Student Loans: Muslim Students

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said, we will be looking for a suitable vehicle with which to attempt to introduce the system. There is strong interest in it: of the consultation responses, 94% believed that there would be demand for such a system and 81% thought that the proposed scheme being developed was acceptable. We of course want to ensure access for all students to higher education, which is why we would be the first Government to introduce such a scheme, but we need primary legislation to do so.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, talking of the growing influence of sharia law in this country, is there any truth to the press reports that the Government have mortgaged Richmond House and other buildings with sharia bonds, which ban alcohol on those premises? If true, how would that affect the habits of Members of the House of Commons if they move into those premises during refurbishment of this Palace?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

This proposed scheme has nothing to do with sharia law. It is about ensuring that all young people have access to university. We are very keen to try to ensure that we can provide a product that will help them to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said to noble Lords, the Government hope to introduce the system and will be looking at the appropriate legislative way to do so. As my noble friend says, the up-and-coming Session will be detailed in the Queen’s Speech in due course.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, can the Minister explain the difference between takaful and paying interest?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said, this model operates as a mutual fund so the contributions that a student pays go into that fund to be refunded. The idea of borrowing and paying back interest is absent from this model.

European Council

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That is why the Prime Minister has said that perhaps the only person who would cheer if we were to vote to leave would be Putin. Clearly, we do not want to do anything that is going to brighten up his day.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell us how this pathetic deal is in any way the fundamental reform of the EU itself that we were promised? For instance, can she tell us how it has reduced the hugely undemocratic powers of the Luxembourg court and the European Commission? The Prime Minister tries to frighten us by talking about leaving the European Union as being a leap in the dark that will, for example, lose us our present access to the single market. Does the Minister accept that Europe sells us very much more than we sell them, that we have 3 million jobs exporting to them but they have 4.5 million jobs exporting to us, and that we are in fact their largest client? Does she accept that they need our free trade very much more than we need theirs? Can she tell us why that trade will not continue, because they will come running after us to have it?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

No, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord’s description of who benefits most, Europe or us, from the relationship. I shall not take up time rattling through all the statistics, but I say this to the noble Lord: in the end, it is about what is of greater benefit to all of us—to the UK and to the rest of Europe. As a trading bloc, we all benefit from the UK being in the European Union. It is not just about how we benefit in this country—although we do. As for the noble Lord’s questions about sovereignty, I refer him to what I said to my noble friend Lord Lawson. I really do disagree with what he says about that.

Universities: Freedom of Speech

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. There is clear guidance to universities about their responsibilities to ensure free and open debate on campus and we will give full support to university leaderships to ensure that legitimate and open debate within the law can take place. It is concerning that we have seen a number of incidents, as the noble Baroness said. Part of the beauty of going to university is the ability to debate, to have your views challenged and to challenge others. We must continue to support all universities in making sure that all students continue to have that opportunity.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, do the Government agree that criticism and debate about our religions should be part of freedom of speech at our universities, and indeed elsewhere, but that the lawful line is crossed when adherents to those religions are insulted for their beliefs? Is it not that that becomes incitement?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Universities are uniquely placed to provide intellectual and robust challenge to narratives and they must continue to do this. Of course, students and academics have the right to protest peacefully but this cannot lead to intimidation, harassment or the silencing of those they disagree with. That must be stopped.

European Union: United Kingdom Renegotiation

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Lord is certainly right to point out that if the United Kingdom was not a member of the European Union, the way in which it would access the single market would be substantially different, because other countries with a different kind of relationship with the European Union might be able to establish the advantages but do not have an opportunity to influence the rules and how they apply. However, there are people in this House, the other House and the country at large who have long-standing principled views about the European Union that I very much respect. For the first time in over 40 years, we are giving everyone the chance to have their say and decide whether they want to vote us in or out of Europe. I do not want to diminish anyone who has a different view from someone else on this. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, during any campaign on this it will be important that we communicate fairly and effectively with those who have yet to make up their mind about the benefits and otherwise of what is proposed.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, the Government assume that our membership of the EU single market has been good for our economy and that we benefit from the foreign trade arrangements that the Commission is able to secure because of its “clout”. I therefore ask the Government whether they have read a game-changing new analysis from Civitas entitled Myth and Paradox of the Single Market by Michael Burrage. If not, will they do so? It shows that four much smaller countries—Chile, Korea, Singapore and Switzerland—have done hugely better from their free trade deals than we have with the Commission negotiating our free trade arrangements on our behalf. Of course, if we left the political construct of the European Union we would keep our free trade with the rest of the single market—which is all we need—because we are its largest client. They need our free trade much more than we need theirs so it will continue.

