Brexiter Owen Paterson takes UK government to European court of human rights following lobbying scandal – live | Politics

This is what Owen Paterson said about the European convention on human rights in a speech in 2014.

Much of the problematical immigration into this country stems not just from the EU but from the European convention of human rights. This is exacerbated by the rulings of judges in the court at Strasbourg and by our own UK courts implementing the Human Rights Act. Repeal of the HRA and adoption of new bill of rights, breaking free from the ECHR, would also relieve us of migrant pressure, including such absurdities as not being able to deport illegal immigrants who come to us via Calais, because – according to our judges – France is not a “safe” country for asylum seekers.

Outside the EU and freed from the writ of the ECHR, “freedom of movement” within the EEA could be limited to free movement of workers, without having to accept dependants and members of their extended families.

Back at the Commons justice committee, Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, has just signalled that he does not favour withdrawing from the European convention on human rights. He said that he could see “immediate downsides”, such as the fact that the Good Friday agreement assumes an ongoing commitment to the convention, and that he was “not entirely clear what the upsides would be”. Withdrawing from the convention would not solve the small boats problem, he said, because the UK would still face legal obligations to protect asylum seekers.

He said he would want to see a proper cost-benefit analysis of any proposal to withdraw.

The RMT rail union has announced four strikes, each lasting 48 hours, taking place in December and January. In a news release it says:

Rail union, RMT will put on a series of 48-hour strikes in December and January after industry bosses failed to offer any new deals to reach a settlement.

Over 40,000 members across Network and 14 train operating companies will take strike action on 13, 14, 16 and 17 December and on January 3,4,6 and 7.

There will also be an overtime ban across the railways from 18 December until 2 January, meaning RMT be taking industrial action for 4 weeks.

Explaining its reasons for the new strikes, the union said:

The union suspended previous strike action in good faith to allow for intensive negotiations to resolve the dispute.

Yet, Network Rail have failed to make an improved offer on jobs, pay and conditions for our members during the last two weeks of talks.

At the same time Rail Delivery Group, representing the train operating companies, have also broken a promise to make a meaningful offer on pay and conditions and even cancelled negotiations that were due to take place yesterday.

We also have evidence from all 14 of the train companies denying that Rail Delivery Group has the authority to conduct negotiations on their behalf, even as the RDG urged us to come back to the table.

In a statement Mick Lynch, the RMT general secretary, said:

This latest round of strikes will show how important our members are to the running of this country and will send a clear message that we want a good deal on job security, pay and conditions for our people.

We have been reasonable, but it is impossible to find a negotiated settlement when the dead hand of government is presiding over these talks.

The employers are in disarray and saying different things to different people sometimes at the same time. This whole process has become a farce that only the new secretary of state can resolve. When I meet him later this week, I will deliver that message.

In the meantime, our message to the public is we are sorry to inconvenience you, but we urge you to direct your anger and frustration at the government and railway employers during this latest phase of action.

Owen Paterson, the former Tory cabinet minister and arch Eurosceptic who resigned from parliament last year after an inquiry found he had broken the rules banning MPs from paid lobbying, is taking a case to European court of human rights.

As the court explains in a summary of the case, Paterson “complains that his article 8 rights [to privacy] were infringed [by the inquiry process that led to his resignation], as the public finding that he had breached the code of conduct damaged his good reputation, and that the process by which the allegations against him were investigated and considered was not fair in many basic respects”.

Joshua Rozenberg, the legal commentator, seems to have spotted the listing first.

Like most Brexiters, Paterson has never been fond of the European court of human rights – although of course this court is not part of the EU.

But, in the light of his decision to launch legal action, Paterson may be glad the government never followed the advice of the prominent Tory who gave a speech in 2014 saying the UK should break free of the European convention on human rights, on which the court adjudicates. That was Paterson himself.

Paterson claims that the inquiry into the allegations against him was unfair because he did not get a proper right of appeal. MPs on the Commons standards committee did not accept that – they took evidence from Paterson after an inquiry from the parliamentary commissioner for standards found he broke the rules, and arguably that part of the process functions as an appeal – but Paterson was able to persuade Downing Street that he had a case, and Boris Johnson ordered Tory MPs to vote down the recommendation saying he should be suspended.

The spectacle of Tory MPs voting to protect a colleague who broke the rules was disastrous for Johnson, who quickly realised he had made a huge mistake and ordered a U-turn. That prompted Paterson’s resignation, but the episode is seen as the start of the process that led to Johnson himself being forced to resign less than a year later.

Q: The new lord chancellor who replaced you, Brandon Lewis, sorted out the industrial action by defence lawyers within weeks. Are you up to it?

Raab says he thought the strike action was unjustified.

And the deal to settle cost £50m, he says.

Now the matter has been settled, he is not going to backtrack on it, he says.

But the money for that settlement has to be found. Where should it come from, he asks.

Should it come from victim support? Should it come from drug rehabilitation? Should it come for education for prisoners? Those are the real problems in the real world that government ministers have to grapple with.

Raab is clearly implying he does not approve of the deal offered by Lewis to settle the strike.

Peter Walker

Imran Ahmad Khan, the former Conservative MP jailed earlier this year for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy, claimed thousands of pounds of expenses after his conviction in April, albeit primarily connected to winding up his work in the Commons.

Details collated by Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which oversees the system, shows the main cost incurred by the former Wakefield MP was just under £8,600 for removals, connected to him giving up his London accommodation.

Another big chunk, totalling around £4,000, went on end-of-tenancy cleaning and repairs to what sounds like a heavily-used constituency office, covering things including an exterior jet wash, replacing a broken appliance and a blind, and “gate repair”. He had claimed £1,400 for a Mac computer, but repaid this after the conviction.

More than a decade after the scandal over lavish and often-misused MPs’ expenses, the system is notably tougher, is often misunderstood, with critics citing a total figure for expenses which tend to be mainly made up of staffing and office costs.

Dominic Raab, the justice secretary and deputy PM, is giving evidence to the Commons justice committee. The hearing has just started, and there is a live feed at the top of the blog.

The session will cover Raab’s work as justice secretary and lord chancellor.

We may get a question or two about the bullying allegations about Raab, but since they are now the subject of an investigation, it is unlikely that Raab will say anything in detail about them.

The Scottish National party has accused Keir Starmer of trying to “out-Tory the Tories” with his speech to the CBI this morning. In a statement referring in particular to Starmer’s comments about the need for employers to end their “immigration dependency” (see 9.11am), Kirsten Oswald, the SNP’s deputy leader at Westminster, said:

It was depressing to watch the Labour leader try to out-Tory the Tories – again – on Brexit and migration, and essentially tell CBI that they are wrong …

The CBI has raised legitimate and very real concerns over Brexit and its impact on immigration and our workforce. Instead of heeding the warnings, both the Tory and Labour leaders have chosen to double down on the delusion of Brexit, when it is obvious it isn’t working.

With both Labour and the Tories committed to the damage of Brexit, the only route to escape its long-term harm and rejoin the largest single market in the world – a market seven times greater than the UK – is for Scotland to become an independent country.