European Council

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me start by echoing his words about the contribution of our armed forces in Afghanistan. All our thanks are with those who have served our country, and all our thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives. We will continue to support the Afghan Government through political and humanitarian aid, as well as our training mission. Every one of our troops who served in Afghanistan can take pride in their mission and what they achieved, and the House and the whole country are proud of them.

I also echo the Prime Minister’s words about Ukraine and support for its Government. On climate change, I welcome the climate and energy package, paving the way for the global UN summit in Paris next year. What action will he be taking in the coming months to encourage other countries, especially China and the United States, to bring forward ambitious targets and policies in advance of that conference?

Turning to the Ebola crisis in west Africa, the whole world has been horrified by the devastating scenes. Our hearts go out to the communities that confront the threat on a daily basis. I welcome the Government’s efforts to help affected countries. We are proud of the work of our armed forces, our health professionals and our aid community. What effort was made at the summit to encourage other countries to do what Britain has done by sending health workers and personnel to the affected region?

Let me turn to the EU budget change. The Commission’s handling of the matter has been cack-handed and unacceptable, and it has caused consternation in several other states. The urgent priority now is for the Government to pursue all diplomatic means to get the best deal for Britain, but the Prime Minister must also explain whether the Government carried out due diligence in their handling of the matter. He says that he was made aware of the matter only on 23 October, while the Chancellor said that he had “no warning”, but that is simply not the case. The budget changes arise due to changed estimates of gross national income—GNI. The scale of the changes should not have taken anyone in government by surprise because extensive coverage was given to significant changes to our national income arising from the inclusion of the shadow economy, which is worth more than £50 billion.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Office for National Statistics agreed to, and has been part of, these substantial and planned changes throughout Europe for at least two years—since 2012? Will he further confirm that the ONS stated publicly in May 2014 that the changes would impact our budget contribution? It said in a press release that GNI

“is used in the calculation of a Member State’s contribution to the EU budget.”

The Treasury was clearly aware of the situation, because I have here a letter that the then Economic Secretary, the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), wrote to a parliamentary Committee on Europe not seven days ago, but seven months ago—on 11 March 2014. She said in that very interesting letter that changes to GNI would take place in time for 2014 and wrote about the “high priority” that the Government were giving to addressing them. The changes had been planned for a number of years, the ONS publicly declared that they would have an impact on our budget contribution, and Ministers knew about them and claimed that they were a “high priority”, so when the Prime Minister replies, will he really maintain that there was “no warning” and that Treasury Ministers knew nothing about the changes? Surely the Treasury must have made its own assessment of the impact on the EU budget that would follow. As a matter of basic competence, if it did not do that, why not? This matters because the Prime Minister could have done much earlier what he did at the last minute on Friday: called for a meeting of Finance Ministers and entered negotiations about the demand.

Is not the truth that this is a familiar pattern with this Prime Minister: months and months when he does not do the work, followed by last-minute pyrotechnics when it goes wrong? No one will be fooled by it. He spends all his time negotiating with his party about Europe, when what he should be doing is the basic work of getting a better deal for Britain. Once again he shows that, for all his bluster, he has been asleep at the wheel and the British people are paying the price.

[The Prime Minister]

Throughout all that, the right hon. Gentleman would not answer one simple question: would Labour pay the bill? That is the problem: there is absolutely no leadership available on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] Let me answer all his questions—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I cannot think who my hon. Friend is referring to, but it is certainly true to say that if we are not satisfied—as I am not satisfied—with the way the EU is working at the moment and if we want change, reform, renegotiation and, crucially, an in/out referendum—not for us to decide, but for the British public to decide—there is only one choice, and that is to vote Conservative.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I should say at the outset that I am speaking through a sore throat, but I would not have missed this meeting with the Prime Minister for the world. Today’s fall in unemployment is welcome. Every time someone gets a job, it is good for them and for their family. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, however, that the latest figures show that wages are still failing to keep pace with inflation and that he is presiding over the longest fall in living standards for a century?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am sure the whole House will want his sore throat to get better soon. I hope that, if he gets a doctor’s appointment, he will not forget it. He must make sure he turns up on time.

I am glad that he has asked me about unemployment, because the figures out today show that our long-term plan is working. We see unemployment now below 2 million, we see the claimant count below 1 million and we have just seen the biggest annual fall in unemployment since records began. Long-term unemployment, youth unemployment, long-term youth unemployment and women’s unemployment are all down, but there is absolutely no complacency. To answer his question directly: yes of course we have seen slow wage growth, but that is because we are recovering from the longest and deepest recession in this country’s history. Let me remind him what the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:

“We’ve had a great big recession. We had the biggest recession we’ve had in 100 years. It will be astonishing if household incomes haven’t fallen and earnings haven’t fallen”.

Of course that has happened, and we know who is responsible.

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman obviously noticed that I lost a couple of paragraphs in my speech. I have noticed that since we last met he has lost a couple of his Members of Parliament. Let us talk about what he said at conference. Before the last election he lectured the Tory party and said this:

“you can’t talk about tax reduction unless you can show how it is paid for, the public aren’t stupid”.

So when he announced his £7 billion unfunded tax cut he must have had a secret plan to pay for it. What is it: cutting public services or raising VAT?

[The Prime Minister]

People do not have to look in the crystal ball with us; they can read the book. We have cut taxes for 26 million people in our country; we have taken 3 million people out of income tax altogether; and we have raised the personal allowance to £10,000, so that if someone is on the minimum wage, we have cut their income tax bill by two thirds. But we have been able to do that only because we remembered something important: you have got to have a long-term economic plan and you have got to cut the deficit. We do have a plan, the deficit is down by a third, and the International Monetary Fund says that we are the fastest-growing economy in the G7. With a record like that, we can afford tax cuts—that people deserve.

[Edward Miliband]

We can see the record: higher VAT; cuts to tax credits; hitting working families; and the bedroom tax. That is the record of this Prime Minister. He cannot be straight about his tax plans, so perhaps he can be straight about his plans for tax credits. Can he confirm that as a result of his plans a one-earner family with two children on £25,000 a year will lose almost £500 a year?

[The Prime Minister]

The best way to help people is to take them out of income tax altogether. Next year, people will be able to earn £10,500 before they pay any income tax. We think it is better not to take money off people in the first place, but the right hon. Gentleman wants to compare records. After all, this is the Labour party, so let us look at the record on labour. Here it is: women’s unemployment up 26% under Labour, down 11% under this Government; and youth unemployment up 44% under Labour, down 22% under this Government. The fact is that the economy is growing, the deficit is coming down and we are getting Britain back to work. The long-term plan is working, but the one thing that could wreck it is a Labour Government.

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question or confirm the figures. Let me just tell him that they are the Chancellor’s own figures showing that people will be £500 a year worse off, and the Prime Minister cannot even admit that. Let me ask him about a very specific issue about disabled people and the minimum wage, which goes to the issue of living standards. In response to a question at the Conservative party conference, Lord Freud, the welfare reform Minister, said:

“You make a really good point about the disabled…There is a group…where actually as you say they’re not worth the full wage.”

Is that the Prime Minister’s view?

[The Prime Minister]

No, absolutely not. Of course disabled people should be paid the minimum wage, and the minimum wage under this Government is going up, and going up in real terms. It is now at £6.50, and we will be presenting our evidence to the Low Pay Commission calling for another real-terms increase in the minimum wage. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the Chancellor’s figures, so let me give him the Chancellor’s figures: inflation is at 1.2%—a five-year low; we have had the biggest annual fall in unemployment since records began; we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7; and next year pensioners will be getting an extra £150 a year. Those are the Chancellor’s figures, those are the Government’s figures, and we know that we just get mayhem from Labour.

[Edward Miliband]

We need to be clear about what the welfare reform Minister said, because it is very serious. He did not just say that disabled people were “not worth” the minimum wage. He went further and said that he was looking at

“whether there is something we can do…if someone wants to work for £2 an hour.”

Surely someone holding those views cannot possibly stay in the right hon. Gentleman’s Government?

[The Prime Minister]

Those are not the views of the Government. They are not the views of anyone in the Government. The minimum wage is paid to everybody, disabled people included. [Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell you that I do not need lectures from anyone about looking after disabled people, so I do not want to hear any more of that. We pay the minimum wage, we are reforming disability benefits, we want to help disabled people in our country and we want to help more of them into work. Instead of casting aspersions, why does not the right hon. Gentleman get back to talking about the economy?

[Edward Miliband]

If the Prime Minister wants to protect the rights of disabled people, I suggest that he reads very carefully what his welfare reform Minister has said, because they are not the words of someone who should be in charge of policy relating to disabled people. In the dog days of this Government, the Conservative party is going back to its worst instincts: unfunded tax cuts, hitting the poorest hardest and now undermining the minimum wage. The nasty party is back.

Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I rise to support the Government motion concerning military action against ISIL in Iraq. It is right that the Prime Minister has brought this issue to the House and committed to bringing future decisions to the House too. Let me start by saying that all of us, whatever side of the debate we are on, will be conducting it with huge admiration for the bravery, spirit and duty displayed by our armed forces, who act on the decisions that this House makes.

Let us be clear at the outset what the proposition is today. It is about air strikes against ISIL in Iraq. It is not about ground troops from the United Kingdom, or about UK military action elsewhere. It is a mission specifically aimed at ISIL. As we debate this issue today, I understand the qualms and, for some, deep unease that there will be about that undertaking, both in the House and in the country. Those who advocate military action today have to persuade Members of the House not just that ISIL is an evil organisation but that it is we, Britain, who should take military action in Iraq. I want to do so by first setting out the particular nature of the ISIL threat, by secondly talking about the criteria that we should apply to judging the case for military action, and by thirdly saying something about the role of our country in the world, which for me is directly relevant to this decision.

[Mr Baron]

Will the right hon. Gentleman also clarify Labour’s position with regard to the politics? Many of us are concerned that there is no clear exit strategy militarily, but what about the politics? There is no point in military intervention if the politics are not right—and they are not. Many of those who served under al-Maliki are still in place, and many Sunnis still feel alienated. Without the hearts and minds policy being right, military intervention will not be enduring.

