British Embassy (Tehran)

David Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is not solely the Russian and Chinese embassies that will be there, because the French and German embassies are still in Tehran, although both France and Germany are taking very strong diplomatic action in the light of these events. I will not make their announcements for them, but they are outraged by the events and will follow with their own strong diplomatic action. Those countries are still in Tehran, and are an important part of the E3 plus 3 process. Although we have differences with Russia and China, the process is by no means wholly in the hands of those countries.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

I join the Foreign Secretary in his utter condemnation of yesterday’s attacks on the embassy and its staff. However, he will know that the Iranian regime loves to trade shows of machismo and enjoys tit for tat, and that parts of it glory in Iran’s isolation. In that context, the presence of the British embassy in Tehran for much of the past 30 years has been wholly good, in contrast with the American position. This is a sad day for British diplomacy.

I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, what will he do to ensure that this is not seen as a victory for those in the regime who would seek isolation—the so-called hard-liners? Secondly, what will he do to ensure that this series of announcements does not become part of the unwelcome drum beat of war that started in the last six weeks in respect of the Iranian nuclear programme?

[Mr Hague]

The international condemnation of Iran, the strong expressions of support for our staff, and the grave concern for what has happened have come from Russia and China, as well as from western nations, our European allies and the United States. Anyone in Tehran who thought they had won a victory in Iran in the light of the world-wide condemnation of the events would be very blinkered. We have been clear, as was the right hon. Gentleman when he was Foreign Secretary, that we are not advocating military action against Iran. We are calling for peaceful, legitimate pressure. It is as part of that peaceful, legitimate pressure that Iran has taken action that breaches international conventions, specifically the Vienna convention.

As I said to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), we must weigh heavily those considerations and the disadvantages of embassies being closed, but the Government must make a decision, and our decision is that we cannot keep our staff safe in Iran, and its actions are so unacceptable that we have to take a very firm line. On the balance of such matters, we decided to take the action that we have.

Escape of Taliban Prisoners

David Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for understanding the essential nature of Afghanistan’s involvement in its own security. The lessons are blindingly obvious to all of us. Whatever security was in place there was inappropriate. The methods to detect what might be going on in terms of any potential escape were clearly inadequate, but we need to know a lot more before we can make definitive judgments and, more importantly, work out what needs to be done in the future. It is essential for the process to continue.

The Afghan security authorities and the Afghan Ministry of Justice are responsible for other installations elsewhere in Afghanistan that have not been subject to similar incidents. To draw from one incident the conclusion that none of them are working anywhere in the country would therefore not be appropriate or correct, which is why some provinces are moving towards transition, as was announced by the President just over a month ago.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the sober and serious remarks of the Minister today, which stand in sharp contrast to the claim of the Defence Secretary in the House last July, when he said:

“In Kandahar, and under the direct oversight of President Karzai, Afghan security forces are leading operations as part of a rising tide of security”.—[Official Report, 7 July 2010; Vol. 511, c. 373.]

May I ask the Minister to respond to two points? First, there should be an absolute ban on that kind of happy talk. Secondly, is it not time for the United Nations to appoint a mediator to take forward precisely the political settlement that he and I agree is so essential to our exit from Afghanistan and its development as some kind of secure and stable society?

[Alistair Burt]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, I do not necessarily make the same link as he does between this incident and the political process. That is continuing. There are further conferences this year on the peace process, which was authorised and supported at the Kabul conference earlier this year. There are processes in place, which are being followed by the international community and led by President Karzai. The UN is closely involved, but I am not certain that a call for a mediator is either enhanced or diminished by the events of the past 36 hours. I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that process is continuing apace.

As for remarks about optimism or otherwise, it is entirely appropriate that, as they have done in the past, colleagues make statements honestly as they see the circumstances and as they see security situations improving, or not improving. I am here to talk about an incident that has clearly set back the process, but there are other things to talk about in relation to Afghanistan that clearly show the process moving in a different direction. I think that it is right that colleagues should be able both to report honestly the optimistic aspects of what is happening in Afghanistan and, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, to assess things soberly if they go wrong.

European Union Bill

David Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The public are right, and my arguments are the same as they were on the Lisbon treaty—[Interruption.] They may not sound like it; I have to explain an 18-clause Bill, so they may not sound quite as dramatic. The hon. Gentleman may be right that the public are not interested in the details of the Bill, but Parliament needs to go through those details. My argument is exactly the same as the one that I made on the Lisbon treaty—that where a Government propose to hand over the powers of this country, there should be a referendum. There should have been a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. If there is any future treaty change of the kind that I have described, there should be a referendum. It is exactly the same argument. I am grateful to him for voting with me then, and I trust that on the same basis he will be voting with me today.

I will now give way to someone else—

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

Since the right hon. Gentleman has reappeared in the House, I will give way to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Miliband]

I, too, very much enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speeches when he spoke for the Opposition, and it is nice to be able to ask him some questions now.

Schedule 1 of the Bill is entitled,

“Treaty provisions where amendment removing a need for unanimity, consensus or common accord would attract referendum”,

and it lists things such as the appointment of judges and advocates-general of the European Court of Justice. Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that we are going to have a referendum in this country if his Government, or any future Government, decide that they want to transfer competence on that issue?

[Mr Hague]

We welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the House. It is traditional in these circumstances to sit on the Front Bench below the Gangway in a menacing posture towards his own party, and we notice that he has gone to sit in that particular position. There is some political significance in that.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for stressing the detail into which the Bill goes and the extent to which we are insisting that a referendum should be held, because that should be of enormous reassurance to some of my hon. Friends. On the specific subject of the advocates-general, one of the matters that I said would not be subject to a referendum is the loss of our veto on the number of advocates-general.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

The Bill is about many matters being decided in this place or by the people. The hon. Gentleman’s point is distinct from the one that was raised in the European Scrutiny Committee report about clause 18. I made the point that an executive ministerial decision is subject to judicial review, which is always the case. The decision of the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on the Lisbon treaty was taken to judicial review by Mr Stuart Wheeler, albeit unsuccessfully. Ministerial decisions are subject to judicial review and that is not changed by the Bill.

The right hon. Member for South Shields is still looking puzzled about the position of the advocates-general. The loss of the veto in the appointment of advocates-general and European Commissioners would be a significant loss of national—

[David Miliband]

indicated dissent.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I have always argued that all options should be kept on the table, and that the option of military action should not be withdrawn from the table. I have also always stressed that we are not calling for that or advocating it. We do not want to relieve any of the pressure that is currently on Iran, but I must emphasise that I am not advocating military action.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

I am sure that we will all be relieved by what the Foreign Secretary has just said at the end of that response. I think it would merit at least an oral statement if he were going to advocate military action.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is true that Mr Frattini, the Italian Foreign Minister, proposed to lead a delegation of European Foreign Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary, to Israel and the occupied territories in the first half of September, but that the Israeli Government would not co-operate with such a visit?

[Mr Hague]

No, it is not true. Mr Frattini proposed a visit by EU Foreign Ministers at the very beginning of September, but it turned out that it clashed with the direct talks that were starting on the other side of the Atlantic. The proposed trip was therefore abandoned. There has been no proposal for a trip by the EU Foreign Ministers since then. Such a proposal has been reported in one or two newspapers, but I am afraid that it is not accurate.

[David Miliband]

I am glad to hear that from the Foreign Secretary because the Foreign Office was not able to explain it yesterday. Of course the Israeli Government have said that European Foreign Ministers are standing on the sidelines at the moment, so the question is why a delegation of European Foreign Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary, is not heading out to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories as soon as possible. Prime Minister Netanhayu said on Sunday that Israel would not extend the moratorium on settlement building and Mr Abbas has threatened to quit the talks if construction resumes. Is it not true that there is a real danger of having an absent Foreign Secretary and not an active Foreign Secretary when the people of the middle east most need an active one?

[Mr Hague]

No. I know we have little soundbites before the Labour leadership election—we are bound to have them—but in a way this is too serious an issue for things like that. Neither EU Foreign Ministers nor the UK Government are in any way on the sidelines. We have played an important role—a supporting role—to the United States, which has shown such leadership on this issue, in getting these direct talks going. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was, I think, held to be instrumental in that through the telephone calls he undertook in the summer with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. I am in close touch with the talks through Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Mitchell; indeed, we are in constant touch with all involved. We play a strong supporting role, as do many other EU countries, in the continuation of these direct talks. As the right hon. Gentleman can see from the answers I have given, we are emphatic about what needs to be done next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

Yes. Such decisions are for each locality, but I strongly welcome them. Part of this Government’s plan is certainly to reinvigorate, as my hon. Friend says, our approach to the Commonwealth, a subject and organisation that was rather neglected under the previous Government, and I am glad to say that the Commonwealth is now convening an eminent persons group—and even more glad to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) is one member of that group. We look forward to its report early next year, ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

We have not yet discussed Afghanistan, and, given that 10,000 of our fellow citizens are serving there, it is right that we do so.

The Foreign Secretary has said that he recognises the importance of political reconciliation to end the war in Afghanistan. Does he accept that, almost two months after the conference that he attended in Kabul, Afghan officials are still bickering over who should be in charge of the high peace council that the Foreign Secretary lauded when he came to the House in July? Will he confirm that only a few hundred Taliban fighters have come in from the cold over the last six months? What is the Foreign Secretary going to do to pour drive, energy and effort into an initiative that, as The New York Times rightly said on 12 September, “has badly faltered”?

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise Afghanistan, which ought to be discussed at every Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions. He is right to refer to the extent of our deployment there and the very hard work that our troops continue to do. I think that he and I agree—I think we are agreed across the Floor of the House—that the political process is of huge importance, as well as the military progress that has been made.

A political reconciliation was what President Karzai received the support of the peace jirga to carry out. It is very important that that should be an Afghan-led process, so the United Kingdom and the United States are very active in supporting the Afghans in leading that process. Has it yet produced results? Well, it has not, but it would be surprising if it had produced results at this stage. The reintegration programme has just begun and the opportunity for political reconciliation now exists. It would be quite wrong to judge the possible outcome of that process from what has happened in just the last few weeks.

