Parliamentary scrutiny of the Brexit process

The House of Lords European Union Committee has produced a report that is for information only about the necessary parliamentary scrutiny of the forthcoming Brexit process. In Scrutinising Brexit: the role of Parliament they refer back to their previous report, The Process of Withdrawing from the European Union, in which the committee had made two very important points. Firstly, the withdrawal negotiations should be conducted in parallel with the negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU (once we are out, that phrase will become accurate) and, secondly, Parliament must be able to scrutinize every stage of the proceedings whether through Ministerial statements, debates or committee enquiries. The latest report, published on July 22 is the first of the reports dedicated to that task. It is for information only but there are several important proposals.

We emphasise that the substance of what is under discussion, rather than the formal stage in the withdrawal process, should be reflected in an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. Effective scrutiny, if it is to achieve the objectives we have described, will be essential at all stages, including:

during informal discussions prior to notification under Article 50, should they take place;

during formal withdrawal negotiations conducted in accordance with Article 50; and

during any negotiations on a new relationship, whether these take place before or after the completion of UK withdrawal.

At the same time

We acknowledge that certain elements of the forthcoming negotiations, particularly those relating to trade, may have to be conducted confidentially. We would expect parliamentary scrutiny of the negotiations to strike an appropriate balance between transparency and confidentiality, while achieving the overarching objective of holding the Government effectively to account.

There will have to be some flexibility and some discretion and to that end the report suggests that scrutiny through committee enquiries and reports may well be the best way forward, though ministerial statements and debates will be essential. Committees are more flexible and more used to separating matters, which are necessarily confidential from those that the government simply wants to keep quiet.

The House of Commons departmental Select Committees will probably go through some rearrangements in the near future to allow for the new, vitally important Department for Exiting the European Union and for scrutinizing the process.

We are also aware of suggestions that a Joint Committee might be established to scrutinise the withdrawal negotiations, though we do not believe that such a Joint Committee is necessary. In committee scrutiny, as in the scrutiny of primary legislation, there is a distinct role for the House of Lords as a revising chamber. The House of Lords could bring significant added value, not only through the expertise of many of its Members, but as a result of its long tradition of politically impartial, thoughtful committee scrutiny.

This is eminently sensible and indicates quite clearly the difference between the two Chambers, their separate roles and their different approach.

We believe that the House of Lords can best contribute to effective parliamentary oversight of the forthcoming negotiations by charging the European Union Committee with explicit responsibility for scrutinising the negotiations. This will require revised terms of reference for the European Union Committee, possibly underpinned by a new scrutiny reserve resolution. We look forward to engaging with the Leader of the House and with domestic committees in developing more detailed proposals in coming weeks.

Withdrawal from the EU is arguably the most complex, demanding and important administrative and diplomatic task that the Government has undertaken since the Second World War. Parliament, if it is to undertake its scrutiny role effectively, will need additional resources that are proportionate to the scale of the challenge. We invite the domestic committees of the House to address the question of resourcing as a matter of urgency.

In the meantime, the Committee proposes to carry on with its work of scrutinizing EU documents though with attention to the withdrawal process and to produce a number of short reports on the various subjects that will be negotiated on. These are promised for the near future, even before the actual negotiations begin.

Brexit debates begin

Parliament has risen for the summer and the silly season is upon us. That is the only explanation I can give to the extraordinary hissing and screaming about the resignation honours' list. Prime Minister names his friends and allies in his last honours list - shock! There are no objective criteria for political honours so whoever is on the list there will be a great deal of hissing and screaming. The only way to solve the problem is to abolish the whole system of honours. Would the hacks and others who are getting all worked up at the moment agree with that? I doubt it. For one thing every hack nurtures a largely unrealistic hope of being on that list one day. (Incidentally, and completely off the subject, something similar is the only solution to the drug problem in the Olympics - call an end to that farce.)

Meanwhile, in another corner of the hippy-hoppy fields just outside the village of Loose Chipping dwindling bands of Remainers are still munching away on the hippy-hoppy grass and calling with decreasing assurance for a second referendum, for a way to stop the Brexit process and for a way to punish the revolting peasants, if needs be by destroying the economy (unlikely to happen but if your are a Remainer Munchkin you can go on hoping). They are also wailing about the misleading information that had come from the Leave campaign and are strangely coy about more than misleading information from the Remain campaign. I assume this will just go on and on and on until the last Remainer Munchkin gets bored.

Elsewhere, people are beginning to discuss what should be discussed in those negotiations. There will be many issues and some of them are going to be quite difficult though not necessarily as difficult as they are made out at the moment.

The House of Lords European Union Committee, source of some excellent (and some not so good) reports has produced its Third Report of the 2016 - 17 Session in which it enumerated its activity of the previous, 2015 - 16 one. Worth glancing through, in my opinion and the various publications can be read for free on line. In the Summary there is a brief outline of the work of the Committee and how it is likely to change over the coming months.

The European Union Committee of the House of Lords scrutinises the UK Government’s policies and actions in respect of the EU; considers and seeks to influence the development of policies and draft laws proposed by the EU institutions; and represents the House of Lords in its dealings with the EU institutions and other Member States.

Following the decision of UK citizens to vote to leave the EU at the 23 June 2016 referendum, the focus of the Committee’s work will shift in the coming months, from scrutiny of EU documents to examination of the Government’s objectives in achieving the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and in building a new and lasting relationship.