[Edward Miliband]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s long-held caution on these issues, but the point I will make is that there needs to be a comprehensive strategy. We are not talking about a military-only solution. It is about political action, humanitarian action and wider strategic action, and I will come to that later in my remarks.

First I want to say something about the nature of ISIL. As the Prime Minister said, ISIL is not simply another terrorist organisation. We have seen, of course, its hostage-taking of innocent British citizens, and it is not just British citizens whom ISIL is threatening but Christians, Yazidis and fellow Muslims, Sunni and Shi’a, from many different countries and backgrounds—anyone who does not subscribe to its deeply perverted ideology.

If the House will allow me, I want to give one hideous example recently gathered by Amnesty International, because it is directly relevant to the decisions that we make today. On the morning of Friday 15 August, ISIL fighters assembled the residents of Kocho village in northern Iraq at the secondary school, where they separated men and boys from women and younger children. The men were then driven away to different nearby locations, where they were shot and killed. The women and children of the village were abducted and continue to be held by ISIL.

Let us be clear about what this is: ISIL is murdering Muslims. So to those who say that military action against ISIL is somehow an attack on Islam, let me just say this: I understand the anxiety, including in communities in Britain, but the truth is entirely different. It is Muslims themselves who are saying it—leading British Muslim scholars and imams recently wrote of ISIL:

“They are perpetrating the worst crimes against humanity…it is a war against all humanity.”

ISIL’s ideology has nothing to do with the peaceful religion practised by billions of people across the world and by millions of our fellow citizens, who are appalled by their actions.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned hostages. David Haines was brought up and educated in Perth, and some of his family are constituents of mine. To the people of Perth, David Haines was simply a hero, and the more we find out about his remarkable life, the more appalled we are by his brutal and barbaric murder. The people of Perth are planning a commemoration of his life, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister will want to join them and congratulate them on their efforts to ensure that this man is properly remembered.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman spoke with great eloquence on this issue. In a way, it tells us all we need to know about this organisation that it would take hostage people who exist simply to try to help the innocent victims of conflict all around the world.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his support—this time—for the Government motion for intervention. Given what he has said about the horrors of ISIL, if it is necessary for us to come back to the House and debate a motion to intervene against ISIL in Syria, will he support it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

I want to deal with this very directly, if the House will give me permission. I want to be very clear about this. We will obviously consider any further proposition if the Prime Minister chooses to come back with one. Let me mention three issues that concern me about the difference between Iraq and Syria.

First of all, there is the question of legitimacy. There is a strong argument about the legal base for action in Syria under article 51. The point that I have been making in the last few days is that, in my view, when we are not talking about being invited in by a democratic state, it would be better—I put it no higher than that—to seek a UN Security Council resolution. Why? Because that is the highest multilateral institution of the world and therefore it would be better to seek authorisation on the basis of that.

There are two other issues in play in relation to Syria. One, there is the question of ground forces. The point that a number of hon. Members have made is that we cannot defeat ISIL by air power alone. In the case of Iraq, the Iraqi army and the Kurds can conduct those operations; there is—I put it no higher than this—an outstanding question about who will perform that function in Syria. Secondly, as the Prime Minister himself made reference to, there is a big outstanding question about the overall outcome that we are seeking in Syria. The Prime Minister said that there is a clear strategy and plan in relation to that; personally, I think that a lot more work needs to be done on what exactly the route map is in Syria. Those are the particular issues that I raise in relation to Syria.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I want to make some progress with my argument, if the House will allow me.

ISIL is not simply a murderous organisation. As the Prime Minister said, it has ambitions for a state of its own—a caliphate across the middle east, run according to its horrific norms and values. That is why I believe, and established in the first part of my remarks, that we cannot simply stand by against the threat of ISIL. But as I said in response to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), in acting against it we need to learn the lessons from the past. We should be clear about this with the British people. That means a comprehensive strategy—humanitarian and political, as well as military, and, crucially, rooted in the region. Some of that work is under way, but I believe that much more needs to be done.

There is a reality that the House must face up to: to make this alliance work, there is the need for military action as well to contain and help counter the threat of ISIL in Iraq. That is why we are meeting today.

In the second part of my remarks, to make the case for military action by the UK, I want to return to the criteria that I have previously set out—criteria that learn from the past and judge whether military action can be justified. First, in any action that we take there must be just cause. I believe that ISIL does establish just cause: on humanitarian grounds, which I have set out, and on grounds of national interest. On this point, the international instability created by the undermining and potential overthrow of the democratic Iraqi state would clearly have implications for the stability of the region and therefore for us and our national interest. It would make it more likely that Iraq would become a haven and training ground for terrorism directed against the UK.

Secondly, military action must always be a last resort; again, I believe that this criterion is met. ISIL has shown that it is not an organisation that could or should be negotiated with. Thirdly, there must be a clear legal base, to provide legitimacy and legal force for our actions. I support the motion today because we are responding to the request from the democratic Iraqi state, and that is recognised in the UN charter.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

As one who voted on 18 March 2003 against the war in Iraq, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that we bear a particular responsibility for subsequent events, and, therefore, a particular responsibility towards the Government and people of Iraq?

[Edward Miliband]

That is an important point. I shall come to it later, but let me say now that, while some people would say that our intervention in Iraq means that we should not intervene in this case, I think that there is a heightened responsibility for us precisely because we did intervene in Iraq, and—with all kinds of implications—the Iraqi state that has emerged is partly our responsibility.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have a moral obligation to help the Iraqi people in their hour of need—an obligation which, like the deficit, this Government did not create, but has to deal with? [Interruption.]

[Edward Miliband]

If I may say so, I think the hon. Gentleman did himself no credit with that intervention.

Let me turn to the fourth test. This is important, because it is the hardest test of all, and we need to level with the House about it. We must believe that there is a reasonable prospect of success before we take the grave step of committing our forces. The aim is clear: it is to reinforce the democratic Government of Iraq and prevent the advance of ISIL, at the invitation of that Government, and it is to do so by using international military air power while the Iraqi army and Kurdish peshmerga conduct a ground campaign.

No one should be in any doubt that this is a difficult mission and that it will take time, but there is already evidence that the US action is having the effect of holding back ISIL. Prior to that action, ISIL was advancing, with catastrophic consequences for the Iraqi people. This is where there is a choice: to act or not to act. Both have implications, and both have consequences. In June, ISIL took Mosul. Failure to act would mean more Mosuls, and more killing of the sort that I described earlier.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the outcome is to be greater stability, and if it requires the intervention and the support of neighbouring countries, it would have been quite good to hear more about Turkey’s attitude and, in particular, its attitude to arming the Kurds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend has made a really important point. It is incredibly important that we mobilise all countries in the region, and Turkey is primary among them. We need to learn the whole lesson—namely that there can be no solution without our engaging not just the people of Iraq and an inclusive Government in Iraq, but the wider neighbourhood.

Let me now turn to my fifth criterion. There must be broad support in the region for reasons of legitimacy—because this action must not be seen as some new form of imperialism—and of effectiveness, because regional support is essential to the long-term success of the mission. At the end of August, the Arab League made a statement calling for comprehensive measures to combat ISIL, and we now see a regional coalition consisting of Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as other countries.

Sixthly and finally, the proposed action must be proportionate. We must make sure that innocent civilians are protected. I know that strict conditions are in place to ensure that there is proper targeting, and that everything possible is done to avoid civilian casualties.

Having scrutinised those six conditions—just cause, last resort, legal base, reasonable prospects, regional support and proportionality—I believe that they are met.

[Rehman Chishti]

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a broader coalition. Does he, like me, welcome the fact that 120 clerics and imams from around the world are setting out sections of the Koran, making it quite clear that ISIL has nothing to do with Islam and is an evil organisation which everyone around the world, including the Muslim world, has a duty to tackle?

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is not a clash of civilisations. The vast, vast majority of Muslims all around the world abhor ISIL and its activities.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister on what has been said so far today. It is vital for the sense to be felt that the entire House is behind our troops when they are out performing in this way.

My right hon. Friend has spoken powerfully about the fact that this is not a war on Islam, and we are all very conscious of the scars that remain from the past. Will he say a little more about what he, as Leader of the Opposition, will do to ensure that our Muslim communities here recognise that this is not a war on them, and that it is absolutely about protecting Muslims as well as people back here in the United Kingdom?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I will play my part—as I am sure will he and other Members across the House—in setting out the case and explaining the basis of action, which is to protect innocent Muslims in Iraq who are under terrible threat from ISIL day after day. That is why there is such urgency in this case.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister argued that this was a generational struggle, but only last year in this House, he passionately argued for action in Syria. Had he got his way then, what would the position of ISIL be today? Would ISIL not be stronger? If the consequences were unforeseen over the space of a year, does that not show that our commitment should not be open-ended, but should be back to be scrutinised by this House?

[Edward Miliband]

As we are, on this occasion, seeking the unity of the House, it is incredibly important that we do everything we can to make that happen. The proposition last year was about chemical weapons in relation to President Assad. That matter was dealt with by others. Of course, the situation in Syria remains very dire. I believe that we made the right decision last summer, but today is about trying to get the whole House supporting the motion before it.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, fairly recently, this House and the international community were condemned for tolerating genocide in Rwanda and then for tolerating genocide in Sudan? Given the evidence today of genocide, particularly against the Kurds in Iraq, it is no wonder that the British people are in support not just of him but of the motion before the House.

[Edward Miliband]

My right hon. Friend speaks incredibly powerfully. In the examples he cited, many of us may feel that there was a case for intervention that was not taken up. These decisions are always incredibly difficult, but if we can help innocent people who are under threat of persecution, it is right to do so.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in supporting this motion, but may I press him on our role in the world and how it is perceived by people outside? This hokey-cokey approach to international conflicts concerns many people who have just seen thousands of innocent Palestinians murdered while we stood on the sidelines. Will he confirm to the House that he will show the same commitment, and push for resources, to get a satisfactory conclusion in Palestine?