I do not have time to deal with the shattering uselessness of the rest of the Prime Minister’s deal, which I understand we shall debate properly soon, but I thought I would ask this question in the mean time, and I look forward to the noble Baroness’s reply.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am confident that those who are closely involved in this process have reviewed every text, document and so forth. I personally have not; I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. The Prime Minister has made clear in his Statement that there are great benefits to being in the European Union that include access to trade. He is also clear that the United Kingdom could survive outside the European Union, but he wants to secure Britain’s membership in a reformed Europe—to negotiate something that would stack up for the people of this country and was then, in the end, for them to decide on.

G20 and the Paris Attacks

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Baroness is right. That is why we, in this country, are trying to tackle the root causes and reasons, and to prevent young men—and women—being influenced and adopting a mindset that is clearly and completely wrong. That is part of our overall comprehensive approach; it has to be because we have to combat this evil ideology.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

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?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

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.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, I fear that some of your Lordships may find my Motion to be somewhat dramatic, and my request for 12 new UKIP Peers somewhat ambitious, but I hope I can allay such feelings. I am also aware that the strong mood of the House is that too many new Peers are joining us anyway, as was reflected in our vote, by 217 to 45 on 28 February 2013, to say that we very much hoped that restraint would be exercised in the appointment of new Members. It is regrettable that this has been entirely ignored by the Prime Minister.

I should confirm, too, that my Motion is in no way critical of our so-called people’s Peers, all of whom have joined the Cross Benches, surely by far the most valuable element of your Lordships’ House. My Motion is aimed squarely at the Prime Minister’s use of his constitutional privilege to recommend new Peers to Her Majesty. A number of your Lordships wanted me to make the Motion quite a bit stronger by delaying the introduction of any new Lib Dem Peers until a fair number of new UKIP Peers had preceded them. But I understand that this, if carried, would have taken us into somewhat uncharted waters and could have interfered with the Queen’s Writ of Summons, because Peers cannot sit, speak or vote until they have taken the oath or affirmed—hence the milder Motion before your Lordships, with which I hope you will agree.

I have put a copy of my correspondence with the Prime Minister and the last coalition Government online, and will be happy to send it to any noble Lord who wants it. I also mentioned most of the story, at col. 1062 on 15 June this year, in a debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, inviting the Government to review the law governing elections in this country. In the interests of time, I will not repeat it all now but would like it to be taken into account.

In summary, the coalition Government said that they had a policy of appointing Peers in reflection of the votes cast at the previous general election. UKIP received 3% of the votes cast in the 2010 election, which should have given us 23 Peers under the Government’s new policy. I therefore wrote to the Prime Minister in May 2010, saying that I understood that it was not an exact science but suggested that UKIP should have had perhaps four new working Peers. The Prime Minister wrote back politely, saying that the media were vastly exaggerating the number of new Peers he could recommend to the Queen. But he said he saw the point and would keep the matter under review. I expect that your Lordships know the sort of letter.

