Other news from the House of Lords - 1

Indeed, there are many other subjects that are debated in the Upper House but I neither can nor want to follow them all. It is, however, time to turn to something else apart from the EU Referendum Bill to which I shall, no doubt, return.

Baroness Cox's Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill is back in the House. I mentioned it in the past here and here. That time it did not go beyond the Second Reading so I did not do a further direct report. I also mentioned it here and wrote:

At the heart of the Bill is the need to make it legally clear that Arbitration Tribunals are not law courts, that there is only one legal system in this country and that an alternative system, which discriminates against women must not be allowed to exist, let alone flourish.

This is absolutely vital for our understanding of what is going on. Arbitration Tribunals in themselves are a reasonable addition to the legal system (though if any qualified lawyer will explain that they are not I am prepared to listen and maybe accept arguments) but they must stay within the framework of English or Scottish law as, let me add, Beth Din courts do. Sharia Tribunals are steadily encroaching on family and criminal matters and claim the right to use traditional Sharia instead of English or Scottish law. Their intention is to create a legal apartheid and separate as many of the Muslim community as they can from the rest of this country and society. Then there is a question of inequality between men and women and between Muslim and non-Muslim in Sharia law, which is wholly contrary to our laws.

Since that time the Bill was reintroduced into the House at every possible opportunity but did not get very far. But the times, they are a'changing. Among the various counter-extremism proposals the Home Secretary, Theresa May mentioned Sharia courts, deemed unacceptable, and promised to tackle them. There will be a commission set up to study the subject, which sounds like an excellent idea until we ask ourselves who might sit on that commission. So far we do not know.

Generally speaking, no Private Member's Bill in either House gets anywhere unless there is a fair wind behind it from HMG. Looking at the Second Reading that took place on October 23 one can begin to see two developments: HMG is definitely more favourably inclined and there are some strong voices on all sides that are supporting the Baroness Cox.

The one voice that sounded against it was Lord Sheikh's (Col. 892). He did not do particularly well and was later told by Lord Kalms (Col. 898):

I heard all the explanations given by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, previously and I reject them completely. I think that the noble Lord stands for views which are totally incompatible with ours in this country. 

Here is Lord Sheikh's attempt to explain certain peculiar features of Sharia law that, he insisted, no Muslim wants to substitute for English law. It just happens to be used in Sharia courts into which those Arbitration Tribunals have developed. I may add that the noble Lord's explanation of niquah leaves something out.

All religious establishments have an agreement with the civil authorities, which involve them to carry out civil ceremonies at the same time as religious ones. The Church of England, as the national church is automatically enabled to do so. The exceptions are numerous mosques that are not registered for this and, therefore, the nikuah, the religious ceremony, has no civil validity. This is not, as Lord Sheikh implies, a choice taken by the couples in question but a simple matter of omission and ignorance especially on the part of the women, many of whom do not realize that they are not married in law and have no rights as a wife. (Yes, I know all the arguments against state involvement in marriage and am sympathetic to them. But, at present, it is involved and those who remain outside that because of the activity of their religious leaders are at an enormous disadvantage.)

Some Muslims have an Islamic marriage, known as a nikah, without also having a civil wedding. Ideally, I would like to see imams performing a nikah only after a civil wedding has taken place. We should perhaps look at the possibility of amending the Marriage Act 1949 to address this issue. Having said that, if an imam receives a request to perform a nikah without a prior civil wedding, it is imperative that he emphasises to both husband and wife the drawbacks of a nikah-only marriage.

Many couples choose to cohabit without getting married and we do not pass any judgment on them—nor should we. More than 3 million couples in this country are cohabiting at the moment. When a nikah takes place, a contract is signed between the man and the woman containing the terms and financial obligations of the marriage. Under Islamic law, a man can divorce his wife by stating this. If a woman feels that her marriage has broken down and that they should divorce, she can ask the man to divorce her. If the man refuses to divorce her, she can approach the sharia council and petition for a divorce to be issued. It is therefore essential that there are sharia councils that she can approach for this to take place. I believe that all Muslims should be encouraged to use the already- drafted Muslim marriage contract, which perhaps needs simplifying.

Apart from his economic approach to the truth about nikah, the noble Lord obviously finds it a little difficult to confirm equality in Sharia law. The man can divorce his wife but a woman has to ask her husband to divorce her.