[Edward Miliband]

I agree that it is right to speak out on these issues—and to speak out without fear or favour—and to pursue the two-state solution that we need.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I want to move on if I may to the third part of my remarks.

Some people might accept the criteria that I have set out, but say that it is not our job to intervene because western intervention always makes things worse—we must confront this issue, because it will concern not just Members in this House but people in the country. I understand that argument, but I do not agree with it. Intervention always has risks, but a dismembered Iraq would be more dangerous for Britain. ISIL unchecked means more persecution of the innocent. If we say to people that we will pass by on this one, it makes it far harder to persuade other Arab countries to play their part. Members across the House have been saying that this must be resolved in the neighbourhood and that we must engage the region. We would have less moral authority to say that we want the Arab states to play their part, if we say, “I’m sorry, but this has nothing to do with us. We won’t intervene.” Finally, we should pride ourselves on our traditions of internationalism. Being internationalist and not withdrawing from the concerns of the world is when Britain is at its best.

I want to speak now about the underlying reasons for wariness over action. I am talking here about the 2003 war in Iraq. I understand why some who were in the House at the time will wonder whether this is a repeat of that experience. In my view, it is not, and it is worth setting out why.

First, as the Prime Minister said, this case is about supporting a democratic state. It is not about overturning an existing regime and seeking to build a new one from the rubble, which is a much harder undertaking. Secondly, there is no debate about the legal base for action in Iraq, as there was in 2003. Thirdly, there is no argument over whether military action is a last resort. Whatever side of the debate we are on, no one is saying, “Let’s negotiate with ISIL.” They are not people with whom we can negotiate. Fourthly, there is broad international support, not a divided world, with all 28 EU member states and the Arab League providing support, and five Arab states taking part in action. Fifthly, there is no question of British ground troops being deployed. I understand the wariness there will be in the House and in the country about whether this is a repeat of 2003, but on those five grounds it is not, and it is demonstrably not.

[John Woodcock]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our failure to reconstruct Iraq properly after the war actually increases our responsibility to act responsibly and engage other partners in the region to create a more stable country for the future than we have seen over the past 10 years?

[Edward Miliband]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend about our responsibilities, and indeed our responsibilities to the people of Iraq.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

rose—

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I will not give way again.

The late Robin Cook said this in his resignation speech on the eve of the Iraq war:

“Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 726.]

This is multilateral action, prompted by a legitimate democratic state; and a world order governed by rules, if it is about anything, must be about protecting a democratic state, which is what the motion before us is about. I believe that, although this is difficult, it is the right thing to do. There is no graver decision for our Parliament and our country, but protecting our national interest, security and the values for which we stand is why I will be supporting the motion this afternoon.

NATO Summit

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

First, I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Jim Dobbin. He was an assiduous Member of Parliament who always put the people of Heywood and Middleton first. He was, as the Prime Minister said, a man of faith, which underpinned everything he did, and he was a lifelong public servant, having worked in the NHS for 30 years before coming to this House. He was also a proud Scot, and was planning to be in Scotland this week to help campaign to keep our United Kingdom together. He will be sadly missed, not just by his family and friends, but by colleagues from across this House.

I also join the Prime Minister in congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their happy news, and I, too, wish them well in the months ahead.

I congratulate Wales on its successful hosting of the summit. Perhaps we should also congratulate the enterprising Raffle family on their picture at Stonehenge with President Obama.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. This NATO summit was the most important for a generation. Today, NATO faces the gravest challenges in Europe, the middle east and beyond since the fall of the Berlin wall and the first Gulf war. I commend NATO leaders for seizing the opportunity to put down firm markers on the key issues: Russia and Ukraine, ISIL, and defence co-operation.

Starting with Ukraine, the ceasefire and peace plan announced on Friday by the Presidents of Ukraine and Russia was welcome, but it must be observed. It would be a grave mistake to ease international pressure on Russia before Russian troops no longer operate in Ukraine. We therefore welcome the readiness action plan, which is a step towards more nimble and flexible capabilities, sending a signal that if a NATO member is in danger, allies will take quick action. I welcome the attendance of President Poroshenko at the summit. What assurances were specifically given to Ukraine by NATO? Given also the desired aim of agility in the plan, how is the NATO decision-making process requiring agreement of all 28 countries being made sufficiently reliable and swift? Specifically, on the spearhead force, what countries will be host to it and in what situations will it be deployed?

Let me move on to the rise of ISIL in the middle east. The whole world is acutely aware of the barbaric threat that ISIL poses, and it was right that NATO members sought to address that. It is right also to seek to build the widest possible consensus in pursuit of that aim. There is no long-term solution to ISIL without a long-term plan that is based on widespread partnership in the region and the legitimacy of an inclusive Iraqi Government, and that includes a genuinely multilateral, political, diplomatic and humanitarian alliance.

In that context, will the Prime Minister tell us what progress is being made in the urgent task of assembling a genuine inclusive Government in Iraq? I welcome the united position taken by the Arab League yesterday against ISIL. Will the Prime Minister update the House on what other progress has been made in the vital work of building regional support?

Let me turn to NATO’s clarity of purpose, which is the collective defence of a strong transatlantic alliance. On defence spending, we share the commitment to maintain strong defence and a strong NATO. In the light of the pressures that all countries face, does the Prime Minister agree that part of the task that NATO faces is better pooling of alliance resources so that we have the kinds of capabilities that are required?

Finally, on Afghanistan, I commend the commitment of NATO members to Afghanistan. Our country has made huge sacrifices, and so have a number of others. It is right that by the end of 2014 we will see the drawdown of British forces. I pay tribute to our forces for the sacrifices that they have made and I join the Prime Minister in giving my full support to the military covenant, the armed forces declaration and its implementation.

We know from the past, not least in Iraq, the crucial importance of securing the right political settlement. To ensure that the sacrifices that have been made lead to a better future, Afghan leaders must resolve their current post-election differences and agree to a unified leadership. Will the Prime Minister update the House on progress on that matter and on a security agreement with the remaining forces? Given that the force contribution from coalition nations will be critical, will the Prime Minister tell the House the number of NATO troops expected to stay past 2014 and the UK contribution to that mission?

This summit has demonstrated that the NATO alliance is strong and is needed by its member states more than ever. As President Obama said:

“The defence of Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defence of Berlin and Paris and London.”

The task for NATO is to demonstrate this commitment and to understand that wherever our interests lie, we need a strategy that combines military readiness with political, diplomatic and strategic alliances. We join the Government in supporting a NATO that meets that challenge.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his response. He was right to say that this was the most important NATO conference for a generation. That is because we face multiple challenges—in Europe and Ukraine, with ISIL and the other threats around our very dangerous world. Let me take his questions in turn.

On Ukraine, the mood of the NATO meeting and the meeting I chaired with the Ukrainian President was that there should be no easing of the pressure on Russia. With regard to what NATO is doing for Ukraine, there is some important defence capability building being done on things such as command and control and ensuring that the Ukrainian army is properly managed. There is also support in the form of non-lethal equipment such as body armour and other facilities that countries are giving. It is important that we do not measure the NATO commitment to Ukraine through military support for war-fighting capabilities. The real measure of support is the EU and US approach on sanctions, which have been ratcheted up. As I have said in the House before, it is important that we keep up the pressure in that regard.

As for the new spearhead force, different countries will be contributing and Britain has got out ahead by making clear the nature of our commitment through the brigade headquarters and the battalion. I am sure that others will come forward with their contributions, but the right hon. Gentleman is right that the implementation of the NATO agenda will now be vital.

On the question of combating ISIL, I agree absolutely with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the need for an inclusive Government in Iraq. That is supposed to be being put in place this week. It has already taken time and it is a complex undertaking, but it is absolutely vital. I would argue that without that, it is very difficult to take the further steps that need to be taken, so it is vital that it is put in place.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about regional support. Jordan, as a partner nation of NATO, was at the conference and made a very strong statement about its support for squeezing ISIL. He asked whether NATO countries are properly pooling their resources, and this is where the 20% pledge on new equipment is so vital. When new equipment is commissioned, it should be properly interoperable between NATO countries, and increasingly it is.

On Afghanistan, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the way to secure our legacy in Afghanistan is to ensure that there is a proper political settlement. A lot of pressure is being put on Dr Abdullah Abdullah and Dr Ghani to bury their differences and form a Government together. They have promised to do that, but we need to see it happen. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the contribution that Britain will make to the NATO forces. Our principal contribution post the end of 2014 will be the officer training academy that President Karzai specifically asked for and that we are providing. That should put our contribution of troops for that facility into the low hundreds. Some other countries, most notably the United States but also Germany and some others, will have more NATO troops on the ground, as it were.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the bilateral security agreement; both candidates have said that they will sign it, and I would expect it to be signed. As for his general point, what is required in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, is a combination of all the assets we have at our disposal. On occasion, that will include military assets, but the importance of politics cannot be underestimated. The future of Afghanistan will best be secured by an inclusive Afghan Government and the future of Iraq will best be delivered if there is an inclusive Iraqi Government.

EU Council, Security and Middle East

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.

This summer of international instability has demonstrated the need for Britain to be engaged and build alliances across continents to tackle the problems that the world is facing, learning lessons from the past.

On the EU summit, let me take the opportunity provided by the appointment of a new High Representative and Council President, which we welcome, to commend the excellent work of Cathy Ashton over the last five years, particularly in helping to mediate an inclusive settlement in Kosovo and in leading the efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear programme. She has served with distinction.

On Ukraine, before the summer we were all appalled by the shooting down of Malaysian airliner MH17, and we need to face the reality that we have seen no let-up in Russian aggression and incursions into Ukrainian territory. If anything, the situation has got worse, not better. This continued Russian aggression must be met with a robust co-ordinated and united international response, which sends a clear signal to President Putin. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time for the EU to consider further sectoral sanctions, including in key areas such as defence, energy and financial services? Will he also tell us what plans will be put forward at the NATO summit to provide support to Ukraine?

