Ed Miliband
MP for Doncaster North · Labour · United Kingdom
“Gentleman raises the issue of arms, and I talked in my statement about the double lock. I want to take on his point on the F-35s. To be clear with the House, we stopped providing direct parts to Israel’s F-35 programme in October 2024, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) when he was Foreign Secretary.”
“I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his response. It is our first time opposite each other at the Dispatch Box, so let me congratulate him on his appointment—he has a proud record in Parliament as Security Minister and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and brings great expertise to this House.”
“Israel has the right not to live in fear of vile terrorism, and the Israeli state has the right to protect its people and defend its territory, but that cannot justify what has happened in Gaza. Over 70,000 people have been killed, at least 20,000 of them children—20,000.”
“Our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime will enable us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or anywhere else in the world.”
“The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on this issue. I will quickly clip through his questions, knowing the constraints on time, Madam Speaker. I agree with him on the World Central Kitchen. It is appalling that the investigation has been closed down.”
“Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, so we are also acting this week, alongside our allies, to report Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear violations, and I can announce today that we are reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran in line with the European Union and the United States.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,382 lines we hold for Ed Miliband, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 46 of 48.
“It would build on the momentum of the Paris agreement, it is in the best cross-party traditions of the Climate Change Act, and it would send a powerful signal around the world and in Britain about our determination to act. Above all, it would increase our ability to tackle dangerous climate change. Notwithstanding the contribution from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, this is something that unites the vast majority of Members across this House. I therefore hope the Government will give this suggestion the consideration it deserves.”
“The second point, which I think has been made in interventions, is that somehow we are going far too far ahead of other countries—that this is us being far too far out in front. The simple point to make about that is that more than 190 countries have now signed up to this zero emissions goal in the Paris agreement. Every country is theoretically signed up to this goal, so the question is: are we actually going to do it? Is this goal just warm words? Is this just us pretending that we are going to act but not really following it through? In conclusion, I hope the Government will come forward with an amendment such as I have been outlining. If they do not, I want to work with people across this House to seek to make it happen. The Government can support this measure, so I hope they will table an amendment, either in Committee or on Report.”
“People might say, “Why do we need more ambition when we have this framework already in place?” By doing so, they are sticking their heads in the sand, because if we have to get to zero emissions, we should start that process now. It is a hard task, but it is a feasible one and we need to know that we should get there. My case is a pragmatic one. I am not saying, “Pluck out of the air a date on which to get to zero emissions.” I am not simply saying we should get there in 2050, as some business leaders have urged. I am saying that we should get the independent experts—the Committee on Climate Change—to look at these issues and advise government on when we should put this into UK domestic law.”
“I am not going to give way, because I would lose my time if I did so. I say to the House, and to those who are sceptical about action having been taken, that the 2015 global climate legislation study looks at climate change legislation in 99 countries and talks about the speed of response following the UK’s Climate Change Act. My threefold case is that we need to have consistency between domestic and international action; that there is an economic case for doing this; and that we have an impact on other countries if we act. I wish to deal with two other points that might be made to me about why my approach is a bad idea. The first is that we should stick to our existing targets and not worry about having more ambition.”
“However, we cannot just say, “Our domestic policy will not change,” because if we suggest that our attitude to a 1.5° agreement is the same as to a 2° agreement, countries like the Marshall Islands will conclude, “Hang on a minute—were these people serious after all?” The Committee on Climate Change picked up on this point in its release yesterday, saying that it would make it even more important—I am paraphrasing somewhat but I do not think I am misrepresenting it—that we met its recommendations on carbon budgets, and that it might be the case that further steps should be taken. It said that it would come back to the Secretary of State on that in early 2016. I would be interested to hear what she thinks are the implications of this more exacting target—because it definitely is more exacting.”
“The reason it was brokered is very interesting: it was because of the case put forward by countries like the Marshall Islands that will disappear with warming of more than 1.5°. Some people fear that the high ambition coalition was a ruse to break up the G77 and China grouping in order to put pressure on the Chinese to get an agreement. I do not believe that it was a ruse.”