Lord Sheikh did not go unchallenged, notably by Lord Carlile of Berriew, described as one of Britain's top legal experts and a man who knows a thing or two about fighting for real human rights, as well as Lady Flather, a delightful person with an outstanding collection of gorgeous saris but one whom you challenge at your peril. I feel that the blog will benefit from the entire exchange (Col. 893):

Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD): I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. As a matter of fact in sharia law, if a man wishes to obtain a divorce, does he have to ask his wife first, before he approaches the sharia council?

Lord Sheikh: No. Under sharia law he does not have to do that. If sharia councils make unfair decisions, these must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I feel that there must be a mechanism to deal with such cases and that we should put in place an appeals procedure.

Baroness Flather: Is the noble Lord saying that there is equal treatment of women and men under sharia or is he saying that whatever sharia prescribes is correct? I am not sure; I think he is saying that whatever sharia prescribes is correct and proper. However, is there not discrimination against women?

Lord Sheikh: It depends on what the noble Baroness means by discrimination.

Baroness Flather: I see that the noble Lord has not found that out yet.

Lord Sheikh: That might be amusing to the noble Baroness but it is not amusing to me.

Baroness Flather: It is not funny to me—I am a woman.

Lord Sheikh: I will continue. In the same way as sharia councils cannot claim to make legally binding decisions, some religious decisions have no place in English law.

Lord Sheikh does not come out well.

Other speakers emphasised the importance of having just one legal system for all in the country, a system in which all are treated equally and individually. Let me recommend the entire debate to people.

You can also follow the progress of the Bill and other related developments and discussions on Equal and Free.

As if we lacked any of it

Lord Dykes (and here) who has turned up on this blog from time to time as the man who is guaranteed to come up with some easily debunkable europhiliac comments has surpassed himself. He has introduced a Private Member's Bill, which is unlikely to go very far, under the title of European Union (Information etc) Bill.

Its purpose is

Make provision for information to be available in various public places relating to the activities and organisation of the European Union; to make provision for the flying of the flag of the European Union on various government and public buildings; to provide information to further the establishment of twinning arrangements between towns in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the European Union in accordance with the European Union’s town twinning support scheme; and for connected purposes.

His lordship is entitled to his ideas, of course, and is entitled to some of the House's time and expense (it will not be a great deal) but one cannot help wondering what he has in mind.

What, for example, is his definition of "various public places"? Are we to have this gumf showered on us when we go to public parks? Or enter a public house? And - crucial question - will this Bill, should it ever become an Act, which it will not, allow for well-researched information about the European Union that does not exactly present a rosy picture also be available?

As to the rest, there are already provisions for the flying of that wretched flag on public buildings but, curiously enough, a good many people do not want to see it. As these are public buildings, funded by the public a.k.a. taxpayer, the public should have some say on the matter.

Nor do we lack information about all those jollies for civic dignitaries and suchlike twinning arrangements. So, what precisely is the purpose of this Bill (not that it is going anywhere)?

A Modern Slavery Bill?

Whenever the words new and Bill and Theresa and May come into one sentence I start feeling unwell. If I had a revolver I would reach for it and if I had a bullet proof vest I would put it on.

As it happens, I do not have to write about her proposed Modern Slavery Bill that is going to be, assuming it gets through Parliament, an absolute horror, as Tim Worstall has posted an excellent piece on the Adam Smith Institute blog.

Here is the introductory paragraph, which made me laugh out loud at first but only at first:

I know that I shouldn't giggle over such things but the revelation that the three "slaves" recently found were in fact the remnants of a Maoist commune well known to social services (indeed, housed by the local council) does provide a certain amusement as we see various leftish types suddenly running away from the story. However, now onto something a great deal more important. Theresa May and various campaigners are going to use this to try and pass an extremely bad law about modern slavery. And it's worth our all complaining very loudly about this now, as the bill is being drawn up, not later when it is too late.

It is quite extraordinary that the media is still referring to the case of the brainwashed extreme Maoists (is there any other kind?) as "slaves". Certainly, Communism in all its forms created millions of slaves. These women were not that and the use of this case for general legislation is preposterous but sadly credible. Read Tim Worstall' piece. Well worth it.