Given that all through those negotiations we shall still be members of the European Union, I hope the committee and the various sub-committees will not abandon completely the scrutiny of EU documents.

The House of Lords debate about post-Brexit agriculture, problems and possibilities is not very long and is well worth reading. Britain's food production is a thriving industry and the chances of not having any markets inside and outside the country are slim (though there were odd problems with the EU or its member states banning such things as British beef long after FMD had been dealt with, though no thanks to DEFRA). Lord Gardiner of Kimble, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment and Rural Affairs gave some figures in his reply:

Some 70% of UK land is agricultural. We have a world-class food and farming industry that generates over £100 billion a year for our economy.

Our Great British Food Unit is promoting great British produce at home and abroad, boosting the £18 billion in food and drink that we sold across the world in 2015, and cementing Britain’s reputation as a global food nation. From Welsh lamb and Northern Irish beef to Scotch whisky and English wines—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, will not mind me saying that I do not think any of us would consider those to be niche—we should be proud of the UK industry’s world renown for the quality of its produce and its high standards of animal welfare. I am very conscious of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said about the importance of high standards and, indeed, what was said about procurement.

We know that there is great global demand for quality British dairy products. For example, the Wensleydale Creamery now exports Yorkshire Wensleydale cheese around the world, which accounts for 14% of its business. I was delighted that my noble friend Lady McIntosh also referred to her favourite Yorkshire cheese. The UK dairy industry exported to 138 countries last year, totalling £1.2 billion. Dairy exports to China have increased by more than three-quarters in value compared with 2014.

Several things bothered noble peers: access to the Single Market after Brexit, the presence of casual workers on whom farmers and food producers rely and, above all, subsidies or, as Lord Gardiner put it, support. Well, what's in a name?

The assumption is that there will be less in the kitty by way of subsidy or support for the farmers than they were getting from the EU but is that necessarily a bad thing? Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer led the debate for the Lib-Dems and, after listing the various problems that might hit agriculture after Brexit she said:

However, it is not all doom and gloom. There could be a new settlement for farmers and for our environment. It will require a total redesign of both the legislation around the environment—80% of it has come from the EU, and it has helped to preserve much of the fabric of rural Britain to date—and a new rural settlement with farmers. Quite rightly, the British taxpaying public will expect to see much more for their money. Gone will be the days of subsidies based on landholding size, no matter how few public benefits that land produces or, worse, how many long-term costs occur—for example, in soil degradation, biodiversity loss or water pollution.

Given what a relatively small and densely populated island we are, we really cannot afford to separate agriculture from wildlife and landscape. That is the first real challenge to Defra in considering what strategies it should be employing for a post-Brexit scenario. So far it has produced separate strategies for food, farming and biodiversity. That is not going to be acceptable; it is going to have to produce a whole rural Britain strategy.

The CAP did a lot of good in enabling family farms to survive. That will be another big challenge for Defra: to ensure that the sort of incentives it produces in future will encourage young entrants into farming and enable them to access the finance in order to share some of the machinery and capital investments necessary, particularly for some of those smaller family farms. We cannot expect farmers to manage, say, footpaths, dry stone walls and hedges for nothing. The public enjoy the benefits of the countryside and they will want to continue, so we must pay our land managers—the farmers—properly for that.

This blog will do its best to follow as many of the forthcoming debates as possible.

Baroness Cox's Bill goes to the Commons

Baroness Cox's Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill, which I mentioned in December, has cleared the House of Lords. The Third Reading was a formality and it has now been sent to the Commons for their consideration, which may take some time.

To my certain knowledge this achievement (and it is still a partial one) is the fruit of enormously hard work for a number of years by the Baroness and her team. For a long time it seemed that this perfectly reasonable Bill will never get beyond Second Reading in the Lords but there are definite changes in the air and many things that were not to be discussed now are and quite openly, including the fact that Sharia courts (as opposed to arbitration tribunals that still abide by English or Scottish law) are a very bad idea in many different way.

Another important Bill

Not so long ago I wrote about Baroness Cox's Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill, For a while it did not seem to be getting anywhere. But the times they are a'changing even among front benches and government ministers. Theresa May, as that posting mentions, referred to Sharia courts specifically as something that needs to be looked at very seriously. We are awaiting the list of people who will be in that commission that will be looking at the problem.

Gerald Howarth MP wrote on ConHome that Baroness Cox should be appointed to lead the investigation into the courts and how right he is. Who has done more to alert the peers, the government, the civil service (with inadequate results, needless to say) and the public in general but she to the sheer wrongness of the system.

Caroline Cox, the independent Peer, is one of the most highly regarded parliamentarians in the Lords. The nature of her humanitarian work requires her to spend half her life in a jungle or a desert – or part-way up a mountain. It means that she is often required to enter war zones under fire, visiting people off the radar screen and largely out of sight of the world’s media.

She is no less keen on promoting human rights at home. In 2013, she established the All-Party Parliamentary Group on ‘Honour’-Based Abuse, of which I am the Vice-Chairman. The group has heard countless testimonies of women oppressed by intense community pressure, by inequalities in access to divorce or by the implicit sanctioning of domestic violence.

In October, Lords debated Baroness Cox’s Private Member’s Bill to protect vulnerable women from religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination. Read the Hansard, and you’ll soon lose count of how many peers speak of her expertise and compassion. She is respected by parliamentarians of all parties and, more importantly, trusted by women’s groups who support victims of abuse. For years, she has been raising these issues in parliament, instigating debates, representing the oppressed, and holding our Government to account.

