Oral Answers to Questions
Ed Miliband Excerpts(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Last month, we saw the issuing of tenders for the E1 settlement, long regarded as the crossing of a red line because it cuts through the heart of the west bank and risks making a Palestinian state unviable. This action was rightly condemned by a whole range of countries in the international community, including the United Kingdom. In recent weeks, we have also seen appalling settler terrorism and Palestinians driven from their homes. This Government will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution—we will act. I will set out a comprehensive set of measures in the coming weeks.
James Naish
The UK told the Security Council on 29 June that more than 6,000 settlement housing units had already been approved this year, alongside the declaration on 24 June of a further 465 dunams of Palestinian land as state land, in violation of international law. The situation has only deteriorated since. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that this pace of expansion shows that current UK measures are failing to change Israeli Government behaviour, and that a trade ban is now the necessary next step?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with great sense on this matter. I am deeply worried about the pace of what is happening. Let us be honest about what is happening here: we are seeing the creation of facts on the ground that seek to destroy the prospect of a two-state solution. We cannot simply stand by and let that happen. My hon. Friend will know that shortly before becoming Prime Minister, the Prime Minister talked about doing more on measures to ban the trading of goods with illegal settlements, and we are working across Government and with our allies on those measures. If my hon. Friend is a little patient, we will have more to say in the coming weeks.
Martin Rhodes
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer and for his condemnation of the Israeli Government’s policies in the west bank. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that action against these illegal settlements must include banning the trade in services—as well as goods—such as mortgages, financial support and legal services from UK companies to illegal settlement builders?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes another important point. We need to look at our wider economic relationship with the occupied territories, as we are doing, and at the different tools we have. I want to be clear, as my hon. Friend says, that we do not want British companies financing, constructing or advertising new settlements. The work we are now undertaking is on how we can stop that; as I say, I will have more to say soon.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the situation that we find ourselves in, in the west bank and Palestine more widely, represents an almost complete failure of British foreign policy in this regard? As a British citizen, one of the most distressing aspects of this conflict, aside from the death, destruction and savagery, has been the sight of British Ministers being sent out to mouth platitudinous condemnations like goldfish, and promise action, only being dragged to take pathetic ineffectual steps by pressure from their own Back Benchers. My question is this: is anything going to change?
Ed Miliband
Yes. I associate myself pretty much entirely with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. We need to face facts on both sides of the House here. It has been the policy of successive Governments over a long period to be for the two-state solution, but if we are for the two-state solution and we see it being destroyed by the facts on the ground, we must act. The right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest and expertise on these issues, and I assure him that we will do so.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his new role. He will be aware that none of his recent predecessors were ever short of an angry word or condemnatory statement about Israel’s actions in Gaza or the west bank, but they were woefully short on any meaningful action to back up their supposed outrage. What is happening in the west bank is happening right now, so time is of the essence. When will he spell out exactly the consequences for the state of Israel and for any UK national or UK-based company found to be complicit in this illegal E1 expansion programme?
Ed Miliband
I do want to defend the record of my predecessors for a moment. Recognition of the Palestinian state was a historic decision made by this Government, and action was taken on arms licences. As the Prime Minister has said, we on this side of the House recognise the need for a step change in our approach, given the urgency. As I say, the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware of the Israeli Government’s removal of Dutch representatives from positions monitoring the ceasefire in Gaza following trade bans by the Dutch Government recently. What reassurances can he give the House that in the event of any decision to impose new trade restrictions, the UK’s ability to influence events in the middle east will not be undercut further as a result?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises a legitimate point, but I just want to say this: we must listen to the voices across the piece on these questions, including the Palestinian Authority. People rightly worry about the impacts that it can have, but I think it is very important when we weigh our decisions to listen to those who represent Palestinians and who say, “The time to act is now”. That is what we are going to do.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the new Foreign Secretary and his team to their places. He is the third Labour Foreign Secretary in just over two years. We have had so many hand-wringing statements. He has just said that the time to act is now, but he is asking us to wait weeks more for a statement about banning settlement trade, which it is absolutely clear is essential. What is he waiting for? Will he ban trade in goods, services and investment in both directions immediately, because the facts on the ground are changing now, at pace and faster than ever before? What are the UK Government still waiting for?
