European Council

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in sending deepest condolences to President Obama and the people of the United States. The Connecticut shooting was an appalling tragedy, and all families affected are in our thoughts as they cope with their grief and their loss.

I wish to ask questions on Syria, the banking union and the wider European context. Let me associate myself with the Prime Minister’s concern about the ongoing loss of life in Syria. The international community must work together to end the atrocities immediately and speak with one voice in favour of a transition to a new Government. The Prime Minister mentioned the arms embargo, while noting that Syria is attracting “a new cohort of al-Qaeda-linked extremists.” In that context, will he go further and tell the House whether he is actively urging the EU to end its arms embargo, or merely amending its terms? Notwithstanding deep concern in the international community about the situation in Syria, does he recognise some of the dangers inherent in the approach of putting weapons into a zone in which there is already deep conflict?

On the banking union, the Opposition believe it is right for the European Central Bank to have a supervisory role in the eurozone. Does the Prime Minister agree, however, that the most important issue is not necessarily who supervises which banks, but who takes responsibility for bailing out failing banks in the euro area? That is what will deliver the firewall we need between bank and sovereign risk. Will he say whether he made the case for the urgency of agreement on that matter at the Council?

It is good that progress was made to protect the integrity of the single market. Will the Prime Minister say whether there was discussion on how the new voting system that he mentioned will cope in the event of changing circumstances, and in particular if EU members currently outside the eurozone join the banking union and the “out” group shrinks to three or four member states? Beyond questions of banking, is not the real continuing problem for Europe that of insufficient demand and lack of a proper plan for growth? In yet another Council we saw no progress on that, just as we saw no progress beyond banking union on wider eurozone political and economic integration.

All the Council did was set a timetable of June 2013 for setting a timetable. That is less than was promised—in other words, dither and delay. It is a bit like the Prime Minister’s long-awaited speech on Europe, which has been delayed again. First it was set for his party conference, then for before the EU budget negotiations. We now hear that he has delayed it again until the new year.

Of course, never knowingly undersold in his normal modest way, the Prime Minister says that it is okay because it is

“a tantric approach to policy making.”

Parliament’s answer to Sting sits before us, Mr Speaker. It is true that they have both fallen out with the police—[Interruption.] I am sorry; it is Christmas after all. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that none of us wants to be there to witness the tantric approach.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will answer three simple questions. First, the Foreign Secretary, who is sitting on the Front Bench, said on an in/out referendum that

“this proposition is the wrong question at the wrong time…It would create additional economic uncertainty in this country at a difficult economic time.”

I agree with the Foreign Secretary—does the Prime Minister? Secondly, the Prime Minister said last week:

“I don’t want Britain to leave the European Union.”

I agree with the Prime Minister on that, but why does he let member after member of his Cabinet brief that they are open to leaving the EU, including most recently the Education Secretary? Thirdly, as the Prime Minister will know, British business is deeply concerned that the drift in his party and the direction of his policy means that we are sleepwalking towards exit. I share that concern. Does the Prime Minister at least understand the concern of British business?

The Prime Minister ended last year with the veto that wasn’t, and he has ended this year with the speech that isn’t. In other words, he is stranded between party interest and national interest. The problem, however, is that nobody else in his party is holding back. Just in the past few days we have heard from the Immigration Minister, the former Defence Secretary, and now—always keen to help the Prime Minister out—the man on the zip wire, the Mayor of London. Is it not time to stop the dither and delay? Is it not time that he stopped following his party on Europe and started leading it?

[The Prime Minister]

Well, the jokes were better. The right hon. Gentleman has obviously spent a bit of time running through his old Police albums. Given his policy on Europe, I would recommend, “So Lonely”, and given his general approach to policy, he is going to have to get used to “I can’t stand losing”. [Interruption.] That was the best I could do given the notice. He should give me more warning next time—[Interruption.] Don’t stand so close to me—very good. The bed’s too big without you—[Laughter.] Let’s take this down.

On Syria, it is right to look at amending the arms embargo. We will be keeping the arms embargo on the regime. There are arguments on both sides, but we should have the debate and European Foreign Ministers will do so. My concern is that if the UK with others is not helping the opposition, and helping to shape and work with it, it is much more difficult to get the transition we all want to a peaceful, democratic Syria that respects the rights of minorities—including, as I have said, Christians—and human rights.

On banking union, the right hon. Gentleman rightly makes the point that the protections are set out when more than four members are outside the banking union. The new double majority voting is a big breakthrough. The idea that non-eurozone members should have a separate vote on proposals that could be damaging to us is a major breakthrough, and a lot of people said it would not be possible. If the number of countries outside the banking union falls below four, the issue returns to the European Council, where, of course, we decide things by consensus and would be able to put a stop to further progress.

The right hon. Gentleman makes his points on growth, but ignores completely that almost every country around the table has immense fiscal challenges and huge budget deficits. That is why we focus so much on the things that could help growth in Europe, such as the single market, free trade deals with other parts of the world, deregulation and getting costs down, and a good budget deal.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions on European positions. I do not think it is right to hold an immediate in/out referendum because neither of the two options is right. That is exactly what the Foreign Secretary has said.

On British business, the Conservative party and the Government are working to deliver all the things business has asked for. I note that, when the Opposition business spokesman was asked to name one single business that supported Labour, the best he could come up with was Waheed Alli, whom Labour ennobled about a decade ago.

On European policy, I will not take lectures from a party that signed up to the bail-out, gave away our veto and gave up the social chapter—on each occasion, it got absolutely nothing in return. That is the truth of the Labour policy, whereas the Conservative party and the Government have delivered. Three months ago, before the three European Councils, we were told, “You’ll have no allies on the European budget, you have no chance of amendments to the banking union, and you’ll be completely isolated on treaty change.” All three warnings given by the Leader of the Opposition and others have turned out not to be true.

Patrick Finucane Report

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Let me first thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the tone in which he delivered it. Let me also thank Sir Desmond de Silva for his work and how he went about his task. He has produced a serious and long report within the terms of reference he was set, and it will take time to absorb it. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s apology to the Finucane family; it is the right thing to do, and I am grateful to John Finucane for the conversation that I had with him.

Pat Finucane was a husband, father and brother who was murdered in his own home as he sat with his family on a Sunday evening. What makes it even worse is that 23 years after this appalling crime, his family are still searching for the truth with the utmost courage and dignity.

I agree with the Prime Minister that this report provides disturbing and uncomfortable reading for us all, because it makes it clear that there was collusion in murder and a cover-up, and furthermore that

“Agents of the State were involved in carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder.”

Of course, as the Prime Minister said, this should not diminish the service of thousands of police officers, soldiers and security service personnel who are dedicated to protecting and serving people in Northern Ireland. They have my admiration and I am sure that of the whole House. They will be as appalled as we all are by the findings of the report today.

As we examine and assess the findings of this report and whether it is adequate—the Prime Minister thinks that it is—it is essential that we remember the background. An investigation into the murder of Pat Finucane in which the public had confidence was an important part of the peace process that began under Sir John Major and has continued since.

At Weston Park in 2001 both the Irish and British Governments agreed to appoint a judge of international standing to examine six cases in which there were serious allegations of collusion by the security forces. That applied in both jurisdictions—the UK and Ireland. It was agreed that in the event that a public inquiry was recommended in any of the cases, the relevant Government would implement that recommendation.

Judge Peter Cory was appointed and recommended that public inquiries were necessary in five separate cases. Three of those on the UK side have been completed and the one inquiry recommended on the Irish side is expected to report next year. The only outstanding case in which a public inquiry was recommended but has not taken place is that of Pat Finucane. The last Government could not reach consensus with the Finucane family on arrangements for such an inquiry, but towards the end of our time in office the Finucane family indicated that they would support a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, and a way forward had begun to be discussed. As the Prime Minister knows, the Opposition continue to believe that we should abide by the obligations under the Weston Park agreement. In that context, may I ask him four questions?

