G20 Summit

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me start with the foreign policy issues that he raised. On the Falklands, there is support on the Opposition Benches for the absolute need to protect the principle of self-determination for the islanders, and we should always stand up for that.

On the issue of Syria, there is deep concern on all sides about the continued failure of the Annan plan to deliver a cessation of violence. Given the urgency of having an immediate end to the escalating hostilities, does the Prime Minister agree that it is now vital for the international community to unite around the need for the toughest sanctions against Syria? In his press conference after the summit, the Prime Minister said that President Putin has been explicit that he is not locked in to Assad remaining in charge in Syria, but Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov said that was not his Government’s position. Does the Prime Minister still believe this to be the case, and does he believe that there is a case for persuading Russia to take a tougher stance?

I shall now turn to the main business of the summit, the economy. The G20 last met in Cannes in November. Since then our country has gone into a double-dip recession, world growth has slowed, and the eurozone crisis has deepened. If ever there was a time for the international community to come together and act, this was it, but frankly—I think that the Prime Minister may himself really recognise this—all that we got from the summit was more of the same: drift and inaction in the face of a global crisis.

The Prime Minister claimed at his press conference afterwards that the summit had

“made important progress on the Eurozone, on the lack of global growth and on the rise of protectionism.”

That sounded familiar to me—and then I realised why. The Prime Minister had said exactly the same after the last failed summit, in Cannes in November. On global growth, the Cannes summit communiqué said

“should global economic conditions materially worsen”,

countries

“agree to take discretionary measures to support domestic demand”.

The list of the countries concerned included Germany.

Well, global conditions have worsened, most evidently in Britain, which is only one of two countries in the G20 to have gone into a double-dip recession. If that communiqué meant anything, it meant that this G20 summit should have been a coming together of the world leaders with a real plan to boost global demand, but what did we get? The Mexico communiqué is a cut-and-paste job which effectively repeats the same words that we heard at Cannes, almost word for word. Perhaps the Prime Minister will be able to tell me whether the words or the commitments of the international community have changed. As far as I can see, it is more words and no action. People will be asking—and rightly so—how much worse the economy has to get.

The tragedy, of course, is that the international community are divided between those who want a decisive move towards growth and jobs, like President Obama and President Hollande, and those whose answer to the failure of the last two years is simply more of the same—the same austerity that is not working—like the German Chancellor and our Prime Minister. Maybe the Prime Minister will be able to tell us whether, with Britain now in a double-dip recession, he was arguing at this summit for anything different from what he argued for last November. From his statement, it certainly does not sound that way.

On the eurozone, the Prime Minister said:

“These are significant agreements; now the Eurozone countries need to get on and implement them.”

But is not the reality that there is no agreement on the main issues of substance—how to recapitalise European banks, how the European Central Bank can stand behind member countries, and how to prevent the escalation of problems in the bond markets? It is more of the same—more kicking the can down the road—and there is no plan for growth in Europe either.

Of course the Prime Minister cannot be part of the solution, but he is part of the problem. No wonder he was looking for something else to talk about during the summit, and of course he found it, although, strangely, it was omitted from his statement—the tax affairs of Jimmy Carr. On Wednesday he could not have been clearer: Jimmy Carr was “morally wrong”. On what he called the “Gary Barlow situation”, he said—I am not making this up, I promise, Mr Speaker—

“As soon as I get in front of a computer I will have a look at it.”

On Thursday, the now-familiar sound of screeching tyres could be heard. The U-turn was well and truly under way. The Prime Minister said:

“I am not going to give a running commentary on different people’s tax affairs. I don’t think that would be right.”

[Interruption.] Members ask about the G20. Tax avoidance is certainly an issue at the G20 summit.

Later, when the Prime Minister’s spokeswoman was asked whether he had had a chance to catch up with the “Gary Barlow situation”, she said:

“He has been very busy.”

By Sunday, even the Prime Minister was saying “I think I’ve said enough.” That is certainly true.

There is one important lesson to be learnt from the last week. In the midst of an economic hurricane, this global summit should have produced action, not words. The reality is that this is a Prime Minister who has come back from the summit with nothing for Britain: nothing to turn around a double-dip recession, nothing to help Britain’s families, nothing to ensure growth in the world economy. No wonder he wanted to spend the summit talking about Jimmy Carr.

[The Prime Minister]

Oh dearie me.

First, let me thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for his support over Afghanistan. I welcome that. On Syria, I agree that we should continue to back tough sanctions. On Russia, I had useful conversations with President Putin. Clearly the stance that the Russians take is a matter for them, but we believe that there is a real case for getting together and working to implement, in particular, the parts of the Annan plan that are about political transition, and we will continue to make those arguments.

On the economy, I do not over-claim—

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I know that this is not just a constituency campaign for my hon. Friend but something he feels very powerfully about. I can tell him that the coalition position has not changed, but clearly we must not be blind to two important considerations: how we expand airport capacity overall, and how we ensure that Heathrow operates better and that we welcome people to our country better than we are at the moment. A lot of progress has been made on that agenda, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the extra resources and people that have been put into doing that important job.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Captain Stephen Healey and Corporal Michael Thacker of 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh and Private Gregg Stone of 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment. They served their country with dignity and bravery, and the condolences of the whole House go to their family and friends.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why he referred Baroness Warsi to the independent adviser on ministerial interests but not the Culture Secretary?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes; I think there is a very significant difference between the two cases. In the case of Baroness Warsi, there has not been a judge-led inquiry, with witnesses taking evidence under oath, to get to all the factual information behind her case. That is why I have asked Sir Alex Allan to look at the case and establish some of the facts. I have to say, I am entirely happy with the explanation that I have been given by Baroness Warsi. She admits to breaking the ministerial code and has apologised for it, and I think that is a very important point.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister refers to the Leveson inquiry, but can he confirm that, in his appearance there, the Culture Secretary was quite properly—it is not the remit of the Leveson inquiry—not asked a single question about whether he misled this House and thereby broke the ministerial code?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman asks specifically why I have not referred the case to Sir Alex Allan. As he knows, I have not done that, but I have asked Sir Alex Allan for his advice on future guidance on, for instance, quasi-judicial decision making, which the right hon. Gentleman discussed at the Leveson inquiry and which I will discuss tomorrow as well. Sir Alex Allan has replied to my letter. I will put a copy of both letters in the Library of the House, but the House might want to know what he said:

“I note your decision in relation to Jeremy Hunt’s adherence to the Ministerial Code which is of course a matter for you.”

He went on:

“The fact that there is an on-going judicial inquiry probing and taking evidence under oath means that I do not believe I could usefully add to the facts in this case”.

He went on to say that he remains available if circumstances should change, but those are the views of Sir Alex Allan.

[Edward Miliband]

The key issue is who makes the judgment on whether there has been a breach of the ministerial code. This is what Lord Leveson said on 10 May:

“I will not be making a judgment on whether there has been a breach of it, that is simply not my job”.

In other words, it is the job of Sir Alex Allan.

Let us take one of the issues that was—[Interruption.] I can see that Conservative Members have been well whipped today. They obviously got the memo from the Prime Minister’s aide, who is sending memos round. The last one began: “Comrades”—[Laughter.] I like the sound of that. “We need a protective wall of sound. Last week we rather dried up. Please show sufficient stamina for the full half hour.”

Let us take one of the issues that was not raised at the Leveson inquiry. On 25 April, the Culture Secretary told the House: “I made absolutely”—[Interruption.] There is no point in the part-time Chancellor trying to give the Prime Minister the answer before I have asked the question. The Culture Secretary told the House:

“I made absolutely no interventions”

in “a quasi-judicial” process

“that was at that time the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Business”,

yet we now know that he wrote a memo to the Prime Minister that said:

“If we block it our media sector will suffer for years.”

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Culture Secretary, in his answer from 25 April, was not straight with this House of Commons?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first explain that, on the Government side of the House, “comrades” is a term of endearment, not an official title—[Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members are also comrades.

The point is that it is the job of the Prime Minister to make the judgment about ministerial code. I have made that judgment. I have quoted what Sir Alex Allan has said. He was very clear that he could not

“usefully add to the facts in this case”.

I am sorry that the political strategy behind the right hon. Gentleman’s Opposition motion has collapsed, but that is the fact of the case.

The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the note that the Culture Secretary sent to me on 19 November, in which he specifically says that it would be completely wrong to go against the proper regulatory procedures. The truth of what has happened in recent days is that the Culture Secretary gave a very full account of his actions to the Leveson inquiry, and demonstrated that, when it came to the BSkyB bid, he took independent advice at every part of the process and followed independent advice at every stage of the process, which is a complete contrast to how the previous Government behaved.

