Michael Ancram.com

If you live within my constituency and would like my advice on any particular problem or concern, whether personal, local or national, please feel free to contact me using the form below. Unfortunately, I am unable to reply to you individually unless you live within my constituency, but click here to find out who your local MP is and how you can contact them.

If you are my constituent, I will reply to you as soon as possible. Please also see the frequently asked questions below which may be of some help to you.

Name:
Email:
Postcode:
Subject:
Advice Request:

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

I am very concerned with the Government's latest asylum bill.

It seems clear to me that during the Government’s six and a half years in office, they have turned the asylum system into a complete shambles. In 1996, 29,645 people claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. By 2002, this figure had risen to 85,865 – an increase of 190%. It has been estimated that, as a result of the Government’s incompetence, every asylum seeker stands a 90% chance of remaining in the UK, regardless of the validity of their claim. Britain has become a magnet for both migrants seeking to abuse the asylum system and unscrupulous people traffickers and organised criminals. This staggering increase in the number of asylum seekers is putting intolerable pressure on public services in some communities. This will increase sharply when our borders are opened after the expansion of the European Union in May this year. The Government’s response has been a mixture of muddled legislation and political posturing. The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill is, in fact, the third major piece of asylum legislation under Labour. The Home Office claims that the Bill represents the ‘remaining phase’ of the Government’s reforms to the immigration and asylum system. The Bill contains a variety of proposals aimed at introducing ‘speed and finality’ to the appeals and removals process, and would introduce a range of sanctions on both claimants and people-traffickers, enhanced enforcement powers, and a new single tier of appeal. I agree with you that there are several aspects of this legislation which are a cause for concern. For example, the Bill establishes a new single-tier Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The existing avenue of appeal from the current Tribunal to the appellate courts would be repealed. I do believe that a streamlined, fast and efficient appeals system is important. The key to this, however, lies in improving the quality of initial decision making, which has declined under Labour. Indeed, the deteriorating standard of initial decisions is indicated by the steep rise in the proportion of appeals that are successful. The Bill also proposes to criminalise those who do not have a valid passport or equivalent document without reasonable excuse after arrival in the United Kingdom. I do support the principle of bearing down on people who deliberately destroy their documents as a way of frustrating the asylum system. I am aware, however, that concerns have been expressed over evidence showing that many genuine asylum seekers have no documentation whatever. I will certainly look carefully at any proposals which effectively target those who attempt to defeat the system. Finally, I was concerned about the way in which the Bill’s provisions on denying support to the families of failed asylum seekers was announced. The Government threatened to take the children away from asylum seekers ‘as an incentive for them to leave’. Although there are no provisions in the Bill to take children into care, the Prime Minister and Home Secretary should be ashamed of themselves for spinning this proposal in order to appear ‘tough’ on asylum. I am therefore pleased that my colleague Michael Howard has written to the Prime Minister about his concerns surrounding the Government’s asylum policy. It seems to me that deporting failed claimants (who in any event have no right to be in the UK) is far better than relying on threats to break up families. These are all clearly matters which will need to be closely scrutinised as the Bill passes through Parliament.

What are your views on DEFRA currently consulting on how to deal with mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way?

As you are aware, DEFRA is currently consulting on how to deal with mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way. The consultation contains a number of proposals concerning vehicular access and responses have to be sent to DEFRA before 19th March 2004. As you are no doubt aware, the Countryside Rights Of Way (CROW) Act 2000 provides for the reclassification of roads used as public paths (RUPPS) to a new category of ‘restricted byway’. This guarantees right of way for all types of access apart from motorised traffic. Whilst it does not remove such access rights from vehicles, interested parties must apply to the Local Authority for a definitive map modification to ensure that it is classified as a byway open to all traffic (BOAT). The main proposal in this consultation concerns how to judge whether to award a right of access to mechanically powered vehicles when redefining access rights as required by the CROW Act. It is the intention to remove the historic use of vehicles, such as the use by horse and carts, as a reason for granting BOAT status. The Government states that it is not seeking to challenge vehicular access rights already dedicated or enacted nor to prevent those applying for access rights (up until December 2025) where there is clear proof of authorised mechanical vehicular access. I believe that we need to achieve a balance between those users of the countryside, but we must ensure that the countryside is used wisely and that the environment is not spoilt.