First, does the Prime Minister recognise the concern that the failure to hold a public inquiry is at odds with agreements that were an essential part of the peace process? Secondly, I believe it is right to say that Sir Desmond could not compel witnesses or cross-examine them in public and had to accept the assurances of state bodies that he had been given all relevant material. Does the Prime Minister therefore recognise the concern about the limits of what the de Silva inquiry could do compared with a full public inquiry?

Thirdly, the British and Irish Governments had been at one on this issue. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with the Irish Government about de Silva’s review and about what their position is likely to be today?

My fourth and final question takes me to the issue of public confidence. Continuing to build trust and confidence among the communities of Northern Ireland remains essential, as the Prime Minister said. The appalling violence that we have seen on the streets of Northern Ireland in recent days reminds us of that. Judge Cory said that a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane was needed because

“without public scrutiny doubts based solely on myth and suspicion will linger long, fester and spread their malignant infection throughout the Northern Ireland community.”

Notwithstanding the good work done by Sir Desmond de Silva, can the Prime Minister really say with confidence that the whole truth has been established in the case of Pat Finucane? How can we say that when it is dismissed by the family and many in Northern Ireland?

We must, as a United Kingdom, accept that our state sometimes did not meet the high standards that we set ourselves during the Northern Ireland conflict. Anyone reading the report will believe that it describes an appalling episode in our history. Those in all parts of the House share a belief that we must establish the full and tested truth about Pat Finucane’s murder, but the Opposition continue to believe that a public inquiry is necessary for his family and for Northern Ireland.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s response and the way in which he gave it. Let me say first that he is entirely right that we should take time to study and consider the report. There is a huge amount of detail in it, and lots of consequences may flow from it.

The right hon. Gentleman focused on the important question of whether there should be a public inquiry. I made the decision that it would not be right to have one for a number of reasons. First, if we look at the other inquiries that were started after the Weston Park agreement was reached—it is worth noting that that is now more than 10 years ago—we see that some of them took five or six years or longer and cost tens of millions of pounds, and I do not believe that they got closer to the truth than de Silva has in his excellent and full report. In fact, in the case of one of those inquiries, after six years and £30 million, the reaction of the family, which I can understand in some ways, was to ask for a further inquiry. To me, the real question is: what is the fastest way to get to the truth and the best way to lay out what happened and provide the security that that brings? I believe that the process we have been through is right.

On the Irish Government, I spoke this morning to Enda Kenny. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the position of the Taoiseach and the Irish Government has been in favour of a public inquiry, but I think they understand why we took our decision and respect the fact that we have been incredibly open and frank about what happened.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the limits of this process compared with the public inquiry process, we have held nothing back. De Silva says in his report that he had full access to all the documents and everything he wanted, and that the decision to redact any names or information was taken by him. Of course, there is always the question of the public inquiry. We took our decision, and I said at the time of the last election that I did not think it was right to have further open-ended public inquiries following the enormous time and expense of the Saville inquiry, and I think that that remains the right position. We need to look at ways in which we can get to the truth and help people to move ahead in Northern Ireland, and this has been a good exercise in doing just that.

Obviously the last Government considered this matter, I am sure very carefully, but I would make the point that they had all the time between 2001 and 2010 to start the work of an inquiry and did not take that decision. I think that was partly because they understood, as we did, the problems, dangers and expense of open-ended inquiries.

In the end, what matters is getting to the truth, and I cannot think of many other countries anywhere in the world that would set out in so much detail and with so much clarity what went wrong. It pains me to read the report, because I am so proud of our country, our institutions such as the police and our security services and what they do to keep us safe. It is agony to read in the report what happened, but it is right that we publish it. We do not need a public inquiry with cross-examination to do that, we just need a Government who are bold enough to say, “Let’s unveil what happened, let’s publish it and then let’s see the consequences.”

Leveson Inquiry

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? May I say straight away that in the days and weeks ahead I will seek to convince him and this House of Commons that we should put our faith in the recommendations of Lord Justice Leveson that were delivered to us today? I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not yet there, but I hope to convince him over the days ahead that that is where we should go. We should put our trust in Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations.

Let me begin by paying tribute to and thanking Lord Justice Leveson and his team for the painstaking, impartial and comprehensive way in which they conducted the inquiry. I thank Lord Justice Leveson for the clarity with which he has explained his report today.

Most of all, I want to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the innocent victims who gave evidence to the inquiry: people who did not seek to be in the public eye, who suffered deep loss and grief, and who then faced further trauma at the hands of the press. It is easy to forget, but without the revelations last July about what happened to Bob and Sally Dowler, and to their daughter, and their courage in speaking out, we would not be here today. Gerry and Kate McCann suffered so much and showed much courage. Kate McCann, whose daughter remains missing, saw her private diary published by the News of the World for the sake of a story. Those people gave evidence to the inquiry to serve the wider public interest, and I am sure the whole House pays tribute to their courage. They must be at the forefront of our minds today.

Much has been written about the reasons for this inquiry. A free press is essential to a functioning democracy, and the press must be able to hold the powerful—especially us politicians—to account without fear or favour. That is part of the character of our country. At the same time, however, I do not want to live in a country where innocent families such as the McCanns and the Dowlers can see their lives torn apart simply for the sake of profit, and where powerful interests in the press know they will not be held to account. This is about the character of our country.

It turns out that there never was just one “rogue reporter”. Lord Justice Leveson concludes that a whole range of practices, from phone hacking to covert surveillance, harassment and other wrongful behaviour were widespread and in breach of the code by which the press was supposed to abide. I recognise the many decent people who work for our country’s newspapers, and not every newspaper did wrong. However, Lord Justice Leveson concludes that

“it is argued that these are aberrations and do not reflect on the culture, practices or ethics of the press as a whole. I wholly reject this analysis.”

That will not come as a surprise to many people, including Members of this House. Lord Justice Leveson also concludes that there has been by politicians

“a persistent failure to respond...to public concern about the culture, practices and ethics of the press”.

We must all take responsibility for that, and the publication of this report marks the moment we must put that right by upholding the freedom of the press and guaranteeing protection and redress for the citizen. As the Prime Minister himself rightly said at the Leveson inquiry:

“If the families like the Dowlers feel this has really changed the way they would have been treated, we would have done our job properly.”

I agree.

Let us be clear about Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals, why they differ from the present system, and why I believe they should be accepted in their entirety. He proposes:

“A genuinely independent regulator, with effective powers to protect and provide redress for the victims of abuse.”

He also gives responsibility for establishing that system to the press, as now. That is why statute is important.

Lord Justice Leveson provides a crucial new guarantee that we have never had before. He recommends that the media regulator, Ofcom, ensure that any system that is established passes the test we would all want applied—that it is truly independent and provides effective protection for people such as the McCanns and the Dowlers. To make that guarantee real, he recommends that both Ofcom’s role and the criteria of independence and effectiveness be set out in statute—a law of this Parliament. That is why we can get to truly independent regulation of the press, guaranteed by law.

I believe that Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals are measured, reasonable and proportionate, and Labour Members unequivocally endorse the principles set out and his central recommendations. We support the view that Ofcom is the right body for the task of recognition of the new regulator, and the proposal that the House should lay the role of Ofcom down in statute. We endorse the proposal that the criteria any new regulatory body must meet should be set out in statute. Without that, there cannot be the change we need. Lord Justice Leveson is 100% clear on that in his report.

Lord Justice Leveson has, I believe, made every effort to meet the concerns of the industry. Some people will say that this report does not go far enough or that the reforms will not work because the press will not co-operate. I believe that the press has a major responsibility to come forward and show it will co-operate with this system—a comprehensive reform of the kind proposed by Lord Justice Leveson.