[Edward Miliband]

Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister is claiming. The Culture Secretary told the House:

“I made absolutely no interventions seeking to influence a quasi-judicial decision”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2012; Vol. 973, c. 543.]

The Prime Minister is claiming that a memo to the Prime Minister is somehow an insignificant document in relation to a decision that the Government must make. It is the first time in political history that that is the case.

If the Prime Minister’s case is so strong, why is the Deputy Prime Minister not supporting him?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me read exactly what the note from the Culture Secretary from 19 November states:

“It would be totally wrong for the government to get involved in a competition issue which has to be decided at arm’s length.”

When he got responsibility for the dossier, he behaved in exactly that way.

By the way, the whole reason we are discussing this takeover is that the previous Government changed the law to allow a foreign company to own a British broadcasting licence. Labour Members conveniently forget that point.

The Leader of the Opposition asked specifically about the Deputy Prime Minister. Let me be frank: we are talking about the relationships that Conservative politicians and Labour politicians have had over the past 20 years with News Corporation, News International and all the rest of it. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they did not have that relationship. Their abstention tonight will make that point. I understand that: it is politics—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must calm down.

[Edward Miliband]

I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman has reached a new state of delusion—really and truly. He just wants to talk about the past—he was the future once. The Deputy Prime Minister says that the decision should go to the independent adviser, the Conservative chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration says it should be referred and the former chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life says that it should be referred—is it not the truth that the reason the Prime Minister will not refer the Culture Secretary to the independent adviser is that he is scared that the Culture Secretary will not be cleared?

[The Prime Minister]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are talking about the past, but some elements of the Leveson inquiry and the relationship between politicians and the press are about the past. We had a little insight into that when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), gave evidence. In an extraordinary moment, he said that

“the one thing I can say”—

the one thing—

“definitely is that nobody in my position would have instructed…briefing against a senior minister”.

Perhaps the victims could put their hands up. Any takers? I do not need Sir Alex Allan to adjudicate on that one.

[Edward Miliband]

The reality is that everyone knows that it was the Prime Minister who decided to appoint the Culture Secretary to oversee the bid and it is the Prime Minister who is clinging on to him now in the face of all the evidence. Does he not realise that it is no longer about the Culture Secretary’s judgment but about the Prime Minister’s, which is so badly flawed that even his deputy will not support him?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope that the England football team is better at putting the ball in the back of the net. The point is that it is for the adviser on ministerial standards to discover the facts and for the Prime Minister to make the judgment. My judgment is that we should let the Culture Secretary get on with organising the most important event, which is the Olympics. As we are on the Olympics, let us consider this: if there was an Olympic medal for double standards and rank hypocrisy, the Labour party would be well in the running.

G8 and NATO Summits

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me start with the NATO summit. On Afghanistan, the Opposition welcome the summit’s confirmation that the transition of full security responsibility from the international security assistance force to the Afghan national security forces is set for completion by mid-2013, and that British combat operations are set to end by the end of 2014.

Let me echo the Prime Minister’s words about our troops. They have served heroically in Afghanistan for more than a decade now, and we owe them enormous gratitude. I am sure I speak for the whole House and the Prime Minister when I say that we want to see them home with their families in the right way—one that respects the professionalism they have shown and the sacrifices they have made. To that end, will the Prime Minister give the House a clear indication of the timetable for the expected draw-down of British combat troops between now and 2014? Will he tell us how many British service personnel he expects to remain in Afghanistan after 2014 and which services they are likely to be drawn from, and will he confirm that they will remain under a NATO command and control structure? Will he also tell the House whether he has had discussions with President Zardari on the important issue of land access across Pakistan, which is so vital for British military and ISAF supplies?

On the political situation in Afghanistan, does the Prime Minister agree that honouring the sacrifices and bravery of our troops means taking the political challenge there as seriously as we take the military challenge? Given that the final stage of the military campaign is under way, what concrete steps will now be taken that were not already in place before the Chicago summit to secure an inclusive political settlement within Afghanistan and between Afghanistan’s regional partners? Does he agree that the international community has talked for a long time about talks about talks on the political settlement we need, and that we need far greater urgency in seeking that settlement for when our troops come home?

On the G8 summit, we join the Government in calling for an immediate end to violence to stop the continuing bloodshed in Syria, and I join the Prime Minister in his remarks on Burma.

On the global economy, we desperately needed a plan for growth, for both Europe and the international community. The Prime Minister entertained Opposition Members with his description of President Hollande as his new best buddy, given that he endorsed the President’s opponent in the most fulsome terms. The Prime Minister told Le Figaro:

“Nicolas Sarkozy has my support. I say it clearly.”

The Foreign Office was a bit perturbed and started briefing about that, saying:

“We put all the chips on one card and it turned out not to be the ace...It was an error of judgment and not what was advised”.

Perhaps he will tell us whether he was advised to see President Hollande but twice refused to do so? The Foreign Office also said something that, after today, I think we can all concur with:

“The Prime Minister has a habit of shooting from the hip.”

That is certainly true.

In reality, we did not get the conclusions and action we needed from the summit because the international community is divided—not united, as the Prime Minister said—between those who believe we must have a decisive shift towards growth, such as President Obama, now joined by President Hollande, and those who believe that the answer lies in more of the same, such as the German Chancellor and this Prime Minister. For two years he has been the high priest of austerity, telling the world that austerity alone is the answer, but now the recognition has dawned that it is not working, and he finds himself on the wrong side of the argument. That is why he is desperately scrabbling around to say that President Hollande is his great friend.

What has the Prime Minister delivered at home? The recovery has turned to recession, there has been no growth for 18 months and 1 million young people are out of work. He was fond of quoting yesterday’s IMF report, but he did not quote this from Christine Lagarde:

“Growth is too slow and unemployment—including youth unemployment—is too high.”—

[Interruption.] Hang on a sec. I am getting to it. She continued:

“Policies to bolster demand before low growth becomes entrenched are needed”.

That is not his position. His position is: more of the same. So we have the ultimate irony of a Prime Minister who has delivered a double-dip recession lecturing other people on how to get growth.

What did the Prime Minister actually achieve at the summit? We know some of the things he did. He watched the football—nice pictures! He went to the gym. He even squeezed in some sight-seeing. The only thing there is not a photo of is of him making a difference to the world economy—in other words, doing his job. At the G20 last November, he signed a communiqué stating that if “global conditions materially worsen”, countries will take action “to support domestic demand.” Well, global conditions have worsened, so where is the action for growth? Where is the decisive shift we need across the global economy? Why has he not delivered it? He has not delivered it because he does not believe in it.

The Prime Minister is actually making things worse, not better. Last Sunday, the Chancellor went on television and said that speculation about the break-up of the euro was damaging Britain’s economy. He said that

“it’s open speculation…about the future of some countries in the eurozone which I think is doing real damage”.

Will the Prime Minister explain, then, why he decided to do just that last Wednesday and say, “Make up or break up”? It might have rhymed, but does he not understand that it did nothing to help our economy or anyone else’s?

Given the seriousness of the position in Greece, does the Prime Minister really believe that for him to deliver an ultimatum to Greek voters over the weekend about their election was such a good idea? I would have thought that after his experience of the French election, he might have realised it was not such a good idea to get involved.

Finally, on tonight’s European summit, euro bonds are important and a stronger firewall would make a difference, but the crucial thing is demand. Does he not accept that without a plan for growth and demand in Europe, we cannot get a solution on deficits across Europe that is either politically or economically sustainable? The problem with this Prime Minister is that he can only offer more of the same. He cannot be part of the solution because he is part of the problem. All he offers is more austerity. It is not working in Britain, and it is not working in Europe. It is a failed plan from a failing Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

Five minutes and absolutely no plan! The Leader of the Opposition had nothing positive to say. It was a good joke about Sarkozy, but let me say this: we all have our faults, but I would rather have a reputation for being loyal to my friends than for knifing my brother.

