Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Mr Michael Meacher.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Q13. If this is such a great economic recovery, why are wages still 6% below the pre-crisis level of seven years ago? Why was the growth rate in the last quarter a mere 0.4%? Why has productivity been flat for five years? Why is UK investment as a proportion of GDP one of the lowest in the world? And why is the balance of payments in traded goods now in deficit by £100 billion a year?

[The Prime Minister]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know why, there are two words: ask Gordon. But if he wants to know what is actually happening in our economy, let me tell him. The deficit has been halved from its peak—[Interruption.]

Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL

Michael Meacher Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

It cannot be emphasised too strongly that this is not another invasion of Iraq. It is a response to a desperate plea by the new Iraqi Government for outside help to combat what is seen as an existential threat to the Iraqi state; nor is ISIL just another enemy in the complex and lethal sectarianism of the middle east. It is a monster, with a bloodlust that can only be compared to the Genghis Khan Mongols or the latter-day Nazis—and one that the world simply cannot turn aside from or wash its hands of. But equally, it is foolish not to recognise the risks of military action through air strikes: the inevitable civilian casualties, the death threats to hostages, the very real possibility of terrorist retaliation on British soil and the risk of mission creep, which the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) was talking about in terms of taking action towards Syria with a dubious legality—I gather from what he said—and the uncertain and unpredictable consequences for the civil war against Assad.

Perhaps the biggest problem, as always in war, is the exit strategy. No war can be won from the air—we all agree on that—and this war can be won only on the basis of political and diplomatic action, which, frankly, will be quite difficult to achieve. First, this depends on the regional powers that feed ISIL with money, arms and political support reaching an agreement that they will withdraw that oxygen, which keeps the pyre burning. In particular, the oil-smuggling network that was created to evade UN sanctions on Saddam’s Iraq, now in the hands of ISIL and yielding more than $3 million a day, must be stopped via Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan.

Secondly, this depends on achieving some reconciliation across the broken Shi’a-Sunni divide. That is incredibly important. Of course things have flared up with lethal intensity because of the highly discriminatory policies of the last Maliki Government. The new Iraqi Government recognise this. Of course they have been in office for only three weeks, but they have yet to provide a power-sharing agreement that will bring the Sunni majority on side.

Thirdly, the moderate Sunni element needs to be split from the extremists. Again, that is beginning to happen, but the lessons of al-Sahwa, the awakening, which played such a crucial role in stemming the insurgency in 2007-08, need to be revisited. Fourthly—this is the most difficult one of all, but the most important—the really big, major powers in the middle east, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which until recently were implacably opposed to each other, clearly are needed to use their influence to restrain their proxies and to restore at least some co-existence across inflamed sectarian lines. All that will be extremely difficult to achieve; but ultimately, the war against ISIL will be won only if we can reconstruct and repair the broken Iraqi state.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Does he agree that we must do all we can to rebuild trust between the Kurdish Government and the Government in Baghdad, because that will help us to build up civil society in Iraq, which is absolutely key to taking on ISIL?

[Mr Meacher]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course that is part of the commitment of the new Iraqi Prime Minister, al-Abadi, to produce a governance within Iraq that takes account of all the key parts of the population, not just the Shi’a and Sunnis, but crucially the Kurds, who are a very important part of this equation.

Again, it cannot be emphasised too strongly that the Iraqi Prime Minister, al-Abadi, has made it absolutely clear that he does not want western and US troops on the ground in Iraq because he believes that he has sufficient volunteers to contest ISIL with Iraqi forces, provided that there is collaboration from air cover. But in the last analysis, the only serious long-term answer for these broken states—not just Iraq, but Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Nigeria—is to restore them again to a real, viable state. It is easy to say that; it is extremely difficult to do. It will take a long time, and it will require enormous, long-term economic and aid commitments, which was patently not apparent after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. That aid will, no doubt, predominantly come from the US and Europe, but it should come from other places as well.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has, of course, mentioned the previous occasion when we debated Iraq, when the UN’s position was absolutely central. There has been very little discussion about the UN today. Does he agree that it would have been preferable if we had a clear position from the UN and a motion specifically relating to Iraq before the House made a decision?

