Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Lord Hain Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their perhaps over-generous remarks about my role. Let me simply underline that there were many tens of thousands of activists in the Anti-Apartheid Movement who deserve to be acknowledged as well.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your personal leadership in ensuring that this tribute debate is such a special event, as you said, for such a special person. I note that you are wearing the South African tie on this occasion. I specifically thank you—this is very important—for proposing, along with the Lord Speaker, Thursday afternoon’s Westminster Hall event for civil society including, importantly, veteran activists of the Anti-Apartheid Movement who worked so tirelessly over many tough and bitter decades both for Nelson Mandela’s release and for the sanctions against apartheid that he wanted and that ultimately triggered his freedom.

I have never really been into heroes but Nelson Mandela was mine from when I was a young boy in Pretoria and unique among my school friends and relatives in having parents who welcomed everybody to their house regardless of colour—activists in the anti-apartheid struggle. I remember that one fellow activist, Elliot Mngadi, remarked, “This is the first time I’ve ever come through the front door of a white man’s house.” Blacks acting as servants or gardeners might be allowed in the back door occasionally.

My mother, Adelaine, was often alone in the whites-only section of the public gallery at Nelson Mandela’s 1962 trial in Pretoria and when he entered the dock, he would always acknowledge her with a clenched fist, which she would return. His beautiful wife Winnie attended the trial each day, often magnificent in tribal dress. Once, when my tiny younger sisters went with my mother during a school holiday, Winnie bent down and kissed the two little blonde girls to the evident horror of the onlooking white policemen. A black woman kissing two little white children disgusted them.

Forty years later, I was escorting Nelson Mandela to speak at the Labour party annual conference in Brighton, but before that he had an appointment with the Prime Minister that had been very carefully scheduled. We were going down in the lift in the hotel and he said, “How’s the family?” I mentioned that my mother had broken her leg and was in hospital. “Ah,” he said, “I must phone her.” The Prime Minister was kept waiting while Nelson Mandela chatted to porters and cleaners and waitresses and waiters, all lined up as the minutes ticked by. I desperately tried directory inquiries to get her phone number, eventually got the ward and was put through. I said to her, “There’s a very special person who would like to speak to you,” and I handed the phone to him. He said, “This is Mandela from South Africa. Do you know who I am?”

Having been sentenced to five years on Robben Island after the Pretoria trial that my mother attended, Mandela was then brought back more than a year later, as has been mentioned, to be Accused No. 1 in the Rivonia trial, when, facing the death penalty and against the strong advice of his lawyer, he famously said:

“During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

I remember reading those powerful words aged 14, trying to take in their full significance, and aware they were a great inspiration to my parents and all those involved in the anti-apartheid struggle, as Nelson Mandela faced the death penalty. In fact, after worldwide pleas for clemency, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, and in July 1964, Mandela returned to Robben Island, not to be seen or heard in public again for nearly 26 years.

Two years later, in 1966, after my parents had been jailed, declared banned persons and deprived of earning a living, our family sailed past Robben Island and into exile here in Britain, and we will always be grateful for the welcome that we were given in this country. I remember looking out over the Cape rollers and imagining how Mandela and his comrades were surviving in that cold bleak cell. As an African, he was permitted 5 oz of meat daily, whereas coloureds were allowed 6 oz; he was permitted ½ oz of fat, and coloureds 1 oz: the evil precision of apartheid penetrated every nook and cranny of life, banning inter-racial sex as well as segregating park benches, sport, jobs, schools, hospitals, and much, much more. The apartheid state had hoped that, out of sight on the former leper colony of Robben Island, with its freezing cold waters that had devoured all escapees, Mandela would be out of mind, but the longer he was imprisoned, the bigger a global leader he became.

In July 1988, his 70th birthday became a global celebration, with a pulsating. “Free Mandela” anti-apartheid rock concert attended by 100,000 people at Wembley stadium and watched on live television by 600 million worldwide, despite—I say for the record, not out of any recrimination—some Conservative Members pressing the BBC to pull the plug on its coverage. Then, almost miraculously, something occurred that we had dreamed of, but deep down doubted would ever, ever happen—on that historic day in February 1990 Mandela walked out of prison to freedom, providing an image for ever imprinted on me and on millions, perhaps even billions, across the world. I say “almost miraculously” because history gets compressed and rewritten over time, and we take change for granted.

