Mark Reckless MP welcomes RSPB and Friends of North Kenth Marshes to Parliament
Rochester and Strood MP Mark Reckless and David Amess MP, member for Southend West, welcomed environmental organisations and campaigners to Parliament yesterday to discuss the case against a new airport in the Thames Estuary region.
The event, which was held in the Palace of Westminster’s Jubilee Room, brought together representatives from organisations such as the RSPB, Kent Wildlife Trust, CPRE, Medway Council and Friends of North Kent Marshes to debate the issues surrounding the proposals. Guest speakers included Dr Mike Clarke, Chief Executive of the RSPB and Gordon Henderson, MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey.
The message coming out of the event was very clear: No Estuary Airport! Politically, environmentally and economically, the proposals presented for a new Thames Estuary airport are wrong for Kent and wrong for Britain.
Speaking after the event, Mark Reckless said:
“In fighting off these devastating airport proposals we are so incredibly lucky in Medway to have the support of the RSPB, an extraordinarily effective and powerful organisation, and such dedicated, consistent campaigners as George Crozer, Joan Darwell and Gill Moore of Friends of North Kent Marshes.
It was an honour to co-sponsor this event with David Amess MP, and I would like to thank everybody who spoke so passionately against these proposals. A Thames Estuary airport remains wrong for Kent and wrong for Britain.”
Rochester and Strood MP Mark Reckless will hold two open surgeries this coming Friday (27th April) in both Strood and Halling.
Since being elected as Member of Parliament for Rochester and Strood in 2010, Mark has held regular MP surgeries around the constituency. Mark is keen to ensure that all residents in the constituency have access to their elected member, and local residents are encouraged to come along and discuss any local or national issues which they may have.
Mark will be at the following venues this Friday;
11am-1pm – Marlowe Park GP Surgery, Wells Road, Strood, ME2 2PW
2pm-4pm – Community Centre, High Street, Halling, ME2 1BS
No appointment is necessary, however all appointments are on a ‘first come, first served basis’ so please get there early. Ward and parish councillors should also be available to assist with any issues which may arise locally.
If you would like any further info, please call Mark’s constituency office on 01634 409917.
At lunchtime today the Home Affairs Select Committee will question Theresa May about Abu Qatada. We can clarify issues through detailed and sustained questioning in a way which is not possible in the more partisan Chamber where each member is limited to one question.
We will in particular challenge her claim that the government would be “breaking the law” were it to deport Qatada. How can this be true when Parliament has incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998, and the highest UK court ruled it allows Qatada to be deported?
Theresa May says that “The proper processes must be followed and the rule of law must take precedence”. However, the reality is that the government is ignoring the judgment of our highest court based on the law as passed by Parliament, and incorporating the ECHR international law by which the government sets such store.
Instead the government prefers to defer to a European court in Strasbourg, whose judgments are not binding in UK law, even if it conflicts with the judgment of our own highest court, which is binding.
Since the Civil War ministers of the crown have been accountable to Parliament and to our courts. The refusal of ministers to deport Qatada therefore not only places British citizens in danger, but challenges the constitutional basis of our democracy.
The Home Secretary, one can only assume on the basis of advice from the Attorney-General Dominic Grieve, wants us to accept that inter-governmental custom in the Council of Europe, or the provisions of the Ministerial Code, are somehow higher authority than law as passed by the UK Parliament and interpreted by the UK’s highest court.
Were we considering the EU’s European Court of Justice (ECJ) such a position would be legally unobjectionable, however much I might wish to reverse the position politically, since section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 gives priority to EU law unless it is clearly disapplied by Parliament.
However, Parliament has never given such primacy to the ECHR, or provided for judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to have direct effect in UK law, in the way that it has for the EU and ECJ.
The Rule 39 ECtHR injunction which the Home Secretary cites therefore has no effect in UK law to prevent deportation. Further, it is far from certain that Qatada’s lawyers would win the domestic injunction from a UK court that they need to make any deportation illegal, since our highest court has ruled that Qatada may be deported, and its judgments bind other UK courts.
Were a lower court to consider that circumstances had so changed in Qatada’s favour (rather than against him given further Jordanian guarantees) as to allow a different decision, then “proper process” and “the rule of law” surely imply reconsideration by the Supreme Court, not assertion by ministers of a higher ECtHR law contrary to parliamentary and domestic judicial authority.