Kabul Conference

David Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, I will make a statement on the outcome of the Kabul conference and on progress in Afghanistan. Half an hour ago, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister paid his respects to the four servicemen who have died in Afghanistan in the past week. They died in the service of this country, and the whole House has already joined in expressing its gratitude to them and to the British forces in Afghanistan.

The past month has indeed been a difficult one, but we should not lose sight of what has been achieved since the London conference on Afghanistan six months ago. I do not want to minimise in any way to the House the immense challenges that we and our allies continue to face in Afghanistan or the difficulties and dangers that we encounter on a daily basis. Bringing security and stability to Afghanistan remains an exceptionally demanding task for the men and women of our armed forces, our diplomatic service and those involved in development. Their work is rarely less than outstanding on a daily basis, but there will continue to be setbacks and discouragements even while progress is being made. We must therefore always guard against over-optimism, but we must equally guard against listening only to bad news or failing to notice the millions of Afghans who want us to succeed.

In the last six months our troops have consolidated their position in Helmand, taken the fight to the Taliban and trained hundreds of Afghan troops; our diplomats and aid workers have worked with Afghan colleagues to promote a more inclusive political process and intensify our work, including on education and governance; and the Government of Afghanistan have acted on their London commitments and drawn together for the first time a cross-Government strategy to deliver widespread reform. As the Prime Minister has said, our objective is a stable Afghanistan that is able to maintain its own security and prevent al-Qaeda from returning, so that within five years we can draw down British combat troops.

The NATO objective in Afghanistan is simple: to assist the Government of Afghanistan in exercising their authority and influence throughout the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance. That requires the protection of the population, the provision of more effective governance at every level and the creation of an Afghan security force that is able to maintain security and, indeed, prevent the return of al-Qaeda. That is the strategy that UK forces are helping to implement through their training and partnering of Afghan troops, and through their efforts to create the opportunity for more effective local governance in central Helmand. General Petraeus, the newly appointed commander of the international security assistance force, has made it clear that that remains his approach.

Together with my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary, I attended the Kabul conference yesterday, following the visits that I made to China, Japan and Oman. Some 40 Foreign Ministers and international organisations, including the United Nations, NATO, the European Union and the World Bank, attended what was an unprecedented event for Afghanistan. It was unprecedented also given the number of Muslim partners who were represented at such a conference. It showed the world that Afghanistan is increasingly able to run its own affairs, and it was a further step in the process of transition from direct international military and civil intervention to Afghan leadership.

The conference issued a communiqué that was agreed among all participants and builds on the progress that has been made in the last six months. It establishes the Afghan-led Kabul process, which aims to accelerate Afghanistan’s ability to govern itself with accountable government, to reduce dependence on the international community, to enhance Afghanistan’s security forces and to provide better protection for the rights of all its citizens. That is a single implementation plan for the coming years. International donors, including Britain, have committed themselves to realigning their funding behind the Kabul process, and that is a significant achievement for a country as beset by conflict and poverty as Afghanistan. The Kabul process holds out the prospect of a more secure future for Afghans.

The Afghan Government made yesterday a number of important commitments: to concentrate efforts on a limited number of national programmes and projects to transform the lives of people and reinforce the relationship between state and citizens; to have Afghan security forces take the lead on security throughout the country by 2014, and to set up an Afghan NATO board to analyse whether provinces are ready to begin the transition process; to create a lean, effective and appropriately paid public service, retiring those civil servants who are unable to perform or are not needed in a renewed and revitalised civil service; to ensure that the wealth generated from the mining sector is invested to benefit future generations; to require new national development programmes to be designed with international partners in order to ensure the highest standards of accountability and transparency; to amend the criminal law to increase penalties for the failure to disclose assets and to take to trial Ministers and other high-ranking officials who do not comply; to strengthen the High Office of Oversight for Government Accountability and the major crimes taskforce in order to tackle corruption; to establish a commission to find ways to bring together the public and private sectors in order to stimulate accelerated economic growth; to work with the Afghan Parliament to strengthen its constitutionally mandated role; and to improve financial management and agree a system with donors in order to allow more donor funds to be channelled through the Afghan budget.

That Afghan plan will be supported by the United Kingdom Government and by our international partners. On 10 June my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an additional £200 million in funding to promote stability and development over the next four years. My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary will set out further details of that in a written ministerial statement tomorrow. Britain will intensify and reinvigorate our development efforts, increasing the pace of work and the achievement of specific results in line with the Government of Afghanistan’s priorities. We will work closely with the Afghans, the United States and others to accelerate the stabilisation effort in central Helmand and the 81 key districts that have been targeted under the ISAF plan. We will work with others to ensure the successful implementation of the agreed peace and reintegration programme, help to support the forthcoming elections, and invest in improving the quality and effectiveness of the police. Our overall aim is to speed up the pace of transition to Afghan security leadership.

We will also support the Afghan economy and help with new jobs through investment in mining, roads, power and irrigation, and by bringing community-driven development to isolated areas of the country. We will help the Government of Afghanistan to deliver vital services and to tackle corruption, providing increased support to education, including technical and vocational training, and the administration of justice.

Our international partners have committed themselves to doing their part in supporting the Kabul process, as well. Afghanistan’s near neighbours will work to accelerate regional economic co-operation. An important milestone was reached in the days before the conference with the conclusion of the Afghanistan-Pakistan trade transit agreement. This much-desired economic measure has taken some 40 years to achieve.

The Kabul process is a major step forward for Afghanistan and an important staging post in Afghanistan’s development. There remains more to do, notably in the areas of governance. Measures to enforce transparency, anti-corruption and accountability have slipped and need to be brought back on track as soon as possible. We will pursue these and other issues as part of the follow-up to the conference. The Kabul process contains strengthened review mechanisms that include a more robust joint co-ordination monitoring board in Kabul and an overarching annual assessment which will report to an annual Kabul ministerial conference. My Department, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development will be closely involved in that process.

The Kabul conference has established a road map for more professional functioning and mature institutions. There will be other important milestones this year, including parliamentary elections, the NATO Lisbon summit, and President Obama’s review. Her Majesty’s Government will build on these steps to help to put in place the conditions for a stable, secure and increasingly prosperous Afghanistan.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and welcome him back to London. I thank him, too, for advance sight of his statement. We all join in his words of condolence and pride in the remarkable work of our armed forces. Their bravery, fortitude and intelligence are an example of the best of this country.

We welcome the Kabul conference as the chance for the Afghan Government to make their commitments to match those that the international community made in London in January. Thoughtful engagement with the profound and difficult issues for which the Foreign Secretary is now responsible requires us to ask probing questions in five key areas, and that is what I will do. First, there is the timetable for British withdrawal. Policy in this area is followed intensively by the forces and their families, by Afghans, and by other countries in the region. As Lord Guthrie said earlier this month, mixed messages are dangerous. Earlier today, the Deputy Prime Minister said that nothing is “chiselled in stone”, and then insisted, I think six times, that there would be no British combat operations from 2015.

Last November, the President of Afghanistan said in his inauguration speech that Afghans would lead the security effort across the country in five years. I would like to understand from the Foreign Secretary the British Government’s position. The Foreign Secretary has said that he would be very surprised if this process of security transition took longer than 2014. The Prime Minister then said that British troops would be out of combat by 2015. Last night in Washington, the Prime Minister said that British troops could begin pulling out next year. However, the Defence Secretary has said that he expects British troops to be the last to leave Afghanistan.

All of us want the troops home as soon as possible. Therefore, to resolve any confusion that may exist, could the Foreign Secretary tell us whether the Government stick by the position that the Prime Minister set out last year—that this

“should be based on success…you should do so once it’s safe…do it based on success, don’t keep talking about artificial timelines”?

Does that remain the position of the British Government?

Secondly, on a political settlement, the Foreign Secretary says that he agrees with me that there is no military solution in Afghanistan and that the only way to end a civil war is through a political settlement. The most important conclusion from the London conference in January was support for the Afghan Government’s national peace and reintegration programme, but the political settlement and the reintegration programme made up only a small part of the Foreign Secretary’s contribution at the conference yesterday. He did not set out the preconditions for a durable settlement—all the tribes in, al-Qaeda out, and Afghanistan’s regional neighbours on the side.

Will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he met the leader of the opposition, Abdullah Abdullah, on this visit? If so, what did he say about how to overcome the ethnic divisions within Afghanistan and reach a political settlement? Will the Foreign Secretary also update us on whether General Petraeus plans to give the issue the priority attached to it by General McChrystal, what role NATO’s special representative, former British Ambassador Sedwill, will play in taking it forward, and what will be the next steps in the peace jirga that he applauded during the Queen’s Speech debate, given that the two Ministers responsible for the event have been forced to resign for its failings since then?

Thirdly, on our current work, we have noted the new announcements by the Secretary of State for International Development about increased aid. He will know that Helmand province is the most heavily aided province in the world, and the critical issue for the delivery of development aid there is, of course, security. We would be interested to know where in Helmand the Foreign Secretary thinks we will be able to add to the already extensive aid that is being delivered.

In respect of current operations, our immediate concern must be for our armed forces. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us the latest evidence on the Marjah operation, which General McChrystal described as a “bleeding ulcer”? We are told in the communiqué from the conference yesterday that reintegration shura, which are critical to bringing all the tribes inside the political system, are important in Helmand, and I agree, but my understanding is that in Marjah and the whole of Helmand province there has been only one public reintegration shura in recent months. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he raised that matter with President Karzai?

Will the Foreign Secretary tell us also about planning for the Kandahar operation, which is obviously critical given the presence of our forces in Helmand? Where is the Afghan capacity for that operation, and what is being done to avoid a false choice in Kandahar between warlordism, some of which has important links inside major parts of the Afghan political system, on the one hand and Talibanisation on the other?

Fourthly, I turn to the Afghan forces. The number of soldiers in the Afghan national army, which the Foreign Secretary mentioned in his statement, is undoubtedly important, but quantity cannot override the importance of quality. The forces have to be representative of Afghanistan’s provinces and communities; otherwise they will find it difficult to move away from an image of being supplementary forces to foreign troops rather than the other way round. Will he tell us the number of south Pashtun Afghans who have been recruited into the Afghan national army? The figures of less than 5% that are around do no justice to the critical need for an army to have real legitimacy in the communities it serves.

