G8 and G20 Summits

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8 and G20 summits which took place in Canada.

First, I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the seven British servicemen who have lost their lives in the last week: from 40 Commando Royal Marines, Sergeant Steven Darbyshire; from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, Colour Sergeant Martyn Horton, Private Douglas Halliday, and Private Alex Isaac; from the Yorkshire Regiment, Lance Corporal David Ramsden; and from the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, Bombardier Stephen Gilbert, who died from injuries he received in an explosion earlier this month; and we also remember the soldier from 101 Engineer Regiment who died yesterday. As the country marked Armed Forces day this weekend, people did so with tremendous pride but also with great sadness. We must never forget what these men, and so many of their colleagues, have given for us, and our thoughts should be with their friends and their families.

As I have said, I am determined that our forces will not stay in Afghanistan a day longer than necessary. I led a discussion at the G8 where we made it clear that we

“fully support the transition strategy adopted”

by international partners. We are not after a perfect Afghanistan—just a stable Afghanistan able to maintain its own security and prevent al-Qaeda from returning. So the G8 sent a collective signal that we want the Afghan security forces to

“assume increasing responsibility for security within five years.”

The presence of large-scale international forces cannot be an indefinite commitment. We need to get the job done and bring our troops back home.

Let me report to the House on the main conclusions of the G8 and G20. I have placed copies of the communiqués in the Library so that people can see the details of what was agreed. The G8 is a good forum for the leading democratic economies to give proper strategic consideration to the big foreign policy and security issues. It has also played a vital role in helping the richer nations to improve the future of the poorest people in our world.

In my view, those two vital functions of this forum should continue. I want to take each in turn. On the big security issues, we discussed the middle east peace process and agreed the importance of putting pressure on both sides to engage in the proximity talks, with the aim of creating the conditions for direct talks later this year. President Obama specifically said that he would make this his priority in the coming months. While the changes Israel have proposed are welcome, they do not go far enough, and the communiqué says that the current arrangements in Gaza

“are not sustainable and must be changed.”

On Iran, UN Security Council resolution 1929 was welcomed. The communiqué states that all countries should “implement it fully.” Since the G8 includes Russia, I believe that this was significant. The UK also made the case for all members of the G8 to have positive engagement with Turkey, which could have a key role to play both in resolving the Iran issue and in encouraging progress on middle east peace. We also discussed North Korea, deploring and condemning the sinking of the Cheonan, and the vital topics of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

On development, while the G8 has played an important role in increasing aid spending by the richest countries in the world, some of those countries have not met commitments that they set out. I stressed the importance of transparency and accountability, and the accountability report that has been published sets out what countries have done in meeting their commitments. While not perfect, it represents good progress in ensuring that countries cannot make promises without being held accountable for them and for failing to meet them.

Even at a time when our countries face difficult budget decisions, it is important that we maintain our commitment to helping the poorest in the world. The UK is maintaining its commitment to increase spending on aid to 0.7% of gross national income. That gives us the opportunity to exercise leadership on behalf of the poorest. At the same time, in order to take the public with us, we also need to ensure that every penny will reach those who need it most. That means transparency and accountability along the lines that we are introducing. It also means that the projects we support must be deliverable, practical and measurable, addressing the causes of poverty and not just alleviating the symptoms.

The Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health agreed at the G8 is a case in point. Today in the United Kingdom, the chances of dying in pregnancy and childbirth are 1 in 8,200. In parts of Africa they are as high as 1 in 7. That is something we can change and must change, and the resources agreed, including a big contribution from the UK, could lead to an additional 1.3 million lives being saved. As the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood points out, if we save the mother we save the family, and if we save the family, we build a stronger society and a stronger economy.

I turn to the G20, which is now clearly the right forum for all the leading economies of the world to discuss the vital economic issues. The key goal of the G20 is to continue the recovery of the world economy and secure sustainable growth. The argument proposed by some that deficit reduction and growth are mutually exclusive is, in my view, completely wrong. The whole approach underlined by the International Monetary Fund for this G20 and the subsequent meeting in Seoul is about how the world should maximise growth through the right combination of three things: deficit reduction; tackling imbalances, particularly through actions by emerging economies; and structural reform in the advanced economies. There was broad agreement on all three, which is reflected clearly in the communiqué.

On deficit reduction, the G20 agreed that

“those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation”

and that there was a risk that

“failure to implement consolidation would undermine confidence and hamper growth.”

The advanced G20 economies committed to at least halve current deficits by 2013 and stabilise Government debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016. While we agreed that the speed and timing of deficit reduction will vary with national circumstances, the verdict of the G20 was unequivocal: for countries with large deficits, the time to act is now. Britain has one of the largest deficits in the G20, and the summit specifically welcomed the plans set out in our Budget last week.

On addressing the fundamental imbalances, China’s recent decision to move towards greater exchange rate flexibility is clearly very welcome. On financial reform, the G20 agreed a set of principles on bank levies to ensure that the financial sector makes a

“fair and substantial contribution towards paying for any burdens associated with government interventions to repair the financial system”.

That is very much in line with the plans for a bank levy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget. On ensuring that the banks in all countries can withstand future crises, we also agreed that

“the amount of capital will be significantly higher and the quality of capital significantly improved”.

The new standards should be finalised by the Seoul summit in November. The Basel accord took 10 years; this looks like it could be completed in a little over one.

Although the drawing up of clear, robust new rules is essential, it is important that they are not implemented too quickly. We do not want a further monetary squeeze or a reduction in bank lending at this stage of the recovery. The biggest stimulus we could give the world economy today is the expansion of trade. While the G20’s agreement to extend its pledge that no additional trade barriers should be put in place is welcome, continued failure to make progress on Doha is deeply disappointing. It has now been eight years in negotiation, and frankly, there can be little confidence that as things stand the round will be completed rapidly. That is a tragedy, because a completed trade round could add $170 billion to the world economy.

The UK led the working session on this issue at the G20. One potential way of making progress is to try to add to the benefits of the round, including more things in it, so that all parties can see reasons for going that final mile. This was supported by President Obama, and the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, suggested that all trade negotiators should return to the table and consider, vitally, both what it is they really need from the round and what it is they are prepared to offer to get it moving again. This should lead to a report at the Seoul meeting in November. In my view, too many people still see this as a zero-sum game, where one country’s success in exports is somehow another country’s failure. This is nonsense: everyone can benefit from an increase in trade flows. We will play our part in breaking the logjam, and I want this country to lead the charge in making the case for growing trade flows around the world.

On climate change, while the G8 communiqué was strongly positive on limiting the rise in global temperatures to less than 2°, the G20 communiqué was more limited. This is partly because some countries do not see the G20 as the forum for discussing this issue. In discussions, it was also clear that there was widespread disappointment at the way that Copenhagen failed to deliver a legally binding global deal. We must not give up on this, and we will be playing our full part in pushing for a successful outcome at Cancun.

This long weekend of summitry was a good opportunity to build Britain’s bilateral relationships. Among others, I had useful meetings with President Obama, President Hu of China, Prime Minister Singh of India and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey. In building a very strong friendship with our leading European partners, I also suffered the exquisite agony of watching England lose 4-1 to Germany in the company of my good friend Chancellor Merkel and the German summit team. While I cannot recommend the experience of watching England lose football to Germany in the margins of a G20 summit, I do commend this statement to the House.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the service personnel who have died in Afghanistan since we last addressed the House: from 40 Commando Royal Marines, Sergeant Steven Darbyshire; from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, Colour Sergeant Martyn Horton, Private Douglas Halliday and Private Alex Isaac; from the Yorkshire Regiment, Lance Corporal David Ramsden; from the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, Bombardier Stephen Gilbert; and the soldier from 101 Engineer Regiment who died yesterday. Our thoughts are with their families as we remember them and acknowledge the deep debt of gratitude we owe them.

May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? The G8 and G20 summits covered many issues of importance to the United Kingdom, not least the need to work internationally to sustain the UK economic recovery that began last year. The G20 declaration rightly identifies the G20’s

“achievements in addressing the global economic crisis”,

saying that the G20’s

“efforts to date have borne good results. Unprecedented and globally coordinated fiscal and monetary stimulus is playing a major role in helping to restore private demand and lending.”

Now that the Prime Minister has joined other G20 leaders in endorsing those pro-growth policies that have put the global economy back on the road to recovery, will he acknowledge the role of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), in shaping that approach and winning support for it at the G20, thereby laying the foundations for that recovery internationally and here at home?

Is it not inconsistent for the Prime Minister to sign up to this approach abroad while continuing to denigrate that approach here at home? We welcome the G20’s commitment to

“‘growth friendly’ fiscal consolidation plans”

and the target of halving deficits by 2013. Will he confirm that this target is entirely consistent with deficit reductions that the Office for Budget Responsibility showed would have been achieved by 2013 under our plans? Will he confirm that nothing in the G20 statement provides any justification whatever for his choice to cut the deficit further and faster? Indeed, is it not the case that only last week President Obama called on world leaders to

“learn from the consequential mistakes of the past when stimulus was too quickly withdrawn and resulted in renewed economic hardships”?