Lord Justice Leveson also says that if we cannot achieve a comprehensive system involving all major newspapers, we should go to the necessary alternative: direct statutory regulation. I believe that Lord Justice Leveson has genuinely listened to what the press has said, and acted with the utmost responsibility. Editors and proprietors should now do the same. I believe that Lord Justice Leveson has genuinely listened to what the press has said and acted with the utmost responsibility. Editors and proprietors should now do the same.

Let me also say—the Prime Minister did not touch on this—that Lord Justice Leveson also reaches important conclusions on the need to prevent too much influence in the media from ending up in one pair of hands. He proposes that there should be continuous scrutiny of the degree of media plurality and a lower cap than that currently provided by competition law. When the Prime Minister gets up to reply, will he take that forward?

As the Prime Minister said, Lord Justice Leveson makes specific suggestions on greater transparency on meetings and contacts between politicians and the press. He says that that should be considered as an immediate need. I agree, and endorse the proposals, as the Prime Minister did.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s offer of immediate cross-party talks on the implementation of the recommendations, and I am grateful for the conversations we have already had, but the talks must be about implementing the recommendations, not whether we implement them. In the talks, I want to agree a swift timetable for the implementation of the proposals. I want us to agree to legislate in the next Session of Parliament, starting in May 2013, and to have a new system up and running by the end of this Parliament—meaning 2015 at the latest. By the end of January next year, we should have an opportunity—the Opposition will make this happen if necessary—for the House to endorse and proceed with the Leveson proposals.

We should and we can move forward together—wholeheartedly, now. We have 70 years and seven reports that have gone nowhere. Now is the time to act. Let me remind the House what David Waddington, then Home Secretary, said 20 years ago:

“This is positively the last chance for the industry to establish an effective non-statutory system of regulation”.—[Official Report, 21 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 1126.]

The case is compelling and the evidence is overwhelming. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make change that the public can trust. There can be no more last-chance saloons.

In acting, let us remember the words of Bob and Sally Dowler at Leveson:

“there is nothing that can rectify the damage that has been done to our family. All that we can hope for is a positive outcome from this Inquiry so that other families are not affected in the way we have been”.

On behalf of every decent British citizen who wants protection for people such as the Dowlers and a truly free press—a press that can expose abuse of power without abusing its own—we must act.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response. He is absolutely right to thank Leveson for the work he has done and the report he has produced. The right hon. Gentleman is also right to talk about the innocent victims and the enormous courage they have shown by appearing in front of the inquiry and telling their stories. He was also right to mention Leveson’s finding that all politicians, going back over decades, must take responsibility for a relationship between politicians and the press that got too close.

Let me make a couple of points on some of the things the right hon. Gentleman said. I note he said he strongly supports Ofcom carrying out the test of whether the regulatory system is compliant. That is something we need to look at in the cross-party discussions, because, however we go about this, it is important that we demonstrate the real independence of this regulatory system. Of course, the chair of Ofcom is appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have to think about that, but we also have to consider that Ofcom is already a very powerful regulatory body. We should be trying to reduce concentrations of power rather than increase them. That is something we might want to discuss.

One issue the right hon. Gentleman did not address—I hope we can address it in the cross-party conversations—is data protection law changes. We should not respond too rapidly to something as complex as that. We do not want to put in place something that wrecks proper investigative journalism in our country.

On statutory regulation, I would make the point to the right hon. Gentleman that Leveson rightly rejects statutory regulation and says that we must move from the status quo and implement the principles of the report. I agree—that is absolutely vital. We do not want to be left in the position of having only statutory regulation as the alternative to the proposals he sets out. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the talks should be business-like and that we should get on with them, but where I disagree with him is that we do not have to wait until those discussions are had to implement the report. The report needs to be implemented by the press taking the steps set out in the report to put in place the independent regulation that Leveson speaks about. They could start that right now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says. The status quo, I would argue, does not just need updating; the status quo is unacceptable and needs to change. This Government set up Leveson because of unacceptable practices in parts of the media and because of a failed regulatory system. I am looking forward to reading the report carefully, and I am sure that all Members will want to consider it carefully. I think we should try to work across party lines on this issue. It is right to meet other party leaders about this issue, and I will do so. What matters most, I believe, is that we end up with an independent regulatory system that can deliver and in which the public will have confidence.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Let me associate myself entirely with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the victims of flooding. All my sympathies and the sympathies of Labour Members go to those victims, and our thanks go to the emergency services and the Environment Agency for the fantastic job that they do.

Let me also associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the Leveson report, which will be published tomorrow. I hope that we can work on this on an all-party basis. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for real change, and I hope that this House can make it happen.

When the Work programme was launched in June 2011, the Prime Minister described it as

“the biggest and boldest programme since the great depression.”

Eighteen months on, can he update the House on how it is going?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can update the House. Over 800,000 people have taken part in the Work programme, over half of whom came off benefits. Over 200,000 people have got into work because of the Work programme. It is worth remembering that the Work programme is dealing with the hardest to employ cases in our country; these are adults who have been out of work for over a year and young people who have been out of work for over nine months. On that basis, yes, we need to make further progress, but it is the right programme.

[Edward Miliband]

But the scheme is supposed to create sustained jobs for people, and in a whole year of the programme just two out of every 100 people got a job—that is a success rate of 2%. The Government estimate—[Interruption.] I do not know why the part-time Chancellor is chuntering—yesterday in Cabinet he was telling off the Work and Pensions Secretary for the failure of the Work programme.

The Government estimate that without the Work programme—this is the basis on which they did the tender—five out of every 100 people would get a job. Is it an historic first to have designed a welfare-to-work programme in which someone is more likely to get a job if they are not on that programme?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I listened very carefully to what he said, and what he said was wrong. He said that only 2% of people on this programme got a job. That is not correct. More than 800,000 people have taken part, and more than 200,000 have got into work. The specific figure that he referred to concerned people continuously in work for six months—but of course, he is only looking at a programme that has been going for a year, and the figure is 19,000 people. He should listen to the CBI, which said that

“the Work Programme has already helped to turn around the lives of thousands of people”.

Those are people who Labour left on the scrap heap. The right hon. Gentleman should be apologising, not attacking the Work programme.

[Edward Miliband]

I think that is as close as we get to an admission that I was right and he was wrong.

The Prime Minister boasted that his flagship policy, the Work programme, was about tackling the scourge of long-term unemployment. Will he confirm that since the Work programme was introduced in June 2011, long-term unemployment has risen by 96%?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the employment numbers: a million more private sector jobs over the past two years; since the last election, 190,000 fewer people on out-of-work benefits; in the last quarter, employment up by 100,000 people and unemployment down by 49,000. While we are at it, let us remember Labour’s poisonous legacy: youth unemployment up by 40%; unemployment among women up by 24%; and 5 million people on out-of-work benefits. That is the legacy we are dealing with, and we are getting the country back to work.

[Edward Miliband]

I wish for once that the Prime Minister would just answer the question. I asked him a very simple question about whether long-term unemployment has gone up by 96% since the Work programme was introduced, and the answer is yes. While he is talking about Labour’s programmes, let us talk about the future jobs fund. Last Friday, the Government issued a very interesting document. The Prime Minister spent two years rubbishing the future jobs fund but what did this document say? It said that the scheme provided

“net benefit to participants, their employers and society as a whole.”

In other words, it was a success. The Prime Minister rubbished the programme yet it helped 120,000 young people into work. His Work programme has helped only 3,000—[Hon. Members: “What does it cost?”] They shout, “What does it cost?”, but we cannot afford not to have young people in work. Is the truth that the Prime Minister got rid of a Labour programme that was working, and replaced it with a Tory one that is not?

[The Prime Minister]

Once again the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong so let me give him the figures. The Government’s work experience programme sees half of the young people who take part get into work. That is the same result as for the future jobs fund, and it costs 20 times less. That is the truth: our programme is good value for taxpayers’ money and it is getting people into work. The right hon. Gentleman wasted money and left people on the dole.