Referendum Bill presented

James Whalley, who, astonishingly, drew first place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills presented his European Union (Referendum) Bill 2013 -2014 yesterday to the House for its First Reading, which is really just a formality. Second Reading is scheduled for July 5, a Friday as Private Members' Bills are debated on that day.

In the meantime there has been a certain amount of displacement activity going on. As ever it relies on the stupendous ignorance most eurosceptics display about the British Constitution. Benedict Brogan talks portentously about what will happen next but only the very ignorant will be surprised by his article. What happens next is exactly what happens with all Bills.

The Express thinks that this takes us closer to "free Britain", which is nonsensical. It takes closer, possibly, to having a referendum some time in the future, assuming nothing much of importance happens in the meantime in the European Union but, as we know or ought to know, having a referendum is not the same as voting to get out or even knowing how we get out. The present state of popular opinion would indicate that the stayers-in will win with no great difficulty.

The biggest of all attempts at displacement activity is the invitation by "Grant Shapps and/or some clever boffin at CCHQ" to invite you, me and everyone else to co-sponsor the Bill. The way to do it is to click on to the right page on Facebook and put your signature to the Bill. There is just one minor problem with this. Oh, a very unimportant problem but I do think someone needs to mention it. A Bill is sponsored by members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, depending on where it starts. This one is starting in the Lower House and has been co-sponsored by a number of MPs, not all of whom can be called eurosceptic. Members of the public do not sponsor Bills. Putting your name on that page may give you a warm fuzzy feeling of doing something but it is a pointless exercise. 

Will this solve our problems?

The most recent story of MPs and, possibly, Peers (who are denying the accusations) asking questions after some money had been promised or even handed over (the stories are somewhat muddled) with Parliamentary passes being withdrawn from lobbyists by the Speaker is even more bizarre than its predecessors.

As Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute put it in his e-mail to all subscribers this morning:

Journalists trapped parliamentarians in a cash-for-influence sting. So now we're going to have a clampdown on lobbying. (Although no lobbyists were involved. Now you know how laws are made in this country.)

Quite so. This was not an example of our courageous boys and girls of the press investigating the wrong doings of our legislators but a case of said hacks and hackettes setting up a sting operation or, if you prefer, being agents provocateurs. Naturally, those being provoked by the agents should not yield to temptation but the whole story has more than a whiff of fishiness.

The government has been wanting to regulate lobbyists for some time though nobody has yet been able to demonstrate that any sort of a register or regulatory body would make the system more honest or acceptable.

The Adam Smith Institute blog summed matters up:

We have seen the result in the United States. Think-tanks carry on as before, but they have to set up a separate 'lobbyist' body comprising any of their personnel who have frequent discussions with folk on Capitol Hill. The effect is to politicise think-tanks and put a wall between their independent policy experts and the politicians. An issue comes up, a think-tank expert has important things to say, but cannot say them directly to the policymakers.

But it does give an opening to yet more bureaucratic meddling with the political process.

The government has experienced certain difficulties in passing legislation that would create new rules through Parliament. Now, if you please, we have a synthetically manufactured scandal that does not involve lobbyists but is being presented, very conveniently for the government, as an excellent reason for passing new legislation. The timing raises some questions.

Peter Tatchell confirms it

The Boss has already explained (here and here) some of the background to the legislation on Same Sex Marriage, which is not nearly through Parliament.but, at least, the date for the Committee stage has been announced: February 12. Interestingly, there is an article, which is really an interview with that mostly tiresome though occasionally admirable campaigner, Peter Tatchell, in yesterday's Evening Standard.

Mostly it is very dull but then articles in the Evening Standard usually are. He does, however, give his own version of what pushed David Cameron into this politically uncertain course of action:

Back to Westminster and the apparent conversion of the PM, the Chancellor and the Home Secretary. In late 2010, continues Tatchell, he arranged for four same-sex couples and four straight couples to file applications at local registry offices for, respectively, civil marriage and civil partnership licences. All were refused, of course. In February 2011, Tatchell and human rights lawyer Robert Wintemute of King’s College London applied to the European Court of Human Rights to strike down the bans that stymied those eight couples, and told the government that, sooner or later, it would have to go to Strasbourg to defend the existing law. Meanwhile, lobbying harder than ever, Tatchell wrote a “briefing paper” extolling gay marriage as a natural extension of the Conservative Party’s traditional support for the existing institution of marriage — and, with a fair amount of chutzpah, circulated it widely within Tory circles.