I am very concerned about the trading of ivory.

Under agreements made by the Council for the International Trade in Endangered Species, trade in ivory is illegal except to Japan from certain African countries. I fully support the efforts of the CITES signatory countries to eradicate elephant poaching. There have been many cases over the years where thankfully ivory has been outlawed (for example, piano keys) but I believe that, unfortunately, there will always be a demand for ivory and that this can be best met by allowing a limited and tightly regulated trade in legally harvested ivory. This trade must be properly administered and controlled. It is vital that the quota is enforced and that any elephant culls are properly administered and are truly necessary for the health of the elephant populations. I believe that we should push harder within CITES for better oversight of ivory trade, and try to achieve a workable, reliable system for distinguishing legal from illegal ivory. Only by achieving that can we stop the trade in illegal ivory that is doing so much damage to elephant populations.

I have grave concerns about the the Gender Recognition Bill currently before Parliament - are you going to support it?

I do sympathise with many of your concerns about it, and did not support it when it first came before the House of Commons some weeks ago. I will not give it my support in its further stages either.

I am very concerned at government proposals that will reduce my pension rights and penalise those who wish to retire before the age of 65.

The Government have been undertaking a stocktake review of the Local Government Pension Scheme since August 2001. Measures resulting from the proposals in the Retirement Benefits Options paper are expected to be announced in April this year and implemented in April 2005. The outline, at present, of the proposed changes from the ODPM are: to make the retirement age 65 for all by phasing out the ability to retire at 60 with 25 years service; to increase the earliest age at which benefits may be paid, other than on the grounds of ill health, from 50 to 55; and to introduce measures to provide for flexible retirement. These are line with proposals for reforming public service pensions put forward in the Government’s Green Paper, Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement. Changes in pension age would be introduced first for new entrants to a scheme. Each scheme will consult on the conditions and timescale for extending the arrangements to existing members. Raising the public service pension age from 60 to 65 reflects life expectancy and the fact that many people want to work longer and build up higher pensions. I understand that whatever changes may be made will not affect pension benefits already earned from past service. These will continue to be payable on retirement at the member existing retirement age. The value of the pension scheme should be taken into account in negotiating salaries of Local Government Scheme members. So, if the pension scheme is worth less than before, we would expect salaries to be higher than they otherwise would be. I generally support the proposals in the Green Paper and agree with the assessment of the Institute of Directors that it would be difficult for any Government to credibly urge business to encourage working beyond 60 if the public sector was unwilling to undergo similar changes.

I am concerned at the prospect of increasing traffic congestion in the years to come and would like your comment on the Way To Go coalition.

I too share your concern at the prospects of increasing congestion in the years to come, and welcome the Way To Go coalition’s contribution to the debate. We already believe in and support many of the aims of Way To Go. Our overriding aim is to provide people with multiple transport choices, which will lead to a fully sustainable system which can be enjoyed by all members of society. Cycle lanes, good quality footpaths, bus lanes, safe routes to school, and lower speed limits are all issues which Local Authorities can and should tackle. Conservatives believe in de-centralising and ensuring Councils have every opportunity to implement local transport plans. We are looking at ways to encourage best practice at local level to help bring down our pedestrian casualty rate, which remains worryingly high. This issue is, in our view, more pressing than extracting fines from drivers on roads where accidents are rare. Nationally we are developing policies which will encourage a high-quality rail network which offers genuine choice and reliability. We believe this can be done best by allowing the railway experts to have control, rather than be hamstrung by constant interference from politicians. Once the rail network is functioning smoothly I am confident that we will start to see an increase in the percentage of freight moved by rail. An effective and sustainable transport system is characterised by a well-planned and managed network, providing people with attractive choices across a range of transport platforms – a high class, mixed-mode, integrated system that offers choice based on quality, flexibility, efficiency, safety, and reliability. It is exactly that sort of system that Conservative transport policies are aiming to create.

I would like to see you at a surgery in the constituency. How do I find out where you will be and when?

Details of how you can arrange to see me at one of my weekly surgeries can be found under the Constituency section of this site.


TOP© Michael Ancram 2005
TOP© Michael Ancram 2005		16 May 2008