The G20 calls for growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, but how is it growth friendly to cut investment allowances for manufacturing firms, to scrap the regional development agencies and to cut back on investment in high-tech, export-oriented British firms such as Sheffield Forgemasters? How is it growth friendly for his Government to take an approach that the OBR says will cost 100,000 jobs?

With President Obama and major emerging economies, including India and Brazil, warning against the risk of Budget cuts too early and too deep, is it not clear that on the question of timing and content, the summit’s conclusions on deficit reduction amount to no more than an agreement to disagree? Given the risk of deflationary policies in the eurozone and the fact that growth forecasts in the United States have been revised downwards, is not weak demand the major threat to growth? Is it not the case that Government policy should still play a part in sustaining demand? Is it not clear, given that demand in our export markets again looks fragile, that the assumption of a 40% increase in UK exports, on which last week’s Budget plans were based, looks very optimistic? To which markets does the Prime Minister expect that 40% increase in exports to go?

The Opposition welcome the G8’s commitment to support the international security assistance force’s efforts in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister recognised in his statement, this will be a crucial year for Afghanistan, with the Kabul conference and elections in September. Because military effort must pave the way for, and go alongside, a political settlement in Afghanistan, will he update the House on preparations for the Kabul summit and Afghan elections?

Surely there is agreement on both sides of the House that we do not want our troops to stay in Afghanistan one day longer than necessary. We look forward to when the Afghan Government can guarantee their people’s stability and security, and thereby make us safer, as the Prime Minister has said previously. Will he therefore clarify his remarks on Afghanistan? He said:

“We can’t be there for another five years”.

Does the Prime Minister believe that that assists our troops in their task in Afghanistan? What effect does the Defence Secretary believe the Prime Minister’s comments will have on the morale of our troops fighting day by day on the ground in Afghanistan? Is it not the case that, as the Defence Secretary has said, setting artificial time scales is a very dangerous game to play?

May I now turn to the G8 approach to tackling global poverty? Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep frustration within the development community at what it sees as a major retreat by the G8 on its commitment to help the poorest? In particular, how can he, as one of the G8 leaders, justify the decision to drop the commitment of the 2005 Gleneagles summit to increase aid by $50 billion by 2010? That G8 commitment was hard won by the previous Labour Government. Is he aware that Save the Children called that “shameful”, and that Oxfam described the G8 statement as being

“lower than our lowest expectations”

on maternal mortality?

Writing on the eve of the summit, the Prime Minister said:

“Too often these international meetings fail to live up to the hype and promises made”,

but instead of strengthening the resolve of G8 leaders to deliver the promised action, he has allowed them to renege on their promises. Does that not reflect badly on his international leadership, for which the very poorest will pay a heavy price? Can the Prime Minister tell us how hard he tried to get the other world leaders to stick to, and deliver, the Gleneagles promises? He apparently told journalists that as

“the new kid on the block”,

he was focusing on a different aid target, namely the UN’s 2015 millennium development goals. Will the Prime Minister attend the key UN summit on the millennium development goals this September in New York? If he is not planning to do so, could he reconsider his decision in order to put the G8’s and the world’s efforts towards achieving the millennium development goals back on track?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her response.

We are preparing for the Kabul summit by having repeated conversations and meetings with President Karzai and others. I have met him twice since becoming Prime Minister, once here in the UK and once in Afghanistan, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend that important meeting.

The right hon. and learned Lady asked me to clarify the perfectly obvious statement that British troops should not be in Afghanistan in five years’ time. Let me put it to her the other way around. It was a Labour Government who took us into Helmand province in 2005. Is she really saying that 10 years later we should still be there? We want to get the job done, train up the Afghan army and police and bring our troops back home. She would be better advised to seek cross-party agreement on that than to take the position that she has chosen.

The right hon. and learned Lady then made some remarks about global poverty. Of course I deplore the fact that some G8 members have not stuck to the promises that they made at Gleneagles in 2005, but the slippage that she was trying to blame on the new Government took place between 2005 and 2010. The person to whom she wanted me to pay tribute—I would be delighted if he could be bothered to turn up to the House—was either Chancellor of the Exchequer or Prime Minister during that time.

The right hon. and learned Lady asked me to attend the UN summit on the millennium development goals in September in New York. I was intending to do so, but for reasons of paternal health—we have been talking about maternal health—I hope that I will be otherwise engaged in the UK, as we are having a baby. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be at the summit and doing a very good job.

The right hon. and learned Lady’s whole premise on which she based her argument about the G20, the need to tackle deficits and get growth is completely wrong. The whole point about the G20 is that if you combine fiscal consolidation in the countries that need it with expansion and dealing with the imbalances from emerging economies, you can maximise world growth. That is what it is about. She says that there is no case for going faster in those countries with excessive deficits—on the IMF figures we have the biggest deficit of all—but the Labour party is now completely isolated on this issue. The G20’s view is that

“it is clear that consolidation will need to begin in advanced economies in 2011, and earlier for countries experiencing significant fiscal challenges at present”—

and that is the UK. So the Labour party is isolated from the G20.

Let us see how Labour is getting on with the US. Tim Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary, said about the UK Budget:

“I think they’ve got the right balance, the right objectives and I think they’re demonstrating that again you have to act so that people can see you’re committed to follow through”.

So Labour is now isolated from the Americans. What about the Europeans? José Manuel Barroso, the President of the Commission, said in Toronto that there is no more room for deficit spending. So Labour is now isolated from the Europeans.

Let me end with the IMF, because that is where we would have ended up if that lot had stayed in power. The IMF was clear:

“In this regard, credible and coherent fiscal plans should be clearly communicated as soon as possible. There is a pressing need…for fiscal consolidation in G-20 advanced economies”.

If that is not done, it could, says the IMF,

“weigh on the recovery and raise market pressure in an environment of elevated uncertainty about sovereign debt risks.”

There we have it. Whether it is the US, the EU or the IMF—and I could add in the OECD—the Labour party is now completely and utterly isolated.

As for quoting President Obama, here is one I prepared earlier. He said that

“we have been very impressed with the leadership that David Cameron has shown thus far. He has, I think, taken a series of steps on some very tough issues and…is prepared to make…decisions on behalf of…his country.”

The right hon. and learned Lady’s attempt to claim that somehow we are not completely in tune with the US, the EU, the G20 and the IMF is an attack that simply is not going to take off.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the contribution that our Territorial Army plays in serving our country. He is also right to remind us how many people have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are some 600 volunteer reservists serving today. Standing up for our armed forces is not just a Government responsibility: it is a social responsibility, and something that we should all do. We should pay tribute to those businesses that help people to volunteer and take part. We should remember their service in doing that as well.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Marine Paul Warren from 40 Commando Royal Marines, who died on Monday, and to the member of 40 Commando Royal Marines who died yesterday? They fought with bravery and they died in the service of their country.

The Chancellor announced yesterday that the Government will bring forward relinking the basic state pension to earnings to 2011 rather than 2012. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much money the Treasury has set aside to pay for that next year?

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, what the Chancellor did yesterday was more complex than that. He said—[Interruption.] This is an extremely important point, and hon. Members will want to listen. We have a triple lock in place to make sure that the pension upgrade is at the highest level possible. Next year, therefore, because of what we expect will happen with the retail prices index, the pension will be upgraded and increased along with it. When the right hon. and learned Lady gets to the Dispatch Box the next time, will she confirm that Labour’s plans were to uprate benefits by less than the consumer price index?

[Ms Harman]

There was nothing complicated at all about the question, but it was one that the Prime Minister did not seem to want to answer. The answer is that the Government have not set aside a single penny for that big promise to pensioners. Next year prices are due to go up more than earnings, so bringing forward the earnings link by a year does not give pensioners anything extra. But although pensioners get nothing from that change we all know they will pay more in VAT. The Chancellor promised to provide help for pensioners. I am sure that pensioners, including those in the Southwark Pensioners Action Group, or SPAG, which the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), knows well, will want to know: are pensioners better off or worse off as a result of the Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the right hon. and learned Lady that there is a danger in asking the second question without having listened to the first answer. The first answer is that the pension will be uprated by RPI, which is likely to be higher than earnings next year. In terms of how much money we are putting into the state pension system—[Interruption.] How much, they ask? We are putting in £1 billion over the Parliament—£1 billion. What a contrast. In 13 years, Labour never linked the pension back to earnings. We have done it in two months.

[Ms Harman]

The Prime Minister is not being straight about this. We know that there will be no increase in the pension from linking it with earnings a year early. A pensioner will not benefit from the cut in tax from raising the personal allowance either, because they do not get that if they are over 65, but they will pay more VAT. The Chancellor promised to help pensioners. Will the Prime Minister not admit that pensioners will be worse off under his Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

Perhaps I could recommend to the right hon. and learned Lady the Budget Red Book, although in her case I suspect it is the unread book. If she looks at page 41, she will see £1 billion going into the state pension system in this Parliament. What a contrast. We all remember the 75p increase for pensioners. Under our triple lock system, that can never happen again.

[Ms Harman]

Page 41, table 2.1, item 48 states:

“Basic State Pension: introduce triple guarantee”.

Money set aside: zero. The Prime Minister is not being straight about his promise to pensioners.