The right hon. Gentleman started with NATO and asked some serious questions, so let me give him some serious answers. He asked for a clear indication about the draw-down. We will go down to 9,000 troops by the end of this year. Clearly, we need to set out a pathway between now and the end of 2014. I want it to be based on the conditions on the ground and on how well the transition is going in the three provinces for which we are responsible. Obviously, I will keep the House updated on that. We do not want a great cliff edge at the end.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what would be left at the end of 2014. We have made a clear decision on this. President Karzai asked us to provide an officer training college in Afghanistan and we will be doing that. We have the assistance of the Australians and the New Zealanders on that, and we hope that others will be joining in. That is the baseline of our commitment, but clearly we will listen to any other requests. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be a NATO-led operation in terms of training: yes it will, but there will not be NATO combat operations after 2014.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the relationship with Pakistan and about the vital issue of the ground lines of communication—the so-called GLOCs. It is essential that they are reopened. I spoke to Prime Minister Gilani about this when he visited the UK a week or so ago, and I spoke to President Zardari at the conference. I am confident that progress will be made but, frankly, it needs to be made more rapidly than is currently the case.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the political challenge, and he is right about that. I have said all along that, alongside the military surge, we need a political surge. We are working very hard with the Afghans and the Pakistanis to deliver that. We have made a very clear offer to the Taliban that if they lay down their weapons and join a political process, that process will be open to them. But we have to be prepared for the political process not advancing as far as we would like, and that is why we must ensure that the build-up of the Afghan national security forces goes according to plan so that we can hand over in good order, as I believe we will.

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about Syria and Burma. On President Hollande, let me make this point. President Hollande said something that I think the right hon. Gentleman should perhaps adapt slightly, then repeat. He said:

“The national debt is the enemy of the left and of France.”

We have never heard the right hon. Gentleman say anything as clear as that before. Let us look at what President Hollande is doing. When he was asked how he would stimulate growth, he said:

“The means cannot be extra public spending, since we want to rein it in”.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about our approach on growth. We agree with the Italian Prime Minister that we need structural reform in Europe. We agree with the French President that we need a more active monetary policy in Europe. We agree with the German Chancellor that deficit reduction is vital in getting interest rates down. The problem is that Europe has not had all three, but we support all three of those things.

Finally, I would just say to the right hon. Gentleman that nobody I can find in Europe, not even the left-wing party in Greece, backs his idea of putting an extra £200 billion of borrowing into the British economy. That is the Labour policy. It would put up interest rates, it would wreck our economy and it would wreck our prospects—which is exactly what Labour did in office.

Debate on the Address

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to those who have died in Afghanistan since we last met: Guardsman Michael Roland of 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards, and Corporal Andrew Roberts and Private Ratu Silibaravi of 23 Pioneer Regiment, the Royal Logistics Corps. They all showed the utmost bravery, and our thoughts are with their family and friends. Let me also say from this House that we support our mission in Afghanistan and will also support the Prime Minister in the important efforts that he is making to secure a political settlement there for when our troops have left.

As is customary, I would also like to pay tribute to those Members who have died since the last Queen’s Speech. First, Alan Keen was hugely popular with Members of all parties. A football scout turned MP, he had faith in the power of sport and politics to change lives. He is missed sorely by his wife, Ann, and his family and friends.

I also pay tribute to David Cairns, who was able to enter the House only because the law was changed to allow a former Catholic priest to sit in Parliament. He was funny, warm and principled, and his death one year ago today was a tragedy particularly for his partner, Dermot, and his many, many friends.

In her diamond jubilee year, I would also like to pay tribute to Her Majesty the Queen. We are reminded yet again today of her tireless service to the people of this country, and we are all looking forward to the national celebrations later this year.

My understanding is that, by tradition, the Loyal Address is proposed by a rising star of the governing party, who is thrusting his way forward on to the rungs of the ministerial ladder. Hon. Members of all parties can therefore agree that there could be no better choice than the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). He spoke eloquently, movingly and with confidence, and I congratulate him on his remarks.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is the first Member of the House to have been born in Iraqi Kurdistan. He spoke about the people of Stratford-on-Avon and said that his background was not the issue. However, he said in an interview that I read:

“What Britain gave my family was freedom and opportunity…to my family they weren’t just words, they changed our whole life.”

He brings to the House a perspective that enriches us all.

The hon. Gentleman also has the distinction of being the founder of the polling company YouGov. Let me say that I have spent much of the past 18 months thinking that he has a lot to answer for. No doubt, after recent weeks, the Prime Minister feels the same.

I am used to seeing the hon. Gentleman as an enthusiastic Back Bencher—if I can put it like that—braying at me with particular vigour from a sedentary position during Prime Minister’s questions, so I am very happy to give him the endorsement he no doubt craves and recommend unequivocally that the Prime Minister give him ministerial preferment whenever the reshuffle comes. It would be his gain and mine.

I also congratulate the seconder of the Loyal Address, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). He brought his years of distinguished service and wisdom to the job. He brings great skill and experience to the House, including, as he said, as an assiduous and enthusiastic Chairman of the International Development Committee. In doing research on his background, I got extremely excited when someone in my office turned up a biography from the internet, which stated:

“Malcolm Bruce also worked early in his career with Ozzy Osbourne and recently performed a Jimi Hendrix Birthday tribute.”

Sadly for me and for him, it turned out to be a different Malcolm Bruce.

However, the right hon. Gentleman continues to serve the Liberal Democrats in important ways, not least as their president in Scotland—I am sure he is very proud of that just now. No doubt he will play a crucial role in the inquest into that local election result in Edinburgh, where the Liberal Democrat candidate was beaten by a penguin. [Laughter.] Tory Members should not laugh too much because there are more pandas than Tory MPs in Scotland. I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that he will have to do better than the explanation offered locally in Edinburgh that

“it wasn’t a target ward”.

The right hon. Gentleman has had a long and distinguished parliamentary career, which, under normal circumstances, would end up with service in the House of Lords, if it was not for his leader’s determination to abolish it. However, I pay tribute to him for his excellent speech.

On the Gracious Speech, first, let me say that we will work with the Government on the green investment bank, the defamation Bill and flexible parental leave, all of which sound remarkably like Labour ideas—because they are Labour ideas.

This is the speech that was supposed to be the Government’s answer to the clear message from the electorate last week, but on today’s evidence, they still do not get it. For a young person looking for work, this speech offers nothing; for a family whose living standards are being squeezed, this speech offers nothing; for the millions of people who think the Government are not on their side, this speech offers nothing. “No change, no hope” is the real message of this Queen’s Speech.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor appear to believe that people are turning against them because they have not understood the Government’s economic policy, but the truth is that people have turned against them because they have understood it only too well. What did the Government promise two years ago? The Chancellor could not have been clearer in his emergency Budget, when he said there would be

“a steady and sustained economic recovery, with low inflation and falling unemployment…a new model of economic growth”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 168.]

What has he delivered? He has delivered the worst unemployment in 16 years, 1 million young people out of work and the first double-dip recession for 37 years. They promised recovery, but they delivered recession—a recession made in Downing street. They have failed.

As if a failing plan was not bad enough, the Government added insult to injury in the Budget, by making millions pay more so that millionaires could pay less. There is no change on that in the Queen’s Speech either. I say to the Prime Minister that he should listen to people such as Linda Pailing, the deputy chair of Harlow Conservative party, who said of her constituents:

“They don’t like the fact that he didn’t keep the 50p tax…people feel here that he is not working for them, he is working for his friends”.

She said these elections are

“to do with what Cameron and his cronies are doing”.

It comes to something when even lifelong Tories do not believe that this Prime Minister is on their side. Last Thursday, the British people delivered a damning verdict on the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and their economic strategy. The Prime Minister says he gets it, but if he really does, the first thing—[Interruption.] Government Members say, “What about London?”, which is interesting. What did the Mayor of London say? He said he had “survived” the wind,

“the rain, the BBC, the Budget and the endorsement of David Cameron”—[Laughter.]

I think they walked into that one.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the 50p tax, but I am slightly confused as to why he did not vote against the change when he had the opportunity to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

We had a whole amendment on that. I wish the hon. Gentleman, having listened to his constituents, had joined us in the Division Lobby to vote against the 50p tax change.

The Prime Minister says he gets it. If he really did get it, the first thing he would have done in this Queen’s Speech would have been to drop his tax cut for millionaires, but he has not done so. They are carrying on with a Finance Bill to put the 45p tax rate into law. Why are they doing that? Because they really believe that their problems are not those of policy, but those of public relations.

What did the part-time Chancellor say at the weekend? He said:

“I know the way the Budget was presented meant this message wasn’t heard.”

The Deputy Prime Minister said:

“An impression has formed that this was a budget for the rich”.

It is insights like that which got him where he is today.

The Government just do not get it. The problem is not the presentation of a tax cut for millionaires; it is the reality: £40,000 for every millionaire in Britain. It is not the presentation of cuts in tax credits; it is the reality. On the granny tax, the churches tax, the charities tax and the whole Budget omnishambles, it is not the presentation; it is the reality.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I will give way later.