[Edward Miliband]

The more the Prime Minister blusters, the redder he gets and the less convincing he is. That is the reality. We know in real time what happened at yesterday’s Cabinet—they were at each other like rats in a sack. The Chancellor blames the Work and Pensions Secretary; the Work and Pensions Secretary blames the Chancellor for the lack of growth. The Prime Minister is doing what he does best and blaming everyone else for the failure. Is the reality that the Government’s failure on the Work programme is a product of their failure to get growth, and the failure of their whole economic strategy?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman worked in a Government where the Prime Minister and the Chancellor could not be in the same room as each other—rats in a sack does not even cover it.

Why not have a look at what the right hon. Gentleman has achieved on welfare this week? Once again this week, Labour voted against the welfare cap. Today, the Opposition are asking us to vote on a motion in the House on welfare. Last night, the motion specifically said they wanted further reform of welfare, but today the motion mentions nothing about it. The truth is that they are against the benefit cap, against the housing benefit cap and against the Work programme. They are officially the party of something for nothing.

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell the Prime Minister the reality. His welfare reform programme is failing because there is not the work, and his economic strategy is failing. That is the reality. He has a Work programme that is not working, a growth strategy that is not delivering, and a deficit that is rising. The Government are failing, the Prime Minister is failing and the British people—

[The Prime Minister]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

Calm down, calm down. The Prime Minister just cannot keep his cool when he knows he is losing the argument, and it is the British people who are paying the price for his failure.

[The Prime Minister]

I think what we can see is a leadership that is drowning. This Government have cut corporation tax, scrapped the jobs tax, introduced enterprise zones, backed the regional growth fund, and funded 1 million apprenticeships, and we are rebuilding our economy so that we see 1 million more people in private sector work. We are putting the country back to work; Labour wrecked it.

European Council

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Clearly, this is not the first EU budget negotiation to go into a second round, and no doubt it will not be the last. The real question remains what deal will eventually be delivered. I want to ask about the budget level, what the budget will be spent on and the Government’s negotiating position.

On the budget level, I was surprised by one omission in the Prime Minister’s statement. Somehow, he forgot to thank this House for sending him into the talks with the strongest possible mandate in the negotiations: a vote supported by Members on both the Government and Opposition sides. At the time of the vote, the Deputy Prime Minister, who I notice is absent, said that what was voted on was a completely unrealistic position and that there was no hope of getting a deal—a tell-tale sign that the opposite might be true.

Given that the Prime Minister now says that there is widespread support in Europe for a tough settlement, can he say what prospects there are for meeting the call of this House of Commons for a real-terms cut in the EU budget? Does he now regret not seeking to build alliances for a real-terms cut in spending at the outset of negotiations?

Looking ahead to the deal that still needs to be done, can the Prime Minister confirm in precise terms what he means by a real-terms freeze? There are obviously many different definitions around, but we have the Government’s definition set out by the then Economic Secretary in her memo of 16 July 2011. That was for a European budget of €885 billion in actual payments over the seven-year commitment period. The Prime Minister has been somewhat coy on this point, so can he confirm that that remains the position as set out by the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury?

Next, may I ask the Prime Minister about the composition of the budget, which is as important as the budget level itself? We need to reshape the budget so that it supports jobs and growth with investment in infrastructure, energy and research and development. He said as he arrived in Brussels that

“it is not a time for tinkering”,

and at his press conference on Friday he said:

“Already being contemplated is a big cut in agricultural spending”—

something that is supported in all parts of this House. However, what is the big cut in agricultural spending that he is talking about? Will he confirm that the proposal on the table sees agriculture spending remaining on average at 38.3% of the European budget—almost exactly the same level as it is now? Does he really believe that that is the major reform that is required in the spending of the European budget? Does he agree that what is even worse is that to keep the subsidies high, money is being taken from much-needed investment in energy and other infrastructure? I think that part of that comes from the Connecting Europe budget. Did he object to this part of the proposal?

As we anticipate the further negotiations in the months ahead, the wider stance of the Government towards the EU will also have an impact. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he is in favour of Britain remaining a member of the European Union. Why, therefore, is he allowing his colleagues to take the opposite position? Last month, the Education Secretary briefed that he is open to leaving the European Union. On Saturday, the chairman of the Conservative party said that we should threaten to leave if we did not get a good deal. Now we have the new vice-chair of the Conservative party—we think it is great to see him in his place—touring the studios, talking not about a budget deal but about a deal with the UK Independence party. Does the Prime Minister believe that such divisions help or hinder our national interest in delivering a good budget deal? Why, at a time of continuing negotiations over the budget, is he allowing members of his Cabinet openly to undermine his position on membership of the EU? It is no wonder that everyone, from British business to our European allies, believes that we are drifting towards the exit door.

As we look ahead to the next round of budget negotiations, is not the reality of the situation that the Prime Minister has a divided party on Europe? Instead of confronting the issue—[Interruption.] They say that they are not divided, but half of them want to leave the EU, and that is not the position of the Prime Minister—so we gather. He has a divided party on Europe, and instead of confronting the issue he is just letting the problem get worse. He spent his statement talking about the deal that he did not do; what matters is what he delivers for Britain. For as long as he allows his party to drag him towards the exit door, he will find it far harder to build lasting alliances and far harder to deliver for the national interest.

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me answer on the right hon. Gentleman’s specific points about figures. He asked about the scale of the cut that was envisaged for the common agricultural policy. In terms of tier 1 of the CAP, the proposal, to be fair to pillar one—to be fair to the Council and to the Commission—was to cut it from €336 billion to about €270 billion. So a cut was proposed for the CAP, but we made the point that even with that, we could go ahead and reach a good budget settlement. We said that without doing even more on the CAP we could reach a deal by looking at administrative savings and Commission savings, and also by looking at some of the programmes that are, quite rightly, being expanded, but expanded far too much. For example, Europe spent €8 billion on the Connecting Europe proposal in the last financial period, and it was proposed that that was increased to some €36 billion, so we could make significant cuts in that proposal and still land a sensible deal.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the memorandum that we put in front of this House, which referred to the 2011 situation and the 2011 budget. What I have said is that, yes, we want a cut, but we should settle, at worst, for a real-terms freeze—and of course that freeze would be across the period 2013 to 2020.

The right hon. Gentleman asked why we had not built any alliances. I am happy to tell him that the Dutch, the Swedes, the Danes, the Finns and the Germans all very much backed our position. I might ask him about his alliance, as he is in alliance with the socialists in the European Parliament, whose position was to favour a 5% increase in the ceilings, not a cut. They wanted to end all rebates and to introduce a financial transactions tax of up to €200 billion. If he does not believe that, he should listen to the leader of the European socialists and democrats, Mr Hannes Swoboda, who said:

“Regarding the additional cuts, it is unacceptable that the majority of member countries are letting themselves be blackmailed by David Cameron”.

That is the view of the socialists.

The right hon. Gentleman has made his approach in this Parliament, but if he had been at the Council he would have heard a lecture by the socialist head of the European Parliament, who told the whole Council that anything that was a cut to what was being proposed would be completely opposed by everyone in the socialist group in the European Parliament, including his MPs. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get a good deal for Britain, he might start by talking some sense to his socialist friends.

European Council

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and associate myself entirely with the summit’s conclusions in particular on Iran and Syria. The dangers of the civil war in Syria spilling over into the wider region are now all too apparent, and we strongly support the EU playing its part to seek to prevent this from happening.

The backdrop to this summit is that across Europe there is low or no growth. I am afraid on this fundamental issue the Prime Minister has yet again returned from a European summit with nothing to offer. So, first, can he tell us whether he had any responses to the proposals on the immediate growth crisis facing Europe that he took to the summit? Europe urgently needs co-ordinated action to boost demand, with those countries with the scope to do so taking action, but yet again there was nothing from the summit.

