Ed Miliband's Commons statement on Syria: full text

"I do not rule out supporting the Prime Minister but I believe he has to make a better case than he did today".

I rise to move the amendment standing in the name of myself and my Right Honourable friends.

And I start by joining the Prime Minister in expressing revulsion at the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians in Ghouta on the 21 August.

This was a moral outrage and the international community is right to condemn it.

As the Prime Minister said, everyone in this House and most in the country will have seen the pictures of men, women and children gasping for breath and dying as a result of this heinous attack.

I can assure members of this House that the divide that exists does not exist over the condemnation of the use of chemical weapons and the fact that it breaches international law.

Nor does it lie in the willingness to condemn the regime of President Assad.

The question facing this House is what if any military action we should take and what criteria determines that decision and that’s what I want to focus on in my speech today.

And I think it’s right to say at the beginning of my remarks that the Prime Minister said a couple of times in his speech words to the effect of ‘we’re not going to get further involved in that conflict. This doesn’t change our stance on Syria’.

Now I’ve got to say to the Prime Minister, with the greatest respect, that is simply not the case.

For me that does not rule out military intervention – I want to be clear about this. But I don’t think anybody in this House or anybody in the country should be under any illusions about the effect of our relationship to the conflict in Syria if we were to militarily intervene.

Now as I say and as I will develop in my remarks, that does not for me rule out intervention, but I think we need to be clear-eyed about the impact that this would have.

Let me also say Mr Speaker that his is one of the most solemn duties that this House possesses.

And in our minds should be this simple question, which is upholding international law and legitimacy - how we can make the lives of the Syrian people better.

And we should also have in our minds the duty we owe to the exceptional men and women of our armed forces and their families who will face the direct consequences of any decision that we make.

The basis on which we make this decision is of fundamental importance, because the basis of making the decision determines the legitimacy and moral authority of any action that we undertake.

That is why our amendment asks this House to support a clear and legitimate road map to decision on this issue.

A set of steps which enable us to judge any recommended international action.

And I want to develop the argument of why this sequential road map is I believe the right thing for the House to support today.

Most of all, if we follow this road map, it can assure the country and the international community that if we take action we will follow the right, legitimate and legal course, not an artificial timetable or a political timetable set elsewhere and I think that is very very important to any decision that we make.

This is fundamental to the principles of Britain.

A belief in the rule of law.

A belief that any military action we take must be justified in terms of the cause and also the potential consequences.

And that we strain every sinew to make the international institutions that we have in our world work to deal with outrages such as the ones we have seen in Syria.

Let me turn to the conditions in our motion.

First, and this is where the Prime Minister and I now agree, we must let the UN weapons inspectors do their work and let them report to the UN Security Council.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, said yesterday about the weapons inspectors: “let them conclude their work for four days and then we will have to analyse scientifically with experts and then we will have to report to the Security Council for action.”

So the weapons inspectors are in the midst of their work and will be reporting in the coming days.

That is why today could not have been the day when the House should be asked to decide whether to take military action.

For this House, it is surely a basic point: Evidence should precede decision not decision precede evidence.

And I am glad that on reflection, the Prime Minister accepted this yesterday.

Now it is true the weapons inspectors cannot reach a judgement on the attribution of blame.

That is beyond their mandate.

Now some might think that makes their work essentially irrelevant.

I disagree.

If the UN weapons inspectors conclude that chemical weapons have been used, in the eyes of this country and the world, that confers legitimacy on the finding beyond the view of any individual country or any intelligence agency.

What is more, it is possible that what the weapons inspectors discover, could give the world greater confidence in identifying the perpetrators of this horrific attack.

The second step in our road map makes clear there needs to be compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the attacks.

I welcome the letter from the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee today and I note the Arab League’s view of President Assad’s culpability.

Of course, in conflict there is always reason for doubt.

But the greater the weight of evidence the better.

On Tuesday we were promised that there would be the release of American intelligence that there was proof of the regime’s culpability.

We await the publication of that evidence which I gather will be later today, but that evidence too will be important in building up the body of evidence that President Assad was responsible.

The third step is that in light of the weapons inspector’s findings and this other evidence, and as the Secretary General said, the UN Security Council should then debate what action should be taken and indeed should vote on action.

I have heard it suggested that we should have “a UN moment”.

They are certainly not my words.

They are words which do no justice to the seriousness with which we must take the United Nations.

The UN is not some inconvenient side-show.