In other words, Baroness Cox is the go-to expert on the very issues which Theresa May is hoping to explore in the forthcoming review and I very much hope she will be appointed as Chairman or, at the very least, given a position on the panel.

In the meantime, the Bill has progressed, largely by lack of opposition or even desire to amend. On December 11, therefore, the order of commitment was discharged and the Bill is proceeding directly to Third Reading.

According to the rules amendments can be put down at that stage as well but it is considered to be bad form (to use the Baroness's own words in private conversation) to do so unless they are ones that had been put down before. Second Reading showed that the House is largely on her side and the few who oppose the Bill find it hard to come up with rational arguments. We may assume tentatively that the Bill will get through the House of Lords and will go to the Commons. There, the situation will be more difficult: HMG will be able to control the amount of time allocated to it and lack of it may well kill the Bill again. Arguments such as equality of women and the wrongness of a parallel legal system in one country might not have a chance to be aired. Still, getting this far is an enormous achievement.

The Bill awaits Royal Assent

It's all over bar the shouting. Well, bar the Royal Assent. I am glad to say that the House of Lords insisted on debating the reasons for the Commons' rejection of Amendment 1 and even raised the question of the need for greater "transparency and the minimum thresholds for when financial privilege, which can and will severely curtail the power of this Chamber". I know it was Baroness Morgan of Ely who used those words but they are ones this blog agrees with. Matters of this kind cannot simply be decided by the Speaker's off-hand comment. Not any Speaker's. There are no personal allegations here.

Baroness Morgan then proceeded to put the extension of the vote to 16 and 17 year olds to the vote and, this time, it lost 263 to 246 (Cols 1865 to 1868).

So, the Bill now awaits Royal Assent and will then become a law of the land. And it is then that the fun (loosely speaking) will start.

Meanwhile, back on the home front

The EU Referendum Bill is still making its way through Parliament. As expected the House of Commons reversed the Amendment that would have given 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote in it (unlike the right to buy tobacco or alcohol or decide whether they want to stop being part of the education system) and agreed to all the government Amendments. (See columns 881 to 885 for the vote.)

So the Bill returns to the Lords in what has become known as "ping-pong" and from 3 pm on the proceedings can be watched here. It will be interesting to see how the Lords will deal with a problem that seems to have been added to the procedure quite gratuitously.

At the beginning of that debate in the Commons on December 8, the Speaker said:

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 1 engages financial privilege. Lords amendment 1 is the first amendment to be taken, and to move the Government motion to disagree I call the Minister, eager and expectant.

Financial privilege attached to the amendment implies that the Lords will not be able to reinstate it. It is hard to see why this amendment should have financial privilege attached to it while other matters should not.

Naturally, an extension of the electorate even temporarily carries a price but then all legislation carries a price. Is the Speaker saying that the Lords will now not be able to amend any legislation, in case that amendment might have some financial implication. If so, it introduces an important constitutional change, which should be discussed widely and not simply announced in a somewhat off-hand fashion by the Speaker.

This is all part and parcel of the government's intention to do away with any kind of check on its power. Given our system that check is not going to come from the House of Commons, though its members might be elected; it can come only from the courts (another theme altogether) or the Lords. Readers of this blog know that it is greatly in favour of the Lords providing that check even when the blog disagrees with their decision, as it does in this case.

Interestingly, support for that point of view has come from the Adam Smith Institute. Dr Eamonn Butler writes on their blot that An unelected check is better than no check on the House of Commons.

Who says politicians are useless and inefficient? They are superbly efficient at one thing, at least – curbing any restraints on their own power.

Thus Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative grandee charged by Prime Minister David Cameron with reviewing the role of peers in the governance of the United Kingdom, is set to propose that the Lords lose their veto over delegated or ‘secondary’ legislation. It all stems from the Prime Minister’s (and the Chancellor’s) agitation at the House of Lords blocking plans to cut tax credits. And that was not the first time that the Lords has irritated the House of Commons by questioning its legislative plans.

The argument is that the Commons is elected and the Lords (mostly) isn’t. So the Lords have no right to block Commons legislation. But even the most slavering MP these days would not suggest simply abolishing the Lords and giving the House of Commons absolute power. That would lead to riots. But they figure they can get rid of the ‘problem’ a bit at a time. The Lords have already lost their powers to block financial legislation; they can delay but not veto other measures; and the Parliament Act, designed to be used in dire emergencies, is now deployed with dazzling frequency, to push through measures that the Lords feel queasy about.

Lord Strathclyde’s proposals are just the latest sortie in these one-sided air-strikes. Secondary legislation is the detailed regulatory stuff that MPs can’t be bothered with, and delegate to officials: so (runs the argument) why do we need the Lords to worry about that?

Well, we should all worry about it, as we can at least get rid of MPs and even overturn laws, but we can’t vote out regulators. Scrapping regulations ain’t so easy, either. So it is good that such proposals are properly scrutinised before they get going. Give it a year or three, though, and there will be some other issue, and the Lords’ powers will be trimmed again. And again.

I find this obsession with elections completely baffling, especially as so often the people who insist on it also complain about the electoral system and about the people who get elected. Surely, having another House that is chosen in a different way is a good idea.

There are many problems with the House of Lords as it stands. Lord Pearson's repeated complaint that the Lib-Dims are over-represented in it while UKIP is under-represented is fair; the packing of the House by the previous Labour and Coalition as well as the present Conservative governments is part and parcel of their intention to control its activity and ought to be stopped. A moratorium on any further peerages should be introduced immediately until we sort out the mess that has been created by the packing.