Secondly, on the single market—which the Prime Minister makes great play of—he admitted that this summit simply reaffirmed what was agreed in June, but will he agree that the situation is actually slightly different from then? On energy, will he confirm that the conclusions were exactly the same as the Council’s conclusions 18 months ago? On digital, they sounded familiar to me, too, and there is a reason: they were exactly the same as they were in October 2011—a year ago. So when he said at his summit press conference, with characteristic humility:

“Who is driving that agenda”—

on energy, on digital—

“which has made so much progress this year? It’s Britain”,

what did he mean by that, because there has been no progress over the last year?

Thirdly, on banking, there are big issues facing financial services as others move towards a banking union, but the summit conclusions are vague at this stage. So can the Prime Minister clarify for us what his key demands are in relation to the crucial issue of voting rights, as banking union goes ahead? Can he tell us what specific safeguards he will be seeking, and can he tell us how he will be building support for his position among our allies—using his enormous popularity, which he has built up over the past two and a half years?

That takes me to the real problem the Prime Minister faced at this summit. At home last week, he was starring in his own version of “The Thick of It”. In Europe he was offering another chapter in his handbook of “How to Lose Friends and Influence”. This is what Finland’s Europe Minister said—[Interruption.] Those on the Government Benches do not like to hear about their lack of influence in Europe. This is what Finland’s Europe Minister said at the summit:

“Britain is…putting itself in the margins...the boat is pulling away and one of our best friends is somehow saying ‘bye bye’ and there’s not really that much we can do about it.”

[Interruption.] Some on the Government Benches are saying, “Hear, hear,” about leaving Europe; there is the problem for the Prime Minister.

That is not the French or the Germans talking—it is Finland. Even the Prime Minister cannot be glorying in fisticuffs with Finland. It is the land of the Helsinki accords, reindeer and the Moomins. Its Europe Minister is an anglophile; he is one of Britain’s friends. The Prime Minister does not seem to realise that all his bluster about fighting for Britain is meaningless if he alienates our natural supporters. Will he confirm that he really has become the guy who goes to Europe and picks a fight in an empty room? That is just as well, because he normally finds himself in an empty room.

The Prime Minister was asked about his isolation, and this is what he had to say:

“We are actually a very, very important and influential player…right there in the vanguard.”

If he thinks that, the problem is not that he is isolated, it is that he is completely deluded about the arguments going on in Europe. Last October, he said:

“This is not the time to argue about walking away”.—[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 27.]

But that is exactly what his Cabinet is now doing. [Interruption.] The Education Secretary has chosen to walk away from this statement, but the Eurosceptic beauty contest has begun, with the Education Secretary, the party chairman and others joining the fray. The reality is that the Prime Minister has lost control of his party on Europe. We have a Prime Minister who is outside the room looking in at Britain’s empty seat at the table. There is one thing that our allies in Europe and the British people can agree on—his Government are a shambles and it is Britain that suffers.

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that there was a question in there somewhere. Frankly, I am not going to take any lectures on Europe from a party that gave up part of Britain’s rebate and got nothing in return; that gave up the social chapter and got nothing in return; and that joined the EU bail-out fund and got absolutely nothing in return. It is this Government who introduced the referendum lock, who got us out of the bail-out mechanism and who will always stand up for Britain in Europe.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman did ask a question somewhere at the beginning: what did Britain bring to Europe’s growth crisis? We brought, last week, falling unemployment, falling inflation and a million more people in work. He asks what we want in terms of banking union safeguards. We want single market safeguards, but I note that he had absolutely nothing positive to suggest on any of these agendas at all.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about Britain’s influence in Europe. The single market in digital, in energy and in services is a British agenda that we are driving forward. He says that there has been no progress. There were never, under his Government, dates and specific actions for completing these markets, but there are now. Oil sanctions on Iran is a British agenda that we have succeeded in driving forward; pressure on Syria and support for the Arab spring countries is a British agenda; and trade deals with the US and with Japan, not just with Canada and Singapore, is a British agenda.

What else did we get from the right hon. Gentleman? He talked about what I was doing at the European Council, but it is worth remembering that when I was there he was, of course, preparing for his great trade union sponsored march. I thought that the House might welcome an update on how the sponsored walk went: Unite union—£6 million; Unison—£3.2 million; and the GMB—£3.2 million. That is what he was doing—calling for general strikes and disruption—when we are fighting for Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I always listen carefully to all my Cabinet colleagues, especially the Education Secretary. However, the Leader of the Opposition has to answer the question himself. The shadow Defence Secretary has said that it is time for a referendum. Is that Labour policy or not?

[Edward Miliband]

indicated dissent.

[The Prime Minister]

No, it is not. Well, the right hon. Gentleman has clarified one thing this afternoon. That is very good.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are making progress with introducing the measure, which, as my hon. Friend says, is important. It is very important that we stand up for farmers and that they get a fair deal from supermarkets. On occasion, there have been unfair practices, such as the in-year retrospective discounts that have sometimes been proposed. I think that the Bill will be a major step forward.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the six servicemen who have died since the House last met: Lance Corporal Duane Groom of 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards; Sergeant Gareth Thursby and Private Thomas Wroe of 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment; Sergeant Jonathan Kups of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers; Captain James Tanley of the Corps of Royal Engineers; and Captain Carl Manley of the Royal Marines. They all died heroically serving our country and showed the upmost bravery and sacrifice, and our condolences go to their families and friends.

I also join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to PCs Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes. They remind us of the dangerous work that our police officers do day in, day out in the line of duty. Their death is a great loss to the Greater Manchester police, the communities they served and, most of all, of course, their families.

I also thank the Prime Minister for his very generous comments about the two Labour colleagues whom we have lost since we last met. Stuart Bell was the son of a miner and a long-standing Member of this House. He was passionate about European issues and served with distinction as a Church Commissioner. His death was incredibly sudden: his illness was diagnosed just a matter of days before he died. The condolences of Labour Members and, I know, the whole House go to his family.

Malcolm Wicks was one of the deepest thinkers in this House. He was a brilliant Minister. I know from my time as the Energy Secretary what a brilliant Energy Minister he was. He faced his illness with the utmost bravery. He knew what was going to happen to him, but he carried on writing, thinking, talking and, indeed, engaging with the work of this House. My last conversation with him was just before our party conference and he talked passionately about politics, as he always did. Our condolences go to his whole family.

Today’s unemployment figures are welcome, particularly the fall in youth unemployment. I am sure that we will all agree that too many people are still looking for work. The number of people out of work for a long period—over a year—remains stubbornly high. Will the Prime Minister tell us why he believes that the fall this quarter in unemployment is not yet being matched by the figures for long-term unemployment?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks about those who have fallen, the brave police officers and the colleagues that we in the House have lost.

The unemployment figures are a good piece of news that should be properly welcomed and looked at, because a number of different things are happening: employment is up by 212,000 this quarter; unemployment is down by 50,000 this quarter; the claimant count has actually fallen by 4,000; and what that means is that since the election some 170,000 fewer people are on out-of-work benefits. What is remarkable about the figures is that they show that there are more women in work than at any time in our history and that the overall level of employment is now above where it was before the crash in 2008. We still have huge economic challenges to meet, we are in a global race, and we need to make a whole set of reforms in our country to education and welfare and to help grow the private sector, but this is positive news today.

Long-term unemployment is still too high. That is partly because of the big increase in unemployment at the time of the crash. We need to do more to deal with long-term unemployment. That is why the Work programme has helped 693,000 people already. We are prepared to spend up to £14,000 on an individual long-term unemployed person to get them back into work. We do have the measures in place to tackle this scourge.

