News archive – 2016

Posted on 2016-11-24 | 05:26

Roger described the first Autumn Statement from the new Chancellor Philip Hammond under the Theresa May government as a “missed opportunity”.

Speaking from Parliament the day following the statement, Roger commented: “The new government had an opportunity to do the right thing—both economically and in terms of fairness to the people of this country—and bury the discredited austerity agenda once and for all. Events have clearly shown that pushing austerity at a time of economic uncertainty and contraction will only decrease demand and worsen the economy.

“The new government’s agenda of austerity-lite will do nothing to address the basic underlying problems of the UK economy, which are chronic under-investment and an unbalanced over-reliance on services, particularly financial services.

“It is also extremely disappointing that the Chancellor did not tackle low wages or the urgent need to invest in renewable sources of energy. Getting the UK off fossil fuels and onto sustainable power sources would both help to tackle the climate crisis and support job creation.”

Posted on 2016-11-14 | 02:12

Speaking at a meeting in his constituency Roger gave his views on the result of the American Elections. Said Roger: “A lot of people were shocked that somebody with as many flaws in his character as Donald Trump could become President of the most powerful country on earth but while I very much regret the result I have to say that I was not at all surprised.

"It has been obvious since the financial crash in the western world in 2008/9 – caused by the greed of some people in the banking and financial sectors who took advantage of the lax regulations which had been brought in at their request - that there was an ever increasing anger and rage throughout the western world by the many people who had suffered, and been victims of, the march towards increasing globalisation and the neoliberal economic policies of privatisation and deregulation which had accompanied it.

"Many people in the western world have seen their jobs destroyed or transferred to Asian or South American countries; their communities in which they lived allowed to stagnate and die as once thriving town centres turned into ghost towns; inequality within societies rise as those at the top amassed vast fortunes while the vast majority of people saw their living standards decline. The beneficiaries of globalisation have been workers in Asian and South America whereas the victims have been working people in many parts of the United Kingdom and in the once prosperous industrial mid-west of America.

"If you had held a job in the car industry in Michigan or the steel industry in Ohio and had been earning $70,000 a year but had seen your job disappear to somewhere else in the world and you were now only earning $30,000 a year made up of doing two jobs you were obviously going to be very disillusioned with the established politicians who had presided over this and if a demagogue like Donald Trump came along and said that he understood your anger and was going to do something about it then why wouldn’t you vote for him even if you did not really believe what he was saying.

"The victory by Donald Trump was a massive vote against the established status quo and against multi-national companies who avoid paying their fair share of taxes by sending their profits to exotic tax havens and against trade deals which are promoted by big business in order to increase their profits.

"If Donald Trump does not honour the promises he has made, particularly with regard to jobs and free-trade deals, then public opinion in America could turn very quickly against him but if 2016 proves to be the end of the financial orthodoxy which has prevailed since the Reagan/Thatcher period then one good thing might have come out these elections."

Posted on 2016-10-17 | 06:10

Roger strongly criticised Cadbury’s failure to pay any corporation tax in the most recent tax year, following the previous year in which the company also made no corporation tax contribution to the UK.

Cadbury, a chocolate company with a long history in Birmingham, is now owned by the UK branch of international conglomerate Mondelez. This year the company made profits of £177 million, but did not pay a single pound in corporation tax.

Commented Roger: “It is a disgrace that a foreign-owned multinational corporation can make such huge profits in the UK while avoiding paying corporation tax or making any contribution to public finances. They may argue that they pay business rates and create jobs, but by not paying corporation tax they are depriving the Treasury—and ordinary, tax-paying members of the public—of essential public funds.

“Cadbury’s benefit from public spending, from the roads on which their lorries drive to make deliveries, to the health service and schools which provide them with educated, healthy employees. Much smaller companies with much lower profits than Cadbury’s must pay their fair share. Why should Cadbury get a free ride at the expense of UK citizens?”

Last year, the company made £96.5 million in profit but also failed to pay corporation tax. Roger tabled an Early Day Motion criticising this, which you can read here.

Posted on 2016-09-21 | 05:09

Roger has condemned the brutal attacks on an aid convoy and a clinic in Syria as an utterly unacceptable crime and violation of international law.

At least 20 people died in an attack on a UN aid convoy on 19 September, which is believed to have been carried out by Russian air forces. The convoy was on its way to bring essential aid to Syrian civilians struggling to survive in the vicious civil war. Two days later, medical workers were killed in an attack on the village of Khan Touman which destroyed the clinic where they were working.

The bombings are threatening the fragile ceasefire brokered between the different groups in Syria, and as they seem to have been deliberately targeted at aid workers they may also constitute war crimes.

Said Roger: “These barbaric attacks have taken a barbaric war to new lows. While nobody has admitted liability, there is strong evidence that they were carried out by Russian forces. They have undermined the attempts to get a lasting ceasefire, and violate the laws of warfare. Those responsible must be held to account.”