“That’s when things started to happen,” he says. “Astonishingly, within three months of our application to the European Court, the Government announced that it was going to consult on legalising gay marriage. They knew that there was no argument they could use in Strasbourg that would be anything other than bigoted and intolerant. I think they realised the game was up, and decided it was better to lead on the issue and get the kudos of enacting liberal reform than be dragged through the courts. It may have been a pure coincidence, but it does strike me as very closely mirroring the pattern of events that I set in place.”

So there we are, it was the ECHR what done it. Well, up to a point because I do not think this will be resolved even when the legislation is passed as it almost certainly will be, eventually and probably with some amendments. For who can define marriage to the complete satisfaction of all?

Did you know ....

.... that today is the anniversary of the Ballot Act? Royal Assent received on July 18, 1872. From then on elections were conducted by secret ballot, until recently when the concept began to be undermined through the indiscriminate use of postal ballot. (Mind you, I am not overimpressed by the poor punctuation in the notes, given that this is the official parliamentary site.)

Baroness Cox's Bill

Baroness Cox has once again introduced her Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill, whose aim is "to make further provision about arbitration and mediation services and the application of equality legislation to such services; to make provision about the protection of victims of domestic abuse; and for connected purposes". First Reading was on May 10 and the hope is that there will be a Second Reading before the summer recess.

Lord Pearson's Bill

Committee stage of Lord Pearson's Bill will follow Starred questions. As the House sat at 3 pm today, this will most probably not be till about 3.45. You can, if your computer is up to it, watch it here.

Bishop Nazir-Ali on Shari'a and Western legal structures

I shall be writing more about Baroness Cox's new Bill that has had its First Reading in the House of Lords but, first, here are a few quotations from one of its supporters, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, formerly Bishop of Rochester.

Bishop Michael, as he seems to be known by many, is highly knowledgeable about Islam, its history and theology as well as the legal structures. As a Christian convert in Pakistan he experienced many problems in Pakistan and has little sympathy with those who consider Shari'a law to be either inevitable or acceptable as either part of British law or as a parallel system.

These quotations come from his chapter in a book edited by Rex Ahdar and Nicholas Aroney, Shari'a in the West. The chapter has a suitably scholarly title: Islamic Law, Fundamental Freedoms and Social Cohesion: Retrospect and Prospect.

The quotations come from the end of the chapter after a fascinating historical overview and analysis of the subject:

In the West today, Muslims, along with other religionists, enjoy the right to practise and propagate the faith. Their religious leaders, moreover, should be free to guide them according to the tenets of the faith, and this includes the Shari'a (as codified by the various schools of law, with their differences and similarities). We must also expect that Muslims will seek to influence public policy in accordance with the teachings of Islam.

There is, however, another side to the coin. The autonomy of the public law of the land must be upheld. In most Western contexts this law is derived from the Judaeo-Christian tradition, as interpreted and clarified by aspects of the Enlightenment. The Shari'a even if influenced by the laws of Byzantine, is actually founded on quite different assumptions. Its recognition or incorporation into public law could cause not only confusion, but an undermining of the fundamental assumptions undergirding the general law. Family law, for example, is often mooted as an area of Islamic law that might, somehow, be recognized by public law in the West. But what would be the consequences? I noted earlier the unequal position of Islamic women in the context of divorce. Similar questions would arise with respect to the custody of children, the laws of inheritance and of evidence, the legality of polygamy, and so on.

To repeat: Muslims should be free to order their lives, including their family lives, according to Islamic teachings. As with other communities, there may be arrangements for the restoration of disputes which arise within Muslim communities. They should not, however, take on a quasi-legal form, nor can their jurisdiction be acknowledged in matters that are for the courts to address. If any question arises about the fundamental rights and responsibilities of a citizen or resident, there must continue to be free access to the courts to enable such matters to settled in accordance with the law of the land. The possibility of some persons, such as women or young people, being coerced into accepting the decisions of so-called Shari'a 'councils' or 'tribunals' has to be monitored carefully. Moreover, it should not be possible for the structures and institutions of any religion to deal with criminal matters - domestic violence and rape come to mind here.