Ed Miliband
I can assure the hon. Lady that we are working intensively on this, and as I said in earlier answers, she will not have to wait long. I want to get this right, because we need a comprehensive reset of our policy across the piece. Many Members on both sides of the House have made very important points about not only trade but a whole set of issues, including the International Court of Justice judgment on legality. I want a comprehensive reset of our approach on these issues, for the reasons that the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and many hon. Members said. It is necessary and high time.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
Keeping the British people safe is the first duty of government. This summer we have seen the effects of the climate crisis in starker terms than ever. We are impacted here at home and by what happens overseas. Showing leadership on this will be a core priority for me as Foreign Secretary, and I will bring a group of Foreign Ministers together at the United Nations later this month to discuss how to respond.
Gill Furniss
My thoughts are with the victims of the flooding in Nepal and Tibet last week—a horrifying and pertinent reminder that climate change and its inevitable consequences are the biggest threat to our health, our homes and our way of life. Already drought and resource scarcity are actively fuelling regional conflicts around the globe and driving mass displacement. What diplomatic initiatives is the Secretary of State leading to combat climate change and prevent resource-driven conflict?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Met Office said today that this was the hottest summer on record. That brings home to us that whatever one’s views on net zero and associated issues—I know there are various views on all sides of the House—this is one of the biggest national security threats that we face. I undertake to my hon. Friend and Members across the House that as Foreign Secretary I will treat this with the seriousness that it deserves.
Melanie Onn
The Humber generates 20% of our electricity and is critical to delivering UK energy security. We have to work with our international allies to build a stronger framework of the friendly to protect all our critical infrastructure. The memorandum of understanding between Humber Marine and Renewables and Norwegian Offshore Wind is a really good example of collaboration that will keep the turbines turning. Has the Foreign Secretary had any discussions with allied partners to protect and grow clean energy projects, to improve collaboration and to better support global energy security?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend—I used to say this at Energy Security and Net Zero questions—is a brilliant advocate on these issues, with huge expertise from before she came to the House. I assure her that, as part of the work that we are doing in alliance with my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary, we will be working with other countries on these questions. We have to tackle the problem of emissions and we have to help countries adapt—both are crucial.
Perran Moon
I associate myself with the comments of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), about the appalling scenes in Nepal.
The success of our action on climate change is dependent on working collaboratively with international allies to secure resilient supply chains and limit dependencies on states hostile to the national interest. Cornwall council, as part of its international strategy, is working with the likes of the Breton government and the Quebec government to enhance the resilience of renewable energy and critical minerals supply chains. What is the Foreign Office doing to support national security through such outward-looking initiatives?
Ed Miliband
We love Cornwall, and we love my hon. Friend for his brilliant advocacy on behalf of his constituents and for what Cornwall is doing. He is right, and I will look at his initiative, because working with Governments across the world on these issues—including state governments—is crucial. This is a collective action problem and we have to tackle it collectively.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
May I put on record that the Liberal Democrats’ concern and thoughts are with the people of Nepal and Tibet as this tragedy unfolds? I urge the Government to stay the distance with them.
The UK’s spend on international aid and development aids our national security not only in climate change but in keeping extremism, pandemics and illegal immigration from our shores, but the Government have slashed aid brutally, and the true impact of the cuts was finally realised only in the final hours before summer recess. The cuts are deep and worrying. Will this Administration reverse them? Will the Secretary of State set out a timeline for when UK aid will return to 0.7% of GNI—a commitment that the House legislated for?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I do say to her that we inherited an incredibly difficult fiscal position, with extraordinary pressures on the public finances. We are doing everything we can on development—indeed, I associate myself with the remarks she made about Nepal and will say more about it later—which is why, as soon as the tragedy happened, we were one of the first countries to show that we would provide financial assistance to the Government of Nepal. We take these issues incredibly seriously and have a proud record.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
With the United States stepping back from multilateral climate co-operation, what specific coalitions is the UK convening to fill the gap that the United States is leaving? Which countries have signed up to that so far?