On the situation in Gaza, we deeply regret the appalling loss of life of more than 2,000 Palestinians, including many children, and of Israeli soldiers and civilians. We unequivocally condemn Hamas’s dreadful and murderous rocket attacks and defend Israel’s right to defend itself. In our view, however, the nature of Israel’s response in this crisis cannot be justified, and I agree that today’s annexation of Palestinian land is, in the words of the Prime Minister, “deplorable”. The truth is that history tells us that this appalling cycle of violence will continue unless there are meaningful negotiations towards a two-state solution. Will the Prime Minister tell us what steps he and the EU will be taking to be an insistent advocate for those negotiations? I join the Prime Minister, too, in saying that whatever our views on this conflict, nothing can excuse anti-Semitism wherever we find it, at home and abroad.

On Iraq and Syria, ISIL’s campaign of terror against the innocent, including Yazidi and Christian minorities, and its grotesque acts of violence have shocked people across the country. ISIL presents a particular type of threat that cannot be ignored because of our sense of conscience in relation to those who immediately face its terror; because it threatens the democratic Iraqi state and seeks to redraw borders to establish a repressive and brutal state of its own; and because of the danger of the export of this ideology.

At the same time, we must learn lessons from the events of the past decade, including the 2003 war in Iraq, and proceed with the requisite humility. That means being clear about our objectives and the means to achieve them, and always being conscious of the need to build legitimacy and alliances well beyond Britain and the United States. We support the US airstrikes that are protecting innocent people at risk from ISIL, and we believe it is right to provide crucial support to the Kurds’ military effort. However, as President Obama has said, defeating ISIL cannot be achieved by military means alone, so may I ask the Prime Minister some questions about that?

First, I agree with the Prime Minister that there can be no defeat of ISIL without tackling the sources of its support in Iraq. Therefore, what role is the EU playing in ensuring that the new Iraqi Government promote a new settlement that does indeed end the years of exclusion of Sunni minorities?

Secondly, ISIL would not be the force it is if other countries in the region had not overtly and covertly provided succour for its ideology, as well as financial and other support. Therefore, what discussions has the Prime Minister had, or will he have, with countries in the region, including our traditional allies, to make clear the stand that needs to be taken against ISIL and its ideology. What further steps does he think can be taken to encourage neighbouring countries, including Turkey, to tighten their borders to slow the flow of arms and fighters to Syria and Iraq?

Thirdly, does the Prime Minister agree that any strategy to tackle ISIL needs the active engagement of neighbouring countries, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran? I agree with what he says about the need for a political transition in Syria. Can he say how he believes that can be achieved? Given the need for the multilateral approach I have talked about, can he say how he plans to use our chairmanship of the UN Security Council to build the alliances that are necessary?

Our approach to defeating ISIL at home must have the same determination as we show overseas and proceed on the basis of the evidence. Just as we were shocked by the actions of ISIL, so people throughout Britain are appalled that British citizens are part of ISIL’s murderous activity. Our country’s streets have seen before the horror that happens when extremist ideology turns to acts of violence. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to make it easier for police and border authorities to seize the passports of those participating in the conflict, and we will study and scrutinise his proposals. On his discretionary powers to exclude British nationals from the country, it is unclear what he is proposing. I am happy to engage in cross-party conversations but can he give the House a bit more information at this stage about what his proposals might consist of?

With regard to the most serious, high-risk cases—where convictions in the courts cannot be achieved—I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition that the independent reviewer on terrorism has made clear the inadequacies of TPIMs, in particular, the inability to relocate suspects away from their communities. Relocation was indeed a central part of control orders, and it was a mistake to get rid of them in the first place. Does the Prime Minister also agree that we need a mandatory and comprehensive programme of deradicalisation not just for those who will be under TPIMs but for those who have been on the fringes of extremism in Iraq and Syria? Further, does he agree that we need to stop young people being recruited to ISIL in the first place? Can I therefore urge him to overhaul the Prevent programme, which has become over-focused on the police response to extremism and needs to do far more with parents and communities?

As we tackle the domestic consequences of ISIL, we will work with the Government to tackle the threat we face here at home. The events of the summer have underlined how turning our back on the complexities and instability of our world is not an option. We must also show that Britain has learnt the lessons of our history with an approach based on genuine multilateralism. In responding in that way, the Government will have our full support.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the points he made and the tone in which he made them. There is widespread, all-party support for most of the issues that we are discussing today. He is right to praise Cathy Ashton. Let me add my voice to his. She has done an excellent job. Of course, that job is not yet complete: she is still involved in some important negotiations, not least with Iran, and we wish her well.

On Ukraine and sanctions, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether we were looking at further sectoral sanctions. Yes we are. The conclusions of the EU Council set that out. It is important that we fill in some of the gaps that have been left. For example, on financial sanctions, we need to ensure that we press home on things such as syndicated loans, which others have opposed and we have been prepared to support.

We give financial and technical support to Ukraine. There is obviously a partnership between Ukraine and NATO, and NATO will undertake some exercises in the western part of Ukraine. I do not believe, however, that the right approach would be to arm the Ukrainian rebels. We should focus the support in the areas that I have identified. The best thing we can do to help Ukraine is to build the alliance across Europe and America for strong sanctions to demonstrate to Russia that the relationship with the rest of the world will be fundamentally changed.

On Gaza, the right hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing to get meaningful negotiations under way. Let me mention one of the things we do: we are one of the most important funders of the Palestinian Authority. We want to encourage them to restore their authority in Gaza and that could be a stepping stone towards further negotiations.

On ISIS, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says—there is no military solution. We should work with partners and countries in the region. We should learn the lessons from the past. I welcome his backing for what we are doing to help resupply and support the Kurds. We should continue to do that. He then asked a series of questions. In terms of pressure on the Iraqi Government to reach out to all parts of Iraq, we are part of the solid international pressure to ensure that that happens. On talking to powers in the region to ensure that financial support is cut off for extremism, those are conversations I have had with many over the summer and will continue to have. On Turkey, we are working more closely with Turkey than perhaps ever before on security, intelligence and other co-operation.

On measures at home, I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is going to support our measures for seizing passports, although of course we are happy to discuss that on an all-party basis as we introduce this legislation. Again, I welcome what he says about all-party discussions on other discretionary powers to make sure that we correct the problems that we have in a proper way.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s last two points, it is important that Prevent is focused on counter-radicalisation. In the past, some money was spent on organisations that were perhaps part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I believe it is very important that we target not just violent extremism but the extremist narrative from which the men and women of violence draw succour. I think that is important.

Finally, on terrorism prevention orders and control orders, let me quote to the right hon. Gentleman what David Anderson, our terrorism adviser, whom he quoted, said in his most recent report:

“There is no need to put the clock back. The majority of the changes introduced by the TPIMs Act have civilised the control order system without making it less effective.”

That is why we should take TPIMs as the basis and amend them as necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the German choir. I suspect that, after last night’s result, they will be in rather good voice.

On a serious note, let me say that we properly commemorate the outbreak of the first world war, the key battles of the first world war and, of course, Armistice day as we approach these vital 100th anniversaries. I am absolutely determined that, in Britain, we will mark them in appropriate ways. There will be a service in Glasgow, followed by a number of different events. I think it very important that we learn the lessons of that conflict, and commemorate those who fell.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the way in which the organisers, the cyclists and the millions of fans made the Tour de France such a brilliant success for Britain. I was proud to be watching it on the streets, as I know he was. I was in Leeds with the hundreds of thousands of people who were lining the streets.

All of us have been horrified by the instances of child abuse that have been uncovered, and the further allegations that have been made. All the victims of child abuse are not just owed justice, but owed an apology for the fact that it took so long for their cries to be heard. Does the Prime Minister agree that all inquiries, including those conducted by the police and those that he has set up, must go wherever the evidence leads them—in whatever institution in the country, including our own—to get at what happened?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Child abuse is a despicable crime, and the victims live with the horror for the rest of their lives. It is absolutely essential that—in the two inquiries announced by the Home Secretary, and, indeed, in the vital police inquiries that are being carried out—no stone is left unturned.

The horror of the Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris cases just shows what people were able to get away with. It was almost that on occasion they were committing crimes in plain sight, and it took far too long to get to the bottom of what happened and for justice to be done, and that is absolutely what this Government are committed to achieving.

[Edward Miliband]

On the issue of the 114 missing files at the Home Office, can the Prime Minister clarify when Ministers were first informed about this and what action they took? Does he agree that the review by Peter Wanless cannot be simply a review into the original review, but must seek to discover what happened to the files, who knew what about the files, and whether information was covered up, and that the Wanless review must also have full investigative powers?

[The Prime Minister]

It was a parliamentary question last October that revealed the points about the 2013 inquiry, but what I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is absolutely vital that Peter Wanless, who has an excellent record in this regard and will carry out the review in absolutely the right way, has all the powers he needs. Let us be absolutely clear: if he wants more powers, and if that inquiry wants greater powers and ability, they can absolutely ask for it. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the inquiry must go exactly where the evidence leads. We are determined to get to the bottom of what happened.

[Edward Miliband]

I agree that the most important thing is to clarify what actually happened to the files and why they went missing. I welcome the overarching inquiry that has also been set up by the Home Secretary. Can the Prime Minister say more about the terms of reference of that inquiry? Will he consider the very sensible recommendations made today by Peter Wanless around making the covering up of abuse a criminal offence and ensuring that there is an obligation on institutions to report abuse where it occurs?

[The Prime Minister]

Taking the right hon. Gentleman’s second point first: should we change the law so that there is a requirement to report and make it a criminal offence not to report? The Government are currently looking at that, and both reviews will be able to examine that point and advise us accordingly. I think it may well be time to take that sort of first step forward.