Fifthly and finally, I turn to the regional dimension. The countries of the region, led by Pakistan, are key to a conclusion of the war, yet regional co-operation is, to put it mildly, anaemic. Can the Foreign Secretary update us on plans for a regional economic and security council, whether any meetings have been planned and what he will do to push that forward?

Some 318 British military personnel have died in Afghanistan. Every single death and injury weighs heavily on those of us who have had the privilege of meeting our armed forces and their families. We owe it to them to ensure that we have a clear vision of the endgame, that we are consistent in what we say and that we provide the leadership necessary to see this through. That is what we are committed to and what we look to see from the Foreign Secretary and the Government.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions, and I pay tribute to him for his work at the London conference, of which much of this work is a direct consequence. That conference set the stage for the Kabul conference, which has been a successful follow-up to what was agreed in London.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a wide range of questions. I shall respond to them perhaps in a roundabout order, but I shall try to cover them all. He asked about the work that we are doing in Helmand, including development work. Some of the money that the Department for International Development is providing, as my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have announced, will go into Helmand, for instance to help build new police stations and patrol bases, giving 2,500 recently trained policemen and women the infrastructure to operate effectively. In Nad Ali, it will fund the building of two new schools to educate 1,900 children and the paving and repairing of roads to try to open up trade and commerce, which, as he knows, is fundamental to improving security and providing livelihoods for people in Helmand and throughout Afghanistan. The money and effort that DFID has announced is not purely dedicated to Helmand, but he can see from what I am saying that some of it will benefit people there.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the operations in Kandahar, which remain in progress. They are not traditional military operations—they are greatly concerned with the quality of governance and not just of holding territory in a military sense. The capacity exists to do that, and we underline constantly to our Afghan colleagues the need for clear Afghan leadership and support for the operations in Kandahar.

On the number of troops, it is true that the quantity is there. In fact, the quantity is ahead of schedule: the Afghan national army has already met its target of 134,000 strength, ahead of October. That is why I said in my statement that although there are often setbacks and discouragements, we should listen not just to the bad news. Sometimes, there is good news that we ought to comment on and recognise as part of the balance in presenting what is going on. Of course, quality is important too, and that shows the importance of the ongoing training and the embedded partnering that will be at the heart of our forces’ work over the coming months and, very likely, the coming years.

The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly pointed to the low level of recruitment to the Afghan national army among south Pashtun people. That is a long-running problem, as he knows, and it is not easily solved, except as part—one day—of a wider political settlement, involving support across Afghanistan for the basis of governance and authority. That cannot be solved overnight, but the build up of the ANA is so far one of the success stories taking place in Afghanistan.

We of course discussed regional co-operation at the conference and raised it with many other nations. In our time in office so far, the Government have concentrated on encouraging closer co-operation between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which is indeed taking place. It is also encouraging to see the strong support of India. More than $1 billion of support will come from India over the next few years for development in Afghanistan. Regional co-operation is improving, but it needs to improve further on the back of the Kabul conference. Other nations in the region were around the table in Kabul yesterday, including Uzbekistan and, indeed, Iran. As I said, the basis for regional co-operation is at least improving.

On the question of a political settlement, the Kabul conference is taking forward the commitments made at London. The Afghan President has now established the high peace council. He won support from the peace jirga at the beginning of last month for a process of reconciliation and reintegration, and the reintegration trust fund has now been established—again, that was one of the commitments made at the London conference. We stress, as the Deputy Prime Minister stressed at Prime Minister’s questions, that a political process remains fundamentally important. None of us thinks that there is a purely military solution to the problem, but the process of reconciliation must be Afghan led. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I stressed that in our meeting with President Karzai.

On timings, in the last 24 hours the Prime Minister again put things very clearly when he said:

“The faster we can transition districts and provinces to Afghan control, clearly the faster that some forces can be brought home…I don’t want to raise expectations about that because that transition should be based on how well the security situation is progressing.”

However, he also said:

“What I have said is”

that

“people in Britain should understand we’re not going to be there in five years’ time, in 2015, with combat troops or large numbers because I think it’s important to give people an end date by which we won’t be continuing in that way.”

That is the position of the Government, and it is consistent with the expectation of the entire international community at the conference yesterday that Afghan security forces will be able to be in the lead by 2014. That is the position of all Ministers in the coalition Government. I am not sure whether the Opposition support that commitment on 2015—they will need to reflect on whether they do so—but I am sure that it is the right position for this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I would be happy to hold a meeting very soon.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

I am happy to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post.

Nowhere is the battle against corruption and for good governance more important than in Afghanistan, where it is a key part of the combined civilian-military approach. In that context, does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Defence that our troops will be the last to leave Afghanistan?

[Mr Browne]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say this with a degree of trepidation, but I am not quite sure how the right hon. Gentleman has managed to shoehorn his inquiry in question No. 2. Could he explain briefly?

[David Miliband]

As I said, the drive for good governance and against corruption in Afghanistan is a central part of our strategy, and it is combined with military effort. I am asking a simple question about whether the Minister agrees with the Defence Secretary that our troops will be the last to leave Afghanistan.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the Minister will wish to focus on the programme fund in his reply.

[Mr Browne]

I will indeed, Mr Speaker. I assure you and all hon. Members that we attach the utmost importance to human rights and democracy in Afghanistan.

[David Miliband]

I am pleased to hear that. The Minister will know that an important part of the programme relates to the development of the peace jirga that was recently held in Afghanistan. The Foreign Secretary said of President Karzai’s peace jirga that it marked a

“comprehensive, inclusive and genuinely representative political process”.

He is certainly right that it is important. However, the two most internationally respected members of President Karzai’s Government—Interior Minister Atmar and spy chief Sahel—have resigned because of the failings at that jirga. Will the Minister explain whether the Foreign Secretary met opposition leader Abdullah when he was in Kabul and what he will do to ensure that these funds continue to be used for the vital task of building a political settlement in Afghanistan?

[Mr Browne]

We continue to work closely with the Afghan Government. On the specific and narrow issue of programme funds, I can again reassure the House that our relations with the Afghan Government and our efforts in Afghanistan go way beyond anything that we are spending on programme funds. It is an absolute central top priority of the British Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary knows that the previous Government won United Nations support for an arms trade treaty to establish minimum standards on all conventional arms sales. Thousands of people, including hundreds of UN peacekeepers, die every year because this trade is not properly regulated. The next round of negotiations starts on 12 July, as I am sure he knows. In opposition he said that he supported us on this, so can he explain why the coalition agreement dilutes this commitment to a partial restriction to sales “to dangerous regimes”, rather than a global standard? Is this a distinctive British foreign policy or the same old Tories?

[Mr Hague]

We will be a united coalition on this, as on all other subjects. I stand by everything I have said about the arms trade treaty, and we will be taking an energetic and supportive part in those negotiations from 12 July. We very much support that treaty.

European Affairs

David Miliband Excerpts

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is unusual in the House for the Foreign Secretary—at least it was under his previous roles—to lose an audience during a speech, but I will seek to address many of his points, focusing my remarks on the agenda for the European Council in two weeks. Of course, this quarter’s pre-European Council debate is unusual in that it is scheduled in the middle of the Queen’s Speech debates, but it comes at an important time for Europe.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his explanation of the Government’s approach. We want the Prime Minister, when he attends the European Council, to represent the interests of the country in a strong, outward-looking European Union, supporting an agenda of economic reform and social justice at home, and hard-headed internationalism abroad. The Foreign Secretary bravely said, in the Queen’s Speech debate last week, that he now favoured a policy of enlightened self-interest. We congratulate him on moving from unenlightened to enlightened self-interest—it is a step forward—but I hope that he will allow me, in the nicest possible way, to remind him of Harold Macmillan’s point that a Foreign Secretary is always caught somewhere between a cliché and an indiscretion. I hope that his repetition of his commitment to enlightened self-interest will not capture him in that trap.

It is not enough to say that one is enlightened. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary need to show it, and show it quickly, on the big issues facing Europe. They must put to one side institutional squabbles and focus on the substantive issues facing the European Union: a steady process of building economic growth alongside deficit reduction; developing the EU as a low-carbon economic zone of the future able to lead the international green economy; and supporting a strong European foreign policy that uses our weight in Europe to advance British interests. The Prime Minister’s press conference with Chancellor Merkel last month—his first foray into European politics as Prime Minister—was not encouraging. We are told that the Prime Minister is a fan of Disraeli, who said that

“petulance is not sarcasm, and insolence is not invective”.

The Prime Minister’s remarks in Berlin verged on both petulance and insolence.

I will focus on the Council’s agenda, but first I must pick the Foreign Secretary up on one thing. These debates are not traditionally partisan affairs, and my remarks will not be dedicated in that dimension. Pre-European Council debates—not European debates in general—have generally been focused on the agenda of the European Council. The shadow Foreign Secretary said—[Hon. Members: “You’re the shadow Foreign Secretary!”]I mean the Foreign Secretary. It sticks in the gullet, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am happy to admit it. However, in a few weeks, I hope I will get used to referring to the right hon. Gentleman as the Foreign Secretary.

I think I quote the Foreign Secretary correctly. He said that the United Kingdom got “nothing in return” for the 2004-05 budget deal. He also said that he was a long-standing supporter of enlargement, and he congratulated the previous Government on achieving enlargement. He knows that the budget deal agreed was necessary to make enlargement possible, and I say to him in the nicest possible way—well sort of—that he cannot keep on attacking the 2004-05 budget deal while professing his loyalty to the project of European enlargement. That project requires commitments in substance, and sometimes in budgets, as well as in words, and it simply is not good enough for him to keep on saying that we gave away the house in 2004-05 when it is not true. The EU achieved a historic agreement to expand, which he says he supports.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

If all budget contributions by nations were proportionate to their living standards, it would be fair, but they are not, so it will always cause problems, especially for Britain.

[David Miliband]

The rebate, which now applies to four countries, not just to the United Kingdom, is there because of the pattern of spending in the EU, and it is the pattern of spending that distorts the net contributions.

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

Reduce them.

[David Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, that we should reduce them, but he will know that the 2004-05 budget deal agreed for the first time that British and French net contributions should be more or less equal. That had never been achieved before under any previous Government.