Ed Miliband
In my six weeks or so in the job, I have met a wide range of Foreign Ministers and have talked to many of them about these issues. Frankly, this has not been at the forefront of Foreign Ministers’ agendas, but in a sense—I know that we have said this many times before on climate issues—this summer is a wake-up call. Important as Energy Ministers are—of course, I was one recently—it also has to be a matter across Government, with a cross-Government approach to these issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is what we will do.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
We know that food security is part of national security, and it has been another tough year for agriculture, with a record wet winter and now a record hot summer. We also have bluetongue disease going through livestock—when I was at vet school, that was a disease of northern Africa and southern Europe—which has spread through Europe to the UK and now to Scotland because of climate change. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is hugely irresponsible and scientifically ignorant for the Leader of the Opposition to ban Conservative candidates who believe in taking serious action to tackle climate change from standing at the next general election?
Ed Miliband
The Leader of the Opposition will have to take responsibility for her own candidates. I was once Leader of the Opposition—it is a hard job, as I proved. There is an interesting point here, which is that a debate has broken out in the pages of The Daily Telegraph—an organ I obviously read a lot—on climate change, and people are saying, “Hang on a minute; how can the Conservative party, which cares about preservation of our way of life, ignore this issue?” I urge people across the House to take the issue seriously.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
This Government are determined to follow the leadership of every British Government since the Russian invasion and stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression, which has intensified in recent weeks, with July the worst month for civilian casualties since 2022. My first Foreign Minister call was with my Ukrainian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sybiha, and I had the privilege of meeting President Zelenski, alongside the Prime Minister, in my second week in this role. On Russian sanctions, on helping Ukraine with its defence and on helping it ensure that it can prevail in the conflict, we will be with the people of Ukraine and their Government for as long as it takes.
James Wild
The Government rightly champion long-term support for Ukraine and deterrence against Russian aggression, but that diplomatic approach has to be backed up by credible pledges on military capability. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that this Government are committed to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 —something the Chancellor said was essential to defend our country only a few weeks ago?
Ed Miliband
These are matters for the Chancellor to determine, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, but I say this specifically on Ukraine: we will do whatever is necessary to support the Government of Ukraine. It is clear to me that we have shown, at so many different levels, our solidarity—that of the British people and of the Government—with the people of Ukraine, and I pay tribute, as I did in my opening answer, to previous Governments, beginning with the Government of Boris Johnson. Not just solidarity, but action, are absolutely crucial. This conflict matters in principle and it matters to our future security too.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
We know that the Kremlin uses disinformation and misinformation to thwart Ukraine’s effort and that of its allies in the fight against Russian aggression. In recent weeks, there has been evidence that Meta has permitted Russian state propaganda, including threats that Britain should be punished for its assistance to Ukraine, to be targeted at individuals. What steps are the Foreign Office and the Government more widely taking to hold Meta to account?
Ed Miliband
On the end point made by the hon. Gentleman, Russia can make its threats, but we will not be deterred from our solidarity and support for Ukraine. I put that on record and make it clear in the House. I have been reading the back catalogue of Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions, because that is the kind of thing I do, and I know that the issue of disinformation and misinformation, which the hon. Gentleman raises, has come up a lot. I undertake to work on that, and specifically on the Meta issue that he raised, with my colleagues across Government.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team, and I wish them well. In recent months I have been proud, alongside the former Prime Minister, to negotiate the UK’s participation in the EU support loan for Ukraine. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, going forward, there should be no unnecessary delays in procurement, and that the kit and the weapons need to get to the frontline in Ukraine, where they are needed, as soon as possible?
Ed Miliband
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent job that my right hon. Friend did in government on Europe and those very difficult negotiations. I pay tribute to him for the brilliance with which he undertook that. The answer to his substantive question is: absolutely, yes. I say to the House that this winter is crucial for the conflict, and we must do everything we can not just to support Ukraine, but to do so in a speedy way.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Members across this House remain deeply concerned about the 20,610 Ukrainian children stolen by Russia since the start of its illegal war. My right hon. Friend’s predecessor established this country’s proud record on that issue, committing £4 million to tracing efforts that have located more than 1,000 children, imposed more than 130 sanctions and supported Ukraine in establishing a special tribunal for the crime of aggression. Will the new Foreign Secretary commit to working with me to continue the Government’s vital work in that area?