Posted on 2016-07-07 | 11:59

Responding to the publication of the Chilcot report on 6 July, Roger said:

“I have been calling for the Government to publish this report for some time and remain concerned about the delays involved, but I welcome the publication today of the Chilcot report into the Iraq war.

“The report’s findings are damning, particularly the conclusion that Tony Blair decided to take part in the US-led invasion of Iraq before ‘peaceful options’ had been exhausted. It also found that the then-Prime Minister ‘exaggerated’ the case for war, and that it was not correct that Saddam Hussein constituted an imminent threat. This amounts to a very grave misleading of the British Parliament into an illegal, unjustified and disastrous war, with an impact on stability across the region from which people in the Middle East are still suffering today. The UK has also suffered the consequences in the form of terrorist attacks, and we are all now less safe because of this war.

“The note from Tony Blair to President Bush saying: ‘I will be with you, whatever’ is extremely serious. This suggests that Blair gave a commitment to taking the UK into war regardless of the evidence base or the legality of such a war. He also ignored the clearly-expressed views of the British people, who took part in the largest ever demonstration in the UK to try to stop the Government from taking their country to war against their will.

“The leader of the Labour party said today in the Commons that Parliament should take action against Tony Blair for misleading Parliament in his attempt to get it to agree to the invasion. I would support this as I believe that those responsible for this disaster, in which 179 UK troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians lost their lives and suffered horrendous injuries, must be held accountable. We also need to learn the lessons of the past and ensure that we never engage in illegal wars again, and that the UK is a force for good rather than for instability in the world.”

Posted on 2016-06-30 | 04:23

Speaking in his Hall Green constituency after the result of the Referendum had been declared, Roger said:

“The result has shocked many people – some are appalled while others are happy. I always said that it was going to divide families, friendships, political parties and all other groups within our society, and this is the way it turned out.

"Because the issue of the United Kingdom’s relations with the European Union had not been debated in the country for over 40 years a Referendum, proposed by the Prime Minister to try and resolve political problems in the Conservative Party, was always going to unleash emotions and pent up frustrations particularly in those communities which had hardly benefitted from globalised neoliberal policies and had suffered austerity which had seen traditional well-paid secure jobs replaced by unsecure employment at lower wages with less protection for workers; local community facilities such as libraries, sure-start centres and leisure centres run down or closed and high streets turned into ‘zombie’ shopping centres with boarded up shops and a proliferation of pound shops, pawn shops and betting shops.

"Referendums ask ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ questions. Every vote is equal and the votes, although counted locally, are aggregated nationally. Unlike representative Parliamentary democracy Members of Parliament cannot represent constituents, or take into their account competing views, because there is no vote in Parliament and the question is put directly to the people and they decide. It is up to them to decide what is the most important factor in their decision.

"So far as I was concerned I made clear before the campaign started that, on balance, I believed it would be better for the future of this country if the UK left the EU. I set out my views, and reasoning behind them, in a statement which I posted on my website and which I supplied to members of my constituency Labour Party EC and to anybody else who contacted me asking my views. Because I was taking a view which was contrary to the official Labour Party’s position I did not do any campaigning in my constituency nor did I circulate any leaflets. I was part of the ‘Labour Leave’ campaign made up entirely of Labour Party members and supporters and I did not share any platforms where I spoke with representatives of any other political party. I also gave my staff complete freedom to decide their own positions and to campaign for whichever side they supported.

"The results in the metropolitan areas of the West Midlands were all in favour of ‘leave’. In some cases the majority was large while in Birmingham it was just a few thousand votes. Of the 10 Parliamentary constituencies in Birmingham 6 voted to ‘leave’ and 4 voted to ‘remain’ (a full list of the results is set out below). So where does the result leave us?

  "In the short term nothing changes and our current relationship continues. When a new Leader of the Conservative Party is selected and takes over as Prime Minister in October, he or she, will have to decide if, and when, to trigger Article 50 which allows for a minimum of two years for negotiations between the EU and the UK to take place on how the UK exits the EU.

"A number of people have signed an on-line petition calling for a second referendum but in the absence of any new proposals to put to the people of the UK this will not, in my opinion, win support in Parliament or the country. There will however be opportunities for Parliament to lay down conditions on what the Government’s position is in the negotiation with the EU and I, personally, would not oppose the negotiated package being put to the people again in another referendum. There is precedent for this because second referendums were held in Denmark and Ireland when both countries originally rejected EU Treaties in referendums. In addition, in view of the clear majority in my constituency voting to ‘remain’ I will not be voting to trigger Article 50.

"As I have said the referendum has been highly divisive and I deplore the racist attacks which have occurred on innocent migrants and want the perpetrators pursued and brought before the Courts.

"The people have, however, made the decision and it is now incumbent on Parliament and the Government to negotiate a deal with the EU and to try and heal the wounds which have been opened in the country and to ensure that prosperity is shared by all and does not just enrich further a few already very rich people."

Posted on 2016-06-20 | 12:36

Roger has tabled an Early Day Motion condemning the deliberate targeting of attacks on medical facilities in Syria by Russian regime and Assad forces.