[Michael Connarty]

Is it not true that not only did it allow the accession of the A8 countries, plus Malta and Cyprus, because they had problems with the budget proposed before that, but it changed fundamentally the basis of the common agricultural policy, so that we did not continue to plough money into the agricultural surpluses, but put the money into development in the countries joining? It was a fundamental change that was necessary for Europe, and one that was beneficial in the long run to the UK.

[David Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks with all the authority of a former Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. Of course, the change was twofold: first, the shift in industrial and infrastructure support into the A8 countries and, secondly, the creation for the first time of the second pillar of the CAP—the pillar devoted not to agricultural subsidy, but to rural development. The previous Government set out a clear plan for how the CAP should be reformed, so that there was spending on rural development and rural support, notably with an environmental, green and climate change focus. The market-distorting aspects of the CAP—the so-called first pillar—were reduced. So I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

[Mr Davidson]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way. However, does he not agree that Britain actually struck a very bad deal during the last budget negotiations? We did not get nearly as much as we ought to have, we gave up far more than we should have, and essentially the EU took advantage of us and our commitment to enlargement to strike a far better deal than we should have conceded. In fact, the deal that we conceded on enlargement was one of the things that lost us the election, not because people were hostile to enlargement, but because they were hostile to the uncontrolled immigration that resulted and to the feeling that the pervious Government were more interested in listening to Brussels than to their own people.

[David Miliband]

The Foreign Secretary and I jested earlier, when he said that my hon. Friend had always been a staunch supporter of the former Government, but I worry that he has been reading something left by the previous Opposition Whips Office, before the general election, setting our its view of what happened in 2004-05. I will make one important point to him: he will remember that six months before the budget deal was agreed, the then Government were denounced by the then Opposition for their failure to agree a deal. In June that year, there was a failure to agree a deal, and only under the British presidency, in December, did we get an agreement on the budget deal. So I do not accept his description.

[Mr Cash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Miliband]

No, I will make some progress, and if I may, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman later. He made at least two interventions on the Foreign Secretary.

I shall focus on the June Council agenda, which is understandably dedicated to addressing first the economic situation. The difficulties are well known, but the extent and possible permutations of the solutions are still relatively unknown, causing some instability in European and global markets. Concerns about Greece’s sovereign debt have led to market concern about other southern European economies. Eurozone growth figures are due to be released tomorrow—one disadvantage of having this debate before the European Council—and they will obviously provide a useful indicator for Council action.

All that matters to Britain, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, because 55% of our exports go to the EU. We are part of the largest single market in the world, along with our European partners. Half of UK inward investment comes from the EU. Out of the euro, we should still want the euro to succeed. In the light of those problems, the European Council needs to be clear about what needs to be done. The instability in the global economy as a result of Greece’s problems emphasises the need for effective and co-ordinated European action, as well as certainty for financial markets. A clear resolution framework is needed, and the eurozone countries must reach agreement between their members on the way forward.

However, this Council must be about growth, too, and it should look at the European economy as a whole. Competitive austerity, blind to the need to secure growth, will secure neither deficit reduction nor economic growth that improves living standards. In Europe and at the G20 meeting in Toronto, it is vital that the Government make that argument. As the US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said only yesterday:

“we want…fiscal reforms to happen in a way that’s growth friendly.”

That must surely be the right approach for any sensible Government. We on the Opposition Benches certainly share that view, for Europe and the global economy going into the G20. Deficits need to be brought down, but Europe also needs to think about generating growth, not simply stymieing demand through cutting too fast and too far. We urge the Government to push that argument, as well as that expressed by President Obama’s Administration.

The European Council has an extremely important role in agreeing ways of supporting European economic growth and better governance, and in fostering understanding between some of the strongest economies in the world. The last European Council meeting in March agreed, at the instigation of the then Prime Minister, a series of propositions on competitiveness, the prospects for European growth and the state of preparedness for the G20 summit.

[Mr Cash]

In the context of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, will he concede what Lord Mandelson said about the extent of over-regulation that comes from European directives and the like, which is that 4% of the European Union’s GDP is absorbed in unnecessary and burdensome regulation? That is the real reason why the eurozone is imploding. It simply does not have the capacity to produce enterprise and jobs. Indeed, enlargement, to include Bulgaria and Romania, is extremely suspect, because those countries have acted as a drag on the opportunity for the rest of Europe to prosper.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman asked almost exactly the same question of the Foreign Secretary. Difficult as it is for me to say it, the Foreign Secretary gave him rather a good answer, which is that a lot of the regulation to which he referred is, in fact, national regulation, not simply European regulation.

[Mr Cash]

Four per cent. of GDP.

[David Miliband]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to listen properly to what his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, but in this case what he said was actually true.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Foreign Secretary, but let me just say to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that he is setting an awfully bad example to hon. Members who are waiting to make their first speeches by conducting a sedentary commentary, which he knows the Chair strongly deplores.

[David Miliband]

I am sure that my hon. Friends will come to learn that the contributions—not sedentary, but standing—of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) are an important feature of these debates. The consistency of his remarks is at least one model for us all to follow, even if that cannot always be said of their content.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Or their length.

[David Miliband]

Indeed, as my right hon. Friend also says from a sedentary position.

We look to the new Prime Minister to continue to show the level of engagement seen in the past on European economic issues. Of the many hard lessons that Europe has learned, the most significant is the importance of collaboration in the global economy. The “Europe 2020” growth strategy will be formally adopted at the Council. It was the previous Government who led on the development of those proposals, during the financial crisis that Europe faced last year, and who pushed for many of the positive solutions. We support a strong external dimension, to ensure that the EU is promoted on the global scene, notably through engagement with the so-called BRIC economies—those of Brazil, Russia, India and China.

We also support the expansion of research and development, increasing the share of renewables in final energy consumption to 20% and moving towards a 20% increase in energy efficiency. We also look to the Prime Minister to make the case for longer-term reform in the European Union, particularly in areas such as energy liberalisation and the completion of the single market in areas relatively untouched, such as e-commerce.

There was one country that the Foreign Secretary did not mention, but which it is appropriate to do so. He rightly talked of the importance of the rising powers, but he did not mention Russia. The EU is by far Russia’s largest trading partner, with three quarters of all Russia’s direct foreign investment coming from EU member states. The EU-Russia summit—the first since Lisbon came into force—took place on Tuesday, I think. I look forward to hearing further from the Foreign Secretary about how he sees Europe’s relationship with Russia. He will know—he referred to this in the debate on the Gracious Speech—that Britain’s relations with Russia over the past three years have been extremely testing.

The then Opposition supported the Government in the measures that we took in respect of Russia. However, when it comes to helping the modernisation of Russia, the European Union should be our best instrument. That is why we agreed to the opening of the so-called partnership and co-operation agreement negotiations—I think against the advice of the then Opposition. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will seek to use those discussions to help the process of engagement with Russia. We have a lot to gain, not least on issues to do with energy supply, on which the whole of the EU is a significant partner for Russia.

The European Union also has an important human rights dimension to its work in Russia. Indeed, it is appropriate that the Secretary of State for International Development should be in the Chamber now—he missed the Foreign Secretary’s speech, but I am glad that he has come in at this moment. He made great play during the election campaign of what he called the absurdity of the Department for International Development funding work in China or Russia. Let us leave China to one side. The work that the Department for International Development was funding in Russia was vital human rights work in Chechnya and Ingushetia, parts of Russia that are extremely poor and extremely riven with human rights abuses.

I hope that the Foreign Secretary will talk to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, because the important work that was being done with DFID money—relatively small amounts of money, compared with the multi-billion pound DFID budget—was supporting human rights issues that the Foreign Secretary said in his speech in the Loyal Address will be a vital part of his Department’s work. We have heard a lot of words about joined-up government from the new Administration, and this is one area where the price of a campaign commitment to an across-the-board cut in the work done in Russia will be borne by people trying to do brave and important work, in an important country in an important part of the world.

[Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am pleased to hear what the shadow Foreign Secretary is saying, but could he explain to the House why under his Administration the funding for the Council of Europe—and, implicitly, for the European Court of Human Rights—was basically frozen, while he allowed the European Union to spend hundreds of millions of pounds creating a fundamental rights agency that has nothing whatever to do with human rights in Russia or anywhere else?

[David Miliband]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention had so little to do with what I was talking about, which was a serious point about the development of human rights support in Russia. As he knows, the Council of Europe continues to receive generous support from the United Kingdom. The fact that we froze our budget is an example of the sort of efficiency and drive that he has often preached about. However, there is an important point there for the Foreign Secretary to address.

[Keith Vaz]

“Europe 2020” is the successor to the Lisbon agenda. What went wrong with the Lisbon agenda was that European countries did not acknowledge and achieve their benchmarks on certain aspects of policy. Before the shadow Foreign Secretary finishes the economic section of his speech, will he say whether he agrees that, as we focus on the new European Council, it is extremely important that there should be credible benchmarks? There has to be a proper understanding from European countries that those benchmarks are not pie in the sky; rather, they actually have to meet them if Europe is to become truly competitive.

[David Miliband]

I fear that there is a rather more fundamental problem than the one that my right hon. Friend has addressed. Although it is right to have a single European growth strategy, there is not a single European Government, nor is there a single European economic policy. We have nation states of Europe that pursue their own policies, and the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members across the House would support that. The benchmarks that he talks about could not be enforced by the European Commission, or by anyone else, in those areas that were not within the competence of the European Union. I do not think the lesson from that is that we should centralise all work on universities or other supply-side issues. However, the structural problem remains, whereby the European Union operates by agreement, but implementation in significant areas is carried out by nation states.

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[David Miliband]

I want to make some progress, but I will see whether I can squeeze the hon. Gentleman in a bit later.

I want to cover the important issue of the banking levy, which the Foreign Secretary did not mention. The last European Council’s conclusions noted

“possible innovative sources of financing such as a global levy on financial transactions”.

We have consistently been in favour of such a banking levy. The UK was the first major country to push for such a levy, at the G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting in St Andrew’s last November. We have also been clear about the need for such a levy to be agreed internationally. The former shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury—now the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond)—agreed with that, saying:

“We’re very interested in the levy idea and we said so. We like what President Obama has announced but it’s got to be done on an international basis.”