But let us not forget that the argument for nobody being appointed and everybody being elected leads to the next one, which is the one about elected politicians not being elected by all that large a proportion of the electorate. A discussion of whom MPs represent and what their position is or ought to be in the political world is something for another blog in which Edmund Burke will be quoted correctly but let us quickly look at the logical conclusion of that argument: it is surely that unless about 90 per cent or more vote for the government it has no legitimacy. Well there are and have been for many years political systems based on that. Do the critics of our system really want to live like that?

Hansard links

For those readers who want to know what was actually said in those debates yesterday here are the links to the Commons and the Lords.

While we are on the subject, here is the link to the Third Reading of the EU Referendum Bill, which is now through the House of Lords and has gone back, in an amended form, to the Commons where it will be debated on December 8. As I have mentioned earlier, most of the amendments are government ones (another one or two have been passed in the Third Reading) and will be passed in the Commons. The one amendment that will cause problems is Baroness Morgan's that extends the electorate for the referendum to those who will be 16 and 17 by the time it is taking place. Presumably, the Commons will hold out on that and repeal the amendment, sending the Bill back to the Lords again. There is a strong possibility that there will be no Royal Assent before Christmas.

Well, that's that

We are going to send the RAF to Syria and strike ISIS territory. The House of Commons debated the issue for most of the day and voted 397 to 223 to authorize those airstrikes. The majority was bigger than many expected. The House of Lords also debated it but, as in 2013, did not divide, merely expressed its mood, which was supportive of the government.

I find myself in a quandary. As I made it clear yesterday, I do not think this is a very good idea. There is no need to go through the arguments again as they are all here. At the moment I prefer not to think about what will happen when the first pictures, helpfully produced by ISIS, of children killed by allied bombs are published.

On the other hand, there is the opposition to the air strikes: the Stop The War Coalition, the people who earnestly assure me that war has never solved anything (I usually suggest that they have a word with people who remember being liberated from the Nazis), the dopy academics one of whom shared a programme on the BBC Russian Service earlier today and whose idea was to try to get a global consensus through the UN, and the screaming, ullulating mob outside Parliament today. As I was leaving the Palace of Westminster about half an hour before the vote was due I saw resigned looks on the faces of the police officers. Whichever way the vote goes, one of them said, there will be trouble. Added to that we have the stories published in various media outlets, even left-wing ones of threats against Labour MPs who had voiced their intentions to vote with the government on the subject and abuse against their staff (a particularly despicable kind of behaviour) and one's convictions begin to waver.

For what it is worth, I still think that we are making a mistake but I can understand that we have placed ourselves in an almost impossible position - we need to solve the Syrian crisis if for no other reason than to stem the flood of migrants but we have no idea how to do it. Getting rid of ISIS, if we can do it, may be the first step towards a solution but my doubts remains.

Perversely though, I am glad that the holier-than-thou rabble did not win.

Another update

Third Reading of the EU Referendum Bill in the House of Lords will take place this afternoon. It is described as a "final chance" to tidy up the Bill and there has been a good deal of tidying up already. However, it has also been amended on the question of voting rights and will, therefore, have to go back to the Commons. We are likely to see a bit of toing and froing. Here is the Bill as it is now.

Lord Pearson's memorandum

About ten days ago I wrote about Lord Pearson's Memorandum, Shall We Talk About Islam?, and promised to put up a link as soon as there was one. It is now up on the website Can We Talk About Islam? and you can read find either through that site or just go directly to the document here.

This is a paper for discussion and people are encouraged to respond. Should any of this blog's readers want to do so on it, they are very welcome to do so. Obviously, courteous and rational comments are more welcome than the other kind. In fact, anything truly courteous and rational will be passed on to the authors.

Meanwhile, Lord Pearson has also been active in the House of Lords, as have a number of those pesky unelected members. On November 17 a Statement was made in both Houses about the G20 meeting and the Paris attacks, which took in various measures that HMG is proposing in order to deal with the problem of Islamic extremism that all too often leads to terrorism. It is probably worth reading the whole Statement and the subsequent debate. Naturally, these are only proposals and none of us can predict with any accuracy which, if any of them, will be implemented.

Lord Pearson asked:

My Lords, in that vein, I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to inspect and shut down any educational institutions which teach Islamist intolerance and, I presume, violence. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this policy will include all evening madrassahs and, indeed, our mosques, where so much of the poison is spread?

To which HMG in the form of Baroness Stowell of Beeston replied:

My Lords, it will include any establishment where this kind of extremism — non-violent and violent — is being pursued. We can no longer tolerate a situation where it is okay for somebody to espouse extremist views and stop short of inciting violence. Because of that, we are committed to taking all necessary steps. As the noble Baroness said a moment ago, we have to ensure that people are not in a position where they are influenced by or attracted to this kind of ideology, which is so damaging and dangerous.

I am not quite certain what is meant by non-violent extremism but, as I said above, we shall have to see what is actually achieved.