Ed Miliband
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and other Members across the House on this incredibly important and profound issue. I can say yes, 100%, I commit to working with her and other Members from all parties on this issue.
Ed Miliband
I endorse absolutely the spirit and substance of the hon. Gentleman’s important question. Let us be clear where the aggression comes from: it comes from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the wider threat to our allies. I say very clearly that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine and we will not be intimidated by Russian threats.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our deep sorrow for the flooding on the Nepal-China border that has caused widespread death and devastation. There are 987 confirmed deaths and 3,916 people still missing, of whom 36 are British nationals. From the moment the tragedy unfolded, we have sought to provide all the help we can to the Nepalese authorities and to support British nationals, including £5 million in additional humanitarian assistance. Our humanitarian and consular specialists are on the ground in Nepal, and FCDO crisis teams are working around the clock to support relatives of those missing. My deepest condolences go to all those who have lost loved ones in this tragedy, particularly British nationals and their families.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Has the Secretary of State been made aware of the case of Joshua Wong, a Hong Kong resident who is being prosecuted by the Administration in Hong Kong using the national security law? The Secretary of State will know that Hong Kong has trashed the Sino-British agreement and decoupled the concept of common law from rights and responsibilities. All Joshua Wong has done is to ask for the same rights and privileges that we in this country hold dear. Will the Secretary of State take up that case with the Chinese Government and say to them, “Enough is enough. It’s time to stop chasing peaceful protesters?”
Ed Miliband
I absolutely will take up that case. I know the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest on a whole range of such issues. Because of that interest, I say to him that we will be forthright on human rights when it comes to China, and we will be strong in relation to foreign interference, espionage and on any threats to this country that we find.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The reason I took up this role is that I want the World Bank to do more to make adaptation and resilience go further and faster and to make it simpler and more accessible. We know from events around the world how vulnerable countries on the frontline of climate breakdown are, and I undertake to him and to the House that I will make that a top priority.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has declared that development and climate finance will be “central” to his tenure, yet the aid watchdog has found that the system has too often focused on meeting a spending target, rather than clear priorities or value for money. Before he embarks on an expensive road map back to 0.7%, will he commit to a full national interest review that includes considering value for money for the taxpayer?
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Lady makes a very important point. Any aid spending that we do must be value for money, but this is not just the right thing to do in principle to help to support the world’s poorest countries; it is the right thing from our point of view. That is a very important point, which I hope those on both sides of the House can agree on. If we do not deal with problems around the world, they come to Britain.
Wendy Morton
Let me touch on Nepal and Tibet. The situation there is truly harrowing, with hundreds of lives lost, thousands still missing and British nationals among those unaccounted for. We welcome the deployment of the UK’s rapid response team and the humanitarian package, but when it comes to British nationals, can the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that our consular teams have secured full access on both sides of the Nepal-Tibet border? What specialist British search, rescue and victim identification assistance is being and will continue to be offered?
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Lady raises a very important and sensitive issue about the families of British nationals who are missing. I assure her that we are engaging with the authorities on both sides of the border. We are making available all the resources that we have at our disposal to help in this process; I have said that from the morning after the disaster, when I spoke to the Nepalese Foreign Minister.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Ed Miliband
I take incredibly seriously my role in helping to tackle the cost of living crisis that the British people face, and that means working tirelessly to get back to the strait of Hormuz being reopened so that we can get oil and gas flowing. That is what we need to do.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Ed Miliband
I can assure the hon. Member that Labour MPs are very keen that action be taken, and it will be.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Globally, the rights of women and girls are being stripped away at alarming speed, particularly when it comes to education and sexual and reproductive rights. Does the Foreign Secretary plan to honour his predecessor’s commitment to making sure that women’s and girls’ rights are embedded across FCDO programming?