On the issue of the terms of reference of the wider lessons learned review, we are discussing those at the moment; we are very happy to take suggestions from other parties in this House. A number of inquiries are being carried out into specific hospitals, including the Savile inquiries; there is the inquiry taking place within the BBC; and there other inquiries, including into Welsh children’s homes. The main aim and what is vital, as I have said before, is that the Government learn all the lessons of this review. Where the Elizabeth Butler-Sloss review can really help is by having a panel of experts who can advise us about all the things that need to change in all these institutions—for instance the Church; for instance the BBC; for instance the NHS; but also, if necessary, in this place and in Government, too.

[Edward Miliband]

I welcome what the Prime Minister said and clearly cultural change in this is absolutely crucial in all institutions.

I want to turn to another matter: the health service. Last week the Prime Minister said that waiting times in accident and emergency had gone down, but within 24 hours the House of Commons Library had called him out. Average A and E waiting times have gone up. Will he now correct the record?

[The Prime Minister]

What I said last week at Prime Minister’s questions is absolutely right, and if the right hon. Gentleman goes on the website of the organisation I quoted from he will see that. Also, if you remember, Mr Speaker, at the end of Prime Minister’s questions there were some points of order and I said very specifically that

“the numbers waiting longer than 18, 26 and 52 weeks to start treatment are lower than they were at any time under the last Government.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2014; Vol. 583, c. 893.]

That was directly contradicted by the shadow Health Secretary, and I just want to give the figures to the House now so people can see that I got my facts right.

So, in April 2010 there were 217,000 people waiting over 18 weeks; it is now 186,000—lower. In March 2010 there were 92,000 people waiting 26 weeks for treatment; it is now 59,000—lower. And in terms of waiting 52 weeks —52 weeks!—for treatment, in April 2010 there were 21,000 people waiting that long; the figure now is 510—lower.

[Edward Miliband]

It is very obvious that the Prime Minister does not want to talk about what he said on accident and emergency, where the House of Commons called him out. [Interruption.] Let us go to the common-sense definition of what a waiting time—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As always, it does not matter how long it takes; the question will be heard, so the braying and the yelling and the calculated heckling might as well cease, as we are just going to keep going for as long as is necessary.

[Edward Miliband]

Let us go to the common-sense definition of a waiting time in A and E. It is not how long someone waits to be assessed; it is the time between arriving at the A and E and leaving it. The number of people waiting more than four hours is at its highest level in a decade. Why does the Prime Minister not just admit the truth, which everybody in the country knows? People are waiting longer in A and E.

[The Prime Minister]

The figures I gave last week are absolutely correct, and they are published by the Health & Social Care Information Centre: the average waiting time was 77 minutes when the shadow Health Secretary was Health Secretary and it is now 30 minutes. The fact is that we can trade statistics across the Floor of the House, but I am absolutely clear that the health service is getting better. There is a reason why it is getting better: we took two big strategic decisions. We said let us put more money into the NHS—the Opposition said that was irresponsible; and we said cut the bureaucracy in the NHS, which they wanted to keep. That is why there are 7,000 more doctors and 4,000 more nurses, and why the Leader of the Opposition has made a massive mistake by keeping a failing Health Secretary as the shadow health spokesman.

[Edward Miliband]

I would far rather have the shadow Health Secretary than the Government’s Health Secretary any day of the week. I will tell the Prime Minister what has happened in the health service. We had a top-down reorganisation that nobody wanted and nobody voted for, and it has diverted billions of pounds away from patient care. The contrast we see is between the complacent claims of the Prime Minister and people’s everyday experience. People are spending longer in A and E, and hospital A and Es have missed their four-hour target for the last 50 weeks in a row. While he tries to pretend things are getting better, patients, NHS staff and the public can see it getting worse right before their eyes.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman still has to defend the man who presided over the Mid Staffs disgrace, where standards of patient care were so bad that patients were drinking out of dirty vases because of standards in Labour’s NHS. The point is this: the reason we have been able to cut bureaucracy and the reason we have been able to put more money into the NHS is that we have taken difficult decisions, including having a 1% pay cap in the NHS. Of course, Labour said it would support that, but this week it has decided that it will back strikes instead. I have here the Labour briefing on strikes, which says, “Do we support strikes? No. Will we condemn strikes? No.” There we have it: that is his leadership summed up in one go. Have the Opposition got a plan for the NHS? No. Have they got a plan for our economy? No. Is he remotely up to the job? No.

European Council

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I start by joining the Prime Minister in remembering all those who lost their lives in the first world war, and it is right that we will mark their sacrifice and those events throughout this year.

I also welcome the association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and I endorse the Prime Minister’s sentiments about the situation in Ukraine and the responsibilities of the Russian Government. The truth is that the Prime Minister returned to Britain on Friday having failed—not some small, mild failure, but an appalling failure of relationship building, winning support and delivering for Britain. I know it is inconvenient to remind him, but he lost by 26 votes to two. Now he comes to the Chamber and seems to claim that failure as a complete vindication of his tactics. His party may think it represents splendid isolation, but it is utter humiliation.

The Prime Minister said that with a mandate from all major parties, including Labour, he could build an alliance to stop Mr Juncker. So why did he fail? He started with a divided Europe over the Juncker candidacy, and he ended with a united Europe—against him. He did not say in his statement, so how does he think he pulled off that remarkable achievement?

At the start of the process, the German Chancellor said,

“The agenda”—

of the next European Commission—

“can be handled by him”—

Mr Juncker—

“but also by many others. At the end, there will be a fairly broad tableau of names on the table.”

How did we end up with only one name? How did she and 25 others end up supporting Mr Juncker? Is not the answer that the Prime Minister’s combination of threats, insults and disengagement turned out to be a master class in how to alienate your allies and lose the argument for Britain? That includes his threat to leave the European Union if Mr Juncker was chosen.

We all remember that he went rowing in a boat with Chancellor Merkel and other centre-right leaders on a Swedish lake in order to win support. But afterwards she said:

“Threats are not part and parcel of the”—

European—

“spirit. This is not part of the way in which we usually proceed”.

We know who she was talking about—the Prime Minister.

What happened to the Prime Minister’s great allies in Europe? He wrote in the Daily Telegraph this morning that

“it has been suggested we now lack allies.”

All he needed to do to block Mr Juncker was persuade those people in the boat, but everyone in the boat voted against him. The Swedish Prime Minister voted against him. The Dutch Prime Minister voted against him. The German Chancellor voted against him.

Now, the Prime Minister wants to imply that all of this shows that every other European leader is just deeply unprincipled. Indeed, the Health Secretary went as far as to say it showed everyone else was a “coward”. Is that how the Prime Minister would describe his fellow European leaders? Is not a more plausible explanation that the problem for the anti-Juncker cause was that it had a toxic supporter—the Prime Minister? And is not the reality that he could not attract any allies because the rest of Europe simply lost patience as a result of his actions not just in the last few weeks, but in the last few years? It comes down to this: when he comes calling, they believe he is doing so to help solve the problems of the Conservative party, not those of the European Union.

Let us take the Polish Foreign Minister, who is an Anglophile. This is what he said about the Prime Minister:

“"He is not interested, he does not get it...his whole strategy of feeding”

his Back Benchers

“scraps in order to satisfy them is…turning against him…he ceded the field to those that are now embarrassing him”.

[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Ellis, calm yourself, man. Only this morning a teacher said to me in Speaker’s house: “How can I tell a little boy in my class to behave when parliamentarians don’t?” Be a good boy; get the message.

[Edward Miliband]

Perhaps the Prime Minister will now tell us whether he agrees with the assessment of the Polish Foreign Minister—and who can blame him for thinking in that way, because every time this Prime Minister has had a major decision to make, he has put party interest before national interest. He walked out of the European People’s party nine years ago, and earlier this month threw in his hand with the German equivalent of UKIP. Perhaps he can tell us how that went down with Chancellor Merkel? Was not his decision on the EPP a parable of his failure to lead for Britain—short-term party management at huge long-term loss to Britain’s national interest?

Three years ago, the Prime Minister walked out of a European Council announcing that he had vetoed a treaty, but it went ahead anyway and he just looked absurd. Now, he wants to negotiate a new treaty when he cannot say what he wants in it. All the time, this is driven by a party whose centre of gravity is drifting towards exit. Does he not accept that, with Mr Juncker, the strategy of threatening exit was put to the test and failed? [Interruption.] I know Government Members do not want to hear about his failure, but they are going to hear it.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that the great irony—the thing that makes this even worse—is that he claims to be a great supporter of Britain’s membership of the European Union? We agree that we should be in the European Union. Does he not agree that his problem is the gap between what people behind him are demanding and what sensible European reform amounts to? Europe is not unreformable; it is just that the Prime Minister cannot do it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The role of the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary is to fetch and carry notes and to nod and shake his head in the right places. Mr Williamson, be quiet and if you cannot be quiet, get out, man!

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister could not get four countries to support him over Mr Juncker, and if he cannot get four countries to block the appointment of a President, how on earth is he going to get 27 countries to support a new treaty? This weekend has shown conclusively to everyone but this Prime Minister that his renegotiation strategy is in tatters. We know where it would end: he would be caught in the gulf between his Back Benchers who want to leave and what he can negotiate. The Prime Minister failed over Mr Juncker. He was outwitted—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am quite sure that the Leader of the Opposition will bring his remarks to a close; and the baying mob should calm itself so that he has the opportunity to do so.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister failed over Mr Juncker. He was outwitted, out-manoeuvred and out-voted. Instead of building our alliances in Europe, he is burning them. He is a defeated Prime Minister who cannot deliver for Britain.

[The Prime Minister]

We have heard yet another performance worthy of Neil Kinnock—endless words, endless wind, endless rhetoric, but no questions, no grit and no ability to stand up for Britain. I have to say that I will not take lectures on negotiation from the people who gave away the veto, gave away the rebate and who backed down on the budget every year and even signed us up to euro bail-outs. We will not take any lectures from them. The fact is that we did not have a veto in this situation because the Opposition signed the Lisbon treaty and they signed the Nice treaty. That was always opposed by Conservative Members.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the ability to bring allies together. Where were his allies in the socialist party? They were at a meeting in Paris. All the key socialist leaders were there. They all decided to support Jean-Claude Juncker. Where was the Leader of the Opposition? He was not even invited. That is how much influence he has.

