Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) having secured this debate, the House has now passed a motion stating:

“That this House calls on the Government to carry out a review of the existing arrangements for the sharing of the surplus generated by the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme.”

I wonder whether you could give us some guidance, Mr Speaker. With the House having passed, without opposition and for the first time in 25 years of this scheme’s operation, this very important motion, can we use your good offices to persuade the Government to carry out the will of the House? It was very open to the Government to divide the House on this motion, but they choose not to do so, which must mean that they agree with it. Presumably, that means they are going to do something about it, if this House’s deliberations and possible votes are to be meaningful.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is a natural optimist, and I say that in no pejorative spirit. I am sad to have to advise him and the House of the correct procedural position. I am not making any evaluative judgment; I am simply making a statement of what is. The situation is that the only votes that bind in this place are votes on legislation and votes on taxation. This vote does not bind. It is an expression of the will of the House. I am sorry to say that there have been many occasions on which Backbench Business Committee debate motions have been passed but have not been implemented subsequently by the Government. I rather fancy that this matter will be returned to again and again and again if Members feel that the settled will of the House has not been honoured in practice. I will also add that a situation in which the settled will of the House is not then honoured in practice is bad for Parliament—period.

Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) to ask his urgent question, I want, I hope on behalf of all colleagues across the House, to welcome Greta Thunberg, an enthusiastic and dedicated environmental campaigner who is with us today.

I, as Speaker, am very conscious that there are different views on these matters and different views on the matter of tactics in campaigning, but I think, across the House, we all believe in encouraging young people to stand up and speak up, to say what they think and to make their concerns known, so it was a pleasure for me, among other colleagues, to welcome Greta this morning. Greta, it was a pleasure to meet you, and I hope you enjoy listening to these exchanges.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth if she will make a statement on climate action and Extinction Rebellion.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but the Government’s position is not a matter for me. I say as a matter of pride that I have never been a member of a Government; that has never been part of my ambition. I must say that it is a lot easier to be Speaker than to be a Minister. My responsibility is to consider amendments if they are tabled. If Members want to table amendments to the Government’s motion, they may do so. I rather imagine, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that he will want to do so.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has just said. Members across the House heard the Prime Minister say unconditionally that these days would be about a vote on whether we would accept no deal and then a vote on an extension, not a conditional vote. She is sitting on the Front Bench shaking her head. Perhaps she could now, through you, Mr Speaker, explain why what you have just read out is not a conditional vote, because it sure sounds like one to us.

[Mr Speaker]

Okay. No, the Prime Minister is not seeking to raise a point of order at this stage.

Points of Order

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your advice on the urgent matter of the HS2 route and the announcements due to be made by the Transport Secretary, which will affect millions of people? The Secretary of State began his consultation with an oral statement last November, and there had been an expectation that he would announce his final decisions today in an oral statement; indeed, parts of the media were briefed to that effect. All the indications now are that the news will be sneaked out in a written statement any time now. This is a gross discourtesy and adds insult to injury for my constituents. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, about how we can get the Transport Secretary to come to the House and show some accountability on this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As others wish to raise points of order relating to the same subject, I will take them—or at least a number of them—and then respond.

Changes in US Immigration Policy

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration: the need for repeal of President Trump’s discriminatory, divisive and counterproductive ban on entry to the United States for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the indefinite ban placed on Syrian refugees.

I am supported in this application by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and a number of other hon. Members. This ban has provoked outrage around the world and in our country, and I believe it to be of sufficient urgency and importance to qualify for immediate debate under the Standing Orders of this House. Notwithstanding the statement we have just had, I believe that it is right, given the gravity of the issue, that this House has a proper debate today on these matters, so that Members from across all parties can express their views.

The ban is not an attack on terrorism; it is an attack on those of a particular religious faith: Muslims. It is clearly discriminatory, it represents a repudiation of the 1951 UN Geneva convention on refugees and it will not make the world a safer place—it will make it a more dangerous one. From the exchanges earlier, we can see that there is a host of unanswered questions relating to UK residents who have passports from the countries concerned. Given our close, historical alliance with the United States, it is particularly important that this Parliament speaks up—preferably with one voice—to seek to get this ban revoked. An emergency debate would represent an important opportunity to do this; indeed, it is for an eventuality such as this—a matter of pressing and immediate importance—that the Standing Orders were designed. So I ask you, Mr Speaker, to grant this application under Standing Order No. 24 for an emergency debate.

[Mr Speaker]

I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Gentleman and I am satisfied that the matter raised by him is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House? The answer is that he does—that is clear from the evident demonstration of compliance with the requirement of the Standing Order entailing the standing of no fewer than 40 Members.

Application agreed to (not fewer than 40 Members standing in support).

Changes in US Immigration Policy

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

First, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to this debate. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for making the debate possible, because it showed a wish to make sure that this House was relevant to the issue of the day and the issue of the moment. I particularly commend the speeches—forgive me if I do not mention all the excellent speeches we have heard—by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). My friend, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), spoke incredibly movingly and eloquently. We also heard from the right hon. Members for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). There were many other excellent speeches, including from the Front Benches—my own and others.

The main thing I take out of this is that we achieved our purpose, which is to show that on the merits of this issue there is remarkable unity across this House. There is no division on the Government or Opposition Benches about the fact that this ban is basically a repugnant, abhorrent thing. It is a very good achievement for the House to have set that out.

The second question, though, is what happens next? In a good contribution, the Minister came a bit closer to raising that issue. The question is whether we classify this a kind of normal, run-of-the-mill disagreement—“They do their thing, we do our thing”—or as something much, much more serious. I urge the Minister to take back to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the strong feeling across this House that this is not some run-of-the-mill thing—“They do our policy and we do ours”—but incredibly serious. It is incredibly serious because of the values that it speaks to, which offend this House of Commons, and because it takes us down a slippery slope. Someone pointed out that we are only two weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency. My goodness, it feels like a year, really, and we still have at least three years and a lot of a year to go. There is a real danger of a slippery slope.

Thirdly, this policy is going to make us less safe, not more safe—it is more dangerous for our world. I really hope that the Minister takes back the message that this is not run of the mill but deadly serious, and that we expect a response from the Prime Minister, including speaking to the President, that is proportionate to the feeling of this House of Commons.

I apologise for having briefly gone outside because I was due to speak at the event that was taking place, although I never quite made it to speak. There were tens of thousands of people, I think, or thousands of people. One must not get into crowd size estimates given recent experience; I do not want to do a Trump—[Hon. Members: “Millions!”] There were millions of people outside. I think there is a feeling across this country, from the petition to the people outside, that this ban is not in our name. This House of Commons has said that today and I hope that the Government will reflect that in the weeks and months ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the need for repeal of President Trump’s discriminatory, divisive and counterproductive ban on entry to the United States for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the indefinite ban placed on Syrian refugees.

[Mr Speaker]

For the record, that was passed unanimously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman never knew he was quite that popular.

[Edward Miliband]

I was going to say, Mr Speaker, that it brings back memories.

As the first foreign leader to meet President Trump, the Prime Minister carries a huge responsibility on behalf not just of this country but of the whole international community in the tone that she sets. Can I ask her to reassure us that she will say to the President that he must abide by, and not withdraw from, the Paris climate change treaty? In case it is helpful, can she offer the services of UK scientists to convince the President that climate change is not a hoax invented by the Chinese?

Nissan: Sunderland

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State has no responsibility either for Opposition policy or for Oscar Wilde—although we always enjoy the poetic licence of the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement, but I want to ask the Secretary of State about the duties and rights of this House. Last Monday, the Prime Minister told the House that

“the Government must not show their hand in detail” —[Official Report, 24 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 27.]

to Parliament in advance of the Brexit negotiations. At the very same time, however, we now know that the Secretary of State was telling Nissan the Government’s detailed negotiating stance for the automotive sector, including that there would be tariff-free trade and no bureaucratic impediments. Will the Secretary of State explain how those two positions are consistent?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

No one is going to believe it. No one is going to believe it because of the Prime Minister’s extreme spending plans, because his numbers do not add up, and because he promised it last time and he broke his promise. Now, if the Prime Minister is in the mood for straight answers, let us try him with another one. Can he confirm that a spending cut—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard. If we overrun, so be it; it does not matter to me. The right hon. Gentleman will be heard, and the Prime Minister will be heard, and every other Member will be heard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister says it is all about leadership. He says it is about him and me— [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Nobody in the House of Commons—[Interruption.] The Government Chief Whip should not be smirking about it, as it is not a laughing matter. Nobody in the House of Commons should be shouted down. I have got news for Members: however long it takes, it is not going to happen—Members will be heard.