The final refuge of ministers who prefer to put the ECtHR before the law as determined by our Parliament and highest court is that “it would be contrary to the Ministerial Code to deport Qatada”, presumably on the basis of paragraph 1.2 of the Ministerial Code which states:
“The Ministerial Code should be read alongside the Coalition agreement and the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations”
The Home Secretary and, particularly, the Attorney-General make this point rather smugly, as if it were a knock-down argument against deporting Qatada. They ignore the fact that the relevant international law, the ECHR, is now part of our domestic law and therefore ultimately judiciable by our Supreme Court. They should also consider that the Ministerial Code:
a) merely states that it should be read against the background of any duty to comply with international law, and does not itself impose such a duty;
b) suggests that international law is in that context a similar level of constraint as the Coalition agreement
c) is issued by the Prime Minister who judges whether its contents and the conduct of his ministers are appropriate;
d) has not under any previous Conservative Prime Minister referred to a need to comply with international law; and has no statutory force and is “neither comprehensive nor absolute. Ministers are accountable to Parliament, not a piece of paper” (ex-Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler)
Mark Reckless MP congratulates Cliffe Spice owner Sheikh Islam on nomination
Rochester and Strood MP Mark Reckless has nominated Cliffe Spice, based in Cliffe Woods, for this year’s Tiffin Cup.
Following the success of the Tiffin Cup 2011, MPs have for the 7th year running, been asked to nominate a restaurant in their constituency to be in the running for the best South Asian restaurant in the UK. Last year sixty two restaurants were nominated from around the country and this time it is hoped to build upon the popularity of this mouth-watering competition, encouraging the participation of as many constituencies as possible. The competition offers the opportunity to celebrate the diversity of British culture and recognises the importance of South Asian cuisine.
The Tiffin Cup is awarded every year by the Tiffin Club of MPs, formed in 2006 by former MP John Barrett, Michael Fabricant MP and Keith Vaz MP. The aim is not only to applaud the quality of South Asian food in Britain but also to raise much needed money for charity. This year the competition is in aid of the charity ‘World Vision’.
Cliffe Spice, having now won a place in the regional final will battle it out with other restaurants from the same region to become one the national finalists in the prestigious Tiffin Cup 2012 Grand Final.
Cliffe Spice owner Sheikh Islam, who is hoping to build on the restaurant’s success as a previous winner of the Medway Curry Awards and a finalist in the national British Curry Awards, responded to the nomination by saying:
“I am really pleased to have received this nomination. It’s good to be recognised for all the hard work we do. This will really put Cliffe Woods on the culinary map.”
Mark Reckless MP said:
“I was delighted to nominate Cliffe Spice and I hope it will be chosen to represent our region in the Grand Final of such a prestigious award. The food is always great, and the ambience of the restaurant is good with attentive and friendly staff.
I hope everyone in Rochester and Strood will join me in supporting our restaurant.”
Mr Vaz added:
“After the overwhelming success of last year’s competition we are looking forward to another chance to sample some of the best offerings of Indian food in Britain. At the same time we also hope to encourage some healthy competition amongst MPs from all parties, all while raising money for a worthy charity.”
Dominic Grieve – Attorney General for England and Wales
The Home Secretary made a statement to Parliament on Abu Qatada saying that we are “we are resuming his deportation”. It is good news that Abu Qatada is back in custody and that the Home Secretary notes “the judgement (sic) of British courts that Qatada should be deported”.
Unfortunately, the Home Secretary will not just act on the judgment of the British courts so as to put Abu Qatada straight on a plane back to Jordan. Instead, even though deportation has been approved by our highest court, then the House of Lords and now the Supreme Court, she tells Parliament that the government would be “breaking the law” by doing so and that “The proper processes must be followed and the rule of law must take precedence”.
Why then does the Home Secretary set aside “the judgement of British courts that Qatada should be deported”? I cite fully below the section of her statement relating to this, as well as her replies to me and Dominic Raab when we pressed the point, but in essence the government position, which will reflect the advice of Attorney-General Dominic Grieve, is that it should act on the basis of what the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) says, rather than the UK’s highest court.
Were we considering the EU’s European Court of Justice (ECJ) such a position would be legally unobjectionable, however much I might wish to reverse the position politically, as section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 gives priority to EU law unless it is clearly disapplied by Parliament.
However, that is not the position with respect to the ECtHR. Parliament incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998 so that UK courts could rule on it, as the House of Lords has done saying that Abu Qatada may be deported, but we have not made ECtHR decisions directly applicable in UK law.
So it makes no sense for Theresa May to say “As soon as we issued a deportation notice to Qatada, his lawyers would win an immediate injunction preventing us removing him … no Council of Europe member state now ignores Rule 39 injunctions, which Strasbourg issues to prevent deportations”.
A Rule 39 ECtHR injunction would have no effect in UK law to prevent deportation, while it is far from certain that Qatada’s lawyers would win an injunction to prevent deportation from a UK court. The House of Lords has ruled that Qatada may, or according to the Home Secretary should, be deported, and its judgments are binding on other UK courts.