At the time of my letter, the media were speculating that the Prime Minister would recommend the appointment of 60 new Peers, but he went on to recommend 185 during the last Parliament and another 45 now, with none for UKIP. Throughout that Parliament, I wrote several more times to the Prime Minister and asked a number of Oral Questions in your Lordships’ House. The answers were all the same. They stated that the coalition Government’s policy was indeed to recommend Peers in proportion to the votes cast in 2010 but not for UKIP. My noble friend Lord Stevens of Ludgate also tabled a Written Question on 21 May 2013, and I will leave it to him to reveal the full beauty of the Government’s reply from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

We come to the general election in May, which the Conservatives won. The Prime Minister has deftly turned the coalition policy of Peers being appointed to reflect the votes cast in the previous general election to their being appointed to reflect its “result”. This is not helpful to UKIP because although 3.8 million people voted for the party, or 12.6% of the votes cast, we won only one seat in the Commons. However, I understand that the result of the Conservative victory was achieved thanks only to the UKIP vote. I therefore wrote to the Prime Minister again in May and August, pointing this out and suggesting that UKIP should have 12 new working Peers. On 26 August, I received a “pp” reply on behalf of an assistant private secretary in No. 10, which contains the following statement, which your Lordships may find intriguing: “In line with long-standing convention … this dissolution list … provides the opportunity to recognise those who have given long-standing service to the public”.

I have nothing against any of the new Peers personally and am sure that we will all welcome them with our customary courtesy. However, it is clear from the list that they are all party appointees, only a few of whom have given long-standing service to the public, and that in their party capacity. I understand that some of them may even continue to be special advisers and so may not be able to speak or vote. But I will leave it to other noble Lords more versed in these conventions to deal with that possibility.

So where do we stand now in your Lordships’ House? With the help of the Library, I have drawn up a little chart, which I will put online or give to any noble Lord who wants a copy. This chart shows that 24% of the electorate cast 11.3 million votes for the Conservatives in May, which gave them victory, with 330 seats in the Commons and now 250 Peers here, or 48 more than they would have had under the coalition’s policy. For the Labour Party, 20% of the electorate cast 9.3 million votes, which gave them 232 seats in the Commons. They will now have 220 Peers here, or 54 more than they would have done under the coalition’s policy. UKIP came third in May, when 8% of the electorate cast 3.8 million votes for us. But that gave us just one seat in the Commons and we still have only three Peers here, or 66 fewer than we should have had under the coalition policy. Then we come to the Liberal Democrats, who came fourth, and for whom only 5% of the electorate voted, with 2.4 million votes. That gave them eight seats in the Commons. However, with their 11 new Peers, they will now have 113 Peers, or 70 more than they should have had under their very own coalition policy. So we have 66 fewer Peers than we should have had under their policy and they have 70 more. I trust your Lordships see why I singled them out for mention in this Motion. To add insult to injury, the Liberal Democrats are now to have £288,525 per annum to help them run a Front Bench in your Lordships’ House, which I do not understand at all.

What I have said about the unfairness of UKIP’s position applies also in smaller measure to the Green Party, which has one Peer here, or 19 fewer Peers than it should have had. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, cannot speak in this afternoon’s debate but I am happy to make this point on her behalf.

As to the Government’s Motion, I suggest that the most obvious way to address the size of your Lordships’ House is for the Prime Minister to stop recommending so many Peers to the Queen. With this latest list, he will have recommended at least 230 new Peers since 2010—I am not quite sure where that stands in the record books.

Even so, I trust your Lordships will agree that UKIP should have more Peers, especially when we are about to start debating the EU Referendum Bill and the case to leave the EU is so underrepresented in your Lordships’ House.

When I look at the statistics that I have just given, I cannot help concluding that the problem for our democracy—the elephant in the room—is not the size of your Lordships’ House but the fact that the United Kingdom is no longer a democracy. Your Lordships may be shocked by that statement, but my understanding is that a democracy is a system whereby the people elect and dismiss those who make their laws. But last May, only 11.3 million voters got the Government they wanted, while 18.75 million did not.

To the statistics I have given should be added the Scottish National Party, which does not want any seats here, but for which only 3% of the electorate voted, with 1.4 million votes in May. However, this gave it no fewer than 56 seats in the House of Commons. So the composition of the Commons under our first past the post system, which was designed when there were really only two parties, no longer reflects the wishes of the British people.