[Mr Meacher]

That is a very important point, because the economic and aid aspect, which is crucial—far more important than bombing, as several hon. Members have said—needs much more attention. I do not think that it is sufficiently taken into account in the motion today, and I take my hon. Friend’s point that that needs to be developed. This will go on a long time, and we need to give far more attention to that issue.

I believe that the only justification for military action is not just to halt the ISIL momentum and to protect communities, but to buy the time to put in place the political and diplomatic conditions to enable the reconstruction of a broken Iraqi state, to achieve reconciliation of sectarian-torn communities along power-sharing lines and, above all—again, taking up my hon. Friend’s point—to achieve the long-term support to revive the economies and social institutions of those broken countries.

Tributes to Tony Benn

Michael Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Tony Benn was a widely misunderstood and misrepresented man, as visionaries have always been down the ages. But the ideas for which he stood— democracy against corporate domination; national sovereignty against globalisation; transparency of the workings of power; the need for accountability in all institutions; and the rights of the industrial working class against an oppressive economic system—will live on after him and are as vibrant today as they were when he first entered public life.

Tony Benn was the architect of the big picture—the ultimate fundamental goals to which politics should aspire, beyond the day-to-day detail. Like reformers before him, he asked uncomfortable questions and he challenged a cosy consensus in which perhaps too many around him seemed to be cocooned. At its most poignant, he would press whether the Labour party was really fulfilling the role for which it was founded, and whether its MPs and trade union leaders were really accountable to those they represented.

Fundamental to Tony’s beliefs was his insight that real and lasting change comes about only from below; the role of Parliament, all too often, is largely to ratify what was already inevitable. That is certainly proving to be right in respect of the biggest issue in contemporary politics: the clinging on by the political establishment to an irretrievably broken system of neo-liberal market capitalism. The public are deeply opposed to a harsh, unjust and seemingly endless austerity and to its exploitation by a greedy and selfish 1% who are super-rich. But it seems that nothing much is going to happen on that score until there is an explosion in the streets, just like the anti-poll tax riots that brought down Thatcher. Tony Benn would have understood that all too well and he would have agitated for it.

It was that which led him to support many strikes and acts of civil disobedience. His dramatic intervention in the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders strike in 1971 forced Heath to change direction—to move away from deflationary policies and begin to pull unemployment down below 1 million. But of course such things were not always successful. The National Union of Mineworkers strike in 1984-85 was a turning point, both industrially and politically, and Benn lent it his wholehearted support. It is only now becoming fully clear just how far the illicit machinations of a semi-militaristic state were brought to bear to thwart the legitimate rights of the trade union opposing the wholesale closure of the mines. The strike failed, but just as the Astbury judgment and the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927 led ultimately to the full reinstatement of the unions’ role in industrial life by the Attlee Government of 1945-51, so the illegitimate use of the instruments of tyranny against the miners three decades ago may yet again see the restoration of the unions to their central role in this nation’s industrial and economic life.

Benn also realised that the Labour party would only ever fulfil its fundamental role in championing the industrial working class if power was shared between the parliamentary Labour party on the one hand and the national executive committee, constituency parties, trade unions and annual conference on the other. The devolving of power to the grassroots—in particular the Wembley conference of 1980 on the electoral college to elect the leader—proved too much for the right wing of the party, which defected to set up its own party, the Social Democratic party, which soared and then crashed. It is often said that that split, for which, on a wholly lopsided view, Benn was held responsible, paved the way for the Thatcherite ascendancy. That is nonsense. Thatcher won the following election in 1983 for quite different reasons. The economy was already recovering strongly after the deep recession of 1980-81, and Thatcher herself had become a transformative heroic figure after the Falklands.

Some unsympathetic commentators have also observed, rather gleefully, that Tony failed in the practical achievement of his goals. Well, here again, I think that Tony may well have the last laugh, as we may, in other respects, see many of his aspirations coming to fruition after his death. Polling shows clearly huge majorities today in support of taking back rail and energy into public ownership, imposing rent controls to stop ever-rising and unaffordable rents, building a crash programme of social housing for the near 2 million households on council waiting lists, cracking down hard on industrial-scale tax avoidance and evasion, and making the 1,000 most ultra-rich persons contribute a fair share of their £190 billion ill-gotten gains in wealth since the 2008 crash, which I might add that many of them helped to cause.