[Edward Miliband]

These are pathetic, feeble excuses. Can we now take it that there are no circumstances in which he will debate with me head to head between now and the general election?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

There is only one person who is a risk to the integrity of the United Kingdom and it is this useless Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question will be heard. The noise calculatedly being made by some Members on both sides of the House is a disgrace to the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) will be heard and the Prime Minister will be heard. That is the end of the matter.

[Edward Miliband]

There is only one person who is a risk to the integrity of our country, and that is this Prime Minister. On the head-to-head debate, we have learned something about him: like all bullies, when the heat is really on he runs for cover.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman mentions the document, because I have brought it with me. I have, as you say, procured a copy for the interests of the House, and I would like to run through the commitments we made. We said:

“We will protect pensions”,

and we have protected pensions. We said we would train 4,000 Sure Start health visitors, and we have trained 4,000 Sure Start health visitors. We said we would

“protect free TV licences for over 75s and keep free eye tests… for pensioners”,

and we kept that promise. [Interruption.] There is plenty more. I’ve got all day, Mr Speaker. I think these are very important. The contract says:

“We will keep the winter fuel allowance”,

and we kept the winter fuel allowance.

It said we would

“ensure that cancer patients get the…treatment they need”,

and we made sure that happened. There is lots more, so let us keep going. There is plenty of time. [Hon. Members: “More!”] We said we would increase health spending every year, and we have increased health spending every year. We said we would introduce the married couples tax allowance, and we have introduced a married couples tax allowance. We said we would increase the basic state pension, and we have increased the basic state pension. There is plenty more. These are commitments made, and commitments kept. What a contrast—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Mr Miliband.

[Edward Miliband]

So now we know: we cannot believe the promise on immigration from the leader of the Conservative party. It is not worth the paper it is written on. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I ask the House to have some regard to the views of the public about our behaviour, given that we will be seeking their support in the weeks ahead. It is quite straightforward really.

[Edward Miliband]

They are laughing about the Prime Minister’s broken promise on immigration. I will ask again. He promised net migration in the tens of thousands. Will he now admit that he has broken that promise—yes or no?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister does not rule out further change, and he has a chance to vote for change tonight. This is what he wrote in 2009:

“Being a Member of Parliament”—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The questions will be heard, and the answers will be heard. It is a very simple point, which I hope everyone can grasp.

[Edward Miliband]

This is what he wrote in 2009:

“Being a Member of Parliament must be a full-time commitment…The public deserves nothing less.”

He went on to say:

“Double-jobbing MPs won’t get a look-in when I’m in charge”.

What has changed?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister cannot get away from it: he is a dodgy Prime Minister surrounded by dodgy donors. He did not just take the money—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It has always to be said: the questions will be heard and the answers will be heard, because this is a democratic Chamber. I do not mind how long it takes, they will be heard.

[Edward Miliband]

He did not just take the money; he appointed the man who was head of HSBC as a Minister. It was in the public domain in September 2010 that HSBC was enabling tax avoidance on an industrial scale. Are we seriously expected to believe that when he made Stephen Green a Minister four months later, he had no idea about these allegations?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I am afraid I am going to keep asking the question until the Prime Minister has an answer. Let me explain it to him. [Interruption.] You can’t help him George; you’re too far away. Let me explain it to him very simply. Everybody pays stamp duty on their share transactions. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting. The questions and the answers will be heard. This is a democratic Chamber and no one, but no one, is going to be shouted down. The point is very simple and very obvious, and I hope everyone can grasp it.

[Edward Miliband]

Let me explain it to the right hon. Gentleman very simply. Everybody pays stamp duty on their share transactions, but the hedge funds are protected. We have been calling for action on this. It could raise hundreds of millions of pounds. Why will he not act?

[Edward Miliband]

I am really pleased the Prime Minister wants to talk about donors. Let us talk about his donors: £7 million—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question will be heard. It is a very simple point. I have had to make it a second time, and I will make it as many times as necessary: the right hon. Gentleman will be heard.

[Edward Miliband]

I was talking about the Prime Minister’s donors, Mr Speaker: £7 million from Lord Laidlaw, a tax exile living in Monaco; £3 million from Michael Hintze with a company based in Jersey; and Michael Spencer, who gave him £4 million, involved in the LIBOR scandal. Same old Tories.

Now, let us give the Prime Minister a fifth chance. I know he does not do his homework, but this is his fifth chance. The hedge funds are avoiding tax to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. Will he now promise, from that Dispatch Box, to act for the national health service?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what my motive is: it is to rescue the national health service from this Tory Government. Frankly, this is a man who has got a war on Wales and is using the Welsh NHS to make political propaganda. This is a man who has broken—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For the avoidance of doubt, however long it takes, the questions from the Leader of the Opposition will be heard and so will the answers from the Prime Minister. That is the situation and the sooner people learn that quite simple lesson, the better.

[Edward Miliband]

We know the Prime Minister is in a hole on the NHS and this is all he can offer the British people. It is time we had some answers from him. He has broken his promises on waiting times in A and E. He could not defend what he said about maternity and emergency services. Can he explain why this morning new guidance has been issued to some hospitals making it harder for them to declare a major incident?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister is the person who has failed on the deficit. This Prime Minister says—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Edward Miliband]

This Prime Minister says that we have never had it so good, and he is totally wrong. He does not notice what is going on because life is good for those at the top. Can he confirm that while every day people are worse off, executive earnings have gone up by 21% in the last year alone?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

This is a Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It may well be that this session will take a bit longer, but questions and answers—[Interruption.] That is fine by me, but however long it takes, the questions and the answers will be heard.

[Edward Miliband]

I have to say to the Prime Minister: if he is so confident about leadership, why is he chickening out of the TV election debates?

This is the Prime Minister who will go down in history as the worst on living standards for working people. He tells people they are better off; they know they are worse off. Working families know they cannot afford another five years of this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell the Prime Minister what is disgusting—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said a moment ago that the Prime Minister’s answers must be heard. The Leader of the Opposition’s questions must be heard as well. It is very simple.

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell him what is disgusting—a Prime Minister who said that people could put their trust in him on the NHS. He has betrayed that trust. He is in denial about the crisis in the NHS. This is a crisis on his watch as a result of his decisions. That is why people know that if they want to get rid of the crisis in the NHS, they have to get rid of this Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

He does not know the facts—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The answers from the Prime Minister have not always been fully heard and they must be, and the questions from the Leader of the Opposition have not always been fully heard and they must be. I remind the House that that is what our voters, the electorate, would expect—some decent behaviour, and robust but courteous exchange.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister does not know the facts. Many of these victims of domestic violence are not getting the hardship payment, and protecting the victims of domestic violence should not be a matter of discretion; it is a matter of principle. Nothing better illustrates the contrast of values between those on this side of the House and those on that side of it.

Now let us talk about the mansion tax—[Interruption.] Yes. A penthouse in Hyde park recently sold for £140 million. Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that someone living in that penthouse should pay the same annual property tax as someone living in a house worth a fraction of that value?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Let us talk about his party: defections, rebellions, demands for a pact with UKIP, and that is before the Rochester and Strood by-election. Everyone will have heard—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Leader of the Opposition must be heard. However long it takes, that will happen. So people who are making a noise should calm themselves.

[Edward Miliband]

And he did not answer this fundamental question that matters to businesses and families. He used to say he would never be for leaving the European Union. That was his position two years ago. [Interruption.] Tory Members ask what my position is. I want to stay in the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman cannot even answer the question. That was his position then. I am just asking him to repeat the same words as he used then; that he would never campaign to leave the European Union. Yes or no?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

In case the Prime Minister has not realised—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. At a very early stage there is far too much noise. The public are not impressed. Let us try to operate to a certain standard. If the session has to be run on, it will be run on—it does not bother me.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister obviously does not realise that he is supposed to answer the questions. I ask the questions at Prime Minister’s questions. The whole country will have noticed that he could not defend what is happening in the English national health service for which he is responsible. Why? It is because four years ago he told us that his top-down reorganisation would improve the NHS; we now know that that is £3 billion down the drain. Will he now admit in public what he is saying in private: his top-down reorganisation has been a total disaster for the NHS?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

European Council

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

Debate on the Address

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 4th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

All the right hon. Gentleman shows is that he has nothing—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know it has to be said every week, but I will very happily say it again. However long it takes—a very simple exercise in democracy; the lesson should be learned—the question will be heard and the answer will be heard. It is incredibly simple.

