Libya

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Libya.

When we met here on that Friday in March, Gaddafi’s tanks bore down on Benghazi, his air force had already begun strikes against his people, and his army had smashed through Zawiyah, with a grave loss of life. Gaddafi had vowed to hunt down his own people like rats, using the full might of his armed forces, backed up by mercenaries. I did not think Britain should stand by as Gaddafi slaughtered his people. Nor could we allow a failed pariah state festering on Europe’s southern border, with the potential to threaten our own security.

The Libyan opposition and the Arab League both called for NATO to protect the civilian population, so, together with the US and France, we secured agreement for UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 and, with this clear legal mandate, this House voted by a majority of 544 in favour of military action. Today, the Libyan people have taken their country back.

I am grateful for the support that all parts of this House have given over the last six months, and I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the incredible dedication and professionalism of our pilots, sailors, ground crew and everyone in our armed forces who has been involved in this mission.

But we should also pay a full tribute to the bravery and resilience of the Libyan people themselves. This has been their revolution and none of it could have happened without them. Ordinary Libyans from all walks of life came together and rose up against Gaddafi. From the villages of the Nafusa mountains to the tower blocks of Misrata, the alleyways of Zawiyah and the streets of Benghazi, the Libyan people fought with incredible courage. Many paid with their lives. Others have been seriously injured, and the struggle is not over. They still face forces loyal to a dictator who last week threatened to turn Libya “into a hell”.

The long work of building a new Libya is just beginning, but what is clear is that the future of Libya belongs to its people. The task of the international community now is to support them as they build that future. That means helping to finish the job, ensuring security, addressing the immediate humanitarian needs and supporting the longer-term process of reconstruction and political transition to democracy. Let me address each in turn.

First, on finishing the job, Britain has been at the forefront of the military operation to protect the Libyan people. Our aircraft have made over 2,400 sorties across Libya, carrying out one fifth of all NATO airstrikes, against some 900 targets in Gaddafi’s war machine. Our warships have supported this effort, helping to enforce the UN arms embargo and bringing aid to those in need. At its peak, some 2,300 British servicemen and women were deployed on Operation Ellamy, with 36 aircraft including 16 Tornados, six Typhoons, five attack helicopters, tankers and specialist surveillance aircraft and helicopters. These were supported over the course of the operation by eight warships and a hunter-killer submarine.

But the job is not over. As we stand, the free Libya forces have liberated Tripoli and control Libya’s key population centres, but pro-Gaddafi forces still pose a threat and, in particular, control the towns of Bani Walid, Sirte, and Sabha in the south of the country. The national transitional council has been working to negotiate a peaceful outcome, but its leaders have explicitly requested that NATO continue its operations to protect civilians until that is achieved. Over the weekend, RAF Tornados struck eight military command and control installations south-west of Waddan and nine weapons and ammunition stores near Sirte.

For as long as Gaddafi remains at large, the safety and the security of the Libyan people remain under threat. So let me be clear: we will not let up until the job is done. First, Britain and its NATO allies will continue to implement UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 for as long as we are needed to protect civilian life. Those thinking that NATO will somehow pull out or pull back must think again. We are ready to extend the NATO mandate for as long as is necessary.

Secondly, we will support the Libyan people in bringing Gaddafi to justice. This is a man whose crimes are becoming ever more apparent every day and who is wanted by the International Criminal Court. There must be no bolthole; no pampered hiding place from justice. He must face the consequences of his actions, under international and Libyan law.

Turning to security, the early signs have been encouraging. There has been some disorder, but it has been focused on symbols of the former regime. The national transitional council is moving to stand down fighters from outside Tripoli. The police are returning to the streets, and the council leaders have been clear and consistent in cautioning against disorder and, crucially, against reprisals. Britain and its international partners are helping, too, working closely with the national transitional council in securing chemical weapons sites and supporting mine clearance in Misrata, Benghazi and other affected areas.

On the humanitarian situation, Britain has played a leading role from the outset. The priorities today are health, water, food and fuel. On health, our humanitarian partners report that hospitals and clinics in Tripoli are now functioning well, and staff are returning to work. Britain is providing additional support through the International Committee of the Red Cross, including surgical teams and medicines to treat up to 5,000 war-wounded patients.

On water, substantial numbers of people in Tripoli are still without running water. However, UNICEF is procuring 11 million litres of bottled water, and the Libyan authorities are working to repair the water systems. The NTC reports that 100 wells are back online, representing 20% of capacity.

On fuel, there remain significant shortages but the situation is improving, and the World Food Programme shipment is supporting the national transitional council with the procurement of 250,000 litres of fuel.

Let me turn to reconstruction. Libya is a country of 6.5 million people. It is one of the richest in Africa. Its proven oil reserves are the ninth largest in the world. Libya is fully capable of paying for its own reconstruction. Of course there is a role for foreign advice, help and support, but I do not think we want to see an army of foreign consultants driving around in 4x4s, giving the impression that this is something being done to the Libyans, rather than something that is being done by them.

What the Libyans need above all is their frozen assets back. A week ago, Britain got Security Council agreement to release £1 billion-worth of dinars back to the Central Bank of Libya, and RAF planes have already flown in hundreds of millions of dinars of these banknotes. At the summit in Paris last Thursday, the international community committed to unfreezing $15 billion of Libyan assets, and for their part—vitally—we expect the new Libyan authorities to meet their pledge of ensuring transparent and accountable financial systems.

Next, on political transition, some people warned, as Gaddafi himself did, that the Libyan people could not be trusted with freedom—that without Gaddafi there would be chaos. What is emerging now, despite years of repression, and the trauma of recent months, is impressive and encouraging. In a far-reaching road map and constitutional declaration, the new authorities have set out a clear vision and a process for a new democratic Libya. This is not being imposed from above; it is being shaped by the Libyan people. At the Paris summit, chairman Abdul-Jalil spoke of his determination to build a society of tolerance and forgiveness, with respect for the rule of law. A national conference will bring together all the tribes—civil society; men and women, from east and west—united to shape this political transition. They are planning for a new constitution and elections within 20 months.

Britain is also in discussions in New York about a new UN Security Council resolution to reflect the new situation. The new Libyan authorities must now be able to represent their country at the United Nations, as they did last week at the Arab League. I also look forward to building our bilateral relationship with the new Libyan authority. We have close relations with the NTC through our mission in Benghazi, and today the UK’s special representative is going to Tripoli to re-establish our full diplomatic presence in that city.

Our relationship with the new Libya must, of course, deal with a series of problems from the past. On Megrahi, this is obviously a matter for the Scottish Executive. I have made my position clear: I believe that he should never have been sent back to Libya in the first place. On WPC Yvonne Fletcher, I want to see justice for her family. There is an ongoing police investigation, and the House will wish to know that Prime Minister Jabril has assured me of the new Libyan authority’s intention to co-operate fully.

Finally, significant accusations have been reported today that under the last Government relations between the British and Libyan security services became too close, particularly in 2003. It was because of accusations of potential complicity by the British security services in the mistreatment of detainees overseas, including rendition, that I took steps in July last year to try to sort this whole problem out. As the House will remember, we acted to bring to an end the large number of court cases being brought against the Government by former inmates of Guantanamo; we have issued new guidance to security and intelligence services personnel on how to deal with detainees held by other countries; and we have asked retired judge Sir Peter Gibson to examine issues around the detention and treatment of terrorist suspects overseas. This inquiry has already said that it will look at these latest accusations very carefully. My concern throughout has been not only to remove any stain on Britain’s reputation, but to deal with these accusations of malpractice so as to enable our security services to get on with the vital work that they do. Because they cannot speak for themselves, let me put on the record, once again, our enormous gratitude for all they do to keep our country safe.

The achievement of the Libyan people gives hope to those across the wider region who want a job, a voice and a stake in how their country is run. On Syria, Britain will continue to lead the argument for a UN resolution to build on the EU’s oil embargo, which is now in place. The message to President Assad must be clear: he has lost all legitimacy and can no longer claim to lead Syria, the violence must end and he should step aside for the good of his country.

It is the Libyan people who have liberated their country; there was no foreign occupying army. This has been a Libyan-led process, assisted by the international community. Many cynics proclaimed stalemate and asserted that Gaddafi would never be defeated—the Libyan people proved them wrong. It was a unique set of circumstances and not something that we can or would wish to repeat all over the world, but I have never accepted the argument that because you can’t do everything, you shouldn’t do anything. Removing Gaddafi from power was a major achievement. Although the work is not yet done, the Libyan people can be proud of what they have achieved and we can be proud of what we have done to help them. I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? Let me join him in paying tribute to the courage of the Libyan people, because this was their uprising. They knew the price that might be paid if they rose up against the regime to claim a better future and yet they found the courage to do so and to win through. We on the Opposition Benches salute their bravery and sacrifice, but change in Libya would not have come about without action from the international community. Let me therefore commend the role played by the Prime Minister and the British Government in making it happen. The initiative of pressing for UN resolutions 1970 and 1973 made the action to protect civilians possible. It was a risk and it was the right thing to do. For our part, we supported it at the time, we have remained steadfast in our support and we support it now.

If we had not acted, we would have spent recent months not talking about the progress of our action in Libya but wringing our hands over slaughter in Benghazi, as we did after Bosnia. This time, however, the international community did not stand by—it acted through and with the authority of the United Nations. Once again, as the Prime Minister said, it was to our brave British servicemen and women that we turned and as always, they have risen to the challenge. They represent the best of our country and again we owe them a debt of gratitude.

I want to ask a number of questions about the security situation, economic stabilisation, the political settlement now required and some of the wider lessons, but let me first say that I agree with the Prime Minister that the Gibson inquiry must get to the bottom of the allegations we have seen about the involvement of the security services in relation to Libya. No part of the British state should ever be complicit in torture.

Let me turn first to the security situation. The Prime Minister is right to say that there should be no artificial deadlines for the end of NATO action. We are in Libya to enforce a Security Council resolution and we should be engaged in action for no more and no less than the time it takes to ensure that the UN mandate for the protection of civilians is fulfilled. Given the symbolic and substantive importance of the national transitional council’s taking up its place in government in Tripoli, will the Prime Minister give us a sense from the Paris conference about when we might expect that to happen, as that will speak to the security situation in Tripoli?

We know from past conflicts that security matters but that essential to a successful transition is economic and social reconstruction, and we all agree that that must be Libyan-owned. I welcome the extra assistance that the Government have announced to help provide medicine and food and to reunite families who have been affected by the fighting. The Prime Minister will agree that the role of the UN will be very important in co-ordinating that help, so will he say what discussions he has had with UN special envoy al-Khatib and how prepared he believes the UN is to provide the necessary help to the Libyan people? Will he also share with the House his thoughts on how the new UN resolution he talked about, which will provide recognition for a new Government, will also provide a mandate for a longer-term UN mission to support the Libyan Government?

The Prime Minister is right that the oil wealth of Libya offers huge potential for its people. Given that the legitimacy of the popular uprising was based around the fact that the Libyans themselves were clearly in the lead, that also needs to be true of the oil resources. Does he agree that we should learn the lessons of the period following past conflicts and ensure that the role of private companies working in Libya is to operate transparently and in a way that clearly benefits the Libyan people?

On the politics, I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the NTC’s commitment to establishing a new constitution and holding elections within 18 months. On the former members of the regime, we agree that we should provide full support to the Libyan people and their new Government in bringing Colonel Gaddafi and the leadership to justice either through the ICC or the Libyan courts, but we have also learned from past conflicts the need for a broad based and inclusive political process of reconciliation —indeed, the Prime Minister talked about that in his statement—as well as for the vital work of maintaining Government services. Will the Prime Minister share with the House his understanding of how the NTC will continue to use officials from the lower level of government to keep basic services running?

We also know that democracy takes root not just through the formal process of the ballot box but through a strong, vibrant civil society. Will the Prime Minister tell us what specific plans there are for direct relationships between Libya and organisations such as the BBC World Service, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the British Council, which can play an important role in helping to build up civil society?

Let me finally ask about the lessons of this conflict for Britain and for the international community. The Arab spring was clearly not envisaged at the time of the strategic defence and security review and has meant a call on some resources that were due to become obsolete. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he sees the case that I see for there to be gain in formally looking afresh at the SDSR in the light of events in Libya and the Arab spring?

For the international community as a whole, the lesson is of the effectiveness it can have when it comes together through the UN and speaks with one voice. No two situations are the same, as the Prime Minister has said. Of course, the situation in Syria is different for a number of reasons, not least practical issues, in relation to the idea of military intervention and, indeed, the lack of support for it. We support the use of all non-military means at our disposal in relation to Syria. I have heard the Prime Minister’s remarks about President Assad and I share his view. He talked about the need for a new UN resolution, but will he tell us how he assesses the chances of getting that resolution and what further steps he believes can be taken against the Assad regime in the absence of a resolution?

Let me end on this thought: the Arab spring has seen the overthrow of authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. It is right that Britain has been on the side of those who are fighting to enjoy the basic social, economic and political rights that we take for granted. Let me end by agreeing with the Prime Minister that we should take pride in the role we have played in protecting the Libyan people as they claim a better future. We should now help them as they enter the next phase—moving from popular revolt to stable, democratic government.

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks in response to my statement? He is right to pose the alternative and ask what would have happened had we stood back and done nothing—what would we have been discussing today? Of course, he is also right to praise our brave service personnel. I note what he said about backing the Gibson inquiry and the important work that it needs to do in looking at all the accusations of complicity.