We have noted the difficulties surrounding the operation of Islamic finance in Muslim countries, let alone in the West. Once again, Muslims should be free to comply with Shari'a teaching on this subject and financial institutions can offer products that Muslims judge to be Shari'a compliant. But equally again, any dispute must be settled according to the commercial law of the land.

One can see even from those few paragraphs that many problems and difficulties can arise from trying to ensure freedom of religion and religious practice as well as equal rights and duties, regardless of gender or religion. Bishop Michael is unequivocal on his opposition to the incorporation of Shari'a law "into the public law of states, or of groups of states (such as the EU)". He also opposes the creation of a parallel system of courts, tribunals or councils that decide according to a parallel legal system. On the whole, I think, given his knowledge and understanding, I would rather take his opinion on the subject than that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who can, at best, be described as somewhat naive.

Yes, and?

The Daily Telegraph reports that the manufacturers' organization, the EEF, has suddenly woken up to something that the Boss on EURef and I on this humble blog have mentioned once or twice before (for instance here): you can make any promises you like about "one in - one out" legislation, it will not and cannot affect most of the regulation about such matters as environment, elfnsafety, working conditions that includes working time etc etc because it comes from the European Union and our own Parliament, even if it knows about the laws, cannot thrown them out.

The EEF, which represents manufacturers, said the decision to leave out EU legislation from the Government's recently launched "one-in, one-out" rule meant the burden of new environmental and employment regulation could rise unchecked.

A task force set up by the EEF, which included Rolls-Royce and Corus, called on the Government to replace this policy with departmental budgets by 2015.

The EEF's Steve Pointer said it would give the Government more flexibility. For instance, it would allow the Department for the Environment and Climate Change to meet carbon reduction targets or the Treasury to regulate financial services, while still enabling the Government to reduce the overall burden in business by giving other Whitehall departments negative budgets.

The EEF's members also warned of the damage being done to industry by the unfettered roll out of UK, European and international standards.

These largely private-sector organisations create valuable standards for machined parts, such as the thread on screws, the EEF said. But it added that industry had seen this role spread to setting standards in business process and management.

Well, it is good to know that they noticed but what exactly do they expect the government to do about it?

An Act that will make bolting the stable door compulsory

What else would one call the forthcoming piece of legislation on an EU referendum but making it compulsory or, at least, legally desirable to bolt the stable door after the horse had bolted.

The Daily Telegraph is being either disingenuous or nauseatingly silly in proclaiming today that

The Government must prevent further erosion of national sovereignty by holding a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.

The idea is that, having reneged on that cast-iron guarantee for a referendum on the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty, the Boy-King and the Cleggeron Coalition will push through legislation that will lock a referendum into British legislation.

Errm, no, not an in/out referendum about the EU. No, that exists merely in the dreams of certain Conservative commentators. The referendum will be on any future treaty that might give away further major powers to the EU.

Many will feel that all this is too little too late to check a newly authoritarian streak in the EU. French and Dutch rejection of the constitution in 2005 was blithely disregarded and the Lisbon treaty, an almost identical document, served up in its place. When the Irish rejected that, the same question was put to them 14 months later. Having backed a referendum on the constitution, the Labour government refused one on the treaty, arguing with shameless casuistry that the two documents were fundamentally different. The "ever closer union" specified in the Treaty of Rome means that the drive to limit the powers of the nation state is the EU's raison d'être. The reaction of members to such encroachments has been lamentably weak.

Many will, indeed, feel that. Many or, at least, those who have understood how EU legislation works (and that does not seem to include MEPs or our own domestic politicians) will also understand that major powers are given away all the time. The treaties produce the overall framework; it is what is legislated on the basis of those Articles that matters.

For instance, most of us would say that giving the EU supervisory powers over various financial products and the City of London does imply giving away very major powers, indeed. Having to discuss the Budget with the colleagues and the Commission even if it had been presented to the House of Commons first is giving away major powers and accepting the EU's absolute supremacy in economic and financial matters. None of that is going to figure in this piece of completely useless legislation. Nevertheless, you can expect all the Conservative groupies to hop up and down with excitement and tell us what an important blow this is for Britain's sovereignty. And then they wonder why people do not vote for them.

Even the BBC!