[Edward Miliband]

All the right hon. Gentleman shows is that he has no idea about this incredibly important issue facing our country. Let me explain it to him. There are 9 million people renting in this country. Our proposal is that there should be fixed three-year tenancies as the norm for those people with predictable rent changes. Right? That is the proposal. Many people across this country think that for the first time this is a party addressing the issue they face, so will he explain what is wrong with going from one-year tenancies with unpredictable rent rises to three-year tenancies with predictable rents? Why has the Conservative party given up on millions of people who are Generation Rent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

No, Mr Speaker. I am raising an issue about a rip-off of the taxpayer, which the British people know when they see it. The reason this matters—[Interruption.] The reason this matters—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The orchestrated barracking is very predictable and also incredibly tedious, but it will not stop us getting through Prime Minister’s questions; it just means that it will take a bit longer. Members should calm down, and take a tablet if necessary.

[Edward Miliband]

The reason this matters is that the sale was grossly undervalued. Shares that were sold for £1.7 billion on privatisation are now worth £2.7 billion, and who cashed in? Twelve of the 16 so-called long-term investors made a killing worth hundreds of millions of pounds within weeks.

Yesterday, the representative of the bank that sold the shares said there was an “understanding” with those investors. [Interruption.] That is what it says on the record, Mr Speaker. He said that there was an understanding with those investors about their long-term commitment to Royal Mail. So why were they allowed to make a fast buck?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I have to say to the Prime Minister that it will be completely unclear to the country why the former Culture Secretary is not still in her job, because he thinks that she did nothing wrong. Let me explain to him—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This session will be conducted in an orderly way, however long it takes. I happen to know that there are children here today observing our proceedings. I would like to think that the House will show a good example. Let us see if we can.

[Edward Miliband]

What she did wrong was to refuse to co-operate with an inquiry, breach the code of conduct for MPs, and give a perfunctory and inadequate apology to this House, as people on all sides have been saying. The Prime Minister said six days ago that she had “done the right thing” and that we should “leave it at that”. Does he now recognise that that was a terrible error of judgment?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Again, the Prime Minister cannot answer the question. The answer is that the taxpayer would have got £1.4 billion less for this valuable asset than it is worth today. Here is the thing, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. When the Prime Minister was speaking I said that he should not be shouted down and nor should anyone else. However hard the effort is made to shout someone down, it will not work because we will just keep going. The sooner the juveniles can grow up and reach adulthood, so much the better.

[Edward Miliband]

And here is the thing, Mr Speaker, a third of the shares were sold to just 16 City investors. And get this: there was a gentleman’s agreement that those City investors would not sell the shares. What happened? Within weeks, half of those shares had been sold, and they had made a killing worth hundreds of millions of pounds. In other words, mates rates to the Prime Minister’s friends in the City. Perhaps he can tell us what happened to that gentleman’s agreement on those shares?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The whole country will have heard that the Prime Minister cannot answer the question about whether people need to believe in man-made climate change to be part of his Government. He has gone from thinking that it was a basic part of his credo to thinking that it is a matter of individual conscience. He used to claim that it was his passion above all else. Here’s the thing: if we are properly to protect—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The questions and the answers will be heard, however long it takes. Those who are exercising their vocal cords in a rather excessive way really ought to calm down. There is quite a long way to go.

[Edward Miliband]

Here’s the thing: if we are properly to protect the British people against the threats that they face, we cannot have doubt and confusion in the Government on the issue of climate change. The Prime Minister needs to rediscover the courage of his past convictions and tell his party to get real on climate change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I have to say—[Interruption.] I do have to say a picture tells a thousand words. This is a Prime Minister who says—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for having to interrupt again. Members, calm yourselves: it is only just after midday; many hours of the day remain; do not destroy your systems by exploding.

[Edward Miliband]

A picture tells a thousand words. Look at the all-male Front Bench ranged before us. The Prime Minister says that he wants to represent the whole country. I guess they did not let women into the Bullingdon club either, so there we go. He said that a third of his Ministers would be women; he is nowhere near meeting that target. Half the women he appointed as Ministers after the election have resigned or been sacked. And in his Cabinet—get this, Mr Speaker—there are as many men who went to Eton or Westminster as there are women. That is the picture. Does he think it is his fault that the Conservative party has a problem with women?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I welcome the Government’s decision to accept Syrian refugees; it is a very important cause.

Let me turn to another subject. Can I ask the Prime Minister who, just before the election, said that

“showing that we’re all in this together…means showing that the rich will pay their share which is why…the 50p tax rate will have to stay”? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A question has been asked and the answer must be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

Under this Government the richest will pay more in income tax in every year than any year when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. That is the truth. I want the richest to pay more in tax, and under this Government they are, because we are creating jobs and growth, and we are encouraging investment. What we have heard from Labour Members over the past 48 hours is that they want to attack that growth and attack those jobs; they want to attack those businesses. We now have in Britain an anti-business, anti-growth, anti-jobs party.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what we are saying to RBS: if there are any proposals to increase the overall pay—that is, the pay and bonus bill—at RBS, at the investment bank, we will veto them. What a pity that the previous Government never took an approach like that. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. However long it takes, the questions will be heard and the answers will be heard.

[Edward Miliband]

I am not asking about increases in pay and bonuses; I am asking a very simple question about the proposal that is expected to come forward from RBS to pay more than 100% bonuses on pay. We know that when RBS is making a loss, when it itself says that it has been failing small businesses and when these kinds of bonuses lead to risky one-way bets, it should not be allowed to happen. When ordinary families are facing a cost of living crisis, surely the right hon. Gentleman can say that for people earning £1 million a bonus of £1 million should be quite enough.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Let us talk about the Prime Minister’s predictions. He said that he would balance the books in five years; he has failed. He said that he would secure Britain’s credit rating; he has failed. The worst prediction of all is that he said he would be good at being Prime Minister, and he has certainly failed at that. He has got no answer—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members on both sides of the House need to calm down. It will take as long as it takes, as always; it is very straightforward.

[Edward Miliband]

Is it not interesting, Mr Speaker, that the thing they want to talk about least of all is the cost of living crisis facing families up and down the country? That is because they know that families are worse off. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much higher the average gas and electricity bill is this Christmas compared to last?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will wait until colleagues calm down. I do not mind how long it takes; I have all day if necessary.

[Edward Miliband]

I thought that, just for once, the Prime Minister might answer the question he was asked. Let us give him the answer: energy bills are £70 higher than they were a year ago—despite all his bluster, that is the reality—and £300 higher than when he came to office.

Let us try the Prime Minister on another important issue for families. The cost of child care is crucial for parents going out to work. Can he tell us how much the cost of child care has gone up this year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

We all know what the Prime Minister’s long-term plan is: to cut taxes for those on his Christmas card list and make everyone else sink or swim. That is his long-term plan. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The usual low graders can make as much noise as they like. Let me just say to them, for their own benefit—I will say it again; some of them do not learn very quickly—that however long it takes, right hon. and hon. Members will be heard. It is so simple, I think it is probably now clear.

[Edward Miliband]

The more the Prime Minister reads out lists of statistics, the more out of touch he seems to the country. This was the year that the cost of living crisis hit families hardest. This was the year the Government introduced the bedroom tax while cutting taxes for millionaires. This was the year he proved beyond doubt that he is the Prime Minister for the few, not the many.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

In case the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten, he has been the Prime Minister for three and a half years. But I think we are making progress, because last Thursday the Chancellor said that living standards were rising. [Interruption.] His own Office for Budget Responsibility says:

“Almost whichever way you look at it…average earnings, wages and salaries…the levels have been falling”. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Blenkinsop, you are yelling across the Chamber. Be quiet. Calm yourself. Take up yoga.

[Edward Miliband]

The OBR went on to say that it is “inconceivable” to suggest otherwise, but that is exactly what the Chancellor did last Thursday. Why will the Prime Minister not just come out and admit it: there is a cost of living crisis in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members must calm down. I have said that before, but some people are slow learners. We will go on for as long as it takes. They can shout and scream and bawl in the most juvenile manner, but we will just keep going.