The reality was very different. Nelson Mandela’s struggle for freedom, and that of his African National Congress, was long and bitter, taking nearly 100 years from the days under British colonial rule when the roots of apartheid were established. Under Britain in 1900, 50 years before apartheid was formally institutionalised in South Africa, most of its features were already in place in the bustling gold-rush city of Johannesburg. By then, Africans were prevented from walking on the pavements—they had to walk on the streets—they had to carry “passes” to work in the city, they could not use buses and trains designated for whites, they were dreadfully exploited in the mines, and they had no political rights.

We all say in Britain that we were against apartheid, and doubtless we were, but some did things about it —others did not. The anti-apartheid struggle was for most of its life engaged in a big fight, here in Britain too. The executive secretaries of the Anti-Apartheid Movement—first, Ethel de Keyser, then Mike Terry—were indefatigable. Its chairman, Lord Bob Hughes, and treasurer, Richard Caborn—former Members of Parliament —were real stalwarts, along with Neil Kinnock and Glenys as well. Protests to stop whites-only Springbok tours provoked fierce anger. I remember them well: “Hain the pain”, as I recall. Some people might still feel that. Yet, as Nelson Mandela confirmed to me, the Springboks’ sporting isolation was a key factor in making whites realise that they had to change, so that today that wonderful black rugby star Bryan Habana can be a Springbok, whereas his predecessors under apartheid at the time that we were demonstrating never could.

Demands for trade and economic sanctions were also resisted, yet their partial implementation, regrettably not by London, but by Washington, eventually helped to propel the white business community in the late 1980s to demand change from the very same apartheid Government from whom they had so long benefited.

Mr Speaker, forgive me if, for a brief moment, I strike what I hope will not be seen as too discordant a note on this occasion, which sees the House at its very best, coming together to salute the great man. Were it not for interventions in the media in recent days, I would have let pass correcting the historical record. I give credit especially to you, Mr Speaker, for volunteering most graciously that you were on the wrong side of the anti- apartheid struggle as a young Conservative. I give credit to the Prime Minister for apologising for his party’s record of what I have to describe as craven indulgence towards apartheid’s rulers. And if Nelson Mandela can forgive his oppressors without forgetting their crimes, who am I not to do the same for our opponents in the long decades of the anti-apartheid struggle?

But it really does stick in the craw when Lord Tebbit, Charles Moore and others similar tried over recent days to claim that their complicity with apartheid—that is what I think it was—somehow brought about its end. To my utter incredulity, Lord Tebbit even told BBC World in a debate with me that they had brought about Mandela’s freedom. I know for a fact that Nelson Mandela did not think so. At every possible opportunity he went out of his way to thank anti-apartheid activists across the world for freeing him and his people.

It is therefore especially welcome that Nelson Mandela always retained an almost touching faith in British parliamentary democracy. Even though—I disagree with the interpretation by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)—over most of his life he was a believer in non-violent legal peaceful change. by force of circumstance—the suppression of his African National Congress’s non-violent campaign for over 60 years—he had to become a freedom fighter and to lead an underground campaign of guerrilla activity similar to the French resistance against the Nazis. Even when the majority in this Parliament, and the Government of the day, were not on his side, he still cherished our parliamentary democracy. I mention this because Mandela’s old foes became his new friends, his former adversaries his admirers. That was part, as others have said, of his greatness.

But that was Mandela the political leader. There was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) remarked in his marvellous speech, another equally engaging side to his greatness. He had an infectious capacity for mischief. In London a few weeks after our marriage in 2003, I introduced my wife Elizabeth to him. “Is this your girlfriend?” he asked. When I replied: “No, she’s my wife”, he chuckled, “So she caught you then?” When Elizabeth, who can be somewhat feisty at times, exclaimed indignantly that she had taken a lot of persuading, he laughed, “That’s what they all say, Peter, but they trap you in the end!” By then she realised that he was teasing her and we all ended up laughing together. He had apologised earlier for not coming to our wedding, instead sending a message, which contained these impish words to us newly-weds: “But perhaps I will be able to come next time!”

It was not just his towering moral stature, his courage and capacity to inspire, that endeared Nelson Mandela to so many. Despite being one of the world’s most prominent statesmen—perhaps the most revered—he retained his extraordinary humanity. When he was with you, you had all his attention. When he greeted you, his eyes never wandered, even though you were surrounded by far more important people. Whether you were a mere child, a hotel porter, a cleaner, a waiter or a junior staff member, he was interested in you. And he never forgot a friend.