What on earth is the world coming to? The BBC has acknowledged that there is a certain amount of EU involvement in the regulatory structure. This is about Vince Cable's latest great idea: the one in - one out regulation.

From September, ministers will have to identify an existing piece of regulation to be removed for every new rule proposed.

In addition, a panel of business experts will scrutinise all new legislation before it is introduced.

Oh goody. Unfortunately, there is this problem of the King over the Water (well, government over the water).

The new measures will apply initially to UK legislation only.

However, it is estimated that last year a third of the additional regulatory burden came from European Union directives.

The Department for Business said it would take a more "rigorous approach" to EU regulations, including engaging earlier in the Brussels policymaking process.

What that will achieve is anybody's guess, there being 27 members and a certain amount of doubt around British negotiators being particularly interested in British business. One can only hope that those negotiators will have a clearer idea of EU legislation than the BBC does. It is not just EU Directives that produce regulations but EU Regulations that are directly applicable. It is, in fact, extremely difficult to calculate exactly what proportion of regulations is EU-inspired even when they appear to be British. I am looking forward to the knots all these people are going to tie themselves into.

Exactly what does this mean?

Given that the European Communities Act specifically states that European legislation takes precedence over UK legislation, given that there have been several legal cases (Factortame, Metric Martyrs) in which the judge firmly decided that European legislation takes precedence, given that we have had numerous replies in Parliament about the inevitability of being taken to the ECJ if we do not implement EU legislation it is a little odd to hear Ministers talk blithely about retaining Parliamentary sovereignty. What could they possibly mean?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon (yes, him again) put down a Written Question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will investigate the balance of powers between the United Kingdom Parliament and the European Parliament following the implementation of the Lisbon treaty.

Lord Howell's reply raised more questions than it answered:

The Government are examining the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill, to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with the UK Parliament. The common law is clear-the UK Parliament is sovereign. We are examining whether the common law provides sufficient ongoing and unassailable protection for the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

So what will happen if Parliament refuses to implement certain financial directives that are likely to destroy the City?

How far will they go in opposition?

On February 8 Hansard published a Written Question from Lord Stoddart of Swindon:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what will be their response to any proposal from the European Parliament to remove the power of member states to veto decisions of the new European Union financial regulators where they would impact on member states' fiscal autonomy.

To which HMG replied:

The Government have been very clear that no decisions by the new European supervisory authorities should impinge on the fiscal responsibilities of the UK. The Government will oppose any proposal of the European Parliament that seeks to undermine this principle.

That is very reassuring; well, sort of reassuring; actually, let's be honest, not reassuring as well. HMG's track record in "opposing" measures that were then introduced and imposed on Britain does not inspire with confidence.

What happens when the plan is voted through anyway (and Britain can hardly stop it either in the Toy European Parliament or the Council of Ministers unless numerous other countries are on the same side) and becomes EU legislation not to be gainsaid by our own elected representatives?

A necessary public announcement

It would appear that we can no longer refer to the process whereby the Toy Parliament gets involved in EU legislation as Codecision. That, too, was changed by the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty.

In a correspondence with Chris Bryant MP, present Minister for Europe, about a report the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union produced, which will be debated this Thursday, Lord Roper, Chairman of that Committee wrote (somewhat sardonically, in my opinion):

Thank you for your letter of 14 January about scrutiny of Codecision - which we must now call the Ordinary Legislative Procedure.

What, one wonders, might Extraordinary Legislative Procedure be?

Another gimmicky idea from the Conservatives

An article in the Guardian tells us that the Conservatives, the government-in-waiting, has come up with another gimmicky idea, unable as they are to tackle any real issue.

Voters will be given the power to rewrite laws under Tory plans to transform the way parliament works by importing a popular scheme championed by Barack Obama in last year's US election.

William Hague will tomorrow announce that the Conservatives will introduce a new stage for parliamentary bills, known as the public reading stage, that will allow voters to reject and rewrite clauses.

Bless the little darlings. They sitll think that evoking the name of Barack Obama somehow produces magic stardust to shower them all. Perhaps they should ask the IOC about that, not to mention the many people in the United States who are turning against the President.

In any case, what Barack Obama promised last year is irrelevant. So far, he has not even kept to another promise that there would be a breathing space with every important Bill before the President signs it. Instead, complex and wide-ranging pieces of legislation has been and are being rushed through, with the President expressing distaste for the fact that Congress insists on taking its time over such matters as the healthcare health insurance reform.

