.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition both spoke with great sensitivity and balance this afternoon. In that spirit, does the Prime Minister agree that any action taken against former members of the armed services subsequent to the Saville report should be carried out in the interests of justice and not vengeance?

[The Prime Minister]

The short answer to that is yes. These matters should be determined independently by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the correct way. One of the things that should mark us out is that these things should happen only in the interests of justice and not in the interests of vengeance. I am sure that that is what will happen. I set out the position to the right hon. and learned Lady.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I should like to thank the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Lady for their measured contributions. On other days, soldiers who had been based at the Colchester garrison lost their lives in Northern Ireland. In 1987, I spent three days with 3rd Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment on duty in Belfast and was full of admiration for their courage and bravery, because they faced the prospect of being shot at by fellow British citizens. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will confirm that awful though Bloody Sunday clearly was, more than 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives during the years of the troubles?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right; over 1,000 people—from the security services, the Army, the police and other services—lost their lives. Also, 250,000 people served in the Army in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner. Those of us who have not served in the Army cannot possibly know how tough it must be to be on duty on the streets, faced with violence and the threats of violence. It is worth remembering what service those people all gave and what restraint, in almost every case, they showed.

I was speaking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who served in Londonderry, in Derry, a year after Bloody Sunday. He rightly made the point to me that the pressures that we put on our often very young soldiers were huge, and we should pay tribute to all those who served for what they did. But it is not in their interests, and nor is it in our interests, to try to gloss over what happened on that dreadful day. The report enables us to face up to what happened and to accept what happened, and that is the best way of moving on and accounting for the past.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

First of all, I thank the Prime Minister for bringing forward the very welcome statement on the Saville report today. I thank the members of the Opposition who brought the report to this point today.

Given the very personal tragedy of Bloody Sunday for the families of the bereaved and wounded and the major political implications that this serious incident had for the people of Derry, the wider community of Northern Ireland over the last 38 years and the wider island of Ireland, could the Prime Minister tell us about the parameters and context of the debate and the possible time scale of the assessment and report from the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland? Will he also give consideration to possible measures of redress for the families in Derry following the exoneration of the victims by the Saville report? In that debate, could wider consideration be given to the Ballymurphy families, who also experienced a lot of distress and pain because the Parachute Regiment, some five months earlier, was involved in those incidents, which resulted in the wounding, but above all the killing, of 10 people?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and congratulate her on becoming leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party and on her election as Member of Parliament for South Down. She asked several questions. First, on how long the Government’s assessment will take, the report is very long and detailed, and we want to take the summer to consider it and come back to the debate in the autumn, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can answer questions more fully and make announcements, if appropriate.

On redress, I do not think that today is the day to talk about such matters; today is the day to consider the report and take it all in. As the hon. Lady knows, perhaps better than anyone, the families have been involved in a search for the truth rather than for recompense or redress. However, all those issues need to be examined.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has meetings with the Ballymurphy families. The first port of call should be the historical inquiries team. It is doing good work, going through all the issues of the past and trying to settle them as best it can. We want to avoid other such open-ended, highly costly inquiries. We cannot rule out for ever that there will be no other form of inquiry, but let us allow the Historical Enquiries Team to do its very good work.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the balance that he has achieved in the statement. It is important to recognise not only the truths of the Saville inquiry, but the sacrifice and the grief of the forces, who played such an important part in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. May I suggest that if the inquiry and the report are to be a true marker in helping the healing process and the peace process to move forward, it is terribly important to keep that balance in one’s remarks and perspective about the sacrifice on both sides?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As I tried to say in my statement, we should pay tribute—I do so again—to the 250,000 of our fellow countrymen who served in Northern Ireland with great distinction, often in great personal danger. We should pay tribute to all those who were injured, who suffered and who lost their lives. It was incredibly tough and difficult work but necessary not just to maintain the rule of law, but to make possible what we have now: the peace process. It would not have happened without that service. However, we do the forces no service if we try to gloss over the dreadful events set out in the report. I am sure that serving and retired members of the armed forces, as well as people on the Benches behind me or, indeed, in front of me, who served in the armed forces, want the truth about the events to be out there. That is the right thing to do. We honour the British Army—we should put it at the front and centre of our national life and celebrate what it does—but we do it no service if we do not look properly and in detail at things when they go wrong.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the previous Government for having the courage to establish the inquiry in the first place. Will he acknowledge that the inquiry came about only because of very brave campaigning for many years by Irish people, throughout Ireland and over here, who often got much press opprobrium for doing so? I am unclear about what happens next and whether there are to be further investigations or prosecutions of those who committed those acts of murder on the streets of Derry, or whether that will be left to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I realise that it is difficult for the Prime Minister to answer all that today, but does he expect to be able to give us clearer guidance in the debate in the autumn?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me try to answer the hon. Gentleman as clearly as I can. Prosecutions are a matter for the DPP, and that is right. We cannot have inquiry judges or politicians trying to order prosecutions. Indeed, we must be careful about what we say so that we do not prejudice any potential prosecutions. If it would help, I can repeat the Attorney-General’s clear advice about people not prejudicing their own potential proceedings.