On the same occasion when Elizabeth met him in 2003, my parents were also present, enjoying a reunion. The conversation somehow turned to my ministerial driver, whom Mandela promptly summoned. “I was once a driver, too,” he told him as they shook hands, referring to the time in 1961-62 when he was on the run and went underground, dubbed the “Black Pimpernel”, often moving about the country dressed as a chauffeur, in order to invite no attention, with cap and uniform and his white “master” in the back, as was stereotypical in those days and so a good form of disguise.

An ordinariness combined with extraordinariness was not Mandela’s sole uniqueness. His capacity for forgiveness is what made him the absolutely critical figure, first during secret negotiations in the late 1980s from prison with the Afrikaner nationalist Government and then after his release, both in the transition and in healing a bitterly divided nation.

That brings me to his status. Gandhi, Kennedy and Churchill are all iconic figures, the last for his inspirational wartime leadership and the first two more for having been assassinated. Yet today ask almost anybody anywhere which global statesman they admire most, and “Nelson Mandela” will as likely as not be the answer. Other world figures are usually famous within their own professional disciplines, sections of society, interest groups or age groups. Many attract hostility, cynicism or plain indifference. Nelson Mandela’s unique achievement was to command fame, admiration and affection from virtually everyone, everywhere in the world.

So if, as I believe, he is more iconic than anybody else, why? His life story of sacrifice, courage, endurance and suffering in the great and noble cause of liberty, democracy and justice places him among a very select few: the Tolpuddle martyrs, Chartists, suffragettes, Gandhi himself, anti-colonial African leaders, Che Guevara, Lech Walesa, Solzhenitsyn and Aung San Suu Kyi, to name just some. But Mandela towers above them all in the popular imagination, perhaps in part because he was the first such figure to be projected to the world’s peoples through the powerful modern media of global television and the internet. He was quite simply far better known than any comparable figure.

Equally, however—this is the lesson I draw—he survived, and indeed prospered, even under the fierce media spotlight of 24-hour news, over-hype and spin. Uniquely, he remained untarnished and undiminished by that modern media beast’s unrivalled capacity for building up then knocking down, leaving him serenely above all its insatiable prurience and obsession for triviality and instant novelty. Where most political careers end in failure or opprobrium, Nelson Mandela’s continued to soar long after he stepped down as President.

Mandela’s greatness, his stature, derived not just from an extraordinary biography that dwarfs the rest of humankind; it came from the warm glow of humanity that he radiated, his common touch, humbleness, self-deprecation, humour and dignity. Prison could have embittered, adulation could have gone to his head and egotism could have triumphed. The clutching of the crowd and the intrusive pressures of the modern political age could have seen him retreat behind the barriers that most leaders and celebrities today erect around themselves, not necessarily through any fault of their own, but in part to retain some personal space, but the consequence of which all too often becomes either aloofness or insincerity and its companion, cynicism. But none of that happened to him. Throughout everything, Nelson Mandela remained his own man, neither seduced by the trappings of office, nor deluded by the adulation of admirers, always friendly and approachable. That is why, for me, he was the icon of icons, and perhaps always will be.

President Bill Clinton, who has such a wonderful way with words, said:

“Every time Nelson Mandela walks into a room, we all feel a little bigger, we all want to stand up, we all want to cheer, because we’d like to be him on our best day”.

Sadly, Nelson Mandela will not be walking into our rooms ever again, but we can all still strive to be like him on our best days. For, as he said in one of his many memorable proverbs:

“What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hain Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

The collective purchasing power of communities and groups of buyers of oil might have a role in bringing down prices for consumers in rural areas. We are seeing that with switching as well. My colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are encouraging community groups to come together to strike collective switching agreements with companies to help bring down prices.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

With sky-high energy bills in Wales, which are higher than anywhere else, and a Tory-aligned think-tank saying that people are maxed out on personal debt—there are about 250,000 of them in Wales—does the Minister agree with the planning Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), that his party is the party of the rich and that its members are seen as aliens and heartless extremists?

[Stephen Crabb]

The right hon. Gentleman is a member of a party about which one of his colleagues said it was “intensely relaxed” about people becoming filthy rich. It was intensely relaxed about many families on low incomes being pushed into greater household debt. We do not take that approach; we are trying to bring down household debt.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Of course. When I went to Israel, I visited not only occupied east Jerusalem but other places in Palestine as well, as is proper. I do understand the very real concern that Israelis have about the potential Iranian nuclear weapon. That is why I spoke to President Rouhani of Iran last night to make it clear that we want a good outcome to these talks, but it has got to be an outcome that takes Iran further away from a nuclear weapon rather than one that retains the status quo.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

While agreeing with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that there should be no question of an amnesty, surely there is some merit in the proposal from the Northern Ireland Attorney-General that rather than incurring enormous expenditure pursuing crimes committed during the troubles decades ago—where the evidence is difficult, if not impossible, to establish—the justified grievances of victims, including widows of police officers and prison officers, should be addressed in other ways so that Northern Ireland can move on from its hideous past.