I appreciate that I have strayed a little beyond the Motion for today’s debate, but the democratic legitimacy of the House of Commons lies above what we are debating today and I wanted to take the opportunity to flag it up. I trust that we can return to it another day, because there is not much point in tinkering with your Lordships’ House when our democracy itself no longer works.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Caithness]

I have only limited time, which is not as much as the noble Lord had. However, I agree with the principle of what he is after but the wording is wrong. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, because his proposal will not have that much effect. He spoke about the gross numbers of Peers over the age of 80. What he did not and cannot tell the House is the percentage of the over-80s who are active. I do not think that his proposal would make that much difference. I will come back to the point later. Having to select among yourselves who is going to stay is not an enjoyable performance—I say that having been through it.

I have some sympathy with the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, because it moves away from dealing with the size of the House into the much more important area of public trust and confidence, which is at a lower ebb than it was before the reforms of 1999. I wish to touch on one point with regard to that. Do not assume that the judgment of this House should be based on the number of defeats against the Government. I agree with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and wish to enter into his debate with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. When I was a Minister, it was the persuasiveness of the argument that was much more important than the defeat. I remember on many occasions being persuaded, particularly by Lord McIntosh of Haringey—my opposite number for much of my career—to agree to his amendments. The Government would word the amendment and I would give it back to Lord McIntosh to table on the Order Paper and accept it. That was the right way in which to do so because it was his idea, not that of the Government. If one considers the effectiveness of opposition from that point of view, one gains a totally different perspective.

I thought that it would be wise to reflect on what I consider to be the major changes that have happened since I joined the House. Perhaps the obvious one that we all know about is the introduction of the life Peers in 1999. However, that led to a situation that changed the House dramatically; it became a much more political House and is increasingly a political House. I pose the question, as I did a couple of years ago: is it right that the second Chamber should be over a quarter full of ex-MPs? Our MPs are not held in the highest regard. I like individually those who are here, and those who are coming, but is it right that a quarter of the second Chamber should be composed of people who have served time in another place, let alone the party hacks who are going to come in?

As a result of that, the House has become much more active. When we talk about size, we must differentiate between the size of the House and the active House. We talk about the size of the House now, but in 1998 its size comprised 500 more than at present yet the average daily attendance was only 50 fewer than now. The issue is the amount of time people spend here. This House has become much more professional; it has become much more necessary to attend, and all the reforms that have been suggested today will be a further step in that direction.

My fourth point derives from that. The part-timers are being squeezed out, and that is a huge loss to us. I have tried to take part in debates and to take part after Statements, and it is sometimes difficult to get in to speak because those who attend and speak regularly are quick at getting up and are very forceful. This is not the courteous House that it used to be when people gave way.

My fifth and final point relates to one of the other changes to this House—the increase in expenses, which happened after the 1999 Act when the new influx of life Peers would not accept the same expenses that we hereditaries had existed on. When I joined the House, the maximum daily rate was £36, which amounts to about £157 in today’s money. We are now, therefore, allowed to claim twice as much as I was allowed to claim when I first came into the House. That encourages people to attend and to participate. As we get more for coming to the House—although it has been frozen for the last five years—all the reforms that we have heard proposed today would increase the number of people wanting to come and wanting to participate. That will add to the fact that this House is not as respected as it used to be and will continue to decline in the public’s estimation.

I believe that the number of people who are actually worried about the overall size of the House outside the Westminster village is about equivalent to the number of speakers today. What they are much more concerned about is whether we do a good job and whether we are trustworthy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, mentioned his father. I am reminded that one of my father’s favourite jokes was that when he was in this place he saw a book in the Library entitled The Need for a Second Chamber, by a Liberal Peer. Get it? No? I am sorry about that.

As a relative newcomer to this House and as an elected hereditary—the product of a ludicrous by-election—I hesitate to intervene. There are far more experienced and expert figures than me to listen to and, moreover, a great deal of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I shall cut my remarks very short. I very much follow the same line as my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral, Lord Jopling and Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai. By far the simplest, quickest and fairest way to reduce numbers in this House is surely to hold an election among ourselves, by party grouping, as to who stays and who goes: a reduction election. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor said, it worked well for the hereditaries in 1999, so we have a precedent.