Baroness Morgan gets her Amendment through

Yesterday was the first day of Report on the EU Referendum Bill in the House of Lords. I have not yet read the Hansard record right through but anyone who wishes to get ahead of me, it is to be seen here. However, I do know that Baroness Morgan, whom I already described as being quite exceptionally stupid did put her Amendment to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote to the House and carried it (Col. 180), 293 to 211. It is absolutely necessary to give those children the vote, according to her,"[t]hey will have to live with the consequences of the result for longer than anyone". Well, not anyone, surely. If we assume that they will all live longer than anyone who is old enough to be in Parliament now and anyone who votes in the General Election now (something of a stretch) then we have to assume that 14 and 15 year olds will live even longer with the results and 12 and 13 year olds even longer than that. Why not give them the vote?

Just to recap, if this Amendment is accepted by the House of Commons, which seems unlikely, we shall be giving the vote in this referendum and no other election to people whom we do not consider to be old enough to buy alcohol or tobacco, old enough to decide whether to continue with their education or old enough to be interviewed by the police without a responsible adult present. In fact, apart from having sexual relations we do not consider them to be old enough to make any decisions on their own since even joining the army can be done only with their parents' or guardians' agreement.

Possibly that is why Baroness Morgan and her cohorts are so anxious to give them the vote - they are not old enough to make a decision for themselves so are more likely to be influenced by the pro-EU garbage they hear at school. That may be a miscalculation but in the meantime we are left with a constitutional mess thanks to the Labour and Lib-Dem parties' anxiety to increase what they perceive to be the pro-EU electorate.

Other news from the House of Lords - 2

Meanwhile, Lord Pearson of Rannoch is conducting his own campaign, which consists of two aspects: firstly, it is time we started talking about Islam seriously and without fear and, secondly, the moderate or anti-extremist Muslims should be drawn into that discussion. The campaign has not advanced very far as yet but it is moving forward slowly.

On November 5 (one wonders whether the powers that be recognized the appropriateness of the date) the noble Lord had a Starred Question:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, as part of their counter-extremism strategy, they will encourage a national debate about the nature of Islam, including whether the Muslim tenet of abrogation remains valid today.

Sadly, I have to report that the brief debate that followed the Question was not on a particularly high level, consisting largely of statements disguised as questions about how shocking and divisive such a suggestion might be.

While this blog agrees with the notion that the state has no place in organizing religious debates and discussions, the Question refers to "encouragement" rather than "organization". There are many debates going on about major and not so major religions and nobody thinks that they are divisive. Why exactly should Islam be excluded?

As to why it might be a good idea to include such a debate or discussion in the "counter-extremism strategy", it would be hard to deny that the terrorist threat we face at the moment is tied in with certain groups in the Muslim community. For that very reason the many other Muslims should have a chance to take part in such a discussion and distance themselves from the extremists, their supporters and propagandists and not just the terrorists.

As it happens, I do know that there are many Muslims in this country who are actively fighting the good fight and they are not given nearly as much support either by HMG or by the media, especially not the BBC, though they are often in real danger.

Lord Pearson has also, with the help of a couple of experts on the subject, produced a paper, entitled Shall We Talk About Islam?, which, I am assured by his office, will be on-line very soon. As soon as that happens, this blog will link to it. In the meantime, let me quote the introductory paragraphs:

Have you noticed that when we try to discuss Islam, we are immediately accused of stirring up religious hatred or of being Islamophobic bigots etc? But we can say what we like about any other religion?

We are surprised by how little our friends and acquaintances know about Islam, which contains perhaps the greatest threat facing our Judaeo-Christian civilization.

So here is a memo on some of the basic facts about Islam. It may be controversial, but we hope it will encourage a long overdue national debate.

What follows is a number of points about Islam and the Qur'an, with references to the accepted texts.

The memo has been sent to members of the House of Lords and to Opinion Formers with a suggestion to the Guardian newspaper, in particular, given their previous attacks on Lord Pearson that they preside over a serious debate. It does not have to be the Grauniad. Any other media outlet could do it.

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.

Renegotiations and the House of Lords

First things first: the EU Referendum Bill has gone through Committee, with the third day of it having taken place on November 4. First day of Report is scheduled for November 18 and several Amendments (mostly the ones that were not moved in Committee) have been put down already. So far, the only Amendments added to the Bill are ones moved by HMG in the person of Baroness Anelay of St John's, which raises the rather perplexing question of why have those Amendments been left to this late stage. Could it be that some of these matters did not occur to HMG until the Lords started going through the Bill with some attention to detail? Just a thought.

Yesterday was taken up with David Cameron's letter Donald Tusk, a.k.a. President of the European Council (only one of several Presidents the EU has, which shows how superior it is to the USA that has only one President). There were also statements in both Houses and the one in the Lords together with the short debate can be read here.

No, I don't know either why it is headed Europe: Renegotiation when the statement, quite correctly referred to "the Government's EU renegotiation". Baroness Morgan of Ely, former member of the Toy Parliament and present Opposition Whip and Labour Spokesperson on Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs as well as Wales (she can say a few words in the language) tends to talk about "Europe" rather than the EU. Then again, one of the interesting aspects of the debates on the subject (and there will be many more) is just how stupid the woman is. Having once debated with her in Cardiff, I knew that but it is good to have it confirmed. To be fair, even I underestimated her stupidity. Just read her reply to the Minister and you will see what I mean.

There are, as we know, problems with the PM's proposals, particularly this one:

We propose that people coming to Britain should live here and contribute for four years before qualifying for in-work benefits or social housing, and that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas. The Government are open to different ways of dealing with these issues, but we need to secure arrangements that deliver on these commitments.

A number of people have commented on it, mostly pointing out that it will need a treaty change and a major one at that.