On the campaign, yes, I pay tribute to people who campaigned because the report in some ways justifies itself to those who wanted a clear, truthful and accurate answer. In the report, they have something very clear and accurate that cannot be quibbled with.

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

Having read the summary report of Saville, the Prime Minister talks about it bringing out the truth, but is not the difficulty that we have the truth on one side but not the truth on the other? Of Martin McGuinness, the report states:

“The question remains as to what Martin McGuinness was doing”

that day. We do not know the truth about what Martin McGuinness and the IRA were doing that day, and the problem is that while we regret every death in Northern Ireland—they are all personal tragedies—we must not lose sight of the need for balance, as other hon. Members have said. I can well remember hearing the two explosions at Narrow Water close to my home in South Down when I was a child, when 18 members of the Parachute Regiment were cut down in cold blood by the Provisional IRA. No one was ever convicted of their murders. If we are to have the truth and a quest for justice, it should apply right across the board, and not just in a small nub.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I absolutely want us to get to the truth on all of those dreadful murders. As I said, ought former paramilitaries to come forward and give information so that we can clear up murders and so that people can bury their loved ones properly? Yes, they should—absolutely. I can see members of the SDLP nodding at that.

As for Martin McGuinness, he must answer for himself on the evidence he gave to the inquiry. Let me read the relevant paragraph:

“In the end we were left in some doubt as to his movements on the day. Before the soldiers of Support Company went into the Bogside he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire.”

The right hon. Gentleman is right that in the end, we want the truth to come out about all the murders, and we want to know all the information, but in respect of the Government’s responsibility for bringing clarity on Bloody Sunday, I think Lord Saville has done us a service. I think people from all parts of Northern Ireland, from all parts of all communities, should welcome the fact that although we might not have clarity on everything that happened, we have clarity on one bad thing that did happen. Let us not make that a reason for not welcoming the clarity of what has been said today.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the clarity with which he has set out, in his words today, the Government view on the publication of the Saville report. Does he agree that as this report is digested and looked at in great detail—difficult though that may be—across all communities in Northern Ireland, what really matters for the future of Northern Ireland and all its people in all its communities, is reconciliation, leaving the past behind and moving to a new and brighter future for Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right that what we really want is reconciliation and working for a shared future, and everyone working across all communities to put the past behind them, but I think we all know that there is still some work to be done on the past, because loved ones remain unburied and murders remain unsolved. That is what the Historical Enquiries Team is there to do. We have to try to do those things at the same time. We must uncover and come to terms with what happened in the past in a way that can allow families to move on, but at the same time we must recognise that Northern Ireland’s shared future will be about economic growth and people working together, whatever tradition they come from.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I am sure the Prime Minister would not like to support a hierarchy of victimhood. On 17 January 1992, eight innocent civilian construction workers at Teebane were murdered by the Provisional IRA, and six others were seriously injured. On 9 April 1991, my cousin Derek was gunned down and his child was left to put his fingers into the holes where the blood was coming out to try to stop his father dying. On 7 February 1976, my two cousins were brutally murdered—one boy, 16, and his sister, 21, on the day she was engaged to be married. Therefore I say this to the Prime Minister: no one has ever been charged for any of those murders, and there have been no inquiries. Countless others, including 211 Royal Ulster Constabulary members, were also murdered. Saville says:

“None”

of the casualties

“was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury”,

but that could be said of Teebane, of Derek, of Robert and of Rachel. How do we get closure, how do we get justice, and how do we get the truth?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman rightly speaks with great power and emotion about how people on all sides in Northern Ireland have suffered, and people in the community that he represents have suffered particularly badly. Some horrific things have happened to people completely unconnected with politics—people who are innocent on every single level—and there is nothing that you can do to explain to someone who lost a loved one in that way that there is any logic, fairness or sense in that loss. The hon. Gentleman asks how we try to achieve closure on such matters. There is no easy way, but we have the Historical Enquiries Team, which goes through case after case, and if it finds the evidence, prosecutions can take place.

I hope that the inquiry report published today will give some closure to those families from Londonderry, but one way for families who have suffered to gain more closure about the past is for terrorists or former terrorists to come forward and give information about those crimes. However, in the end, we have to move forward and we have to accept that dreadful things happened. We do not want to return to those days, and that sometimes means—as he and I know—burying very painful memories about the past so that we can try to build a future.

[David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister recall that in the last Stormont elections the single biggest issue by a long way for both sides of the community was water charges and rates? Does not that demonstrate that in many ways the majority of the people of Northern Ireland have already moved on from the troubles that dominated so much of the past? Is it not important that on a day like today, when emotions will understandably run high, we do not lose sight of the fact that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are today concerned about the same issues about which his constituents and my constituents are concerned? That is a good thing and it represents progress.

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the great prizes of the peace process would be for Northern Ireland to experience politics in the same way as the rest of us in the United Kingdom where it is about knocking on doors and talking about the health service, schools and water rates. That is what politics should be about, and there is a chance of that happening. It was great to go to Northern Ireland as Prime Minister without the normal security paraphernalia that previous visits involved, so we are making progress. That is what politics in Northern Ireland should become. The more that happens, the more people will find it unthinkable to go back to the days that came before.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Thirty-eight years is too long for any bereaved family to wait for justice and today’s report is a historic step on the long road to permanent peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s report will be welcomed by the families who have campaigned for so long for justice for the 13 men and boys who died on that day?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope that the families will welcome the report, and I know that they are gathered in Derry today. I know that they will have been watching our proceedings and will have read the report—they had access to it in advance of its publication. As I have said, nothing that anyone can write or say will bring back those who were killed, but I was very struck by a remark by one of the relatives, quoted in a newspaper this morning, that the truth can help to set you free. If you have been living with something for 38 years without any answers, the answers do not end the grief, but they do give you a chance to learn what happened and therefore bring some closure to those dreadful events.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Following the eloquent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), one wishes that on a day such as today the House had time to hear the names of everybody who died in tragic circumstances in Northern Ireland. It has been said that this report could lead to closure and cleansing, but it is difficult to see how that could happen if this report is used as a springboard for more years of agitation about prosecutions over events that happened 38 years ago. If there are prosecutions, presumably they might include prosecution for the possession of illegal firearms, for example.

Would it not be a true testament to all this if the Prime Minister were to announce today that the HET, which he has mentioned on several occasions, will be given anything like the same level of funding given to this inquiry? The HET has been grossly underfunded compared to this inquiry. The thousands of other victims who demand justice are looking to the HET and other such forums to achieve it. Will he today guarantee that the same emphasis will be given to those victims as has been given to innocent people otherwise?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope that the report will not be used as a springboard for further inquiries or action. It is supposed to help by delivering the truth and helping to achieve closure—that is what it should be about. The hon. Gentleman asked about the Historical Enquiries Team, the funding of which, as he knows, is about £34 million—much less than the cost of the Saville inquiry. However, I think that everyone accepts that the cost of that inquiry was huge—£100 million was spent on lawyers alone. While acknowledging, as I have done, that it is a full, clear and unequivocal—and, in that respect, a good—report, I am sure that even the former Government would have recognised that lessons needed to be learned about cost control. That is why there was the Inquiries Act 2005 to replace the 1921 arrangements. The issue of the HET is now a devolved issue, and I would add that in opposition we supported the generous funding settlement for the devolved Administration to cover such areas.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Speaking as someone of Northern Irish heritage and representing a constituency with large numbers of the Irish diaspora, I welcome the publication—finally—and clarity of the Saville report. I also thank the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for the moving way in which they addressed the House today. However, although the report has clarity, does the Prime Minister agree that there are times when truth and justice do not necessarily go together?