Can I ask the Prime Minister about families with children? Families with children, with an income of less than £40,000, may be breathing a sigh of relief that they still have their tax credits, as that was on the news last night. But is it right? Can he confirm that—as he promised in the election—families on less than £40,000 will not lose their tax credit?

[The Prime Minister]

What we are doing is making sure that the less well-off families get the most money. What a contrast again. Since 2004, child poverty went up by 100,000 under a Labour Government. In this Budget, child poverty does not go up by a single family.

[Ms Harman]

Once again, the Prime Minister is not answering the question. The truth is that, despite the Chancellor’s promise, the Budget small print shows big cuts in eligibility for tax credit. The Prime Minister promised that no family on less than £40,000 a year would lose child tax credit. Will he admit that that is not the case? Will he admit that there are families on a joint income of £30,000 who will lose all their tax credits?

[The Prime Minister]

The point that the right hon. and learned Lady has got to address is who left us in this mess. Who left a budget deficit of £155 billion, with absolutely no proposals to deal with it? Who put forward—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Who put forward £50 billion of cuts, without outlining a single penny piece? The whole country can see what is happening here: one party put us into this mess; two parties are working together to get us out of it.

[Ms Harman]

I think that what the electorate detest is broken promises, and people will want to know how the right hon. Gentleman’s Budget will affect them. He was not straight with pensioners. He was not straight with families. He was not straight on VAT. When the Chancellor got up to present his Budget, he proclaimed:

“I am not going to hide hard choices…in the small print of the Budget documents. The...public are going to hear them straight from me, here” —[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]

Is not the truth that that was his first promise and that he broke it even before he sat down?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Lady talks about broken promises. We remember, “No more boom and bust.” What happened to that promise? We remember, “Prudence with a purpose.” What happened to that one? We remember, “We’ll protect the poorest,” when Labour took away the 10p tax rate. The fact is that the Labour party has got absolutely nothing to say about the biggest problem facing this country, which is the massive budget deficit. It might be adopting Greekonomics, but we are sorting out the problem.

European Council

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Trooper Ashley Smith from the Royal Dragoon Guards, who was killed in Afghanistan last week. He died serving our country, and our thoughts are with his family and friends. We have also heard news this morning that a member of 40 Commando Royal Marines has died from his injuries. He is the 300th member of the British armed forces to lose his life as a result of the conflict in Afghanistan.

When such a tragic milestone is reached, we should re-emphasise our support for our armed forces and for all that they do. Inevitably, some will use this moment to question our mission and our purpose there. We are paying a high price, but let me be clear: we are in Afghanistan because the Afghans are not yet capable of securing their own country from terrorists. It is for our own national security that we help them. When they can do it alone, we will leave. In the meantime, we must give our armed forces everything they need to get the job done, and that includes our unequivocal support right across the country.

With permission, I should like to make a statement on last Thursday’s European Council. It was rightly focused on securing the economic recovery, and it was unanimous that this required early action on budget deficits. The Council also dealt with Europe’s growth strategy, the need to sort out the problems in the eurozone and our approach to the G20. It also delivered important progress on Iran. I would like to take each point in turn.

On deficits, the conclusions from the Council could not be clearer. Delaying action would entail “major risks”, and the Council called on member states to meet budgetary targets “without delay”. Since the last European Council, the problems in Greece and the scale of the sovereign debt crisis have become apparent to almost everyone. That is why there is such unanimity across the EU for early action. It is also why President Barroso paid tribute to the efforts the UK Government, saying:

“Consolidation is necessary for confidence and without confidence there will be no growth.”

On growth, the Council agreed a new strategy called Europe 2020. This follows on from the Lisbon agenda, the aim of which was to make Europe the most competitive market in the world. The document has some worthwhile objectives, including raising the level of research and development and improving education. This should not interfere with national competencies, so I secured explicit agreement that the new strategy must be

“fully in line with the relevant Treaty provisions and EU rules and shall not alter Member States’ competences”.

We should be clear that all the strategies in the world cannot conceal the fact that EU countries all need to get to grips with the real problems that harm our competitiveness—not by endlessly setting targets, but by taking action. This includes action on the extent of our debts, on the affordability of our pensions and on the scale of our welfare dependency. Europe has never lacked strategies, but European countries have frequently failed to deliver them.

We will also continue to press for the real stimulus that European economies need—that is, more trade, more international investment and more action to break down the barriers to business. This means pushing for agreement on Doha, reforming and completing the single market and making the process of trade easier. Even without Doha, there is a huge amount that countries across the world can do to facilitate trade. I want Britain to be one of the driving forces in helping to bring this about.

Next is the eurozone. Britain is not in the euro, and, let me be clear: we are not going to join the euro—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—but a strong and successful eurozone is vital for the British national interest. Already, about half our exports go to the EU, four fifths of them to the eurozone. As this House is aware, however, with the situation in Greece and the need for a support package from the other eurozone members, there is no doubt that the eurozone as a whole faces real challenges. So I was generally supportive of the Council’s efforts to strengthen the eurozone governance arrangements, but I was equally determined to ensure our national interests are protected.

On budget surveillance, let me be clear: the UK Budget will be shown to this House first and not to the Commission. Of course, we will share projections and forecasts, just as we do with the International Monetary Fund and other international bodies: so, co-ordination and consultation, yes; clearance, no, never.

On sanctions, for those who breach their economic obligations, the Council agreed that

“Member States’ respective obligations under the Treaties will be fully respected”.

Because of this, and because of the special opt-out negotiated by the last Conservative Government, sanctions cannot be applied to the UK under the current framework.

Sorting out the eurozone and adding to its governance arrangements is clearly vital for Europe. There may well be significant changes coming down the track. Whether they require treaty changes or not, our position will be the same: we will back measures that will help sort out the eurozone; we will not back measures that pass power from the UK to Brussels. As we are not members of the euro, we will not back measures that draw Britain further into financial support for the euro area.

On the G20, the EU Council discussed our priorities for the upcoming meeting. As well as taking action on the deficit, the Council also agreed about the importance of reforming the financial system. It is vital that the meeting in Canada back the right action on reserves and on capital.

On the issue of a banking levy, the European conclusions were helpful. We wanted the Council to endorse the idea of countries introducing a levy on financial institutions to ensure they make a contribution to rebuilding public finances. We did not want the Council to mandate a particular form of levy or how the money raised should be used. I am pleased to say the Council conclusions reflect that approach.

On Iran, we argued that it is time for action, not just words. The Council conclusion refers to measures, including restrictions on trade, banking, transport and the oil and gas industry. Final agreement will be reached at the Foreign Ministers’ meeting.

The Council also reached important conclusions on Iceland’s application to join the EU. This country should be a good friend to Iceland and a strong supporter of continued EU enlargement. But Iceland does owe the UK £2.3 billion in respect of the compensation paid by the Government to UK investors, following the collapse of its banking sector. We will use the application process to make sure that Iceland meets its obligations, because we want that money back.

Finally, it is important that even in difficult times we support people in the poorest countries who suffer from the most severe poverty. The European Council reaffirmed its commitment to achieving development aid targets by 2015 and, supported by the UK, to review that annually.

The Council delivered good outcomes for Britain. Our citizens do not want new structures to talk about things, but a new resolve to do things, such as getting a grip of our massive budget deficit, developing the single market and building the conditions for strong, sustainable and balanced growth. That is what the Council was all about. I commend the statement to the House.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the two soldiers who have lost their lives: Trooper Ashley Smith from the Royal Dragoon Guards; and a Royal Marine from 40 Commando Royal Marines. As the Prime Minister has said, 300 members of our forces have now given their lives in Afghanistan in the service of our country. We pay tribute to their bravery and honour their sacrifice, and our thoughts are with their families. I strongly agree with the Prime Minister about the cause for which our soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan: they are fighting there to keep our streets safe here. That is why the Opposition join the Government in support of our troops and their mission. As we approach Armed Forces day, let us remember all our servicemen and women, whether they are stationed abroad or at home. Their skill and courage are unsurpassed.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. First, may I endorse his support for the summit’s declaration on Iran, which again shows that on issues of international concern, we who are EU member states have a bigger impact when we combine our efforts? Does he agree that while the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran remains a matter of the utmost concern, the international community is now more united than ever before in searching for a peaceful solution, and that the active EU diplomacy we have seen in recent years has played an important part in that? Will he tell us whether there is a timetable for further EU action on Iran? Will he confirm the importance not only of sanctions and diplomatic pressure, but of international engagement with the people of Iran? Will he therefore give an undertaking that the BBC Farsi service will be protected from any threats to the budget of the BBC World Service?

Secondly, may I also welcome the EU summit’s strong commitment to meeting the millennium development goals by 2015 and the Prime Minister’s endorsement of that? The terrible crisis of drought, food shortages and starvation in Niger is a vivid reason why we must have international action on development. Will he not be a stronger voice in the EU, for the whole of the EU to make development a priority, if his Government continue to prioritise development? Following the Labour Government’s commitment, the European Commission recommended that all EU member states should consider legislating to enshrine the 0.7% aid target, which the Labour Government established. Will the Prime Minister take forward in this Session of Parliament the Bill that we introduced to make that target legally binding?