Ed Miliband
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, for her excellent work leading the campaign globally on violence against women and girls. My answer is 100% yes, I will continue her brilliant work.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Ed Miliband
As I said earlier, we are looking at all the economic issues in relation to the occupied territories. The hon. Lady raises an important point, which is that what has happened in Gaza and the west bank has pricked the conscience of a generation, and that is why we will act.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that the British company, Dana Petroleum, is involved in a consortium that has been granted licences for oil exploration in Palestinian waters off the coast of the occupied Gaza strip? Does he agree that it is illegal and amounts to the war crime of pillage? What does he intend to do to challenge this illegal action by a British-based company?
Changes in US Immigration Policy
Ed Miliband Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the need for repeal of President Trump’s discriminatory, divisive and counterproductive ban on entry to the United States for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the indefinite ban placed on Syrian refugees.
May I place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate? It is right that Members from both sides of the House of Commons have a clear opportunity to address these pressing issues. I will seek to keep my remarks brief to allow others to contribute to the debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for co-sponsoring this debate. Throughout the past couple of days he has acted with great dignity and great eloquence, as recognised on both sides of the House. He and I are approaching this debate in the hope of sending a clear and united view from this House about President Trump’s measures.
I should say at the start that this debate is not about our respect for the United States or our friendship with that country. I have lived there and I have friends there, and the declaration of independence is one of the most powerful political documents. Since its foundation, the United States has been built on the back of immigrants from around the world. Indeed, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty is the phrase:
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
It is precisely the role of the United States historically, and our friendship and unique relationship with America, that gives us a special responsibility, given what has transpired over the past few days.
At the heart of this debate are three simple questions. First, is it right for President Trump to ban indiscriminately people from certain countries of the world from entering the US, and to indefinitely ban Syrian refugees?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech, as usual, but will he tell the House who gives the most funds to support Syrian refugees? Is it not the United States?
Edward Miliband
The US plays a role and this country plays a very important role, but that is really beside the point of whether the US should impose an indiscriminate and, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon—my hon. Friend for the purposes of this debate—said to me over the weekend, an indefinite ban in relation to Syrian refugees. I shall come to that later in my speech, as I am sure will other Members.
The second question is crucial: will the President’s actions make the world a safer place or a more dangerous one? My contention is that they will make the world a more dangerous place, and that on its own reflects our national interest in this matter. The third question follows on from that: what is Britain’s responsibility in speaking up on these issues?
I shall discuss those three questions briefly, but let me say first that Americans and, indeed, people in this country are fearful about the threat from ISIS and wider terrorist networks. Those fears are understandable and we must respond to them. There is no dispute about that. I support measures that keep our citizens, and those of the United States, safe, but it is not enough to say that we are fearful, or that our citizens are fearful; we then have to weigh whatever actions are proposed or taken. Understandable fears cannot be an excuse for the suspension of reason and rationality—that applies to the Trump Administration in a whole number of areas. The only way to understand the ban is that it represents the suspension of reason and rationality. Indeed, it has perversity, discrimination and divisiveness at its heart.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
One of the key aspects is the dramatic effect of the ban on those who had boarded aircraft, ready to go to the United States with valid visas, only to arrive and be told that they had to go back. It is that physical, emotional effect that is the most damning part of what is being proposed.
Edward Miliband
My right hon. Friend speaks with great eloquence on this issue and the wider issues raised. One of the most chilling things—I am sure that other Members found this as well—was that the accounts of what happened to individuals over the weekend sounded like the results of the actions of a tin-pot dictatorship. They did not sound like what we would expect or hope for from the United States.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but does he agree that we have a responsibility to act and speak responsibly in this Chamber? The seven countries of concern were identified by the Obama Administration, and restrictions were placed on migration in 2015.
Edward Miliband
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will perhaps say something personal about that, but I say to the hon. Gentleman—this is very important, because President Trump is trying to sow confusion on this issue—that President Obama’s action was about the visa waiver scheme in relation to those countries. It was most emphatically not about a blanket ban on individuals from those countries coming to the US.