“Having said that, when I listened to her statement yesterday, I felt, while I do not want to be unfair to her, that her position was somewhat to say, “Everything has changed and nothing has changed.” In other words, internationally everything has changed, with high ambitions, zero emissions and all that stuff, but for the UK things are the same as before. I want to make the case that that cannot be right, for four reasons, three of which are to do with the agreement itself. First, on 1.5°, no previous agreement has enshrined a commitment to try to commit to “efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 C.” This is a higher ambition than there has been in any agreement before. The Secretary of State knows that, because she was one of the people who helped broker the agreement.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who plays a very important role in the GLOBE organisation of parliamentarians. This debate comes at a timely moment after the Paris agreement, and after the tragedy of the floods that we have seen. I know that many hon. Friends want to talk about the effects on their constituencies, so I will try to keep my remarks reasonably brief. I want to focus on the question of what the Paris agreement means for UK domestic policy. In doing so, I praise the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who played an important role in the talks. She was the host of the high ambition coalition between developed and vulnerable countries, and her office was its headquarters. She deserves credit for the very constructive role that she played.”
“Perhaps that is what the Committee on Climate Change will concede, but my approach is much more pragmatic, as is that of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). Let us not pluck a figure out of the air—such as 2050—without having the experts look at it; let us look at what the implications of the global goal of zero emissions are for the UK. That is a very reasonable suggestion.”
“It would send a cross-party message that Britain is determined to be a climate leader; the Secretary of State has talked eloquently about the impact that the Climate Change Act had, with cross-party support. It would also reduce, not increase, the costs of transition, because it would provide a clear trajectory to business and, indeed, to future Governments. I say to Conservative Members, who have understandable concerns, that it would be supported by business. I am not the most radical person on this issue. The most radical people are, believe it or not, Richard Branson, Paul Polman of Unilever and Ratan Tata. They want not just what I am suggesting, but something much more radical—they want zero emissions by 2050.”
“However, when I was Climate Change Secretary we had not had a global agreement for net zero emissions. We cannot possibly say, “We’ve got this global commitment to zero emissions in the second half of the century but it has no implications for UK domestic policy.” Of course we have to look at what it means for the UK. My case to the Secretary of State, which I hope she will consider—I am not asking for an answer today—is that when the Energy Bill comes back to this House in the new year she amends it to ask the Committee on Climate Change to do something very simple, which is to look at this issue and make a recommendation to Government about when we should achieve zero emissions. That would do a number of things.”
“When we were in government, I played one part in the rather unhappy saga that is Heathrow. In response to the demand that we should approve Heathrow, I pushed for a separate target for aviation emissions. Of course that must also be looked at as part of the 1.5° target. There cannot simply be unconstrained expansion of aviation. The hon. Lady makes a good point. Secondly, the agreement contains not just the 1.5° aim but a long-term goal of zero emissions. When I asked the Secretary of State about this yesterday, she said that she was happy pursuing the existing targets in the Climate Change Act. I think that those targets are very important, because I helped legislate for them, and I am very happy that she wants to make sure that we meet them.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point. Every extra ounce of uncertainty raises the cost of capital. He and I have discussed that many times and that is what business people are saying, because they want that certainty. They are asking, “What are we working towards?” That is why all those leading businesses are putting it forward. I do not want to say to the Secretary of State that this is easy, because it is a long way off, but it is an easy win for her. She would go down in history as the person who helped legislate for zero emissions, which is the ultimate backstop. When I was Secretary of State, the ultimate backstop was 80% reductions. Now we know from the global agreement that the ultimate backstop must be zero emissions at some point.”
“I am sceptical that it is the solution, because we have to get to zero carbon. It is true that replacing coal with gas has helped us reduce emissions. One of the reasons that our emissions have fallen as they have is the replacement of coal with gas, and I welcome the Secretary of State saying that she is going to phase out coal, but that is not a long-term solution. This agreement is about the end of fossil fuels. Carbon capture and storage can make a difference, but essentially we are transitioning to a world after fossil fuels.”
“Certainly. While we are on the subject of sorry sagas, I am afraid that one of the other sorry sagas is the CCS competition, which is a recipe for how not to make policy. It was started, believe it or not, nearly 10 years ago by the Labour Government. I think it was started under Alistair Darling. I then pushed it forward before this Government cancelled the competition, then restarted it and then cancelled it again.”
“In the interests of future generations, we have to seize that moment.”