It reads: "That this House notes with very great concern the ongoing targeting of medical facilities in Syria by airstrikes carried out by the Russian Air Force and by Assad regime forces; further notes that doctors, nurses, healthcare workers, patients and civilians have been killed in huge numbers as a result of these barbaric and unjustifiable attacks; notes that these attacks make it much more difficult for Syrian civilians to access essential healthcare within their own country; observes that schools and other civilian infrastructure have also been targeted, leading to loss of life among teachers and children; further observes that these attacks are very accurate and that the targeting of civilian infrastructure is deliberate; notes that this contravenes international law and the rules of warfare, including the Geneva Conventions which call for parties to conflict to take action to ensure the safety of medical teams operating in warzones; condemns in the strongest possible terms the deliberate targeting of medical facilities and medical workers; calls on the Russian government to respect the Geneva Conventions, to which it is a State Party, and immediately desist from targeting attacks at civilians, the wounded or at those carrying out medical or humanitarian work; and calls on the Government to do all it can to support medics and humanitarian organisations operating in Syria and to protect healthcare workers and civilians."

Posted on 2016-06-10 | 04:12

Roger has criticised the decision by the European Commission to deny protected EU food status to the Birmingham Balti.

He commented: “The decision by the European Commission is stupid, arrogant and, in my opinion, snobbish. To give protected EU food status to Champagne and Parma Ham but to deny the Balti a similar status smacks, as Richard McComb said, of bureaucratic ignorance, and it would cause genuine offence to Balti restaurants throughout Birmingham, many of whom are in the Balti triangle in my constituency.”

Posted on 2016-05-04 | 05:05

I believe, on balance, that it would be better for the United Kingdom to vote to leave on the 23rd June. To understand why, we need to look at some of the historical background. The ‘Common Market’ which Britain entered under the Heath Government in the early 1970s was essentially a free trade area. It evolved into the European Union in 1975.

In the mid-1980s, the Trade Union movement and the Labour Party, which had previously been sceptical about the whole concept of a European Union, also signed up to it after the European Commission President, Jacques Delors, told the Trade Union movement that the only way they could protect themselves against the ravages of Thatcherism and its attacks on working people was to seek the protection of the European Union. Almost overnight the majority of Trade Unions switched from being sceptical or anti-EU to being supportive of the institution.

The coming into being of the European Union was a massive step away from the Common Market. From being just a free trade area this was a huge step towards the creation of a United States of Europe, modelled on the way America was governed, which was always the intention of the founding fathers of the European Iron and Steel community which was a precursor to the Common Market. This could only be achieved by stealth because if the people of Europe were asked, on a regular basis, whether they wished to be part of a European super state then it was highly likely that the proposal would have been rejected.

The European Union is a ‘protectionist club’ of 28 member states with a combined population of 506 million people. Its Single Market rules are very much modelled on neoliberal economic thinking, with capital free to move anywhere within the 28 countries and the 506 million people free to work and settle in any of the countries without any restrictions. In all capitalist economies the sole purpose of companies is to maximise profits for their shareholders. Having 28 countries within which to move capital around means that large companies and multi-national businesses can locate where they can maximise their profits and keep their costs, including wage costs, as low as possible.

Coupled with the ability to minimise tax liabilities by convoluted accounting methods which allow corporations to pretend they operate from tax havens such as Luxemburg within the EU, and Switzerland and exotic tax havens outside of the EU, it is obvious why big business and globalised corporations are fervently in favour of the UK remaining within the EU.

The questions, therefore, which those on the left need to ask is whether the European Union is good value for money and what’s in it for the workers in terms of benefits and jobs.

Firstly, costs. The Government forecasts that net payments to the EU budget for 2016/17 by the UK will be £10.178 billion. Only four out of the 28 members of the EU are net contributors and the UK is the second largest contributor to the EU budget.

Secondly, benefits. It is often claimed by EU enthusiasts that 3 million jobs would be ‘at risk’ if we left the EU. This is highly misleading and arose from a study by the National Institute of Economic and Social Affairs in 1999 which calculated that 3 million jobs are associated with trade with the EU. These three million jobs depend on the continuation of trade with the EU, not on continued membership. It is disingenuous to claim that if we left the EU there would be no further trading between us, particularly as the United Kingdom has a massive trade imbalance of £65 billion with the EU.

The strongest argument put forward by the Remain camp to Labour and Trade Union members is the alleged benefits that workers in the UK get from various employment rights conferred on them by the EU. However, most of the labour rights which are commonly cited as benefits of EU membership, such as maternity and paternity pay, were already enshrined in UK law before the EU sought to harmonise them throughout the 28 member countries.

The British Government has no powers to protect the British steel industry because of EU procurement policy. We cannot, for example, insist that the new HS2 project should only use UK produced steel. In addition, if TTIP goes through then it will fundamentally undermine the sovereignty of all EU member states including the UK. It would greatly reduce the ability of Governments to regulate on behalf of citizens and the environment and it would endanger public services, particularly the NHS, and jeopardise labour standards and food safety.