Yes, the Government have a communication problem, as the Prime Minister said this morning: the problem is that the electorate have spoken, and they are not listening. But to solve his communication problem, the Prime Minister has a new way of explaining his policy. To the policeman or woman being fired, to the young people looking for work, to the small business going under, what was his message yesterday? He said:

“You call it austerity, I call it efficiency.”

Here it is from the Prime Minister, Cameron Direct, to hundreds of thousands of people being made redundant: “The bad news is you’ve lost your job. The good news is you’re a key part of our efficiency drive.” In two years, he has gone from David Cameron to David Brent. That is the reality.

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

If the right hon. Gentleman is on the side of hard-working people, why does he oppose the benefit cap equivalent to a salary of £35,000 a year?

[Edward Miliband]

This is very interesting. I will tell the hon. Gentleman why we wanted it done a different way—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I will tell him. It is because the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said, in a letter to his colleagues, that the way in which the benefit cap was done would cost more money, put more people into temporary accommodation and fail to solve the problem. The Government did not listen to advice because they wanted to grab a political headline—typical of this Prime Minister.

If the Government did not have the courage to reverse their Budget, they should have put an economy that works for working people at the centre of this Queen’s Speech, but they have not. Utility bills, water bills and the cost of getting to work are worrying families up and down the country—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

Opposition Members should calm down: I will give way later.

What have the Government got to say about those issues? Absolutely nothing. The energy Bill has nothing to help people struggling to make ends meet. No legislation this year on water or on train fares—nothing to relieve the squeeze on ordinary families.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I, too, am concerned about utility bills—we are all concerned about utility bills—but let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change he proposed the renewable heating initiative that would have put £193 on people’s bills. Why was that not in his alternative Queen’s Speech?

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we did in government: we introduced the winter fuel allowance and took action on prepayment meters—far more than this Government have ever done.

Let us talk about those at the top of society, executive pay and multi-million pound bonuses—[Interruption.] It is very interesting that Conservative Members are groaning about that, because a few months ago, the Prime Minister said that he was outraged about crony capitalism. He told us that he was grossly offended by it and that it was not what he believed in. Such was his strength of feeling that in the entire Queen’s Speech, the issue did not merit a single mention.

I have a suggestion for the Prime Minister. He should accept the recommendation of the High Pay Commission to put an ordinary worker on the remuneration committee of every company in Britain. I say, “If you can’t look one of your employees in the eye to justify that you’re worth it, then you shouldn’t be getting the salary.” Come to think of it, why not start with the Government? I have the ideal candidate to be the employee on the board judging the Cabinet. She stands ready to serve—the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries). Let us remind ourselves why she is so well qualified. She said:

“They are two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to understand the lives of others.”

She is only saying what so many people are thinking: it is high time the shareholder spring came to the Conservative party.

On the economy, on living standards, and on executive pay—

[Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is coming on to the economy, so, since the shadow Chancellor cannot enlighten us, will he tell the House how he is coming along with costing his economic programme?

[Edward Miliband]

I am glad that the hon. Lady intervened, because this is what she said about the election results:

“As Conservatives, we have to learn lessons…In the spirit of non-spin, my benchmark for Labour was 700 seats”.

I think we slightly outperformed her expectations.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I have been generous in giving way.

On all the major issues, the Government have shown that they are out of touch. If we need any further proof, let us consider what they have done on crime—taking police off the streets with 20% cuts and stripping back powers on antisocial behaviour.

Let me turn to one of the biggest omissions in the Queen’s Speech. There is no bigger challenge facing families up and down the country than care for elderly relatives, and there was no clearer promise from the Government than that they would legislate on it. [Interruption.] I know Government Members do not want to talk about what is happening in the Government, but in their foreword to the health White Paper, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister said that there would be

“legislation in the second session of this parliament to establish a sustainable legal and financial framework for adult social care”.

Instead, we have nothing. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister says there is a draft Bill, but he said he would legislate in this Session, and he has failed to do so. They have totally failed to do so. There was a clear promise. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister should calm down. They promised a Bill on social care, but they chose not to include one.

There is room in the Queen’s Speech for House of Lords reform, however. I am a supporter of House of Lords reform and a referendum, but I thought that a Queen’s Speech was supposed to define a Government’s priorities. So there is a mystery that the Prime Minister needs to explain in his reply. Over the weekend, the Chancellor said that House of Lords reform

“is certainly not my priority, it is not the priority of the Government.”

So it is not the Conservative party’s priority. But the mystery deepens, because the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that there were many, many other things he cared far more about. So apparently it is not his priority either. [Interruption.] Government Members ask if it is our priority. No, it is not. I am bound to ask, though: if it is not a priority, how on earth did it end up in the Queen’s Speech? I thought the Queen’s Speech was supposed to define the priorities for the Government’s legislative programme. Why is it in there? How did it get into the speech?

What about the things that did not make it into the Queen’s Speech? How about the manifesto promise—the Prime Minister’s detoxification promise—to enshrine in law spending 0.7% of national income on aid. [Interruption.] They are not putting it in law. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister keeps saying he is doing it, when all he is doing is publishing draft Bills. And what has happened to something that used to be a big priority for the Prime Minister? He said in 2010 that lobbying was

“the next big scandal waiting to happen.”

He was right. It did happen—to him: Adam Werritty, whose lobbying caused the downfall of the Defence Secretary; Peter Cruddas, Tory party treasurer, offering Downing street dinners to donors; and Fred Michel and the 163 pages of e-mails. Three lobbying scandals, but no Bill.

Last week, the Prime Minister applied to have prior access to the evidence of Leveson as a core participant. I have to say that he is one of the few people left who did not already think he was a core participant in the whole News Corporation scandal: he hired the editor, he sent the texts, he even rode the horse, and his Culture Secretary backed the bid. It does not get much more core than that. This is not just a Westminster story because it shows whose side the Prime Minister is on. What did he say to Rebekah Brooks after she was forced to resign following revelations that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked? We learn from the newspapers that he said:

“Sorry I couldn’t have been as loyal to you as you have been to me.”

That goes to the very heart of the problem with this Government and this Prime Minister: they stand up for the wrong people. Two years ago in the rose garden they promised change. Yesterday in the tractor factory all they could offer was more of the same. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister: two leaders out of touch with the country, out of touch even with their own parties, locked together not on principle or policy but in determination to hang on to office for another three years. So halfway through this Government and particularly after last Thursday, is it not time that the Government stopped governing for the few and started listening to the many?

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will refer the conduct of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, in respect of his dealings with News Corporation, to the independent adviser on ministerial interests.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I answered questions on this issue at Prime Minister’s Questions last Wednesday, and the Culture Secretary made a full statement, but let me set out the position again.

I set up the Leveson inquiry last summer to investigate the culture, ethics and practices of the media, and the relations between the media and the police and the media and politicians. It is a full, judge-led inquiry, with evidence given under oath and full access to papers and records. No Government before have ever taken such comprehensive action. It is this Government who are putting these issues properly on the table and getting them dealt with.

Let me deal with the three issues raised in the question: the conduct of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the nature of the inquiry that is needed to get to the bottom of these issues, and the wider issues surrounding the relationship between politicians and the media.

First, let me deal with the issue of the Culture Secretary. As was made clear in his statement last Wednesday, in every respect with regard to the News Corporation bid, the Culture Secretary asked for independent advice and acted on it. He was not required to ask for or to follow such advice, but he did so. He acted fairly and impartially, and in line with the advice of his permanent secretary. Indeed, as he said in his statement to the House on Wednesday, he acted against the interests of News Corporation on four key decisions: on being minded to refer the bid to the Competition Commission, on refusing to accept News Corporation’s undertakings without taking advice first from the OFT and Ofcom, on extending the consultation, and on going back to Ofcom for further advice about the impact of phone hacking. I have seen no evidence to suggest that, in handling this issue, the Secretary of State acted at any stage in a way that was contrary to the ministerial code.

As for the Secretary of State’s responsibilities towards his Department, let me say this. The permanent secretary to the Department approved the approach that his department took to the quasi-judicial process, which included a small number of people acting as contact points with News Corporation, as is required and normal in such a process. The permanent secretary has stated that he was “aware” and “content” for contact to be made between the Culture Secretary’s special adviser and News Corporation. However, it is quite clear that that contact became improper and inappropriate, and went beyond the requirements set out by the Secretary of State or the permanent secretary. That is why the special adviser resigned, and he was right to do so.