On the three issues of security, stabilisation and politics let me try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. First, on security, he is right that there should be no artificial deadline for NATO. We must continue until the job is done. On the NTC’s move from Benghazi to Tripoli, that is already under way. Parts of the NTC have moved and it is very important that it should move as a whole. We should not try to second-guess everything it does. I have been very struck through this process by the fact that the NTC often gets criticised. Calls are made for it to do this and that, and in the end it always seems to rise to the challenge. I think it has been effective and we should not underestimate the people working in it.

On stabilisation, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the UN’s role. It is important to differentiate between the role of Mr al-Khatib, who was trying to look at ways of finding a peace process before this conflict resulted in the fall of Tripoli, and the role of Ian Martin, who is specifically drawing up the plans for a UN mission to Libya. I think those plans are well under way and it is very important that we focus on the things that the Libyans want rather than on the things we think they might want. It was quite interesting, in Paris, to hear the specific things they cared about most. Clearly, one role that the UN can play is to make sure that the elections, when they come, are properly observed and are free and fair. The point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about private companies is a good one and we should learn all the lessons from past conflicts as he says.

In terms of the process of reconciliation and maintaining Government services, one thing that the NTC has been trying to do—again, quite effectively, I think; we have been advising and helping where we can—is make sure that there is no de-Ba’athification process and that relatively junior officials in departments are encouraged to go back to work. These are very early days and there are going to be huge problems at the end of a conflict like this, but the signs are that things such as rubbish collection, hospital services and getting the police back on the streets seem to be working.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about longer-term relationships with the British Council and others. Clearly, once the security situation is in a better state, those relationships can be built from a very strong basis.

On the strategic defence review, I would argue, having followed this very closely through the National Security Council on Libya, which met sometimes daily through this conflict, that the case for what we are doing in the review has been proved. It has been proved that it was the right decision to keep the Tornado aircraft with the Storm Shadow capability, which performed magnificently over the skies of Libya. Typhoon has in many ways come of age. One of the things that became clear in the conflict was the need for greater ISTAR—greater eyes in the sky, greater technical capabilities—and that is provided for in the strategic defence review. Of course, after any such conflict and an intense period of military, Government and humanitarian activity, it is right to learn the lessons. Sir Peter Ricketts, my national security adviser, will be leading a lessons-learned exercise on how the Whitehall machine operated and what lessons we can learn. That should include the operation of the oil cell, which I think did a very good job of trying to help deny oil to the regime and to make sure that the rebels, who were not getting oil products, got them.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the UN resolution on Syria. We will continue to work for a strong resolution. It has obviously been difficult to get agreement to date. The EU oil embargo is an important step forward and has a real effect. Above all, I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. I agree with him that we can take pride in what British forces and British officials have done on this occasion.

Public Disorder

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement. First, let me thank you, Mr Speaker and right hon. and hon. Members for returning. When there are important events in our country, it is right that Parliament is recalled and that we show a united front. I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for the constructive approach he has taken over the past few days. I have tried to speak with many of the Members whose constituencies have been affected, and I would like to pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his powerful words and actions over recent days.

What we have seen on the streets of London and in other cities across our country is completely unacceptable, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning it. Keeping people safe is the first duty of Government. The whole country has been shocked by the most appalling scenes of people looting, violence, vandalising and thieving. It is criminality, pure and simple—and there is absolutely no excuse for it. We have seen houses, offices and shops raided and torched, police officers assaulted and fire crews attacked as they try to put out fires. We have seen people robbing others while they lie injured and bleeding in the street, and even three innocent people deliberately run over and killed in Birmingham. We will not put up with this in our country. We will not allow a culture of fear to exist on our streets, and we will do whatever it takes to restore law and order and to rebuild our communities.

First, we must be clear about the sequence of events. A week ago today, a 29-year-old man named Mark Duggan was shot dead by the police in Tottenham. Clearly, there are questions that must be answered, and I can assure the House that this is being investigated thoroughly and independently by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. We must get to the bottom of exactly what happened, and we will.

Initially, there were some peaceful demonstrations following Mark Duggan’s death and understandably and quite appropriately the police were cautious about how they dealt with them. However, this was then used as an excuse by opportunist thugs in gangs, first in Tottenham itself, then across London and in other cities. It is completely wrong to say there is any justifiable causal link. It is simply preposterous for anyone to suggest that people looting in Tottenham at the weekend, still less three days later in Salford, were in any way doing so because of the death of Mark Duggan. Young people stealing flat-screen televisions and burning shops—that was not about politics or protest, it was about theft.

In recent days, individual police officers have shown incredible bravery and have worked in some cases around the clock without a break, and they deserve our support and our thanks. But what became increasingly clear earlier this week was that there were simply far too few police deployed on to our streets, and the tactics that they were using were not working. Police chiefs have been frank with me about why this happened. Initially, the police treated the situation too much as a public order issue, rather than essentially one of crime. The truth is that the police have been facing a new and unique challenge, with different people doing the same thing—basically, looting—in different places but all at the same time. To respond to this situation, we are acting decisively to restore order on our streets, to support the victims of this terrible violence and to look at the deeper problems that led such a hard core of young people to decide to carry out such appalling criminality. Let me take each in turn.

First, restoring order. Following the meetings of Cobra that I chaired on Tuesday and Wednesday, and again this morning, we have taken decisive action to help ensure more robust and more effective policing. As a result of decisions made by Metropolitan police Commissioner Tim Godwin and other police chiefs up and down the country, there are now more police on the streets, more people being arrested, and more criminals being prosecuted. The Metropolitan police increased the number deployed on the streets of London from 6,000 to almost 16,000 officers, and this number will remain throughout the weekend. We have also seen large increases in deployments of officers in other affected areas. Leave in affected forces has been cancelled, and police officers have been bussed from forces across the country to areas of greatest need. Many businesses have quite rightly released special constables to help, and they performed magnificently as well.

More than 1,200 people have now been arrested across the country. We are making technology work for us, by capturing the images of the perpetrators on CCTV, so even if they have not yet been arrested their faces are known and they will not escape the law. As I said yesterday, no phoney human rights concerns about publishing the photographs will get in the way of bringing these criminals to justice. Anyone charged with violent disorder and other serious offences should expect to be remanded in custody, not let back on the streets; and anyone convicted should expect to go to jail.

Courts in London, Manchester and the west midlands have been sitting through the night, and will do so for as long as is necessary. Magistrates courts have proved effective in ensuring swift justice. The Crown courts are now starting to deal with the most serious cases. We are keeping under constant review whether the courts have the sentencing powers they need, and we will act if necessary.

As a result of the robust and uncompromising measures that have been taken, good progress is being made in restoring order to the streets of London and other cities around our country. As I have made clear, nothing should be off the table. Every contingency should be looked at. The police are already authorised to use baton rounds. As I said yesterday, while they would not be appropriate now, we do have in place contingency plans for water cannon to be available at 24 hours’ notice.

Some people have raised the issue of the Army. The acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan police said to me that he would be the last man left in Scotland Yard with all his management team out on the streets before he asked for Army support. That is the right attitude and one I share, but it is the Government’s responsibility to make sure that every future contingency is looked at, including whether there are tasks that the Army could undertake that might free up more police for the front line.

Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill, so we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.

I have also asked the police whether they need any other new powers. Specifically on facemasks, currently they can only ask for them to be removed in a specific geographical location and for a limited time. I can announce today that we are going to give the police the discretion to require the removal of face coverings under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity. On dealing with crowds, we are also looking at the use of existing dispersal powers and whether any wider power of curfew is necessary.

Whenever the police face a new threat, they must have the freedom and the confidence to change tactics as necessary. This Government will always make sure they have the backing and political support to do so. The fight back has well and truly begun, but there will be no complacency. We will not stop until this mindless violence and thuggery is defeated and law and order is fully restored on all our streets.

Let me turn to the innocent victims. No one will forget the images of the woman jumping from a burning building, or of the furniture shop that had survived the blitz but has now tragically been burnt to the ground; and everyone will have been impressed by the incredibly brave words of Tariq Jahan, a father in Birmingham whose son was so brutally and tragically run over and killed. Shops, businesses and homes—too many have been vandalised or destroyed and I give the people affected this promise: we will help you repair the damage, get your businesses back up and running and support your communities.

Let me take each in turn. On repairing the damage, I confirm that any individual, home owner or business that has suffered damage to or loss of their buildings or property as a result of rioting can seek compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, even if uninsured. The Government will ensure the police have the funds they need to meet the cost of any legitimate claims, and whereas normally claims must be received within 14 days, we will extend the period to 42 days. The Association of British Insurers has said it expects the industry to pay out in excess of £200 million, and has assured us that claims will be dealt with as quickly and constructively as possible.

On supporting business, we are today setting up a new £20 million high street support scheme to help affected businesses get back up and running quickly. To minimise the costs facing businesses, the Government will enable local authorities to grant business rate relief, by funding at least three quarters of their costs. We will defer tax payments for businesses in greatest need, through Time to Pay and other practical support. And for houses and businesses that have been the most badly damaged, we have instructed the valuation office immediately to stop liability for council tax and business rates.

A specific point was raised with me in Wolverhampton yesterday—that planning regulations make it difficult for shops to put up protective shutters. We will weed out unnecessary planning regulations to ensure that businesses can get back on their feet and feel secure as quickly as possible.

On supporting local communities, I can confirm that the Bellwin scheme to support local authorities will be operational. However, to ensure that urgent funding is immediately available, we are today establishing a new £10 million recovery scheme to provide additional support to councils in making areas safe, clean and clear again. The Government will also meet the immediate costs of emergency accommodation for families made homeless by the disturbances. The Secretaries of States for Communities and Local Government and for Business, Innovation and Skills have made available to the House details of all those schemes today. Of course, the situation continues to evolve, and we will keep any additional support under close review.

Finally, let me turn to the deeper problem. Responsibility for crime always lies with the criminal. These people were all volunteers; they did not have to do what they did, and they must suffer the consequences. But crime has a context, and we must not shy away from it. I have said before that there is a major problem in our society with children growing up not knowing the difference between right and wrong. This is not about poverty; it is about culture—a culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities.

In too many cases, the parents of these children—if they are still around—do not care where their children are or who they are with, let alone what they are doing. The potential consequences of neglect and immorality on this scale have been clear for too long, without enough action being taken. As I said yesterday, there is no one step that can be taken, but we need a benefit system that rewards work and is on the side of families. We need more discipline in our schools; we need action to deal with the most disruptive families; and we need a criminal justice system that scores a clear, heavy line between right and wrong—in short, all the action that is necessary to help mend our broken society.

At the heart of all the violence sits the issue of the street gangs. Territorial, hierarchical and incredibly violent, they are mostly composed of young boys, mainly from dysfunctional homes. They earn money through crime, particularly drugs, and are bound together by an imposed loyalty to an authoritarian gang leader. They have blighted life on their estates, with gang-on-gang murders and unprovoked attacks on innocent bystanders.

In the past few days, there is some evidence that they have been behind the co-ordination of the attacks on the police and the looting that has followed. I want us to use the record of success against gangs from cities such as Boston in the USA and, indeed, from Strathclyde in Scotland who have engaged the police, the voluntary sector and local government. I want this to be a national priority.

We have already introduced gang injunctions, and I can announce today that we will use them across the whole country for children and for adults. There are also further sanctions available beyond the criminal justice system. Local authorities and landlords already have tough powers to evict the perpetrators from social housing. Some local authorities are already doing this. I want to see others follow their lead, and we will consider whether these powers need to be strengthened further.

I have asked the Home Secretary to work with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and other Cabinet colleagues on a cross-government programme of action to deal with this gang culture and to report to Parliament in October.

I believe that we should be looking beyond our shores to learn the lessons from others who have faced similar problems. That is why I will be discussing how we can go further in getting to grips with gangs with people such as Bill Bratton, former commissioner of police in New York and Los Angeles. Of course, the problem is not just gangs; there were people who saw shop windows smashed and who thought that it would be okay just to go in and steal. It is not okay, and these people, too, will have to face the full consequences of their actions.

In the past few days, we have seen a range of emotions sweep this country: anger, fear, frustration, despair, sadness and, finally, a determined resolve that we will not let a violent few beat us. We saw that resolve in the people who gathered in Clapham, Manchester and Wolverhampton with brooms to clean up our streets. We saw it in those who patrolled the roads in Enfield through the night to deter rioters. We saw it in the hundreds of people who stood guard outside the Southall temple, protecting it from vandalism. This is a time for our country to pull together.

To the law-abiding people who play by the rules and who are the overwhelming majority in this country, I say: “the fight back has begun. We will protect you. If you have had your livelihood and property damaged, we will compensate you. We are on your side. To the lawless minority, the criminals who have taken what they can get, I say: we will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done.

We need to show the world, which has looked on, frankly, appalled, that the perpetrators of the violence we have seen on our streets are not in any way representative of our country, or of our young people. We need to show them that we will address our broken society and restore a sense of stronger morality and responsibility in every town, in every street and in every estate. A year away from the Olympics, we need to show the world the Britain that does not destroy, but that builds; that does not give up, but stands up; that does not look back, but always looks forward. I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his decision to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament be recalled. Whatever we disagree on week by week, month by month, today as a House of Commons we stand shoulder to shoulder, united against the vandalism and violence we have seen on our streets. The victims are the innocent people who live in many of our cities, who have seen their homes and businesses destroyed, their communities damaged and their confidence about their own safety undermined. There can be no excuses, no justification. This behaviour has disgusted us all. It cannot be allowed to stand; we will not allow it to stand.