Those on the left who support the UK leaving the European Union do not believe that Britain is taking a step back into some sort of romantic vision of the past when Britain had an empire across the globe. They believe that the UK, which is still the fifth largest economy in the world, can do better by taking back the sovereignty which we have ceded to the EU and by allowing our democratically elected UK Parliament to make our own laws. The EU Commissioner, Viviane Reding, has admitted that ‘70% of British laws are made in the EU’.

Of course, if the UK votes to leave the EU, there will be panic among the establishment and in the financial markets on the day after and dire predictions of what will follow. But back in 2008 the financial system of the UK, and indeed of the western world, was taken to brink of collapse through the greed and irresponsibility of those self-same people in the financial sector who are now predicting chaos if the people of the UK do not do what they want them to do and vote to remain.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt became President as America experienced a depression following on from the financial crisis on Wall Street in 1929. In his first address to the American people after being elected he made the prophetic comment that ‘the American people have nothing to fear but fear itself’ and the people of the United Kingdom - who are facing a barrage of scare stories and predictions of doom - also have nothing to fear and should take back their own destiny by voting to leave the EU on the 23rd June.

This is an edited version of a longer article. To read the full article, click here.

Posted on 2016-04-27 | 05:37

Speaking from his office in Parliament after the collapse of BHS, Roger condemned the current regulatory framework which permits greedy billionaires to asset-strip formerly productive UK businesses to the point of collapse.

Recent figures from the Guardian revealed that former BHS owner Sir Philip Green and his family extracted an astonishing £586m from BHS over 15 years in the form of rent, interest and dividends. Over this same time period, the BHS pension fund went into a deficit of £571m from its original surplus.

Said Roger: “For Green and his family to be rolling in wealth in offshore tax havens while BHS’s hardworking employees face unemployment and the loss of their pensions is utterly disgraceful. While Green orders multiple yachts, the people who really generated this wealth are being left to struggle.

 “It is not acceptable for Green to extract funds of this magnitude—not so coincidentally, almost the same amount that is now missing from the pension fund---and then walk away to a life of luxury. As far as I am concerned, this is essentially an act of theft from BHS employees, and from the taxpayer, who will now have to pick up the bill in the form of unemployment benefits, as well as from other businesses which will also be financially liable through their contributions to the Pension Protection Fund.

“Green will now have to appear in front of a Parliamentary Committee, and is facing calls to give up his knighthood if he does not pay back these dividends. I do not believe that this is sufficient. We should not be asking him nicely to give back these funds which he has seized from his own employees—we should be demanding it, along with stripping him of his knighthood and instigating criminal proceedings for theft, negligence and misappropriation of funds, not to mention tax avoidance.

“The Government should also seriously consider bringing in legislation to prevent similar incidents from happening again. We need rules to be put in place to prevent greedy, unscrupulous people such as Green from extracting huge amounts of money from a business then walking away when the company collapses due to lack of funds. This could include preventing dividends being paid while pension funds are in deficit, and capping the total amount that directors can be paid as a percentage of profits generated over the past ten years.

" Putting in place pay ratios between the highest and lowest paid staff in a business would also help. We also need serious action to crack down on tax avoidance and the use of tax havens, which the Government have been promising for some time but still have not delivered. What is lacking is not effective ways to stop this from happening, but the political will to implement solutions and stop the greed of the super-rich from destabilising our economy.”

“Nor should Green be permitted to hide behind the sale to Dominic Chappell, a former racing driver who had twice been declared bankrupt. Despite BHS’s financial problems, Chappell paid himself a salary of more than half a million pounds, as well as diverting £3m of an £8.4m loan taken out of BHS to four directors, including himself. In addition, the week before BHS collapsed Chappell moved £1.5m out of the store into an unconnected corporate entity. On being asked to return the money, he did so minus £50,000, which he claimed was the cost of changing currencies.”

Posted on 2016-04-11 | 12:33

Speaking at an event in his Hall Green constituency, Roger strongly criticised the decision of the Government to spend £9 million on sending leaflets to every household in the UK urging voters to vote to remain in the European Union Referendum on the 23rd June.

Said Roger: “It is totally wrong for the Government to spend £9 million on what is blatant propaganda in favour of remaining in the EU. This is taxpayers’ money, and the general public would much sooner see this money spent on public services – such as the Health Service – rather than on biased political propaganda.

“The Electoral Commission are already going to allocate money to both the ‘In’ and ‘Out’ campaigns for them to make their case to the people of this country and there is no justification, therefore, for the Government spending taxpayers’ money on this type of material, which is highly slanted and factually contentious.

“It shows how desperate the establishment is to try and ‘con’ the British people because it is just beginning to dawn on them that the British people are beginning to seriously question whether spending £50 million a day – £350 million a week and £19 billion a year – on being a member of the European Union is good value for money.”

Posted on 2016-04-07 | 12:48

Roger believes strongly that we urgently need to tackle tax dodging to prevent wealthy corporations and individuals from opting out of paying their fair share of tax.