There are correct procedures to follow in this regard, and they need to be followed scrupulously. That is why last week I asked the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, and the head of the civil service, Sir Bob Kerslake, to write to all Departments clarifying the rigorous procedures that they should have in place for handling cases of this nature.

That leads to the second issue: the nature of the inquiry, or inquiries, best suited to getting to the bottom of this issue. I consulted the Cabinet Secretary, and decided that it was right to allow Lord Justice Leveson to conduct his inquiry and not to commission a parallel process to establish the facts. Let me repeat that what we have is a judge-led inquiry, witnesses required to give evidence under oath, full access to papers and records, and cross-examination by barristers, all live on television. There is nothing this tough or this rigorous that the civil service or the independent adviser could provide. Of course, it is not for Lord Justice Leveson to determine whether a Minister has broken the ministerial code. That is an issue for me, and I will deal with it properly. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The proprietors of News Corporation have denied under oath at the Leveson inquiry any type of deal, and I will do the same.

Let me make this last point: unlike the Labour party, we were not trying to convince a centre-right proprietor of a set of newspapers with solidly centre-right views to change the position of a lifetime. We were arguing a simple proposition: that the last Government were irresponsible, exhausted, bad for our country and ought to go.

While I have said that the relationship between politicians and the media has been too close, I note that none of the Members on the Labour Benches have disclosed any of the meetings they had with News International or other newspaper executives while in office. While the country wants to hear about jobs, investment, living standards and the great challenges we face, like debt, they just play one-sided party politics. Instead of endlessly trying to use the Leveson inquiry for party political purposes, is it not time they were honest about what they did in government and faced up to the real mess they left this country in?

[Edward Miliband]

The reason why it was essential for the Prime Minister to come to the House today is that the Culture Secretary is in clear breach of the ministerial code—and the Prime Minister stands by and does nothing. He asks why this matters. It matters because we need a Government who stand up for families, not the rich and powerful. He is failing that test. Playing for time, he says we should wait for the Leveson inquiry, but Lord Justice Leveson could not be clearer. This is what his spokesperson said: “the simple fact is” that Lord Justice Leveson

“is not the arbiter of the ministerial code, whatever anybody else is saying. There is somebody else who has that role…Alex Allan”.

Lord Justice Leveson is doing his job; it’s time the Prime Minister did his.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that there are no fewer than three breaches of the ministerial code by the Culture Secretary? First, in the House on 3 March the Culture Secretary told the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that

“all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation”—[Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526]

—were being published. But he has now admitted that he knew, when he gave that answer, that there were exchanges that he himself had authorised between his special adviser and News Corporation. Yet none of those exchanges was disclosed, and we have 163 pages to prove it. The Prime Minister does not need to wait for the Leveson inquiry. Will he confirm to the House that this was a breach of paragraph 1.2 c of the code, which says that Ministers must provide full and accurate information to Parliament?

Secondly, on 25 January the Culture Secretary gave a statement to the House. We now know that two days before that statement, News Corporation was given confidential inside information—and this when the Culture Secretary had a constitutional duty to act in a quasi-judicial manner. The Prime Minister does not need to wait for the Leveson inquiry; will he confirm that that breaches paragraph 1 of the code, which requires the Minister to act with the “highest standards of propriety”, and paragraph 9.1, which says that Parliament must be told first?

Finally, the Culture Secretary would have us believe that his special adviser was on a freelance mission—six months of daily e-mails, texts, leaks and the leaking of confidential information about what opposing parties were saying. On one of the biggest media bids for decades, is the Prime Minister really reduced to the News of the World defence—one rogue individual acting alone? If the Culture Secretary really was that clueless about the biggest issue facing his Department, he should be sacked anyway.

The central question that the Prime Minister must answer, in view of three clear breaches of the ministerial code, is: why will he not refer the matter to the man whose responsibility it is—Sir Alex Allan? The Prime Minister is defending the indefensible, and he knows it. He is protecting the Culture Secretary’s job while up and down the country hundreds of thousands are losing theirs. We all know why the special adviser had to go to protect the Culture Secretary; the Culture Secretary has to stay to protect the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has shown today that he is incapable of doing his duty—too close to a powerful few, and out of touch with everyone else.

[The Prime Minister]

Weak and wrong—that is what we heard. [Interruption.]

Party Funding

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Let me say first to the Minister for the Cabinet Office that it should not be him at the Dispatch Box today; it should have been the Prime Minister who came to the House, because the revelations this weekend concern his office, his policy unit and his judgment. It shows utter contempt for this House that the Prime Minister could make a statement to the media just three hours ago but refuse to come here to face Members of Parliament. I think we all know why: he has something to hide.

I will come to the wider party funding issues that the Minister raises, but let us be clear that the reason why he has come to the House today is not the long-standing debate about party funding, but this weekend’s revelations. Let me remind the House that this is about the Prime Minister’s chief fundraiser seeking cash for access. What did he say? He said:

“The first thing we do… is get you at the Cameron and Osborne dinners, and in fact some of our bigger donors have been for dinner in No. 10 Downing Street”.

It is about seeking cash for influence. [Interruption.] I think that hon. Members should listen and hear about the seeking of cash for influence. He said:

“We get a chance to ask the Prime Minister questions… What do you think we are going to do about the top rate of tax… Everything is confidential”.

And it is about seeking cash for policy. I quote:

“If you’re… unhappy about something… we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the policy committee at No. 10.”

These represent grave allegations about the way access is gained and policy is made. They are about a breaking down of the lines between support for a political party and Government policy.

First, will the Minster accept that it is completely inadequate, given the scale of these allegations, for an investigation into what happened to be conducted by the Conservative party? A Conservative peer, appointed by the Prime Minister, an inquiry into the Conservative party, by the Conservative party and for the Conservative party—it is a whitewash and everyone knows it. We need a proper, independent inquiry appropriate to the gravity of what is at stake. Will the Minister now agree to an inquiry conducted by the independent adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Alex Allan?

On cash for access, the inquiry should specifically cover all the donors the Prime Minister has met in Government buildings—Downing street and Chequers—since May 2010; whether any of those meetings were in response to promises of cash for access; and whether other senior Ministers, including the Chancellor, have held such meetings.

On cash for influence, the inquiry should cover whether Conservative party donors were offered the chance, as Peter Cruddas said, to put forward policy ideas in exchange for donations; whether any of these ideas were forwarded to the No. 10 policy unit; which of them found their way into the Chancellor’s Budget; and whether Government Departments have been asked by Downing street to facilitate ministerial and official meetings with donors. Above all, the inquiry needs to investigate the breaking down of the boundary between the Prime Minister as leader of his party and the Prime Minister as Head of the Government.

Yesterday we were told that the only people who had been to dinner in Downing street were a few “long-standing friends” invited to the private flat. Today Downing street has admitted that some of them were not invited because they were long-standing friends at all and that it was not in the private flat; it was a thank-you dinner for donors to the Conservative party held inside Downing street. In total, £18 million came from 12 donors. It was not the premier league, but the champions league of Tory donors—I bet they did all right in the Budget. And even that is not a complete list, because the Prime Minister has refused to name donors he met on Government property who donated less than £50,000. What is the excuse? It is that only donations of £50,000 are significant donations. Only this Prime Minister would think a donation of £49,000, twice the average salary, was not significant.

Next, does the Minister for the Cabinet Office agree that the rules on party political funding are clear? It is illegal to solicit donations—[Interruption.] I would have thought he would like to hear about this; it is about illegality and allegations of illegality. It is illegal to solicit donations through overseas companies and illegal to disguise those donations, yet there are allegations that this was exactly what Mr Cruddas was suggesting. Will the Minister now undertake to recommend to the Prime Minister that he refer the Conservative party to the Electoral Commission to investigate this practice by Mr Cruddas and whether it has been practised by other Conservative party donors?

Thirdly, on the issue of party funding, I am somewhat surprised by the Minister suddenly now saying that he wants to restart talks. Let me provide the House with some background. The Deputy Prime Minister wrote to me and the Prime Minister on 8 February, seeking cross-party talks with heads of terms to be decided by Easter—very soon. I replied with my suggested nominees 12 days later. Such was the Government’s enthusiasm for reform, that in the five weeks since then I have heard precisely nothing about those talks, and neither has either of my nominees.

What are we to make of the Government’s new-found enthusiasm for reform? What a coincidence—the day after the Tory treasurer seeks cash for access. And who have they nominated for those talks? The Minister, and another great reformer, the Conservative party chairman, Lord Feldman. He is the man who fatally undermined the Kelly inquiry by writing at the eleventh hour to say that a £10,000 cap on donations was unacceptable because it would

“hugely inhibit the ability of political parties to engage with the electorate.”