Is it not the case that we can only be effective in Europe if what we say and do there is matched by what we say and do at home? In that regard, may I commend the Prime Minister on his reference in his pre-summit article to what he describes as the

“shocking inequality of women in many parts of Europe”

and what he says is the “urgent need for change”? If he recognises the “shocking inequality” of women elsewhere in Europe, can he act on it here? Will he show Europe that he means at home what he says in Brussels by committing himself to implementing the Equality Act 2010 as soon as possible and to pressing on with the plan to make employers publish the gender pay gap?

What will the Prime Minister do about his Tory MEPs who clearly have not got the message at all and abstained in the vote on the millennium development goals, and who voted against measures to combat gender inequality only last week? He thinks it is “shocking”, but they seem to be all in favour of it.

The Council focused on economic growth, and I welcome the summit’s adoption of the Europe 2020 strategy for growth, which stated that

“priority should be given to growth-friendly budgetary consolidation strategies”

and that

“increasing the growth potential should be seen as paramount to ease fiscal adjustment in the long run.”

In other words, it said, “Don’t undermine growth when you’re cutting borrowing”, and, “You need growth to be able to bring borrowing down.” According to the official summit conclusions, one of its main objectives is

“to unlock the EU’s growth potential, starting with innovation and energy policies”.

We agree with that. That is what the Prime Minister signed up to in Brussels. However, he is doing something very different here at home. How does it help growth to cut business investment support, and how does it

“unlock the EU’s growth… starting with… energy”

to cancel the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters allowing it to build the next generation of nuclear power stations? Does this not mean that Europe, as well as the United Kingdom, will lose out as South Korea and Japan proceed with that work?

Let me turn to the important question of financial services. We welcome the intention to implement a new system of levies and taxes on financial institutions, and to explore an international approach. May I ask the Prime Minister to say more about the progress report on the work of the taskforce on economic governance? There is a British representative on it, and the taskforce has implications for the United Kingdom as well as for eurozone countries. Which, if any, aspects of enhanced economic governance might be applied to the United Kingdom?

This was the Prime Minister’s first European Council. He is now representing our country in Europe. So is it not time for him to have a sensible rethink about the wisdom of continuing to exclude himself from the grouping of centre-right political leaders? The European People’s party includes President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel, and the Prime Ministers of Sweden, Italy, Poland and many other countries; but instead of meeting them to prepare for the summit, the Prime Minister has a meeting with one Polish MEP to prepare for Britain’s contribution.

The general election is over. The right hon. Gentleman is Prime Minister now. Will he put aside his pandering to his Europhobic Back Benchers and agree with his Liberal Democrat coalition partners on this point? That is what would be in Britain’s interests.

[The Prime Minister]

Well, the right hon. and learned Lady is right about one thing: the general election is over.

The right hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right about Iran. We do need great unity on this issue; and Europe forging ahead together with a very strong statement about sanctions, then introducing sanctions, is right. She asked when it would be finalised. That will happen on 26 July, at the Foreign Affairs Council, and the sanctions should come into effect in October.

The right hon. and learned Lady asked about the BBC service in Farsi. I can confirm that it will continue to be funded well, because it is important. We should be looking at all the elements of soft power and how we project our influence in the world, and that is clearly one of them.

The right hon. and learned Lady mentioned the millennium development goals and the importance of prioritising development. We agree with her about that. It was on the insistence of the British, among others, that we put the annual review of development assistance into the Council conclusions, partly so that we could ensure that other countries are living up to the obligations under which they place themselves. We will continue to do that, although we are clearing up the most almighty financial mess at home. As for making it legally binding, we agree with that, and will produce plans to make it happen.

The right hon. and learned Lady spoke about consistency, and about the importance of recognising the gross inequality of women. We will set out measures for greater transparency, including transparency in pay. We are in favour of that.

The right hon. and learned Lady mentioned our MEPs at great length. I can tell her that I will be keeping a careful watch on what Labour MEPs vote for, because they do not always vote in a sensible way.

Saville Inquiry

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is publishing the report of the Saville inquiry—the tribunal set up by the previous Government to investigate the tragic events of 30 January 1972, a day more commonly known as “Bloody Sunday”. We have acted in good faith by publishing the tribunal’s findings as quickly as possible after the general election.

I am deeply patriotic; I never want to believe anything bad about our country; I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our Army, which I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear: there is no doubt; there is nothing equivocal; there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong.

Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of Support Company who went into the Bogside

“did so as a result of an order… which should have not been given”

by their commander. He finds that

“on balance the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army”

and that

“none of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm”.

He also finds that

“there was some firing by republican paramilitaries... but... none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties”,

and that

“in no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire”.

Lord Saville also finds that Support Company

“reacted by losing their self-control... forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training”

and acted with

“a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline”.

He finds that

“despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers… none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers”

and that many of the soldiers

“knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing”.

What is more, Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying. The report refers to one person who was shot while

“crawling… away from the soldiers”

and mentions another who was shot, in all probability,

“when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground”.

And the report refers to a father who was

“hit and injured by Army gunfire after he had gone to… tend his son”.

For those looking for statements of innocence, Saville says:

“The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries”,

and, crucially, that

“none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting”.

For those people who were looking for the report to use terms like murder and unlawful killing, I remind the House that these judgments are not matters for a tribunal, or for us as politicians, to determine.

These are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say, but we do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth. So there is no point in trying to soften, or equivocate about, what is in this report. It is clear from the tribunal’s authoritative conclusions that the events of Bloody Sunday were in no way justified.

I know that some people wonder whether, nearly 40 years on from an event, a Prime Minister needs to issue an apology. For someone of my generation, Bloody Sunday and the early 1970s are something that we feel we have learnt about rather than lived through. But what happened should never, ever have happened. The families of those who died should not have had to live with the pain and hurt of that day, and with a lifetime of loss. Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The Government are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces, and for that, on behalf of the Government—indeed, on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.

Just as the report is clear that the actions of that day were unjustifiable, so too it is clear in some of its other findings. Those looking for premeditation, those looking for a plan, those even looking for a conspiracy involving senior politicians or senior members of the armed forces, will not find it in this report. Indeed, Lord Saville finds no evidence that the events of Bloody Sunday were premeditated. He concludes that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland Governments, and the Army, neither tolerated nor encouraged

“the use of unjustified lethal force”.

He makes no suggestion of a Government cover-up, and he credits the United Kingdom Government with working towards a peaceful political settlement in Northern Ireland.

The report also specifically deals with the actions of key individuals in the Army, in politics and beyond, including Major-General Ford, Brigadier MacLellan and Lieutenant-Colonel Wilford. In each case, the tribunal’s findings are clear. The report does the same for Martin McGuinness. It specifically finds that he was present and probably armed with a “sub-machine-gun”, but concludes

“we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire”.

While in no way justifying the events of 30 January 1972, we should acknowledge the background to the events of Bloody Sunday. Since 1969, the security situation in Northern Ireland had been declining significantly. Three days before Bloody Sunday, two officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary—one a Catholic—were shot by the IRA in Londonderry, the first police officers killed in the city during the troubles. A third of the city of Derry had become a no-go area for the RUC and the Army, and in the end 1972 was to prove Northern Ireland’s bloodiest year by far, with nearly 500 people killed.

Let us also remember that Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the service that the British Army gave in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007. That was known as Operation Banner, the longest continuous operation in British military history, which spanned 38 years and in which over 250,000 people served. Our armed forces displayed enormous courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Acting in support of the police, they played a major part in setting the conditions that have made peaceful politics possible, and over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives to that cause. Without their work, the peace process would not have happened. Of course some mistakes were undoubtedly made, but lessons were also learnt. Once again, I put on record the immense debt of gratitude that we all owe those who served in Northern Ireland.

I thank the tribunal for its work, and thank all those who displayed great courage in giving evidence. I also wish to acknowledge the grief of the families of those killed. They have pursued their long campaign over 38 years with great patience. Nothing can bring back those who were killed, but I hope that—as one relative has put it—the truth coming out can help to set people free.

John Major said that he was open to a new inquiry. Tony Blair then set it up. That was accepted by the then Leader of the Opposition. Of course, none of us anticipated that the Saville inquiry would take 12 years or cost almost £200 million. Our views on that are well documented. It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness, but let me reassure the House that there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past.

However, today is not about the controversies surrounding the process. It is about the substance, about what this report tells us. Everyone should have the chance to examine its complete findings, and that is why it is being published in full. Running to more than 5,000 pages, it is being published in 10 volumes. Naturally, it will take all of us some time to digest the report's full findings and understand all the implications. The House will have an opportunity for a full day's debate this autumn, and in the meantime the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence will report back to me on all the issues that arise from it.

This report and the inquiry itself demonstrate how a state should hold itself to account and how we should be determined at all times—no matter how difficult—to judge ourselves against the highest standards. Openness and frankness about the past, however painful, do not make us weaker; they make us stronger. That is one of the things that differentiates us from the terrorists. We should never forget that over 3,500 people, from every community, lost their lives in Northern Ireland, the overwhelming majority killed by terrorists. There were many terrible atrocities. Politically motivated violence was never justified, whichever side it came from, and it can never be justified by those criminal gangs that today want to drag Northern Ireland back to its bitter and bloody past. No Government I lead will ever put those who fight to defend democracy on an equal footing with those who continue to seek to destroy it, but nor will we hide from the truth that confronts us today. In the words of Lord Saville:

“What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland.”

