Let Britain Decide

As we at the Adjournment pointed out in a previous article about the membership of Britain in the European Union, the British people have not had a say on what is a very dominant political force in our everyday lives in the last 40 years.

It does not matter whether you are strongly opposed to the idea of the European Union or whether you are in favour of further integration, the point is that it is time to bring the debate to the country and give the people a voice regarding the future ofthe United Kingdom.

The Member of Parliament for Stockton South, James Wharton MP, topped the private member's bill ballot earlier this year and is bringing the referendum bill before Parliament.

The Adjournment supports the great effort by James Wharton to finally bring this bill forward before the next general election, but we recognise there is a long way to go from here.

As the Prime Minister pointed out last week in the House of Commons, there appears to be confusion from the opposition benches regarding this issue with some members of the Shadow Cabinet apparently expressing the need for a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. Those many weeks ago when Ed Milliband stood up in the Commons to respond to the Prime Minister, stating that the Labour Party does not support a referendum in a bid to expose the 'deep Tory divides' on the issue of Europe has backfired incredibly, because the British people want to have that say.

You can get behind the campaign to deliver that referendum promise before the next election by visiting;  www.LetBritainDecide.com

You can find details of how to get involved and how to get in touch with your local MP.

So what are we waiting for? Let us bring the debate to the British people today for a better tomorrow.

        

Prime Minister's Questions: 5 June 2013

Speaker Bercow: Migrant Worker Controversy

Another day, another controversial comment from the Speaker household, although this time not from the outspoken Sally Bercow whose obessession with not endorsing the traditional image of the speakers wife, in her view, landed her in hot water as she accused Lord McAlpine of being involved in sexual abuse via Twitter.

Mr Bercow was elected Speaker in 2009.

The Speaker, John Bercow, has caused uproar as he suggested that migrant workers from Eastern Europe make better worker than British people, claiming that migrant workers have more 'aptitude and commitment'.
Although many would agree with Mr. Bercow that the influx of migrants from the European Union has been a great advantage to the United Kingdom, many will also find that the comments of John Bercow to be totally unfounded and out of touch, for those Britons who roll up the blinds everyday and go to work, where they aim to provide for their families, they will feel undermined by the Speaker.

The issue with these controversial comments is that they come from a political figure who is supposed to be politically neutral, and Mr Bercow has clearly broken the boundaries to comment on matters of policy. The UKIP leader Nigel Farage told the Daily Politics show that Mr. Bercow was a disgrace to the office of Speaker.

Speaking whilst on an official visit to Romania, the Speaker stated that as a friend of Romania, he could see the benefits of immigration in the United Kingdom, but to suggest that the migrants are better workers than the natives of these islands is an outrage, I am sure Mr Bercow would object to the notion of an Eastern European taking his place as Speaker of the House of Commons.
It seems somewhat doubtful as to whether Mr. Bercow will issue an apology for his comments.

Say Sleaze: The Return of the Lobbying scandal?

This week, we have observed the return of the one word which stigmatises the whole basis of the confidence of British voters in the politicians in Westminster, 'Sleaze.'
Over the years, we have seen the big political stories such as cash for honours and cash for questions which has ruined the reputations of politicians from a number of political parties.

It has been revealed, by undercover reporters from the Sunday Times, that three members of the House of Lords were prepared to raise questions in Parli
ament in return for cash from companies, in this case, a South Korean energy firm.

MP's & Peers are allowed to speak on behalf of lobbyists.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with big companies attempting to get close to politicians, the representatives of big industries have an interest in lobbying politicians on issues such as changes to the law, for example, which would see the companies of which the lobbyists are a part, succeed further and grow. This is a perfect example of the operation of democracy because people, whether they are individuals or members of a company have the rights to push those in office or those with influence on the big issues which affect them or their businesses.

The problem in this case, is that the three politicians which have been named by the Sunday Times apparently showed them offering to host functions in the House of Lords, as well as lobby Ministers in return for money.
This is strictly forbidden by rules which are regulated by the Parliamentary Code of Conduct and states that politiciians cannot receive payment as a result of the positions they take on behalf of the lobbyists.


All three Peers deny breaking the rules.