Not once did the right hon. Gentleman actually say that he did not support Jean-Claude Juncker either. To support the Government over opposing this principle and opposing this individual, only to criticise and complain, is typical of the right hon. Gentleman’s approach: weak, opportunistic and wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The first thing is that we should remember the victims, people who had their privacy wrecked, and we should ensure that that cannot happen again. As we do so, we must, as he says, cherish a free and vibrant press in our country. I said yesterday, and I say again today, that I take full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson. I did so on the basis of assurances that I received and that the Select Committee also received, but I always said that if those assurances turned out to be wrong, I would apologise fully and frankly to this House of Commons, and I do so again today from this Dispatch Box. I am sorry; this was the wrong decision, but I think it is right that we have had a public inquiry in this country, and it is right that we have proper investigations. Yesterday once again showed that no one is above the law in our country.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Today we know that for four years the Prime Minister’s hand-picked, closest adviser was a criminal, and brought disgrace to Downing street. We now also know that the Prime Minister wilfully ignored multiple warnings about him. On 8 July 2009, The Guardian published evidence of phone hacking on an industrial scale while Andy Coulson was editor of the News of the World. At that time, Andy Coulson was his director of communications. What action did he take?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said a moment ago, the assurances I sought and received were the same assurances received by the Press Complaints Commission, by a Select Committee of this House, and by police investigations. They were also thoroughly gone into by the Leveson inquiry—an inquiry the right hon. Gentleman supported. He talks about warnings. Specifically on the warning from The Guardian, Leveson had this to say:

“The editor of the Guardian did not raise the issue with Mr Cameron at meetings both in the month after the article was published and the following year.”

He says this—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will want to hear it:

“there can be no criticism of Mr Cameron for not raising the issue”.

We had an exhaustive inquiry. I know the right hon. Gentleman did not like the result of the inquiry, but he should accept it.

[Edward Miliband]

That is a long-winded way of saying that, when it came to Andy Coulson, the Prime Minister just did not want to know the evidence. First warning: ignored.

Let us move on to May 2010. The Deputy Prime Minister warned the Prime Minister in person about his deep concerns about Andy Coulson. So he was warned by his deputy. What action did he take?

[The Prime Minister]

Every single one of these issues was dealt with by the Leveson inquiry. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

No, this is about the Prime Minister’s character, his judgment, and the warnings he ignored, including from the Deputy Prime Minister. Warning No. 2: ignored.

Then, in September 2010, The New York Times published a front-page investigation detailing Andy Coulson’s extensive knowledge of phone hacking, which included one former editor saying:

“I’ve been to dozens if not hundreds of meetings with Andy”

when the subject came up. What action did the Prime Minister take?

[The Prime Minister]

All of these issues—every single warning—were dealt with by the Leveson inquiry: an inquiry the right hon. Gentleman called for and an inquiry whose terms of reference he agreed. I know he cannot bear it, but Leveson made no criticism of my conduct in this regard whatsoever. You cannot call for a judge-led inquiry, participate in a judge-led inquiry, write the terms of reference of a judge-led inquiry, and then ignore what it has to say. I have to say, Mr Speaker, that all of the questions he is raising today are not new; they are the questions dealt with by the Leveson inquiry. I know—[Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

I can quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to an eight-month-long inquiry that cost £5 million, that interviewed people under oath, and that was led by a judge, but that is what he asked for, that is what was delivered, and it did not criticise my conduct in this regard at all. Instead of casting aspersions about that, he should accept the inquiry that he supported.

[Edward Miliband]

No answer—[Interruption.] No answer on any of the questions. No answer on why he did not act on The Guardian; no answer on why he did not act on the Deputy Prime Minister; no answer on why he did not act on The New York Times.

Let us come to the issue of vetting. Amid all those warnings, the very least he should have—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but there is the usual ranting from the usual suspects. Be quiet, or if you cannot be quiet, and you have not got that level of self-restraint, leave the Chamber—we can perfectly well manage without you.

[Edward Miliband]

Let us come to the issue of vetting. Amid all those warnings, the very least that the Prime Minister should have done was insist immediately on coming to office that Andy Coulson should have the highest level of security vetting, as his six predecessors over the previous 14 years had had. Why did he not insist on that?

[The Prime Minister]

Again, Leveson, in his inquiry, looked directly into that issue. This is what he found—[Interruption.] He concluded:

“The level of security clearance was not the decision of either Mr Cameron or Mr Coulson but the Civil Service.”

Those are the correct procedures. If the Leader of the Opposition’s contention is that direct vetting would have got to the bottom of Mr Coulson’s conduct at the News of the World, he should be very clear about what Leveson found. He found that

“the process of considering Mr Coulson for DV status would not have involved a detailed investigation of phone hacking at the NoTW”.

That undermines the entire case that Labour has been trying to make all morning. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with it. I know that he is so desperate not to talk about the economy, not to talk about unemployment, not to talk about the deficit, but he cannot rerun an inquiry that has already taken place.

[Edward Miliband]

Now it is clear from the Prime Minister—[Hon. Members: “Weak!] I will tell them what is weak: failing to stand up for doing the right thing, and that is what this Prime Minister has done. Now we know the rule of this Prime Minister: the buck does not stop here, and he blames the civil service. On the civil service—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sometimes one has to repeat a thing because people do not get it the first time. If there is quiet, we will continue. If people try to shout other people down, against the principles of British democracy, they will be stopped in their tracks. It is very simple and, I would have thought, pretty clear.

[Edward Miliband]

On the civil service, can the Prime Minister assure the House that at no time did Sir Gus O’Donnell, the then Cabinet Secretary, or any senior civil servant raise concerns with him or his office about hiring Andy Coulson?

[The Prime Minister]

Gus O’Donnell made that very clear in the evidence he gave the inquiry. Indeed, on the issue of vetting, he was absolutely clear that the decision about vetting is for the permanent secretary at No. 10, Sir Jeremy Heywood, someone who has served Labour Governments with impeccable service as well as a coalition Government led by a Conservative Prime Minister. What the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do is go through all the old questions that were answered by the Leveson inquiry. He did not like the answer, because he wanted to try to prove some cooked-up conspiracy between the Conservatives and News International. He cannot manage to do it, because the Leveson inquiry cannot find it. He asked a minute ago what is weak. I will tell him what is weak: attacking Murdoch and then standing up with a copy of The Sun newspaper, only to apologise a few hours later.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister said in his previous answer that Sir Gus O’Donnell was asked whether he raised concerns with him or his office about Andy Coulson. He was not asked that question at the Leveson inquiry. There is now a very important question, which the whole country will want an answer to, about whether Sir Gus O’Donnell or senior civil servants raised concerns with the Prime Minister or his office about Andy Coulson.

The truth about this is that the charge against the Prime Minister is not one of ignorance; it is wilful negligence. At the heart of this scandal are thousands of innocent victims of phone hacking that he did not stand up for. The Prime Minister will always be remembered as the first ever occupant of his office who brought a criminal into the heart of Downing street.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman brought up the warning from The Guardian. I totally disproved him using the evidence. He brought up the idea of direct vetting. I have totally disproved him using the evidence. He cannot bear the fact that an eight-month inquiry which he hoped would pin the blame on me found that I had behaved correctly throughout. That is the case. All these issues were examined by the Leveson inquiry. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to debate the calls we make and the leadership we give, I am happy to do so anytime, because it is leadership that has got this economy moving, it is leadership that has got our deficit down, it is leadership that is putting Britain back to work, and it is the total absence of leadership from the Labour party that shows that it has nothing to say about Britain’s economic future.

G7

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Let me begin where the Prime Minister ended by paying tribute to the commemorations of the 70th anniversary of D-day that we attended last week. They were a reminder of the incredible bravery that tens of thousands of our servicemen and women who left our shores 70 years ago showed, risking their lives to fight for the freedom that we so often take for granted today. I echo the words of the Prime Minister: it was deeply moving to hear the stories from the Normandy veterans we met and to hear about the sheer courage they showed for our country on that day. Our job is to ensure that those memories and stories continue to be told so that future generations know about the service and sacrifice of those who went before us.

Before turning to the G7, let me also take this opportunity to echo the Prime Minister’s comments about the European Commission President. The message from the European elections was clear: we need reform in Europe, and we need people in top jobs in Europe willing and able to pursue that agenda. The appointment of a new Commission and President provides a vital opportunity to pursue the much-needed European reform that we need, and it must be seized, not squandered.

Turning to the G7, we welcome the G7’s commitment to open trade. What discussions did the Prime Minister have with EU leaders and President Obama on whether the TTIP—transatlantic trade and investment partnership —negotiations for the free trade agreement are on track and when they are likely to be completed? Can he specifically reassure the House—this point has been raised by a number of people—that there will be no impact on our public services, particularly the NHS?

On tax and transparency, the Government must ensure that the bold promises made at Lough Erne are not watered down. In particular, last year we welcomed the OECD work on tackling tax avoidance, and it was promised that developing countries would be part of that process. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that that will be the case going forward?

We support the conclusions on international development. In the spirit of consensus, any time the Prime Minister wants to bring forward the promised law to enshrine the 0.7% aid target, the Opposition would of course offer him our support. It was promised in the coalition agreement, but it seems to have mysteriously disappeared.

The agreement of a new international framework for tackling climate change is very important, and the talks in Paris will be key to that, as will making good on the promise made in Copenhagen on climate finance for developing countries. Can the Prime Minister inform the House how the UK’s preparations for playing a part in that are going and assure us that he is working to secure timely contributions from the other G7 members, because we have tended to be at the front of the pack on this, while others have been less so.