I join the Prime Minister in mourning the loss of life, including those killed in London and Birmingham. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who have died—with people such as Tariq Jahan. We stand with him because he is the true face of Britain—the Britain of which we are all proud.

I also thank our brave policemen and women throughout this country for the work they have been doing on our behalf, and all our emergency services. We salute them for their courage, their dedication and their willingness—yet again—to put themselves in harm’s way for all of us and all our communities. Thanks to them, a degree of order has been re-established on our streets, but all of us in all parts of the House know what the public want and what they are entitled to: a return to normality, as well as order.

Normality does not mean shops having to shut at 3 pm because they fear looting. Normality does not mean rushing home because you are scared to be on the streets. Normality does not mean being fearful in your own home. People want to have back the most fundamental of all liberties: the ability to go about their business and lead their lives with security and without fear. They have a right to expect that and we have a responsibility to make it happen. To do that, Parliament needs to do its job. We need to unite against the violence and to be the place where we examine and debate frankly all the issues involved—how we have got here, what it says about Britain and what the response should be.

On policing, I agree with the Prime Minister that this is a job for the police, but will he say what functions he thinks the Army might be able to perform to relieve pressure on the police? Will he confirm that the significant additional operational costs that the police now face will be funded from the Treasury reserve and so not place extra pressure on already stretched budgets? Will he also confirm that the increased presence on our streets, which he said would remain in place to the weekend, will remain beyond the weekend, until the police can be confident that the trouble will not recur?

The events of the past few days have been a stark reminder to us all that police on our streets make our communities safer and make the public feel safer. Given the absolute priority the public attach to a visible and active police presence, does the Prime Minister understand why they will think it is not right if he goes ahead with the cuts to police numbers he has planned? Will he now think again about that policy?

On criminal justice, the public are clear about wanting swift, effective and tough action to send a message about the penalties and punishment that follow from the violence that has occurred. We must see swift progress from charge to trial in these cases. Can the Prime Minister confirm that there is the capacity in the courts and among our prosecutors to deal with cases swiftly, not just for first appearance, but throughout the trial process, including when people get to trial? It is right that the Crown Prosecution Service is taking into account the aggravating circumstances within which the horrendous criminal acts that we have seen took place in recent days. Does the Prime Minister agree that magistrates and judges need to have those circumstances at the front of their mind so that those found guilty of such disgraceful behaviour receive the tough sentences that they deserve and the public expect? As the Prime Minister said, we have also been reminded about the importance of CCTV in catching those responsible, so will he undertake to look again at his proposals on CCTV to be absolutely sure that they in no way hinder bringing criminals to justice?

Thirdly, we need all our cities back on their feet and operating as normal. That work began—I pay tribute to the heroism of the thousands of volunteers who reclaimed our streets and showed the true spirit of those cities and our country. I welcome what the Prime Minister said and all the different elements of help that he announced. Can he reassure us that the help that is provided will meet the need, and that there will not be an arbitrary cap on the amount that he announced if it turns out that further resources are required? Can he assure us that these funds will flow straight away so that people can get on with rebuilding their lives and communities?

Fourthly, on the deeper lessons that we need to learn, the Prime Minister said in 2006:

“Understanding the background, the reasons, the causes. It doesn’t mean excusing crime but it will help us tackle it.”

To seek to explain is not to seek to excuse. Of course these are acts of individual criminality, but we all have a duty to ask ourselves why there are people who feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from wanton vandalism and looting. We cannot afford to let this pass and calm the situation down, only to find ourselves in the same position again in the future.

These issues cannot be laid at the door of a single cause or a single Government. The causes are complex. Simplistic solutions will not provide the answer. We can tackle the solutions only by hearing from our communities. What the decent people I met on the streets of London and Manchester told me and will tell the Prime Minister is that they want their voice to be heard. They want us to go out and listen to them in thinking about the solutions that are necessary. Before any of us say we know all the answers or have simple solutions, we should all do so.

Will the Prime Minister explain how those in areas affected will have their voice heard as the Government seek to find solutions to the issues that we have seen? Does the Prime Minister agree that there must be a full independent commission of inquiry swiftly looking at what has happened in recent days and what lessons we need to learn—not an inquiry sitting in Whitehall hearing evidence from academic experts, but reaching out and listening to those affected, the decent law-abiding majority affected by these terrible events? They deserve and need to be heard.

We need to look at and act on all the issues that matter—the responsibility we need from top to bottom in our society, including parental responsibility; and an end to a take-what-you-can culture that needs to change from the benefits office to the board room. The Prime Minister is right. We need a sustained effort to tackle the gangs in our cities—something we knew about before these riots. In the consideration that the Prime Minister gives to how we tackle gang culture, will he look urgently at the Youth Justice Board report published last June, which had a series of recommendations about what the Government should be doing to tackle gang culture?

Of course, as we look at the solutions we need, questions of hope and aspiration are relevant—the provision of opportunities to get on in life that do not involve illegality and wrongdoing. When we talk about responsibility, we must not forget ours, not to the tiny minority who did the violence, but to the vast majority of law-abiding young people. They are a generation—this is not about any one Government—worried about their prospects and we cannot afford to fail them. We cannot afford to have the next generation believe that they are going to do worse than the last. They should be able to do better. That is the promise of Britain that they have a right to expect.

In conclusion, successful societies are built on an ethic of hard work, compassion, solidarity and looking after each other. Ours must be one society. We all bear a share of responsibility for what happens within it. It is right that we came back to debate these issues. It is right that public order must be paramount, but it is also imperative that even after order and normality are restored we do not ignore the lessons that we must learn. We cannot afford to move on and forget. To all the people who have been in fear this week, to those who have lost loved ones, homes and businesses, we owe a duty to ensure that there is no repeat of what we have seen. That is our responsibility to the victims and to the country, and the Opposition will play our part in making it happen.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said today, but also for what he has said in recent days, and, if I may say so, the way in which he has said it. He made a number of points.

First, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise the emergency services and the work they have done. It is particularly remarkable that in spite of the fact that fires have been started in many cities across our country, there have been no casualties from those fires. That speaks volumes about the professionalism and brilliance of our firefighters nationwide.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that it is important that as soon as possible we get our high streets, cities and towns back to a real sense of normality. That has to start with the increased police presence so that people feel the confidence to go out and enjoy their towns and cities, and I believe that that will happen, so that our cities become the great and bustling places that we want them to be.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the police, the courts, communities and the deeper lessons, so let me just say a word about each. I chose my words on the Army carefully. None of us wants to see a break away from the great British model of policing where the public are the police and the police are the public, but Governments have a responsibility to try to look ahead at contingencies and potential problems, and to start asking about potential problems and difficulties in advance. That is exactly what Cobra has done—for instance, by simply asking whether there are tasks, such as some simple guarding tasks, that could be done that would free up police for more front-line duties. This is not for today, or even for tomorrow; it is just so that there are contingency plans should they become necessary.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about operational costs. Of course, the Treasury reserve is being used. He asked about policing numbers beyond the weekend. Deployment must be an issue and a matter for police chiefs. They will want to assess the intelligence and the situation before making those decisions, but they should feel free to deploy as many police as they need for as long as they need. What matters most of all, more than anything else, is restoring order on our streets.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of police budgets, and I am sure that this will be debated. Let me just make a couple of points. Over the next four years, we are looking for cash reductions in policing budgets—once we take into account the fact that there is a precept that helps fund the police—of 6%. I believe that is totally achievable without any reductions in visible policing, and a growing number of police chiefs are making that point.

Let me make two additional points on that. Today we still have 7,000 trained police officers in back-office jobs. Part of our programme of police reform is about freeing up police for front-line duties, and that is why I can make this very clear pledge to the House: at the end of this process of making sure our police budgets are affordable, we will still be able to surge as many police on to the streets as we have in recent days in London, in Wolverhampton, in Manchester. It is important that people understand that.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the courts system and whether we can surge capacity in our magistrates and Crown courts. Yes, that is exactly what Cobra has been asking for in recent days. On sentencing, I chose my words carefully. Of course, it is for courts to sentence, but the Sentencing Council says that those people found guilty of violence on our streets should expect to have a custodial sentence.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about CCTV. We fully support CCTV. We want to regulate it to make sure that it is used properly, but it has been immensely valuable, as I have seen for myself in police control rooms up and down the country.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be any cap on the money that is available for communities. Of course, the Riot (Damages) Act has no cap at all, and because we are allowing the 42-day period people will be able to apply to the police and the Government will stand behind the police.

When it comes to the deeper lessons, the right hon. Gentleman is right. He quoted a speech that I made when I said that explaining does not mean excusing, and he is right to say that the causes are complex. I hope that the debates we will have on the causes will not immediately fall into a tiresome discussion about resources. When there are deep moral failures, we should not hit them with a wall of money. I think that it is right that the absolutely key word that he used, and which I used, was responsibility. People must be responsible for their actions. We are all responsible for what we do.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked how we will listen to communities and what sort of inquiry is necessary. As I found when talking with many Members on both sides of the House, who are deeply in touch with their communities, their police forces and police chiefs, one of the first things we can do in this House is properly bring to bear all the information we are hearing from our communities, and I understand that the Home Affairs Select Committee is going to hold an inquiry. I think that we should ask a parliamentary inquiry to do this work first. I thank him for the general tone of what he said and hope that we can keep up this cross-party working as we deal with this very difficult problem.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

People will, of course, make judgments about it. Of course, I regret, and I am sorry about, the furore it has caused. With 20:20 hindsight and all that has followed, I would not have offered him the job, and I expect that he would not have taken it. But you do not make decisions in hindsight; you make them in the present. You live and you learn and, believe you me, I have learned.

I look forward to answering any and all questions about these issues. Following the statement, I will open the debate, but the greatest responsibility I have is to clear up this mess, so let me finish by saying this. There are accusations of criminal behaviour by parts of the press and potentially by the police where the most rapid and decisive action is required. There are the issues of excessive closeness to media groups and media owners where both Labour and Conservative have to make a fresh start. There is the history of missed warnings—Select Committee reports; Information Commissioner reports. They were missed by the last Government but, yes, missed by the official Opposition, too. What the public expect is not petty political point scoring. What they want and deserve is concerted action to rise to the level of events and a pledge to work together to sort this issue out once and for all. It is in that spirit that I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? Recalling Parliament was the right thing to do, because rebuilding trust in the press, police and politics is essential for our society. The most powerful institutions in the land must show the responsibility that we expect from everybody else. That is why the country wants answers from those involved in the crisis so that those responsible can be held to account, and so that we as a country can move forward to address all the issues that the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement.

That is why I welcome Lord Leveson’s inquiry, the announcement of the terms of reference and, indeed, the panel members chosen by the Prime Minister for that purpose. It is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s agreement with us about the abolition of the Press Complaints Commission and the fact that it needs to be replaced. It is why I welcome the apology from Rupert Murdoch and the withdrawal of the BSkyB bid. It is why we respect the decision by Sir Paul Stephenson to stand down so that, going forward, the leadership of the Met can focus on the vital work that is necessary.

So we are beginning to see answers given and responsibility taken, and that is right, but the Prime Minister knows that he must do the same if the country is to move forward. [Interruption.] I have a number of questions for him. He said in his statement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said a few moments ago that the remainder of the Prime Minister’s statement should be heard in silence. [Interruption.] Order. I say the same to Members who are now heckling: think of what the public think of our behaviour and stop it without delay.

[Edward Miliband]

Let me start with BSkyB. The Prime Minister said in his statement something that he has said on a number of occasions, which is that he was excluded from the “formal” decision-making process. With respect, that does not quite answer the questions that he has been asked. Last Friday, he revealed that since taking office he had met representatives of News International or News Corp, including Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch, on 26 separate occasions, so the first question that I have for him is whether he can assure the House that the BSkyB bid was not raised in any of those meetings or in phone calls with those organisations, and whether he can also say whether at any time he discussed the bid with the Culture Secretary or, indeed, with any of the Culture Secretary’s officials.

Let me turn to Andy Coulson. Ten days ago, the Prime Minister said of his decision to employ Andy Coulson:

“I wasn’t given any specific information that would lead me to change my mind.”

The country has a right to expect that the Prime Minister would have made very effort to uncover the information about Mr Coulson to protect himself and his office, yet the pattern of events suggests the opposite—that the Prime Minister and those around him made every effort not to hear the facts about Mr Coulson. In the past week, we have become aware of five opportunities for the Prime Minister or his staff to act on specific information that would surely have led him to change his mind about Mr Coulson—all were declined. His chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, was told in February 2010 that Mr Coulson had hired a convicted criminal to work at the News of the World who was accused of making payments to police on behalf of the newspaper. Even Rebekah Brooks said yesterday that this decision was “extraordinary”, yet the Prime Minister’s chief of staff apparently did nothing with the information. In May 2010, the Deputy Prime Minister warned the Prime Minister about bringing Mr Coulson into Downing street. He did nothing.

On 1 September 2010 The New York Times published an investigation quoting multiple sources saying that Mr Coulson knew about hacking that was rife at the News of the World. We now know from John Yates that that article was enough to lead the police to reopen their inquiries and it led to Operation Weeting. We also know now that it triggered the termination of the Metropolitan police’s contract with Neil Wallis, Mr Coulson’s former deputy at the News of the World, and it led to the offer by Mr Yates to Ed Llewellyn for the Prime Minister to be briefed.