“She is empowered to tell the Chancellor that British business is, frankly, furious at the neglect of a crucial and growing sector of the economy. Above all, she is empowered to be the Cabinet champion for tackling climate change. If the Secretary of State does that—if she is that champion—she will get support from those Members on both sides of the House who believe in this cause, as I know that she does, too. They will support her in her endeavours. In conclusion, whatever the Secretary of State does, we need to match the high ambition coalition in Paris with a high ambition coalition at home. That high ambition coalition has to combine trade unions, business and civil society. I do not see Paris as the end in any sense; it is merely the beginning—it gives us a new beginning on climate change.”
“I want to say something personal to her about that. I think that the thing that has changed after Paris is her negotiating power. Anyone who has been a Secretary of State knows that not all the decisions go their way—that was certainly true when I was Secretary of State. I am sure there have been a number of times over the past few months—obviously, the Secretary of State is not going to say this at the Dispatch Box—when she wanted a decision to go one way but it went another way. Successful Secretaries of State, however, recognise their power, and I say to her that she is empowered by the Paris agreement. She is empowered by it to tell the Prime Minister that he cannot just use warm words abroad and then not follow them through with deeds at home.”
“We argued for the mechanism and the EU said before the summit that it wanted its emissions to be reduced by at least 40% by 2030. As I understand it, “at least” meant that if there was a stronger agreement, we would ratchet up the EU ambition. I ask the Secretary of State and the Government: what is the mechanism to make that happen? The world has changed, because we have a strong agreement, and the EU said at least 40%, so how are we going to ratchet it up? In his closing remarks at the summit, President Hollande said that he wanted to raise French ambition. I would be interested to hear the Secretary of State say, either today or in the future, how she thinks we can raise that ambition. A fourth and final thing has changed since Paris, and it relates to the Secretary of State and her role in Government.”
“I am not saying it is glorious from anyone’s point of view. What I put in place was a mechanism to provide four projects. At the time, the Conservative Opposition said, as Oppositions do, that four was not enough and that there should have been six. Then they cancelled the mechanism, then they said there would be public funding, then they cancelled that competition and then they restarted it. I think we can all agree that it has not been a glorious episode. The third reason that I think the world has changed is the five-year ratchet mechanism in the agreement. It is a mechanism to ratchet up ambition so that the pledges that countries make meet the aspiration. At the moment, we are saying 1.5 °C, but the pledges add up to 3 °C.”
“I commend the Secretary of State for her role in this agreement and, in particular, the formation of the so-called “high ambition coalition” between developed countries and vulnerable countries, which was such an important part of getting the deal that she did. Labour Members want her to be part of a high ambition coalition at home as well as abroad. She mentioned the very important goal of net zero emissions contained in the agreement—I believe this is to be in the second half of the century. Can she confirm not only that that will apply globally, but that it must apply to each and every country that is a signatory to the agreement?”
“That must mean a tough, five-year review mechanism, so that countries renew and improve their pledges. My colleague in another place, Baroness Worthington, said that the agreement might ultimately come to be seen as a global equivalent of our five-year carbon budgets, and that is the right way to think about it. The hope—I think it is not a forlorn hope—must be that as technology develops and as confidence is built, countries will move further and faster.”
“However, just as we should not dismiss that progress, we should also be clear about what a dangerous position we will be in. If that is the agreement, the judgment on Paris will be that it has been a success, but that it can only be a staging post. Importantly, just as what happened after Copenhagen perhaps made it seem less of a disaster than it seemed at the time, what happens after Paris will determine whether the summit has turned out to be a decisive moment. Since the ambition will be insufficient at Paris, our focus should be on raising that ambition afterwards. I think of that in two parts: ambition before 2030, and ambition after. Before 2030—my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned this—we need a ratchet mechanism to ensure that the Paris agreement is the beginning of what is required.”
“It would mean temperatures that are higher than at any time in the last 3 million years, with dramatic effects of intense heatwaves, flooding, and millions—or hundreds of millions—of climate refugees. Does that mean that we should dismiss the likely Paris agreement? In my view, we should not. If the Secretary of State, her colleagues, and world leaders pull off an agreement in Paris, new ground will have been broken. It will be the first agreement to get anywhere even in the vague neighbourhood of 2°, the first to oblige all major emitters to take action to reduce emissions, and the first—we hope—comprehensively to stand up $100 billion of climate finance for mitigation and adaptation for the developing world. Those would be signal achievements—behind the science but ahead of where we have been.”