We will always struggle to come up with rules that can command agreement based on age, expertise or attendance. We all know of people who speak very rarely, or have been on the planet for many decades, whose wisdom we would not want to lose. No doubt, each of us also knows people who speak a great deal, or are in the tenderest youth, who, to paraphrase Mr Bennet, have delighted us long enough. So instead of trying to devise rules about when noble Lords have to leave, let us just fix a total number, give each party grouping a quota and hold secret ballots to decide who stays and who goes. After that, of course, managing the numbers to stop it growing again will need a carefully agreed process, but I do not propose to go into that, because I think we have heard enough and I am looking forward to hearing from others. With that, I will curtail my remarks because if I have learned one thing here, it is that brevity is the soul of wit.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, since the noble Viscount has been commendably short, may I ask whether he agrees with the point made by his noble friend Lord Strathclyde? If we are to go into an arrangement whereby the parties cull their own numbers, would he exclude from that the minority parties which really have not got very much to cull?

[Viscount Ridley]

Indeed. The noble Lord makes a fair point. I assume that, under the arrangements I am suggesting, most of the main parties would cull and some of the other parties would grow at the same time.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I am most grateful.

House of Lords: Membership

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Lord refers to my noble friend Lord Jopling’s proposal, which was among those debated when we debated the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, earlier this year. Many different proposals are out there. As I have said, what is important is that any of them needs to be both workable and attract a consensus. The Prime Minister, as all Prime Ministers do, has at his disposal the facility to create Peers. We ourselves need to reflect on our role here and on what measures we can take to ensure that we continue to be effective. It clearly sounds as though that is what all noble Lords want to do.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, do you want me to take control of this and answer the questions? It sounds like the House is calling for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, first and then I am sure we will want to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am most grateful. Since the Liberal Democrats have 59 more Peers than they should have under their policy of appointing Peers in proportion with the votes cast in the previous general election, would a solution not be for, let us say, 40 of them to stand down? Instead, is there any truth in the rumour that another 11 Liberal Democrats are about to join us and would that be helpful?

Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, it may be helpful if I explain the background to this Motion. As noble Lords will know, since 1996 this House has agreed to provide a sum of money to be set aside for the two main opposition parties in your Lordships’ House and, since 1999, has provided the same for the Convenor of the Cross Benches.

As your Lordships may also recall, in June 2010 we put into abeyance the funding available to the second-largest opposition party, because the Liberal Democrats formed part of the coalition Government following the general election. Now, the coalition Government are no more. The first limb of this Motion recognises that fact and returns us to the situation as it was before the 2010 Parliament, allowing the Liberal Democrat group to draw down funds to discharge its responsibilities as the second-largest opposition party in this House.

The effect of the second limb of the Motion is to adjust the amount of funding available to the Convenor of the Cross Benches to provide the resources needed for him to operate an office with two full-time members of staff. The Motion is silent on the funding available to the Official Opposition. I should say for clarity that that is because the funding arrangements for Her Majesty’s Official Opposition on the Labour Benches remain unchanged.

Overall, the two limbs of the Motion seek to allow this House to continue to undertake the important work that it is here to do, and I am pleased to have worked constructively with the leaders of both main opposition parties and the Convenor in bringing them forward. I beg to move.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, I have given the noble Baroness the Leader of the House notice of this intervention, which arises because I understand that this Motion, if we pass it, will give taxpayers’ money—Cranborne money, I think it is called—to the Liberal Democrats to help them to run their affairs in your Lordships’ House and perhaps elsewhere. If so, I suggest that your Lordships do not pass it until we have agreed an appropriate award of finance for my party, the UK Independence Party.

I ask this against the background of the admittedly unwise policy of the previous coalition Government, which I understand was inspired by the Liberal Democrats and to which I gather they still adhere. That committed the Prime Minister to recommend new Peers to Her Majesty in proportion to the votes cast in the previous general election. That policy would have given the Liberal Democrats some 43 Peers in your Lordships’ House, from their 8% share of the votes cast in May. In fact, they enjoy 102 Peers. Should this situation not be set against UKIP’s present three Peers, from our 13% share of that vote? Under the previous Liberal Democrat policy, we should have 69—so they have 59 more Peers than they should, whereas we have 66 fewer. I trust your Lordships will agree that we should have at least some Cranborne money to help us with our work here.