Those are words we cannot and must not ignore, but I hope what this report can do is mark the moment when we come together, in this House and in the communities we represent; come together to acknowledge our shared history, even where it divides us; and come together to close this painful chapter on Northern Ireland's troubled past. That is not to say that we must ever forget or dismiss that past, but we must also move on. Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years and all of us in Westminster and Stormont must continue that work of change, coming together with all the people of Northern Ireland, to build a stable, peaceful, prosperous and shared future. It is with that determination that I commend this statement to the House.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? As he said, it is more than 12 years since the then Prime Minister Tony Blair set up the Saville inquiry to establish the truth of what happened on what became known as Bloody Sunday. For the 14 families whose loved ones were killed, for the 13 who were injured, for the soldiers and their families, for all those whose lives would never be the same again, the report has been long-awaited. We all recognise how painful this has been, and the Prime Minister has been clear today. He said that there is no ambiguity, that it was wrong; he has apologised and we join him in his apology.

I also join the Prime Minister in thanking Lord Saville and all those whose work contributed to the report. The report speaks for itself and it speaks powerfully.

I remind the House of what Tony Blair said on the day that the House agreed to establish the Saville inquiry. He said that Bloody Sunday was a day we have all wished “had never happened” and that it was “a tragic day” for everyone. I reiterate his tribute to the dignity of the bereaved families, whose campaign was about searching for the truth. He rightly reminded the House of the thousands of lives that have been lost in Northern Ireland. May I restate our sincere admiration for our security forces’ response to terrorism in Northern Ireland? Many lost their lives. Nothing in today’s report can or should diminish their record of service. They have been outstanding.

The Prime Minister has acknowledged that the Saville inquiry was necessary to establish the truth and to redress the inadequacy of Lord Widgery’s inquiry, which served only to deepen the sense of grievance, added to the pain of the families of those who died and were injured, outraged the community and prolonged the uncertainty hanging over the soldiers. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for reminding the House that the setting up of the Saville inquiry played a necessary part in the peace process. Does the Prime Minister agree that, notwithstanding the considerable cost of this inquiry, its value cannot be overestimated in both seeking the truth and facilitating the peace process? Does he believe that Saville has now established the truth?

How the Government handle the report is of great importance, so I thank the Prime Minister for committing to seek a full day’s parliamentary debate on it. Will he consider allowing for a period of time between the debate in each House, so that what is said in this House may be considered before the debate in the Lords? When will he be in a position to say what, if any, action will be taken in Government as a result of the findings of the Saville report? What will be the decision-making process, and will the process be as transparent as possible?

The Prime Minister must recognise that some will no doubt raise the possibility of prosecutions. The prosecution process is independent, but has he been asked to consider the question of immunity from prosecution if we are instead to take things forward by a wider process of reconciliation? Is the time now right to move towards a process for reconciliation, building on the work of the Consultative Group on the Past, chaired by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley? Can there now be a comprehensive process of reconciliation to address the legacy issue of the troubles, such as that proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Does the Prime Minister agree that that is what is now necessary?

The peace process is a great achievement by the people of Northern Ireland as well as by politicians. It is a process built on the value of fairness, equality, truth and justice. This House has played its part, not least in agreeing to the Saville inquiry. The Belfast agreement, the St Andrews agreement and, of course, this year’s Hillsborough castle agreement are all great milestones on the path to a lasting peace. Does the Prime Minister agree that the completion of devolution just a few weeks ago is relatively new and fragile and still requires great care? Our response to Saville must be as measured as it is proportionate. We have sought the truth; now we must have understanding and reconciliation.

May I conclude by expressing the hope that while people will never forget what happened on that day, this report will help them find a way of living with the past and looking to the future?

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for what she has said? I do not think there are any significant divisions between us on this vital issue and, as she said, how we respond to this matters: it matters for the peace process, it matters for the families and it matters for our country. She is right that the value of this is getting to the truth. Of course we can argue about the process, the time and the money, but that is secondary to the issue of the substance, and the substance is about getting to the truth on this issue. The right hon. and learned Lady raised a number of specific questions, and I shall try to deal with them.

The idea of leaving a period of time between the debates in the Commons and the Lords is very sensible, and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to look at that—although, of course, we are not responsible for timings in the Lords. In terms of the action the Government should take, I should point out that this report is 5,000 pages long; as the right hon. and learned Lady has seen, it is the most enormous document, and it will take some time to go through all of it and identify all the points that need to be responded to. That will be led by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland. They will consider it and come to me with suggestions for what needs to be followed up, and I think we will have to see how others respond to this very full report too.

The right hon. and learned Lady raised the question of prosecution. She is right, of course, to say that these are decisions for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take in Northern Ireland and that should be entirely independent. On the issue of immunity, I am informed by the Advocate-General that the evidence given to the inquiry is subject to the undertaking given by the Attorney-General in February 1999

“that evidence given by witnesses to the Inquiry would not be used to the prejudice of that person in any criminal proceedings except proceedings where the witness is charged with giving false evidence.”

I think that is the right position.

The right hon. and learned Lady will know that we do not agree with some parts of the Eames-Bradley report, particularly the idea of universal recognition payments; we do not think it is right to treat terrorists and others in the same way. I think that it is right to use, as far as is possible, the Historical Enquiries Team to deal with the problems of the past and to avoid having more open-ended, highly costly inquiries, but of course we should look at each case on its merits. May I thank her again for the way in which she has responded to this important statement for Britain, for Northern Ireland and for a peaceful future for our country?

Afghanistan

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Afghanistan. First, I am sure that the whole House will want to join with me in paying tribute to Private Jonathan Monk from 2nd Battalion the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment and Lance Corporal Andrew Breeze from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, who have both died in Afghanistan. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and friends. Their service and sacrifice for our country must never be forgotten.

It was my fifth visit to Afghanistan, but my first as Prime Minister. I held talks with President Karzai and visited our troops in Helmand. I want to set out for the House how this Government will approach our mission in Afghanistan, and how that mission is progressing, but first let me stress the importance of such updates. The whole nation is touched by the heroism of this generation of our armed forces, who are fighting to protect us in harsh conditions far from home, and I believe that the country, and this House, are entitled to the facts. That is why this statement will be the start of a pattern. There will be regular updates to the House, with quarterly statements by the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary, and we will publish on a monthly basis much more information on the progress we are making. This will include updates on the security situation, on recruiting, training and retaining the Afghan security forces, on progress in appointing and supporting provincial and district governors, and on progress in development work, including health and education.

Our main focus, however, will be on the security situation. For example, in the six months to March 2010, the Afghan national army grew by almost 20 %, with more than 17,000 people joining the ranks, but the Afghan police are assessed to be ineffective or barely able to operate in six of the 13 key provinces in General McChrystal’s plan. Good news or bad, we want to take the country with us in what is this Government’s top foreign policy priority.

Let me address the first question that people are asking. Why are we in Afghanistan? I can answer in two words: national security. Our forces are in Afghanistan to prevent Afghan territory from again being used by al-Qaeda as a base from which to plan attacks on the UK or on our allies. Of course, the al-Qaeda training camps and the Taliban regime that protected them were removed from Afghanistan in the months after 9/11, and the presence of NATO forces prevents them from returning, but Afghanistan is not yet strong enough to look after its own security. That is why we are there, and with the help of the greater efforts of the Pakistanis to hunt down al-Qaeda in their own country, we are now placing al-Qaeda under pressure on both sides of the border. Eighteen months ago, the then Prime Minister told this House that some three quarters of the most serious terrorist plots against Britain had links to the border area. Today I am advised that the threat from al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and Pakistan has reduced, but I am also advised that if it were not for the current presence of UK and international coalition forces, al-Qaeda would return to Afghanistan and the threat to the UK would rise.

The next question is how long must we stay. The Afghan people do not want foreign forces on their soil any longer than necessary, and the British people are rightly impatient for progress. Our forces will not remain in Afghanistan a day longer than is necessary, and I want to bring them home the moment it is safe to do so. The key to success is training and equipping the Afghan security forces at every level to take on the task of securing their country, so that Afghans can chart their own way in the world without their country posing a threat to others, and our forces can come home, the job done, their heads held high.

That is why we back the strategy developed by General McChrystal, commander of the international security assistance force, and endorsed by President Obama and NATO. That strategy involves protecting the civilian population from the insurgents, supporting more effective government at every level, and building up the Afghan national security forces as rapidly as is feasible. We want to transfer security responsibility for districts and provinces to Afghan control as soon as they are ready, but that must be done on the basis of the facts on the ground, not a pre-announced timetable.