[Edward Miliband]

Notwithstanding that, unemployment, youth unemployment, long-term unemployment and long-term youth unemployment are all higher than when the Prime Minister came to office. I do not think that he can attribute the issue with long-term youth unemployment to the crash that happened four years ago, because it has been rising steadily over the past year or 18 months, and it remains a big concern. The number of people out of work for more than a year is continuing to rise. Does he agree that the longer young people remain out of work, the greater the damage not just now, but to their long-term prospects and to our economy?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right. The longer that people are out of work, the worse it is for them and for our economy. That is why we have the youth contract and the Work programme, which is the biggest back-to-work programme since the war. He mentions the problem of long-term unemployment. I just remind him that in the last two years of the Labour Government, long-term unemployment almost doubled. We should hear about that before we get a lecture. On helping young people, it is noticeable that under this Government, 900,000 people have started apprenticeships. We are backing apprenticeship schemes and reforming our schools and welfare system, so that it pays for people to get jobs.

We face enormous economic challenges in this country. Nobody doubts that. We have to rebalance our economy because the state sector was too big and the private sector was too small. Since the election, there have been 1 million new private sector jobs, which more than make up for the inevitable loss of jobs in the state sector. We have a huge amount more to do, but reform welfare, reform our schools, boost our private sector, and Britain can be a winner in the global race.

[Edward Miliband]

On long-term unemployment, I just say to the Prime Minister that there are more people out of work for longer than at any time for two decades. That is happening on his watch.

I want to turn to one group in particular who are losing their jobs directly as a result of the Government’s policy. A year ago, the Prime Minister told me at the Dispatch Box:

“There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line officers.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 335.]

Will he tell the House how many front-line police officers have lost their jobs since the election?

[The Prime Minister]

The percentage of police officers on front-line duties has gone up. That is the key. Frankly, whoever won the last election would have had to reduce police budgets. Labour was committed to reducing police budgets and we had to reduce police budgets. We have been able to increase the percentage because we have cut the paperwork and taken difficult decisions about pay and allowances. What is remarkable is that while the percentage of officers on the front line is up, crime is down.

[Edward Miliband]

I had really hoped that, just for once, we would get a straight answer to a straight question. All the Prime Minister needs to do—Government Members will like this—is to take a leaf out of the police Minister’s book, because on Monday he told the House the truth. He said that there are 6,778 fewer front-line police officers than when they came to power. Why not just admit—[Interruption.] I do not think that the part-time Chancellor is going to help, but perhaps he is taking over the Home Office. This is another promise broken.

The Government are not just breaking their promises; it is their conduct as well. This is what the Mayor of London said—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It will just take longer to get in the Back Benchers who wish to participate, as opposed to shouting and screaming in a juvenile fashion, because I will have to extend the session. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard and the Prime Minister will be heard. That is the end of it.

[Edward Miliband]

This is what the Mayor of London, the Prime Minister’s new best mate, said last year at the Conservative party conference:

“I reckon we need to…make it clear that if people swear at the police then they must expect to be arrested.”—[Interruption.]

The Chief Whip from a sedentary position says that he did not. Maybe he will tell us what he actually did say, which he has failed to do.

Yet according to the official police report,

“a man claiming to be the Chief Whip”

called the police “plebs”, told them they should know their place and used other abusive language. Can the Prime Minister now tell us: did the Chief Whip use those words?

[The Prime Minister]

What the Chief Whip did and what the Chief Whip said were wrong. I am absolutely clear about that, and I have been clear throughout. That is why it is important that the Chief Whip apologised. That apology has been accepted by the officer—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

What the Chief Whip did and said was wrong, and that is why it is important that he apologised, and apologised properly. That apology has been accepted by the officer concerned, and it has been accepted by the head of the Metropolitan police. That is why this Government will get on with the big issues of helping Britain compete and succeed in the world.

[Edward Miliband]

No straight answers on police numbers, and no straight answers on the Chief Whip. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Wales says that we need real issues, but I think abusing police officers is a real issue. Just because a police officer has better manners than the Chief Whip, it does not mean that the Chief Whip should keep his job.

If a yob in a city centre on a Saturday night abused a police officer, ranting and raving, the chances are that they would be arrested and placed in the back of a police van, and rightly so. The Prime Minister would be the first in the queue to say that it was right. But while it is a night in the cell for the yobs, it is a night at the Carlton club for the Chief Whip. Is that not the clearest case there could be of total double standards?

[The Prime Minister]

This apology has been accepted by the police officer, and it has been accepted by the head of the Metropolitan police. It is clearly not going to be accepted by the Leader of the Opposition, who does not want to talk about what we need to do in this country to get our deficit down because he has got no plans. He does not want to talk about how we build on our record in employment, because he has got no plans. He does not want to talk about how we reform welfare, because he is opposed to welfare caps. That is the truth—he wants to discuss these issues because he has nothing serious to say about the country.

[Edward Miliband]

Here is the most extraordinary thing: the Government say that I practise class war, and they go around calling people plebs. Can you believe it? I have to say, it is good to see the Cabinet in their place supporting the Chief Whip in public, but from the newspapers, what are they saying in private? That he is “completely undermined” and that his position is untenable. In other words, he’s toast. That is the reality. Here is the truth about this Government: while everybody else loses their jobs, the Chief Whip keeps his. If you are a millionaire you get a tax cut, if you are everybody else you get a tax rise. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Kawczynski, I am very worried about your health. You are shouting in a bizarre manner. Calm yourself, man, and get a grip.

[Edward Miliband]

Maybe he will tell us whether he is getting the tax cut.

The Government are totally out of touch. With this Government, it is one rule for those at the top, another rule for everybody else.

[The Prime Minister]

Now we know that the right hon. Gentleman wrote those questions yesterday, before unemployment fell. Because he obviously was not listening earlier, let me remind him that employment is up by 212,000—that is a success. Unemployment is down 50,000 this quarter—that is a success. The claimant count is down 4,000—that is a success. Typical! He comes to this House and he has written out his clever political questions, but he does not care what is really happening in our economy.

Hillsborough

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him in remembering the 96 people who died at Hillsborough, the hundreds more who were injured and all their families and friends. Today we also remember all those who had to suffer the trauma of being there that day.

Let me state right up front an uncomfortable truth for us all: it shames us as a country that it has taken 23 years to get to the truth about what happened at Hillsborough. The Prime Minister was right today to offer an unreserved apology, but all Governments during this period bear their share of responsibility for the failure to get to the truth, so we on the Opposition Benches also apologise to the families that we did not do enough to help.

What brings us here today, as the Prime Minister said, is not just the tragedy of Hillsborough; it is that the victims of the tragedy and the people of Liverpool were systematically smeared and portrayed as its perpetrators. Imagine for a moment waving a loved one off as they go to a football match, and then the impossible grief of that loved one not returning. Then imagine being unable to grieve in peace, but facing two decades of torment, a cloud of suspicion, innuendo and downright lies spread about the person you loved—lies about rushing the gate, lies about ticketless fans, lies about the drunkenness of the victims. That is what the Hillsborough families have had to endure from day one of this tragedy, and while they spoke the truth to power whenever they could, the powerful did not hear.

Nothing could compensate for what the families have suffered, but I pay tribute to all the victims’ families for their 23-year campaign for the truth. Without the efforts of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, the Hillsborough Justice Campaign and Hope for Hillsborough, the truth would have remained hidden and we would not be here today. I also commend the work of the Liverpool Echo, which kept the campaign going, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Halton (Derek Twigg). Most of all, I pay tribute to all the people of Liverpool and the people across the country who have stood with the families in the dark times, and to every single person who campaigned for this day to come.

Rightly, as the Prime Minister said, it is the families who have had first access to the report. People will want, over many days, to scrutinise properly all the documents that have been released, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to have a debate in October. Some things, though, have been clear for a long time and will be clearer after the publication of the report today, and I want to put them on the record.