“That takes me to what we are likely to get out of Paris, as opposed to what we need. I believe that we will get a 2° commitment, as at Copenhagen, but I am afraid not a 2° deal—the Secretary of State has acknowledged that. The UN says that on the best case scenario for Paris, current commitments made by countries for 2030 mean that we will be half way between “business as usual” emissions—that means no action—and where we should be to have a fighting chance of a 2° deal. As the UN has made clear, on the basis of submitted plans, we are heading for something like a 3° deal. If the world ends up in 2100 with 3 °C warming, that would be catastrophic.”
“Some of that may be related to El Niño, but all the experts tell us that the underlying warming is a result of human-induced climate change. We are now at 1 °C of warming, which is half way to 2 °C. Importantly, global warming is not some theoretical idea—sometimes we speak as though it is—because it is happening now and the changes are already being witnessed. Another study produced by the US Government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this month found, among other things, that devastating floods in Indonesia in 2014, the 2013 Argentine heatwave, and tropical cyclones in Hawaii were all linked to human-induced climate change. The science is clear, dangerous, and should make us deeply concerned: climate change is real and it is happening now.”
“Don’t worry about it.” When Pete rang me to say that the deal was about to collapse, part of me was obviously thinking about the world and the future of the planet, but I was also thinking, “What will Gordon say when I tell him the whole thing has collapsed?” I suggest to the Secretary of State that lowering prime ministerial expectations when the current Prime Minister leaves the summit—as I think he is due to do—is probably a good idea. Let me return to the process of the Paris summit. We need an agreement that is as close as possible to what the science tells us is necessary. We should all be worried about what the science is telling us, because compared with six years ago it is even clearer. A good assessment produced by the Met Office earlier this month stated that 2015 is set to be the hottest year on record—yet another record.”
“I wish to relate an experience that was told by my lead official, the brilliant Pete Betts, who I believe still works with the Secretary of State. In the dying hours of the conference he rang me—I had not slept for 36 hours and was about to go to bed—to say that the deal was about to collapse. That was obviously a global problem, but it was also a particular problem for me because it followed a period when world leaders, including Gordon Brown, had come to town and made a heroic effort to salvage something from the wreckage of Copenhagen. Gordon had departed with the immortal words to me, “Make sure it doesn’t go wrong now”, and I had foolishly said, “I’m sure it’s all going to be fine, Gordon.”
“It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). He spoke with huge eloquence, and I do not propose to compete with him on the papal encyclical. I have read it, but he informed the House about it brilliantly. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on securing this incredibly important debate. I will not spend time talking about the important encyclical because I want to mention what I believe we need out of the Paris summit, what we are likely to get out of it, and what should happen after it. Before I do so, it might be helpful—particularly for the Secretary of State, who is in her place—if I shared briefly a reflection on the Copenhagen summit of six years ago that I took part in, and I will offer one tip in particular.”
“The hon. Gentleman’s point is important and well made, and it takes me to what I was about to say. This is not just about hoping that we can make that kind of progress with technology and so on; by setting the right framework we make it more likely that such progress will be made, and that the constructive, imaginative and inventive side of humankind will defeat our destructive side.”
“It makes it all the more important that rich countries cut their emissions to allow space for poorer countries to develop. It also means, and I commend the Government for this, that it is right to be leading on development aid around climate change. That will enable countries to leapfrog the high carbon path and go to a low carbon path. Those are the ways in which I think Paris must lay the ground for future ambition, and a future ambition that is fairly shared.”
“It means the right decisions about infrastructure. It also means—this is where the inventers and engineers will be incredibly important—technological advance on how to capture carbon, reforestation and a whole range of other matters. Increasingly, the question of when and how we get to zero emissions will become our focus and energy after Paris. It will need to become the benchmark for the decisions we make in the years ahead. Finally, we will also have to continue to work on the all-important question of a fair and equitable approach. The reality that all of us in the House have to face is that industrialised countries have grown in a high carbon way and we are now saying to poorer countries that they have to grow in a low carbon way. That is an unprecedented challenge of equity.”