The current year is the vital year. We are six months into an 18-month military surge, and we must now redouble our efforts to drive progress. Central Helmand has, along with Kandahar, been the heartland of the Taliban. It is from there that they gave safe haven to the al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan. That is why the operation in central Helmand is crucial to the success of the whole mission. Four years ago, we went into Helmand with 3,000 troops. I do not think anyone now seriously argues that that was sufficient. Today, there are around 30,000 troops there, with 8,000 British working alongside 20,000 US Marines. In total, we have more than 10,000 troops in the country as a whole. With the arrival of reinforcements and the continued growth of the Afghan security forces, we are now evening out the ISAF presence in the main populated areas in Helmand.

That is an absolutely crucial point. In the past, we have simply not had enough soldiers per head of population for an effective counter-insurgency campaign. Today, although the rebalancing is still work in progress, the situation is much improved. The arrival of a US Marine expeditionary force, combined with additional contributions from other ISAF partners including the UK, has given a huge boost to the resources available to ISAF in Helmand. For example, the Marines have arrived with some 80 aircraft and helicopters of their own, which are now available to support all ISAF forces in Helmand.

It is clear that we have made real progress in central Helmand this year. A degree of normal life has returned to places such as Nad Ali, where the bazaar is open again and people are going about their daily business in an area that was until recently completely infested with insurgents, but the progress is not yet irreversible. Inevitably, there will be tough fighting as Afghan forces, with ISAF support, hold the ground we have taken and push the insurgents out of further towns and villages.

During my visit, I was able to announce a further £67 million to double the number of counter-improvised explosive device teams, to tackle the most serious threat facing our young men and women. So with the improvements made in the past year, many of the acute shortages that hampered us so severely in our initial deployment in Helmand have been dealt with, but I do not pretend that every equipment shortage has been resolved. We will need to adapt constantly and deal with problems as they arise.

The whole country is incredibly proud of our armed forces, and I believe we need to do more to recognise these remarkable men and women and place them at the front and centre of our society. That is why I announced a doubling of the operational allowance for service in Afghanistan, backdated to 6 May; and that is why I believe it is right that we renew and reaffirm our commitment to the military covenant, that crucial contract between our country and those who risk their lives to ensure our security.

I do not pretend that we can succeed, either in Helmand or in Afghanistan, by military means alone. Insurgencies usually end with political settlements, not military victories, and that is why I have always said that we need a political surge to accompany the military one. We need better to align our development spending with our overall strategy, and I have announced £200 million to be spent on training, strengthening the police services and government institutions; and, crucially, we need a political process to help bring the insurgency to an end.

As a first step, that means getting individual Taliban fighters to put down their weapons, renounce violence and reintegrate into Afghan society, and the successful peace jirga earlier this month should enable that process to move ahead more swiftly. However, it means more than that. For there to be long-term political stability, everyone in Afghanistan, including those in the south, must feel that the Government is theirs, that it is their country, and that they have a role to play. As I agreed with President Karzai, we must start working towards a wider reconciliation process, leading to a political settlement that works for all the peoples of Afghanistan.

We are seeing a good example of that in Kandahar where, importantly, the process getting under way is largely Afghan-led. Alongside military operations by Afghan security forces together with international forces, it includes, for example, the shura of several hundred local elders conducted yesterday by the local governor, which President Karzai attended, and a major drive by the Afghan Government, with our support, to improve public services and the rule of law. From now on, what is happening around Kandahar and in Helmand should reflect a deeper understanding of the influence of tribal structures in Afghanistan. In the past, we simply have not paid enough attention to that and to the unintended consequences of some of our policies. I want us, for example, to take a careful look at the contracting policy of ISAF, to ensure that the money going into the local economy from the huge contracts that are let has a positive impact and does not help fund local militias or, even worse, the insurgents.

This is the vital year. We have the forces needed on the ground and we have our very best people, not just those in the military, but those leading on the diplomatic and development front. I do not pretend that it will be easy and I must warn the House that we must be ready for further casualties over the summer months, as the so called “fighting season” resumes and as ISAF extends its activity. But I say to the House what I said to our young servicemen and women in the dust and heat of Helmand on Friday: they are fighting thousands of miles away to protect our national security here at home. Like their predecessors, they have the support and gratitude of the whole nation. When we have succeeded in enabling the Afghans to take control of their own security, our troops can begin to come home. Even after our troops have left Afghanistan, the relationship between Britain and Afghanistan must continue as a strong and close one. Likewise, we want to continue to build on our relationship with Pakistan. These long-term relationships are, quite simply, essential for our national security. I commend this statement to the House.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the two soldiers who have been killed, Private Jonathan Monk from 2nd Battalion The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment and Lance Corporal Andrew Breeze from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment. Our thoughts are with their families and on the grief of their loss.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I welcome both his early visit to Afghanistan since coming into government and the increase in the operational allowance that he announced. All those serving in Afghanistan should know that they have the admiration and respect of the whole country and of Members from all parts of the House. Will he continue with Armed Forces day on 26 June?

May I restate Labour’s support for our mission in Afghanistan, which is, as the Prime Minister rightly said, first and foremost to protect our national security. As this was his first statement to the House on Afghanistan and the first occasion on which we have responded as the official Opposition, may I assure him that as he proceeds to take difficult decisions in the best interests of our mission in Afghanistan and of our troops, he will have our full support. In that spirit, I welcome the £67 million that he has announced to help tackle the IED threat. Will he inform the House in more detail as to what that will be spent on? We understand that there will be 13 extra Mastiff vehicles, and we welcome that. Will they be in addition to the £67 million? As there is also a need for well protected vehicles with greater manoeuvrability, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will proceed with a second batch of 200 light protected patrol vehicles?

On the strategy in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister has reaffirmed that, despite the challenges, progress has been made. Will he confirm that the Government are continuing the strategy that the UK has been pursuing and that it has not changed? If it has changed, will he tell us in what respects? It is common ground that our work in Afghanistan needs to bring together security, development and diplomatic efforts. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the discussions he has had with President Karzai? I assure him that the Government will have our support to take through a strategy that sees that the Afghans are strong enough to take responsibility for their own security and prosperity. I welcome the £200 million that he announced for building up the Afghan army, police and civil service. Will he reassure the House that that will not be at the expense of vital existing development programmes elsewhere in the world?

Will the Prime Minister update the House on discussions that he has had with US Defence Secretary Gates and on whether they have addressed the proposed withdrawal of Canadian forces in 2011? A stable Afghanistan requires a stable Pakistan. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the discussions he has had with President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan?

On the families of our troops, will the Prime Minister follow through on the important work that the former Defence Secretary was doing, with my support, to back up the wives, partners and families of our armed forces?

On the strategic defence review, will the Prime Minister reassure the House that the front line will not be weakened? In opposition, the Prime Minister and his Defence Secretary argued for a bigger Army and for the expansion of the Army by three battalions. Will that go ahead?

Finally, will the Prime Minister explain to the House the reasons for the departure of Sir Jock Stirrup and Sir Bill Jeffrey? Will he confirm that they will both play a role in the strategic defence review and that they will remain until it is completed? May I ask him to join me in paying tribute to Sir Jock Stirrup and Sir Bill Jeffrey for their service to the nation?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her response—both for what she said and the way in which she said it. I know that we will have our differences across these Dispatch Boxes, but on the issue of Afghanistan there is great unity on the Labour and coalition Benches—[Interruption.] Well done; well spotted. That is important, because our troops like to know that everyone in the House is behind what they are doing.

On the specific questions that she asked, Armed Forces day will go ahead as planned on 26 June. She asked about the £67 million spent on countering the IED threat and whether it is in addition to the patrol vehicles that are already on order. Yes; I can confirm that it is. She asked about the strategy generally and what has changed. What I would say—I note what the Foreign Secretary said in his speech on the Queen’s Speech—is that we are six months into the McChrystal-Obama strategy of the military and political surge and we want to see that strategy through, so there is continuity in that regard. We must be absolutely clear in our focus on the national security perspective of what we are doing. That is not to say that development work and the building of schools, hospitals and other things are not important—it is just to get our priorities straight. In the end, our route home and our route to a successful Afghanistan is to put security first. That needs to be very clear. On the question about development aid, the £200 million is additional to the existing work we are doing in Afghanistan.

I very much agree with what the right hon. and learned Lady said about backing the wives, partners and families of all those who serve in our armed forces. In recent years, we have put enormous pressure on those families and we need to do more to help them. I have RAF Brize Norton in my constituency and I know the very severe pressures that we put on people. In all the issues around military families—whether it is about the schools their children go to, the health centres they use or time for leave—we want to do more to help, and we are going to give real focus to that.