Now is the time for the Prime Minister to follow through on that commitment.

We urge the Government to concentrate on finding consensus for a global levy. The G20 summit will provide another opportunity to build such agreement. I hope that the Minister for Europe will address that issue when he replies to the debate, as it was not addressed by the Foreign Secretary. He might also like to confirm that there is cross-party agreement on the suggestion that a banking levy should operate as some form of insurance fund. We have some concerns about that. We believe that the way in which any proceeds from a levy are spent should be a matter for individual countries to decide.

The European Council also has on its agenda the important preparations for the United Nations high-level plenary meeting on the millennium development goals. The Government have our full support in this area, and we are proud of our record on international development, to which the Foreign Secretary referred. The outlook for the goals is mixed. The right hon. Gentleman was poetic about his Government’s commitments, but he also pointed out that some other European countries were falling back in their commitments. For example, the proportion of children under five who are undernourished has declined from 33% in 1990, but it remained at 26% when the last figures were taken. According to the UN’s figures, the number of children in developing countries who were underweight still exceeded 140 million. There has been success in tackling hunger in parts of east Asia, but in sub-Saharan Africa, the poverty rate has remained constant at approximately 50%. These are issues on which Europe’s development budget, and its development work, have an important role to play, and I hope that we shall get a report back from the right hon. Gentleman, or from the Prime Minister when he returns from the European Council.

On climate change, which the Foreign Secretary mentioned in passing, the Commission report presented by new Commissioner, Mrs Hedegaard, was important. We on this side of the House are committed to increasing the EU’s target on emissions cuts as we move forward to a more comprehensive global agreement for the period beyond 2012. Figures released yesterday show that EU member states are halfway to cutting their emissions by 20% by 2020, which shows good progress, but that represents progress over a 20-year period, and we have only 10 years to go. We also need to ensure that the targets are not shirked, and that loopholes are closed.

In the light of the discussion yesterday, and of the terrible events that took place on Monday, it is right that I should dwell for a moment on the situation in the middle east. The European Heads of Government decided last year to devote one meeting a year to foreign policy, but that cannot lead to the exclusion of foreign policy from every other meeting. The Foreign Secretary spoke, quite legitimately, about the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, but the European Council has especial weight when it comes to choosing some foreign policy issues and dedicating time to them. I would not support the development of a Christmas tree approach, whereby every foreign policy issue was discussed at every European Council, but I do believe that the crisis in the middle east that was catalysed by the events on Monday deserves the attention of the Heads of Government.

We know that the EU is a big funder of humanitarian work on the west bank and in Gaza. We also know that it funds work for the Palestinian security forces on the west bank. Those are two ways in which the European Union makes like better for people in the occupied Palestinian territories. In political terms, however, Europe has not been a player of equivalent strength. The tragic events of this week bring into stark relief the consequences of stasis on the political track. These include limited progress on the implementation of resolution 1860, stalled proximity talks, and EU relations with Syria that are going backwards after the outreach early last year. Discussion has also been diverted from the important Iranian nuclear issue.

International engagement in this arena is not blocked by a lack of consensus; in fact, there has rarely been consensus on the long-term solution to the Israel-Palestine issue. However, the engagement has not been turned into action on the ground. This is a massive test for the foreign policy of all four members of the Quartet, but we on this side support a stronger role for the Quartet as a representative of the international community, and more structured links with the Arab Quartet, which needs to be part of any drive to reverse the slide in confidence and commitment that has been evident for some time, and which will be accelerated by this week’s events. The Foreign Secretary talked yesterday about making his and Britain’s voice heard. The European Council offers a chance for Europe’s voice to be heard, and I hope that the Prime Minister will take it. Europe needs a strong Britain, and we need a strong and successful Europe.

[Mr Davidson]

Given that the role of an Opposition is to oppose, is it the intention of the comrade leader aspirant that we should attack the Government for being insufficiently pro-Brussels? That was the position traditionally adopted by the Liberals, and it did not do them any good at the last election. I wonder whether we ought to learn the lessons of the general election and adopt a somewhat different position. For example, perhaps we should say that, if there is to be any more accession, there should be an end to unfettered immigration from the EU.

[David Miliband]

First, we will attack the Government for being insufficiently pro-British, and not for being insufficiently pro-Brussels. When they are insufficiently strong in their defence of the national interest, in regard to any aspect of European policy, we will attack them for that. Let me address my hon. Friend’s last point. His new ally, the Prime Minister, repeated in each of the prime ministerial debates that Britain needed a policy in which new entrants to the European Union had transitional arrangements for labour market access. That exists today for Romania and Bulgaria, precisely because we are learning the lessons of the past 10 years. I would say to my hon. Friend that, when our comrade party has done something right, it would be worth his while to recognise that. In this case, we have got it right.

[Keith Vaz]

Please could the shadow Foreign Secretary explain to our comrade from Glasgow—this now seems to be the parlance on these Benches—that this is not actually immigration? Once the treaty has been signed, people from the European Union have a right to come and work here unless there are transitional arrangements. Furthermore, there are 1 million British citizens working in mainland Europe in exactly the same way.

[David Miliband]

It is important to point out that there is now a net outflow of European workers from the UK, according to the latest figures, which were published at the end of last month. That reflects quite a lot about our economy. It is also important to say that other European citizens are required to work and pay taxes for 12 months in the UK before they are entitled to claim benefits. That is an important part of the compact. I accept that there are rights, but it is important not to forget that there are also responsibilities attendant on migration within the European Union.

[Michael Connarty]

It is also worth putting on record that the Single European Act, signed by Margaret Thatcher, gave people the right to travel and work within the European Union. That changed the fundamental structure in which people now operate in the EU. It was not the Labour Government who decided that; it was decided long before we came to power.

[David Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I want to refer back to the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and the Foreign Secretary. It is not often that he is stalled in his stride, but my hon. Friend managed to stall him by pointing out that his new-found enthusiasm for referendums on any transfer of competence, however small, stands in stark contrast to his loyal vote for the Maastricht treaty under his then Government. It also stands in stark contrast to all those Conservative Members who were in the House during the passage of the Single European Act and who loyally stuck to British parliamentary convention. That is, that we are a parliamentary democracy and that when there are fundamental transfers of power around the euro, for example, there should, of course, be a referendum, as all parties have agreed. It is the job of this Parliament, however, to scrutinise, debate and to vote on any other matters.

Although I shall not devote a long section of my speech to this subject today, we look forward to long debates about how the Foreign Secretary will justify spending £80 million to £100 million on referendums, for example, on a change in the organisation of the pension committee of the European Parliament, which is one consequence of the new-found policy adopted by the Government. We will have particular fun in asking the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who has long stood for a high degree of European integration, to explain why that is a good use of taxpayers’ money.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[David Miliband]

My comrade friend from Birmingham, Edgbaston is always too tempting for me not to give way to her.

[Ms Stuart]

Although this grieves me, let me put on the record that when it comes to referendums, all three parties have nothing to be proud of. We all went into the 2005 election promising one: Conservative Members kept saying “Oh, well, if it is passed, we cannot have one”, but they could perfectly well have had one; the Lib-Dems said, “Oh, we change the question; it should be in or out”; while we said that the document was different from the treaty. None of us came out of this with glory, and I think that we should recognise it.

[David Miliband]

I want to put on record the fact that my hon. Friend did cover herself with glory in respect of the consistency of the positions she took on European issues and—[Interruption.] I have to say to the Foreign Secretary that we have been working on that through separate channels. My hon. Friend achieved a remarkable result in the general election and her result was testimony to what independent-minded and strong constituency MPs can achieve in this country. I am very pleased that she will be applying her independent mind not only to everything that I say, but to everything that the Government say on European issues as well, pointing out the inconsistencies as they develop.

Many of our European partners will be looking forward to the appearance of the Prime Minister at the new European Council. They will be scratching their heads about some of the policies that the new Government will develop. It is not that they find coalition Governments alien—there are, of course, coalition Governments all over Europe—but they often assume that members of the Government will agree with each other on key foreign policy issues. The other leaders will know that the Conservative party has spent a large part of the last decade campaigning to “save the pound”, as they would put it, and that the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for the last 10 years to ditch the pound. That is why the Foreign Secretary said that there was no more “fanatically federalist party” in Britain than the Liberal Democrats. That was before his new-found enthusiasm for their support on the Government Benches.

[Simon Hughes]

rose—

[David Miliband]

No, I have taken enough interventions. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can make a speech later rather than intervene on mine.

We say to the Foreign Secretary that the one person he should listen to is the former Member for Bath and commissioner, Lord Patten, who was both a mentor to the current Prime Minister and also, I think, an employer of the current Deputy Prime Minister when he was a commissioner. Lord Patten said recently that the sensible thing would be for the Conservative party to move back to centre where big players sit around the table and make the big decisions affecting Europe. We do not want the British Prime Minister going to the European Council to represent the whole of the UK and be sitting in the corridor while the European Peoples party and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats Heads of Government make the real decisions and invite him—the only Head of Government not to attend either of those meetings—along afterwards only for a toast. There are big decisions to be made in Europe: they need leadership and good judgment. That is the basis on which we will hold the Government to account.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Gaza Flotilla

David Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, I will report to the House on the events surrounding the interception of boats in the “Free Gaza” flotilla, on the immediate action that the Government have taken, and on our planned next steps.

In the early hours of 31 May, the Israeli defence forces intercepted six of the eight boats sailing in the “Free Gaza” flotilla. The incident led to injury and deaths of a number of passengers, mainly on one of the vessels. We await details of all the casualties and fatalities, but it is clear that many will be Turkish citizens. The Prime Minister and I have spoken to the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister respectively to offer our condolences. The six intercepted vessels were brought to shore in the Israeli port of Ashdod. Two of the boats have been delayed by mechanical difficulties and remain at sea. We believe that they are en route to Gaza.