[The Prime Minister]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman’s views on this issue. He served in Northern Ireland and knows how important these issues are. I would make two points. First of all, I do think it is important to allow Richard Haass to do his work about parades, about flags and about dealing with the past. Clearly, the dealing with the past part is the most difficult of the three and the most difficult to unlock. The second point I would make is that we are all democrats who believe in the rule of law and believe in the independence of the police and prosecuting authorities, who should, if they are able to, be able to bring cases, and it is rather dangerous to think that you can put some sort of block on that. But of course we are all interested in ways in which people can reconcile and come to terms with the bloody past so that they can build a viable future and a shared future for Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hain Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Since two thirds of the green levies on people’s energy bills were established under this Government, why has the Prime Minister been attacking himself?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. [Interruption.] The fact is that many of the green levies were put in place by Labour. Let me remind him that one of the first acts of this Government was with the £179 renewable heat initiative, which the leader of the Labour party wanted to put on the bill of every single person in the country—and we took it off the bill.

EU Council

Lord Hain Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Ending roaming charges would be a good step that would demonstrate that EU directives can sometimes make people’s lives easier, rather than more difficult. The challenge is that, all too often, we find that a directive will add to business costs, rather than reduce them. That is why it is vital to hardwire into the EU’s systems a greater belief in deregulation and cost-cutting.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

If we are giving impetus to association agreements with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, where does that leave Turkey? What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the reports that Germany and France may be revising their attitude to Turkish membership of or association with the European Union? Surely Turkey should be a greater priority, given its crucial role as a gateway between Europe and Asia and between the Christian and Muslim worlds.

[The Prime Minister]

We should take the two cases separately. We are in accession negotiations with Turkey and another chapter has just opened in relation to its membership of the EU, which I support. Ukraine and the other Eastern Partnership countries are a different matter. They are obviously under an enormous amount of pressure to join a trade area dominated by Russia. We want to say to those countries that if they want to have a relationship with Europe and to trade with it, they can. This is an opportunity to say to countries such as Ukraine that they must continue to make progress with governance and justice if they want to have that relationship. That is an important part of the EU’s relationship with those eastern countries. I therefore think that the two cases are slightly different.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hain Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Indeed, it is working in Wales and in Redditch. There are clear signs that the economy is turning the corner. I am sure that all Members were pleased with yesterday’s forecast by the International Monetary Fund, which revised UK growth for next year up from 1.5% to 1.9%.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

I put it to the Secretary of State that all economies recover from all recessions at some point, but that our recovery has come three years after those of Germany and the United States because his Government’s savage cuts turned Labour’s growth and recovery from the banking crisis in 2010 into three years of austerity. The current recovery is made in the south-east for the south-east. In Wales, there is no housing bubble, long-term unemployment is dire, as is under-employment, and personal debt is high. We need investment in Wales. His Government should be supporting the Labour Welsh Government, not hindering them with budget cuts the whole time.

[Mr Jones]

It is rather rich for the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Government who presided over the economic crash in 2008, to criticise this Government for the steps that we are taking to turn the economy around. Wales, as much as every other part of the country, is benefiting from the measures that we have taken. There are 67,000 more people in work than at the time of the last election. He should welcome that.

G20

Lord Hain Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that minds have become much more focused in recent months. There is an argument, which the Russians make, that the Syrian regime would be content to attend talks, but it is very important that we have some things set out about what those talks aim to achieve. In order to have proper transition, there is a need to know what we are going to get out of those talks. We need to know who is going to take part and who could be part of a transitional Government before those talks begin. Those issues are as important as an in-principle agreement to turn up.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Can I take it from the Prime Minister’s statement that he now agrees that the Syrian civil war can only be ended not by military action but by a negotiated settlement, however difficult, involving the Iranians, the Russians and, yes, Assad too? Will he use his influence with the opposition forces, which have so far been unwilling to come to such a negotiation, to say that they must have ceasefires locally and access to humanitarian relief, and nominate people who will serve as Ministers alongside existing Government Ministers in a Government of transition to prepare for elections?