The right hon. and learned Lady asked about the strategic defence review and whether it would cover the size of the Army. Of course, it will cover all of the issues in defence. Finally, she quite rightly paid tribute to Sir Jock Stirrup and Bill Jeffrey, and I join her in paying tribute to them. They both have been, and are, extremely strong and dedicated public servants, and everyone in this country owes them that thank you. Sir Jock Stirrup, as the right hon. and learned Lady knows, actually extended his time as Chief of the Defence Staff before the election because he wanted to see continuity—he wanted to see that service continue—and I was very pleased that that happened. For some time he has had in mind standing down in the autumn, at the end of the strategic defence review—at the end of October—and that is indeed what he is going to do, and what Bill Jeffrey is going to do. That will give the new Government time to put in place a proper transition for a new Chief of the Defence Staff to take on the vital work that Sir Jock has done. Let me say again that he has done a superb job as Chief of the Defence Staff. I am working with him extremely well. He came with me on the trip to Afghanistan, and he deserves the gratitude of the House of Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, the hon. Gentleman will note from the coalition agreement, as I am glad to remind everyone, that we are protecting NHS spending. There will be real increases in NHS spending under this Government year on year. I absolutely understand the concerns that there are about wanting to keep services local to people. I know that is the case in Lakeland, and it is also the case with the West Cumberland hospital. I am very happy to ensure that there is a meeting between the Health Secretary and the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter and ensure that we keep services local. A lot of the reconfigurations that took place under the previous Government caused an enormous amount of pain and unease in local areas and did not actually lead to improved services.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the four soldiers who have died in the service of our country in the past week: Marine Anthony Hotine from 40 Commando Royal Marines, Lance Corporal Alan Cochran and Corporal Terry Webster from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, and a soldier from 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery. They fought with bravery, and today we remember not just the sacrifice they made but the loved ones they leave behind.

I support what the Prime Minister said about Cumbria and join him in expressing our heartfelt sympathy to the family and friends of all those who were killed or injured. The police investigation is under way. Can he update us on the work that the Government are doing, and is he in a position yet to tell the House whether the Government have any plans to reconsider the regulations on guns? As the Home Secretary rightly said in her statement last week, we have to learn any lessons we can.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her words. It is right to reflect on this appalling tragedy and think about how best we can go forward. Specifically on gun laws, we need to be clear first about the full facts of the case. We also need to determine the type and scope of reviews that will take place after this tragedy. Of course the Home Office will look again at the gun laws in the light of the tragedy, and I can also announce today that the chief constable of Cumbria has already written to the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers asking him to support a peer review, to be conducted by national police experts on firearms licensing and police firearms response and tactics. Those reviews will become publicly available documents. We should not leap to conclusions, and I do not believe in knee-jerk legislation. We have in this country some of the tightest gun laws, but of course we should look again at them.

On the issue of what sort of review is right for people in west Cumbria, I will be meeting two of the west Cumbrian MPs whose constituencies are affected straight after Prime Minister’s questions in my office, and the right hon. and learned Lady would be very welcome to join us with the Home Secretary to discuss that matter. In the end, we must ensure that we do the right thing by the people of west Cumbria and that they are properly served by the things that we decide as a Government.

[Ms Harman]

I fully support everything that the Prime Minister said in that answer, and may I say that I am sure that the visit that he and the Home Secretary made to Cumbria was very much appreciated?

Just before the general election, the Electoral Commission published a report showing that despite the efforts of electoral registration officers, there are still serious concerns about the number of people who are eligible to vote but who are not on the electoral register. Given that the Government are committed to major reform of constituency boundaries, will the Prime Minister undertake not to press forward with those changes on the basis of an electoral register that excludes 3.5 million people?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I agree with the right hon. and learned Lady that it is important that people who are eligible to vote register to vote, and we want to see that sped up and improved. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is taking forward that work. We also want to see individual voter registration, because there has been a great increase in fraud in recent years, but even as that work goes ahead it is important that we have reform so that we have equal-sized constituencies across our country. Those of us who support the first-past-the-post voting system want to make it more fair by ensuring that seats are the same size across our country. Where on earth is the unfairness in that?

[Ms Harman]

The danger is that if the Prime Minister presses on in the way he has indicated, he will be making the system less fair, not more fair. As he said, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged to the House this week that there is a problem with the register. The Electoral Commission study found not just the number of people who are not on the register, but who they are: a third of all black people, half of all young people, and half of all private sector tenants are not on the register, despite the work that has been undertaken by electoral registration officers. Those people will not be counted if the Prime Minister redraws constituency boundaries now. He says he wants equal constituencies, but does he accept that he cannot have equal constituencies based on an unequal register?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the right hon. and learned Lady that she had 13 years to sort out the issue of voter registration. What is interesting about what happened over the last 13 years is that elections used to be determined by a few officials in the Home Office. We have now got the vast bureaucracy of the Electoral Commission. It spends millions of pounds every year, employs dozens of people, holds huge great reviews, spends vast amounts of money on advertising, but has not succeeded in its task.

We will press ahead to get people to register, but I have to ask the right hon. and learned Lady this again: what on earth is unfair about equal-sized seats? My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) has, I think, to look after about 110,000 constituents, but some Opposition Members have about half that. That is simply not fair.

[Ms Harman]

The Prime Minister has shown that he is not listening to the argument that he cannot redraw the boundaries, which is his Government’s proposal, until the problem of the register is sorted out. He has shown that he is not listening to argument, but pressing on regardless. That is not the new politics; it is downright unfair.

May I move to another issue? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Quite a bad example is being set by some senior Members to newcomers—[Interruption.] Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place. The public are not impressed: they want to hear orderly exchanges.

[Ms Harman]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Before the election, the coalition parties talked about ending what they called the surveillance society. The coalition agreement said that the Government would further regulate the use of closed circuit television, but on Monday, the Home Secretary could not tell the House what that would mean in practice. Can the Prime Minister tell us now?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I am not surprised that the right hon. and learned Lady wanted to move on to another subject. Let me make one last point on the previous question—[Interruption.] I am sorry if it is painful, but it is important. She says that it is not right to redraw boundaries until we have sorted out the electoral register, but I have to point out that we fought the last election on redrawn boundaries, so I think we have a long way to go on that. There was, I have to say, just a whiff of special pleading.

On surveillance, let me be clear that I support CCTV cameras. I have them in my constituency and they are very effective, and when I worked at the Home Office many years ago I championed such schemes, but I think everyone understands that the level of surveillance has become very great in our country. As well as the issue of CCTV, there is the issue of how many different sorts of officials are allowed to enter people’s houses without permission. We will be bringing forward legislation to deal with that. I know that the Labour party has given up on civil liberties, and that the right hon. and learned Lady used to be head of what was the National Council for Civil Liberties—that was all a long time ago—but we on this side of the House think civil liberties are important.

[Ms Harman]

May I ask the Prime Minister the question again, because I was asking not about people entering people’s houses, but about CCTV? Can I tell him what Theresa was saying to me on Friday? [Hon. Members: “Theresa?”] Not the Home Secretary, but Theresa from the Poets Corner estate in my constituency. That Theresa is the one who knows about living on an estate that needs CCTV. Let me tell the Prime Minister that such people do not want to be told by this Government that it is going to be made harder to get the CCTV that they need on their estates. I press him on this because it is about people feeling, and being, safe in their communities. Will he guarantee that he will not do anything to make it harder to get or to use CCTV?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Lady should understand that this is all about proportionality and making sure that we have a system that helps protect people while respecting civil liberties. It is extraordinary how the Labour party is becoming more and more authoritarian. Hearing the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) talk about immigration, it seems we have the new Alf Garnett of British politics. It is one of the biggest U-turns that any of us can remember: for 13 years, not a word about immigration or our borders, but now they are all in a race. Perhaps it is time to move on to another subject, and the right hon. and learned Lady can tell us what she thinks about immigration.

Debate on the Address

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute, as I know the Prime Minister will do shortly, to those members of our armed forces who have lost their lives in Afghanistan since the House last met: from 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh, Fusilier Jonathan Burgess; from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, Corporal Harvey Holmes; from 21 Engineer Regiment, Sapper Daryn Roy; from 21 Engineer Regiment, Lance Corporal Barry Buxton; from 40 Commando Royal Marines, Corporal Christopher Harrison; and from 40 Commando Royal Marines, Corporal Stephen Walker. We salute their bravery, we honour their sacrifice and we remain steadfast in support of our troops. There are some things on which the country expects us to work together, whoever is in government and whoever is in opposition. We will genuinely work with the Government in support of our troops, their wives and families and in support of peace in Northern Ireland, as we did when we were in opposition before.

We also remember today David Taylor and Ashok Kumar, the two Members of this House who died towards the end of the last Parliament. We pay tribute to the contribution that they made.

I want to congratulate warmly the mover and seconder of the Loyal Address; they made two fine speeches. To assist new Members, I should remind them that, as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said, the seconder is by tradition a rising star and someone who is on their way up, while the mover is someone of great distinction whose career is not ahead of them, but behind them. But having heard a typically spry speech from the right hon. Gentleman, I want to agree with him that it is time that we challenged that notion. I invite him to join my campaign “You’re not past it when you’re past 60”.

I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will always be best known for his musical interventions in Tory party conferences—his trademark Gilbert and Sullivan routine. I thank him for not inflicting a song on us today and I hope that his little list will not be the blueprint for the new Government. However, I do pay tribute to his work on international development, which contributed to this Government’s promising today to keep development aid a high priority. I think there will be support across the House for that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) on seconding the Loyal Address. He was first elected in 1992, when he snatched his seat from Chris Patten, then chair of the Tory party. No one then would have predicted that the hon. Gentleman would stand before us to speak in support of a Tory Prime Minister’s Queen’s Speech, but he performed the task well.