Perhaps he should have said, “hugely inhibit the power of rich individuals to influence policy in Downing street.” We are happy to have proper talks about funding, but it is ridiculous for the Government to seek to use them as a smokescreen for the revelations this weekend.

The problem is that these people, as we saw with last week’s Budget, think they can get away with anything—and they have been found out. The weekend’s revelations show this Government cannot deliver the change we need. They promised transparency, they promised to clean up politics; now they will not even agree to a proper inquiry, and the Prime Minister is too ashamed to come to this House to explain his conduct.

This scandal speaks to the conduct and character of the Prime Minister and the Government. Anything short of an independent inquiry will leave a permanent stain on this Government and this Prime Minister.

[Mr Maude]

For 13 years the Leader of the Opposition was at the heart of the Labour Government. For 13 years they had the chance to make government transparent. For 13 years they had the chance to reform party funding. For 13 years they did nothing—nothing. And, worse than nothing, they blocked reform, because who was it who stopped the Hayden Phillips reforms going through? It was Labour. The House need not rely on me for that; it can rely on Peter Watt, the then general secretary of the Labour party, who said:

“My primary emotion during the process was intense frustration, because my own party”—

Labour—

“was the biggest block to reform.”

So the right hon. Gentleman should not come here, grandstand and claim the moral high ground. His party has a shameful role in the past. He should come here to say sorry for blocking the reform that was there to be had.

Labour in office gave us the cash for honours affair and a police investigation into proxy donations, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman, lest he forget in his new-found enthusiasm for independent investigation, that the investigation into the David Abrahams affair was conducted not by some independent person but by Lord Whitty, a former general secretary of the Labour party. And now that Labour is in opposition, its donors do not just buy policy—they elect the leader. That is why, after the right hon. Gentleman was elected Leader of the Opposition, the first thing he did was to go up to the leaders of Unite, put an arm round their shoulders, and say a warm, heartfelt “Thank you.”

We have heard about cash for policy, and cash can buy policy, but not on this side of the House. It was shocking recently to discover that votes can be decided on the basis of money paid and a cheque cashed. In fact, Labour, back in 2004 in the Warwick agreement, drew up its election programme on the back of an agreement to have union donations that would fund its campaign, so the right hon. Gentleman should not come here and lecture us about cash for policy, because Labour Members are the past masters at it—and look where it has got them. The shadow Health Secretary—he is over there—tabled amendments pushed by his union backers. [Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary could not confirm Labour’s own—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We do have a problem of a sicknote culture, and I have to report that the problem can sometimes go to the very top. The Leader of the Opposition was meant to be addressing a health rally, called a sickie, and three hours later was at a Hull football match. As well as his knowing the miracle cure, I think there is an important question—what was it that first attracted him to the multi-millionaire owner of the Hull football club?

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Following the Prime Minister’s recent trip to Washington, we now know that the timetable for the withdrawal of British and other international combat forces in Afghanistan will be reviewed at the NATO summit in Chicago in May. He has previously set out a timetable that would see combat operations for British troops cease by the end of 2014. Given the recent statements by the US Defence Secretary and the French President about an accelerated timetable for their troops, can the Prime Minister confirm the British Government’s position going into that summit?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me take this opportunity on behalf of the whole House once again to pay tribute to the magnificent work that our armed forces do in Afghanistan. We had another reminder yesterday of the very high price that we have paid.

On the programme of withdrawal, what I have said absolutely stands, which is that we will not be in a combat role in Afghanistan after 2014, nor will we have anything like the number of troops that we have now. We will be performing a training task, particularly helping with the officer training academy. Between now and 2014, it is important that we have a sensible profile for the reduction in troop numbers, which should be largely based on the conditions in the three parts of Helmand province that we are still responsible for and the transition that takes place.

What I discussed with President Obama in America was that in 2013, if there are opportunities to change the nature of the mission and be more in a support rather than in a direct combat role, that is something that I think everyone will want to see. We can make further progress on that issue at the Chicago summit and make announcements later in the year about that.

[Edward Miliband]

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and I know he will keep the House informed of any change in the British position, and indeed of the precise timetable and any evolution of it.

I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that in the wake of the tragic killing of Afghan civilians last week, which we all abhor, we must carry on with our mission. President Karzai has recommended that international troops should be confined to their main bases. Notwithstanding the tragedy of the incident that occurred, does the Prime Minister agree that while international troops are there, they must be able to perform their role of protecting the Afghan population? Can he tell us what discussions he has had with President Karzai and his representatives about the impact that any change in that role will have on security in Helmand, were that to happen?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously our teams are in permanent contact about Afghanistan, and I speak to President Karzai regularly. Obviously what happened in Afghanistan, with the dreadful shootings that the rogue American soldier carried out, was a dreadful event, which must be properly prosecuted and dealt with for what it was: a mass murder. I know that President Obama takes that view very strongly.

In terms of making sure that we work with the Afghans, as I have said, the key is ensuring that we transition in the three parts of Helmand for which we are responsible, that we hand over to Afghan troops, and that they are in the lead as soon as they are capable of fulfilling that task. I do not have any concerns at the moment about the role of British troops—they are able to carry out the tasks that they are allotted. We are making good progress in the three parts of Helmand. We will be in permanent touch with the Afghans about that transition, but transition is a process and, as the Chancellor will explain in a moment or two, we should try to make the most of the transition that will take place.

[Edward Miliband]

I know that the Prime Minister agrees with me that dialogue with President Karzai and his representatives on the issue is very important, particularly in the light of the comments that were made. A few days ago, the Taliban decided to suspend preliminary talks with the United States. Will the Prime Minister give the House his assessment of the significance of that? Does he agree that we owe it to our troops serving in Afghanistan to be much more urgently focused on the task of securing a lasting political settlement? How do the British Government plan to play their role in getting the political process restarted?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. It is vital that we get this right. Since we took office—to be fair to the previous Government, they took this view as well—the British position has always been that we need a political settlement to ensure the best possible outcome for the people of Afghanistan. Britain has been pushing for political reconciliation and reintegration, and I had very productive talks with President Obama last week because the American view is now the same; they want to support that political process. Of course, the Taliban said what they said last week. I would make this point: we are committed to handing over to the Afghan Government, the Afghan military and the Afghan police—and the numbers of Afghan military and police are on track—at the end of 2014. We believe that that can happen even without a political settlement, with a satisfactory outcome for the United Kingdom, but clearly it would be better for everyone concerned if it was accompanied by a political settlement. The work for that, including setting up a Taliban political office in Qatar, is progressing well, and I believe that it is in everyone’s interest that we keep pushing that agenda. However, the Taliban should be in no doubt: there are opportunities for a political settlement if they give up violence, renounce al-Qaeda and want to play a part in the future politics of Afghanistan, but if they do not take those steps, we will continue to defeat them on the battlefield every time they raise their head.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend that a reliable search and rescue service is vital. We have looked at keeping the Sea King helicopters, which is one of the things he suggested, but they would not be able to provide a service as good or as capable as a modern fleet of helicopters. That is why we are planning the changes. We believe that it should provide faster flying times and a more reliable service.

[Edward Miliband]

Following last year’s riots, the Prime Minister came to the House and said that

“we will help you repair the damage, get your businesses back up and running and support your communities.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1053.]

Last week, a report by the Metropolitan police revealed that of the claims made by the uninsured under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, only about half had been settled since last August. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is simply not good enough?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. There have been problems under the Riot (Damages) Act, which is specifically why we also introduced a number of extra funds run by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Those funds have paid out faster. It is right, in a way, to have the Riot (Damages) Act, although it is quite out of date. However, it takes time to make the payments, and I will certainly do what I can to chase them up.

[Edward Miliband]

We are eight months on from the riots. The Deputy Prime Minister hosted a reception—[Interruption.] Government Members should listen to this very important issue about the riots. At a reception last week organised by the Deputy Prime Minister, he and I met Amrit Khurmy, the owner of Ealing Green supermarket, which was razed to the ground during the violence on 8 August. She is still waiting to receive any compensation. Does the Prime Minister agree that, eight months on, that is just not right? Does he further agree that ultimately it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that she gets the compensation that she deserves?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I will look into that specific case. As I said, one reason I introduced funds alongside the Riot (Damages) Act was to get that money out to local authorities faster. If he likes, I will put in the Library of the House of Commons a set of information about what those funds did and where we have got to with that Act. I will also look into the individual case that he mentioned.

