By Paul Goodman MP.
On October 14, I asked Sadiq Khan, a DCLG Minister, about state-licensed sharia courts in the UK. A Sunday paper reported a month previously that the Government has “quietly sanctioned” the operation of five such courts – which Ministers call the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal.
The Government wants to encourage disputes to be resolved without recourse to the civil courts. This is reasonable, and we’ve nothing against bodies which operate under the terms of the Arbitration Act.
Obviously, such bodies aren’t part of the court system, and their decisions aren’t enforceable if they’re illegal, or contrary to public policy. We’ve therefore no objection in principle to MAT.
However, we do have serious concerns. Ministers have a special responsibility to ensure that women who come before a MAT do so freely. More widely, it must operate strictly within the limits of the Arbitration Act – there must be no sharia jurisdiction in criminal or family law. Men who beat their wives, or are violent at home, must be prosecuted. Above all, British law must remain supreme.
At any rate, I asked Khan “to write to me listing exactly when these tribunals were approved, who approved them, who was consulted, who the judges are, what cases have been heard, and exactly what measures are in place to protect women”.
Khan promised that “the right Minister” would do so. Earlier this week, I received a letter from Bridget Prentice, a Justice Minister. Let me summarise the questions I asked and the answers I’ve received as follows.
When was MAT approved? No answer.
Who approved it? No answer.
Who was consulted? No answer.
Who the judges are? “They have no judges, and we do not know the number of arbitrators that they have.”
What cases have been heard? “The Ministry of Justice has no statistics on cases resolved by mediation…outside the courts.”
What measures are in place to protect women? “The Government is committed to promoting equality, including gender equality, and women have recourse to the courts to protect their rights.”
In other words, Prentice won’t say when the MATs were approved, on what basis they rather than other sharia courts were approved, who approved them, who was consulted. It’s also evident that Ministers have no interest in monitoring them, and that there are no measures in place to protect women.
Above all, perhaps, it’s worth lingering over the phrase “they have no judges”. In one sense, this is right, since MATs aren’t British courts. In another, it may well be wrong – and a deliberate spin ploy for which Ministers will be held accountable.
The website of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal explains that the MATs “provide a viable alternative for the Muslim community seeking to resolve disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law”. What qualifications do the arbitrators have, how are they selected, and are they not marketed to British Muslims as sharia judges? Needless to say, we’ll be following all this up - and others may want to do so too.
Prentice’s letter tells us nothing we didn’t know already – as expected. But this is only the start of our enquiries, not the end. By not answering simple questions, Ministers are giving the impression that they’ve something to hide.