 It is really important to bring in a full register of beneficial ownership along with full, transparent, public country by country reporting if we are to make progress in tackling the corruption and misappropriation of funds which is facilitated by the existence of tax havens.

Roger has tabled an Early Day Motion calling for country by country reporting, which you can read here. He has also previously tabled a motion on tax havens, which you can read here. He recently tabled a number of Written Parliamentary Questions to the Government about action on making country-by-country tax reports public, the effect of UK policies on tax and overseas territories on the effectiveness of Government steps to tackle global poverty, introducing requirements on responsible tax behaviour into Government procurement policy, and beneficial ownership.

Said Roger: “I have been following the Panama revelations with great interest. They are shocking although sadly not all that surprising, but I am hopeful that this will result in renewed pressure on the Government to take action on the role played by the UK territories.”

Posted on 2016-03-23 | 12:59

Roger has tabled an Early Day Motion calling on the Government to begin the process of fully decarbonising the UK as soon as possible to help prevent disastrous levels of damage to the climate.

The Energy Minister recently stated that the UK will enshrine in law the goal of reaching zero carbon emissions. Said Roger: “I fully support this plan, and urge the Government to bring in this legislation as soon as possible.”

The UK is already under a legal obligation to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, but the UK should be aiming for emissions as close to zero as possible. Because the total amount of carbon emitted will determine the amount by which temperatures rise, it is essential to front-load carbon cuts and start reducing emissions as soon and as quickly as possible.

The EDM urges the Government to take all possible steps to start cutting carbon emissions as rapidly as possible, including by de-carbonising the energy supply. It also points out that new nuclear power stations take decades to come online, while wind and solar power can be set up much more quickly and cheaply.

Roger commented: “I will fully support the Government in taking measures to cut the UK's carbon emissions as much as possible. I urge them to bring in this legislation as soon as possible, and not allow this to be yet more greenwash that is not backed up by action.”

You can read the full EDM here: www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/1294

Posted on 2016-03-16 | 01:03

The 17th March is commemorated as St. Patrick’s Day in memory of Patrick the son of Calpurnius, a Roman-British army officer, who was born in the 4th century AD. Having originally being sold into slavery by pirates he escaped and went to Ireland where he spent 20 years travelling throughout the country establishing Monasteries and setting up schools and Churches and winning converts for Christianity.

Although originally a Catholic Holy Day St. Patrick’s Day has evolved into a secular holiday which is celebrated by Irish people of all religious faiths and of none as a celebration of the Irish culture and I extend greetings to all my constituents of Irish descent on this happy occasion.

Posted on 2016-02-29 | 12:23

St. David’s Day is a time when all Welsh people celebrate. It is the national day to recognise the patron saint of Wales, St. David, who was a Celtic monk, abbot and bishop who lived in the sixth century. He became Archbishop of Wales and was one of the early saints who helped spread Christianity among the pagan Celtic tribes of western Britain.

Said Roger: "On St. David’s Day Welsh people will celebrate by wearing their daffodils proudly, and I extend my warmest greeting to all people of Welsh descent who live in my constituency and wish them well on this joyous occasion."

Posted on 2016-02-19 | 12:19

Roger has given his support to the innovative idea put forward by the new Leader of Birmingham City Council, John Clancy, to invest public sector pension pots in new housing and infrastructure projects in the city.

Said Roger “This is just the sort of new thinking and innovative idea that Birmingham needs. sing the £11 billion West Midlands Local Government Pension Fund would transform infrastructure projects in Birmingham and the West Midlands Region and is very much in the tradition of Joseph Chamberlain who, when Mayor and Leader of the Council 150 years ago, transformed the City of Birmingham by a massive public buildings programme.

"I am also very supportive of Councillor Clancy’s ideas to raise money by selling 'Brummie Bonds' because this would be a genuine way, not a cosmetic way as proposed by the Government, of enabling local and regional authorities to have real economic power and to pay investors a decent return while the money is used to build new homes and other much needed infrastructure projects.”

Posted on 2016-02-12 | 04:57

“I do not take a hard line position either in favour of the UK leaving the European Union, or the UK remaining in the European Union. The last time the British people were asked whether Britain should stay or leave was back in 1975 when the European Union was then a ‘Common Market’, which Britain had entered under the Heath Government in the early 1970s.

The Common Market was essentially a free trade area and in the 1975 Referendum I voted for Britain to remain as a member of the Common Market. Since 1975 the Common Market has evolved, radically, into a European Union and this was cemented when Mrs. Thatcher signed the ‘Single European Act’ around 1986. According to her memoirs, and to her political advisor at the time, John Whittingdale who is now the Secretary of State for Culture, she was told by Foreign Office officials and European Commissioners that this was merely a tidying up exercise to bring to a conclusion the creation of the Single Market and had no other significance.

 Subsequently, according once again to her memoirs, she realised that what she had done had much more significance and she openly admitted that she bitterly resented having allowed the legislation to go through the UK Parliament.