On the whole, we can ignore statements by Baroness Morgan for the Labour Party (who is still proposing to add 16 and 17 year olds to the voters' list but not, apparently, 14 and 15 year olds) and Baroness Smith of Newnham for the Lib-Dims, who are seriously over-represented in the House of Lords. Effectively they are saying that their parties will campaign for staying in, no matter what the outcome of the negotiations might be. That is not a rational attitude.

Let us turn to someone who can actually punch hard in debates, Lord Lawson of Blaby (Col. 1949):

My Lords, the Statement we have heard runs the full gamut from the inadequate through the vague to the completely meaningless. I ask my noble friend two quick questions of elucidation. Under economic governance, the Statement concludes that any issues that affect all member states must be discussed and decided by all member states. Does it mean that legislation in this area must be agreed by all member states? If not, what on earth does it mean?

Secondly, under sovereignty, the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk states that he would seek a formal, legally binding and irreversible way to exempt the United Kingdom from the commitment to ever-closer union. But since the rest of the European Union is committed to ever-closer union, and since the European Union will continue to legislate to this end, what on earth does that achieve?

Indeed, the ever-closer union is written into every treaty's preamble since the one of Rome all those decades ago.

The Minister's response was so disappointingly vague and woolly that I see not point in putting it up here but it is there in Hansard for all who want to read it.

The question of how many EU citizens claim benefits here and what those are, in-work or out of work remains unanswered despite attempts by Baroness Ludford to obfuscate an already foggy issue. Of course, the benefit system needs to be reformed for everybody but I doubt if the noble lady would agree with that, being of the Lib-Dim persuasion and another former member of the Toy Parliament.

Nor were as Lord Garel-Jones's incomprehensible comments about red card, yellow card and subsidiarity particularly impressive. The whole shebang is pointless, really. You can have any amount of coloured cards, they will not restore legislation to the national parliaments. But I do have to report one victory. After many years of campaigning by Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Willoughby de Broke (who had asked a Question about Basic Farm Payments earlier in the day) to make former European Commissioners declare their interests there seems to be some movement in the right direction. At any rate Lord Clinton-Davis said (Col. 1952):

I speak as a former commissioner in Europe. This debate is outrageous. We ought to be discussing not how we are going to withdraw from Europe but how we can play a part in ensuring that our voice is heard. At the moment, it is not, because the Prime Minister is being ambiguous—we do not know where he stands. He will not say whether he is for or against. What is vital is how we make our views heard, not how we can withdraw. We should not have this attenuated debate, but a real one about the all-important issues. At the moment, that is being denied to Parliament, and that is wrong.

Without making it a declaration of interest, which it is, he does point out that he is a former Commissioner in Europe though, of course, it was the European Union. I suspect the noble lord finding the debate outrageous is quite useful from our point of view.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch raised a couple of important points (Col. 1453):

My Lords, I ask the Minister how seriously the Prime Minister takes his belief, according to the Statement, that if powers do not need to reside in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster? Does the Minister think the Prime Minister understands that this requires the breaking of the acquis communautaire, the one-way ratchet to complete union? Surely that will require unanimity. It will require treaty change. I suppose the real question is that if the others do not agree this revolutionary concept in the project of European integration, does that mean that the Prime Minister will campaign to leave?

The Minister has promised to write to Lord Pearson on the subject and that is something to look forward to. Interestingly, the Statement left open the question of which side the PM is likely to campaign on. We all assume that he will proclaim whatever he gets a great victory and campaign to stay in but by suggesting that he might not do so he has presented himself as a man of political flexibility and also of real principle. (Stop laughing at the back.) With the Opposition shouting that they will campaign to stay in, no matter what, this is a useful image to project.

Update

Student demonstrators today, masked marchers tomorrow (though I doubt that prediction of 1 million very much) but life goes on and the EU Referendum Bill is making its way through the House of Lords. Today is the third day of Committee and the debate is going on as I write this and it can be watched here.

Second day of Committee was on Monday and the debate can be read in Hansard here and here. So far, none of the Amendments have even gone to the vote, let alone passed. There are still two days of Report to come and then the Third Reading. So far as I can remember, Amendments can be presented at the Third Reading (unlike the Second) but it seems a little unlikely. It is possible that the Bill will be passed without any alteration, as it came from the Commons. In that case it might receive the Royal Assent before Christmas. If there are Amendments and it has to go back to the Commons then it is unlikely to be law before next year.

Either way, an April referendum, which is what some people are predicting (probably the same ones who were predicting a referendum for 2014) is unlikely and that is just as well from our point of view. I cannot understand why any Brexit supporter should be calling for an early referendum. We are not nearly ready, no matter what these people say and the opinion polls may be moving in our favour but not particularly fast and not particularly evenly. Relying on the migrant crisis is not particularly sensible as, by itself, it will not turn the electorate or not enough of it. So, let us hope that the referendum is not till 2017 and let us use the time sensibly.

Here is one suggestion: the House of Lords Select Committees produce excellent, well-argued Reports. (One of my most entertaining sessions on the BBC Russian Service was explaining that Parliamentary Reports from either House can be and often are critical of the government. I have never managed to find out how that went down in Russia.) The European Union Committee and its various Sub-Committees are well worth following. This July, the Select Committee produced a Report entitled: The referendum on UK membership of the EU: assessing the reform process. The intention is to produce a number of reports on the subject as matters progress.