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened. Under the last Labour Government, real earnings went up £3,600. Living standards went up: under him, they are down £1,600. Living standards are down under this Government. We have always known how out of touch he is, but he is now taking it to a whole new level. The Government are in denial about the cost of living crisis, and they are not satisfied with one millionaires’ tax cut—they think it is time for another. Once again, the Prime Minister proves that he stands up for the wrong people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will get through Question Time, however long it takes. I appeal to Members simply to calm down and think of the electorate, whom we are here to serve—very straightforward.

[Edward Miliband]

They are shouting because they have no answer, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister must realise the gravity of the situation, as figures this week show that there were 31,000 deaths as a result of the cold winter, with about 10,000 as the result of cold homes. Can he explain how things will be better this winter than they were last?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Let us talk about the people the Prime Minister associates with—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let the House calm down. I am concerned, as always, about Back Benchers, and Back Benchers who want to speak should be accommodated, so calm down and let us move on.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister obviously wants to talk about who he associates with. He has taken nearly £5 million from Michael Spencer, whose company was found to be rigging LIBOR; he has a party chairman who operated a company under a false name and was investigated for fraud; he has taken millions from tax exiles and tax avoiders; his party has never paid back the money from Asil Nadir—and they are just the people I can talk about in this House. Did not the planning Minister have it right yesterday, when he said

“the single biggest problem the Conservative party faces is being seen as the party of the rich”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

What the Prime Minister has shown comprehensively today is that he has no answers on the cost of living crisis facing families up and down the country. That is the truth and his close friend the planning Minister is right. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must calm down. Questions will be heard, however long it takes; it is very simple.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister’s close friend the planning Minister is right. He says this: there are many people who “don’t like” the Tory party and “don’t trust” its motives, and he says that the Prime Minister is not the man to reach them. What he is really saying is that this Prime Minister is a loser.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

What the shadow Health Secretary did was warn against cutting social care, and that is exactly what the Government did. That is the crisis the Prime Minister has produced. Here is the answer to the question he did not answer: 2,300 managers have received six-figure payoffs—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is too much noise. It had better stop, or the process will take longer. To those who cannot grow up I say: try.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister is giving P45s to nurses and six-figure payoffs to managers. Can he tell us how many of the people who have been let go from the NHS have been fired, paid off and then re-hired?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Having listened to the Select Committee hearing yesterday, will the Prime Minister tell us what is the difference between his—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say to the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary that his role is to nod his head in the appropriate places, and to fetch and carry notes? No noise is required.

[Edward Miliband]

Having listened to the Select Committee hearing yesterday, can the Prime Minister tell us what is the difference between his policy on energy and that of the energy companies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about what people are saying—[Interruption.] If he wants to talk about—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members should try to recover some semblance of calm. It would be good for their health and beneficial for their well-being. They must try to grow up, even after the age of 60.

[Edward Miliband]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about what people are saying, his own former Tory Environment Secretary, the man he put in charge of the Climate Change Committee, says his figures are false. That is what he says. Instead of having a review, the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to do something for the public next week. He has an Energy Bill going through Parliament. Instead of sitting on his hands, he could amend that Bill to institute a price freeze now. We will support a price freeze: why does he not act?

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There having been no motion passed by this House tonight, will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that, given the will of the House that has been expressed tonight, he will not use the royal prerogative to order the UK to be part of military action before there has been another vote in the House of Commons?

[Mr Speaker]

That is of course not a matter for the Chair, but the Prime Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and he is welcome to respond.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell him what the difference is: 6p a week in affiliation fees from ordinary people up and down this country, against a party funded by a few millionaires at the top. And what is—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Ellis, you find it so difficult to control yourself. I am sure you did not when you were practising at the Bar. Calm it, man! Get a grip of the situation!

[Edward Miliband]

What is shameful about it is that the Prime Minister does not even know about the extra tax cut he gave to hedge funds. He says he wants reform, so I have a proposal for him. I am willing, as I have said before, to have a £5,000 limit on donations from trade unions, businesses and individuals, as part of a fundamental reform in the way our parties are funded. Is he willing to do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

So there we have the truth—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman will have to do a lot better than that. He must answer the question on second jobs—[Interruption.] Let me tell him and all the Members opposite that between now and the general election, they will be subject to this test: do they support second jobs, new directorships and consultancies—yes or no? That is the test. Let us try the right hon. Gentleman with another test. I say—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question must be heard, and the people whom I might have thought about calling to ask a question who are shouting from a sedentary position might just as well leave the Chamber.

[Edward Miliband]

As well as ending new directorships and consultancies, there should be a limit in the next Parliament on how much people can earn on top of their MP’s salary, as happens in other countries. The public would expect nothing less. What does the Prime Minister say?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I am speaking for parents up and down this country—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is the usual, very low-grade, very substandard, very unnecessary heckling. If the session has to run longer, it has to run longer. Let us try to observe some decorum, which the public can respect.

[Edward Miliband]

Let us have a debate about ethics. This is a Prime Minister who had dinners for donors in Downing street. He gave a tax cut to his Christmas card list, and he brought Andy Coulson into the heart of Downing street. The idea that he is lecturing us about ethics takes double standards to a whole new level.

In this one policy on schools we see the hallmark of this Government: they make the wrong choices on tax and spending. The millionaires’ tax cut, the top-down reorganisation of the NHS, and schools in areas where there are surplus places—and all the time they repeat the meaningless mantra, “We’re all in this together.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that there are people who do not like it if Question Time runs over. Personally, it does not matter to me at all. The more noise and disruption there is, the longer it will take and the longer we will be here. It is very simple.

[Edward Miliband]

I notice that the Prime Minister has a new tactic, which is to ask me questions during our exchanges. All I can say is that it is good to see him preparing for opposition. The Home Secretary shakes her head. I am looking forward to facing her when they are in opposition.

Let me ask the Prime Minister another question, because he did not answer the one about the bedroom tax. He talked earlier about the hardship fund. Let us look at the facts about the fund. Some £25 million of it has been allocated specifically to help disabled people hit by the bedroom tax, but how much do his own figures show he is taking from disabled people? The answer is £306 million. Will he admit that the vast majority of disabled people hit by his bedroom tax will get no help from his hardship fund?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

With the greatest respect to the New Statesman, the Prime Minister is scraping the barrel by quoting that. All we have heard today—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Zahawi, you are an excitable fellow; this is not very statesmanlike. Calm yourself; you will get better over time.

[Edward Miliband]

All we have heard today is a Prime Minister who refuses to accept that he has failed on the central test he set himself. He has failed to meet that first test. It is not just our credit rating that has been downgraded. We have a downgraded Government, a downgraded Chancellor and a downgraded Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

He shakes his head, but what does his council leader say? “Your MP”—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Ellis, you are a distinguished practising barrister. You would not have behaved like that in the courts; do not behave like that in this Chamber. Calm yourself and be quiet—learn it man!

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

My position is no, we do not want an in/out referendum—[Interruption.] My position is precisely the same as the Prime Minister’s position when we voted together in October 2011 against an in/out referendum. My position has not changed; it is his position that has changed. And here is the truth: after six months of planning a speech on a referendum, he cannot even tell us whether it is a yes or a no —[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I said a moment ago that Members should not shout their heads off at the Prime Minister; neither should they shout their heads off at the Leader of the Opposition. They must stop—[Interruption.] Order. They must stop, and his questions must, and will, be heard.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister is going to put Britain through years of uncertainty and take a huge gamble with our economy. He is running scared of UKIP, he has given in to his party and he cannot deliver for Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

It is good to see—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Government Back Benchers, including Ministers, are apparently approaching maturity. They must tackle their behavioural problems before it is too late.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister is certainly getting very angry, Mr Speaker, but perhaps he is worried about losing the vote this afternoon. The reality is that our MEPs voted the same way as his on the motion before the European Parliament 10 days ago. He cannot convince anyone on Europe. Last year he flounced out of the December negotiations with a veto and the agreement went ahead anyway. He has thrown in the towel even before these negotiations have begun. He cannot convince European leaders; he cannot even convince his own Back Benchers. He is weak abroad, he is weak at home—it is John Major all over again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say to Government Back Benchers: it is very straightforward. Either they calm down or the session will be extended, at whoever’s inconvenience that may be. Let us be very clear. It is incredibly straightforward.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister’s Energy Minister says he is against wind farms and enough is enough, while his Energy Secretary says he is gung-ho for them. Who speaks for the Government—the Energy Secretary or the Energy Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Perhaps Members on both sides could calm down. Let us now hear from the Leader of the Opposition.