The tragedy was caused not by fans but by an unsafe ground and terrible mistakes and negligence in policing. There was a systematic attempt by some in the police to cover that up after the event and, disgracefully, to spread the blame to the fans, and they were aided and abetted by parts of the media. Finally, it is clear that the original inquest was hopelessly inadequate, declaring the so-called 3.15 cut-off on the assumption that all those who died had sustained fatal injuries by that time, when in fact the post-mortem records show that not to be the case and, tragically, that some of the victims could have been saved.

The picture is not one of irresponsible victims, but innocent victims let down by the South Yorkshire police, the emergency services, the Sheffield coroner and the wider public authorities. It is a picture not just of a tragedy, but of a gross injustice. The victims were not only blamed by those who were supposed to protect them, but they were blamed by those who were themselves responsible for the disaster.

After truth must come the best justice that can be provided 23 years late, so let me ask the Prime Minister three questions. The first is about the possibility of new inquests. I welcome what he said about the Attorney-General, but will he reaffirm the urgency, which I am sure he and the Attorney-General recognise, of making that decision? Secondly, today’s revelations also raise profound questions about the behaviour of the public authorities and the police, so what steps does he imagine those authorities might be able to take in response to the panel’s findings and does he believe that there is any way to hold those who were responsible to account? Thirdly, does the Prime Minister agree with me that, just as he has apologised on behalf of the Government and so too has Sheffield Wednesday on behalf of Hillsborough, the same should be forthcoming from all those who wronged the victims, their families and supporters, including those in the media, particularly The Sun newspaper?

This is a day that has been far too long in coming. To the families we say: we are deeply sorry for your loss and deeply sorry for the pain you have suffered. We sincerely hope that today marks a day of truth, so that, finally, you can grieve in peace.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said and the way in which he said it. As he put it, this has taken too long, but all parties have had to come together and work together to make this happen. He is absolutely right to commend the local groups, the local press and the local MPs for keeping this issue alive and making sure that we reached this point.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, after truth should come justice, and I shall try to answer his three points as best I can. On the inquest, yes, it is absolutely urgent. We have to look at the Coroners Act 1988, which says that once an inquest has been held a fresh inquest can be held only if the High Court quashes the original inquest and orders a fresh one. The High Court will consider an application only if it is made by the Attorney-General or with his consent. That is a key decision-making role for him: he has to stand aside from Government to do so, but all the things that I said in my statement are relevant.

As for what other authorities are responsible, and whether further steps should be taken, again, in this country we have, quite rightly, independent authorities for prosecution and the rest of it. They will want to study what is in the report and come to their own conclusions.

On the point about apologies, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say what he said. The important thing about making an apology is to think very carefully why one is necessary. In this case, it is absolutely necessary: there is new evidence which is vital in reaching this conclusion. The other point about making an apology is that you should make one only when you really mean it. My understanding of this long history is that apologies have sometimes been given that have not been fully meant, and not been properly made. My advice to others—and it is their decision—is think it through, and understand the extent of hurt, not just of the families but on Merseyside more widely, then do it properly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am not in favour of extending state funding. I think that it is very important that all political parties work hard to attract members and donations. Frankly, when we get those donations we pay credit to people for funding political parties, which is in the public interest.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Let me join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lieutenant Andrew Chesterman of 3rd Battalion the Rifles, Lance Corporal Matthew Smith of 26 Engineer Regiment and Guardsman Jamie Shadrake of 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards. They all died serving our country. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten, and our thoughts are with their families and friends.

I also want to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to everyone involved in the Olympic and Paralympic games—our athletes, our fantastic volunteers and indeed the whole country, which united in support of team GB. It showed our country at its best, it brought Britain together and we should all be proud of the achievement.

After two and a half years in government, the Prime Minister returned from his summer break and told the nation that he now realised it was time to “cut through the dither”. Who did he have in mind?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has had all summer to think of a question. Is that really the best he can do?

Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman what this reshuffle is all about. It is not that there are two economic Departments in our country, the Treasury and Business; I want every single Department to be about the economy. I want the Transport Department building roads; I want the Communities Department building houses; I want the Culture Department rolling out broadband; and I want the Agriculture Department backing British food. This is a Government who mean business, and we have got the team to deliver it.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister mentions the reshuffle; it is good, of course, to see the Chancellor still in his place. I have to say to the Prime Minister that he has come up with an ingenious solution to the problem of his part-time Chancellor: he has appointed another one—the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). It is a job share; we will see how they get on.

I do not know whether the Prime Minister remembers, but a year ago he published his national infrastructure plan alongside the autumn statement. He said at the time of that plan that it was an

“all-out mission to unblock the system”.

Can he tell us, one year on, how many of the roadbuilding projects announced in that plan have actually started?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of Chancellors, because I have got my first choice as Chancellor, while he has got his third choice as shadow Chancellor. Apparently, he still has to bring in the coffee every morning—that is how assertive and butch the Leader of the Opposition really is.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about infrastructure. If we look at what is planned by this Government, we see that between 2010 and 2015 we will be investing £250 billion in infrastructure. That compares with just £113 billion between 2005 and 2010. That shows that he has absolutely not got a clue.

[Edward Miliband]

The difference between the shadow Chancellor and the Chancellor is that the shadow Chancellor was right about the economy and the Chancellor was wrong. I have to say that the Paralympic crowd spoke for Britain.

However, it is another Prime Minister’s questions, we are back and, characteristically, the Prime Minister does not answer my question. The answer is that none of the roadbuilding programmes announced in his grand infrastructure plan has started.

Let us look at another grand claim the Prime Minister made. In March, he published his housing strategy. He said:

“our housing strategy is beginning to get Britain building again.”

Before he starts talking up his next announcement about housing, let us look at the effect of the last one. Can he tell us how many houses have started to be built since his announcement?

[The Prime Minister]

Housing starts are up 30% since 2009, which was the lowest rate of house building since the 1920s. That is what the right hon. Gentleman’s Government left. He praised his shadow Chancellor to the gunnels, but let us remember that it was the shadow Chancellor who landed us in this mess. Who was the City Minister when the City went bust? The shadow Chancellor. Who was the man who gave us the biggest budget deficit in the developed world? The shadow Chancellor. That is what that team has delivered and that is why the British people will never trust them again.

[Edward Miliband]

I think that sometimes the right hon. Gentleman forgets that he has been Prime Minister for two and a half years. He has got to defend his record, and he cannot defend his record. Again, he did not answer my question. I asked him about what had happened to housing starts since he made his announcement. The reality is that housing starts have fallen since then. They are 24% lower than they were a year ago and lower than they were at the time of the last Labour Government. Another grand claim has not materialised.

Now, let us talk about planning. In March, after 18 months of consultation, the Prime Minister hailed his flagship planning policy and said that it was the biggest revolution in 60 years. But on Sunday he said that he was “frustrated” by the system and the

“hoops we have to jump through”

and that he wanted to change it again. How is he so incompetent that he brings in a flagship planning Bill, calls it a revolution, and then six months later says that it is not fit for purpose?

[The Prime Minister]

The national planning statement that we inherited from Labour was over 1,000 pages; it is now down to just 52 pages. We have radically simplified the planning system—something that the right hon. Gentleman should be praising rather than attacking. He might want to notice that today the World Economic Forum has come out and said that for the first time in a decade, instead of Britain going down the world competitiveness ratings, we are back in the top 10 and rising. Let me read what it said:

“The United Kingdom…continues to make up lost ground in the rankings this year”—

lost ground that happened under the last Labour Government. There is a reason for that—it is because this Government are cutting regulation, cutting corporate tax, taking people out of tax, getting our businesses moving right across our country, investing in the regional growth fund, and delivering more apprenticeships than any previous Government. That is what we are delivering; what has he done over the summer? Where are the policies on welfare? Nothing. Where are the policies on education? Nothing. Where is the great plan for our economy? His only answer to a debt crisis is to spend more, borrow more, and put up the debt.