We have also seen mass movements beginning to influence the politics of this country, which certainly reflects the Bennite inheritance. A range of different organisations such as the Occupy movement against the stock exchange, UK Uncut demonstrations against massive tax avoidance and the People’s Assembly Against Austerity all represent collective action from below, forcing issues up the political agenda and compelling those with wealth and power to respond and to make concessions and change direction. They are proving Tony Benn right about how politics is driven.

Asked how he wanted to be remembered, Tony said, “that I have given people hope”. There is already anger enough in this country at how it has been dragged into the deepest abyss for a century. What people want today is hope that a different and better world is possible. Tony Benn, as a charismatic and inspiring leader, gave that hope to millions of people. His unremitting campaigning for the rights of workers, for accountability and for democracy and redress against wealth and power leaves a demand for justice and a legacy of hope that will inspire generations to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The biggest hit to living standards would be if we let spending and borrowing get out of control and interest rates went up. That is what we want to avoid, which is why we got the deficit down, and we must continue with our difficult spending decisions. That has enabled us to cut the taxes of people working and living in Basildon. By next year, with the first £10,000 of income coming out of tax, people on the minimum wage who are working a full-time week will see their income tax bill come down by two thirds. That is real action on the side of people who work hard.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Q5. Is the Prime Minister aware that FTSE 100 directors now get £86,000 a week on average, while at the other end of the scale 5 million workers get less than the living wage and three quarters of a million people who cannot get a job and get sanctioned get nothing at all and are left to starve? Is there no end to the brutality and nastiness of Tory Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who served in Labour Government after Labour Government with a 40p tax rate—it is now 45p—and a bonus bonanza in the City 85 times higher than it is now, that he has a lot of brass neck.

Point of Order

Michael Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will have heard and as everyone else in the House heard, I asked a perfectly reasonable question that was based on clear documentary evidence, as I indicated. Is it parliamentary for the Prime Minister to respond by accusing another right hon. Member of sounding as if he has been taking mind-altering substances? Is that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will complete his point of order. The Prime Minister has indicated a readiness to respond, and that is how we will proceed. A bit of patience is all that is required.

[Mr Meacher]

I want to ask, Mr Speaker, whether it is parliamentary to use such an unjustifiable, rude and offensive phrase about another hon. Member.

[The Prime Minister]

I completely respect the right hon. Gentleman and the important question he asked, which I tried to answer with the point about inward investment into Britain. I made a light-hearted remark—if it caused any offence, I will happily withdraw it. I think it is very important that we can have a little bit of light-hearted banter, and a sense of humour on all sides.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I rather fear that that is true, having known the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for over 30 years.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to The Economist, Britain is now 159th lowest in the world in terms of business investment, just behind Mali, Paraguay and Guatemala? Will he therefore please tell the House when, under his esteemed leadership and that of his Chancellor, Britain can expect to catch up with Mali?

[The Prime Minister]

I can only conclude that the right hon. Gentleman, too, has been on a night out on the town with Rev. Flowers and that the mind-altering substances have taken effect. The fact is that in the first six months of this year, Britain has received more inward investment than any other country anywhere in the world.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Michael Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

We are asked by the Government tonight to approve a so-called strong humanitarian response, with the implication of using force in principle and a second vote after the UN inspectors have reported, but there is no case in international law for this military attack—neither with a UN Security Council resolution authorising it, nor under article 51 of the UN charter, which permits a right of self-defence, but that clearly does not apply to a chemical gas attack in eastern Damascus, as that is obviously not an attack on another state. That is why the Prime Minister switched today to quoting long-standing international conventions that prohibit the use of chemical weapons. However, nothing in those conventions inherently allows other nations to take military action against such a state just because it has used chemical weapons—certainly not without wider international sanctions.

