Why I left the Conservatives part 2: Gay 'marriage' and the quadruple lock lie

Whilst it may not be a major concern to many readers, I have decided to bump this piece up the pecking order following today's front page story in the Daily Mail (read it here) that David Cameron now regrets having "forced through gay marriage law".

We know how you feel, Dave

Despite a pledge to introduce gay marriage not being in the 2010 manifesto of any major party, and despite the public having never been asked for their opinion (Cameron's sham consultation only asked how, not if, legislation should be introduced), the Bill received Royal Assent and passed into law in July 2013.

In an attempt to assuage the fears of her backbench colleagues, Maria Miller announced the so-called 'quadruple lock' designed, we are told, to prevent any religious leader being forced to conduct same-sex 'marriages' against their beliefs. Her statement to the House of Commons focused particularly on the Church of England, given its unique position as the established church and which had opposed the legislation.

The quadruple lock consists of the following measures:

1. The legislation states that neither religious organisations as a whole nor individual ministers will be forced to hold same-sex weddings on their premises;

 

2. Parliament will amend the Equalities Act so that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations who refuse to conduct gay marriages;

 

3. Religious organisations who do support gay marriage can opt-in, and then their individual ministers will also then need to opt-in before they can conduct the ceremonies; and

 

4. The legislation will explicitly state that it would be illegal for the Church of England and Wales to marry same sex couple: the Church of England had already said that it did not want to carry out same-sex partnerships.

This lock would, we were told, ensured "beyond doubt" there could not be a successful action brought in the courts against any church for failing to conduct a same sex 'marriage'.

Regrettably, and all too predictably, the 'quadruple lock' is not worth the fresh air into which Maria Miller's words were breathed.

On 24th June 2010, a chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the matter of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria. The applicants claimed they had been discriminated against as Austrian law did not allow them, as a same-sex couple, to contract marriage.

Their claim did not focus on any specific benefits available to married couples which they were unable to take advantage of. Rather, their claim focused solely on the fact they were being prevented from contracting marriage based only on their sexual orientation. In other words, they argued that a law defining marriage as being solely between one man and one woman was discriminatory.

Although the chamber of the Court found, unanimously, against the applicants, the detailed judgment handed down puts the lie to the 'quadruple lock'.

Whilst the European Court's case-law had previously determined "...the emotional and sexual relationship of a same-sex couple constitutes 'private life'" [para. 92], the judgment in this case ruled for the first time such relationships also constituted 'family life', because "... the rapid revolution of social attitudes towards same-sex couples has taken place in many member states" [para. 93].

So as a result of legislation sanctioning same-sex marriage and/or civil partnerships having been enacted by a number of EU countries, the European Courts have already started to re-write the rules.

In ruling that, notwithstanding the new case-law it had just created, it was not discriminatory for states to legislate only for opposite-sex marriage, it was made eminently clear this position was not set in stone.

The judgement reads:

"The Court cannot but note that there is an emerging European consensus towards legal recognition of same-sex couples. Moreover, this tendency has developed rapidly over the past decade. Nevertheless, there is not yet [emphasis added] a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples. The area in question must therefore still be regarded as one of evolving rights with no established consensus, where States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes " [para. 105]

In other words, once a majority of EU countries - or more likely, those countries constituting a majority of residents of the EU - have legalised gay marriage, the Court would see its way open to rule it discriminatory (i.e. illegal) for member states not to permit same-sex marriage.


In those circumstances, not only would the UK have then been compelled by the EU (had it not already) to sanction same-sex marriage but the Church of England, as the established Church and de facto extension of the state, would equally be compelled to conduct same-sex marriages.

So there we have it. Irrespective of the Conservatives' 'quadruple lock', the European Court has already indicated it is only a matter of time before it forces all member states to recognise and conduct same-sex marriages.

But that is not the worst of it. Look again at when this judgment was handed down - 24th June 2010. Long before the government brought forward its legislation, and long before Maria Miller announced the 'quadruple lock'.

In other words, the announcement on the 'quadruple lock' was made despite full knowledge of its long-term impotence, and of the judgment of the European Court.

It goes without saying that I could no longer remain a member of a party which not only brought forward this legislation without any democratic mandate to do so and whilst ignoring the millions of faith in this country who objected, but who have lied to us in doing so.

I am proud to have joined UKIP, the only party to stand up for faith and the traditional, the only, definition of marriage.