I can inform the House that it now appears that a total of 37 British nationals were involved in Sunday’s events. That is different from the number given by the Prime Minister a short time ago, which was based on what the Israeli ambassador had said previously. I spoke to our ambassador in Tel Aviv in the past 45 minutes or so before coming to the Chamber, and I repeat that the latest figures are of 37 British nationals, including 11 dual nationals. We have so far received access to 28 of those individuals, one of whom was deported yesterday. We understand that four more British nationals agreed to be deported this morning and that the remaining British nationals are likely to be transferred to the airport soon. We have expressed our disappointment to the Israeli Government about the levels of preparedness on their part, and the fact that we have not yet been given full information about British nationals detained and access to all of them. We are urgently pressing the Israeli Government to resolve the situation within hours.

There is real, understandable and justified anger at the events that have unfolded. The Government’s position is as follows. Our clear advice to British nationals is not to travel to Gaza. However, we have made clear in public and to the Israeli Government that we deeply deplore the loss of life, and look to Israel to do everything possible to avoid a repeat of this unacceptable situation. The United Nations Security Council and the European Union have rightly condemned the violence that resulted in the loss of these lives. We continue to demand urgent information and access to all United Kingdom nationals involved. Their welfare is our top priority at this time, along with support for the families, who are understandably very worried. We are seriously concerned about the seizure of British nationals in international waters, and that aspect of the Israeli operation must form a key part of the investigation into the events.

The Prime Minister has spoken to the Israeli Prime Minister, I have spoken to the Israeli Foreign Minister, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), has been in close contact with the Israeli ambassador in London. The embassy in Tel Aviv has been in constant contact with the Israeli authorities. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have already been in contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about their constituents and their families, and who have provided information. We recognise the intense concern for those involved, and the need to keep Members updated.

Israel has told us that it wants to move as quickly as possible to deport people from the flotilla who are currently held in Israel. If they agree, they will be deported very quickly. Those who remain unwilling to leave will be allowed to stay for 72 hours in detention, which is the time limit allowed for them to appeal against deportation. Our understanding is that they will be deported after that. We also understand that the Israelis have begun to transfer to Jordan detainees from countries that are not represented in Israel. We understand that the individuals who were allegedly involved in violence against Israeli servicemen during the boarding will have their cases examined in line with Israeli legal advice. We do not currently believe that there are any British nationals in that last category, although I hope the House will appreciate that this is a fluid situation.

Our partners in the international community are working, as we are, to facilitate the swift release of those detained. Turkey is sending six planes to fly out their nationals, and the Turkish authorities have indicated that detainees of other countries may join those flights. We believe that some of the British nationals to whom I referred earlier are on those flights now.

The United Kingdom has played its full part in the European Union and the United Nations in agreeing on the need for a full, credible, impartial and independent investigation into these events. Our goal is a process that ensures full accountability for the events that occurred and commands the confidence of the international community, including international participation. Further discussions are taking place in other international forums, including NATO and the United Nations Human Rights Council. We will take the same principled stand in all our diplomatic efforts, and will stress to the Israeli Government the need for them to act with restraint and in line with their international obligations, given that their actions appear to have gone beyond what was warranted or proportionate. We need to know whether more could have been done to minimise the risks, or to reduce the number of deaths and injuries.

The events aboard the flotilla were very serious and have captured the world’s attention, but they should not be viewed in isolation. They arise from the unacceptable and unsustainable situation in Gaza, which is a cause of public concern here in the United Kingdom and around the world. It has long been the view of the British Government—including the previous Government—that restrictions on Gaza should be lifted, a view confirmed in United Nations Security Council resolution 1860, which called for

“sustained delivery of humanitarian aid”

and called on states to

“to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation”.

The fact that that has not happened is a tragedy. It is essential that there be unfettered access not only to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza, but to enable the reconstruction of homes and livelihoods and permit trade to take place. The Palestinian economy, whether in Gaza or on the west bank, is an essential part of a viable Palestinian state which I hope will one day live alongside Israel in peace and security.

As the once productive private sector has been decimated and ordinary Gazans have lost their jobs and their incomes, it is tunnel entrepreneurs and their Hamas backers who benefit. Hamas now has near total control of the economy. Other groups, even more radical and violent, are finding a place amid the misery and frustration felt by a generation of young people. In this context, current Israeli restrictions are counter-productive to Israel’s long-term security. We will therefore continue to press the Israeli Government to lift the closure of Gaza, and plan early discussions with Israel as well as with our other international partners about what more can be done to ensure an unfettered flow of aid while also ensuring that aid reaches those who need it and is not abused. I discussed that with Secretary Clinton last night, and we will be taking forward our discussions on the subject urgently.

The House should not forget the role played by Hamas in this conflict. It continues to pursue an ideology of violence and directly to undermine prospects for peace in the region. Violence has continued in recent days, with rocket fire from militants in Gaza and Israeli military incursions and air strikes in response. We call on Hamas to take immediate and concrete steps towards the Quartet principles, unconditionally to release Gilad Shalit, who has been held in captivity for four years, and to end its interference with the operations of non-governmental organisations and UN agencies in Gaza.

It is more clear than ever that the only long-term and sustainable solution to the conflict that produced these tragic events is a two-state solution that achieves a viable and sovereign Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel, with its right to live in peace and security recognised by all its neighbours. The proximity talks that are under way are more important than ever. These events should not undermine those talks, but instead should underline just how important they are, and the Government will make it an urgent priority to give British diplomatic support to buttress that process. The Government will continue to keep the House informed of developments.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for advance sight of it.

I said in the Queen’s Speech debate last week that a policy of ignoring Gaza in the search for peace will not work. In the early hours of Monday morning, we saw why the blockade of Gaza is a barrier not only to vital aid and reconstruction materials, but to any hope of peace at all. The attack by the Israeli defence forces is the latest in a series of self-defeating and deadly moves by successive Israeli Governments in Gaza. We on the Opposition Benches join the international condemnation of an operation that was not self-defence but defence of a failed policy. Israel does have rights to security against terrorism, but we are talking here about a policy that has done nothing to defeat terrorism. Until the people of Gaza can be confident of an education for their children in schools not crumbling around them, of being able to feed and clothe their families adequately, and of being able to live without a prescribed list of what they can and cannot use in their kitchens, there is no way that the call of negotiation and peace will be heard.

As Foreign Secretary, I negotiated UK-sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1860 in January 2009, which eventually brought the Gaza war to an end. It demanded the full flow of humanitarian and reconstruction materials into Gaza, and an end to the trafficking of weapons into Gaza, and its implementation by all sides must be the central demand of the international community. That needs UN, EU and Quartet pressure, not just engagement.

The continuation of the blockade, not just by Israel but until yesterday by Egypt too, brings misery to Palestinians and does nothing to weaken the hold of Hamas on the territory—the alleged aim of the policy. In fact, revenue from smuggling taxes funds Hamas. The latest episode cost innocent lives, undermines Palestinians and Arabs who believe in co-existence and the peaceful path to statehood, and further isolates Israel in the international community. The only people smiling are the rejectionists. The answer to them is a political process with drive and momentum. I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary talk about proximity talks, but proximity talks are worth having only as a short prelude to substantive negotiations, and, frankly, they have gone on for too long already without getting to the big issues.

I have five sets of questions for the Foreign Secretary, the first of which is about the welfare of British citizens. The lack of clarity about the position of British nationals is completely unacceptable. We are talking about 37 people, not 37,000 people. They have a right to consular support; it says so in their passports. They should be given that support immediately. If it is being denied, we should be denouncing that, not saying that we are disappointed by it.

Secondly, on the legality of the action, I spoke to the Turkish Foreign Minister in New York last night, and it is clear that the Turkish Government intend to pursue that question. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he believes that the action, which took place in international waters, was illegal, whether he has discussed the issue with the Turkish Government, and if not, why not?

Thirdly, the Foreign Secretary says that he wants to know whether more could have been done to minimise the risks or to reduce the number of deaths during the raid on the flotilla, but surely the question to ask is why on earth armed and lethal force was used at all. A fundamental principle is involved; the language of condemnation is used very sparingly in international relations, but it is the view of those on the Opposition Benches that the loss of innocent civilian life should always be condemned. We have done so since Monday, and the language was repeated in the United Nations presidential statement on Monday night, which said that the Security Council

“condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded”.

We welcome that, but the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have not used that language themselves. We call on them to say loudly and clearly that the British Government do condemn the loss of innocent civilian life. If they will not do that, they are setting a very dangerous precedent and sending a very bad message indeed.

Fourthly, on the Government’s intentions, we note the UN’s calls for an independent investigation, and of course we welcome them, but there are outstanding requests for investigations into incidents that took place during the Gaza war 18 months ago. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore explain to the House whether Her Majesty’s Government argued in the UN on Monday night for a UN investigation now? If not, why not? In that context, can he tell us how long he will give the Israeli Government to agree to an independent inquiry before he supports a UN inquiry?

Finally, the argument that opening borders only benefits Hamas has been exposed, because the present situation only costs innocent lives and actually damages Israel. What action does the Foreign Secretary propose to take through the UN and the European Union to drive forward improvements in the daily lives of people living in Gaza? Is it not the case that the EU has standing capacity waiting to be deployed to man checkpoints into and out of Gaza? Do we not need urgent engagement to get an agreement, as per resolution 1860, for those forces to be deployed?

This is a political crisis, not just a humanitarian one. Rocket attacks will be defeated only by a substantive political process towards a Palestinian state. That is where the greatest responsibility lies for all the parties. We will support all efforts on the part of the Government to make Gaza part of a wider international drive for peace in the middle east, backed by the UN and the EU, in support of US leadership, because without such an effort there will be no peace in the middle east.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for his broad support for what is clearly a bipartisan policy shared across the Floor of the House. His concern for the people of Gaza is felt very deeply in all parts of the House. As he reminded the House, he played an instrumental part in the negotiation of UN resolution 1860 and he has always argued, as we have argued, that ignoring Gaza will not work; this problem must be addressed. I am grateful for the implicit support that he has given to the Government’s position and for the argument that he makes that the Israeli policy towards Gaza does not loosen but tightens the grip of Hamas on the people of Gaza.