The countries selected for the ban are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen. There is no question but that those countries, in their different ways, are extremely dangerous places, but does a blanket ban on people from those countries make any sense? In my view, it does not. If we read the Executive order—it is worth reading it, along with the annotations to it—we see that it falls apart at the first hurdle. Section 1 of the order, right up at the front, states the rationale for the President’s proposals. What does it cite? It cites the 9/11 attacks on America—absolutely appalling events that shocked us all—but none of the 9/11 attackers came from the countries on which the ban has been imposed. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others are not on the list, so the very justification offered in the Executive order frankly falls apart.
Nobody is against the proper vetting of people from those countries—the strongest security checks—but a blanket ban cannot be the answer. I do not think I can do better than to read the words of Chancellor Merkel, who said earlier:
“The necessary and decisive fight against terrorism does not justify a general suspicion against people of a certain belief—in this case people of Muslim belief or people from a certain country. That way of thinking is against my interpretation of the basic tenets of international refugee support and co-operation.”
Chancellor Merkel put it incredibly well. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, we have seen the dreadful results of this blanket ban playing out over the past few days.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the statesmanship that has been shown by Chancellor Merkel was not shown in our name by our Prime Minister this weekend?
Edward Miliband
The intention of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I is to maintain as much unity as we can in this debate so that we send a clear message. I would have liked the Prime Minister to be much clearer, much earlier, and I would still like a clearer message from the Government.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is there not a danger that the ban could increase hate crimes in this country and elsewhere? Is there not another danger that it will give ammunition to the violent extremists? It will almost be a recruitment sergeant, as we have learned from other experiences—for example, in Ireland.
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it very well, and anticipates what I am going to say. What message does this send to a quarter of the world’s population? What message does it send to Muslims around the world? It sends the message that they are not wanted in the United States because of their religious faith. What more of a recruiting sergeant, as my hon. Friend says, could there be for ISIS and others?
I was saying that we have seen the dreadful results of the order over the past few days, and I will briefly mention some of them. One of the first people detained, I believe for 19 hours, was an Iraqi interpreter who had worked with the US military for 10 years. If that is not a perverse result, I do not know what is. There are instances of green card holders being handcuffed and held in detention for 16 hours. A five-year-old was apparently detained for several hours, and then there is the issue—it is welcome that the Foreign Secretary clarified this—of dual citizens, including our own, such as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and Sir Mo Farah, being caught up in this.
As bad as the substance of the Executive order—“cavalier” is not putting it nearly high enough—is the appalling way in which the US Government have gone about this. It is the action of a tin-pot dictatorship. I think that the Foreign Secretary acknowledged in his statement when responding to a question from one of my hon. Friends that people had been caught on the hop. This draconian measure was imposed without even consulting the people responsible for its implementation.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech. I think that everyone in the House loves, admires and respects America and its democratic traditions, and is saddened by what has happened. One concern is the fact that the federal court rulings often do not appear to be implemented in the airports and points of entry. The message about respect for the rule of law is one that we all endorse and want to be heard. We want to get that message out.
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks very eloquently. I noticed that the Prime Minister told President Erdogan that human rights and the rule of law were incredibly important. The same thing applies to President Trump. All of us have to make that clear, and it is good to see in the Chamber the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who—I do not want to cause him trouble—issued a good statement earlier today. He is nodding.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in one way the Executive order is not a surprise, because it was a key plank of President Trump’s election campaign last year? Simply because it was an election pledge does not in any way suggest that it is right.
Edward Miliband
That is completely right. The person who coined the phrase that people were taking Mr Trump seriously but not literally has turned out to be wrong, because the President is acting literally. Whether he talked about this in the campaign or not, we all have a responsibility to decide both how we respond and the strength of our response. I will come on to why it is important that we speak up.
Edward Miliband
I am conscious of the fact that other Members want to speak in the debate, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Robert Jenrick
I do not wish to diminish the topic that we are discussing, but my wife, who is a British citizen, was born in Israel. She will not be able to travel to Malaysia, where many people in this country go on holiday, and she will not be able to travel to 17 countries in and around the middle east. If the right hon. Gentleman cares so passionately about this—and I do not dispute that he does—what does he intend to do about that?