Were a lower court to consider that circumstances had so changed in Abu Qatada’s favour since the House of Lords had ruled (rather than against given further Jordanian guarantees), then “proper process” and “the rule of law” surely imply reconsideration by the Supreme Court, not assertion by ministers of a higher ECtHR law contrary to parliamentary and domestic judicial authority.
Since the Civil War ministers of the crown have been accountable to Parliament and to our courts. The assertion that claimed inter-governmental custom in the Council of Europe, or the provisions of the ministerial code, represent higher authority as to what constitutes lawful action by UK public servants is as novel as the Attorney-General’s record as a QC.
“The first is why we cannot just ignore Strasbourg and put Qatada on a plane. In reality, we simply could not do that. As Ministers, we would not just be breaking the law ourselves, but would be asking Government lawyers, officials, the police, law enforcement officers and airline companies to break the law too. As soon as we issued a deportation notice to Qatada, his lawyers would win an immediate injunction preventing us from removing him. Even if we somehow succeeded in deporting him against the wishes of the courts, we would be ordered to bring him back to Britain and perhaps even to pay compensation. Instead, our approach will bring an enduring solution. The truth is that of all people and institutions, the Government must obey the law. That means that as long as we remain a signatory to the European convention, we have to abide by Strasbourg’s rulings.
The second concern is why we cannot deport Qatada when other countries have recently deported foreign nationals. The truth is that although all legal systems and all cases are different, no Council of Europe member state now ignores rule 39 injunctions, which Strasbourg issues to prevent deportations.”
…
“Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): The European convention is incorporated into law by the Human Rights Act. On that basis, our supreme court has already ruled that it would be lawful to deport Abu Qatada. Why, therefore, does the Home Secretary say that it would unlawful?
Mrs May: Obviously, for the past three months, a rule 39 injunction against the deportation of Abu Qatada has come from the European Court. As I outlined in my statement, if any move were made to deport him immediately—we have a memorandum of understanding with Jordan about how a deportation would take place, including a timetable that we should abide by; it was a part of our arrangements supported by the European Court and had previously been supported in the UK courts—it would be open to Abu Qatada to issue an injunction. If he were to be deported contrary to that injunction, it would of course be unlawful.
…
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): May I, like others, welcome the Home Secretary’s determination? As already said, the House of Lords has already approved this deportation without the requisite assurances that the Government are now able to provide. I seek some clarification of the rule 39 injunction to which my right hon. Friend has referred. Given the nature of how the UK implements international law, on what basis in UK law would such an injunction be directly enforceable in the UK courts?
Mrs May: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I thought that I had implied the answer to that question in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who is a member of the Home Affairs Committee.
The point is that if we were to act against the rule 39 injunction, it would be open to Abu Qatada—or, indeed, to anyone else in the same position—to go to our UK courts to obtain an injunction against deportation, and we would then find ourselves acting against the law that exists here in the UK. It is on that basis, apart from any other, that I say that we would be acting illegally.”
Our Home Affairs Committee report today on the UK Border Agency (UKBA) insists that ministers are right to take direct control. The Home Secretary has put Brian Moore, a Chief Constable, in charge of the Border Force and I look forward to her now showing that ministers are in charge of UKBA, which should not be called an Agency when it is part of the Home Office.
Following our visit to the Greece/Turkey border the Home Affairs Committee has been calling for a much stronger focus on bringing people smugglers to justice and stiff sentences to deter others. Unfortunately, a UKBA legal case which has only just come to light once again underlines what our Committee has now been saying for a number of years – the UKBA is not fit for purpose.
The judge’s decision in R v Niru Rivindra contains perhaps the most shocking condemnation of a public body, here the UKBA, which I have read since I trained as a lawyer. The outcome of UKBA’s rank incompetence was the waste of a huge amount of time, energy and money, with any people smugglers involved getting away scot-free.
The case shows that UKBA was unable to follow the most basic procedures (e.g. taking a note of a witness interview) needed to bring an offender to justice and that, as it has until now been constituted, UKBA is quite incapable of investigating and prosecuting cases. No-one could tell the judge who was in charge and UKBA could not initially even answer the judge’s question as to who was prosecuting.
The judge in this collapsed case generally commended individual police officers for doing their best, but raised particular concerns about the role of Mr Allen, a UKBA Assistant Director. Many questions still remain unanswered and I will be asking for the Home Affairs Committee to investigate.
At least Brian Moore, the Chief Constable now in charge of the Border Force, should be able to bring some basic police rigour and procedure to UKBA people smuggling investigations and prosecutions.