I shall now respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. He can tell that I am disappointed and very dissatisfied with the Israeli response, as it has gone on over recent hours, on consular access. The reason why I do not condemn the Israelis unequivocally is because there is a complicating factor: many people on board the ships did not have their passports or had destroyed all their papers, so it is not necessarily immediately obvious to which nationality they belong. In addition, there has been a clear lack of preparedness by Israel for handling this number of people and dealing with this number of consular inquiries. That is why, in some cases, our consular staff, who have been working extremely hard, have had to go to the prison at Beersheba to hammer on doors and ask people whether they are British. It has been chaotic, it is completely unsatisfactory and I am glad that some of the people are now able to leave the country. None the less, it is the most immediately urgent part of our work to ensure that that is put right and that all the British nationals have been identified and seen.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I had spoken to the Turkish Foreign Minister. I did speak to him. Of course, one reason for an investigation will be to learn more about the legality of what may have happened. However, to connect this to one of the right hon. Gentleman’s other questions, the Turkish Foreign Minister particularly thanked me for the role played by our ambassador at the UN Security Council, because the presidential statement delivered to the council was, of course, made on behalf of the members of the council, including Britain, so it is very much our language as well. We certainly condemn acts that lead to the deaths of civilians—I have done that before, but if the right hon. Gentleman has not heard me do so, I do so again—so there need be no difference between us on that point.

Critically, an investigation must be prompt, independent, credible and transparent. It is my view and, from the discussions that I had last night, the view of the United States that the investigation should as a minimum have an international presence. It is possible for Israel to establish such an investigation and inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that commissions or inquiries have on occasion been established in Israel that have delivered stinging criticism of the Israeli Government and armed forces, although on other occasions such inquiries have not done so when we might have thought it was merited. However, we look to them to heed the international calls for such an inquiry and investigation, and if they simply refuse to do so—to answer his question—it would not be long before we added our voice for one conducted under international auspices.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that urgent work needs to be taken forward on providing the mechanism for access to aid into Gaza, and for trade in and out of Gaza, while giving the Israelis sufficient assurance that it will not be used for the smuggling of arms, which none of us wants taken into Gaza. We are now taking forward that urgent work with our partners in the EU and the United States, and it is something on which we will need to return to the House.

Foreign Affairs and Defence

David Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

Let me start by warmly congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his new responsibilities. He established himself in the last Parliament as the pre-eminent parliamentary debater of his generation, taking on those of us who were in government with determination, panache and, often, a great sense of humour. I assure him that he will need those skills again in this Parliament to take on all those in the Cabinet and on the Government Benches who hold diametrically opposed views to his on foreign policy issues. He has also performed the invaluable service of showing that a stint as Leader of the Opposition is merely a stepping stone to greater things, so I am grateful to him for that as well.

We wish the Foreign Secretary well. He starts with one great advantage: his trusty sidekick the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, the hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who spent three years training to be Minister for Europe, has been sent to the correctional facility otherwise known as the Government Whips Office. The hon. Gentleman told the Essex Echo that he was pleased to have been sent back to where his career started. I am tempted to say, “Not half as pleased as Ministries all around Europe,” but we wish him well in his mercifully silent post.

There are now six Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, compared with four in the last Parliament. It turns out that we were right all along to say that it takes a Lib Dem and two Tories to do the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). We certainly will not take any lectures from the Government on lean government given the number of Ministers they have now appointed. We will want to know what smoke and mirrors the Foreign Secretary is going to use, given his complaints about swingeing cuts in the Foreign Office, regarding Monday’s announcement of £55 million-worth of cuts in the Foreign Office budget. We look forward to getting further details about how that will be organised.

There are six Ministers in King Charles street, but I am sad to see no room for the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), who worked tirelessly in opposition to lift the historical tone of our debates. He prepared for every Question Time. He honed his one-liners. He was always unfailingly nice about the civil service. He did all the right things in preparation for the call from No. 10, but I am afraid that, although he is a loyal party man, the reasoning behind his demotion must be a source of some concern. In explanation, one of his colleagues told The Times last week:

“I suppose there has to be an Old Etonian in every department”.

The tragedy for the hon. Gentleman is that he went to Thorpe grammar school, and he had to be replaced by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham). So much for the classless society in the new Conservative party.

The Opposition will support the Government fully, comprehensively and with absolute good faith where it is appropriate to do so. Nowhere is that more necessary than on Afghanistan. All three parties went into the general election supporting our troops. All supported a political settlement as the way to end the military conflict. All put great premium on the importance of delivering real improvements in the lives of the Afghan people. All also supported regional engagement of Afghanistan’s neighbours—all the neighbours. We will continue to do so. Our troops deserve united support from the House and that is what they will get. The Foreign Secretary did not play politics on Afghanistan when he was in opposition, and we will follow exactly that path. War is more important than politics.

In that spirit, I hope we can convince the new Defence Secretary that any attempt to suggest that there has been a big shift in policy away from a focus on Afghan education in favour of a concern with British security is not well merited. We know that a comprehensive approach requires military effort and civilian effect to create the conditions for a political settlement. The Foreign Secretary made that clear in his remarks. I hope we can agree the following: that security concerns took us into Afghanistan, that security and development need to go together, and that the political surge of which the Prime Minister spoke yesterday was started in the last Parliament, set out in General McChrystal’s successive reports and needs to be continued—not in the absence of military pressure, but as a complement to it.

The Opposition will want to be assured about key aspects of the Afghan mission. The Foreign Secretary did not have time or did not want to give us details of the hold and build phase of the Marjah operation. We will be concerned to see that Afghan capacity arrives to ensure that that takes place. The planning for the Kandahar operation is being done in quite an open way by the international security assistance force, but where is the Afghan capacity and what is being done to avoid a false choice of warlordism or Talibanisation? In respect of Southern command, the reorganisation of which is happening under US leadership, we will be interested to know how the US Marines fit into the ISAF structure.

As for the development of the Afghan police force, the Foreign Secretary will know that we support strongly the plans of Minister Atmar, but we want to see them implemented. We are zealous in our support for and pursuit of an agenda of so-called reintegration and reconciliation—the political engagement of former insurgents. This is core to the development of an inclusive political system. Especially in the light of the difficulties with the so-called peace jirga scheduled for 2 May and now much postponed, we will want to see when that is to be organised. We will also want to know how the crackdown on corruption of which the Foreign Secretary has often spoken—the cancer eating away at the heart of Afghan society—is going. What did President Karzai promise him on Saturday and what will he do if the promises are not delivered?

[Mr Ellwood]

The shadow Foreign Secretary raises a number of important questions, to which I am sure we will find the answers in due course. A question I pose to him, which comes in the light of the resignation of Colonel Bob Seddon, is about the shortage of explosives officers in Afghanistan. Will he comment on the 40% shortage of explosives ordnance officers, which is causing those who are in theatre to be very tired, resulting in more mistakes?

[David Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman is a former military officer and knows well the extensive work done over the past two years not just to send specialist officers to Afghanistan to tackle the threat of improvised explosive devices, but to ensure that they had the most up-to-date equipment. If he looks at the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) shortly before the general election, he will see the extent to which the IED threat is being countered. But as he knows, as the presence of British forces grows and as other ISAF expertise grows, the bombs and the bomb making are also becoming more sophisticated. I think he will find that there is more to that 40% figure than he is quoting.

We will also make the case for continued engagement with Pakistan. The Foreign Secretary did not visit Pakistan this weekend, and I am pleased to hear that he is to go soon. I regret that he did not go this weekend, because if there is one thing that we have learned in the past nine years, it is that there will be no peace in Afghanistan without peace in Pakistan. It is good that the right hon. Gentleman will go, but south Asia is a part of the world where actions speak much louder than words, and symbolism and respect are vital. Neglect of Pakistan has in many ways landed us in the current difficulties and it must not be repeated.

On Pakistan, the Government would do well to engage with the European Union. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not make mention of the plans for the rearranged EU summit with Pakistan on 4 June, or of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan group, which meets under the auspices of the UN. The EU spends just half a euro per person in Pakistan, compared to five to 10 times as much in other parts of the world that are not only more developed, but less crucial to our security, and I hope he will give greater priority to that issue.

On a range of issues, the new Government have promised to take forward commitments made by the previous Administration, and we welcome that. Let me start with the middle east. The right hon. Gentleman used some of the words that we used, but not all of them. There are a number of areas where we will be looking to see his commitment. He did support the proximity talks, and we welcome that, but we want to see a determination that they should address substantive issues, not simply procedural ones. He did not dwell on the settlements issue, but it worth reminding the House that they are illegal in international law and an obstacle to peace. We want to see direct support for the Fayyad plan to build a Palestinian state within two years. The Quartet took the unprecedented step of supporting the plan on 19 March at its meeting in Moscow, and we want to see that support from the British Government too.

In respect of Gaza, the enforcement of resolution 1860 in all the aspects that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned is vital. A “Gaza last” policy will not, in my view, work. It is vital that the people and significance of Gaza are not forgotten. I hope he will continue to engage the wider region, because unless the Arab states shoulder a share of the responsibility, there will be no solution.

We will want to be updated on developments in the Dubai passports case. The Dubai authorities have announced that more British passports were involved and the House will want to know what the Government are doing on this issue.

The Foreign Secretary spoke of his ambitions for the non-proliferation treaty review conference, and the transparency that his colleague is announcing at the NPT review conference today is welcome. I welcome also his determination to look again at the nuclear posture of this country. He will know that it is remarkably similar to the one that the new American Administration have taken, and it is worth looking at the small areas of difference.

[Paul Flynn]

On corruption in Afghanistan, is not the fact that the election-rigging Karzai has failed to arrest his openly corrupt brother proof that the elimination of endemic corruption in Afghanistan is wholly unattainable?

[David Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The investigation and any prosecution of Ahmed Wali Karzai, far from being the first step, will be a step rather further down the road in tackling corruption in Afghanistan. However, the questions that I was asking about the Kandahar operation speak directly to the situation in southern Afghanistan and to whatever role Mr Ahmed Wali Karzai is playing in that part of the country.

[Michael Connarty]

My right hon. Friend is rattling ahead. Now he is in opposition, he should take more time and give others a chance to intervene. On his point about the reaction to the Dubai theft of passports, Australia has taken courageous and correct action by expelling an Israeli diplomat from Australia for the theft of Australian passports. Is it not appropriate that our Government should take similar action over the theft of UK passports?