At the end of the introductory chapter we find this:

6. Given the range of views within the House and across the country that will be expressed in the referendum campaign itself, this report does not recommend whether or not the UK should remain a member of the EU. Nor, although we have borne it in mind in our deliberations, do we address the European Union Referendum Bill, introduced to the House of Commons on 28 May 2015. It is not part of our remit to scrutinise domestic UK legislation.

7. Rather, this report is designed to inform members of the House, and the wider political audience in the UK and the EU as a whole, of our views and concerns at this early stage in the renegotiation process. It sets out our assessment of the mechanics of the process. It also sets out our intended approach as negotiations continue. Although Chapter 3 of the report touches on the policy issues pertaining to the renegotiation, it is not intended to express the Committee's considered view on these issues. The Select Committee, together with its six Sub-Committees, is likely to analyse the proposed reforms in greater detail in the coming months.

The emphasis is mine. Let me recommend those words "and the wider political audience". Let me also recommend this and future Reports on the subject to that audience.

First day of Committee

For anyone interested who has not yet switched on the Parliamentlive.tv, the first day of the Committee stage of the EU Referendum Bills is going on right now. Here is all the information you might need about the state of the Bill now, including the various Amendments, mostly to do with extending the franchise and with demanding that HMG produce a detailed analysis of what they expect the renegotiations to achieve and, more to the point, how do they view Britain's existence outside the EU.

Curiously enough, there are no demands for HMG to produce a detailed analysis of what they think the EU will look like in five years' time and what Britain's role in it will be if we stay in. I seem to recall that many of the people who are now demanding the above report or analysis were horrified at the thought of a cost/benefit study of Britain's membership all the times it was asked for.

Shock news: this blog agrees with the Minister

The European Union Referendum Bill has had its Second Reading in the Lords and we can begin to work out what the future debates, at Committee and Report stage are likely to be about. Who is to vote in the referendum is going to figure high on the agenda. At present, as Baroness Anelay explained in her opening speech:

This is a vote about the future of the United Kingdom in Europe, so it is right that we use the Westminster franchise as our starting point for this referendum, which is of vital importance to this nation’s future. This means that British citizens in the UK, British citizens who have been abroad for less than 15 years and resident Commonwealth and Irish citizens will have a vote. Noble Lords will already be aware that we have added Members of this House to the franchise, in line with our normal practice for referendums.

...

Finally, we have added British, Commonwealth and Irish citizens in Gibraltar. The Government believe it is right that Gibraltar should take part. Broadly speaking, the EU treaties apply to Gibraltar, and Gibraltar votes as part of the South West England region of the UK in European parliamentary elections.

The Labour and Lib-Dems are lining up arguments for inclusion of 16 and 17 year olds as well as EU citizens resident in this country.

The argument for EU citizens voting in a referendum that will decide the UK's role as far as the EU is concerned (for reasons mentioned in this blog too often to link to, I dislike the expression "relations with the EU" and shall have no truck with the completely inaccurate "relations with Europe") will affect their status as well as the status of British citizens living in other EU countries. Therefore, those EU citizens should have a say.

Of course, the result of the In/Out referendum will affect many other people who happen to be residing in this country, Americans who work for international firms, for instance; or people who are not EU citizens but have arrived here through another EU country; or students and academics who are here on some form of EU grant or scholarship. Should they all have a vote in the referendum.

Shock number one: this blog agrees with the Minister's argument against extending the vote to EU citizens who have not bothered to take UK citizenship (it is possible to have dual citizenship but not everyone avails himself or, for that matter, herself of that).

Many EU citizens have made the UK their home and have made significant contributions to life in this country. No one would wish to deny that. However, this is a vote about the future of the United Kingdom in Europe so it is right that we use the Westminster franchise as the basis. Using a franchise that does not include other EU nationals is entirely consistent with the practice in other EU member states and with the EU treaties themselves. I suspect that many of the British public would view the inclusion of EU citizens as a crude attempt to fix the result.

A crude attempt to fix the result? Oh surely not!

When it comes to 16 and 17 year-olds voting in the referendum because they did in the Scottish Independence one, I have already written a couple of postings on the subject.

The subject was raised on June 4 when the arguments that were repeated in the Second Reading and will, undoubtedly, be repeated again, were raised. Briefly, the arguments amount to two: 16 and 17-year-olds showed themselves to be very responsible by voting in large numbers in Scotland and the referendum is about the future of this country, which means their future and they should have some say in it.

There is a good deal of evidence that while that age group, almost all of whom live in their parental homes voted in high numbers, the next age group, many of whom have moved out, do not. No parents to march them off to the voting booths, one assumes. I quote several comments in and out of the House in the blog I have linked to.

The referendum is, indeed, about the future of this country but that will affect 14 and 15 year-olds as well as 12 and 13 year-olds. Should they not be given the vote? After all, as a society we do not think that 16 and 17 year-olds should be allowed to decide anything for themselves apart from the question of sexual relations. They cannot get married or join the armed forces (one argument brought up in an earlier debate) without their parents' permission. They are not allowed to purchase tobacco or alcohol with or without that permission. And, as of this year, they have no choice in whether they want to continue with their education or not, as I wrote in this posting.

The decision about compulsory education is very recent. Far from allowing that 16 and 17 year-olds are capable of making various decisions, we are taking away the few they have through legislation and reducing them to the status of children.