Yarm Parking consultation - my response

A number of residents have asked me for details of my response to the Yarm parking tax consultation, so here it is:

Dear Mr Bond

I have a number of comments and concerns I wish to make regarding the three proposed TROs currently being consulted on. I trust it is acceptable to address each TRO within this single letter.

 

i) High Street Pay and Display (including residents’ permits), Loading Bays and Taxi Ranks

 

The council’s stated aim, to increase the availability of short-stay parking spaces in Yarm, is laudable and long overdue.  However, the council has failed to provide any compelling evidence that this aim can, or will, be met by way of the current proposals. In fact, there is potential for the situation in Yarm to deteriorate gravely as a direct consequence of these proposals.

As has already been highlighted in the representation made by Michael Kitching of SK Transport Planning Ltd, the council first needs to fully understand the current use of the existing car-parking facilities in Yarm before it can assess the impact of any changes to the current arrangements and make any informed decisions. To achieve this the council needs to undertake a comprehensive study of the current usage, and good practice is for this to be done by way of a parking beat survey.

Neither a parking beat survey nor anything comparable has been undertaken by the council. To bring forward the proposed TROs without having taken this necessary first step is negligent and leaves residents and traders alike vulnerable to unseen (by the council at least) consequences.

The only survey relating to parking undertaken to date and made available to residents is the market research undertaken by NEMS in 2011. This is wholly inadequate for the purpose of making any informed decisions on changing the existing arrangements in Yarm. NEMS Market Research is not, nor do they profess to, professional parking or travel planning consultants. They did not undertake any meaningful parking study, their data mainly being extrapolated from small sample surveys undertaken. Their report is not a meaningful parking study and it is wrong of the council to contrive to treat it as such.

This absence of any detailed study or baseline data makes it impossible to make any evidence based decisions, or to assess the likely impact of the proposed changes. On this basis alone it is reckless of the council to proceed with the proposed TROs.

I am extremely concerned about the impact of removing the current maximum stay of 2 hours on the High Street; you will be aware that the proposed TRO imposes no maximum length of stay other than what the visitor is prepared to pay for.  In effect this will convert every short-stay parking space within the disc controlled zone into a medium- or long-stay parking space, contrary to the council’s stated aims.

Common sense dictates this will result in an unquantified number of visitors staying in excess of the current maximum of two hours. How this will lead to an increase in the availability of short-stay spaces is unexplained and is indeed counter-intuitive.

This will be to the detriment of Yarm traders in two profound ways. Firstly, the reduced availability of parking spaces, as longer stays can only result in a reduced turnover of vehicles and therefore visitors / shoppers. Secondly, NEMS’ report illustrates that the average spend of visitors reduces as the length of stay increases – the average spend of visitors (excluding workers) staying for more than 2 hours is 34% less than visitors staying for 1 to 2 hours. The average spend of visitors staying for more than three hours falls off a cliff edge.

I would therefore request that urgent consideration is given to amending the TRO to limit the maximum length of stay on the High Street to 3 hours. This would lessen the detrimental impact on traders whilst accommodating those visitors wishing to stay for more than two hours.

I am also concerned that the proposed residents’ permit scheme will also impact detrimentally on traders, and that this impact has not been (and cannot be, given the lack of a proper parking survey) properly considered assessed and quantified.

The requirements of those residents who live on or off the High Street must be of primary concern to the council before proposing any changes to the existing arrangements, and it is pleasing that the council appears to have taken this on board. However, that can be no excuse for proposing a scheme which presents a real and present danger to traders.

The council has failed to quantify the number of residents’ permits it expects to issue. Nor has it qualified how frequently and at what times of which days it expects these permits to be used. The same failures apply equally, and perhaps more worryingly, to the visitors permits residents will be permitted to buy. These failures are entirely understandable, given the lack of any parking study having been done, but are nevertheless inexcusable.

The current proposals will see approximately 150 properties eligible to apply for up to two parking permits and to buy the visitors permits.  We will therefore see anywhere between 0 and 300 residents’ permits, plus an unknown number of visitors’ permits, used on any given day. As the High Street currently has only 80 unrestricted parking spaces available to residents, the risk that we will see an reduction in the number of available short-stay spaces (as the permits will allow residents and visitors to park in a short-stay space at no cost for an unlimited period of time) is great.  This risk is undoubtedly at its greatest on Saturdays, the busiest day for High Street traders.

Once again, as the council is unable to quantify this risk it would be reckless to proceed with the proposed TROs at this time.