[Edward Miliband]

Even the Prime Minister is taking his habit of not answering questions to a new level. I asked him a question—[Interruption.] If he wants to swap places, I am very happy to do so. I asked him a question about the railways. [Interruption.] The Chancellor is shouting from a sedentary position, but it is not the ticket that needs upgrading; in my view, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The mishandling of this process has cost taxpayers up to £100 million, so which of the Prime Minister’s former Transport Ministers who oversaw the bidding is responsible for this multi-million pound fiasco?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

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

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

Yet according to the official police report,

“a man claiming to be the Chief Whip”

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The redder the Prime Minister gets, the less he convinces people. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members on both sides of the House now need to calm down. That is all there is to it.

[Edward Miliband]

It is the same lecture on the economy that we have had for the last two years, and things are getting worse, not better. Every time the Prime Minister gets up with that list of statistics, he just shows how out of touch he is. We have tax cuts for millionaires, a double-dip recession, and U-turn after U-turn after U-turn. Is not the truth that the Prime Minister did not just lose the confidence of his party last night, but he is losing the confidence of the country?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Government Back Benchers who have been here for some years ought to have grasped by now that it is not the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition to answer, so they should pipe down and try to be good boys, if they can.

[Edward Miliband]

If the Prime Minister wants a history lesson, let me repeat what he told the City of London on 28 March 2008:

“As a free-marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you to hear me say that”

the problem “of the past decade” is “too much regulation”.

Does that not say it all about the double standards of this Prime Minister? Whenever these scandals happen, he is slow to act and he stands up for the wrong people. The question people are asking is, “Who will act in the national interest, rather than the party interest?” His is a party bankrolled by the banks. If he fails to order a judge-led inquiry, people will come to one conclusion: he simply cannot act in the national interest.

EU Council

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must calm down.

[Edward Miliband]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Totally—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said the Prime Minister must be heard, and the Leader of the Opposition must be heard. Both will be heard, however long it takes. It is very clear.

[Edward Miliband]

Totally pathetic answers. He is the Prime Minister. If he cannot defend the conduct of his own Ministers, his Ministers should be out of the door. He should fire them. He does not even try to defend the Secretary of State and what he did. The Secretary of State told the House on 3 March, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), that

“today we are publishing…all the consultation documents, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my Department and News Corporation.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 526.]

But he did not, because 163 pages have now emerged. The Prime Minister does not defend him over giving confidential information to one party in the case; he does not defend him over collusion; is he really going to defend him about not being straight with this House of Commons?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

This is—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The usual level of orchestration from the usual suspects on the Government Back Benches. Be quiet, Mr Burns. It will be better for your health. You are the Minister for Health. Get better.

[Edward Miliband]

What a desperate Prime Minister, who cannot even justify his own Budget. If he wants to talk about the Mayor of London, we have a candidate for Mayor of London who will cut tube fares, who will make rents fairer, who will bring back the education maintenance allowance. What has the Prime Minister got? A candidate for Mayor of London who is out of touch and was arguing for the cut in the 50p tax rate.

On charities, the reality is that the Prime Minister is not making the rich worse off. He is making charities worse off. Over the past month we have seen the charity tax shambles, the churches tax shambles, the caravan tax shambles and the pasty tax shambles, so we are all keen to hear the Prime Minister’s view on why he thinks, four weeks on from the Budget, even people within Downing street are calling it an omnishambles Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Does the Prime Minister not think it was a serious question about his exclusion of the vast majority of people who work in our NHS? He should not worry—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must calm down. Tranquil and statesmanlike is the mode for which Members should strive.

[Edward Miliband]

We will come to the substance of the Prime Minister’s Bill, but let me ask him this very important question. There were people who attended the summit and expressed deep concerns about his Bill. Even those who were invited to his summit did so. Following his health summit, can he tell us what changes, if any, he is planning to make to his Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think it would be good if we could preserve some parliamentary manners in this place, and the Prime Minister will know that I am not frightened of anything.

[Edward Miliband]

Nobody believes the Prime Minister and nobody trusts him on the health service. At the Homerton hospital on Monday, I met senior staff working in HIV services, who explained to me how the Bill will fragment and disrupt services—[Interruption.] The Health Secretary should be quiet and listen to the people who work in the health service. If he had done some listening before—[Interruption.] He should calm down.

The senior staff working in HIV services explained that HIV treatment is currently commissioned by one organisation: the primary care trust. Under the Prime Minister’s plans, treatment will be commissioned by three organisations: the national commissioning board, the clinical commissioning group and the health and wellbeing board. The staff said that that will damage the world-class service they provide for patients. Why will he not listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in the NHS?

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister does not even understand his own Bill. Let me explain to him. The question was about the fragmentation of commissioning. The experts at the Homerton—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Opposition Members are becoming over-excited. There is a long time to go and I want to get to the bottom of the Order Paper.

[Edward Miliband]

Let me say to the Health Secretary that I do not think the Prime Minister wants advice from him.

Let me explain to the Prime Minister that the question was about the fragmentation of commissioning—[Interruption.] Good: I am glad you have got it. Maybe when you get up you can answer the question.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: keep me out of it. I said that to the Prime Minister and I am saying it to him.

[Edward Miliband]

The reason why the Prime Minister has lost the—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order—I say that to the shadow Chancellor as well—[Interruption.] Order. Members might be enjoying themselves, but I ask them to think of what the country thinks—[Interruption] Order. I ask Members to think of what the country thinks of how we conduct ourselves.

Informal European Council

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and associate myself with his remarks about Iran, Syria and Burma. On those issues there has been a bipartisan approach, and the Government have our full support in the effort they are making.

Having heard the Prime Minister’s statement on Europe, the whole House now knows the truth—that with this Prime Minister, a veto is not for life, it is just for Christmas. He said—[Interruption.] Calm down, dear, calm down. He said that it was a real veto on the use of European institutions, and his Back Benchers believed him. Even his Cabinet believed him. What did the welfare Secretary—where is he?—say just this weekend? He could not have been clearer. He said:

“The fact is the Prime Minister vetoed them using the institutions”.

There was not a glimmer of doubt in his mind. He was asked whether the structures of the EU would be used for the fiscal compact, and he said:

“The Prime Minister has already made it clear…he vetoed any such possibility of that happening.”

It is no wonder the welfare Secretary said that, because it was what the Chancellor said the day after the summit. He said on the Saturday morning:

“If we had signed this treaty…we would have found the full force of the…European court, the European Commission, all of those institutions enforcing those treaties using that opportunity to undermine Britain’s interests…We were not prepared to let that happen.”

Can the Prime Minister now confirm that the treaty will be ruled on by the European Court of Justice? Article 8 of the treaty says yes. Can he tell us whether the European Commission will implement the treaty? Article 8 says yes.

What about the Prime Minister’s line in the sand? We know that at 4 am on that fateful Friday morning, he laid down the law to his fellow European leaders and said, “You won’t be able to use the buildings.” So can he now tell us whether the buildings of the European institutions will be used? Apparently, the answer to that is yes, too. On the European Court, the Commission and the buildings, the phantom veto of December is now exposed.

What does the Prime Minister cling to? What did he say at the press conference yesterday? He said:

“There isn’t an EU treaty because I vetoed it; it doesn’t exist.”

The agreement involves the European Court of Justice, the European Commission, the European buildings, 25 out of 27 countries, and he says that it is not really a treaty. [Interruption.] Here is the treaty. It talks like a European treaty, it walks like a European treaty—it is a European treaty.

For Britain, the Prime Minister has secured no protections at all. He says that he has secured protections about discussions on the single market, but the treaty says that the contracting parties shall take actions in the following areas:

“Fostering competitiveness. Promoting employment. Reinforcing financial stability.”

It sounds like the single market to me. Can he confirm that the United Kingdom will not even have observer status at the regular meetings of the 25 to find out what is going on and whether the single market is being discussed? The Prime Minister needs to answer the question: who will protect the British national interest at those meetings? I think his Back Benchers will be interested in that. [Interruption.] It is all right, Mr Speaker, Britain will not be represented at those meetings, but the Prime Minister has a last line of defence—the European Commission. You could not make it up: the Prime Minister reduced to relying on the people he calls “the bureaucrats from Brussels” to represent him at the meetings. In the Prime Minister’s topsy turvy world, that is all he has left: his thin blue line against the 25 countries exceeding their mandate.