The Cabinet Secretary has said it is right that the offer was not taken up, but the question is, why? Because the Prime Minister was compromised by his relationship with Mr Coulson and therefore could not be told anything at all about an investigation concerning a member of his own staff. He was hamstrung by a conflict of interest. But the Prime Minister should not have had to rely on briefings from his chief of staff. Here was a major investigation, published by a leading global newspaper about the Prime Minister’s director of communications. The Met fired Mr Wallis, even though he was not mentioned in the article, because of the associations he had with Mr Coulson and the publication of the article. What did the Prime Minister do? He did nothing.

Given The New York Times’ evidence, the public will rightly have expected very loud alarm bells to ring in the Prime Minister’s mind, yet apparently he did nothing. Then in October the Prime Minister’s chief of staff was approached again by The Guardian about the serious evidence that it had about Mr Coulson’s behaviour. Once more, nothing was done. This cannot be put down to gross incompetence. It was a deliberate attempt to hide from the facts about Mr Coulson. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members shouting out should not be doing so. They must calm themselves and keep on an even keel. It is better for their health and for the House.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister was caught in a tragic conflict of loyalty between the standards and integrity that people should expect of him and his staff, and his personal allegiance to Mr Coulson. He made the wrong choice. He chose to stick with Mr Coulson.

My second question is: can the Prime Minister now explain why he failed to act on clear information, and why those around him built a wall of silence between the facts and the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister’s conflict of interests had real effects. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner resigned on Sunday. The Prime Minister did not talk about the reasons for his resignation, but the House must talk about it. Sir Paul Stephenson was trapped. He was trapped between a Home Secretary angry at not being told about the hiring of Mr Coulson’s deputy, Neil Wallis, and Sir Paul’s belief, in his own words, that doing so would have compromised the Prime Minister—compromised him because of Mr Coulson. Why did Sir Paul think that? Because his own deputy, John Yates, had been told by the Prime Minister’s chief of staff that the Prime Minister should be told nothing.

This catastrophic error of judgment—hiring Andy Coulson and hanging on to him for too long—directly contributed to the position that Sir Paul found himself in and his decision to resign. My third question is: does the Prime Minister accept that his conflict of interest put the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in an impossible position?

So the three questions are about BSkyB, the warnings about Mr Coulson that were consistently ignored, and the Met Commissioner. These and many other questions will have to be answered by the Prime Minister over the coming months, but there is one other question that matters now. He says that in hindsight he made a mistake by hiring Mr Coulson. He says that if Mr Coulson lied to him, he would apologise. That is not good enough. It is not about hindsight or whether Mr Coulson lied to him; it is about all the information and warnings that he ignored. He was warned, but he preferred to ignore the warnings. So that the country can have the leadership we need, why does he not do more than give a half apology and provide a full apology now for hiring Mr Coulson and bringing him into the heart of Downing street?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman: stop hunting for feeble conspiracy theories and start rising to events. Most of his remarks were just a tissue of totally—[Interruption.] I shall try to answer every point. First, I thank him for what he said about recalling Parliament. That was the right thing to do. I also thank him for what he said about Lord Leveson, whom I think will do a good job, and about the panel. We sent the names to his office this morning.

I feel, however, that the right hon. Gentleman wrote most of his questions before he heard my statement today. He asked about BSkyB. The Cabinet Secretary has said that there was no breach of the ministerial code. We heard the evidence of Rebekah Wade yesterday, saying that there was not one single inappropriate conversation. When it comes to setting out meetings with News Corporation, I should point out that I have set out every single meeting since the last election. The right hon. Gentleman published a list this morning, but it did not go back to the last election. Indeed, when are we going to see the transparency from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown?

Secondly, on the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about Andy Coulson—[Interruption.]

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate and in starting it, all of us should remember what brings us here. Parliament would not have been recalled today had it not been for the revelations about the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone. That revelation shocked our country and turned something that had seemed to be about the lives of politicians, footballers and celebrities into something very different about the lives of others who had never sought the public eye. It is the courage of Bob and Sally Dowler, and Milly’s sister Gemma, in speaking out, that has been the spur for much that has happened in the last fortnight. I pay tribute to them for their courage in speaking out about these issues.

People’s anger about what has happened with phone hacking has been real, but some people will no doubt ask—indeed, we heard a bit of this in the statement—why, when we have so many other problems facing the country in relation to the economy, the NHS, defence and all those issues, the House of Commons is debating this issue in particular. It is true that this issue does not directly concern our jobs and living standards, but it does concern something incredibly important on which all else depends—the fabric of our country. We do not want to live in a country in which the depraved deletion of the voicemails of a dead teenager is seen as acceptable, in which the police’s failure to investigate that is seen as just the way things are and in which politicians’ failure to tackle it is seen as the way things are.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I do not think there is one person in the country—well, maybe there are a handful—who thinks the depraved deletion of a voicemail, as the right hon. Gentleman describes it, is acceptable. What people are wondering about is whether politicians find it acceptable when people are not honest—this is across the House—about dealings between politicians, the press and the police. That is why we are here today. I do not want him to think that anyone in the House would think those deletions were acceptable.

[Edward Miliband]

I agree completely with the hon. Lady’s comments. As the Prime Minister said in his speech, there are issues here for the press, the police and, indeed, politicians.

This debate goes to the heart of the country we should aspire to be. It goes to the integrity, responsibility and accountability of some of our established institutions. At the heart of the debate is the issue of how these institutions and the people who head them act. Can the press be trusted, in the words of the Press Complaints Commission’s first chairman, Lord McGregor, not to dabble

“their fingers in the stuff of other people’s souls”?

Can the police be trusted to investigate wrongdoing without fear or favour? Can we, as politicians be trusted—as I have said and as the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) has just said—to speak out when wrong is done?

For the Dowler family, let us be honest, until just two weeks ago the answer to all those questions was no—and the fact that it was should shame our country. So when I read in the newspapers that this is the angst or obsession of a few people in Westminster, I say that it is not, because it goes to the kind of country we are.

It also goes directly to something else that we on both sides of the House hear and talk about a lot: the responsibilities of those without power in Britain, such as those on benefits. We all use words such as “cheats” and “abusers” and we saw that language in the News of the World; some of it is even true in respect of a minority, but how much—let us be honest about this—do we talk about the responsibilities of the powerful? What message does it send to the rest of our society when the established institutions of our country behave without responsibility? It sends the message that anything goes because no one seems to care about right and wrong.

This debate goes to one more, final issue: just as the expenses issue undermined the reputation of the good, decent majority on both sides of the House, so too this scandal affects the vast majority of good, upstanding police officers on whom all our communities rely and affects the vast majority of decent journalists who are doing their job and are, as the Prime Minister said, necessary for a free and fair society. It is also in their interests that we sort this out.

When people say that this does not matter they are not just saying, “Let’s talk about something else”, but something far more serious. That cynicism about the country we live in is almost inevitable—that nothing can be done. I say to Members on both sides of the House. and I am sure that I speak for Members across the House when I say it, that if we fall prey to that, nobody will trust established institutions in this country—or, indeed, anyone else.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Labour party’s director of communications, Tom Baldwin, is accused of having been involved in the unlawful accessing of banking records to establish details of payments made. May I ask the Leader of the Opposition, who himself aspires to lead this country, what checks he made and what assurances were given to him about Mr Baldwin’s conduct before he appointed Mr Baldwin to that high office?

[Edward Miliband]

I take all allegations against members of my staff seriously, which is why I checked these out with The Times newspaper, which specifically confirms what the gentleman to whom the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) refers said, which is that he did not commission illegal investigations into Michael Ashcroft. [Interruption.] I have to say to the Prime Minister, who is chuntering from the Front Bench, that we should rely on some of those people because Tom Baldwin’s line manager was the current Education Secretary for much of the time in question. He is not in his place today, but for much of the time that the investigation was going on into Lord Ashcroft—remember him?—Tom Baldwin’s line manager was the current Education Secretary. I see the Prime Minister is smiling. This issue has been raised a number of times and I have to say to hon. Members, “Remember Lord Ashcroft and his assurances. Remember his assurances about his tax status, which were relied on by the current Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister.” I have to say to Conservative Members that if I were them, I would shut up about the allegations regarding Lord Ashcroft.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

Who is next, Mr Speaker? I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I have been listening to the passion with which the right hon. Gentleman has been making his case, but if that passion for reform really is there, can he tell me why the previous Government did nothing but talk between 2002 and 2007 about reform of the Press Complaints Commission?

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right that we did not do enough and we should have done more. I am absolutely clear about this. Of course this was a collective failure on both sides of the House—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I do not know why hon. Members say, “Ah.” I take our responsibility for this—of course that is right. Part of what is required is that we all account for our actions. That is absolutely right.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

Will hon. Members give me a moment?

The former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who might talk about this in the debate, did seek to reopen the inquiries both with the police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but that did not happen. No one in the House can say that we should not have spoken out earlier.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

Who is next? The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) seems very excited so I will take his intervention.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition started by striking, as the Prime Minister did earlier, a tone of statesmanlike non-partisanship, and he had the attention of the House. Will he, as the Prime Minister did earlier, acknowledge the sins of his party, as ours, in the past 20 years and give a small apology for the excesses of media manipulation on his side of the House?

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening to what I was saying in my speech. We need to change—

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I give way to my distinguished and right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that. May I take him back to the beginning of his speech when he talked about faith in institutions? Does he agree that credit should be given to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who felt that the issue of leadership was at stake in the Metropolitan police and therefore resigned so that that service could move on? Surely the former Commissioner should be given credit for what he did.

[Edward Miliband]

I agree. Sir Paul Stephenson acted with great honour in this matter and I am sure that is recognised on both sides of the House.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

Let me make progress and then I might give way to the hon. Gentleman.

We need to change our press, our police and our politics. First, on the press, the questions we must all ask as we debate this are not just about who acted illegally and when, which is properly a matter for the police investigation. They must get to the bottom of what happened. The inquiry led by Lord Justice Leveson must do its work, but we cannot just ask why it happened—we also need to ask why that culture was so widespread. In my view, the answer is relatively simple.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will just listen to my speech for a bit longer.

Some of the institutions involved thought they were above the law and beyond responsibility. A police inquiry and a judge-led inquiry should not be the only way for an ordinary citizen to get effective redress when the press do them wrong. One of the symptoms of what happened is the fact that Press Complaints Commission—the Prime Minister and I both recognise this—was a wholly ineffective body in giving the ordinary citizen redress. I do not want a country where there has to be a police inquiry or judge-led inquiry to give redress to that citizen.

Let me say something about press regulation. Why did the PCC fail? This is important, because the PCC was aware of the allegations that were being made. It failed because it had no powers of investigation, so although it now believes it was lied to, it could do nothing to check the veracity of what it had been told. It failed because despite the evidence of bad practice, nothing was done by an organisation that—let us be candid about this—was not sufficiently independent of current editors.

I do not believe—I echo the words of the Prime Minister on this point—that it should be for politicians to decide what our press reports. That is an important principle of a free society and of our society.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I want to make some progress.

It is commonly agreed that we need a new system of regulation. Whether we call it self-regulation or independent regulation, which is a term the Prime Minister coined and that I like, in substance it is about ethics being overseen by an independent group of people who are not current editors, with investigatory powers so that the regulatory body cannot simply be lied to as the PCC says that it was and—this is an important point—with the power to enforce compensation and prominent redress. That point is really important. The standards of accuracy in our press will be much encouraged if there is prominence of apology and admission of error rather than their being buried on page 42, which is what happens.

The issue, which the Prime Minister touched on in his speech, goes beyond press regulation. Indeed, Government Members have asked me about this. Why did not more of us speak out earlier? The answer is what we all know and used to be afraid to say: News International was too powerful. It owned 40% of the newspaper market before the closure of the News of the World. It owns two thirds of the pay TV market through 39% of the Sky platform and Sky News. The Communications Act 2003 rightly stops an organisation holding an ITV licence and more than 20% of newspapers, but it does not apply to digital channels. One might say that it was an analogue Act in a digital age. The Act needs to be updated as such a concentration of power is unhealthy. If one thing comes out of what we have seen in the past two weeks and over many years, it must be that we understand the point about concentrations of power in our society because large concentrations of power are more likely to lead to abuses of power.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My concern is that we preserve the freedom of the press. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned News International specifically, but we know that Mirror Group and the Daily Mail were equally culpable according to the 2006 report. He talks about the media market, but we know that the BBC has a dominant position. His comments are beginning to look like he is conducting a vendetta against News International when we need to consider the media as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. Of course, the police inquiry and the judge-led inquiry must look across all the newspapers. I want to pick him up on his point about the BBC, however. The BBC is much more tightly bound by public interest guidelines than newspapers. That is right, because there is a distinction—I disagree with the former Labour leader, Lord Kinnock, on this point—between broadcasting and newspapers. I think that distinction is likely to be maintained and I support that. We should be careful, however, about lumping the BBC in with all this because it is in a different category.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

In yesterday’s Committee, Rebekah Brooks said that she had not had a single meeting with the Prime Minister in Downing street but that she had visited the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), six times each year. The Leader of the Opposition was a key member of the previous Government. Did he share his concerns about the power of News International with the former Prime Minister?