I am equally concerned at the absence of any measures to minimise or mitigate the inevitable displacement of vehicles from Yarm High Street to peripheral areas.

Given the change from a free parking arrangement to a charged parking arrangement, and given the incontrovertible and widespread opposition to such a change, it is inevitable there will be considerable resistance to the proposed changes which will result in displaced vehicles.  The number of displaced vehicles will only increase when we see a reduced availability of short-stay parking spaces on the High Street (as I have already explained), and given the reduced number of off-street parking spaces as a consequence of another of the proposed TROs.

Once again, the council has failed to quantify the anticipated level of displacement (understandably in the absence of any parking study having been undertaken), failed to identify to where these vehicles may be displaced, and has failed to propose a single measure to mitigate or combat any issues which will ensue in neighbouring streets and communities from this displacement. This is unacceptable. When this matter has been raised verbally with officers, their response has been to say that they would reactively address any issues that arise due to such displacement. To adopt this approach, in favour of proactively dealing with this issue, is wholly unacceptable.  Once again, it would be reckless of the council to proceed with the proposed TROs until this issue has been satisfactorily addressed.

Finally, and this point almost seems too obvious too mention, given the risks of a reduced availability of parking spaces and the risk of a substantial number of vehicles being displaced, it would be reckless to implement any of the proposed changes prior to additional off-street parking provision having been brought in to use.

The council’s website states “encouraging process on securing suitable sites in the vicinity of Yarm High Street is being made”. Whilst this comment needs to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt, given how many years we have heard this line, it must be a prerequisite for these sites to be brought to fruition and delivered before any other of the proposed changes could be tolerated.

With regards to the taxi rank element of the plans, I wish to consult with both residents and taxi drivers some more and will write separately to you on this matters before the closing date of Friday 26^th July 2013.

In summary, there is a real – though, sadly, unquantifiable – risk that the proposed TRO would bring about consequences contrary to the council’s stated aim, namely to increase the availability of short-stay parking spaces.  Until such time as a comprehensive parking study has been undertaken, and the risks of any proposed changes identified, quantified and mitigated as far as is possible, it would be reckless and negligent of the council to proceed with the proposed changes.

 

ii) Existing off-street car parks, pay and display

 

It is extremely disappointing that the council has decided to implement parking charges at the two existing off-street car parks. It is also extremely disappointing that the justification for this change (as referred to in the notice) has not been made available to residents on the council’s website.

It is pleasing that the charges have been set at such a relatively modest level. However, this in itself seems to put the lie to any argument that such charges are necessary to contribute to the provision of any additional off-street parking.  Such a contribution, even over a number of years, would appear to be minimal, particularly in light of the contributions to meet this end which have recently been secured as a condition in the approval of a number of major housing applications which have been approved.

It has also been argued that it is only equitable to charge for on- and off-street parking in Yarm as this is currently the case within Stockton. There is very little merit in this argument whatsoever. The differing nature and needs of the two towns are obvious, and require very different solutions. The ‘one size fits all’ approach is rarely an appropriate solution, let alone the best, to any problem. Furthermore, there is an iniquity in the amount of works currently being undertaken in Stockton Town centre at a cost of tens of millions of pounds without visitors to Stockton being asked to subsidise these, and the council’s stance that any additional works in Yarm (i.e. the provision of additional off-street parking provision) require the subsidy of residents / visitors.

Furthermore, given the wide scale opposition to the introduction of parking charges in Yarm, there will undoubtedly be resistance and a resultant level of vehicle displacement from the off-street car parks. I have already explained in some detail my concerns about displacement earlier in this letter and they apply equally to the implementation of charging in Yarm’s off-street car parks.

 

iii) Side / back street waiting restrictions

 

Whilst not universally popular, I broadly welcome the majority of the proposed new restrictions.

I am concerned at the proposed new restrictions on High Church Wynd.  I recognise that the proposed lines on the north side of the wynd will, for the most part, reinforce current custom and practice where the majority of residents park on the south side of the wynd.  However, given there is insufficient on-street parking to accommodate all of the residents who live on the wynd and I must insist those affected residents are able to apply for residents’ permits permitting them to park on the High Street.

I am also disappointed that no additional restrictions have been proposed for West End Gardens.  I understand additional restrictions have previously been considered on the west side corner, where West Street meets West End Gardens, but were rejected following complaints from residents. However, as the pressure on parking has increased in recent years, we are seeing more obstructive parking in West End Gardens than was previously the case and I, along with many residents, consider additional restrictions to be necessary.  If it is not possible to include these in the proposed TRO, I would ask that urgent consideration is given to bringing forward and additional TRO to address these concerns.