Instead of ending up in that position, the Prime Minister should not have walked out of the meeting in December. [Interruption.] No, he should not. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Leader of the Opposition. I exhorted the Opposition Benches to some calm; I now do so to the Government Benches. I say to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) in the nicest, kindest and most public-spirited way possible that if he insists on gesticulating, which he should not, it is pretty silly to do it when he is standing next to me.

[Edward Miliband]

Instead of constructing phantom vetoes, the Prime Minister should have been getting a solution to the problems of the eurozone—our largest export market. Of course, he cannot do that. He is committed to failing austerity at home, so he cannot oppose collective austerity abroad. There are growing fears that the scale of austerity required under the treaty will not work. Will the Prime Minister therefore tell us whether the economic strategy in the fiscal compact will work? If he does not believe that it will work, why is he not arguing for change?

The summit has been bad for Britain. There is still no solution to the problems of growth in Europe. In the cold light of day, the Prime Minister’s veto that never was has been exposed. He made a grand promise, which turned out to be worthless. No wonder that even his Back Benchers say that they cannot believe a word he says.

Britain stands with less influence than we have had for a generation. It is bad for business, bad for jobs and bad for families. Britain deserves better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister is simply—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must try to calm down and contain itself.

[Edward Miliband]

I know that the Prime Minister does not want to talk about the young people out of work in this country, because he is embarrassed by his record on what is happening, but he owes it to them to tell the facts as they are about what is happening to them. I come back to this point: the Prime Minister said in his answer that long-term unemployment among young people is going down. It is not going down; it is going up.

The Prime Minister mentions the Work programme, which he introduced with a great fanfare in June. What has happened to long-term youth unemployment since he introduced his Work programme?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I think our sympathy is with the Deputy Prime Minister. His partner goes on a business trip and he is left waiting by the phone, but he hears nothing until a rambling phone call at 4 am confessing to a terrible mistake.

How is the Prime Minister going to pick up the pieces of the bad deal he delivered for Britain? The Council came to conclusions on Friday morning, but the treaty will not be signed until March. In the cold light of day, with other countries—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Some very, very foolish person shouted out “Stop”. The person who did that will stop, because people in this place must be heard. If there is a Member here who does not think so, I invite that Member to leave the Chamber.

[The Prime Minister]

First, I make no apologies for standing up for Britain. In the past two days we have read a lot about my opinions and we have read a lot about the Deputy Prime Minister’s opinions; the one thing we do not know is what the right hon. Gentleman would have done. While he was here on Monday his aides were running around the Press Gallery briefing that he would not have signed up to the treaty. Well, here is another try: what’s your answer?

[Mr Speaker]

I have no answer on this matter whatsoever—[Interruption.] Order. I am glad the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), has returned from his travels. We wish him a merry Christmas, but in his case it should be a quiet one.

[Edward Miliband]

There was a better deal for Britain that the Prime Minister should have got, and that is what the Deputy Prime Minister himself says. Here is the truth: last week the Prime Minister made a catastrophic mistake, and this week we discover that unemployment is at its highest level for 17 years. This Prime Minister thinks he is born to rule. The truth is that he is just not very good at it.

EU Council

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? We all note the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister from his normal place.

The reality is this: the Prime Minister has given up our seat at the table; he has exposed, not protected, British business; and he has come back with a bad deal for Britain. The Prime Minister told us that his first priority at the summit was to sort out the eurozone, but the euro crisis is not resolved. There is no promise by the European Central Bank to be the lender of last resort, there is no plan for growth and there is little progress on bank recapitalisation. Will he first tell us why his promise of action did not materialise and what that will mean for the British economy in the months ahead? At the summit that was meant to solve these problems, the Prime Minister walked away from the table.

Let me turn to where that leaves Britain. Many people feared an outcome of 17 countries going it alone. Few could have anticipated the diplomatic disaster of 26 going ahead and one country—Britain—being left behind. The Prime Minister rests his whole case on the fact that 26 countries will not be able to use the existing treaties or institutions. That is apparently the win that he got for this country. However, can he confirm that article 273 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union allows those countries to use the European Court of Justice? No doubt they will end up using the Commission’s services and, yes, even the buildings—the point that he made in the negotiations. In case anyone had any doubt, that was confirmed yesterday by the absent Deputy Prime Minister, who said:

“Well it clearly would be ludicrous for the 26, which is pretty well the whole of the European Union…to completely reinvent…a whole panoply of new institutions.”

The Prime Minister will not even be sent the agenda for the meetings that will start in January. He will read about decisions affecting British business in the pages of the Financial Times.

The Prime Minister’s next claim was that he did not want to sign up to the fiscal rules being imposed on euro area countries. Can he confirm that no one even proposed that those would have applied to Britain? The next claim in his statement was that he did what he did because the treaty posed a grave threat to our financial services industry. However, over the whole course of the weekend, he has been unable to point to a single proposal in the proposed treaty that would entail the alleged destruction of the City of London. Will he tell us what the threat was?

In any case, there is nothing worse for protecting our interests in financial services than the outcome that the Prime Minister ended up with. Will he confirm that he has not secured one extra protection for financial services? The veto on financial services regulation—he did not get it. The guarantees on the location of the European Banking Authority—he did not get them. Far from protecting our interests, he has left us without a voice.

The sensible members of his party understand that as well as anyone. What did Lord Heseltine say—[Interruption.] Oh, how significant! That is what the Tory party now thinks of Lord Heseltine. What did he say at the weekend?

“You can’t protect the interest of the City by floating off into the middle of the Atlantic.”

It is no longer the Conservative party of Lord Heseltine; it is the Conservative party of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who went out on Friday saying that this was exactly what he had always wanted.

What about the rest of British business, which the Prime Minister does not seem to have been thinking about? The danger is that the discussions about the single market, on which it relies, will now take place without us. Only this Prime Minister could call that leadership. The Deputy Prime Minister clearly does not agree with him. He said that the outcome leaves Britain “isolated and marginalised”. Does the Prime Minister agree with that assessment? How can he expect to persuade anybody else that it is a good outcome when he cannot persuade his own deputy?

The Prime Minister claims to have wielded a veto. Let me explain to him that a veto is supposed to stop something happening. It is not a veto when the thing that you wanted to stop goes ahead without you. That is called losing. That is called being defeated. That is called letting Britain down. I have not finished with the Prime Minister yet. Next, I want to ask him—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am worried about the health of the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). He must calm himself and have a lie down, if necessary, while we listen to the Leader of the Opposition.

[Edward Miliband]

Next, I want to ask the Prime Minister about how he ended up with this outcome. The proposals he tabled, when he tabled them and his failure even to try to build alliances for them suggest someone who did not exactly want a deal. Can he confirm that what he actually proposed was to unpick the existing rules of Lady Thatcher’s Single European Act as regards the internal market? Given that those proposals would have changed 25 years of the single market, why did he make them in the final hours of the summit?

Where were the Prime Minister’s allies? If he wanted a deal, why did he fail to build alliances with the Swedes, the Dutch, the Poles and Britain’s traditional supporters? If he really did want to protect the single market and financial services, why did he not seek guarantees that those issues would be discussed only with all 27 members in the room?

In any case, the Prime Minister should not have walked away, because the truth is—[Interruption.] Just calm down. The truth is, the treaty will take months and months to negotiate. Other countries have carried on negotiating and carried on fighting for their national interest. The real answer is this: he did not want a deal, because he could not deliver it through his party. He responded to the biggest rebellion of his party in Europe in a generation by making the biggest mistake of Britain in Europe for a generation.

So this is a bad deal, which we ended up with for bad reasons, and it will have long-lasting consequences. It is a decision that means we are on the sidelines, not just for one summit but for the years ahead. The Prime Minister said in this House on 24 October that what mattered

“is not only access to that single market but the need to ensure that we are sitting around the table”.

He went on:

“That is key to our national interest, and we must not lose that.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 38.]

Well congratulations, Prime Minister, that is exactly what you have done. He has done what no Prime Minister ever thought was wise—to leave the room to others, to abandon our seat at the table.