The Ulster Unionist peer, Lord Laird and the two Labour Peers, Lord MacKenzie and Lord Cunningham have referred themselves to the House of Lords Comissioner for standards. Whilst an investigation is being carried out, the Labour Party has rightly taken swift action and suspended both of their Peers, and Lord Laird has resigned the Ulster Unionist whip.
It remains to be seen whether the three Peers will be subject to further action as an investigation is being carried out into the conduct which has appeared to have been carried out in the video recordings of the Sunday Times, but it must be re stated by the Prime Minister and all other party leaders that this kind of self-interest demonstrated by members of all political parties, will not be tolerated and swift disciplinary action will be taken against any MP or member of the House of Lords who seeks to make a profit out of raising an issue within Parliament.

As with any story of potential of misconduct in Westminster, there are those who call for a change in the rules to ensure that this kind of behaviour cannot happen again. The Adjournment does not support any change in the rules, to call for such a change is merely reactionary, to make it seem like something is being done to prevent this kind of behaviour. Both the House of Lords Code of Conduct and the MP's Code of Conduct make it clear that members are not permitted to accept payment for raising question in Parliament, so why is there a need to change the rules? This call for change indicates that there is an ever growing obsession to fix what is not broken. There will always be people in Parliament who will seek to bend the rules, but when they are caught then they face the consequences.

   @TheAdjournment       



https://www.facebook.com/#!/TheAdjournment



Woolwich: The Aftermath of a Terrorist Attack

The other day, we learned of the sickening events which unfolded on a street in Woolwich, a street in which members of our armed forces use regularly.
Drummer Lee Rigby, 25, was attacked and killed in the most horrific way, on his own soil, in his own country by people who were born and bred in the United kingdom.

Drummer Lee Rigby was brutally killed in Woolwich.

The family of Lee Rigby spoke movingly yesterday of his pride as a drummer, as well as his love and dedication to his family and I pay tribute to him for the great pride which he possessed for his job, as well as the love he had for his country. My thoughts and prayers are with his family at this very difficult time.

This tragic and sickening attack has left the people of the United Kingdom rightly outraged, words cannot simply describe the devastation felt and we can only imagine what the family are going through now, but why did this happen? Why Lee Rigby?  Why did this happen when it did?

This act was nothing more than a callous act of terrorism,  and in expressing his outrage at this unforgivable crime, the Prime Minister David Cameron has made clear that there will forever be a refusal ever to give in to the demands of terrorists, we must go about our daily lives if we are to show the terrorist that we are never going to be intimidated. 


Prime Minister David Cameron cut short his trip to Europe.

According to reports, the two men who were arrested on suspision for the murder of Lee Rigby, Micheal Adebowale and Micheal Adebolajo were motivated by their islamic extremism. The Islamic community have been quick to condemn the actions of the two and this is rightly so, their's is a form of Islam not recognised by the majority of muslims in the United Kingdom who wish to live in peaceful communities.

There is however a serious issue which, identified by this, that there is  islamic extremism which appears to be growing within this country, and something must be done to address it.
This extremism is not only visible through the acts of terrorism which have shaken the British people, such as the 7/7 attacks in London. But there are preachers out there, such as Qatada and Hamza, who have become a very familiar sight in the media because of the anti western views which they hold. The hatred for democracy and the United Kingdom bellows from their mouths as they attempt to convert others.

There is such a thing, legally speaking, as the freedom of speech, protected by the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998 in which people are free to criticise the government of the day, but there has to be a balance and those who incite hatred should feel the full force of the law. To those people who walk the streets and incite death to British soldiers, for example, they should be brought to justice by the police who are there to guard the protests.
There is a perception which must be addressed by the police as well as the government, the feeling amongst some British people that if these preachers of hate were to go on a protest and incite hatred, they will get away with it. That perception must change, we are a nation which encourages free speech, but there is no room for hatred of any kind. This should be reflected more by the law as opposed to rhetoric from politicians.

The Home Secretary, much to her credit, has announced that she intends to get tough on those who kill police officers. The tough legislation would see those convicted for the murder of police men and women given a life sentence with no chance of parole. I believe that the Home Secretary should extend her proposal to those serving in the British Army, the Navy and the RAF to ensure that if any of these dedicated men and women are unlawfully killed whilst they are on duty in this country, or who are killed through a motive of hate, then the convicted should face life imprisonment without parole.

The Prime Minister has asserted that there will be no knee jerk reactions, but this will be a fundamental change in the law to ensure that this can never happen again without the knowledge that the convicted can never be released from prison, I believe that justice would be served in that case.