[Edward Miliband]

I do not think that was the most helpful intervention from the point of view of the Prime Minister. The reason Rebekah Brooks was not coming to Downing street was that she was seeing him in Oxfordshire and elsewhere. It is fairly obvious, is it not? I think we should save the Prime Minister embarrassment and move on.

Let me turn to the police. Confidence and respect in policing is vital. Recent events have created a cloud and it is important that the excellent work being done by police officers is not tarnished.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I will make a little more progress, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient.

The independence and impartiality of the police has been a cornerstone of the force stretching back to Sir Robert Peel. That is why recent events are so disturbing: allegations of payments to police by the press; a culture where it appears the relationship between press and police is too close and information is passed inappropriately; and questions about why the first police investigation failed and why it has taken so long to put things right.

There are now four different investigations considering these issues. That is a good thing and I hope they proceed as speedily as they can given all the inquiries. If they can be co-ordinated or brought together, I am sure that would be a good idea, too. Let me make one observation, though. There are cultural issues that must be looked at in our police. Just like in newspapers, there will always be things that go wrong. The question we must answer for victims such as the Dowlers is whether the right system of redress is in place for the victims and whether they have confidence in it. The situation is similar to that in the PCC and that is why we need a stronger Independent Police Complaints Commission. It is currently a complaints body with limited powers and a huge case load and it clearly has not been able or willing—probably able—to act proactively enough. As well as reforms to our press and to our complaints system for the press, we must also reform the police.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman; he and I are old sparring partners.

[Oliver Heald]

The Leader of the Opposition rightly talks about the independence of the police, yet he seems to have expected that, during the course of a police inquiry, the assistant commissioner would go and see the Prime Minister and talk about the emerging evidence. It seems, extraordinarily, that the assistant commissioner had a similar expectation. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether that is the way it went on in Labour years? Is that what was happening? If not, will he say now that he thinks the police should be truly independent?

[Edward Miliband]

This is not about the operational independence of the police and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to return to these issues because it is the wall of silence that was erected around the Prime Minister that meant that he did not hear the facts about Andy Coulson, which were facts that he should have heard. We need reforms—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to make some more progress, if I may.

We need to reform our press and politics and we need also to reform the dealings between politicians and the press. I welcome the Prime Minister’s—

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I think I might get to the point on which the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, if he gives me a moment.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to be more transparent about meetings with executives and editors. I have published all my meetings since I became leader of the Labour party and I say to the Prime Minister that of course I will go back to the general election.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman is so over-excited that I feel I must give way to him in case a nasty accident befalls him.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman will publish all the meetings he had with the media before he became leader, because transparency is the greatest disinfectant. Will he confirm to the House whether, when he was running to lead his party, he met any of the Murdochs or anyone from News International?

[Edward Miliband]

I did have one lunch with News International and it was profoundly unsuccessful, as people will have gathered. I can be accused of many things, but I do not think that a cosy, sweetheart relationship with The Sun newspaper—Red Ed and all that—is one of them.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to make some more progress. I want, if I may, to come back to two or three outstanding issues raised earlier in the statement, because they go to questions of transparency.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

On the question of relationships between politicians and the media, what lessons does the Leader of the Opposition think we should draw from the fact that when the Prime Minister published the list of the meetings that he had, 26 were with people from News International, but just one was with a person from the BBC?

[Edward Miliband]

People will draw their own conclusions, and my hon. Friend has put the point on the record.

I want to deal with two or three important points about transparency. The Prime Minister, in his statement, surprised me by talking about the very important article—I raised it in my statement—that The New York Times published on 1 September. He said—of course, the record should be checked on this—that there was no new information in The New York Times. I do not believe that to be correct. Indeed, I have The New York Times article here; I want to read a brief extract from it:

“One former editor said Coulson talked freely with colleagues about the dark arts, including hacking. ‘I’ve been to dozens if not hundreds of meetings with Andy’ when the subject came up, said the former editor…The editor added that when Coulson would ask where a story came from, editors would reply, ‘We’ve pulled the phone records’ or ‘I’ve listened to the phone messages.’”

That goes to a very important issue, because my charge against the Prime Minister is that there was lots of information publicly available. There were warnings from the Deputy Prime Minister, who sat very glumly during the Prime Minister’s statement. There were warnings given that the Prime Minister ignored. I will happily give way to the Prime Minister if he wants to correct the record about The New York Times, because this was a very serious, major investigation by a global newspaper, and the Prime Minister’s comments earlier do not reflect the gravity of the allegations in The New York Times article. The Prime Minister seems otherwise engaged.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I want to make some progress. There are unanswered questions about all the allegations, all the credible evidence that was given to the Prime Minister, including in The New York Times, and the warnings from the Deputy Prime Minister. I will even give way to the Deputy Prime Minister if he wants to tell us about the warnings that he gave. It would be nice to hear from him, because he has not looked very happy during this debate, and if he wants to share his unhappiness with us, I am sure that we would all love to hear it. He is saving it for his memoirs.

There are unanswered questions about BSkyB. There are real questions about what conversations—important conversations—the Prime Minister had about BSkyB with James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks; he should have raised that. These questions are not going to go away. They will continue until he answers them.

Today the House rises for more than six weeks for the summer recess. We will debate other issues, and rightly so, but we all have a collective responsibility to ensure that this is not an event where the whirlwind blows through and nothing really changes. We have to bring about lasting change. That is the duty we owe to the victims of phone hacking. It is a duty we owe to the people of this country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Phone Hacking

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Proprietors were included in that list.

Starting as soon as possible, Lord Justice Leveson, assisted by a panel of senior independent figures with relevant expertise in media, broadcasting, regulation and government will inquire into the culture, practices and ethics of the press; its relationship with the police; the failure of the current system of regulation; the contacts made, and discussions had, between national newspapers and politicians; why previous warnings about press misconduct were not heeded; and the issue of cross-media ownership. He will make recommendations for a new, more effective way of regulating the press—one that supports its freedom, plurality and independence from Government, but which also demands the highest ethical and professional standards. He will also make recommendations about the future conduct of relations between politicians and the press. That part of the inquiry we hope will report within 12 months.

The second part of the inquiry will examine the extent of unlawful or improper conduct at the News of the World and other newspapers, and the way in which management failures may have allowed it to happen. That part of the inquiry will also look into the original police investigation and the issue of corrupt payments to police officers, and will consider the implications for the relationships between newspapers and the police. Lord Justice Leveson has agreed to these draft terms of reference. I am placing them in the Library today, and we will send them to the devolved Administrations. No one should be in any doubt of our intention to get to the bottom of the truth and learn the lessons for the future.

Next is the issue of News International’s bid to take over BSkyB. By the day, we are hearing shocking allegations: allegations that royal protection officers were in the pay of the News of the World and handed over the contact details of the royal family for profit; and allegations that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), had his personal details blagged by another News International title. As both the alleged nature of the malpractice and the scope of the newspapers involved widen, serious questions must be asked about News Corporation’s proposed takeover of BSkyB. Added to this, News Corporation has withdrawn its proposed undertakings in lieu of reference to the Competition Commission. That is why on Monday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport referred the bid to the Competition Commission. The relevant independent authorities will now have the time to take an exhaustive look at all the relevant issues and come to a considered decision on whether the takeover should proceed. It will then be up to the Secretary of State to make the final decision, in his quasi-judicial capacity.

In every way we are following—and we must follow—the law with respect to News International’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB, but let me repeat what I said on Monday. In my view, this business should be focused not on mergers and takeovers, but on clearing up the mess and getting its house in order, and that is what the House will be voting on tonight. Let me also say this. The people involved, whether they were directly responsible for the wrongdoing, whether they sanctioned it or whether they covered it up, and however high or low they go, must not only be brought to justice; they must also have no future role in running a media company in our country.

Now let me turn to the issue of ethics in the police, and in particular their relationship with the press. Of course it is important that there is a good relationship between the media and the police. Police often use newspapers and other media to hunt down wanted criminals and to appeal for information. However, allegations have been made that some corrupt police officers may have taken payments from newspapers. And there are wider concerns that the relationship between the police and the press can also be too close.

When I spoke to Sir Paul Stephenson yesterday, he made it clear that he is as determined as I am that all aspects of the police relationship with the media should be beyond reproach. On the allegation concerning improper payments to police officers, I can assure the House that the Metropolitan police immediately referred the case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Since then, the IPCC’s most senior commissioner has been supervising the Met’s work to identify the officers who may have taken these payments. As soon as any officers are identified, the commission has publicly made it clear that it will move to a full independent investigation drawing on all the available expertise necessary so that the public are reassured.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been assured by the commission that it has both the powers and the resources needed to see this through. It will go wherever the evidence leads it, and it will have full powers to investigate fully any police wrongdoing that it might uncover. The Home Secretary has also today commissioned a report from the IPCC on its experience of investigating corruption in the police service and any lessons that can be learned. The initial findings of this will be delivered to her by the end of the summer. I can also tell the House that in addition to the work of the judicial inquiry on the wider relationship between the police and the press, Sir Paul Stephenson is looking to invite a senior public figure to advise him on the ethics that should underpin that relationship for his own force, the Metropolitan police. In particular, this figure will advise him on how to ensure maximum transparency and public confidence in how the arrangements are working.

As we discussed a few moments ago, if we are calling for greater transparency from the police, I think it is only right that we provide it in Government, too. After all, as I have said, one of the reasons why we got into this situation is because, over the decades, politicians and the press have spent time courting support, not confronting the problems. So I will be consulting the Cabinet Secretary on an amendment to the ministerial code to require Ministers to record all meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, senior editors and executives, regardless of the nature of the meeting. Permanent secretaries and special advisers will also be required to record such meetings. This information should be published quarterly. It is a first for our country, and alongside the other steps we are taking, will help to make the UK Government one of the most transparent in the world. I will also be discussing this with the Opposition, and perhaps we can adopt it on a cross-party basis.

After this statement I will be meeting the family of Milly Dowler. None of us can imagine what they have gone through, but I do know that they, like everyone else in this country, want their politicians—all of us—to bring this ugly chapter to a close, and ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. It is in that spirit that I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement, and for the meeting last night. The revelations of the past week have shocked the whole country, and the public now rightly expect those of us in this House, who represent them, to provide not just an echo of that shock but the leadership necessary to start putting things right. That is why it is in the interests of the whole House and the country that we move forward swiftly, comprehensively and, wherever possible, on an agreed basis.

Let me ask the Prime Minister first about the timing, nature and scope of the inquiry. I welcome the establishment of the inquiry today. Can he confirm that it will be staffed and up and running before the recess? Can he also confirm that, from the moment the judge is appointed today, it will be an offence for anyone to destroy documents related to the issues of the inquiry? And can the Prime Minister tell us what steps he will be taking to preserve documents in Downing street that might be relevant to the judge’s inquiry?

Turning to how the inquiry will operate, we welcome a number of aspects of today’s announcement that clearly build on the way forward that we have been calling for. It is right that there should be a single judge-led inquiry; we have made it clear that it must be judge led if it is to get to the bottom of what happened and when. Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is being set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, and that it will have the power to compel witnesses? Will he explain how he envisages the judge and the panel that he mentioned operating together?

As for the scope of the inquiry, in his press conference last Friday the Prime Minister set out a number of areas that he envisaged being covered, and he has gone further today. I think it is right that the Government have now decided to follow our advice, and the clear views of the Hacked Off campaign and the Dowler family, in opting for a far broader inquiry.

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that yesterday’s important sitting of the Home Affairs Select Committee made it very clear that questions about the relationship between the media and the police run far wider than what was covered by the first investigation? We must take the steps necessary to restore the public’s faith in the police’s ability to hold to account all those who have broken the law.

Similarly, it can only be right that the inquiry has been broadened to include the relationship between politicians and the press. On the specifics of that—the relationship between politicians and the press, and the relationship between the police and the press—can the Prime Minister assure the House that these aspects of the inquiry will be very much judge led, and that those who appear as witnesses to the inquiry will be under oath? [Hon. Members: “He said that!”] If that is the case, I welcome it.

Alongside these important questions about behaviour in Britain’s newsrooms, the police and the relationship between politicians and the press, a number of additional issues need consideration. On the issue of media regulation, does he agree that our instinct should continue to be for self-regulation; but does he further agree that it needs to be proved that self-regulation can be made to work? Will he comment on the work being done on privacy issues and explain whether he sees that as being part of this investigation?

I welcome the decision to make cross-media ownership part of the inquiry. Does he agree with me that abuses of power are more likely to happen where there are excessive concentrations of power? Will he confirm that the recommendations made under this inquiry can be legislated for in the Government’s forthcoming communications Act? May I suggest that it would be wise for him to bring that Act forward from its currently planned date of 2015?

Finally, I welcome the Prime Minister’s proposals about transparency. I hope and expect he will ensure that that proposal is implemented in a retrospective way back to the last general election, so he will publish all the details—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] So he will publish all the details of the meetings he had, and I will publish all the details of the meetings I had. Let me end by saying that people such as the Dowler family, and other members of the public who are the innocent victims of phone hacking, deserve a full and comprehensive inquiry. They need us to get on with the inquiry, to make it fully comprehensive and to get to the truth. They have my commitment and that of my party to make sure that we do everything to make that happen.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the helpful meeting we had last night and for the constructive attitude that he is showing in trying to get the terms of reference right and to get the inquiry under way in an agreed format. I will try to answer his questions as directly as I can.