Mark Reckless joins local councillors and residents to open new Rosebery Road recreation ground
Mark Reckless MP was delighted to open the newly installed children’s playground on the Rosebery Road recreation ground between Lansdowne Road and Beresford Avenue in Rochester South and Horsted ward.
Despite the current financial difficulties, local councillors Trevor Clarke, Sylvia Griffin and Rupert Turpin managed to obtain funding to allow the installation of a new playground in this area. The location will make it ideal for the use of children from the two Balfour schools.
Apparatus is aimed towards the younger children. However, improvements will also be made to the current football pitches to accommodate both a juinior pitch and a mini pitch.
Speaking after the opening, Mark Reckless said:
“I know the local ward councillors fought hard to secure the funding for a new playground in this area. I was delighted to open these new play facilities which will benefit so many children locally.
My congratualtions to the ward councillors for their hard work in delivering these improved facilities.”
We promised to restore recognition of marriage to the tax system. Instead, this budget tells millions of parents that they can only keep child benefit by both going out to work.
If Mum stays home to look after the kids then Dad can only earn half what they could take home as a couple before the family loses child benefit.
All the Chancellor has done in the budget is raise the threshold above which benefit is taken away by around £7,000 and replace his previous ‘cliff-edge’ withdrawal of benefit with a steep taper that leaves single earners with children facing implied marginal tax rates of well over 50% if they have one child, and nearer 80% if they have four or five.
George Osborne has done nothing about the main problem with this policy – a single earner household losing their benefit while a dual earner couple earning up to twice as much keep theirs.
A single earner household, say with Mum staying home to look after the kids, will lose child benefit if they earn between £50,000 and 60,000, but a couple where both parents go out to work can keep their child benefit even if they earn £100,000 between them.
What is Conservative about that? And why on earth is the Chancellor still trying to do it even though colleagues have tried to explain the problem to him time and time again.
Pensions are complex and many find them boring. Consequently few people really understand them.
One person who does understand pensions, or at least should, is Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, who was previously Managing Director at Morgan Stanley, and whose responsibilities include ministerial pensions.
On 15th March he put a statement in the House of Commons library describing some changes to ministers’ pensions to come into effect on 1st April. Ministers’ contributions to their pension scheme are to increase by an average of 1.7% of salary, lower than the 1.85% rate applied to MPs, although ministers earn more, and significantly below the 2.4% applied to most public sector higher earners.
Extra pension contributions for ministers are tiered, so that that parliamentary under-secretaries, who are paid £23,698 in addition to their MP’s salary, pay 1% more. Ministers of state, who get £33,003 more than an MP, pay 1.6% more. Cabinet ministers, who receive an extra £68,828 and therefore £134,565 in total, pay 2.4% higher pension contributions.
On the face of it that seems fair, with higher earners paying higher increases as elsewhere in the public sector.
However, what Francis Maude does not spell out in his statement is that, under the rules of the ministerial scheme, cabinet ministers, unlike junior minister and other MPs, will receive bigger pensions in return for their higher contributions.
Because of the Maude changes cabinet ministers will now receive a full one-twentieth of an MP’s salary in pension for each year they serve in cabinet. That is because the ministerial pension scheme provides:
“For each year of service as a Minister, the contributions you paid are compared to the contributions that would have been paid by an MP as a member of the MPs’ Section to give a contribution factor … At retirement, all the contribution factors are added together and multiplied by the basic annual salary applying to an MP during the last 12 months of your service as a Minister, to calculate the pension payable.”
Under the Maude changes the ‘contribution factor’ for a cabinet minister rises from 0.956 to 0.995. Cabinet ministers will pay in just £229 more per year than they would under the 1.85% increase for MPs. Yet in return, because of the Maude changes and even if they just serve for one parliament, cabinet ministers get an extra £314 added to their pension every year throughout their retirement.
Highest paid benefit at expense of lower paid
For the country as a whole the Prime Minister and Chancellor are keen for those with the broadest shoulders to make bigger sacrifices so as to lighten the load for those who are paid less. However, there is a different approach nearer home.
Ministers on average will pay less as a proportion of their salary for pensions than do backbench MPs. Meanwhile, under the Maude changes, junior ministers’ pensions are cut to pay for higher cabinet pensions. Ministers of state lose £75 from their pensions, more if they are long-serving, while pensions for parliamentary under-secretaries are cut by £183. This follow cuts to their salaries in 2010 of 14% and 17% respectively, compared to only 9% for cabinet ministers.
The message coming out of the event was very clear: No Estuary Airport! Politically, environmentally and economically, the proposals presented for a new Thames Estuary airport are wrong for Kent and wrong for Britain.