The Prime Minister says he had no choice. He did. He could have stayed inside and fought his corner; he should have stayed inside and fought his corner. Faced with a choice between the national interest and his party interest, he has chosen the party interest. We will rue the day this Prime Minister left Britain alone, without allies, without influence. It is bad for business, it is bad for jobs, it is bad for Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I think the short answer is— [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say to the usual, predictable noisy tendency what I said to those on the other side a moment ago. People must be heard, and that is what will happen, however long it takes.

[Edward Miliband]

I think the short answer is that six weeks ago the Prime Minister was promising his Back Benchers a handbagging for Europe, but now he is reduced to hand wringing. That is the reality of this Prime Minister. The problem for Britain is that at the most important European summit for a generation, which matters hugely to families and businesses up and down the country, he is simply left on the sidelines. Is not the truth that we have a Prime Minister who is caught between his promises in opposition and the reality of government? That is why Britain is losing out in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to Members engaged in orchestrated barracking that it is very tedious and very juvenile, from whichever side it comes. The public do not want to hear it, and nor do I. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard, as will the Prime Minister, and that is all there is to it.

[Edward Miliband]

The reason public sector workers do not think the Prime Minister is listening is that the Government declared negotiations at an end four weeks ago. They said that they had made their final offer. They have not even met the unions for four weeks, since 2 November. What has he gone around saying to people? He has gone around saying that he is privately delighted that the unions have walked into his trap. That is the reality. He has been spoiling for this fight. The reason people have lost faith is that he is not being straight with them. Will he admit that 800,000 low-paid workers on £15,000 a year or less are facing an immediate tax rise of 3% on his pension plan?

[Edward Miliband]

The difference is that, unlike the Prime Minister, I am not going to demonise the dinner lady, the cleaner or the nurse, people who earn in a week what the Chancellor pays for his annual skiing holiday—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members on both sides of the House need to calm down. If senior Members of the House think that it is a laughing matter, let me tell them that it is not. The public would like to see some decent behaviour and a bit of leadership on these matters, and so would I.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister is the one—he did not deny it—who went around saying that he is privately delighted because the unions have walked into his trap. That is the reality. The truth is that it is not only public sector workers who are paying for the failure of his plan, but private sector workers. Will he confirm that, as a result of the cuts to tax credits announced yesterday, a family on the minimum wage, taking home £200 a week, will lose a week and a half’s wages?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister sits there shaking his head. He does not understand his own policy, and of course, he could not explain or justify what he did to everyone on low pay with the miserable deal cooked up with the Deputy Prime Minister to cut £1 billion from tax credits in the autumn statement yesterday. They have no explanation for why they are doing that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) that I do not require any assistance from him. The Leader of the Opposition will come to a question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Even for this Prime Minister, to be playing politics with youth unemployment is a complete outrage. He is the one—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. Let me say it again: the Prime Minister will be heard, and the Leader of the Opposition will be heard. Laughing about the denial of a hearing is not to the credit of any hon. or right hon. Member.

[Edward Miliband]

The truth is, the Prime Minister is the one cutting taxes for the banks year on year in the course of this Parliament. That is the reality. He is creating a lost generation of young people, and he knows it. It is his responsibility; it is happening on his watch.

The Prime Minister said on Monday to the CBI that it was “harder than anyone envisaged” to get the deficit down, but he was warned that his strategy of cutting too far and too fast would not create jobs; he was warned that it would not create growth; and he was warned that he would find it harder to get the deficit down. Is that not exactly what has happened?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Isn’t it utterly typical? When things go wrong, it is nothing to do with them—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, let me just emphasise this: there are Members on both sides of the House shouting their heads off. Members of the Youth Parliament last Friday—[Interruption.] Order. Members of the Youth Parliament spoke brilliantly and passionately disagreed with each other, but they did not shout at each other.

[Edward Miliband]

What did the Home Secretary say in the past, when she was in opposition and things went wrong on immigration? She said this:

“I’m sick and tired of…government ministers…who simply blame other people when things go wrong.”

The Prime Minister said yesterday, in his evidence to the Liaison Committee about the relaxation of border controls over the past few months, that

“clearly this is not acceptable and it is not acceptable it went on for so long.”

Why did the Home Secretary allow it to happen?

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Edward Miliband]

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I would like to answer this, if I may, Mr Speaker, in full, and I do need to give a very full answer. First, all these questions relate to the fact that I hired a tabloid editor. I did so on the basis of assurances he gave me that he did not know about the phone hacking and was not involved in criminality. He gave those self-same assurances to the police, to a Select Committee of this House and under oath to a court of law. If it turns out he lied, it will not just be that he should not have been in government; it will be that he should be prosecuted. But I do believe that we must stick to the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Now, let me deal directly with the information given to my office by figures from The Guardian in February last year. First, this information was not passed on to me, but let me be clear that this was not some secret stash of information; almost all of it was published in The Guardian in February 2010, at the same time my office was approached. It contained no allegations directly linking Andy Coulson to illegal behaviour and it did not shed any further light on the issue of phone hacking, so it was not drawn to my attention by my office.

What is more, Mr Speaker—let me just make this point—I met the editor of The Guardian the very next month and he did not raise it with me once. I met him a year later and he did not raise it then either. Indeed, if this information is so significant, why have I been asked not one question about it at a press conference or in this House? The reason is that it did not add anything to the assurances that I was given. Let me say once more that if I was lied to, if the police were lied to, or if the Select Committee was lied to, it would be a matter of deep regret and a matter for a criminal prosecution. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Anybody might think that orchestrated noise is taking place—[Interruption.] Order. The House will come to order and these exchanges will continue in an orderly way.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister has just made a very important admission. He has admitted that his chief of staff was given information before the general election that Andy Coulson had hired a man who had been jailed for seven years for a criminal conspiracy and who made payments to the police on behalf of the News of the World. This evidence casts serious doubt on Mr Coulson’s assurances that the phone hacking over which he resigned was an isolated example of illegal activity. The Prime Minister says that his chief of staff did not pass on this very serious information. Can he now tell us what action he proposes to take against his chief of staff?

Phone Hacking and the Media

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I accept the Culture Secretary’s apology for the late notice of his statement, but the truth is that it points to the chaos and confusion at the heart of the Government. After what we have heard and the questions that have been left unanswered, we all know that it is the Prime Minister who should be standing at the Dispatch Box today. It is quite wrong that he chose to do a press conference on Friday in Downing street about the issues but is unwilling to come to the House today. Instead, he chose to do a press conference at Canary Wharf, just 20 minutes down the road.

The Culture Secretary has no direct responsibility for the judicial inquiry that he talked about, and he has no direct responsibility for the police and the relationship with the media, but he has been left to carry the can by a Prime Minister who knows there are too many difficult questions for him to answer. It is an insult to the House and to the British public.

Let me ask the Culture Secretary a series of questions. First, on the subject of the judge-led inquiry, as soon as an inquiry is established, tampering with or the destruction of any documents becomes a criminal offence. We already know that is relevant to the offices of the News of the World. It may also be relevant to any documents in No. 10 Downing street and Conservative headquarters. Will the Culture Secretary—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said a few moments ago that the Secretary of State must be heard. The same goes for the Leader of the Opposition, and if Members are chuntering away or, worse, shouting, they had better stop it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has this extraordinary vision of how the NHS is run, but it is not the Prime Minister who hires every person in every organisation in the NHS. The difference between this coalition Government and the Labour party is that we are investing in the NHS, putting resources into the NHS, reforming the NHS in a way that is supported by the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians, Tony Blair, Lord Darzi and most people working in the NHS, but not by the Labour party. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The decibel level is—[Interruption.] Order. The decibel level is far too high. The Prime Minister should not have to shout to make himself heard.

[Edward Miliband]

The whole country will have heard that the Prime Minister has admitted the Government are spending £852 million on making people redundant, and he cannot even promise that they will not be re-hired to do their old jobs. Is not this the truth? He promised no top-down reorganisation; he is doing it. He promised a bonfire of the quangos; he is creating more. He promised a better deal for patients and things are getting worse. What people are asking up and down this country is: what is he doing to our NHS?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us focus on an answer to the question, or we will move on to the next question. I call Mr Ed Miliband.

[Edward Miliband]

Let me give this lesson to the Prime Minister: it would be better to talk to his colleagues before they put forward a policy, not after. Instead of listening to the Home Secretary, why does he not listen to Angie Conroy from Rape Crisis? She says:

“with the reporting of rapes on the increase and conviction rates still shockingly low, the evidence this database provides is vital. The more of this data we hold, the more chance we have of catching rapists.”