Edward Miliband
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about what he says. These are definitely important issues. I do not want to sound like the old man of the sea, but I recall the debate on intervention in Libya in which I supported the then Government. A Back-Bench hon. Friend got up and said that they could not support the measure—and different people had different views on intervention—because there were many other terrible things happening in the world, so what were we going to do about them? Two wrongs do not make a right. This is, after all, supposed to be our closest ally and the people who are supposed to uphold human rights and the rule of law all around the world. It is hard to lecture other countries on respect for human rights if the President of the United States fails to do so.
I would like to mention a specific case that brings home the lunacy of the proposal. I read yesterday about the case of an 18-year-old called Mahmoud Hassan from Syria. He was recently accepted for a degree in engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The letter that MIT sent him described him as
“one of the most talented and promising students in one of the most competitive applicant pools in the history of the Institute.”
That young man from Syria who wants to study engineering at MIT said:
“Now Trump's orders will prevent me from going there. My dreams are basically ruined.”
I hope that on the question of students, as on the issue of green cards, the US Administration find a way of changing their position, but that brings home the reason why a blanket ban is nonsense. There are countless other examples, and doubtless other hon. Members will want to discuss them.
I would like to deal briefly with the issue of whether or not this is a Muslim ban. It clearly is. That was the President’s original intention. Rudolph Giuliani said on television yesterday—I paraphrase—“Donald Trump rang me up and asked how we could get a Muslim ban and make it work. I said, ‘Here’s a way we can make it happen.’” As for the Executive order itself, we all recognise the persecution, in particular, of Christians in the middle east. It is important to take special note of that and, indeed, that is already done in the way in which refugees are handled.
The Executive order singles out the possibility that minorities from predominantly Muslim countries will receive special treatment, which draws into the order the idea that this is being done on the basis of religious faith. It is a ban aimed at Muslims.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
What my right hon. Friend is describing emphasises why it is important that we as a country can contribute to, and serve as members of, organisations such as the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, otherwise we will lose the ability to join other nations to make exactly the points he is making.
Edward Miliband
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I would like—and perhaps the Minister will ponder this—a more co-ordinated European response on this issue. We are still members of the European Union, and if there is any area where Europe should speak with one voice, this is it. I do not see why there could not be a European Heads of Government meeting to discuss the issue and Europe’s response. It is important that President Trump knows that there is a co-ordinated and clear voice from Europe on this issue.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, along with how abhorrent this is to many people looking on, we must save a thought for the staff in the embassies and consulates around the world? I worked for a time with the US State Department in the consulate in Edinburgh, and I know how strong the feeling is in many offices. It is difficult for staff to have to execute the order and serve on the front line.
Edward Miliband
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Lots of people who are trying to implement the order are wondering why they have to do so. Apparently, on Friday night some of them were saying to people who were victims of the proposal, “You’d better call President Trump if you don’t like this.”
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am concerned. Will he clarify the difference between orders from President Obama’s Administration and those from President Trump’s?
Edward Miliband
Well, there is a huge difference. President Trump’s order is a blanket ban on people from seven different countries. President Obama’s proposal —if I am allowed to say so, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has had personal experience of this—was a specific issue about the visa waiver scheme. It was not about saying that there would be any kind of blanket ban on people coming into the country.
My final point on why the order is such a terrible thing for President Trump to have done is one that other hon. Members will want to talk about: the ban on all refugees from Syria. I recommend a piece that my brother wrote on the matter in The New York Times. Refugees are the most thoroughly vetted people in the world, with up to 36 months of vetting and screening by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Department of Defence and others. There has been summary detention of the innocent, clear discrimination on the basis of faith, and a decision to depart from the UN convention relating to the status of refugees. This ban is neither rational nor fair, and it will not make the country or the world safer; indeed, quite the opposite. I can do no better than to quote Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who yesterday said
“we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism…This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”
I believe they are right.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I am sure that I am not alone in saying that my office has today been besieged by phone calls from tearful, upset constituents asking, “Why has the world abandoned us when someone is basically saying that we are all terrorists?”