Noble Lords may be aware that I am in correspondence with the Prime Minister to adjust the present injustice by recommending a number of UKIP Peers to Her Majesty. I trust that we can revisit this matter, if and when that happens. I am not entirely confident that we will get a decent number of Peers, but surely masters cannot go on being so unfair to Molesworth for ever—or can they?

While I am at it, since 185 Peers joined us in the last Parliament, with none for UKIP, and we are already somewhat cramped for space, would not one sensible solution be for, say, 30 Liberal Democrat Peers to stand down? That would free up a share of Cranborne money for UKIP and give us all rather more space. Would not that kill two birds with one stone? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, if I may, I will respond very briefly. I do not think that the matter relates to how many Liberal Democrats are here. The fact remains that there are almost 102 Liberal Democrats, which has been recognised by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal in the resolution that she has put before us. The intention is that we would perform as the second largest opposition party in this Chamber and, accordingly, we welcome the contribution being given to us as part of the Cranborne money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. The answer to her last point is that that rather depends on how many UKIP Peers arrive in this place and who they are. I simply make the point that I do not think that it is right that only the first and second opposition parties should have some financial assistance here. So should the Greens, so should we all—maybe just a little; maybe just to pay for one tiny, little secretary. That would be very helpful.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As I have said, the point of Cranborne funding when it was set up was to enable the main opposition parties, both the Official Opposition and the second-largest opposition party, to operate a Front Bench. It is not based on numbers. The proportion provided to either of those parties is not affected by their electoral performance in different elections. After the 2005 election, when the Liberal Democrats—I am not sure whether they would like me to remind them of this—did better then than they did in 2015, their proportion was not affected. The Cross Bench receives a smaller allocation in order for it to have some secretarial support but, clearly, if we were to base it on numbers, we would see that the Cross Bench is larger than the Liberal Democrats. The way in which the money is divided shows the purpose behind it in the first place.

Tunisia and European Council

Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Baroness has a lot of expert knowledge of this area. I will write to her in response to her question about the report by Sir John Jenkins.

Clearly immediate action needs to be taken, and it is being taken. There is military intervention in Syria, albeit that America is taking the lead there with our Arab partners. We are providing some security and intelligence effort. We are contributing very directly in Iraq and are the second largest contributor to air strikes. Ultimately, the answer to stability in that part of the world lies in good governance. We must support these countries to get to a point where they have Governments in place who can properly represent all the peoples of their individual nations so that together they can combat this terrible, perverted ideology. That will take some time.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, on defeating Islamism, the Statement rightly says that,

“we must take on the radical narrative that is poisoning young minds”.

Is not one way to do that for us all to be allowed to talk openly about Islam, among ourselves and with our Muslim friends? If we try to do this nowadays, we are immediately told that it is we who are stirring up religious hatred. Surely the hatred is all in the breasts of the Islamists? It is all very well intoning that Islam is a religion of peace, but the jihadists, for instance the murderers of Drummer Rigby, believe that they are justified by the Koran and the life of Muhammad, which they quote freely. Will the Government encourage a national conversation about the nature of true Islam?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

It is important for me to say that this is not about defeating Islamism; it is about defeating extremism and an ideology that is perverting a religion called Islam. All, I am sure, that any of us in your Lordships’ House wants is for the shared values in Britain, which are all about freedom and democracy, to be the loudest message that everyone hears. We want to ensure that we say to any person who shows sympathy with extremism that that will not be tolerated. Wherever it comes from, extremism should never be part of anybody’s conversation in this country. The Prime Minister is making clear in his contribution to the debate at this time that he wants all those in the Muslim community to have the confidence to know that they are right in condemning acts of extremism, that when they condemn acts of extremism they are standing alongside the rest of this country and that together we are going to defeat this extremism. Only together will we succeed.