This is not known to many people, but the hon. Gentleman is also a musical performer. At last year’s Lib Dem conference, and with eerie foresight, he played the Johnny Cash classic “Walk the Line”. I suggest that this time he goes to the Tory conference to play another Cash classic—“Ring of Fire”. The hon. Gentleman has also had a long-standing interest in science. Again, with a self-knowledge that we can only envy, he wrote a noted scientific publication “Science with Gas”. [Interruption.] You couldn’t make it up.

I congratulate the new Prime Minister and his Government. On the steps of Downing street, he acknowledged that we had left Britain more open at home and more compassionate abroad, and I thank him for the generosity of his words. Those are achievements of the last Government that I hope Members from both sides of the House can recognise, and which I hope the new Prime Minister will protect. From the first ever national minimum wage to the creation of civil partnerships, from the Sure Start children’s centres in every community, to the shortest waiting times in the NHS since records began—those are achievements of which Labour Members are rightly proud. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).

We will be an effective Opposition. We will not oppose for the sake of it—that is not what the public want—but we will not pull our punches. Though we are in opposition, we will be powerful in the public interest. We will be determined to prevent unfairness. We will speak up for the public services that matter. We will be vigilant in protecting jobs and businesses. As the Government today acknowledge, their most important domestic task is the economy. The new Government take over an economy in which recovery is already under way and where Government action has blunted the impact of the recession. Economic growth has returned. There are too many people out of work, but unemployment is still half the level seen in the 1990s recession, and repossessions have been at half the rate that people suffered then. But the recovery cannot be taken for granted. The challenge now for the Government is to embed and secure the economic recovery with new manufacturing and an even greater role for the low-carbon sector.

Where the Government take steps to do that, we will back them. But taking support away from businesses risks slower growth for the future. As the new Business Secretary consistently argued before taking up his new post, now is not the time to leave firms to sink or swim. We all agree with cutting waste, but cancelling 10,000 university places is not cutting waste—it is cutting our capacity for future economic growth. Cancelling 40,000 jobs for young people under the future jobs fund is not cutting waste—it is blighting their prospects. The country faces a very serious challenge to reduce our deficit. What the country needs to know is that the Government will do so in a fair way, without damaging front-line services and without putting future growth at risk. People will want to see that they are not left bearing the cost of holding the coalition together.

Before the election, the leader of the Tory party, now the Prime Minister, was telling us all that the Lib Dem promises were simply unaffordable. At the very same time, the Lib Dem leader, who is now his deputy, warned that the Tories’ tax and spending promises could be paid for only by increasing VAT or cutting front-line services. It is the combination of the two that worries me. While the happy couple are enjoying the thrill of the rose garden, the in-laws are saying that they are just not right for each other. We keep telling them that they cannot pay couples to stay together, and it is clear that it will take more than a three-quid-a-week tax break to keep this marriage together.

Tough decisions will be needed, and the British public will need to see that those decisions are taken fairly and transparently. Despite what we have heard about accountability in the new politics, the Government’s decision to announce £6 billion-worth of cuts in a press conference rather than to this House was a poor start. When I was at Highshore school in my constituency on Friday, people were asking me whether they will be able to go ahead with their new rebuild. They, and people all around the country, want answers, not press conferences.

On education, today in the Queen’s Speech the Government pledged to help the education of children in poor families with a pupil premium, but they must not cut the programme that provides laptops for children in poor families. We will look at the detail of the Bill to ensure that it will help, not hinder, the development of strong schools in all areas that benefit the whole community.

It is in this country’s interest that we have strong relations with Europe. It appears that Europhobe Tories and Europhile Lib Dems have cancelled each other out. The Prime Minister, though, must be relieved that his coalition partners have given him cover to renege on the pledge that he made to repatriate powers over social policy, employment and justice from the EU by the end of this Parliament. However, having promised that following ratification of the Lisbon treaty he would “not let matters rest” there, will he confirm that that is now precisely what he intends to do?

The Government intend to legislate to establish a referendum lock for future treaty changes that represent transfers of power, but what would the question be? The Conservative manifesto wanted a yes or no answer to treaty changes, but the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto said that the question should be whether we should be in or out of the EU. The problem is not that they want different questions; it is that they want different answers.

The Queen’s Speech states that the Government will take forward political reform. Having devolved power to Scotland and Wales and enacted the Freedom of Information Act and the Human Rights Act 1998, our Labour Government can rightly claim to have been a reforming Administration, but there should be further change. Where the new Government strengthen our democracy, we will support them. Where they give the House more power to hold Government to account, we will support them enthusiastically. We support a referendum on the voting system that would promise to increase democratic participation and choice, and I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on the ease with which he has persuaded the Tories to have a Bill on electoral reform—well done. We agree with a right for voters to recall Members guilty of serious wrongdoing and that the House of Lords should be elected. We support the idea of fixed-term Parliaments, although they should be for four years, not five. However, we will insist that if the Government lose the confidence of Parliament, even by one vote, they will have lost their mandate and there must be an opportunity for fresh elections. The coalition partners, lacking confidence in each other, are already preparing for the day when they shrink back from their loveless embrace—it is like a political pre-nup. We will not support a 55 per cent. rule that would allow the Government to cling on to office having lost the support of the House, and they have no mandate for that change. It would be morally unacceptable for the number of seats to be cut and boundaries redrawn on the basis of an electoral register from which 3.5 million people are missing, or for individual voter registration to be brought in without the essential safeguards to maximise voter enrolment.

We object to the Liberal Democrats’ request that they should keep the public funding that goes to Opposition parties. Some say that they like to be all things to all people, but even they cannot be both in government and in opposition. They cannot fudge this one—they are in government and cannot claim Short money. People are familiar with the notion of clinging on to the trappings of power, but the Lib Dems are the first party to seek to cling to the trappings of opposition.

We will support the completion of the reforms proposed by the Wright Committee, but we deplore the Government’s decision to demote the Leader of the Commons from being a member of the Cabinet, especially in the case of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who played a significant part in bringing forward the Wright Committee reforms.

The Deputy Prime Minister has proclaimed a progressive agenda on political reform, but it is not progressive to politicise the police by putting them under the control of an elected police commissioner. It is not progressive to scrap the Human Rights Act, pack the Lords and rig the Commons—it is not new politics, and if that is what the Government try to do, we will oppose them.

The Queen’s Speech includes Bills on crime, civil liberties and security. The new Government take over with crime falling. The safety of the public must be the highest priority, and we will judge each proposal on its merits. When, as is so often the case, there is a balance to be struck, we urge the Government to take no risks and to give the benefit of the doubt to the victim.

On keeping DNA records, why do not the Government retain the records that they have and review the evidence in 2012 to ascertain whether it is safe to dispose of them earlier? If the evidence shows that there is no need to retain DNA for longer than three years, we would not object, but if it shows that six years are necessary, the victims should be given the benefit of the doubt.

We ask the Government to reconsider their plans to change the rules for prosecuting rape and their proposal for anonymity for rape defendants. It is often only after many rapes that a defendant is finally brought before the court, and it is often only when previous victims see the name and details of the defendant that they find the courage to come forward. Police and prosecutors say that that is essential in helping get a conviction. To make only rape defendants anonymous sends a message to the jury that, uniquely, a rape victim is not to be believed, and it sends a message to the woman who has been raped that, “We don’t believe you.” We have made progress on bringing rapists to justice; I urge the Government not to turn the clock back.

Government benefits from strong opposition. Our new team in opposition—our Front Benchers and our Back Benchers—have wisdom and experience, and youth and diversity, with more Labour women and black and Asian Members than the rest of the House put together. The new Government have a great privilege and a heavy duty. They have said that they stand for freedom, fairness and responsibility. The whole country would agree with those principles, and we will make sure that they live up to them.

Election of Speaker

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

First, may I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) on what I should perhaps describe as his ascension to Father of the House? May I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker-Elect, on resuming the Speaker’s Chair? I know that you will be dedicated, that you are 100% committed to this House and that you will be fair to both sides and to Front and Back Benchers. You will have the full confidence and support of the House and you will receive my advice on occasions as well.

May I also congratulate all those Members who have been re-elected? We have had to place ourselves in front of our constituents and account for our work over the past years, and it is a great honour and privilege to be re-elected. No matter how many times I am re-elected, it is still a great thrill and an awesome privilege, even though I have been a Member of this House since I was 32—and, believe me, that was not recently.

I should like to congratulate and very warmly welcome all the new Members, who will receive a great deal of advice from older Members. They will say things like, “Learn the ropes and keep your head down—probably for about the first 10 years.” I suggest that new Members ignore that advice. Members of this House are elected by constituents to blaze a trail and speak up for them, and I am sure that that is what our new colleagues will do.

May I offer my congratulations to the new Prime Minister? He has an awesome and heavy responsibility. I think we all agree that we need strong and stable government, but we also need strong opposition. We will be a strong, effective, self-confident and determined Opposition, holding this Government to account.

I shall conclude with two further points. First, I join the Prime Minister in sending all our best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr Timms), who was attacked in his constituency at an advice surgery. I think we all send him our best wishes.

Finally, we in this House have our differences, but I think we are united in being very pleased and relieved that nowhere on these green Benches is there a member of the British National party.