The inquiry will start at once, in the sense of getting the terms of reference published: they will have to be consulted on and sent to the devolved institutions; we have to draw up the names for the panel—but we are not going to waste any time with that. We will get on with it. On the issue of destroying evidence, let me be clear that once a criminal investigation is under way it is a crime to destroy any evidence that could possibly relate to it—and everyone needs to bear that in mind.

Yes, this inquiry will be established under the Inquiries Act. As for the relationship between the judge and the panel, that is an important point. The panel, whose members have not yet been approached and appointed, must have a range of expertise available to it, including specialised understanding of newspaper media, but also wider than that. Those panel members will assist the judge in the work he does. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman last night, we would welcome suggestions of names of people who could bring expertise to bear.

Yes, the inquiry is now a broad one, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I think that is right, but we need to make sure that we put quite a tight time frame on it, as we need to see results. It is right to look at issues such as cross-media ownership, but it is possible to spend for ever looking at ways of measuring that, and we have to be careful that we do not have this going on for years without reaching a conclusion.

On relationships between the police and the press, and between politicians and the press—yes, everyone whom the judge wishes to call can be called to testify under oath. On the issue of media regulation, I prefer to call what we need to aim for independent regulation rather than self-regulation, which has quite a bad name now because it missed too many things. I do not want to move to a world of full statutory regulation. I worked in an industry—television—that was statutorily regulated, and it works, but I do not think it is right for the press. However, we will have to be guided by what the inquiry finds. As parties looking at the matter, I hope we do not get into a bidding war—I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands what I mean. Let us shoot for independent regulation if we can.

On the issue of privacy, of course the inquiry will consider it, but perhaps the inquiry will also look at the very good work that I know will be done by the Select Committees, on privacy and super-injunctions. On legislation, we will do that as necessary: we have a forward legislative programme, but let us see what proposals are made.

On transparency, I am consulting on the proposal to make much more transparent what Ministers do, including not just business meetings but social meetings. It is worth asking whether we should go further on meetings with journalists, as the police might want to do. I am happy to discuss how far the right hon. Gentleman wants that to go back: it was a slight case of, “Make me transparent, but not yet,” as he proposed stopping at the election, but let us have a good look at that.

Afghanistan

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Afghanistan.

From the outset this Government have sought to take a more hard-headed, more security-based approach to our mission. As I have said, we are not there to build a perfect democracy, still less a model society. Yes, we will help with the establishment of democratic institutions. Yes, we can improve infrastructure, develop education, encourage development. But we are in Afghanistan for one overriding reason: to ensure our own national security by helping the Afghans to take control of theirs.

This means building up the Afghan security forces so we can draw down British combat forces, with the Afghans themselves able to prevent al-Qaeda from returning and posing a threat to us and to our allies around the world. This is particularly poignant today, on the eve of the sixth anniversary of 7/7—an attack that was inspired by al-Qaeda and executed by extremists following the same perverted ideology that underpinned the 11 September attack in 2001.

Three hundred and seventy-five British servicemen and women have died fighting in Afghanistan to help strengthen that country and keep Britons and Britain safe from another 9/11 or 7/7. Thousands more, including many civilians, have risked their lives, and hundreds have been injured fighting for the security of our nation. They have been part of an international coalition involving 48 countries with a specific UN mandate, working at the invitation of a democratically elected Government. Though there have been many, many difficult times, we should be clear about what has been achieved.

In 2009, my predecessor as Prime Minister told the House that some three quarters of the most serious terrorist plots against Britain had links to Afghanistan and Pakistan. We must always be on our guard, but I am advised that the figure is now significantly reduced. International forces have been bearing down on al-Qaeda and their former hosts, the Taliban, in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Pakistan, Osama bin Laden has been killed and al-Qaeda significantly weakened. In Afghanistan, British and international forces have driven al-Qaeda from its bases and, although it is too early to tell for certain, initial evidence suggests that we have halted the momentum of the Taliban insurgency in its heartland in Helmand province.

We are now entering a new phase in which the Afghan forces will do more of the fighting and patrolling, and our forces more training and mentoring. As President Obama said in his address last month, the mission is changing from “combat to support.” When we arrived there was no one to hand over to—no proper army, no police force. In many places across the country the Afghan security forces now stand ready to begin the process of taking over security responsibility.

Success in Afghanistan requires a number of critical steps. The first is to ensure that Afghan security forces are able to secure their own territory. There have been well-known problems, especially with the Afghan police, but there has been real progress in the past two years. General Petraeus went out of his way to praise the recent performance of Afghan forces in a number of complex and dangerous operations. The Afghan forces are growing rapidly and are ahead of schedule to meet the current target of having 171,600 in the Afghan army and 134,000 in the Afghan police by the end of October this year. They are now deploying in formed units and carrying out their own operations.

There have been some real successes. Afghan national security forces have prevented insurgents from reaching many of their targets, and just eight days ago, when a major hotel was attacked in Kabul, they dealt with the situation. This was a major, sophisticated attack. They dealt with it professionally and speedily, calling in assistance from a NATO helicopter only to deal with insurgents on the roof. As General Petraeus stressed to me, they acquitted themselves extremely well. It is this growing strength and capability that will allow us over time to hand over control of security to Afghan forces and draw down our own numbers.

We remain committed to the objective, shared by President Karzai and the whole of NATO, that the Afghans should assume lead security responsibility across the whole country by the end of 2014. Last month President Obama announced that the US will withdraw 10,000 of its forces from Afghanistan by the end of this year and complete the removal of the US surge—some 33,000—by the end of next summer. At the time of the US surge, the UK increased its core force levels by an extra 500. For our part, I have already said that we will withdraw 426 UK military personnel by February 2012. Today I can announce that the UK will be able to reduce its force levels by a further 500, from 9,500 to 9,000, by the end of 2012. This decision has been agreed by the National Security Council on the advice of our military commanders.

These reductions reflect the progress being made in building up the Afghan national security forces. Indeed, it is worth noting that for every US soldier who leaves as the surge is removed, two Afghans will take their place. This marks the start of a process that will ensure that by the end of 2014 there will be nothing like the number of British troops who are there now, and they will not be serving in a combat role. This is the commitment I have made, and this is the commitment we will stick to.

Having taken such a huge share of the burden and performed so magnificently for a decade, this country needs to know that there is an end-point to the level of our current commitment and to combat operations. This decision is right not only for Britain but for Afghanistan. It has given the Afghans a clear deadline against which to plan and has injected a sense of urgency into their efforts.

Although there is a clear end-point to our military combat role, after 2014 the UK will continue to have a major strategic relationship with Afghanistan: a development relationship, a diplomatic relationship and a trade relationship. Above all, we have a vital national security interest in preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for international terror, so although our forces will no longer be present in a combat role we will have a continuing military relationship.

We will continue to train Afghan security forces. In Afghanistan I announced plans for a new officer training academy, which President Karzai specifically asked me for, and which I am proud Britain is able to deliver. We intend to lead the academy from 2013, in addition to maintaining our current role in the officer candidate school, which is due to merge with the academy in 2017. We will continue our efforts to help Afghanistan build a viable state, but our support cannot be unconditional.

In my meeting with President Karzai, I made clear the Afghan Government’s responsibility to ensure that British taxpayers’ money is spent well and spent wisely. I emphasised to President Karzai just how important it is that he personally grips the problems with the Kabul bank and the need for a new International Monetary Fund programme. I also urged him to support due democratic process and to tackle corruption, and I made it very clear that, although Britain wants to stand by Afghanistan beyond the end of our combat mission, we can do so only on the basis that Afghanistan must help itself, too.

Almost all insurgencies have ended with a combination of military pressure and political settlement, and there is no reason why Afghanistan should prove any different. As we strengthen the Afghan Government and security forces, so we will back President Karzai’s efforts to work towards an Afghan-led political settlement. The death of bin Laden presents the Taliban with a moment of real choice. Al-Qaeda are weakened; their leader is dead.

Last month, the United Nations adopted two separate sanctions regimes, creating a clear distinction that separates the Taliban from al-Qaeda. Local peace councils have now been established in almost all of Afghanistan’s provinces. These have already allowed more than 1,800 people from 17 provinces to be enrolled on the scheme for reintegration, so we should take this opportunity to send a clear message to the Taliban: now is the time to break decisively from al-Qaeda and to participate in a peaceful political process.

In this task, we need Pakistan’s assistance. As I discussed with President Zardari last week, that process is now as much in Pakistan’s interests as Britain’s or Afghanistan’s, because the Taliban pose a mortal threat to the state of Pakistan as well.

There is no reason why Afghanistan should be destined to remain a broken country. It has abundant mineral wealth and fertile agricultural land, and it stands at the crossroads of Asia’s great trading highway. It has succeeded in the past when not wracked by conflict, but Afghanistan still has many challenges ahead.

There are real security issues and a lack of Government capacity, but 10 years ago Afghanistan was in the grip of a regime that banned young girls from schools, hanged people in football stadiums for minor misdemeanours and banished radios and any form of entertainment—while all the time incubating the terrorists who struck on 9/11 and elsewhere.

Afghanistan, for all its imperfections, has come a long way. Today, it is no longer a haven for global terror, its economy is growing and it has a Parliament, a developing legal system, provincial and district governors and the basic building blocks of what could be a successful democracy.

In Helmand province, which with Kandahar, we should remember, was a stronghold of the Taliban and the insurgency, there is now a growing economy, falling poppy cultivation and many more effective district governors. The fact that President Karzai has been able to choose Lashkar Gah as one of the areas to include in the first phase of transition is a sign of the transformation that we have helped to bring about there.

As we enter this new phase of transition, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to our servicemen and women who have made such incredible sacrifices to defend our national security. While we have been going about our daily lives, they have been out there day and night, fighting in the heat and the dust and giving up the things that we all take for granted.

That is the true character of the British Army, and it is why we are so incredibly proud of all our forces and the families who support them, and why we are so grateful for everything that they do for us. I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our forces, who serve with such dedication and such heroism in Afghanistan, and let me just say to him that, whatever differences separate us on other issues, I commend the substance and the tone of his statement today and, indeed, his approach to the issue of Afghanistan.

As we prepare to remember tomorrow the victims of the attacks of 7/7, we are all reminded of why we are engaged in Afghanistan: to secure our security at home. That is why Opposition Members continue to support our forces in Afghanistan. We continue to support also the Prime Minister’s intention to end the British combat role in Afghanistan by the end of 2014. It is right that we make it clear to the Afghan Government and their security forces that they need to step up and take responsibility for the future of the country, and it is right that we make it clear to the British people that this is not a war without end.

This year and next we must maintain the combination of military pressure, the accelerated build-up of the Afghan security forces and the work on basic governance and justice. I support the Prime Minister’s plan to maintain British troop levels above 9,000, as they have been for the past two years, for this fighting season and the next. That will give our forces the best chance of consolidating the situation before the process of transition to Afghan control accelerates in 2012 and 2013, when our forces can start to come home in greater numbers.

May I first ask the Prime Minister about our troop commitments? Will he assure the House that if our reductions go slower than those of other countries—in particular, America—that will not cause British forces to take on a disproportionate share of the burden in Helmand? Can he assure the House that detailed plans for troop draw-down will always be based on military advice and conditions on the ground? I am sure that he can give that assurance. We ask our troops to do a difficult job in testing circumstances. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that our armed forces will continue to receive all the equipment they need in the months ahead, including the 12 Chinooks he promised but for which the order has still not been placed?

The bravery and professionalism of our armed forces deserve to be given the best chance of success. As the Prime Minister said in his statement, that will be realised only if we see political progress in Afghanistan. The political track is as important as the decisions on troop numbers and military strategy. As I understand it, there are still talks about talks. I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that much work needs to be done between now and the Bonn conference in December, and indeed after it, if we are to make the most of this opportunity. I have some specific questions on that issue.

First, to build on the excellent work of Stefan di Mistura, the UN special representative, will the Prime Minister press for the Security Council to appoint a senior figure, perhaps Mr di Mistura or someone from the Muslim world, to be empowered to mediate between the Afghan Government, ISAF and those members of the Taliban who renounce violence? Such a figure could help to secure the commitment of countries in the region to support a new political settlement, reflecting their shared interest in long-term stability in Afghanistan.

Secondly, although it must remain a red line that the Taliban and others must commit to a peaceful political process, the constitution need not be set in stone. Will the Prime Minister press the Afghan High Peace Council to consider constitutional reform, including a more devolved Afghan state, which I believe is one demand that could unite people with political differences? Those steps need to be taken now so that by the time of the Bonn conference in December the ground has been prepared and real progress can be made.

As we look to a stronger Afghanistan, we all recognise that there are issues of governance and the rule of law. Will the Prime Minister say more about the ongoing scandal over the Kabul bank? I welcome that he raised the issue with President Karzai. Does he agree that this problem symbolises the inability of the Afghan Government at times to distance themselves from practices that threaten to undermine the Afghan economy and international development assistance? Will he tell us more about the role that Britain is playing to get the Afghan Government to take the necessary steps to tackle the crisis in the Kabul bank and allow the International Monetary Fund to resume its proper support?

Finally, I turn to Pakistan. We all accept that long-term stability in Afghanistan depends on stability in Pakistan. When I met President Zardari last week, I commended the hard work and sacrifice of the Pakistan security forces in tackling violent extremism in the north-west of the country. As the Prime Minister said in his statement, the situation in Pakistan continues to be serious. There is a danger that the bringing to justice of Osama bin Laden, which should be welcomed on all sides, will not have that effect in Pakistan. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to put British support for counter-terrorism in Pakistan at the heart of our relationship with the Pakistan Government?