Turning to the idea as it is supposed to work in Britain, Mr Hague will be proposing the following:

The first and main debate – the second reading stage, in which the broad principles of the proposed new laws are debated on the floor of the Commons – would be held in the normal way.

But once MPs have held this debate, the bill would be thrown open to voters before it is considered line by line at the committee stage. A website would allow voters to comment on and rewrite the broad principles of the bill, and individual clauses.

Contributors would rank comments so the most popular suggestions appear at the top. This is similar to mixedink, which allows voters to argue for and against various policies and suggest their own ideas.

Well now, where shall we start?

Let us get the obvious point out of the way. Those parts of EU legislation that happen to require Parliamentary Acts cannot be rejected by anybody in this country - not the House of Commons, not the House of Lords, not the electorate. So, that's out.

Secondly, we elect MPs to legislate on our behalf and to read those Bills line by line for the Committee and Report stages, not to put them airily up on some website in the vain hope that somebody will come along and produce some interesting ideas for them to chew over.

The problem we have at the moment is that Bills are badly drafted and rarely debated properly in the House of Commons. It is left to the House of Lords, a revising Chamber whose members do not get salaries merely expenses for the days they spend in the Chamber (not in committee rooms or reading briefs) to go through those Bills and to amend howling errors. On several occasions the situation was so bad that the Government produced scores of its own amendments as late as the Committee or Report stage of the Bill's passage through the Lords. Even so, there are far too many pieces of legislation that are completely stupid, unworkable and destructive. Putting the Bill on a website between the Second Reading and Committee is not going to alter that fact.

When confronted with this MPs have been known to whine complain that they do not have enough time to debate Bills properly. How is an extra stage that will eat into the timing going to alter that?

Thirdly, the people who are likely to respond with their suggestions will be the usual suspects, in particular lobby groups or, as they are known nowadays, stake holders. They would have submitted suggestions at an earlier stage - the Green Paper, the White Paper, the consultation or the draft Bill stages. It is right and proper that individuals and organizations should be consulted on the drafting of legislation but once it has been drafted it is up to our elected representatives and the Second Chamber to read, debate, amend and pass it. That is the purpose for which they are elected. I cannot help feeling that MPs have forgotten this.

This proposal is not so much a copy of Barack Obama's, which was something completely different but an attempt to replicate the EU's ideas of organized civil society. The EU (the supreme legislator for this country) does not believe in parliamentary democracy. It lays out legislation programmes in the form of five or ten year plans and proceeds with them regardless of such details as national or European elections.

To prove its "democratic" credentials, every now and then the EU proposes some form of inter-active legislation when "organized civil society", otherwise known as lobby grops funded by the EU itself, can take discuss or suggest laws and regulations or amendments to existing ones. By proposing a similar system William Hague hammers another nail into the coffin of parliamentary democracy.

Lord Pearson explains EU legislation

There were several sensible letters in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday. No, I did not buy the paper - I was sent the link by a kind friend. I need hardly say that Lord Pearson's letter is particularly informative. You see, he has been paying attention to what is going on with the legislation process, unlike most, if not all, members of the House of Commons, not to mention your average Tory.

SIR – Your explanation of "How EU law reaches us" (September 17) doesn't reveal the whole frightening process. This is that the unelected Commission enjoys the monopoly to propose all EU law in secret. Their proposals are then negotiated, again in secret, by bureaucrats from nation states, in the Committee of Permanent Representatives. When the horse-trading is complete, the proposed laws go to the Council of Ministers for decision, still in secret, where the UK has 8 per cent of the vote.

The EU Parliament cannot propose legislation, but can amend and even block some of it. It doesn't do so, of course, because it is loath to delay or derail the gravy train.

British Governments have promised for many years that they won't agree to any new law in the Council which is still being "scrutinised" (that's all we can do) in the select committee of either House of Parliament. But they have broken that promise 435 times in the last six years.

Our Parliament is powerless to change any of the laws, which are then enforced by the Commission and the Luxembourg Court, against which there is no appeal. And they call this "the democratic deficit".

Actually, democratic deficit describes it all very well. Statements like this ought to be more widely known. They are more important than yet another report on the fact that MEPs are corrupt.