“I commend the Government and the Secretary of State for signing up to the G7 pledge, made recently, that the world will have to get to zero emissions sometime in the second half of this century. It is striking that increasing numbers of business leaders—this again relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness—are putting their energies and thinking into the so-called net zero commitment. Ratan Tata, Paul Polman of Unilever, Richard Branson of Virgin and many others from the so-called B-team of business leaders, recently sent a letter to all those attending Paris calling for the adoption of the long-term goal of zero emissions. They are right: the long-term goal is an essential part of a successful Paris agreement. What does zero emissions mean? It means a 100% clean energy system.”
“Every excess tonne of carbon that we emit between now and 2030 means that we will have to do more later—we must be clear about that. The easiest way to think about it is that we have a finite carbon budget, which has been helpfully estimated by the UN to be about 1,000 gigatonnes—a round number. Once that is used up, we can emit no more if we are to avoid dangerous warming. Frighteningly, the UN tells us that on current pledges to 2030, 75% of that total carbon budget will be used up by 2030. That suggests the scale of the task facing us, particularly if we do not improve the pledges between now and 2030. The crucial point, whether we do that or not, is that the world will at some point have to reach zero emissions.”
“I think that the FCO and every Department must be concerned with these matters, and I am sure that the Secretary of State, who is a champion on these issues, will argue for that. I know from my experience that that sometimes feels a bit lonely in government, but in our case we had support across the Government from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. In response to the point from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), ensuring progress means that we must keep on track here at home. Next Thursday there is an important moment when the Energy and Climate Change Committee publishes its recommendations for the fifth carbon budget, and I hope the Government will support that. Let me move on to the period after 2030.”
“We will not get everything we want from Paris, but that does not mean we should be discouraged. In fact, we should redouble our efforts at home and around the world.”
“The reality, however, is that it laid the groundwork for some of what we are seeing in Paris: a 2° commitment, the $100 billion of climate finance and the whole notion of bottom-up pledges. Trying to get countries to sign up to these issues is such a knotty problem that we will not get all the way the first, second or even third time. We just have to move things forward and make progress. The negotiations in Paris look like an elite-level exercise and people will often ask what the point is of all those leaders gathering together. I believe, however, that it is a forcing mechanism. I do not think we would have seen the progress from a lot of countries around the world if there had not been a moment when countries came together. World leaders know they will be judged on whether they are doing something or just ignoring the problem.”
“Let me take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the role he plays in GLOBE International, which is an incredibly important organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has also played a very important role in that organisation. By bringing legislators together, it plays a crucial role in building support for tackling climate change. I want to end by making two observations. My first observation is about the process of what we might call summitry. Many people thought Copenhagen was a failure—I referred to it at the beginning of my speech—and that it did not achieve what we wanted. It certainly did not meet people’s expectations.”
“Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said in his intervention—our children will either see us as the last generation not to get climate change or the first generation to get it. That is why I believe we cannot afford to fail. I will be supporting the Secretary of State in getting the best possible agreement out of Paris.”
“This is not just in relation to the policies, but for the idea that somehow a good economy and a good environment are not in contradiction, but that the two go together. The CBI has made huge advances on this issue. There will, of course, be disagreements. There is, however, a basic set of assumptions: the science on climate change is real; we know that, as human beings, we are responsible for it; and we are conscious—this is crucial—that we have in our hands the ingenuity to tackle the problem and deal with it. Whatever party we are from, we care about our responsibilities to hold the planet in trust for future generations. Whatever party we are from, we know we will be held to account for the actions we take or do not take now. Whatever party we are from—this relates to what the hon.”
“That was important in Britain. It was also—I do not think this is British arrogance—important around the world, too, as it sent an international message. Since 2008, we have seen the Climate Change Act emulated in many countries. Parties across this House should be proud of what we achieved together. The point, to which I referred earlier, that I would perhaps mostly direct towards the Secretary of State is that it is hard being the biggest fighter for tackling climate change in government. There are many competing pressures, but I know she is totally a believer on these issues. I think that part of her role, if I may suggest this, is to find ways of maintaining and strengthening that consensus.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is an incredibly important year, with the sustainable development goals and the Paris talks. He makes the point very well. My second and final observation—we have already had a bit of to and fro on policy questions—is on cross-party consensus. It is worth making the point that we came together, as political parties, to pass the Climate Change Act in 2008. It is hard to remember this—I checked back and even I was surprised—but the Act passed by 463 votes to three. That is an extraordinary achievement. The Prime Minister and I have had our differences over the years, but I have to say that, as Leader of the Opposition, he did indeed break new ground by putting this front and centre. The extraordinary consensus that was built sent a message about the commitment of the parties across this House.”