Let us not forget that there is a proposal (as I wrote in this posting) for giving 17 year-olds the status of children "under all the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act". 16 year-olds have that status already. In other words, and this cannot be repeated often enough, we are treating that age group as children, incapable of making any important decisions, something that is applauded by the very politicians who demand that they be given the vote. Is this another "crude attempt to fix the result"?

Once again, this blog agrees with the Minister. (When I have finished writing this I shall have to go and lie down in a dark room with a wet towel on my forehead.)

Including 16 and 17 year-olds would be a major constitutional change. We do not believe that this Bill, or any other Bill not directly addressing the franchise in general, should be the vehicle for doing this. Any such change should enjoy the support of Parliament and the country as a whole, after a full and proper debate.

Indeed so. An extension of franchise is a separate issue from the referendum. For, if 16 and 17 year-olds who are not old enough in law to make any important decision about their lives to be considered as old enough to vote in a referendum, then why not in an election?

More reports from the battlefront

The House of Lords are debating the Referendum Bill and you can watch it here but the debate will appear in Hansard tomorrow, when I shall post a link to it. You can read some of the early speeches here but the full text will not be up till early tomorrow morning. It is worth pointing out that the Lords do not divide on Second Reading so, please, no hysterics about there being no vote after today's debate. There will be Amendments at the Committee and Report stages and then there will most probably be divisions.

In the meantime, here is the Bill as it exists now and as it is being debated in the House of Lords.

Where does the money go?

The House of Lords is again under attack and I intend to spend some time and several postings defending it though not defending the Prime Minister's extraordinary decisions for the appointment of new peers.

First of all, some good news for people who like the idea of hereditary peers in the House and have some idea of history: we now have a Duke of Wellington in Parliament as the latest holder of that title has just been elected by Conservative Peers to the House of Lords.

It would have been nice to report that it was a "damn close run thing" as the Duke is supposed to have said or "It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life" as he actually said to Thomas Creevey but this blog has to record that the 9th Duke won hands down.

A total of 48 other hereditary Conservative peers voted in the election under the alternative vote system and, after four transfers of votes, the Duke ended up with 21 votes, beating the Marquess of Abergavenny and the Earl of Harrowby, who picked up six votes each.

Before the vote, the 70-year-old peer said: “I have aspired to serve in the Lords since I first became interested in politics. I stood for the House of Commons in 1974 and was elected to the European parliament in 1979 for two terms.

“Since then I have been chairman of a life insurance company, a luxury goods company and a fund management company. I have been a commissioner of English Heritage and am currently chairman of the Council of King’s College, London.”

What was that about wanting politicians who have experience outside politics?

Moving on to related matters. Tuesday saw a long debate in the House of Lords about future developments and reforms. I intend to write more about that debate, which I have not finished reading yet. Right now, I want to turn my attention to Lord Pearson's Motion to Resolve on which he spoke twice: once during the debate itself and once after it.

As I shall say in future postings I did not agree with everything the noble lord said in his main speech though I do not disagree with his fight for more UKIP peers, given the fact that the Prime Minister decided to give a peerage to a number of Lib-Dim politicians whose great achievement was to lose their seats in the May General Election. I also found his comments at the end of the debate interesting and useful for anyone who wishes to become involved in the discussion:

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, chided me for not including the Scottish National Party in my Motion and remarks. The reason for that omission is that, regrettably, it does not want any seats here, let alone the 35 which its performance at the last general election would give it under the Liberal Democrat coalition policy.

One other important suggestion has been brought home to me during this lengthy but creative debate. We should not concentrate so much on the total size of your Lordships’ House as on average daily attendance. The Library tells me that, as of last week, actual membership was 775, but our average daily attendance is only 483. Yet, before most of the hereditary Peers left us in 1999, we numbered some 1,325 Peers, but the average daily attendance was only some 446, so it is not much more today. Of course, it is daily attendance that costs taxpayers money. Peers who do not attend do not get the daily allowance. If the public understood that better it might do something for our suffering reputation.

That said, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have supported me. Ever an optimist, I hope that the Prime Minister will take note of our debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Will the Prime Minister pay attention to that and any future debates? Who can tell?

The figures and the fact that Peers get paid expenses for daily attendance only are worth noting, however.

About UKIP

No, this is not about Kippers rejoicing about Greece's discomfort because this version of it sounds like a defiance of the EU but about their representation in the House of Lords, something I have written about before.

It seems that the Prime Minister has replied to Lord Pearson's letter on the subject of whether more UKIP peers will be appointed with the following words:

The Government’s policy is to ensure that the House of Lords continues to work well.

I have committed previously to keeping the party peers under review and will, of course, give further consideration to the points you raise when we come to consider recommendations over the course of this parliament.

As this is somewhat meaningless I suspect there must have been something else in the letter and as soon as I find out I shall report on it.

Meanwhile, we are faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, the House of Lords has been packed by political hacks of various kind by the previous Cameron and the Blair/Brown governments and we really need no more members. In fact a purge is in order. On the other hand, UKIP should have some representation in Parliament and they are unlikely to get that in the Commons despite the number of votes they received.

If we take the view that peers should be appointed on merit and regardless of party affiliation or electoral votes then all is well. But if we take the view that the Lords should somehow, indirectly represent opinion then UKIP should have more peers.

If the Prime Minister calls a moratorium on more peerages then all is relatively well though why there should be so many Lib-Dem ones remains a mystery. But if he appoints numerous Lib-Dems who lost their seats then UKIP will have something to complain about and so shall the rest of us as the House of Lords is an important part of our constitution, such as it is while we are in the EU.