Finally, I wish to comment on Bridge Street. I must point out from the outset that I currently live at the east end of Bridge Street, although none of the proposed new restrictions are planned for outside or near my home.

I am in favour of the proposed new restrictions on both north and south sides of the street underneath the viaduct and flanking the entrance to Bridge Court. I am also broadly in favour of the new restrictions on the south side of the western end of Bridge Street, to replace the current keep clear markings.  I have however been contacted by residents who have asked whether the restrictions need to extend as far east as is proposed and whether these could be reduced in order to create one or two additional parking spaces. I should be grateful if this request could be considered and a response issued.

Finally, I approve of the proposed new restrictions on Atlas Wynd and would thank officers for including these at the eleventh hour in response to requests from residents of Atlas Wynd, myself and Councillor Andrew Sherris.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Mark Chatburn

Yarm Parking Tax consultation to commence tomorrow

I have this evening been informed (not by Stockton Council, but by the Northern Echo!) that the statutory consultation for the introduction of the council's parking tax is to commence tomorrow, Thursday 27th June 2013.

Stockton Council leader, Labour's Bob Cook, milking Yarm the cash cow.

As a road traffic order (RTO) is required before the council can implement its parking tax, the council is required by law to consult on the proposals for a period of 21 days. The consultation is not to do with the principle of introducing parking charges - the last one, in 2009, demonstrated widespread opposition to the plans so the council has refused to ask residents their opinion since - but merely the specific details of implementation.

I am also led to believe that plans to impose hundreds of metres of new double yellow lines throughout the town centre have been reincarnated and will form a part of the consultation. Whilst some additional parking restrictions are necessary and to be welcomed, we will have to wait and see how sensible and proportionate the current proposals are.

Whilst I have not yet been able to double check the details with council officers, it is understood that we have been successful in ensuring a minimum of 30 minutes free parking on the High Street.  The charging structure beyond this is believed to be £1 for the next two hours, and £1 for each hour thereafter.

If I was feeling generous, I suppose it is worth paying credit to the council for at least not holding the consultation entirely within the school holidays, but I am not feeling generous. Such a small concession is akin to the executioner allowing you a final cigarette.

I will keep residents informed of further details as and when I receive them. Hopefully we won't have to rely on the Northern Echo for further information moving forward, but I won't be holding.

New footpaths and cycleways proposed for Levendale Estate, Yarm

We are pleased to announce that in conjunction with Stockton Borough Council we will shortly start consulting residents on proposals to create a new footpath and cycle way linking parts of the Levendale estate to Levendale Primary School.

Levendale Primary School, Yarm

Constructed during the 1970s, the Levendale estate lacks the traffic-free cycleways and 'safe routes' to the centrally located primary school that would today be insisted upon.  Not only is there no dedicated pedestrian route linking the estate to the school, neither does such a route exist linking much of the estate to the local shop.

At a meeting attended by Councillor Sherris and I, draft plans to build a new footpath & cycleway running through what was the pylon corridor linking Kirk Road with Glaisdale Road, and running east/west linking the aforementioned path with the primary school and continuing on to Mount Leven Road, near Bankside, were discussed in detail.

In order to further enhance the safety of children travelling to school, plans to implement a 20mph zone in the vicinity of the school are also to be consulted upon.

The necessary £150,000 funding for the scheme has already been secured, following a successful bid to the Department for Transport Links to Schools and Communities budget (managed by Sustrans) with matched funding being stumped up by Stockton Council.

In addition, Sustrans have also allocated a further £8,500 to promote the scheme and to work with pupils and staff at Levendale Primary School.

It is important to stress that no decisions have been taken at this stage and we are extremely keen to hear residents' views on the key principles of the scheme.

Following our success in, eventually, securing the funding for the new play area at Leven Park, we are delighted we have now been able to secure this additional money for further infrastructure improvements in Yarm.

We hope to shortly announce the date of a drop-in consultation at which residents can view the initial draft scheme and to make their opinions heard. Should you not be able to attend the forthcoming consultation, please don't hesitate to contact me directly for further details.

Finally, a mention and our thanks should go to Jonathan Kibble at Stockton Council for all his hard work in securing the funding and progressing the concept thus far.