Finally, let me turn to Ukraine. First, following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, it was absolutely right for G7 countries to boycott this year’s G8 summit, which would have taken place in Sochi. The crisis has been the west’s most serious confrontation with Russia since the end of the cold war and there had to be consequences for Russia’s actions.

Secondly, we welcome the swearing in of President Poroshenko and his first act of offering talks with the Russian-speaking east. I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the initial engagement between President Putin and President Poroshenko. However, can the Prime Minister assure us that in his discussions with President Putin, and following the Ukrainian President’s commitment to signing an association agreement with the EU, there was an assurance that there will be no further Russian aggression in response to that action?

Thirdly, it is with growing concern that we see the volatile situation in eastern Ukraine continuing and rising violence in the south-east of the country. During the Prime Minister’s conversations at the summit, did he seek assurances from Russia that it will accelerate its withdrawal of troops from the border with Ukraine and stop the flow of weapons and pro-Russian insurgents into the country?

The G7 meeting was a demonstration of the unity of international action. It was right for the G7 to call for a de-escalation of the situation in Ukraine, the need to work towards a diplomatic solution and continuing to maintain the pressure on Russia. In taking that action, the Government have our full support.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response, particularly what he said about D-day, which I think for both of us, and indeed for the Deputy Prime Minister, was an extremely moving occasion. When it comes to the principle that the European Council should decide who is the leader of the Commission and that it should not be determined by some electoral process in the European Parliament that many people did not take part in, I am very grateful for the fact that this is a common British position that is held by the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. I also thank him for that. It is very important for others in Europe to know what an important issue of principle it is for all three parties.

On TTIP and the deal between the EU and the US, I can report that there have been five good meetings on progressing it. We are pushing very hard and trying to set some deadlines for the work. No specific deadline was agreed, but it was agreed at the G7 that further impetus needed to be given to the talks and, specifically, that domestic politicians needed to answer any specific questions or concerns from non-governmental organisations, or indeed public services, that can sometimes be raised and that do not always, when we look at the detail, bear up to examination. Perhaps I will do that with regard to the NHS and write to the right hon. Gentleman about that.

On tax and transparency, we want not only to make sure that countries sign up to the tax tool we have created so that we can see where profits are being earned—that is going very well, with a number of countries signing up—but to find the best way of sharing that information with developing countries so that they can make sure that they are not being ripped off by these companies.

On the 0.7% target, I would say that what matters more than legislation is doing it—actually showing the political will and making the arguments about protecting our promises to the poorest people in the world.

On climate change, the right hon. Gentleman is right that Britain and the EU can play a leading role in helping to achieve a deal. We need to make sure that the EU has the political will to get to the right position on this. That should happen in September, and there will be important discussions between now and then to make sure that it happens.

On Ukraine, the right hon. Gentleman asked about how we would respond to further aggression. The agreement at the G7 was, first, that the status quo in terms of aggression and destabilisation in eastern Ukraine is not acceptable. That has to be fixed, plus the fact that Russia must not respond to the trade elements of the agreement between Ukraine and the EU by taking unfair steps against Ukraine. If those things happen, that is how sanctions could be put back on the table.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the withdrawal of Russian troops and the issue of weapons. I said to President Putin that it was welcome that a number of troops had been withdrawn from the borders and that we wanted to see more of that happen, but crucially we have got to see action to stop weapons getting into eastern Ukraine, because it is noticeable that the so-called rebels have, for instance, very technical, high-tech weapons such as MANPADs—man-portable air defence systems—and it is hard to believe that they could be coming from anywhere else.

I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. I think that in a lot of these areas there is a good measure of cross-party agreement.

Debate on the Address

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

This Friday we will mark 70 years since the Normandy landings, when wave upon wave of allied forces poured on to the beaches of northern France. They marked the beginning of the final chapter of the second world war, which preserved the freedoms that we enjoy today, so I want to start by honouring the service of those veterans and the memory of their fallen comrades—a feeling that I am sure is shared across the whole House.

I am sure that across the House today Members will also want to remember and pay tribute to the work of our armed forces over the past decade in Afghanistan. At the end of this year, British combat operations will come to an end. We should be incredibly proud of the service of our armed forces in that country. They have fought to make Afghanistan a more stable country, a country with democracy and the rule of law, and a country that cannot be used as a safe haven to plan acts of terrorism here in Britain. We grieve for the 453 members of our armed forces who have been lost, and our thoughts are with their families and friends. All of them and all the people who have served have demonstrated, as did our Normandy veterans all those years ago, that they represent the best of our country.

By tradition, at the beginning of each parliamentary Session we remember the Members of the House we have lost in the last year. In January, we lost Paul Goggins. He was one of the kindest, most honourable people in the House and someone of the deepest principle. At a time when people are very sceptical about politics, Paul Goggins is a reminder of what public servants and public service can achieve.

Let me turn to the proposer of the motion. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) gave an excellent speech—so far, so good. It had a sense of history, a sense of place and a sense of humour. From reading about her background, she can only be described, as we saw from her speech, as one of life’s enthusiasts. Before coming to this House, she had a varied career. She was a magician’s assistant when a teenager and then had a job that was nearly as dangerous—running the foreign press operation for President George W. Bush.

The hon. Lady made headlines for her recent appearance on “Splash!”, to which she made reference. If she will allow me, I will quote her admirable line in self-deprecation about her performance:

“I have the elegance and drive of a paving slab”.

I say unequivocally today that that is wrong. As she got to the quarter finals, I am not sure what that says about the contestants who were knocked out before her. It certainly takes guts to get in a swimming costume and dive off the high board. If she is looking for a new challenge, she should try wrestling a bacon sandwich live on national television. In any case, it is clear that she deserved her place on the podium today.

The seconder of the motion made an eloquent speech. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) came to this House with more than 20 years’ teaching in further education and the Open university behind her. Since being elected in 2001, she has campaigned with distinction on children’s issues and has been an assiduous local Member of Parliament. She voted against tuition fees, has described being in the coalition as terrible and says that the Lib Dem record on women MPs is dreadful. By current Lib Dem standards, that apparently makes her a staunch loyalist. On gender representation, she can take consolation from the fact that she can now boast that 100% of Liberal Democrat MEPs are women. As she said, she will be standing down at the next election. For her outside experiences, her wisdom and her all-round good humour and kindness, which I remember from when I was first elected to this House, she will be much missed.

Before I turn to the Loyal Address, let me say something about one of the most important decisions for generations, which will be made in just a few months’ time—the decision about the future of our United Kingdom. The history of the UK, from workers rights to the defeat of fascism to the NHS to the minimum wage, is the story of a country stronger together—a country in which representation from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England has helped us to advance the cause of social justice. It is a decision for the people of Scotland, but I believe passionately that this kingdom should remain united.

The ritual of the debate on the Loyal Address has existed for centuries. Today we do not just debate the Queen’s Speech; we assert the importance of this House and the battle it has fought over hundreds of years to exercise power on behalf of the British people. But what the recent elections show is that more than at any time for generations this House faces a contemporary battle of its own—a battle for relevance, legitimacy and standing in the eyes of the public. The custom of these debates is to address our opponents across the Dispatch Box, but today that on its own would be inadequate to the challenge we face. There is an even bigger opponent to address in this Queen’s Speech debate—the belief among many members of the public that this House and any party in it cannot achieve anything at all.

About 10% of those entitled to vote at the recent elections voted for UKIP, but as significant is the fact that over 60% did not vote at all. Whatever side we sit on in this House, we will all have heard it on the doorstep—“You’re all the same. You’re in it for yourself. It doesn’t matter who I vote for.” Of course that is not new, but there is a depth and scale of disenchantment that we ignore at our peril—disenchantment that goes beyond one party and one Government. There is no bigger issue for our country and our democracy, so the test for this legislative programme, the last before the general election, is to show that it responds to the scale of discontent and the need for answers.

In this election we heard concerns about the way the EU works and the need for reform. We heard deep-rooted concerns about immigration and the need to make changes, but I believe there is an even deeper reason for this discontent. Fundamentally, too many people in our country feel that Britain does not work for them and has not done so for a long time—in the jobs they do and whether hard work is rewarded; in the prospects for their children and whether they will lead a better life than their parents, including whether they will be able to afford a home of their own; in the pressures that communities face. and above all whether the work and effort that people put in are reflected in their sharing fairly in the wealth of the country.

The Governor of the Bank of England gave a remarkable speech last week, saying that inequality was now one of the biggest challenges in our country. We should all be judged on how we respond to this question, right as well as left. There are measures that we support in this Queen’s Speech, including tackling modern slavery, an ombudsman for our armed forces, and recall, but the big question for this Queen’s Speech is whether it just offers more of the same or whether it offers a new direction so that we can genuinely say that we can build a country that works for all and not just for a few at the top.

For me, this task starts with the nature of work in Britain today. It is a basic belief of the British people that if you work all the hours God sends, you should at least be able to make ends meet. We all, on all sides of the House, say in our slogans that those who work hard and play by the rules should be rewarded for what they do, but we should listen to the voices of all those people who say that their reality today is that hard work is not rewarded and has not been for some time. All of us on all sides will have heard that during the recent election campaign, such as from the person I met in Nottingham who was struggling with agency work and total uncertainty about how many hours’ work he would get. This was his working life: every morning at 5 am he would ring up to find out if there was work for him. More often than not, there was none. He had a family to bring up.

The fact that this is happening in 21st-century Britain, the fourth richest country in the world, should shame us all. This is not the Britain that that man believes in, it is not the Britain we believe in, and it should not be the Britain this House is prepared to tolerate. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We have seen the number of zero-hours contracts go well above 1 million. We need to debate as a country whether this insecurity is good for individuals, families and the country as a whole. It is not.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to continue to create more and more jobs, but one of the things we have to make sure of is this: we have just reduced national insurance by £2,000 for employers, so will he now rule out any increase in employers’ or employees’ national insurance?

[Edward Miliband]

I believe we actually called for that proposal first, but I say to the hon. Lady that there are two schools of thought on the recent experience of the election, one of which says that this country is fine and the economy is fixed. I do not believe that that is the message of the recent elections.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to make a bit more progress.