[Edward Miliband]

We are talking about people who have not been helped by the money provided to local authorities and cannot get help. Three things need to happen to make good on this. First, as matter of urgency, there needs to be proper information on the payments made under the Riot (Damages) Act—[Interruption.] Government Members say, “There is information”. There is information from the Metropolitan police, but the reality is that the information available about what is happening around the country is very patchy. So first we need proper information. Secondly, I ask the Prime Minister to nominate a Home Office Minister with the job of ensuring that these claims are paid. Thirdly, will he promise to return to the House with a clear indication of when 100% of legitimate claims will be properly settled?

[The Prime Minister]

I am certainly happy to return to the House, as I said, putting an answer in the House of Commons Library about all this information. On the individual case that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I understand that it was a multiple claim because it was a shop with a number of flats above it, but I accept that eight months is too long. So we will make progress on that case. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is taking the lead on this matter, but I have also held follow-up meetings myself with DCLG and the Home Office to ensure that the money is paid out.

Diamond Jubilee

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I second the motion and associate myself and my party entirely with the sentiments that the Prime Minister has just expressed?

As the Prime Minister has so accurately described, Her Majesty the Queen has dedicated herself tirelessly and constantly to the people of our country and the Commonwealth for 60 years. Her Majesty has led an extraordinary life of service, which sets an example to us all.

Truly remarkable though her reign has been, it is striking that it is in keeping with the reputation and spirit of the young Princess Elizabeth before she ascended the throne. During the second world war, her work with the Auxiliary Territorial Service gave inspiration and hope to millions, especially young women desperate to play their part while their loved ones were fighting at the front.

Almost 65 years ago, as the House marked Her Majesty’s wedding to the Duke of Edinburgh, Clement Attlee observed that Princess Elizabeth was already celebrated across the globe for her “unerring graciousness and understanding”. His words echo down the years.

We have learnt so much more about Her Majesty: selfless, tireless in duty, unflinching in service, unerring in her commitment to the people of Britain, stoical in the face of personal loss, and proud, as the Prime Minister said, of the extraordinary reach of the monarchy and its values to the Commonwealth.

With Prince Philip at her side, she has shown the most extraordinary dedication to duty. When we tell each other her remarkable story, we speak, too, of the timeless characteristics of our country and all the people who have served us.

Her Majesty’s life reminds us of the true value of service. Her reign is a golden thread that links people within and across the generations. For the generation that emerged from the war, the coronation provided the opportunity to come together in celebration. There was often only one house with a television set on a street, and people crowded round to watch, sharing in community with one another.

For our generation growing up, the event was the silver jubilee in 1977. I remember being in Hyde park as a seven-year-old as part of those celebrations. Then came the golden jubilee on those glorious summer days in 2002. This year in June, it will be the next generation’s turn to share in the excitement.

In these moments, we are reminded that we are far more than just disparate individuals and communities: we are a nation with a shared sense of purpose and integrity. When we celebrated the golden jubilee, it fittingly became not only a celebration of the Queen’s reign, but of the very best features of our country.

As the Prime Minister said, in her 60 years the Queen has witnessed an astonishing array of changes throughout our society. Some have brought huge improvements to our lives; others have been more challenging.

On one occasion, I attended a meeting of the Privy Council shortly after Buckingham palace had shown its commitment to fighting climate change by adopting energy-saving light bulbs. I believe that I was the Minister responsible. Unfortunately, the transition had not been entirely smooth because the light was pretty dim—in fact, it was almost dark.

As Her Majesty valiantly struggled through the gloom to read the names of the Bills being passed, she caught my eye fixedly and remarked on the impact of “these new bulbs”. As Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, I confessed my responsibility, but I am pleased to say that she broke into a smile. Her reaction showed once again her great capacity to put people at ease, no matter what the circumstances.

Whatever she has been confronted with, Her Majesty the Queen has responded with genuine spirit. That spirit means that the Queen is received with reverence, respect and genuine affection wherever she travels in the world. In respect for that spirit, we all come together to celebrate in this, the year of her diamond jubilee.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

European Council

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and associate myself with his words on Somalia and Serbia?

Let me turn first to the pressing issue of the continuing violence in Syria. The pictures and testimony coming out of Homs in the past few days, and again today, are truly horrific, with women and fathers telling of their children being murdered in front of their eyes. Responsibility for the brutal repression and murder of innocent people lies firmly at the door of President Assad and his regime. It is appalling—I agree with the Prime Minister on this—that the Syrian Government have so far even refused requests for humanitarian access. In this context, it is even more important that Britain puts pressure on the international community to back a United Nations resolution and address this desperate situation.

May I ask the Prime Minister a few questions? First, will he update the House specifically on what he believes the UK and the EU are able to do to support the Arab League and the joint special envoy in his efforts somehow to broker an end to the bloodshed? Secondly, what steps are now in train to strengthen sanctions against the Assad regime, including through the proper enforcement of the Arab League sanctions? Thirdly, given that the Russian Government are responsible for vetoing the last UN resolution on Syria, does the Prime Minister agree that they will be judged by their actions rather than their words on Syria? No doubt he will be speaking to President-elect Putin in the coming days. What will he be telling him in those conversations? I hope—I am sure that I speak for the whole House and the country in saying this—that he will make it clear to President-elect Putin that action is necessary and that the Russian position is frankly unacceptable.

Let me turn to other matters discussed at the European Council, particularly jobs and growth. At his press conference on Friday, the Prime Minister was uncharacteristically shy—indeed, totally silent—about the main event of the summit: the signing of the fiscal compact. He did at least mention it today at the end of his statement, although I am very struck by the fact that in the written copy that was kindly distributed to me before he delivered it, the word “treaty” was used, but he could not bring himself to use that word. Of course, the reason he was uncharacteristically coy in his press conference is that his veto was not a veto; the treaty has gone ahead. Can he confirm that for all his claims, both the European Court of Justice and the Commission will be fully involved in implementing the treaty? Can he tell us how he will find out about the result of the meetings, in which a whole variety of economic questions that will affect the UK will be discussed? Apparently, his spokesman was asked about this last Wednesday, and the best that he could manage was to say, “The Prime Minister may not be in the room, but he will be in the building.”

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

He’s Elvis!

[Edward Miliband]

Yes, he is Elvis. I do not think that the spokesman’s comment is very reassuring.

It is a matter of record that the Prime Minister spent Thursday complaining that he felt frustrated because he did not feel that the other 25 leaders were taking enough notice of him as they prepared to sign the new treaty. However, on Friday, he claimed that in less than 24 hours, his powers of persuasion had once again triumphed:

“The communiqué has been fundamentally rewritten in line with our demands.”

After the experience of the veto, I am sure that he will forgive us all for being a little sceptical about his claims.

Let us examine the Prime Minister’s claims. He said that big strides forward were clear from the communiqué on energy, micro-enterprises, the single market and reducing trade barriers. However, will he confirm that the commitment on the energy market was in the conclusions of last February’s Council, that the commitments on the single market and trade simply echo those following the October 2011 Council, and that the supposed progress on micro-enterprises was in the conclusions of last December’s Council?

Listening to the Prime Minister, I had a sense of groundhog day. I then realised why. He sent the same letter to the European Council a year ago. Believe it or not—of course, we do believe it—he claimed the same triumph then:

“I organised a letter…making the case for action on growth, on deregulation, on completing the single market, on extending it to services… I think this has had a real impact”.

The people behind him are not looking amused. If last year’s letter had such an impact, why did he have to send it again? For the avoidance of doubt, I will place last year’s letter in the Library of the House, because it will probably be next year’s letter as well. For all the Prime Minister’s slapping himself on the back, the reality is that not one job has been created, not one family helped and not one business boosted. Why does he not learn the lesson that empty claims of a European triumph lose him credibility at home and influence abroad?

Why did the Prime Minister not press those countries with fiscal headroom at the summit to stimulate growth in Europe? Why does he not lead by example and sort out the jobs crisis here at home? He said on Friday and repeated today that there was not an air of crisis about the euro. Will he tell the House whether he thinks that a sustainable solution has been put in place for the euro area, because that is one of the most important long-term issues that we face and that the European economy faces?

The reality is that we have a Prime Minister who is isolated and without influence. He is unable to argue for jobs and growth because of his own failure at home. He achieved nothing for Britain at this summit. For all the good it has done us, he could have given the summit a miss and gone horse riding instead.