  At the same time, in the mid-1980s, the Trade Union movement and Labour Party which had, until then, been sceptical about the whole concept of a European Union also signed up to it after the European Commission President, Jacques Delors, went to the TUC and told the Trade Union movement that the only way they could protect themselves against the ravages of Thatcherism, and her attacks on working people, was to seek the protection of the European Union.

Almost overnight the majority of Trade Unions switched from being sceptical or anti-EU to being supportive of the institution. The coming into being of the European Union was a massive step away from the Common Market. From being just a free trade area this was a huge step towards the creation of a United States of Europe, modelled on the way America was governed, which was always the intention of the founding fathers of the European Iron and Steel community which was a precursor to the Common Market.

The two most prominent advocates of the setting up of the European Iron and Steel community were called Monet and Schumann and they knew, as their biographical histories acknowledge, exactly what they had in mind which was, eventually, a United States of Europe modelled on America but they were also aware that this would take time and could only be done step by step.

 Most importantly they were aware that it had to be achieved by stealth because if the people of Europe were asked, on a regular basis, whether they wished to be part of a European super state then it was highly likely that the proposal would have been rejected. This principle of never, unless in the most extreme circumstances, consulting the people of Europe has been something which the Federalists have stood by ever since and whenever a new treaty is signed by Governments and there are objections amongst the electorates of member states the whole paraphernalia of the Brussels bureaucracy is then mobilised to ‘rubbish’ such criticism and to vehemently deny that what is being proposed is in anyway a movement towards the creation of a European super state modelled on America.

Because any criticism of the direction that Europe has been going has always been belittled by the Federalists a massive amount of resentment has been built up and what we are seeing now in various parts of Europe and, what I think will happen in the UK, is that a lot of people will vote against the European Union because they have never been told the truth about what the real intentions are and, to put it bluntly, they feel that they have been conned.

If this does happen in the Referendum in the UK then the only people to blame would be the Federalists fanatics who have deliberately not made the arguments for why they believe that a European super state, modelled on America, should be created with most political power residing at the centre in Brussels and with the individual member states relegated to being component parts of the super state like American states such as Delaware, Philadelphia and Florida.

Turning back now to the specific arguments which will arise in the Referendum, I think the first thing which needs to be said is what the Prime Minister ‘achieves’ in his negotiations will have very little relevance to the debate which takes place. From day one he set out with a minimalist agenda because he had very little flexibility and what he will finally ‘achieve’ will hardly figure in the Referendum debate at all.

The argument as to whether we should stay or leave is going to centre around whether we are economically better off in or out and whether having control over who we allow into this country – and how many people we allow into this country – is preferable to the current situation whereby any of the 503 million people living in the 28 countries of the European Union have an absolute right to move to any country within the Union and to settle and work there without the national Governments being able to place any restriction on them.

The question of the mass migration of populations from Syria should not be part of the debate because these are genuine political refugees fleeing for their lives but I suspect that it will figure in the thoughts of many people who do not favour unrestricted movement of people within the 28 countries of the EU.

As I said right at the beginning I do not have a hard and fast position and I have a great deal of respect for people such as Ted Heath and Denis Healey who, as serving soldiers in the Second World War, saw the destruction of Europe and dedicated their political careers to ensuring that such a thing did not happen again and if this involved binding countries of Europe so closely together then this was as a price worth paying. This idealistic argument has never been properly articulated by the Federalists who, as I have said, have tried to achieve the establishment of an United States of Europe by stealth and, in doing so, they have denied what the so-called ‘project’ is all about.

People are not stupid and many people have become increasingly angry – aided and abetted it needs to be said by elements in the press – and this anger has simmered below the surface for a long time. The European Union has all the basic ingredients of a super state – a flag; an anthem; European citizenship and its own currency – the Euro – as well as its own Parliament which people in this country, and in many other part so Europe, do not relate to at all. Nevertheless to have the basic building blocks of a state but to deny the real intention of the European Union is just disingenuous and causes cynicism and frustration to many people and I suspect this is going to show itself in the Referendum.

On balance, therefore, I believe that the United Kingdom would be better off out of Europe. The UK is the second largest contributor to the EU budget giving £50 million every day which amounts to £19 billion every year. Less than half this money comes back to us and when it does it is Brussels which determines what it can be spent on and not the Westminster Parliament. The Common Agricultural Policy swallows £43 billion a year – 40% of the entire EU budget – and yet agriculture is just 1.6% of the EU economy and the £3 billion a year in subsidy which goes to British farmers is heavily targeted towards the richest land owners including multi-national agro businesses. Our fishing industry, which used to be a major source of employment and sustained communities along the shores of the United Kingdom, has been destroyed by the EUs Fishing Policy.

Furthermore I am totally opposed to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) which is a secret agreement being drawn up between the US Government and the European Commission, driven by the American Chamber of Commerce, which will not only open up our public services, such as the NHS, to encroachment by US corporations but will also allow those corporations to sue Governments, such as ours, if a future Labour Government were to re-acquire public assets such as the railways into a form of public ownership which results in a loss of on-going profits by the corporations owning them.