And we don’t want to engineer a “moment”.

Instead, we want to adhere to the principles of international law.

I am also clear that it is incumbent on us to try to build the widest level of support among the fifteen members in the Security Council, whatever the intentions of particular countries.

The level of international support is vital should we decide to take military action.

It is vital in the eyes of the world. That is why it can’t be seen as some sideshow or some moment, but actually an essential part of building the case if intervention should take place.

There will be those who argue that in the event of Russia and China vetoing a Security Council Resolution then any military action would necessarily not be legitimate.

I understand that view. But I don’t agree with it.

Because I believe if a proper case is made, then there is scope in international law, our fourth condition, for action to be taken even without a chapter VII Security Council resolution.

Kosovo in 1999 is the precedent cited in the Prime Minister’s speech and in the Attorney General’s legal advice.

The Prime Minister didn’t go in much detail of the Attorney General’s legal advice, but it is worth noting that in the Attorney’s legal advice he has three conditions:

Convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as whole, of extreme humanitarian distress.

Objectively clear there is no practical alternative to the use of force, if lives are to be saved.

And the proposed use of force must be proportionate and strictly limited in time.

So the Attorney concludes in his advice, and it is very important for the House to understand this, that there could be circumstances in the absence of a Chapter VII Security Council resolution for action to be taken, but subject to those three conditions. And that is the case that must be built in the coming period.

These principles reflect the Responsibility to Protect, a doctrine developed since Kosovo which commands widespread support.

Additionally, the Responsibility to Protect also demands a reasonable prospect of success in improving the plight of the Syrian people.

The Responsibility to Protect is an essential part of making this case.

This takes me to the final point of the roadmap.

Any military action must be specifically designed to deter the future use of chemical weapons.

It must be time limited, with specific purpose and scope, so that future action would require further recourse to this House.

And it must have regard for the consequences of any action.

We must ensure that every effort is made to bring the civil war in Syria to an end.

The principal responsibility for that of course rests with the parties in that conflict, and in particular President Assad.

But the international community also has a duty to do everything it can to support the Geneva 2 process.

And any action we take must assist this process and not hinder it.

That is the responsibility that lies on the Government and its allies to set out this case.

There will be some in this House who say that Britain should not contemplate action because we do not know precisely the consequences that will follow.

I am not with those who rule out action.

The horrific events unfolding in Syria rightly prompt us to consider all the options.

But we owe it to the Syrian people, to our own country, and to the future security of our world, to scrutinise any plans on the basis of the consequences that they have.

By setting this framework today, we give ourselves the time and space to actually scrutinise what is being proposed by this Government to see what the implications are.

I do not believe we should be rushed to judgement.

In the coming days the Government has a responsibility to build on the case it has set out today.

I do not rule out supporting the Prime Minister but I believe he has to make a better case than he did today on this question and frankly he cannot say to the House and to the country this does not change our stance on Syria, this does not change our involvement in the Syrian conflict, because frankly it would and we all have a duty to assess it.

Our amendment sets out a road map from evidence to decision that I believe can command the confidence of the House and the British public.

And crucially it places responsibility for the judgement about the achievement of the criteria for action – reporting by the weapons inspectors, compelling evidence, vote in the Security Council, legal base and time limited and proportionate and successful action - with this House in a subsequent vote.

I hope the House can unite today around our amendment today because I believe it captures a shared view on all sides of this House both about our anger at the attack witnessed on innocent civilians and also a coherent framework for making the decision on how we respond.

We’re not going to be supporting a Government motion which was briefed this morning setting out an ‘in principle’ decision to take military action. It would be the wrong thing to do and on that basis we will oppose the motion.

We could only support military action when the conditions of the amendment are met and if they are met.

We all know that stability cannot be achieved by military means alone.

Let me end by saying this: the continued turmoil in the country and the region in the recent months and years further demonstrate the need for stability across the region - to protect the innocent civilians involved, and uphold the national interest and the security and future prosperity of the whole region and world.

I am sure the whole House recognises that this will not and cannot be achieved through a military solution.

Whatever our disagreements today, we on this side of the House stand ready to play our part in supporting measures to improve the prospects for peace in Syria and the Middle East.

It is what the people of Britain and the world have the right to expect.

But this is a very grave decision which should be treated as such by this House and will be treated as such by this country

In the end the fundamental test will be this: as we think about the men, women and children who have been subjected to this terrible atrocity, and we think about the prospects for other citizens in Syria, can the international community act in a lawful and legitimate way that will help them, that will prevent further suffering?