[The Prime Minister]

I echo what the hon. Lady said about the Members who have spoken today. On truth and justice going together, without wanting to write a whole essay, it seems to me that a very important part of the justice that people in Northern Ireland seek is having the truth about what happened out in the open. People in the city of Londonderry want that transparency and accountability, and many Democratic Unionist Members want the same for their constituents who have suffered in the same way. Having the truth out about what happened does not bring back relatives and loved-ones, but it at least enables people to understand what happened; and it enables prosecutions to be brought forward, if that is the right thing to do. However, I repeat that it must be for independent prosecuting authorities to take those decisions—we must not get into a situation where politicians nudge the prosecuting authorities in one direction or another in that sort of way.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Like the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), I hope that this is the end of a matter that has bedevilled and poisoned Northern Ireland’s politics for so long. However, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity and dismiss completely, from the Dispatch Box, claims by commentators that this inquiry has been a war crimes tribunal, and that the people in the dock have been the British citizens of Northern Ireland? Such a shameful slur on us citizens is intolerable and wrong, and serves only to perpetuate that poison through the veins of the body politic in Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, can the Prime Minister be less ambiguous on the matter of future inquiries? He said in his statement that there will be no more costly inquiries, but in answer to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), he said that he cannot rule out all inquiries. Which is it to be? If we cannot rule out all inquiries, there are 211 RUC officers who have been murdered and their killers have never been brought to justice, and there has been no inquiry into those murders. Indeed, more than 3,000 people killed in Northern Ireland have not yet had justice. What is it going to be?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place in the House. He is right: this is not, as he said, a war crimes tribunal—that would be an appalling thing to say—but an inquiry into what happened. It is an inquiry to get to the truth of the events of that day and the events surrounding it. I meant what I said about no more costly open-minded inquiries. We should not have more open-ended and costly inquiries. I want to support the work of the Historical Enquiries Team. That is the right way to go about things. Of course, we can never say never about any other form of inquiry, however big or small, but my strong intention is to use the Historical Enquiries Team process to get to the bottom of the events of the past. That is the right way to go about things.

I know that this is probably unparliamentary, but may I welcome the other Ian Paisley, who is in the Gallery and whom we remember so fondly sitting in this House? Let me just say this. Everyone has had to take big risks for peace in Northern Ireland, and no more so than the Big Man, as they like to call him. We should all recognise that people in this process have known so many victims of terrorism and so much suffering, and everyone has had to take risks and make movements in order to bring the peace process about, and that will continue to be true. Even today, as we remember the painful memories of the past, we still have to say, “Yes, I remember those things—I don’t forget them for a second—but that doesn’t mean we don’t work together for a shared future for Northern Ireland.”

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

I wish particularly to thank the Prime Minister for his frank apology on behalf of the Government and the people of this country. I think that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will accept that that will in some way be a salve for the people in the Bloody Sunday incident and the families of the dead. However, does the Prime Minister accept that unless people can see the names and know the people who carried out the acts, for many of the families there may not be a way of putting the incident behind them, as I found out from my contact with the families of those who were killed in McGurk’s bar? I hope that he will consider that, not in terms of what will happen with the prosecutions or anything else, but because people must know who carried out those acts.

Finally, will the Prime Minister look in the longer term at the role of the intelligence forces in possibly preconditioning people in the armed forces for what happened on Bloody Sunday? Those dark forces are clearly at work in the British Army, and we must not allow them to hide.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s description of “dark forces” in the armed forces. The report is clear that there was no conspiracy—there was no premeditation, there was no plan, and it is not right to say that there was. He should read the summary of the report and what it says about not just the politicians, but the senior officers who were involved. That is important.