She goes on to say:

“This really is a no brainer.”

Is this not another policy on crime that is careless, not thought through and out of touch? Why does he not think again?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Okay, Mr. Speaker—[[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] You can rewrite history for only so long. Let us be—[Interruption.] Let us be absolutely clear about this—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are wasting the time of Back-Bench Members. Let us hear the Leader of the Opposition.

[Edward Miliband]

The deficit was 2.5% of national income before the crisis—the recession—hit all around the world. It went up all around the world; it was a global economic recession. The question is: should we cut too far and too fast, which is what the Prime Minister is doing, so that there are four years of sluggish recovery—the most sluggish recovery from recession in 40 years? Why does the Prime Minister not answer the question? Is this the most sluggish recovery from recession in Britain for the last 40 years? Yes or no?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want time for Back Benchers, especially those on the Order Paper. Let us make some progress.

[Edward Miliband]

Look, the Prime Minister knows as well as I do that there are risks in the global economy, including to the United Kingdom. The Chief Secretary revealed yesterday that half a million jobs will be lost as the result of the Chancellor’s announcements today. What people who are in fear of losing their jobs will want to know is what the consequences of the spending review will be for them. They will think that this spending review will be a failure if it leads to rising unemployment next year. Will the Prime Minister say that he agrees with them that the spending review will be a failure if unemployment were to rise next year—yes or no?

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

May I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces? I also want to pay tribute to their families, who sustain their loved ones as they prepare for, serve on and recover from operational service. They are the best of Britain, and we should recognise that in the House here today. We must ensure that their interests are protected in all the decisions we make.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance notice of his statement—in today’s papers, yesterday’s papers, Sunday’s papers, Saturday’s papers and Friday’s papers. It almost did not matter that I got his statement at 3.15 pm because I had read so much of it in the newspapers, but, as someone who takes Parliament seriously, I have to say to the Prime Minister that the process of announcement of the review has been a complete shambles. I genuinely hope he will learn the lessons from it.

On issues of defence and national security, we will always seek to be constructive. I believe the Prime Minister approaches the challenge of national defence, as all Governments have done, with the right intentions, and it does neither our politics nor our armed services any good to imply anything different. That is the approach I shall follow today.

The cuts announced today clearly represent a significant reduction in our defence spending, but what matters in our defence spending is what the money does for our defence and security needs. That is what I want to focus on today. First, I remind the Prime Minister of the concern expressed by the Defence Secretary in the letter to him. He said that

“this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR”.

The Prime Minister will know that the concern that the Defence Secretary expressed was expressed not just by the Defence Secretary, but by the Chair of the Select Committee, by many Members of the House and by many independent observers.

Is it not instructive that the strategic defence review of 1998 took 15 months to complete and involved much greater consultation and in-depth study? May I ask the Prime Minister to respond to the widespread perception that the review has been driven only by short-term considerations? Does he think, on reflection, that it would have been better to have had a longer-term strategic defence review, continuing after the spending review?

Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister about the most immediate and pressing issue of Afghanistan? I reiterate that we support the mission in Afghanistan and will work in a bipartisan way with him to stabilise the country and bring our troops home safely. I was reassured by what he said in his statement about Afghanistan, but may I ask him for some further assurances that he has been told by the Chief of the Defence Staff that no decision announced today will in any way undermine or disadvantage our military operations in Afghanistan?

I welcome what today’s statement said about delivering new equipment, but may I raise with the Prime Minister the issue of extra helicopters? People will remember that he made much of the issue of helicopters in the previous Parliament. The order, as I understand it, was for 22 extra helicopters, but the document produced today states on page 25 that “12 new Chinook helicopters” will be ordered. I simply ask the Prime Minister to explain the discrepancy between the 22 helicopters that I believe he wanted in the previous Parliament, and the 12 that have been ordered.

Thirdly, I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that a key part of preparing for the challenge of the future is the targeting of limited national resources on the most pressing threats. He mentioned terrorism in his statement, and the national security strategy identified terrorism as a tier 1 threat. Given that today’s announcement forms only a partial response to yesterday’s national security strategy, can he assure the House that nothing announced tomorrow in the changes to the Home Office budget will in any way undermine or weaken our ability to counter terrorism in all its forms?

Fourthly, on the issue of preparing our armed forces for future challenges, we agree that savings can be made on the legacy cold war capability, such as in the number of Challenger tanks and in heavy artillery. However, I seek reassurance from the Prime Minister that he is content that the decisions made today do not in any way compromise our ability to support current operations and defend our interests round the world. In particular, what does the capability gap arising from the scrapping of our Harriers and the withdrawal of Ark Royal mean for our force projection, which was made much of in the national security strategy document yesterday? What does it mean for our ability to defend our overseas territories? In that context, will he also reassure the House that the best strategic decision for the next decade really is for Britain to have aircraft carriers without aircraft, which is the decision he announced today?

May I also ask the Prime Minister about two things that he did not mention in his statement? Will he confirm what he did not tell the House but what I think is set out on page 19 of the review—that he is today announcing a one-third reduction in the number of troops that Britain can deploy on both short-term and enduring bases? Will he also take the opportunity to respond to the huge disappointment that there will be in south Wales, following the decision announced in a written ministerial statement this morning to terminate the defence training college at St Athan, which he personally promised would go ahead?

Fifthly, there will be concerns that the review has failed to address strategically the important questions about the future of our nuclear deterrent. All parts of the House support the retention of the nuclear deterrent, alongside progress in multilateral disarmament talks, but can I say—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Ellwood, these constant sedentary heckles are not necessary, they are not welcome and they do not help you.

[Edward Miliband]

There will be concern that the Prime Minister has announced a whole range of decisions on Trident, despite telling us for months that it was not part of the strategic defence review. He made much of the issue of the procurement budget, but will he confirm that by choosing to delay Trident, he is creating a large unfunded spending commitment in the next Parliament—precisely the problem he told us he wants to get away from in procurement.

We will help the Prime Minister and his Government as they seek to do what is best for our country’s security, but many people will believe that this review is a profound missed opportunity. It is a spending review dressed up as a defence review; it has been chaotically conducted and hastily prepared; and it is simply not credible as a strategic blueprint for our future defence needs.

The Opposition will support him where we can, but we will also give his strategy serious scrutiny, and where necessary and appropriate we will subject it to the principled and responsible opposition it deserves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I am afraid it is nought out of two on straight answers. We should try to change the tone of these exchanges, but the Prime Minister must provide straight answers to straight questions that I ask him. I am not defending the rich—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard, and if there are colleagues chuntering away who then hope to catch the eye of the Chair, I am afraid they are deluded.

[Edward Miliband]

I am defending the deputy head teacher in her primary school and the police inspector, who are asking a simple question. The Prime Minister used to agree with me. Before the election he went to Bolton, in an event that I gather was called “Cameron Direct”, and he said:

“I’m not going to flannel you. I’m going to give it to you straight. I like child benefit. . . I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means test it, I don’t think that’s a good idea.”

I agree with the Prime Minister: why doesn’t he?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

The truth is, as the whole country will have heard—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. People should stop shouting. The public hate it, it is bad for politics and it should not happen.

[Edward Miliband]

The truth is that the Prime Minister has no defence of that policy. He cannot explain to families up and down the country why they will sustain that loss. I see the Chancellor sitting there. Let us be honest: the policy has been a shambles from day one. The rest of the Cabinet knew nothing about it, and the Local Government Secretary said he found out from the media that it would be announced. The Children’s Minister, whom I cannot see in the Chamber, went on the run because he was too scared to defend the policy. I bet the Prime Minister wishes the BBC blackout had gone ahead, given that his conference was such a shambles.

On child benefit, is it not time that the Prime Minister had the grown-up sense to admit that he has got it wrong and that he has made the wrong decision? He should tell middle-income families up and down Britain that he will think again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and John Bercow

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State explain why it was right to give a grant to Nissan to make electric cars—a proposal we support—but wrong to provide a commercial loan to help a British company, Sheffield Forgemasters, to be at the centre of the nuclear supply chain, particularly in light of the admission by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), that £110 million would have come back to the Government from that loan and that the Government would have got extra money if the company had made a profit?

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State will keep his answer within the confines of nuclear power.

[Chris Huhne]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters was not a commercial loan. If it had been, it would have been arranged through the banks and not the Government. It was precisely because of the public subsidy element and the fact that that was not affordable that the Government decided not to proceed with it.