“I want to ask the Leader of the House a very simple question. As I understand it from his proposals, the Speaker will have to adjudicate on what is an English-only Bill. Where is the definition of an English-only Bill set down? The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) raised the issue of tuition fees and its Barnett consequentials. Where in the proposals is the definition set out?”
“The Speaker has ruled that is an England-only Bill but it affects us.” Other people will be saying, “That is an outrage. He said it is not an England-only Bill.” That takes me to the simple point: we are talking about something of such huge constitutional significance. I say to Conservative Members: you have the power, of course you do, but do not use it next week because it is not true to your traditions. Your traditions are to be the Conservative and Unionist party, but this is neither for Conservatism nor Unionism.”
“This is where I come to the real thing, and why I appeal to Conservative Members to think how they are going to vote next week. The question before us is: does this strengthen or weaken the United Kingdom? There is clearly an English question to address, as the general election illustrated to me very clearly, but the issue is how we address it sensibly. Let us just fast-forward to this Session of Parliament once this proposal goes through, if it does. It is not as though the problem is going to be solved—the problem just begins, because the arguments made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the right hon. Member for Gordon will be played out not just in this House but throughout the United Kingdom. People will be saying, “That is an outrage.”
“Gladstone tried it.” Wilson therefore set up a royal commission, which reported in 1974, concluding that we could not distinguish between the so-called “ins” and the “outs”. The reason I made the intervention I did on the Leader of the House is that this is at the heart of why this problem—it is a problem and an anomaly—has not been solved in 130 years. With all due respect, he proposes to do it on the back of a fag packet next week. I therefore intervened on him, following the intervention by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), to ask how you, Mr Speaker, were supposed to decide on what was an England-only Bill. The Leader of the House said it is simple—it is a devolved matter. But then we have to deal with the issue of tuition fees, as clearly a rise in tuition fees has Barnett consequentials. So goodness knows.”
“This is what Gladstone said in 1893 when he abandoned his second home rule Bill: “it passed the wit of man to frame any distinct, thorough-going, universal severance between the one class of subject and the other”. In other words, this is what is now the English-only question. In his time, it was a distinction between the Irish legislation and so-called “imperial legislation” . Let us fast-forward to 1965, when Harold Wilson was the Prime Minister. He was furious because his Bill to nationalise the steel industry was defeated by the votes of MPs from Northern Ireland, so he told one of his Cabinet, “We’ve really got to do something about this.” The person in question said, “I think that is not very wise, Prime Minister, because it is really hard to make the distinction.”
“This goes to the point that the shadow Leader of the House made about how this is done: whether it is rushed through next week, through Standing Orders, or done in a considered way. I wish to focus on the issue of English-only Bills. This is not just about English-only Bills, because English-only clauses are mentioned in the Leader of the House’s proposals. You, Mr Speaker, will have to certify not only whether a Bill is England only, but whether a clause is England only. That will be an unenviable task. The hon. Member for North East Somerset said that this issue has been around for 130 years. He is absolutely right about that, but why has it been around for that long?”
“It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), a constitutional scholar who spoke with great authority. There is no doubt in my mind that the Conservative party has a right to take action on this issue. It won a majority at the general election. It has a right to take action and it has the power to do so because it has a majority in this House. The question for Conservative Members is: what is the right way of doing this? That is what I want to talk about. Government Members are in the Conservative and Unionist party. I suggest that the way the Leader of the House is going about this is true neither to the Conservative tradition nor the Unionist tradition. No good will come of the way he is going about his proposals, and I want to explain why.”
“No, it is not, because the last thing the Conservatives should do is rip up hundreds of years of constitutional practice in a Standing Order vote just before the House goes into recess. Is this for Unionism? No, it is not. That is my final point, because I wish to respect the time limit.”