[Edward Miliband]

Back to the bunker after that one, I am afraid. I think the crimson tide is back as well.

Over the past two and a half years we have seen announcements on infrastructure—failed; announcements on housing—failed; announcements on planning—failed. What is the reason for this economic failure? The reason is that the Prime Minister’s fundamental economic approach is wrong. After the summer we now know that in his whole two and a half years as Prime Minister the British economy has not grown at all. So why does he not admit it? The real problem is this: plan A has spectacularly failed.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what is actually happening in our economy, which is that we are seeing the private sector growing and expanding. There are 900,000 more people employed in the private sector than there were two years ago. We are now a net exporter of cars and motor vehicles for the first time since the 1970s. We are seeing the fastest rate of business creation that we have seen for decades. That is what is happening. Our economy is rebalancing. There is growth in the private sector. Our exports to China are up 72%, to India up 94%, and to Russia up over 100%. That is what is happening. It is a hard road, it is a difficult road, but we will stick to that road because we will deliver for the British economy.

[Edward Miliband]

We are in the longest double-dip recession since the second world war. How out of touch does this Prime Minister sound? [Interruption.] I have to say to the Tory Members of Parliament that they can go to their constituents and start trying to blame everyone else, but they have been in government for two and a half years. It has happened on their watch.

We saw a reshuffle yesterday. The Prime Minister brought back the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who had been sacked; he promoted the Culture Secretary, who should have been sacked; and he left in place the part-time Chancellor, who the whole country knows should be sacked. It is the same old faces and the same old policies—a no-change reshuffle. If the Prime Minister really wants to cut through the dither, there is no place like home.

[The Prime Minister]

The big difference in British politics is that I do not want to move my Chancellor; the right hon. Gentleman cannot move his shadow Chancellor. The fact is that in spite of all the economic difficulty this is a strong and united Government, and in spite of all the opportunity this is a weak and divided Opposition. [Interruption.]

EU Council

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement. On the tragic news from Afghanistan, all our thoughts are with the family and friends of the soldiers concerned. The news reminds us once again of the risks our troops face—day in, day out—and of our duty to do everything we can to protect them.

Let me start with the Prime Minister’s announcement on the banking inquiry. It is right for him to reconsider the position of last week on the need for a full inquiry. I welcome that recognition. I have to say, however, that I am not convinced by his way forward because I do not believe it measures up to the scale of what is required. However able or distinguished they are, politicians investigating bankers will not command the consent of the British people. People are understandably angry about the way their banks let them down, and I do not believe that the proposed way forward is the way we can build the consensus required for real change. After all, there have already been a number of Select Committee reports into the banking crisis.

I appreciate that the Leveson inquiry has been uncomfortable for politicians on all sides, but that is the way it should be. We will continue to argue for a full and open inquiry, independent of bankers and independent of politicians. That is the only way, in my view, that we can rebuild trust in the City of London and financial services.

Turning to the European Council itself, let me associate myself with what the Prime Minister said on Syria. Agreement—but, in truth, little progress—was reached at Geneva on Saturday, and the divisions within the international community on this issue mean that too little is being done to bring the escalating violence to an end. In that context, will the Prime Minister update the House on the position of Russia, which is clearly imperative in this regard, on a future for Syria without President Assad?

Turning to the main issues of the summit, it took place against a backdrop of the continuing crisis in the eurozone, a faltering global recovery and a double-dip recession here in the UK. The central challenge, then, was how we can have a Europe not of austerity and unemployment, but of jobs and growth. I am afraid to say that on that central issue, the Prime Minister cannot be part of the solution because he is part of the problem.

On growth, the Prime Minister used an instructive phrase in his post-summit press conference, when he said:

“Just as we have to tackle the euro crisis, so we have to tackle the growth crisis”.

Having at last admitted that there is a growth crisis, he added:

“Britain has been driving this debate.”—[Laughter.]

I do not think it was meant as a joke, but it suggests someone quite out of touch with reality. As he was speaking, the figures were coming in, showing the double-dip recession, created by him in Downing street, was worse and deeper than we thought. The UK is one of only two countries in the G20 in double-dip recession. There can be no solution to the growth crisis unless we tackle the crisis of demand in the European economies and globally? Will he tell us whether he advocated at this summit any measures to tackle the crisis of demand in the European economy, as well as the long-term measures he mentioned?

The Prime Minister talked about the banking regulator. How will he use his popularity and influence in Europe to secure specific legal safeguards between now and December’s final proposals to protect the very important British interest in the single market? He then talked about the patent court, and said, with his customary humility, that the outcome showed that he was succeeding. Only this Prime Minister could pretend, having argued that the court’s headquarters should be in London, that it was a diplomatic triumph that it had ended up being based in Paris.

As for the eurozone and bank recapitalisations, it is welcome that direct help can be provided for eurozone banks, but does the Prime Minister really believe that the funds that eurozone countries are making available are adequate? There are many reasons to believe that that is not the case.

Finally, there is Europe and the Prime Minister’s position—or should I call it his weekend hokey-cokey? On Friday, he ruled out a referendum. He said:

“‘I completely understand why some people want an in/out referendum… I do not think that is the right thing to do”.

Hours later—what a coincidence—100 Back Benchers and the former Defence Secretary called for an in/out referendum. Then, hey presto, on Sunday—[Interruption] —the Prime Minister hinted that he might rule one in. Then the Foreign Secretary—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said that Labour Back Benchers should not be yelling when the Prime Minister was speaking, and the same applies to Government Back Benchers. I do not care what they are exhorted or encouraged to do from any quarter; it is not proper behaviour, and however long we have to continue, it is not going to happen. That is the beginning and the end of the matter.

[Edward Miliband]

Then the Foreign Secretary was sent out to say on television:

“The Prime Minister… is not changing our position.”

Three days, three positions. First it was no, then it was yes, and then it was maybe.

Can Members on both sides of the House have some clarity about the Prime Minister’s position? First, has there been a change in the Government’s position, yes or no? Secondly, the Prime Minister talked of a referendum being connected to the renegotiation of powers. To be fair to him, his position on renegotiation is longstanding, not least because he has got nowhere in negotiating it, but is he now saying that he may be in favour of withdrawal from the European Union if he does not get these powers? That would be a new position. It would be helpful—and I am sure that his Back Benchers would like it too—if we could have a “yes” or “no” answer to that question as well.

Thirdly, can the Prime Minister explain this? Last October, he said in the House:

“there is a danger that by raising the prospect of a referendum… we will miss the real opportunity to further our national interest.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 27.]

So why is he doing it now? We all know the answer to that question. It is not to sort out the crisis of growth, it is not to tackle youth unemployment, and it has nothing to do with the national interest. It is all about managing the divisions in the Prime Minister’s own party. But a nudge-nudge, wink-wink European policy is not good for the country, nor will it keep his party quiet.

Five years ago, the Prime Minister said that his party should stop banging on about Europe, but now he is the man getting out the drum. As John Major could have told him, it is not going to work. We have a veto that never was, a referendum that the Prime Minister cannot explain, a party talking to itself, a Prime Minister who is managing his party rather than leading the country, and a Government who are letting Britain down.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me start with the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about the inquiry into the banking scandal. I think that what he said was rather demeaning to Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I see no reason why Parliament cannot get to the bottom of this if we take the best and brightest from both Houses and all parties, and there are few better people to do that than my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), who has considerable expertise. The key point, however, is that this needs to be done speedily. The Vickers Bill—the banking Bill—will be introduced in the House of Commons in January, and I want an inquiry to be completed by then so that we can take the best of that inquiry and put it in the Bill. I think that that is the right thing to do.