HM Queen's Speech 2016

It wasn’t really her speech; it was David Cameron’s, but the tradition maintains the constitutional principle that it is Her Majesty’s Government and this is its legislative programme for the new parliamentary year that began on Wednesday 18^th May 2016.

It was an interesting Queen's Speech which listed 25 Bills plus 5 carried over from last year, it included measures to reform prisons, promote community integration and tackle extremism, and to give us a Bill of Rights.

This is the most controversial measure, it means scrapping the Human Rights Bill and replacing it with a Bill of Rights.

This was a manifesto pledge in 2010 but was blocked by the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition Government.

The Conservatives are critical of the power of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to over-rule the judgements of the UK courts, as it did when it blocked Home Office moves to deport extremist Islamic preachers.

Whilst the new Bill will incorporate the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights, it will give the UK Supreme Court the last word, not the ECHR and the Bill will also take account of UK common law tradition which the ECHR doesn’t

The Prisons and Courts Reform Bill is another significant measure.

Too many of our prisons are overcrowded Victorian relics, the prison population has grown alarmingly and violence and drug abuse are rife in some of them.

Justice Secretary Michael Gove has brought his reforming zeal to turn prisons from warehouses of criminals, to places where change happens.

More education to develop inmates’ skills so that they can find jobs and not re-offend would help to cut prison numbers and bless their families.

Six ‘reform’ prisons where the Governors will have more autonomy as to how they spend their budgets have been identified and the most run-down prisons will gradually be replaced by new modern buildings.

Courts and tribunals will be reformed to deliver faster and fairer justice. The use of tags with satellite tracking for low risk criminals will offer the option of non-custodial sentences, helping to cut prison numbers.

Another potentially controversial measure is the Counter-Extremism Bill.

This aims to give the Home Secretary powers to ban extremist groups, restrict the behaviour of individual extremists, close down premises used for extremist purposes, give Ofcom powers to censor extremist content on the internet and enable employers to check on employees for evidence of involvement in extremist activity.

Whilst preventing terrorist acts is welcome, a clear definition of what constitutes extremism will be essential.

Some Christian street preachers and campaigners on issues such as abortion are concerned that these powers could be used against them.

Other Bills will create a right for every household to access high speed broadband, give powers to directly elected Mayors to govern local bus services, place the National Citizen Service on a permanent statutory basis, and strengthen the accountability of the police service in England and Wales.

All these Bills will be subject to detailed scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament.

The Government does not have a majority in the Lords and has rebels on its backbenches so there is no guarantee that all its Bills will become law.

Legislation ought to reflect the nation’s values so there is always a need for discerning prayer by Christians

European Union (EU) the truth

The referendum on British membership of the European Union (EU) is probably the most serious national decision voters will be asked to make.

The campaigns for and against our membership are inevitably heated and add to the pressure on us all to check the accuracy of the claims and counter claims.

Advocates for remaining in the EU have been accused of a fear campaign whilst their opponents are accused of lying about what membership does to the UK.

The challenge for voters is to control our prejudices and check the facts before prayerfully casting our votes on Thursday 23^rd June 2016.

One claim is that leaving will give us back control of our borders and halt the pressures of immigration on our jobs, housing and public services. We need first to ask whether the immigrants really are coming here only because we are members of the EU.

Second, would we be able to trade with EU countries post exit if we reject free movement?

Norway and Switzerland are not members but have to accept free movement in order to trade with EU states.

On trade, the leavers argue that the EU needs us more than we need them.

Actually our exports to the EU represent 12% of our GDP but EU exports to the UK are only 3% of their GDP and there are other growing markets around the world but the EU’s market is the biggest in the world.

In any post exit negotiations, this will surely give them the stronger hand.

Business leaders who back Brexit say that the EU ‘red tape’ is a burden on British firms and costs us £600 million a year.

There is no doubt that EU regulations do affect smaller firms but some regulation is necessary.

For example, the measures to protect workers’ rights would hopefully remain even if we leave the EU. However, the image of Brussels as a huge bureaucracy is a myth, as it’s half the size of one Whitehall department such as HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).

The leavers claim that EU membership costs us £55 million a day, but that is simply wrong as the net cost of membership, taking account of the grants and farm subsidies they pay us, is only £17 million per day or 30p per person.

This gives us access to the 500 million EU markets which the CBI estimates to be worth £3000 to every UK household.

It is true that the UK is the fifth largest economy in the world and currently growing faster than those of our neighbours, but Brexit could mean our exports would be less competitive in Europe with tariffs added.

Often forgotten are the implications of leaving for Britons resident in EU nations. Brexit advocates say they are far outnumbered by the EU citizens living here; in fact, the numbers are nearly the same, as they are close to 2 million.

The advocates of staying have to answer criticisms that the EU is democratically weak.

The Commission is unelected and the EU Parliament weak compared with the Westminster Parliament.

Subsidiarity would partly compensate for this, but has not been applied as extensively as the founding fathers intended.

The outcome of the referendum will affect us all so it would be foolish to shirk our own democratic duty or to vote without prayerful reflection on the implications of our choice.