Results 1-20 of 21 for terrorism speaker:Michael Meacher

Bills Presented: Afghanistan and Pakistan (16 Jul 2009) has video

Michael Meacher: ...conceal unease about the nature of the conflict or its objectives and exit strategy. I want to concentrate on that. The conflict has been represented in the west almost exclusively as a war against terrorism, but I submit that that is a highly misleading portrayal. For the Taliban, who are not al-Qaeda, it is basically a civil war: the Pashtuns, who are the traditional rulers of...

Bills Presented: Afghanistan and Pakistan (16 Jul 2009) has video

Michael Meacher: ...good governance to a strategic interest in having a permanent military presence in a state that borders central Asia, China, Iran and Pakistan. The insurgency in Afghanistan is aiming not for terror attacks in London, but for the removal of foreign troops from the occupation of their country. Given those factors, what is the exit strategy—if, indeed, the Americans intend there to be...

Written Answers — Home Department: Criminal Investigation: Data Protection (15 Oct 2008)

Michael Meacher: ...to ensure that data obtained by these means is not lost or stolen and that police and intelligence agencies do not use their access to this database for purposes other than fighting crime or terrorism.

Written Answers — Home Department: Terrorism: Detainees (23 Jul 2007)

Michael Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 12 July 2007, Official Report, column 979W, on Terrorism: detainees, if she will seek the information requested from each police force.

Point of Order: Trident (14 Mar 2007)

Michael Meacher: ...that I would abide by the result. I believe that it would provide a fresh and genuine mandate. If we are talking about the threats that our country faces today, we know that they are primarily terrorism, climate change and long-term energy security—against all of which, of course, nuclear weapons are useless. Furthermore, this is not an independent British nuclear deterrent, since...

Points of Order: Defence in the World (1 Feb 2007)

Michael Meacher: ...the decision to replace the system. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend said so eloquently, at present the biggest danger that we face is the threat of terrorism on our mainland. For that, of course, nuclear weapons are useless. The only argument to justify Trident replacement, to which the Government always resort, and I think this also applies to...

Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department: Trident (4 Dec 2006)

Michael Meacher: ...undermine the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, especially for Iran, and it will drain off colossal sums of money from where they are most needed to deal with the real threats that confront us—terrorism, climate change and long-term energy insecurity.

Orders of the Day: Home Affairs and Transport (23 Nov 2006)

Michael Meacher: ...issue and the other wider matters that bear on that. I take it that that issue forms the centrepiece of the Government's legislative agenda for the coming year, but it goes far wider than anti-terrorism and a tighter law and order crackdown, which dominate the Queen's Speech. Climate change is the overarching issue that threatens our security, our entire civilisation and our whole way of...

Orders of the Day: Energy Supply (30 Oct 2006)

Michael Meacher: ...developing countries such as Brazil, will result in rising prices, probably in excess of $100 a barrel within a few years. Sharp price hikes will be caused by international events, whether war or terrorism, and by an increasing shortage of spare refinery capacity. Furthermore, UK production of North sea oil has long since peaked, and is fast declining at a rate of between 4 and 6 per cent....

Orders of the Day: Energy Supply (30 Oct 2006)

Michael Meacher: ...1960s. However, even if we do not know the exact cost of dealing with civil nuclear waste, it is still absolutely enormous, and that is quite apart from any consideration of the associated serious terrorism risk. It is true that gas and oil pipelines are probably an even greater hazard, but one cannot deny that nuclear is a target. Moreover, although it is absolutely true that nuclear...

Learning Disability Services (Cornwall): Energy Review (11 Jul 2006)

Michael Meacher: ...power is far more expensive and hopelessly uneconomic. Decommissioning costs are enormous. There are mountains of nuclear waste, which we do not know where to put, and it will increase our risk of terrorism—

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: Engagements (23 Nov 2005)

Michael Meacher: ..., when nuclear is more expensive than wind power, coal and gas, when it has already generated more than 10,000 tonnes of undisposed of highly toxic nuclear waste, when it creates an obvious major terrorism—

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill (26 Oct 2005)

Michael Meacher: ...the Home Secretary offered a very robust defence of the Bill. No one doubts that it was the Government's duty, and his in particular, to take all appropriate steps to protect the population against terrorism, especially in the light of 7 July, but any Bill designed to achieve that purpose must be tested against several criteria. First—and this question was rightly posed by the hon....

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill (26 Oct 2005)

Michael Meacher: ...targets? There is plenty of evidence historically that that has been the result of using wide definitions. The best example, of course, is the stop and search legislation. Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which has been mentioned, has been used against anti-war protesters and arms trade protesters as well as, most notoriously, the 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang.

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill (26 Oct 2005)

Michael Meacher: ...of the original definition in the legislation. There are already suggestions that clause 10 might be used against animal rights protesters. Whatever one feels about that, whether one uses anti-terrorism measures against them or other protesters is another matter—[Interruption.] This is arguable, but it is not being proposed that that is the purpose of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill (26 Oct 2005)

Michael Meacher: That only confirms my point. The Bill is intended to deal with the problem of acts of terrorism, such as those which the country faced on 7 July. For it to be used in this much wider way is not sanctified, and it is for us here in Parliament to make that clear. However, those who might be affected include not only animal rights protesters, but those protesting against a revival of civil...

Home Affairs and Communities (23 May 2005)

Michael Meacher: ...all western societies and, although I understand the difficulties, he was not able to come forward with his own alternative, positive and better proposals. The right hon. Gentleman moved on to anti-terrorism, which is another extraordinarily difficult subject, as he recognised in a speech at the end of the last Parliament. Again, however, he did not come forward with proposals on how to...

Home Affairs and Communities (23 May 2005)

Michael Meacher: ...all, however, in the case of control orders, which the Government are obliged to reconsider, there is a much better way of reconciling individual rights with state security. I propose that where terrorism, or at least acts preparatory to terrorism, are alleged, all the evidence relevant to the case should be made available to the suspect unless the judge is convinced—on the basis of...

Home Affairs (29 Nov 2004)

Mr Michael Meacher: ...just so eloquently and passionately described, but I shall not follow him down that route. This is a strange and uncomfortable Queen's Speech. A quarter of the 32 Bills are about tougher action on terrorism and crime and imposing tighter security measures generally, so the Speech has been described, rather sensationally in my view, as stoking the politics of fear. The motive is far more...

Home Affairs (29 Nov 2004)

Mr Michael Meacher: ...agreeing with him. It has also been suggested that the draft Bill would include allowing phone tap evidence to be admissible in court and would introduce a new offence of "acts preparatory to terrorism". That is worrying on several counts. We already have the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the legality of which has been challenged. There must be doubt as to whether draconian...