[David Miliband]

We did that earlier this year. We anticipated my hon. Friend’s desire for us to take action and we were able to do so. I have seen the Australian decision. It accords with ours and is the right thing to do.

On the non-proliferation treaty, there are two priorities. One is North Korea, which the Foreign Secretary mentioned in passing. Since the joint civilian-military investigation group on the sinking of the Cheonan concluded that a homing torpedo from North Korea sank the ship, and the North Korean state television companies are completely refuting the findings, what action will the Government take in supporting the international community’s efforts to make North Korea take notice?

On Iran, the previous Government were at the forefront of the case for a diplomatic resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue. We support a further UN sanctions resolution, and the right hon. Gentleman will have been pleased to discover that Chinese and Russian support has been added to that of the permanent three—France, the US and the UK—but unity must not be achieved at the price of strength. We will want him to take forward the “sanctions-plus” policy, with a heavy emphasis on the “plus” on human rights and their abuse by the Iranian authorities.

There is no mention in the coalition agreement of promoting human rights and equality around the world, so I was pleased by the right hon. Gentleman’s comments today in the House. However, I was concerned that although he rightly mentioned Burma, Zimbabwe and elsewhere, there was no mention of the situation in Sri Lanka, which is especially important in the light of the recent International Crisis Group report, which said that Sri Lankan security forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam repeatedly violated humanitarian law during the last five months of the conflict last year.

Many of the LTTE fighters are now dead, but many Sri Lankan Government fighters should face justice. However, independent journalists in Sri Lanka are suggesting that that will not happen and that a forthcoming commission by the Sri Lankan Government will not provide any closure. We look to the Government to insist on the independent investigation promised by the Sri Lankan Government to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

I was pleased that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Cyprus after questioning from one of his colleagues, and I hope that he will recommit himself to the bizonal, bicommunal settlement, which is so important.

On international development, we welcome the bipartisan—tripartisan, now—commitment to the 0.7% target in respect of national income to be dedicated to overseas development by 2013. I hope that it will be confirmed in the winding-up speech that there will be a Bill, as per the pre-legislative scrutiny in the last Parliament. That was a clear commitment, and it needs to be honoured.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I am most grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. [Hon. Members: “Shadow Foreign Secretary!”] Shadow Foreign Secretary, I should say. Will the shadow Foreign Secretary now apologise for the record of the last Government in respect of getting the Department for International Development to support the Ministry of Defence in the conflict in Afghanistan?

[David Miliband]

That is an absolutely shocking allegation. It is not true, and I want to tell the hon. Gentleman why. It is a shocking allegation because the idea that the last Government spent their time simply increasing the aid budget rather than increasing its quality is contradicted by every single independent report, national and international, on the issue. [Interruption.] I will come to his point about support for the MOD in a moment. This country has gone from being a laggard on international development to being recognised as the leader—not simply because of the amount of money spent, but because of how it is spent.

Anyone who spent time in southern Afghanistan—with officers from our armed forces, British diplomats and British aid workers—would go away proud of the work being done there. At the moment, a DFID official is the head of the combined military and civilian mission in southern Afghanistan. Frankly, it is nonsense to suggest that DFID officials and DFID money are not supporting our security and other priorities.

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[David Miliband]

I will not give way now, while I am warming to the theme. The Foreign Secretary said blithely that he was interested in increasing the quality of aid. It would behove him well to recognise the massive changes that have happened in the past 13 years on that issue—not just in the bilateral aid that we spend, but in how European money is spent. The truth is that in 1997 the way in which the European Union spent its development budget was a scandal. That has fundamentally changed in the past 13 years.

Let me also say that we were pleased that in the wash-up period leading to the general election the Conservative party accepted our legislation on vulture funds. In Labour’s manifesto, we pledged more action on such funds yet in the coalition agreement we have only a promise of yet another review. I hope that when that review happens, it will be swift and result in some action.

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[David Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman has been trying to intervene and I am happy to give way to him.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary. To go back to the point about DFID, I should say that, yes, on both sides of the House we pay tribute to the great work that it does across the world, but it has taken a long time to catch up with its new responsibility, which was never part of its original remit, to support our military in difficult environments. That is our complaint on this side of the House. Yes, things are better in Afghanistan now, but it has taken five years for that to happen. We are testing the nation’s patience on how long we can stay there, because reconstruction and development have taken so long.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Miliband]

How can the hon. Gentleman talk about the work of joining up DFID and the MOD when, after two weeks, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for International Development cannot even agree during their first trip to Afghanistan? It is absolute nonsense to suggest that somehow DFID is pursuing its own agenda, given that we have single-country plans that now unite the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the MOD and DFID, and we have combined missions around the world that are working together and where MOD officers work under the command of DFID officials.

At least the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has been to Afghanistan; others should read and see what has happened there. The suggestion that the Government have inherited a situation in which DFID is pursuing its own agenda is fundamentally wrong. Anyone who looks at the White Paper published last June on DFID’s work in faltering states will see clearly why that is the case.

[Mrs Moon]

Is my right hon. Friend interested to know that when the Defence Committee visited Afghanistan last year, everyone—including General Rodriguez, second in command of the American forces—acknowledged that the provincial reconstruction scheme in Helmand, led by DFID, was an exemplar to the rest of Afghanistan on how to work jointly in reconstruction?

[David Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, founded on the actual experience of going to Afghanistan and talking to people there. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for International Development is nodding his head, but the Secretary of State for Defence is not. The joining-up clearly has some way to go and the lessons of Afghanistan have not been learned by the Conservative party. My hon. Friend made an important point, which those on the Government Benches would do well to accept.

We will also hold the Government to account for their contradictory, mutually exclusive and incompatible promises on Europe. The Foreign Secretary made great play of his pledge that there would be no further institutional change in this Parliament, but it was agreed at the December 2007 European Council that there would be no institutional change until 2017. However, as a result of the coalition agreement, the Government go into European negotiations with no policy on European defence, which is not mentioned in that agreement, and no policy on European energy, which is also not mentioned. On justice and home affairs, all they can say is that they will review cases one by one—there are no principles or plans at all. The reason is simple: they cannot agree on anything. The result is that Britain is weakened and so is Europe.

[Mr MacShane]

One of the ambitions that we all have is that Turkey should join the European Union if it fulfils the conditions. That will involve a redistribution of powers within the EU. Under the new Government policy, that would require a referendum, which I do not think would be won in Britain. The Government have just announced the death of our pro-Turkey policy.

[David Miliband]

I strongly support Turkey’s entry to the EU and it was disappointing that the Foreign Secretary did not manage to mention Turkey’s aspirations to join the EU or the Government’s view of Turkish entry. However, the accession of a country—Croatia is likely to be the next—does not of necessity mean that there will be a change in the balance of power.

There is an important point. We have a fundamental principle in this country that when there are fundamental changes in the balance of power between this country and Brussels, there should be a referendum. That is why we are absolutely clear that there would have to be a referendum on the euro. However, the idea that there should be referendums when there are minor changes, such as how members are appointed to the pension committee of the European Parliament, which came up in the last Parliament, is absurd, and everybody knows it.

The Prime Minister has been threatening vetoes abroad, but the truth is that policy is being vetoed at home. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that

“if we remain outside the euro, we will simply continue to subside into a position of relative poverty and inefficiency compared to our more prosperous European neighbours.”

He also says that the Tory party is allied with

“a bunch of nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists, homophobes.”

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister says of the Lib Dems that they want to

“take away Britain’s seat on the United Nations Security Council and replace it with a European one.”

The Foreign Secretary himself has called the Lib Dems

“the most fanatically federalist party in Britain.”

So when it comes to—[Interruption.] That is quite enough from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the former Foreign Secretary. When it comes to policy, no wonder they cannot agree, and that hurts Britain.

Here is one example among many. Labour Members support Eurojust and agree with the Crown Prosecution Service analysis, which points out that 80% of non-domestic homicide cases had an element of outside of jurisdiction, resulting in a huge increase in the UK’s use of Eurojust. But the Government have no policy at all—not for it, as the Liberal Democrats want, or against it, as the Tories say. There is nothing at all—no mention, no agreement, not even a review.

In the last Parliament, the Foreign Secretary had fun at my expense when he was able to say that there had been 50 reviews in three years. He even alleged that there was a review of sun beds, although I must say that I never found that one. However, the boot is on the other foot now and there have been 40 reviews in three weeks from this Government. We want to understand how these reviews are ever going to come to a conclusion on European policy. The truth is that on European policy the Government resemble nothing except Hugh Lofting’s pushmi-pullyu in “Doctor Dolittle”. This is what Lofting wrote:

“They had no tail, but a head at each end, and sharp horns on each head. They were very shy”.

They were very shy indeed—so shy that they could never move an inch. Britain needs Europe, but also, as President Sarkozy made clear to the Prime Minister during their recent meeting, Europe needs Britain—a Britain with strong and clear commitments on Europe, not an internal feud that paralyses discussion and action. Unfortunately for the Foreign Secretary, that paralysis means that he goes into European discussions without any policy at all.

After 18 years of Conservative government in 1997, Britain had halved overseas aid spending, fought and lost a beef war in Europe, and stood on the sidelines when tens of thousands of people were slaughtered on the edge of Europe. The previous Government put that right. We tripled overseas aid, made Britain a leader in Europe and stood up for human rights around the world. We are determined to protect that legacy and prevent history from repeating itself.

We also, for 13 years, put up with bucket-loads of moral sanctimony from the Liberal Democrats, as they complained about everything and gave credit for nothing. Conservative MPs repeatedly said in the last Parliament that the one thing we know about the Lib Dems is that if they are promising something in one part of the country, we can be sure, as night follows day, that they are opposing it somewhere else. In the general election, the Liberal Democrats campaigned for votes under the banner “Keep the Tories out”, then promptly proceeded to put the Tories in. They are, as the Prime Minister so rightly said, a joke.

We know that the Foreign Secretary is good at jokes—but now, for the first time in a very long time, he is in a job that needs judgment, not good jokes. Britain is respected around the world, and we will seek to ensure that he and his motley coalition do not put that respect at risk.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—