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. In fact, I was about to come to that point. We already see the implications of the order playing out. We are in partnership with the Iraqi Government against ISIL, and today we have seen their response to the Trump ban, as the Iraqi Parliament has asked its Government to retaliate against the measures of the US Administration. As my hon. Friend said, we should think about what this order signals to 1.6 billion Muslims all around the world. It sends the message that they are not welcome. Indeed, it precisely buys into the clash of civilisations narrative that politicians from across the political spectrum have tried to avoid ever since 9/11.
Regarding our responsibilities, the United States has always been our oldest and closest ally, and some will say that this is not a matter for us as long as our citizens are protected. I profoundly disagree. It is absolutely a matter for us because the fundamental and dangerous betrayal of values that this measure represents is an affront to us all—the Muslims living here and every other citizen of this country—and it will make the world a more dangerous place. Allowing the measure to stand and shrugging our shoulders will amount to complicity with President Trump. These actions are not normal, rational or sensible. President Trump is a bully, and the only course of action open to us in relation to his bullying is to stand up and be counted.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case about why the order should be challenged. Does he share my despair that it has become apparent today that our Prime Minister knew about this before she walked into a room, looked President Trump in the face and chose to say nothing?
Edward Miliband
I heard my hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary a powerful question earlier, and she makes an important point. On the wider issue, I understand the need for a trade deal with the United States—although a whole set of issues surrounds that deal—but we cannot, on the basis of our keenness to get a trade deal, shrink from speaking truths to the most powerful man in the world. That would just be the wrong thing to do.
The only course of action open to us regarding this Executive order in the United States is to act on the basis of our values. That is the purpose of the debate, which I thank you again, Mr Speaker, for granting, and that is the purpose of the motion before the House. I hope it will be approved by hon. and right hon. Members.
Edward Miliband
First, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to this debate. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for making the debate possible, because it showed a wish to make sure that this House was relevant to the issue of the day and the issue of the moment. I particularly commend the speeches—forgive me if I do not mention all the excellent speeches we have heard—by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). My friend, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), spoke incredibly movingly and eloquently. We also heard from the right hon. Members for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). There were many other excellent speeches, including from the Front Benches—my own and others.
The main thing I take out of this is that we achieved our purpose, which is to show that on the merits of this issue there is remarkable unity across this House. There is no division on the Government or Opposition Benches about the fact that this ban is basically a repugnant, abhorrent thing. It is a very good achievement for the House to have set that out.
The second question, though, is what happens next? In a good contribution, the Minister came a bit closer to raising that issue. The question is whether we classify this a kind of normal, run-of-the-mill disagreement—“They do their thing, we do our thing”—or as something much, much more serious. I urge the Minister to take back to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the strong feeling across this House that this is not some run-of-the-mill thing—“They do our policy and we do ours”—but incredibly serious. It is incredibly serious because of the values that it speaks to, which offend this House of Commons, and because it takes us down a slippery slope. Someone pointed out that we are only two weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency. My goodness, it feels like a year, really, and we still have at least three years and a lot of a year to go. There is a real danger of a slippery slope.
Thirdly, this policy is going to make us less safe, not more safe—it is more dangerous for our world. I really hope that the Minister takes back the message that this is not run of the mill but deadly serious, and that we expect a response from the Prime Minister, including speaking to the President, that is proportionate to the feeling of this House of Commons.
I apologise for having briefly gone outside because I was due to speak at the event that was taking place, although I never quite made it to speak. There were tens of thousands of people, I think, or thousands of people. One must not get into crowd size estimates given recent experience; I do not want to do a Trump—[Hon. Members: “Millions!”] There were millions of people outside. I think there is a feeling across this country, from the petition to the people outside, that this ban is not in our name. This House of Commons has said that today and I hope that the Government will reflect that in the weeks and months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the need for repeal of President Trump’s discriminatory, divisive and counterproductive ban on entry to the United States for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the indefinite ban placed on Syrian refugees.