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Syria and answer his questions specifically. On the special envoy, we are helping Kofi Annan. Indeed, we are funding part of his mission. The right hon. Gentleman asked about sanctions. We are on round 12 of the EU sanctions against the Syrian regime. We will continue to ratchet up the pressure in every way that we can, with sanctions, asset freezes, travel bans and the like.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Russia and China. We will make it very clear, as we have already, that their veto was completely wrong. Their reputations are suffering as a result in the Arab world. I will be speaking to President Putin later today and will say that it is important that we have a unified UN Security Council resolution about humanitarian aid and access that puts a stop to the appalling killing that is taking place. I know that there is all-party support for that.

Turning to the EU Council, the right hon. Gentleman said that the communiqué did not change between the arrival of the countries at the EU Council and its conclusion on Friday. If he had done his homework properly—he was working very closely on his gags, and they are getting better—he would have noticed that there was no mention of deepening the single market in services in the original communiqué, but that we now have a clear commitment to that; that there was no mention of tackling regulated professions and properly opening up the single market, but that that is now clearly in the communiqué; and that there was no reference to deregulation, but that we now we have, for the first time, sector-by-sector analysis so that we can see the cost of regulations. When Labour used to go along to EU summit after EU summit, it never got half of that sort of thing.

On the issue of the treaty, there is one big problem in the right hon. Gentleman’s position, which is that he has got to make up his mind—would he have signed it or not? Why does he not just nod for a yes or shake for a no? I think I know the cause of the confusion. It is that there is a slight division between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor about whether they want to join the euro. The shadow Chancellor has said that it will not happen in his lifetime, whereas the Leader of the Opposition, when asked whether he would join the euro, said that it depended on how long he was Prime Minister. I agree with the shadow Chancellor—clearly, the Leader of the Opposition should not be Prime Minister in our lifetime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. This country does have strong links with the Maldives and a good relationship with President Nasheed, but we have to be clear. President Nasheed has resigned, and we have a strong interest in the well-being of several thousand British tourists and in a stable and democratic Government in the Maldives. Our high commissioner is in the capital now and meeting all the political leaders. We call on the new Government to demonstrate their respect for the rights of all political parties and their members, and to ensure that the constitution is upheld. We advise British tourists to avoid non-essential travel to Malé island, and those using Malé airport and the tourist resorts should exercise caution.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Her Majesty the Queen as we celebrate her diamond jubilee. Her dedication to the country and to public service is an inspiration and an example to us all, and we all look forward to the official celebrations later this year, which will enable us to celebrate both Her Majesty and our country.

On the day the Prime Minister completed his NHS listening exercise, he said:

“some of the people who worked in our NHS were sceptical of our changes. Today, we are taking people with us. It’s in this spirit of unity that we want to continue.”

Why does he think he has failed?

[The Prime Minister]

Today, 95% of the country is covered by general practitioners who are not actually supporting our reforms; they are implementing them. Just today—[Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just today, 50 foundation trusts have written to the newspapers in support of our reforms and objecting to what Labour is proposing, and the signature at the top of the list, which the right hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, is that of one Anne Campbell, the former Labour MP for Cambridge. She, running her local foundation trust, supports the reforms. That is what happens: Labour MPs leave this House and start implementing coalition policy.

[Edward Miliband]

Even the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that nonsense he just came out with. Last Friday the Royal College of General Practitioners said that his health Bill would

“cause irreparable damage to patient care and jeopardise the NHS.”

[Interruption.] The Health Secretary is shouting from a sedentary position—from some distance away, I notice. It is nice to see him here. The Prime Minister says that he wants the voice of doctors to be heard in the NHS. Why does he not listen to them?

[The Prime Minister]

It is always good to get a lecture on happy families from the right hon. Gentleman. I care passionately about our NHS, not least because of what it has done for my family and because of the amazing service I have received. I want to see that excellent service implemented for everyone, and that means two things: we have to put more money into the NHS, which we are doing, but we also have to reform the NHS. He used to be in favour of reform. Let me read him something. Who said:

“to safeguard the NHS in tougher fiscal times, we need sustained reform.”?

That was in the Labour manifesto at the last election. Because the NHS is important, we are committed to £12.5 billion in this Parliament, yet his health spokesman, who is sitting right there, said that it would be “irresponsible” to spend more money on the NHS. The Opposition are not in favour of the money. They are not in favour of the reform. They are just a bunch of opportunists.

[Edward Miliband]

Isn’t this interesting? The Prime Minister says that this is all about reform, but the Tory Reform Group has come out against these proposals. It comes to something when even the Tories do not trust the Tories on the NHS. Let us hear what Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] So when the people Government Members want to put at the heart of the NHS say things about their Bill, they just groan. That says it all about those on the Government Benches. Clare Gerada said:

“This bill is a burden. It makes no sense, it is incoherent… It won’t deal with the big issues… and it will also result in a health service that certainly will never match the health service that we… had 12 months ago.”

Which part of that does the right hon. Gentleman not understand?

[The Prime Minister]

Let us look at what has happened to the NHS over the past 18 months—[Interruption.] Yes, let us look at the figures: 100,000 more patients treated every month; 4,000 extra doctors since the election; the number of clinical staff up; the level of hospital-acquired infections down; the number of people who are in mixed-sex wards down by 94%. That is what is happening, because there is a combination of money going in and reform.

Now, we know what happens if we do not put in the money and do not undertake the reform, because there is one part of the NHS which is run by Labour, and that is in Wales. Let us have a look at what is happening to the NHS in Wales. Labour has cut the money, and one third of people are waiting longer than 18 weeks. That is what is happening in Labour’s NHS, and if we did not put the money in and did not have the reform, it would happen right here, too.

[Edward Miliband]

I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is getting so agitated, because he thought that the NHS was his way to modernise the Conservative party, and I am afraid that it is coming apart. I will tell him why: it is because the promises he made before the election are coming back to haunt him. We all remember the promise of no more top-down reorganisation. Now he says that he knows better than the doctors, better than the nurses, better than the midwives and better than the patients associations—people who day in, day out rely on and devote their lives to the health service. This is a matter of trust in the Prime Minister. Can he honestly look people in the health service in the eye and say that he has kept his promise of no more top-down reorganisation?

[The Prime Minister]

What we are doing is cutting the bureaucracy in the NHS. We are taking out £4.5 billion of bureaucracy which will be ploughed into patient care. If you don’t support the reform, you won’t see that money go into operations, doctors, nurses, hospitals, health care assistants. That is what is actually happening in the NHS, but there is one group of people I will not listen to, and that is the people who ran the NHS under Labour. This is what they did: £6 billion wasted on the NHS computer; £250 million spent on private sector operations that were never carried out. We still have private finance initiative agreements whereby we pay £300 every time someone changes a light bulb. That is what we got from Labour. We are putting the money in, we are putting the reform in, the number of operations is up, the waiting times are down, the NHS is improving, and that is the way it is going to stay.

[Edward Miliband]

I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman about our record on the NHS: the shortest waiting times in NHS history; more doctors and nurses than ever before; the highest level of patient satisfaction ever in the health service.

But everyone will have heard a Prime Minister unable to defend the promise that he made: the promise of no more top-down reorganisation—a Prime Minister who has broken his word. The reality is this: all his attention is on this pointless, top-down reorganisation, and the front line is suffering: the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks—up, under him; A and E targets being missed; cancelled operations. Why will he not just give up, stop wasting billions and drop his Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

If the Opposition’s record was so good, why were they thrown out at the last election?

Now, let me just—[Interruption.] Let me— [Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the clear test that he set for the reforms and for the Government. He said that the test was whether waiting times and waiting lists would come down. Let me now give him the figures: in-patient waiting times, down; out-patient waiting times, down; the number of people waiting more than a year, down to its lowest ever level; the number of people waiting for six months, down to its lowest ever level; and, indeed, the number of people on the waiting list—what he said was the clear test—is down. This is what it proves about the Labour leader: even when he moves the goalposts, he can’t put it in the back of the net.

[Edward Miliband]

The person who is moving the goalposts is the Prime Minister. The reality is that the key test that was set for the health service was the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks, and that number is up 43% since the general election. However much he twists and turns, that is the reality.

In his heart of hearts, the Prime Minister knows that the Bill is a complete disaster. That is why his aides are saying that the Health Secretary should be taken out and shot, because they know it is a disaster. The reality about the Bill is this: the doctors know that it is bad for the NHS; the nurses know that it is bad for the NHS; and patients know that it is bad for the NHS. Every day the Prime Minister fights for the Bill, every day trust in him on the NHS ebbs away and every day it becomes clearer that the health service is not safe in his hands.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that the career prospects of my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary are a lot better than his. That is what this is about. This is not a campaign to save the NHS; this is a campaign to try to save the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership. I make this prediction: the NHS will go on getting better and his prospects will go on getting worse.