Every Thursday at 11.30 the Leader of the House of Commons makes a statement giving the business for the next week. This is then followed by questions for the best part of an hour. It is in order for members to raise almost anything so long as it is prefaced with ‘will she provide time for a debate on…’ The overwhelming majority of these requests have to be declined because of the lack of available time. The measure of a good Leader of the House is the wit, charm and grace with which the requests are declined. The current incumbent does not cover herself in glory.
Lack of time available is an increasingly thin excuse however, when the time that is available is not being used. A couple of weeks ago the Leader of the House announced the parliamentary calendar for next year: the House will sit for a mere 128 days, less than half the working days of the year. What is the Government afraid of that it should avoid scrutiny and being held to account by packing Parliament off on holiday (without, of course, any diminution in costs, allowances and salaries)?
I recently asked the Leader of the House if we could have a debate on the profound changes to our legal system that are consequent upon the introduction of Sharia law into some civil lawsuits. Many of my constituents find it breath-taking that such major change has taken place without legislation or even a debate in Parliament. The Leader of the House denied my request for a debate on the ground that what I described simply was not true. I shall be charitable: she is quite mistaken, it is indeed happening, and what makes a mockery of our democracy is that it is happening without the elected representatives of the people even discussing it, let alone giving their consent.
In civil cases it is now permissible for the parties to voluntarily submit their dispute to a Sharia court and for the outcome of that process to be offered to an English court for the settlement to be ratified. The parties need not however, present themselves in the English court and be subject to any cross examination. For those of us who have always believed that the fundamental principle of English justice is that all are equal under the law and that there is one law for all, this growth of a parallel Sharia jurisdiction is a most unwelcome and disturbing development.
My own view is that Sharia law diminishes the rights of women. The only safeguard against this is that any woman would need to voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the Sharia court; the choice of a full hearing in an English court could not be denied her. This safeguard certainly does not satisfy me. Who can know what pressure will be placed on vulnerable and frightened women by family and community to submit to the Sharia procedure? None of that pressure will be exposed by cross examination in an English court.
That this is happening at all in our country, I find alarming. That it is happening without Parliamentary scrutiny, I find almost incredible. I begin to wonder if it is really worth the trouble and expense of keeping a parliament – even if for only 128 days. |
