The fate of Lords reform now rests in Labour's hands

With the Tories irretrievably divided, the bill's future depends on Labour.

As was rumoured this morning, David Cameron has now dropped the programme motion on House of Lords reform, which would have limited debate on the bill to 10 days. With upwards of 70 Tories prepared to join Labour and vote against the motion, there was no hope of it making it past the Commons. In withdrawing the motion, Cameron has merely brought forward the government's defeat.

The second reading vote will still go ahead and, with the support of Labour, the bill will proceed with a large majority. But unless the government introduces a guillotine motion at a later date, the risk remains that MPs will talk it into the ground.

The upshot is that the fate of Lords reform now rests in Labour's hands. If Ed Miliband's party agrees to support closure motions to limit debate on the bill, the legislation could yet make it through the Commons. Responding to Cameron's move, Sadiq Khan has pledged that Labour will do all it can "to ensure the bill progresses". The party's opposition to the programme motion was not, he said, a "wrecking tactic" but an attempt to improve an "inadequate bill".

As Khan's words imply, Cameron and Nick Clegg will need to offer concessions in order to win his party's support. The most obvious would be a referendum on Lords reform, as proposed by Labour in its 2010 manifesto. This would have the added benefit of placating at least some of the Conservative rebels, such as Nadhim Zahawi and Rory Stewart, who have said they would be prepared to support the bill were a public vote promised. Others, flushed with success after the AV campaign, simply want the chance to give Clegg another bloody nose. (We must hope the voters decide otherwise.)

The Lib Dem leader has always resisted a referendum on the grounds that all three of the main parties supported reform in their manifestos. But with parliament divided, he will find it hard to argue that the people should not be given a say. Tonight, a referendum looks like the only way to avoid yet another defeat for reform.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for a referendum on Lords reform. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

There are two sides to the Muslim segregation story

White families must also be prepared to have Muslim neighbours. 

Dame Louise Casey finally published her review on social integration in Britain. Although it mentions all communities, there is a clear focus on Muslim communities. However, the issues she raises - religious conservatism, segregation in some areas and Muslim women experiencing inequalities -  are not new. In this case, they have been placed in one report and discussed in the context of hindering integration. If we are truly committed to addressing these issues, though, we have a duty of care to discuss the findings with nuance, not take them out of context, as some tabloids have already done.

The review, for example, highlights that in some areas Muslims make up 85 per cent of the local population. This should not be interpreted to mean that Muslims are choosing to isolate themselves and not integrate. For a start, the review makes it clear that there are also certain areas in Britain that are predominantly Sikh, Hindu or Jewish.

Secondly, when migrants arrive in the UK, it is not unreasonable for them to gravitate towards people from similar cultural and faith backgrounds.  Later, they may choose to remain in these same areas due to convenience, such as being able to buy their own food, accessing their place of worship or being near elderly relatives.

However, very little, if any, attention is given to the role played by white families in creating segregated communities. These families moved out of such areas after the arrival of ethnic minorities. This isn't necessarily due to racism, but because such families are able to afford to move up the housing ladder. And when they do move, perhaps they feel more comfortable living with people of a similar background to themselves. Again, this is understandable, but it highlights that segregation is a two-way street. Such a phenomenon cannot be prevented or reversed unless white families are also willing to have Muslim neighbours. Is the government also prepared to have these difficult conversations?

Casey also mentions inequalities that are holding some Muslim women back, inequalities driven by misogyny, cultural abuses, not being able to speak English and the high numbers of Muslim women who are economically inactive. It’s true that the English language is a strong enabler of integration. It can help women engage better with their children, have access to services and the jobs market, and be better informed about their rights.

Nevertheless, we should remember that first-generation Pakistani and Bangladeshi women, who could not speak English, have proved perfectly able to bring up children now employed in a vast range of professions including politics, medicine, and the law. The cultural abuses mentioned in the review such as forced marriage, honour-based violence and female genital mutilation, are already being tackled by government. It would be more valuable to see the government challenge the hate crimes and discrimination regularly faced by Muslim women when trying to access public services and the jobs market. 

The review recommends an "Oath of Integration with British Values and Society" for immigrants on arrival. This raises the perennial question of what "British Values" are. The Casey review uses the list from the government’s counter-extremism strategy. In reality, the vast majority of individuals, regardless of faith or ethnic background, would agree to sign up to them.  The key challenge for any integration strategy is to persuade all groups to practice these values every day, rather than just getting immigrants to read them out once. 

Shaista Gohir is the chair of Muslim Women's Network UK, and Sophie Garner is the general secretary and a barrister.