Law Review: The Justice and Security Bill

Attempts to uphold the right to a fair hearing, it could be argued, is threatened by the challenge faced by various governments to maintain national security whilst upholding the rule of law. The United Kingdom government intends to allow ‘closed material procedures’[1] in order for evidence to be heard in secret. The bill seeks to amend[2]  current legislation[3] relating to proceedings of the court where the defendant must face trial by a judge and jury, which is one of the most fundamental aspects of a fair and open hearing where justice is seen to be done.

Another major issue with the Justice and Security Bill which the government seeks to enact is that the Secretary of State for the Home Department may seek to make an application to the court in order to bring about a closed hearing. This undermines the fair operation of the civil justice system[4] whereby evidence can be cross-examined as well as calling evidence themselves. Surely it would be fairer for a judge to decide whether or not there should be closed proceedings rather than the Secretary of State. This bill[5] would cause huge controversy if it were to allow a minister of state the power to make such a decision. The human rights charity, Liberty, describe part 2 of the Justice and Security Bill as ‘unnecessary and corrosive[6]’ and support the removal of certain clauses relating to the holding of secret hearings ‘to prevent severe damage being done to the British justice system.’[7] This proposal may, however, not necessarily breach Article 6 of the convention as the European Court will allow a margin of appreciation, enabling individual states to effectively combat threats to their national security, according to Liberty[8] however, the Justice and Security Bill is incompatible with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention because it clearly breaches the minimal right for the defendant to have knowledge of the charges and the evidence against him[9].

 

The problem is however, that the state can legislate on secret hearings easily due to the unwritten constitution of the UK, and courts may only declare the incompatibility[10] with the Convention on Human Rights and not declare the provisions as invalid. The state therefore can exercise an enormous amount of power, such as the power to be bestowed upon the Secretary of State if the Bill[11] were to be enacted, where it should be for the courts to protect human rights under the Convention. Since 2001, governments in Canada and the United Kingdom appear to have increasingly sought to use secret evidence against individuals suspected of being a security threat.[12] In Canada, for example, the executive, with the approval of the court, may call upon a witness to testify against the defendant on oath in a secret investigative hearing[13] and furthermore, the Attorney General in Canada may block the release of any ‘sensitive’ material in proceedings which could consequently harm national security.[14]  Secrecy is a source of contradiction in a democratic state[15] because although it is paramount for the state to ensure the security of the people, it prevents the people from making informed choices about how they wish to see their country governed. The weakness of the use of secret evidence is the dependence that the judiciary then have on the executive and the dynamic of closed hearings that seems to favour the security interest.[16] This approach is questionable; any person whom the government feels is a threat to national security could face a closed hearing, without knowledge of the evidence against him. It does seem however, that the European Court of Human Rights acts as a safeguard against any unfairness to which the Qatada[17] case is a perfect example, the evidence against him was heard in closed proceedings and he was deemed to be a threat to national security, however, the possible infringement of his right to a fair trial resulted in the UK government losing their case in the Court.

One of the most fundamental questions relating to the protection under Article 6 of the Convention is whether it is safe to convict a suspect on evidence which he cannot question or cross examine. The minimal guarantee under Article 6(3)(d)[18] makes clear that the source of the evidence must be cross examined in court in stating that;

 

‘Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him…’[19]

 

---

[1] Justice and Security Bill, part 2

[2] Justice and Security Bill, Clause 6

[3] S69, Senior Courts Act 1981

[4] The Law Society, Secret courts plans: government concessions don't go far enough, says Law Society (http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press-releases/secret-courts-plans--government-concessions-don-t-go-far-enough,-says-law-society/  (accessed April 2013)

[5] Justice and Security Bill

[6] Liberty’ Liberty’s Report stage briefing on Part 2 of the Justice and Security Bill in the House of Lords http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy12/liberty-s-report-stage-briefing-part-2-justice-security-bill-hol-nov-2012-.pdf (accessed April 2013) Page 3

[7] I.b.i.d Page 3

[8] I.b.i.d Page 17

[9] Vanjak v Croatia (2010) Jan 14 App No. 29889/04 at [52].

[10] S4, Human Rights Act 1998

[11] Justice and Security Bill

[12] Gus Van Harten, Weaknesses of Adjudication in the Face of Secret Evidence (International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 2009) Page 1

[13] The Criminal Code of Canada 1985 (As amended in 2001)

[14] S38, Canada Evidence Act 1985 (As amended in 2001)

[15] Gus Van Harten (n 263) page 1

[16] I.b.i.d page 11

[17] [2012] 8139/09

[18] European Convention of Human Rights

[19] Article 6(3)(d), European Convention of Human Rights