We all want to see British troops come home at the earliest opportunity, not least the family and friends of those who are currently serving in Afghanistan. However, we also want the campaign to be concluded in a way that ensures that their service and sacrifice has not been in vain, and that Afghanistan and the wider region move into a stable future, rather than once again posing a serious threat to our security and that of other countries. I welcome today’s statement as a step along that path. I say to the Prime Minister that I will continue to work with him on Afghanistan so that we can redouble our efforts on the military and political fronts to give Afghanistan the stability it needs for the future.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response to the statement and for the very good cross-party support not only for the mission but for how we are proposing to draw down and bring it to an end. He is right to say that the combination of military pressure, the build-up of the ANSF and a political process can enable us to meet our objective.

The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions, the first of which was on troop commitments. Yes, we are withdrawing troops more slowly than the US, but of course the US had a surge of about 33,000 troops. Its enduring number is more like 70,000, so obviously it makes sense for our draw-down to be proportionately smaller. It is important for us to have the draw-down in the way I have said.

The right hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that we must be careful as the draw-down takes place that we do not put a disproportionate burden on the remaining British troops. I am very clear that we must not enter into large new operational areas. We should continue the excellent work that we are doing in Helmand province, handing over progressively to the Afghans. Indeed, we are seeing the transition of Lashkar Gah and it might well be possible to transition other parts of Helmand province in a very effective way before the end of the process.

On the issue of equipment, one thing that struck me on the visit from which I have just returned, and indeed on visits over the past couple of years, is that there is now a real sense among our troops that they have the equipment they need. The body armour is much improved, as is the quality of vehicles, such as Mastiffs. There is no use of Snatch Land Rovers outside bases any more, and what has taken place is very positive. Obviously some of that action was initiated under the previous Government, and it has been continued under this Government. Funding the urgent operational requirements in Afghanistan is working well. Clearly we need to ensure that we have helicopter capacity and that Chinooks and the rest go ahead.

On talks, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for a new international figure. I feel that perhaps the time for that has passed. I think that we now need an Afghan-led process. There are now much more effective discussions taking place between Afghanistan and Pakistan, with a much more positive attitude on both sides. We should do what we can to give that every possible support.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the High Peace Council. I met former President Rabbani, and I think he is doing extremely good work in that process. We should not be completely hung up on every element of the current Afghan constitution, but it is important to give a reassurance to the Government, Parliament and people of Afghanistan that there is not some secret agenda to carve their country up. There is not. We want to see a strong and stable Afghanistan, with everyone within it playing a part in its future.

On the Kabul bank, we are very clear about what is necessary. We need a forensic audit of what went wrong and what happened, and we need the recapitalisation of the central bank so that the financial system is properly supported. The UK is massively involved in that process, and we are working for a positive outcome. We need it, because otherwise funds cannot flow into organisations in Afghanistan in the way that they need to.

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to commend the Pakistani security forces for what they have done in the north-west frontier and elsewhere. On the British relationship with Pakistan, what is important at a time when it is clearly under huge challenge is obviously to talk about our counter-terrorism relationship, but also to stress all the parts of our relationship and explain that we are there for a democratic and peaceful Pakistan for the long term, just as we want to have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan. Both those countries fear, and have good evidence from the past, that some in the west will walk away. We must convince them that our long-term interests are to be with them and stand with them.

European Council

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council.

The main focus of the Council was, quite rightly, Europe’s economy. In advancing Britain’s national interest, I had two objectives: first to ensure that Britain did not have to contribute to any new Greek bail-out through the European financial stability mechanism; and, secondly to support efforts to bring stability to the eurozone and growth to Europe as a whole, while fully protecting Britain’s position. Let me take each in turn.

I turn first to the situation in Greece. As I have always said, Britain is not in the euro—and while I am Prime Minister it never will be—so we should not be involved in the euro area’s internal arrangements. Only eurozone countries were involved, alongside the IMF, in the first Greek bail-out, and only eurozone countries have been involved in discussions about potential further bail-outs. It is absolutely right therefore not to use the EU-wide EFSM for future support to Greece—that is what I asked for an assurance about at the Council, and that is what I got.

That was not a simple matter because, as the House knows, article 122 of the European treaty is being used to provide aid to eurozone countries that have mismanaged their economies. That was not our choice; it was agreed before the Government took office. We have dealt with it for the future, however, because when the new permanent arrangements replacing the EFSM come in—from 2013—we will not be part of them, and article 122 will no longer be used for eurozone bail-outs. That was the deal that I secured last December. However, we still had to deal with the prospect of a bail-out under the existing arrangements. Under qualified majority voting, that required real negotiating effort, but the Government have consistently stood up for the interests of British taxpayers, and as a result the British taxpayer will avoid a potential liability of billions of pounds.

My second objective was to support efforts to bring stability to the eurozone and to promote growth across Europe. Although we are not in the eurozone, we would be badly affected by a disorderly outcome to this crisis. Why? First, banks across the world, including in the UK, hold Government debt of all eurozone countries, including Greece; and, secondly, the effect on other countries far more exposed to these debts would have a knock-on effect on us. As Sir Mervyn King made clear when unveiling last week’s financial stability report, the present difficulties in the eurozone are:

“The most serious and immediate risk to the UK financial system”.

It has always been a long-standing principle that the British Government do not comment publicly on market-sensitive issues, and I am not going to depart from that very wise approach. What is important is that a solution be found quickly that is credible in the markets and that will address over time Greece’s fundamental problems and contribute to providing stability in global markets and the world economy.

One element of that solution must, in my view, be using the time that we now have to ensure that banks and banks’ balance sheets are strong enough to withstand any problems and difficulties, and that there is full transparency across the financial system. In the UK, we are stepping up efforts to ensure that our banking system is resilient to risks originating from the eurozone. That needs to be done right across Europe, it needs to be done now, and it needs to be done properly. I argued for that very strongly at the Council, and it is reflected in the language in the communiqué. As a first step, that means that the current stress tests being conducted in the banking sector must be conducted properly and transparently, unlike last time, and that Europe must implement in full—rather than water down, as some have suggested—the new detailed Basel capital and liquidity standards.

A key way in which we can help all economies in Europe, including the eurozone, is to promote sustainable economic growth. The best stimulus available for European economies is to ensure that we are promoting competition, deregulation, supply-side reform, the single market, innovation and structural changes, and also using the EU to advance the cause of free trade, both via Doha and, where appropriate, through bilateral deals. Following the proposals that Britain set out at the last Council, which many member states now support, I pressed in particular for concrete steps to reduce the burdens on small businesses and micro-enterprises, which are vital to promoting innovation, jobs and growth. The Council agreed that

“the regulatory burden on SMEs needs to be further reduced,”

and that the European Commission would now assess the impact of new regulations on micro-enterprises and identify existing regulations from which micro-enterprises should be excluded altogether. That mirrors what we are doing in Britain, and it is the right thing to do. For too long, European Council conclusions have focused only on what member states should do, rather than on what the European Commission needs to do; and when we think of the quantity of regulation that comes from Brussels, we realise that that must be the right approach.

Let me briefly turn to other issues raised at the Council, of which there were three of significance: migration, the Arab spring and the accession of Croatia. First, on migration, Britain does not participate in the Schengen border area, and we are not going to weaken our border controls. As an island, Britain has an important geographical advantage in preventing uncontrolled immigration. At the same time, practical measures to strengthen our external borders in Europe are in Britain’s interests too. However, there was a proposal ahead of the Council to suspend the measures in the Dublin regulation that allow us to return asylum seekers to the first safe country that they arrive in. Together with Chancellor Merkel, I ensured that those proposals were rejected, and they are not referred to in any way in the Council conclusions. We will not have our border controls compromised in that way.

Next, the Arab spring. On Libya, the Council agreed a declaration confirming its full support for UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973, and the efforts that our brave servicemen and women are undertaking to implement them. There is now, I believe, real unity of purpose and political will across the European Union on this issue. The wider world is turning against Gaddafi too, recognising that the transitional national council is the only credible diplomatic body that can represent the people of Libya right now. The Russians and the Chinese have accepted the importance of the transitional national council, and Premier Wen made this point to me in our meeting this morning. Gaddafi is increasingly isolated; indeed, today the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for his arrest. Gaddafi is now a fugitive from international justice. The pressure and the time are telling on Gaddafi, and we will not let up until the job is done.

On Syria, the Council condemned in the strongest possible terms the ongoing repression, and the unacceptable and shocking violence of the Syrian regime against its own people. At my instigation, we expressed particularly grave concern about what Syrian troops are doing close to the Turkish border. On the middle east more generally, the Council called on all parties to engage urgently in negotiations, and, on the fifth anniversary of his capture, demanded the immediate release of Gilad Shalit.

Finally, on Croatia, earlier this month I met Prime Minister Kosor and welcomed her country’s progress towards completing European membership negotiations. At the European Council we agreed that the negotiations would be concluded at the end of this month. Croatia’s success points the way for the rest of the countries of the western Balkans, whose aspirations to join the European Union we have always strongly supported.

At this Council, Britain has achieved some important objectives: we have protected the interests of the British taxpayer; we have secured agreements to promote and safeguard economic growth; and we have protected Britain’s borders from uncontrolled migration. I commend this statement to the House.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I start by expressing sympathy with the Prime Minister for the sense of shock and loss he must feel over the death of Christopher Shale. From whatever side we come from, we all know that it is unsung heroes such as him who are the backbone of our constituency associations. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending condolences to all of Mr Shale’s family and friends.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the European Council. On immigration, we support the position he set out, including on the continuance of the Dublin regulation negotiated by the previous Government. We also support the Government’s position on Croatian accession to the European Union. Let me ask the Prime Minister questions about Libya, Syria, the eurozone and the wider economic situation in Europe.

On Libya, the Prime Minister will know that Opposition Members welcome the Council’s continuing commitment to implement UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973. We are clear that we must keep up the pressure on Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan regime. Those who are expressing doubts over the mission should remember that if we had not taken action this European Council would have been discussing not the conduct of our campaign, but, in all likelihood, our failure to prevent a slaughter in Benghazi. But beyond immediate military and diplomatic developments, experience of conflicts demonstrates that post-conflict planning is crucial to a successful long-term outcome. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to say something about this, and will he explain why it appears to be Britain and not the United Nations that is fulfilling this role? Will he update us on what progress is being made?

In the context of the Arab spring, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to publish the review of the strategic defence and security review, which he told us at Prime Minister’s questions last week had been conducted? We are all interested in the outcome and look forward to seeing it.

Let me ask the Prime Minister about the situation in Syria, as he mentioned it in his statement. Will he tell us how we can continue to step up the pressure on Syria, including at the United Nations?

We have also consistently said—on both sides of the House, I believe—that Britain, as a supporter of Turkish membership of the EU should say to the Turks that the potential refugee crisis on their borders will only grow unless they help to put more pressure on the Syrian Government. Will the Prime Minister update us on conversations between this Government and the Turkish Government on that issue?

Turning to Greece, let me first say that we agree that the primary responsibility for addressing the situation lies with eurozone countries. As the Prime Minister will know, the UK made no direct contribution to the last Greek bail-out agreed on 2 May 2010 under the previous Government. I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on sticking to our approach to these issues. Indeed, on the question of article 122, which the right hon. Gentleman raised, he did not mention the famous 15 July 2010 Greening memorandum on the European bail-out mechanism, which is of much interest to the Conservative Benches. That, of course, said that article 122 had been agreed “by cross-party consensus”. Every time the Prime Minister comes before the House and says that this is not something we supported, he needs to know that is not what the memorandum of his own Economic Secretary said in a submission to this House.

The truth is that we have an interest in the Greek situation that goes beyond the level of our direct contribution—because of the potential exposure of our banks; because we contribute indirectly through the International Monetary Fund; and because of our wider interest in growth and jobs in Europe. I understand issues of market sensitivity, but will the Prime Minister confirm that a full analysis is being done of the impact of any restructuring of Greek debt on UK taxpayer-owned banks?

Britain also clearly has an interest in the durability of the bail-out. The Governor of the Bank of England has said:

“Providing liquidity can only… buy time”

and

“will never be an answer to a problem”.

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he has confidence that the right balance is being struck in demanding a further round of austerity against the need for growth in Greece?

After this European Council and after the Prime Minister’s statement, it remains unclear what the Council and the Prime Minister regard as a long-term and sustainable solution to the Greek crisis. Instead of boasting about being on the sidelines, should not the Prime Minister engage more with his colleagues to secure a solution to the crisis that will last, and will be in the interests of the eurozone and the United Kingdom?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are right to reform welfare. Welfare costs have got out of control in our country. We want to ensure that work always pays, and that if people do the right thing we will be on their side. It cannot be right for some families to get more than £26,000 a year in benefits that are paid for by people who are working hard and paying their taxes. I would say that everyone in the House should support the Welfare Reform Bill tonight, and it is a disappointment that Labour talks about welfare reform but will not vote for it.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

When the Prime Minister signed off his welfare Bill, did he know that it would make 7,000 cancer patients worse off by as much as £94 a week?

[The Prime Minister]

That is simply not the case. We are using exactly the same definition of people who are suffering and who are terminally ill as the last Government. We want to ensure that those people are helped and protected. The point that I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that if you are in favour of welfare reform, and if you want to encourage people to do the right thing, it is no good talking about it: you have got to vote for it.