There is a second argument: what exactly—I have listened all day—is the aim of the military strike? Will it realistically succeed in achieving those goals? The stated aim is to hit Assad’s military targets, but not the chemical weapons, obviously, for fear of releasing poison gas into the atmosphere. Whatever else, this will certainly not be a short, surgical strike. I remind the House that it took 78 days of continuous bombing of Serbia before the Milosevic regime could be shifted from Kosovo, and only then when the US and UK threatened a land invasion. Even leaving that aside, no one has answered the question what will happen if the attack is made and Assad retaliates by using chemical weapon attacks on perhaps a greater scale, as his sites are all over Syria.

Let us not forget that Syria is no Libya. It is far stronger than Libya, with far more disciplined and larger armed forces, and it is still powerfully backed and reinforced by Russia. At worst, there is a very real danger of the west being sucked into a long-term war that it cannot win and that will only expose its impotence, as has happened already in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

None of that is to say that we should do nothing. We should press to have Assad arraigned before the International Criminal Court. We should freeze Syrian assets throughout the west. We should impose travel bans on all members of the Syrian leadership deemed responsible for the atrocities. Above all, we should press much harder for a regional peace conference, to achieve a settlement involving all the relevant parties, including the Russians. That is the only way to settle this conflict.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. First of all, let us congratulate Andy Murray on his excellent victory at the Queen’s club at the weekend, and wish him and other British players well for the Wimbledon tournament. We should commend the LTA for its work in trying to make tennis much more of a mass participation sport. I see it in the primary school that my children go to, where more tennis is being taught and played. It still has a long way to go. The LTA has to satisfy Sport England and all the funding bodies that it is doing everything it can to make tennis a mass participation sport.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Q3. When, according to The Sunday Times, just 1,000 of our richest citizens have increased their wealth since the financial crash by £190 billion while everyone else has been forced to take on average a 6% real-terms cut in income, is not the Prime Minister’s policy of enriching the perpetrators and punishing the victims the very opposite of a one nation Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

The richest in our country are going to pay a higher percentage of income tax under this Government than they did under the last one. The right hon. Gentleman sat in that Government and had an opportunity to do something about it, but all the time he was a Minister, the top rate of tax was actually lower than it is going to be under this Government.

G8

Michael Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That point highlights what a complicated and difficult deal it is. We sometimes think that trade deals are just about taking down tariff barriers and then letting the market decide. Modern trade deals are much more about agreeing common standards and recognition of each other’s standards, and opening up things like services and procurement. The deal will be difficult and complicated, but it has started with good will on all sides, which is the right way to kick it off.

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

The automatic transfer of tax information and the provision of registers of beneficial ownership appear to be no more than a wish list, since the communiqué says that countries “should” do those things, rather than “will”. What sanctions or pressures will be exerted against countries that refuse or fail to comply, given that that could unravel the whole objective?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has a long track record of campaigning on these issues. I urge him to read the Lough Erne declaration, because we tried to put down in simple terms something that everyone would understand about publishing information, about companies saying where they pay their taxes and about what extractive industries pay to developing countries. People write and campaign to all Members of the House on that agenda, and we all feel passionately about it. Getting the leaders to sign their name under that declaration means that it will become part of the G8 process. Every time we meet, we will discuss what progress has been made and what fresh agreements have been made. In the end, all countries are sovereign and make their own decisions, but it was remarkable how much progress was made so quickly at the G8 in getting countries to sign up to these things and do them.

Bilderberg Conference

Michael Meacher Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Bilderberg conference, which he attended.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

This is a first occasion for me, as I have never previously answered a question in the House of Commons on behalf of a private organisation for which the Government have no responsibility. I have been a member of the steering committee of Bilderberg for many years now—about 10 years, I think—and by chance this will be my last year, as we have a rule against being on the committee for too long, so I am on the point of stepping down. [Interruption.] Other roles are timeless, with no rules at all, but in this role I have now reached the end of my allotted span.