The seriousness of our deliberations should match the significance of the decision we face.

And that is why I urge this House to support our amendment today.

Ed Miliband attends the launch of mental health charity MindFull on 5 July 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.
Getty
Show Hide image

Air pollution: 5 steps to vanquishing an invisible killer

A new report looks at the economics of air pollution. 

110, 150, 520... These chilling statistics are the number of deaths attributable to particulate air pollution for the cities of Southampton, Nottingham and Birmingham in 2010 respectively. Or how about 40,000 - that is the total number of UK deaths per year that are attributable the combined effects of particulate matter (PM2.5) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx).

This situation sucks, to say the very least. But while there are no dramatic images to stir up action, these deaths are preventable and we know their cause. Road traffic is the worst culprit. Traffic is responsible for 80 per cent of NOx on high pollution roads, with diesel engines contributing the bulk of the problem.

Now a new report by ResPublica has compiled a list of ways that city councils around the UK can help. The report argues that: “The onus is on cities to create plans that can meet the health and economic challenge within a short time-frame, and identify what they need from national government to do so.”

This is a diplomatic way of saying that current government action on the subject does not go far enough – and that cities must help prod them into gear. That includes poking holes in the government’s proposed plans for new “Clean Air Zones”.

Here are just five of the ways the report suggests letting the light in and the pollution out:

1. Clean up the draft Clean Air Zones framework

Last October, the government set out its draft plans for new Clean Air Zones in the UK’s five most polluted cities, Birmingham, Derby, Leeds, Nottingham and Southampton (excluding London - where other plans are afoot). These zones will charge “polluting” vehicles to enter and can be implemented with varying levels of intensity, with three options that include cars and one that does not.

But the report argues that there is still too much potential for polluters to play dirty with the rules. Car-charging zones must be mandatory for all cities that breach the current EU standards, the report argues (not just the suggested five). Otherwise national operators who own fleets of vehicles could simply relocate outdated buses or taxis to places where they don’t have to pay.  

Different vehicles should fall under the same rules, the report added. Otherwise, taking your car rather than the bus could suddenly seem like the cost-saving option.

2. Vouchers to vouch-safe the project’s success

The government is exploring a scrappage scheme for diesel cars, to help get the worst and oldest polluting vehicles off the road. But as the report points out, blanket scrappage could simply put a whole load of new fossil-fuel cars on the road.

Instead, ResPublica suggests using the revenue from the Clean Air Zone charges, plus hiked vehicle registration fees, to create “Pollution Reduction Vouchers”.

Low-income households with older cars, that would be liable to charging, could then use the vouchers to help secure alternative transport, buy a new and compliant car, or retrofit their existing vehicle with new technology.

3. Extend Vehicle Excise Duty

Vehicle Excise Duty is currently only tiered by how much CO2 pollution a car creates for the first year. After that it becomes a flat rate for all cars under £40,000. The report suggests changing this so that the most polluting vehicles for CO2, NOx and PM2.5 continue to pay higher rates throughout their life span.

For ClientEarth CEO James Thornton, changes to vehicle excise duty are key to moving people onto cleaner modes of transport: “We need a network of clean air zones to keep the most polluting diesel vehicles from the most polluted parts of our towns and cities and incentives such as a targeted scrappage scheme and changes to vehicle excise duty to move people onto cleaner modes of transport.”

4. Repurposed car parks

You would think city bosses would want less cars in the centre of town. But while less cars is good news for oxygen-breathers, it is bad news for city budgets reliant on parking charges. But using car parks to tap into new revenue from property development and joint ventures could help cities reverse this thinking.

5. Prioritise public awareness

Charge zones can be understandably unpopular. In 2008, a referendum in Manchester defeated the idea of congestion charging. So a big effort is needed to raise public awareness of the health crisis our roads have caused. Metro mayors should outline pollution plans in their manifestos, the report suggests. And cities can take advantage of their existing assets. For example in London there are plans to use electronics in the Underground to update travellers on the air pollution levels.

***

Change is already in the air. Southampton has used money from the Local Sustainable Travel Fund to run a successful messaging campaign. And in 2011 Nottingham City Council became the first city to implement a Workplace Parking levy – a scheme which has raised £35.3m to help extend its tram system, upgrade the station and purchase electric buses.

But many more “air necessities” are needed before we can forget about pollution’s worry and its strife.  

 

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.