Furthermore there is one other factor which needs to be considered. The European Union is huge organisation with 6,000 people employed in Brussels alone. Its budget is over £100 billion a year but its accounts have not been signed off by the Commmisison’s own auditors for over 15 years. No other organisation with such a huge budget – whether governmental or private – could operate in this way and not have its accounts audited yearly and signed off by their auditors.

I hope that the Referendum will allow plenty of time for these important issues to be discussed and for people to make up their own minds and I think the Government will be making a great mistake if it thinks that by rushing through a Referendum in a couple of month’s time it will necessarily get the result it wants. If the decision of the British people is to remain as part of the European Union then such a decision will of course be respected by me and if the decision of the people is to leave the European Union then I don’t think it will be the end of the civilisation which some people are predicting.

I am sorry for the length of this response but I felt it was important that my constituents should know, in detail, what my views are on a subject which is going to have profound repercussions for the future of this country."

Posted on 2016-02-11 | 11:26

Roger has accused the Government of a stitch-up after the Chancellor handed hundreds of millions of pounds to the wealthiest Tory councils to ease the pain of spending cuts – but offered nothing to Birmingham.

Birmingham has suffered some of the highest spending cuts since 2010, but has received nothing at all in the recent funding round. Meanwhile, leafy Surrey – one of England’s wealthiest shires – today gets a hand-out of £24m despite suffering far fewer cuts in recent years.

Tory MPs became alarmed when they realised their areas might soon see cuts similar to those imposed on the rest of the country. They threatened to vote down the Government’s planned cuts until Communities Secretary Greg Clark announced a £300 million ‘transitional grant’.

 The Government have refused to say where the extra money comes from. Labour analysis shows that £255 million of the grant – 85% – goes to Tory councils. Areas where Labour runs the council receive just £17 million, despite suffering the harshest cuts since 2010 and having higher levels of deprivation.

Roger said: “It is absolutely outrageous that the Conservatives continue to hand out funding to councils they control, while punishing cities such as Birmingham with drastic funding cuts which are destroying our essential public services. It is utterly wrong and immoral for the Conservatives to divert funding to reward their own supporters in this way, while punishing poorer areas and Labour voters.”

Steve Reed MP, Shadow Minister for Local Government, said: “The Government is covering up where this money has come from and won’t explain why almost all of it is being handed to Tory councils just weeks before council elections across the country.

“Councils that have already been cut to the bone since 2010 are getting nothing but more cuts. The Tories have picked millions of pounds from taxpayer’s pockets to buy off their own MPs when faced with a rebellion in the House of Commons. This is a blatant misuse of public money in a shameless attempt to buy votes and buy off Tory MPs.”

Posted on 2016-02-04 | 06:03

Roger, who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Syria, has called for the UK to take part in food drops to help civilians in Syria who are being starved by the Assad regime and other militias.

Roger has tabled an Early Day Motion calling for the UK to take action to alleviate the horrendous suffering caused by the use of starvation against civilians as a weapon of war, which is a war crime. People living in the town of Madaya were forced to eat grass and leaves and kill pets, and some have already died of hunger. In addition, people including children have been killed or maimed by Assasd’s forces when they attempted to leave besieged areas to access food or collect firewood.

People suffering from starvation in Syria have called on the international community for help and asked for deliveries of food aid. At present, delivery by road depends on the Assad regime granting access, which is frequently refused.

Roger has called on the Government to act immediately to airdrop food, fuel and medical supplies to these communities and alleviate the appalling conditions the regime is inflicting on Syrians. However, the response from the Government has been that to airdrop aid is “not the most effective way to improve the humanitarian situation” and would involve risk to aircraft.

Roger commented: “It is outrageous that the UK will drop bombs on Syria but refuses to airdrop desperately needed food and medical supplies to starving people. The UK’s bombing campaigns have done nothing to improve the situation, but here we have a chance to have a positive impact and help people who desperately need it, and save civilian lives.”

The Government’s claim that airdrops would be too risky has failed to convince experts in this area. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, who was the commanding officer of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment and Nato's Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion, and who is now an advisor to NGOs working in Syria, commented that: “Air drops appear to be the only feasible way to get meaningful amounts of aid into the 17 besieged cities in Syria at the moment. The RAF are genuine experts at precision air drops and from the UK base in Cyprus it would be a relatively short trip to these besieged towns. What is key is that the RAF are given free air space to operate in and this is in Putin’s gift. Given this we could, with support of other NATO countries, shift huge amounts of aid by this in a short time into these areas and sustain them.”

Speaking after a Syria APPG event on civilian protection, Roger said: “The UK’s priority in Syria must be to protect human life. In addition to ensuring aid reaches those who need it, we should be working with the international community to create and police safe havens inside Syria, in addition to taking in our fair share of refugees.”

Posted on 2016-02-01 | 01:30

I extend congratulations to my Chinese constituents on the occasion of the Chinese New Year – the Year of the Monkey.

8th February marks the start of the biggest event in the Chinese calendar and up to 15 days of celebrations.

 This year is the Year of the Monkey and people born in the Year of the Monkey are characterised as quick-witted, curious, innovative and mischievous.