The Bilderberg organisation exists for the purpose of holding meetings once a year in various countries; it exists for no other purpose. This year, the meeting was held at a large hotel near Watford in Hertfordshire. I did not receive adequate notice of the right hon. Gentleman’s question—because I was not found in time—to put to hand the list of those who participated and the agenda we discussed. We always circulate those before the meeting, and they are readily available. I can certainly put any hon. Member in touch with a source of the list of those who took part.

Each year, we invite over 100 people—it was about 140 this year—drawn from both sides of the Atlantic; from Europe including Turkey; and from the United States and Canada. The people who attend are drawn from the worlds of government, politics, academia, defence and journalism. The people who attend change slightly each year. There is a core of those who attend regularly; different people come—[Interruption.] Well, I am trying to guess why on earth a parliamentary question has been asked about this and in what people are interested.

All the people who attend do so as individuals; we invite people as individuals. Nobody attends representing any particular organisation to which they might belong. A very interesting two or three days take place in which we have discussions on matters of public affairs. A very wide range of experience and a very wide range of political opinion is represented. I always find that it greatly adds to the depth of my understanding of what is being talked about and contemplated in many parts of the United States and in Europe as well. It is one of the many political gatherings I attend from time to time as part of the background to my activities.

If the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) finds something deeply disturbing in all this, I can advise only that he finds different people on the internet with whom to exchange tweets, and perhaps the House might be allowed to return to some matter of rather more real public interest in which this House of Commons has a role to play.

[Mr Meacher]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that filibuster. The Bilderberg conference involves about 130 of the western world’s top decision makers from the banks, the multinational companies, the European Commission—[Interruption.] I am coming to the politicians. It also involves representatives of the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and, of course, leading politicians from the United States, Canada, the eurozone and the United Kingdom. Given that those people were clearly discussing some of the biggest issues confronting the western economies at this time, why have we heard no statement from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor or, indeed, the Minister without Portfolio, all of whom attended in an official capacity? Why did none of them offer a statement, although decisions of this kind may well have a significant effect on UK Government policy or the livelihood of future UK citizens?

It is said by some, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that Bilderberg is a conspiracy. Of course it is not a conspiracy. Nevertheless, 130 of the world’s top decision makers do not travel thousands of miles simply for a cosy chat. Those people came here in order to concert their plans to deal with a particularly awkward stage in western capitalism, and in view of that we, the public, are entitled to ask some questions and to hold them to account. The Prime Minister said in 2010:

“For too long those in power made decisions behind closed doors…and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture—and it’s called transparency.”

In the same year, the Chancellor himself announced his commitment to

“the most radical transparency agenda that the country has ever seen.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 206.]

So why is there no transparency about a very crucial meeting that could affect us all?

Finally, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how at the start of last week the Prime Minister could announce a crackdown on corruption and lack of transparency among lobbyists, and by the end of the week he and the Chancellor could be insisting that the largest and most powerful lobbyists’ group in the western hemisphere—an anti-democratic cabal if ever there was one—should operate in conditions of utter blackout and complete secrecy?

[Mr Clarke]

The Bilderberg meeting does not make any decisions. It does not have any resolutions. We could not possibly reach decisions, because of the range of opinions represented there. It is purely a Chatham House rules discussion between the people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. The shadow Chancellor was there, Peter Mandelson was there, the Prime Minister was there, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was there, and most of us said things during the discussion that would not have come as a surprise to any of us, because we knew what our opinions were. We go there for the chance of having an off-the-record, informal discussion with the range of people described by the right hon. Gentleman, who are indeed distinguished, but who are not remotely interested in getting together to decide or organise anything.

If the right hon. Gentleman would like an invitation—if that is what really lies behind his question—I will take his own distinguished claims to participation in the group carefully into account, although I will of course consult the shadow Chancellor before taking that a step further.

Let me say with the greatest respect that this is total, utter nonsense. I would normally regard the right hon. Gentleman as not the sort of person to be taken in by this sort of rubbish. We all take part in lots of political and other discussions as private individuals, under Chatham House rules, and we do not expect everyone to go out giving a version of what we have just said. No one alters their opinions when we are there. As for transparency, this Government are by a street the most transparent Government I have ever been in, but we can only be transparent in regard to things for which the Government have responsibility, and for what we are doing as a Government.