We must debate, as a country, whether we should really be prepared to do something about the problem, and we need to debate the wider problem. Five million people in Britain—one in five of those in work—are now low paid. The shocking fact is that, for the first time on record, most of the people who are in poverty in Britain today are in work, not out of work.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that politics cannot be the same. In that spirit, will he be clear and transparent and rule out once and for all—should he enter Downing street, God forbid—any new tax on employment through increases in either employers’ or employees’ national insurance contributions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

We want to see taxes on employment fall—that is why we have proposed a 10p tax rate to actually make work pay for people.

The shocking fact is that for the first time on record most people in poverty are in work—so much for hard work paying. None of our constituents sent us here to build such an economy. At a time when we face significant fiscal challenges into the future, it is costing the taxpayer billions of pounds. It is no wonder that people in this country do not think this House speaks for them. To show a new direction for the country, and to show that it is not just more of the same, the Queen’s Speech needs to demonstrate to all those people that it can answer their concerns.

There is a Bill in this Queen’s Speech covering employment, but the Bill we need would signal a new chapter in the battle against low pay and insecurity at work, not just business as usual. What would that involve? It would set a clear target for the minimum wage for each Parliament, whereby we raised it closer to average earnings. If someone is working regular hours for month after month, they should be entitled to a regular contract, not a zero-hours contract. If dignity in the workplace means anything, it should clearly mean that. We could make it happen in this Parliament and show the people of this country that we get what is happening, but this Queen’s Speech does not do that.

Britain, like countries all round the world, faces a huge challenge of creating the decent, middle-income jobs that we used to take for granted, and many of those jobs will be created by small businesses. There is a Bill in this Queen’s Speech on small business, but we all know—[Interruption.] A Government Member says “Hear, hear”, but we all know that we have a decades-long problem in this country of banks not serving the real economy. Companies that are desperate to expand, invest and grow cannot get the capital they need. For all the talk of reforming the banks, is there anyone who really believes the problem has been cracked, with lending to small businesses continuing to fall? The choice that we face is whether to carry on as we are, or whether we say that the banks need to change, break up the large banks so that we tackle our uncompetitive banking system and create regional banks that properly serve small business, but the Queen’s Speech does not do that.

A Queen’s Speech that was setting a new direction would also tackle another decades-long problem that has happened under Governments of both parties, and would devolve economic power from Whitehall to our great towns and cities. If I may say so, Lord Heseltine was right in his report—we do need to give our towns, cities and communities the tools to do the job. That is even more important when there is less money around. They need more powers over skills, economic development and transport, and the Government should be going much further. None of that is in the Queen’s Speech.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman rule out a jobs tax on workers in my constituency should he get into power?

[Edward Miliband]

Here we have it: the country wants answers to deeply serious questions, and what do the Government do? They get every Tory Back Bencher to read out a planted Whip’s question. I have to say it: no wonder the public hate politics, given the way Government Members behave.

The first thing this Queen’s Speech needed to do was signal a new direction in the jobs we create in this country and whether hard work pays, and it did not rise to the challenge.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to the question that I have obviously been given by the Chief Whip. In his opening and thoughtful part of his speech he called for a different form of politics, but as soon as he gets on to the detail it is business as usual and he criticises us for doing the same. May we go back to his first speechwriter, who was actually giving us something rather interesting?

[Edward Miliband]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that the man who called for a pact with UKIP clearly has great confidence in the prospects of the Conservative party and its ability to win the election.

Let me come to the child care Bill. We support measures on child care, which is part of the cost of living crisis, although the scale of that challenge means that we could go further on free places for three and four-year-olds. We also support the Bill on pensions, although we want to ensure that people get proper advice to avoid the mis-selling scandals of the past.

The next task for this Queen’s Speech is to face up to another truth: for the first time since the second world war, many parents fear that their children will have a worse life than they do. No wonder people think that politics does not have the answers when that is the reality they confront, and nowhere is that more important than on the issue of housing. We all know the importance of that to provide security to families, and we know that it matters for the durability of our recovery too. The Bank of England has warned that the failure to build homes is its biggest worry, and that generational challenge has not been met for 30 years.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

Thirteen years!

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Lady speaks from a sedentary position, but I say that that challenge has not been met for 30 years. Part of the challenge we face as a country is facing up to the long-term challenges—[Interruption.] I say to Government Members who are shouting that in no year of this Government have there been as many housing completions as in any year of the last Labour Government. It is a long-term challenge that we all have to face. We are currently building half the homes we need, and on current trends the backlog will be 2 million homes by 2020.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the Leader of the Opposition confirm that in 13 years of a Labour Government, fewer council houses were built than under even the Thatcher Government?

[Edward Miliband]

What I can say is that we built 2 million homes under a Labour Government, and we had a faster rate of house building than under this Government. As I have said, we face a big long-term challenge in this country, and the question is whether we are going to face up to it or just carry on as we did.

This Queen’s Speech proposes a new town at Ebbsfleet. That is fine, but it does not do enough to set a new direction in building homes. What is the fundamental problem? The fundamental problem is a market that is not working, with a small number of large developers not having an incentive to build at the pace we need. We know there is a problem of developers getting planning permission, sitting on land and waiting for it to accumulate value. There are land banks with planning permission for more than half a million homes, and we can either accept that or change it. We could give councils powers to say to developers, “Use the land or lose the land”, but the Government repeatedly refuse to do that. We could give councils the right to grow where they need more land for housing. The House could commit today to getting 200,000 homes built a year—the minimum we need. After all, in the 1950s that is what a one nation Conservative Prime Minister did. However, the Queen’s Speech does none of those things.

A Queen’s Speech that is rising to the challenge on housing would also do something for the 9 million people who rent in the private sector. There are more than 1 million families and 2 million children with no security at all. Children will start school this September, but their parents will have no idea whether they will still be in their home in 12 months’ time—and we wonder why people are losing faith in politics.

When the Opposition published our proposals for three-year tenancies, some people said they were like something out of Venezuela. If something as modest as that is ridiculed as too radical, is it any wonder that people who rent in the private sector do not think this Parliament stands up for them? Those proposals would not transform everything overnight, but they would tell 9 million people who rent in the private sector that we get it, and that something can be done. It is not an insecurity hon. Members would be willing to accept, so why should other people have to accept the insecurity they face?

There is another area where people are fed up being told that nothing can be done: their gas and electricity bills. It is eight months since Labour called for a freeze on people’s energy bills. Just this week, we have seen figures showing that companies have doubled their profit margins. That is a test of whether the House will stand up to powerful vested interests and act or say that nothing can be done. The companies can afford it, the public need it, and the Government have ignored it: this Queen’s Speech fails that test.

Another test for the Queen’s Speech is whether it responds to the anxieties people feel in their communities—[Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) that shouting from a sedentary position is another thing people hate about this Parliament. [Interruption.] We are seeking improvement. We all know that one of the biggest concerns at the election was around immigration. This is an important point. I believe that immigration overall has been good for the country. I believe that as the son of immigrants, and I believe it because of the contribution that people coming here have made to our country, but hon. Members know that we must address the genuine problems about the pace of change, pressures on services and the undercutting of wages.

Some people say we should cut ourselves off from the rest of the world and withdraw from the European Union. In my view, they are profoundly wrong. We have always succeeded as a country when we have engaged with the rest of the world. That is when Britain has been at its best. Others say that nothing can or should be done. I believe they are wrong, too. We can act on the pace of change by insisting on longer controls when new countries join the EU. We need effective borders at which we count people in and out. The House can act on something else that all hon. Members know is happening in our communities by tackling the undercutting of wages. We should not just increase fines on the minimum wage, but have proper enforcement.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am sure the entire nation is grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for allowing the British people to speak about immigration—the Opposition have previously denounced as racist many of our fellow citizens who have spoken out on the matter. Will he apologise for the policies of the previous Labour Government, who admitted uncontrolled migration of 2.2 million people into this country—deliberately—the result of which is huge pressure on our social services and a massive increase in the demand for housing, to which he has referred.

[Edward Miliband]

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman plainly that it is not prejudiced to have concerns about immigration—he is right about that. We should have longer transitional controls, as I have said on many occasions, but the question is what we are going to do about the problem now. Are we going to tackle what is happening in our labour market? I do not understand why the Government are not taking action on those issues. Employers crowd 10 to 15 people into a house to sidestep the minimum wage. We all know it is happening. Gangmasters exploit workers from construction to agriculture. We all know it is happening. We should stop employment agencies from advertising only overseas or from being used to get around the rules on fair pay. We all know it is happening.

[Alun Cairns]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I am not going to give way.

It is no wonder people lose faith in politics when they know those things are happening and Parliament fails to act. If the House believes those things are wrong, we should do something about them. Responding to the concerns we have heard about work, family and community is the start the House needs to make to restore our reputation in the eyes of the public.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I am not giving way.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that there is a chasm between the needs and wishes of the people of this country and whether or not this House and politics are capable of responding. We need to rise to this challenge. This Queen’s Speech does not do that, but it can be done. That is the choice the country will face in less than a year’s time. This is what a different Queen’s Speech would have looked like: a “make work pay” Bill to reward hard work, a banking Bill to support small businesses, a community Bill to devolve power, an immigration Bill to stop workers being undercut, a consumers Bill—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Cairns, you have done quite a lot of yelling loutishly from a sedentary position, which does not greatly advance your cause. I invite you to note that it is not difficult: the Leader of the Opposition is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman should therefore exercise his judgment.

[Edward Miliband]

This is what the Queen’s Speech should have done: a “make work pay” Bill to reward hard work, a banking Bill to support small businesses, a community Bill to devolve power, an immigration Bill to stop workers being undercut, a consumers Bill to freeze energy bills, a housing Bill to tackle the housing crisis and a NHS Bill to make it easier for people to see their GP and to stop privatisation. To make that happen we need a different Government: we need a Labour Government.