[Edward Miliband]

As usual, the right hon. Gentleman does not know what is in his own Bill. Listen to Macmillan Cancer Support, which announced on 13 June: “Cancer patients to lose up to £94 a week”. Those are people who have worked hard all their lives and who have done the right thing and paid their taxes, yet when they are in need, the Prime Minister is taking money away from them. I ask him again: how can it be right that 7,000 people with cancer are losing £94 a week?

[The Prime Minister]

We are using precisely the same test as the last Government supported. All we see here is a Labour party desperate not to support welfare reform, and trying to find an excuse to get off supporting welfare reform. Anyone who is terminally ill gets immediate access to the higher level of support, and we will provide that to all people who are unable to work. That is the guarantee we make, but the right hon. Gentleman has to stop wriggling off his responsibilities and back the welfare reform he talks about.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister does not know the detail of his own Bill. Let me explain it to him. Because the Government are stopping contributory employment and support allowance after one year for those in work-related activity, cancer patients—7,000 of them—are losing £94 a week. I ask him again: how can that be right?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on the specific point. First of all, as I have said, our definition of “terminally ill” is exactly the same as the one used by the last Government. Crucially, anyone out of work who has longer to live will be given the extra support that comes from employment and support allowance. Irrespective of a person’s income or assets, that will last for 12 months. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, and he should admit that he is wrong. On a means-tested basis, this additional support can last indefinitely. That is the truth; he should check his facts before he comes to the House and chickens out of welfare reform.

[Edward Miliband]

So let us be clear about this: in his first answer the Prime Minister said that his policy was the same as the last Government’s; now he has admitted that the Government are ending contributory-based employment and support allowance after one year. Let me tell him what Macmillan Cancer Support says—[Interruption.] I think that Conservative Members should listen to what Macmillan Cancer Support has to say. Let me tell them; this is what it says—[Interruption.] I think it is a disgrace that Conservative Members are shouting when we are talking about issues affecting people with cancer. This is what Macmillan Cancer Support says—that many people

“will lose this…benefit simply because they have not recovered quickly enough.”

I ask the Prime Minister the question again: will he now admit that 7,000 cancer patients are losing up to £94 a week?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me try to explain it to the right hon. Gentleman again, as I do not think he has got the point—[Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker. This is important, and I want to try to explain to the right hon. Gentleman why I think he has got it wrong, and why I think what we are proposing is right. Let me explain the definition of who is terminally ill; these are horrible things to have to discuss, but let me explain. It is—[Interruption.] Hold on a second. The definition is the same one—as I say, it is six months. Anyone out of work who lives longer than that will be given the extra support that comes from employment and support allowance. That is irrespective of a person’s income or their assets and it will last for 12 months, not the six months that the Leader of the Opposition claimed. On a means-tested basis, this additional support can last indefinitely. So as I say, it is the same test as under the last Government. It has been put in place fairly, we have listened very carefully to Macmillan Cancer Support, and we have also made sure that someone is reviewing all the medical tests that take place under this system. I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to try to create a distraction from the fact that he will not support welfare reform, but I have answered his question, so he should now answer mine: why won’t you back the Bill?

[Edward Miliband]

In case the Prime Minister has forgotten, I ask the questions and he fails to answer them.

Let me try to explain it to him. He should listen to Professor Jane Maher, chief medical officer of Macmillan Cancer Support, who said:

“In my experience one year is simply not long enough for many people to recover from cancer. The serious physical and psychological side-effects can last for many months, even years, after treatment has finished. It is crucial that patients are not forced to return to work before they are ready.”

Macmillan Cancer Support and Britain’s cancer charities have been making this argument for months. I am amazed that the Prime Minister does not know about these arguments. Why does he not know about them? The House of Commons is voting on this Bill tonight. He should know about these arguments. I ask him again: will he now admit that 7,000 cancer patients are losing up to £94 a week?

[The Prime Minister]

I have answered the question three times with a full explanation. The whole point of our benefit reforms is that there are proper medical tests so that we support those who cannot work, as a generous, tolerant and compassionate country should, but we will make sure that those who can work have to go out to work, so that we do not reward bad behaviour. That is what the Bill is about. The Leader of the Opposition is attempting to put up a smokescreen because he has been found out. He made a speech this week about the importance of welfare reform, but he cannot take his divided party with him. That is what this is about: weak leadership of a divided party.

[Edward Miliband]

What an absolute disgrace, to describe talking about cancer patients in this country as a smokescreen! This is about people out in the country and cancer charities that are concerned on their behalf—and the Prime Minister does not know his own policy. It is not about people who are terminally ill; it is about people recovering from cancer who are losing support as a result of this Government. We know he does not think his policies through, but is this not one occasion on which we could say that if ever there was a case to “pause, listen and reflect”, this is it? Why does he not do so?

[The Prime Minister]

What we have seen this week is the right hon. Gentleman getting on the wrong side of every issue. On cutting the deficit, we now have the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the International Monetary Fund, his brother, and Tony Blair, on our side, and he is on his own. On welfare reform, we have everyone recognising that welfare needs to be reformed, apart from the right hon. Gentleman. On the health service—yes—we now have the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians, the former Labour Health Minister and Tony Blair all on the side of reform and, on his own, the right hon. Gentleman: a weak leader of a divided party. That is what we have learned this week.

Ninetieth Birthday of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I second the motion in the name of the Prime Minister and associate myself and my party entirely with the sentiments that he has just expressed? As the Duke of Edinburgh approaches his 90th birthday, he is, as the Prime Minister said, the longest-serving consort and the oldest serving spouse of any British monarch. The Duke and Her Majesty have been married for 64 years. As a relatively new spouse, I have particular admiration for that achievement and I realise that it will take me 63 years, 11 months and 20 days to catch up.

The Duke of Edinburgh has been a constant companion to Her Majesty throughout her reign and he has shown a moving love, support and devotion to Her Majesty that has been unfailing. He has also made an enormous contribution to public life here in Britain and right across the Commonwealth in his own right. He is the patron of hundreds of organisations that focus on the environment, industry, sport and education but he is perhaps best known, as the Prime Minister said, for the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, which he established 55 years ago to give young people a sense of responsibility to themselves and their communities. I am sure that every Member of the House will have had the experience of visiting a local school in their constituency and seeing the eyes of young people light up as they talk about the excitement, passion and sense of achievement they have got from doing the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. For that, we owe the Duke of Edinburgh a huge debt of gratitude.

The Duke is a reminder to us all of the unique spirit of public service that the monarchy discharges to the British people at home and abroad. That affection was evident at the wedding last month of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The Duke of Edinburgh has been a prince among consorts, but is, if I might put it this way, a king among characters. His unique turn of phrase has become a much-loved feature of modern British life. There are two repeatable examples that I want to share with the House. To the matron of a hospital he visited in the Caribbean, he commented:

“You have mosquitoes. I have the Press.”

That is a sentiment that many of us should share at various times in politics. Legend also has it that following the coronation in 1953, he turned to Her Majesty and said:

“Where did you get that hat?”

Humour is a great part of British life and we thank the Duke for his unique contribution.

We owe the Duke a great debt for the personal and professional sacrifices he has made to serve our country. He was, as the Prime Minister said, a distinguished naval officer who, at just 21, became one of the youngest first lieutenants in the Royal Navy, but he put his professional ambitions aside to be the loyal consort to the Queen. When asked in a recent interview if he had been disappointed to give up his naval career, he said that he had been a little disappointed but that, more importantly, it seemed to him that his duty was to serve the Queen

“in the best way I could.”

The Duke embodies qualities of duty, loyalty, public service and good humour—great British qualities. He came from a generation who were prepared to sacrifice everything they had for this country and their values. As he approaches his 90th birthday, I once again pay great and humble tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh for all he has done for Queen and country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have pledged to break the link between temporary migration and permanent settlement in the UK because we believe that settling in Britain should be a privilege, rather than an automatic right for those who have evaded the authorities for a certain amount of time. We are going to consult on further measures, including the future of the 14-year rule he mentioned, and make announcements later this year. We have already announced that there will be tighter rules for those wanting to settle here, and have already implemented a new income and English language requirement for skilled workers who have been here for more than five years.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Marine Nigel Mead from 42 Commando Royal Marines? He showed exceptional bravery and courage, like all our troops in Afghanistan, and our thoughts are with his family and friends.

The role of the Justice Secretary is to speak for the nation on matters of justice and crime. This morning he was on the radio suggesting that there were “serious” rapes and other categories of rapes. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to distance himself from the Justice Secretary’s comments?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, let me say that rape is one of the most serious crimes there is, and it should be met with proper punishment. Anyone who has ever met a rape victim and talked with them about what that experience means to them and how it stays with them for the rest of their life could only want it to have the most serious punishment possible. The real disgrace in our country is that only 6% of rapes reported to a police station end in a conviction. That is what we have to sort out. I have not heard the Justice Secretary’s interview, but the position of the Government is very clear: there is an offence called rape and anyone who commits it should be prosecuted, convicted and punished very severely.

[Edward Miliband]

Let me tell the Prime Minister what the Justice Secretary said this morning. He was asked about the average sentence a rapist gets. The interviewer said, “A rapist gets five years,” and then the Justice Secretary said in reply, “That includes date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds”. He went on to say that there were categories of “forcible rape” and “serious rape”. The Justice Secretary cannot speak for the women of this country when he makes comments like that.

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, I have not heard the interview, but the point is this: it should be a matter for the court to decide the seriousness of the offence and the sentence that ought to be passed. I served on the Sexual Offences Bill under the last Government, and we looked at all the issues about whether we should try to differentiate between different categories of rape—and I seem to remember that one of the right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench was leading the debate for the Government. We decided, as a House of Commons, not to make that distinction. What matters is this: do we get more cases to court, do we get more cases convicted, and do we get more cases sent down for decent sentences? That is the concern we should have.

[Edward Miliband]

When the Prime Minister leaves the Chamber, he should go and look at the comments of the Justice Secretary—and let me just say to him very clearly: the Justice Secretary should not be in his post at the end of today. That is the first thing the Prime Minister should do. The second thing he should do is to drop this policy, because this policy, which they are defending, is the idea that if you plead guilty to rape you get your sentence halved. That could mean that rapists spend as little as 15 months in prison. That is not an acceptable policy, and the Prime Minister should drop it.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that what the Leader of the Opposition might be doing is jumping to conclusions on this issue. The point is this: there is already a plea bargaining system in Britain, for one third, and we are consulting on whether to extend the system to make it even more powerful. We have not yet decided which offences it should apply to, or how it should be brought in, because there is a consultation, but the aim of plea bargaining—it is worth remembering this, because plea bargaining is used in very tough criminal justice systems, such as America’s—is to ensure that more people get prosecuted, more people get convicted, and it actually saves the victim from having to go through a court process and find out at the end that the culprit is going to submit a guilty plea at the last minute. That is what the Government are looking at, and when we have listened to the consultation we will announce our conclusions—but he needs to be patient until we do that.

[Edward Miliband]

We are getting used to this. As we saw on health, when there is a terrible policy the Prime Minister just hides behind the consultation. Frankly, it is just not good enough. Let me tell him what people think of this policy. The judges are saying the policy is wrong, End Violence Against Women is saying that it is the wrong policy, and his own Victims Commissioner says that the policy is “bonkers”. I know that he is in the middle of a consultation, but I would like to hear his view on this policy, which he should drop.

[The Prime Minister]

The terrible fact that the right hon. Gentleman refers to is that only 6% of rape cases are prosecuted and end in a conviction. That is after 13 years of the Labour party running the criminal justice system, so that is the improvement we want to see. He wants to know my view: my view is get out there, convict, prosecute and send these people down for a decent period of time. That is what we should be doing. Rape is such a serious offence, so he should wait for the outcome of the consultation, rather than just jumping on the bandwagon.

[Edward Miliband]

This is about the way the Prime Minister runs his Government, because yesterday the Justice Secretary said that this

“proposal is likely to survive”—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 150]

the consultation, and the prisons Minister was defending the policy. People are rightly angry about this policy; they think that it is the wrong policy. All I am asking is something very simple: why does not the Prime Minister give us his view?

[The Prime Minister]

I have given you my view, and I will give you my—[Interruption.] I have. I want to see more people prosecuted and convicted for rape, and we are going to take steps to make sure that happens. But I will give you my view on something else—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Yes, which is this: I think there is merit in having a plea bargaining system, which we have already—and which should be discretionary, to try to make sure that we convict more. What we had under the previous Government was a mandatory release of all prisoners, irrespective of what they had done. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman sat in the Cabinet that let 80,000 criminals out of prison. That was not a discretionary policy; it was a mandatory policy—and it was a disgraceful policy.

[Edward Miliband]

Does the Prime Minister not realise what people are thinking of him on crime? Before the election he made a whole series of promises, and now he is breaking them one by one. He was out of touch on anonymity for rape victims, and now he is out of touch on sentencing for rape. He is cutting the number of police officers—cutting 12,000 police officers. Why does he not go back to the drawing board on crime, and get rid of his Justice Secretary?

[The Prime Minister]

Talking of broken promises, I remember the Leader of the Opposition saying at his party conference, about Ken Clarke:

“I’m not going to say he’s soft on crime.”

Well, that pledge did not last very long. One of these days the Labour party is going to realise that opposition is about more than just jumping on a bandwagon and picking up an issue; it is about putting forward a serious alternative and making some serious points. [Interruption.]