  The Chinese New Year is a great time for family and friends to celebrate and an excellent opportunity for generations to come together to share plans for the forthcoming year and to reflect on the past year.

I extend greetings to all my Chinese constituents on this happy occasion.

Posted on 2016-01-28 | 05:19

Roger has tabled an Early Day Motion supporting local councils’ right to decide on an ethical investment policy, and condemning the Government’s plans to amend legislation to prevent this.

The Government are planning to change the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2009 to prevent local government from choosing not to invest funds in companies involved in the arms trade, illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, tobacco industries or fossil fuels.

Roger believes that that councils have not only the right, but also the duty, to avoid financially supporting companies making a profit from human misery, exploitation and death.

He commented: “It is absolutely right for councils to follow the wishes of local people when it comes to choosing where to invest their funds. I fully support and applaud local citizens and councils who work together to create an ethical investment policy. It would be shameful and outrageous for the Government to attempt to stop people from exercising their democratic right to decide where their money goes and which companies they support.”

The motion states that rather than trying to force people to support unethical companies against their will, the Government should seriously reconsider its own exporting rules and foreign policy and stop selling weapons to countries such as Saudi Arabia, which uses them against civilians in Yemen. The Government must stop this disgraceful attack on local democracy and start acting on the principle that public money should be used for public good.

Posted on 2016-01-14 | 05:48

Roger has added his name to a Bill that seeks to bring in tougher penalties for those who drive dangerously and risk the lives of innocent road users and pedestrians.

The Criminal Driving (Justice for Victims) Bill was presented in the House of Commons earlier this week by Greg Mulholland, MP for Leeds North West, with Roger as one of the Bill’s co-sponsors. They were joined by 29 further MPs, from all parties, who also backed the Bill.

The Bill has called for increasing the length of sentences, to redefine criminal driving, amend bail conditions, and to enhance investigation standards by both the police and in courts. It also calls for improving the treatment of victims and their families. According to the most recent government figures, for the year 2014-15, 389 people were killed due to dangerous driving.

Campaigners have long argued that sentences are too light and do not reflect the severity of offences. An ongoing review by the Ministry of Justice into driving offences is expected to produce a consultation document later this year into potential legislative changes that are likely to follow in 2017.

Roger said: “I am pleased to co-sponsor the Criminal Driving Bill and its call for tougher sentences for dangerous drivers. The law urgently needs to be amended to ensure that those who kill or injure through dangerous or careless driving receive justice in the form of proportionate penalties rather than a slap on the wrist.”

Greg Mulholland MP added: “I greatly welcome Roger’s support for the Criminal Driving Bill. He has campaigned on behalf of families whose lives have been affected by a reckless driver and who feel let down by our legal system. With Roger’s support, we will continue the campaign for tougher laws until proper justice is delivered.”

Alice Bailey, Campaigns and Communications Officer at road safety charity Brake, also added: “Brake is very pleased to see Roger helping to lead the Criminal Driving Bill and fight for victims of criminal driving and their families. We have long believed that our legal system gives them a raw deal and that’s why it is vital Parliament brings forward some much needed changes. The Criminal Driving Bill contains many of these changes and we hope to continue working with Roger on this hugely important issue.”

Posted on 2016-01-13 | 12:59

Roger has asked the Government whether they will reconsider their support for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership trade deal following the announcement that a tar sands company is suing the American Government under existing trade law after Obama decided against a massive new tar sands pipeline.

Obama decided against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline due to the serious environmental concerns raised by tar sands oil. However, his right to act on behalf of the citizens he was elected to represent and in order to prevent catastrophic environmental destruction is being challenged by TransCanada, the company pushing the pipeline, which is attempting to sue the US Government for $15 billion. If successful, this sum will be paid by American taxpayers, who have been given no choice about whether they want their taxes to fund the most dangerous and dirty form of fossil fuels.

Roger has tabled a Written Parliamentary Question to ask the Prime Minister whether the UK Government have considered whether TTIP would make the UK more vulnerable to similar lawsuits. He also asked whether the Government will insist that TTIP does not contain provisions which would allow such lawsuits to be brought in the UK, and whether the Government are reconsidering their support for TTIP in light of this lawsuit.

Said Roger: “This appalling lawsuit shows exactly why the UK must stay out of trade deals which prioritise the rights of greedy multinationals to make a profit over the rights of citizens to breathe clean air and make their own decisions about how their country is run. The UK Government must be accountable to the citizens they were elected to serve, not to unfair trade law which puts profits before people. Governments are perfectly right to pass legislation which protects the environment and supports clean energy, and we urgently need more support for renewables. It is outrageous for companies to be able to sue the taxpayer for lost profits from projects that were too dangerous and polluting to go ahead.

“I hope that the Prime Minister will reconsider his support for TTIP in the light of this lawsuit. TTIP could leave UK taxpayers liable to being sued for billions by fracking companies. There is no support for fracking in the UK, and I do not see why the UK citizens should be forced to pay out to fracking companies.”