Let me address the hon. Gentleman’s other point. As for the anonymity of the soldiers, that was part of the Saville process and what was agreed in order that the evidence should be given and the truth should be got at. Let me say this about apologies, because I know that some people are—in some ways, I think, rightly—cynical about politicians standing up and apologising for things that happened when they were five years old. I do not do so in any way lightly; it just seems to me that it is clear that what happened was wrong—that what the soldiers did was wrong—and that the Government should take responsibility. The Government of that day are no longer around, so it falls to the Government of this day to make that apology. I do not believe in casting back into history and endlessly doing that, but on this occasion it is absolutely clear that it is the right thing to do.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

As a former soldier who served in Northern Ireland, I found today’s statement a difficult one to listen to. Listening to it was nearly as difficult as watching mass murderers leave prison free or watching some very interesting people come to power in Northern Ireland, but those are all things that we did to facilitate peace and reconciliation. There is a possibility of revenge taking over from justice in this case, so we must ensure that we get the balance right and continue to pursue peace and reconciliation.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. Today’s statement is a difficult statement: it was a difficult statement to make and a difficult statement to listen to, because it contains some uncomfortable truths for people who, like me, are deeply patriotic, love the British Army, love what it stands for, revere what it has done down the ages and have seen what it does in Afghanistan. It is incredibly painful to say what has been said today, but we do not serve the Army if we do not say it.

I mentioned Ian Gow, who was the first MP I ever worked for. I also think of Airey Neave, the first MP to represent me, who was blown up in the precincts of this Palace by Irish terrorists. This is incredibly painful, but my hon. Friend is right: we have to make these leaps in order to make the peace process work. I think that former soldiers will understand that the service they gave in Northern Ireland is worth more now that they can see peace and peaceful progress. In a way, that is what it was all about, difficult as it was. I had Martin McGuinness sitting opposite me at the Cabinet table in No. 10 Downing street; it was difficult, but it was right, because peace is so much better than the alternatives.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the statements that they have made today and, indeed, for the apologies that they have given on behalf of the present Government and of the Opposition? The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that there cannot be costly inquiries of this kind in the future, but does he also agree that there can be no more whitewashes such as Widgery, when inquiries into these incidents take place? Finally, does he agree that it is essential for all of us, as politicians and leaders, in responding to the inquiry, to pursue truth and reconciliation rather than blame and recrimination?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the inquiries. Standing back from it all, however, I would say that we can take some pride—as can the former Government—in the fact that, in the end, the British state has gone to huge lengths to get to the truth about what happened on Bloody Sunday, and that an earlier report from an earlier inquiry has effectively been laid aside and replaced by a much fuller and clearer one. Not many states in the world would do that, and I think that we should see it as a sign of strength that we have done it.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

May I also thank the Prime Minister for the painful honesty of his statement? I salute him for that. In respect of the families, he is absolutely right to talk about issues of redress being for another time. However, this is a very raw day for the families. Will he assure the House that he, his Government and the Northern Ireland Office are doing everything possible to provide advice, assistance and access to those friends, families and neighbours who have never forgotten what happened in 1972 but who are today being reminded almost unbearably of it?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It has been a difficult day for the families; it has been a difficult 38 years for them. We thought very carefully about this, and we wanted to build on the arrangements that were put in place by the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) when he was Northern Ireland Secretary to ensure that the families could see the report some hours in advance of its publication today, and in a way in which all their needs would properly be met, because this is an incredibly stressful document for them to read. I pay tribute to the former Northern Ireland Secretary for what he did to put those arrangements in place, and to my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what he has done to build on them, as well as for meeting the families, as he has done, and for offering to meet them again in the future, which he will also do.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and, particularly, his commitment to a day’s debate on the report in the autumn. May I urge him and his Cabinet colleagues, between now and the autumn, to encourage everyone to consider the report, and the issues that it raises for all communities, reflectively and with maturity, so that we can get the benefit of all the efforts that have gone into producing it?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can do that. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which is that people will want to study the report in detail. The scale of it is enormous. I have brought in only one of the eight or ten volumes—

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Ten.

[The Prime Minister]

This is just one of the 10 volumes that have been published today. People will want to take time to read them. In a way, I am sorry that the debate is not until the autumn, but it is probably right to give the Government, the families and others time to assess what is in the report and to come back with sensible proposals, where necessary, on how to deal with them.