[The Prime Minister]

We would certainly encourage all parties to take part in the Geneva II talks when a date is set and they get moving. It is obviously in all our interests to see that political process work. The only point that I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that at the same time it is absolutely right for the British Government and other like-minded Governments to stand up for the millions of people in Syria who want a future free from terror—a future free from Assad. We need to make sure that there is a Syrian opposition who are strong enough, both on the ground as well as diplomatically and politically, to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hain Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The cost of the Parades Commission is set out in the Northern Ireland Office annual accounts. I know there are concerns about the Parades Commission’s decisions and I know that they are controversial, but it is absolutely crucial that the rule of law is respected. All of Northern Ireland will suffer if the pictures that go around the world this weekend are of violent scenes. There is a way to ensure that these events pass off peacefully. I urge everyone to seek that.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Has the Secretary of State consulted Lord Ashdown, whose commission included both a senior republican and a senior member of the Orange Order, and was able to come to a consensus? Will she also talk to Roger Poole, whose chairmanship of the Parades Commission was very successful? There might be lessons there.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am happy to talk both of those individuals. That would be very useful.

G8

Lord Hain Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend, but I do not agree with him that, somehow, President Assad can continue. When a leader has used chemical weapons against his own people and presided over such an appalling slaughter, he cannot have a place in the government of his country. I agree with him that, clearly, the aim must be to bring forward a transitional Government that includes Sunni and Alawite representatives, and representatives of the regime and opposition, because we need a Government in whom everyone in Syria can have confidence.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that there can be no military victory in Syria. In his search for a political solution, may I caution him on his apparent insistence on a precondition? Northern Ireland shows that preconditions do not work. He and I share exactly the same view of Assad’s barbarism, but if he insists that Assad cannot come to the conference or play any subsequent role, I caution him that the conference might never happen.

[The Prime Minister]

We are insisting that a proper conference must include representatives of the regime and representatives of the opposition, and that it should lead to a transitional Government. The UK Government have a clear view that neither of those stages can involve President Assad, for the reasons we have given, but that should not stand in the way of the transition that is necessary, and the transition that everyone in the G8, Russians included, believes is right.

EU Council and Woolwich

Lord Hain Excerpts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about one of the positive benefits that we can get out of the single market, which will involve completing the single market in services just as we have completed the single market in products. As an economy that is very reliant on services, we would benefit disproportionately from that. The matter was not discussed at this conference because it was called particularly to deal with energy and with the issues of tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, but I will ensure that it is discussed at future European Councils.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Surely the Prime Minister must accept that Britain’s insistence on Europe opening the door to more arms entering that ugly arena in Syria has led to two consequences. The first is the Russian escalation, with its introduction of S-300 missiles into the arena. The second is the near collapse, if not the actual collapse, of the vital international peace conference. The alternative is not inaction, as the Prime Minister has implied; it is serious negotiation to get the conference off the ground without preconditions, without insisting that Assad must go, which would stop the conference, and without insisting that Iran should stay out of the negotiations, which would also render the process stillborn.

[The Prime Minister]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion I have to disagree with him on both counts. First, it is completely wrong to pretend that Russia has changed its view of Syria or its supply of arms to that country because of the European Union’s decision. Russia has been supplying the Syrian regime with arms for decades, and it has done so during this conflict. To suggest otherwise is really quite naive. I fully support the idea of the peace conference, which is why I flew to see President Putin on the Black sea and why I held discussions with Barack Obama. We should do everything we can to bring the parties together at this peace conference, but I would put the question again: are we more likely to get some sort of compliance from President Assad at a peace conference that would result in a transitional government if he believes that he cannot win militarily? That is the question that we have to put to ourselves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hain Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s economic policies on Wales; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s economic policies on Wales; and if he will make a statement.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s economic policies on Wales; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady is entirely right that the economies of north Wales and Merseyside are inextricably linked. The Government have created more jobs since we came to power. The rate of employment has increased by 1.6%. She should bear it in mind that the Welsh Assembly Government are responsible for economic development in Wales. They should therefore align their policies closely with those that this Government are pursuing.

[Mr Hain]

Will the Secretary of State admit that his economic policies are failing Wales disastrously? His new jobs are a mirage. One new worker in 10 is underemployed. They are part-timers seeking full-time work or temporary workers who want a proper job. There are underemployed breadwinners who are struggling to put food on the table and heat their homes. That is contributing to the 200,000 children who are living in poverty in Wales. Why does he not apologise for that shameful record?

[Mr Jones]

I will take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman, whose party oversaw the trashing of the British economy and was responsible for the mess that we are having to clear up. The Government have created more than 1 million private sector jobs since we came to power, against the international trend, and we are proud of that.