Imprisonment of Catalan Leaders

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Christopher Pincher

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the tone he has struck. It is a matter for parliamentarians and political parties to offer support to, or indeed to disagree with, other political parties or countries on the continent, but it is not for the British Government to interfere in the legal processes of Spain or the constitutional settlement of Spain. That is a matter for Spain, and Spain alone.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Oppression everywhere has a long history of always being legal. We know that, and that statement was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) earlier. I would like to say to Catalans watching today that, in fact, I was in a debate earlier with a Tory and a Labour politician who support Catalonia, so this is cross-party.

The approach of the European Union has been spineless and shameless. Guy Verhofstadt has made comments on China, Brazil, Turkey and almost anywhere else we could mention, but on Catalonia he is utterly silent. He plays Pontius Pilate, and he cannot get enough bowls of water with which to wash his hands. I am afraid to say that that position seems to be shared by the UK Government. The cry of action is the cry for more bowls of water with which to wash their hands—and this in a Chamber that has just spent an hour telling UEFA and FIFA what to do. No courage at all has been shown in relation to telling the Government in Madrid to behave with a modicum of decency.

I want to ask the Minister: what sort of oppression by Spain in Barcelona or Catalonia will the UK Government tolerate? Forget independence and the fact that Catalonia was annexed in 1716. What level of oppression do they oppose? Is it a Hong Kong level of oppression, a Barcelona level of oppression or being in jail for 14 years? What will they eventually stand up and oppose? The cowardice that has been shown is not on, and the people should not be having to live with it.

[Christopher Pincher]

I think the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have an occasional drinking friendship, did himself a disservice in the way he has just comported himself. If the situation—the passionate situation—in Catalonia and in its cities is to be de-escalated and the situation is not to be further inflamed, I do not think that commentary such as that helps, frankly. I would call on all parties in Spain—all those who wish to protest and all the agencies that are responsible for good governance and order in Spain—to treat themselves and each other fairly and soberly so that this particular problem and this great challenge can be dealt with democratically and peaceably within the rule of the Spanish law.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Christopher Pincher

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. It has been a great pleasure to listen to it. I have heard some excellent speeches, made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), with whom I profoundly disagree, and by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), with whom, frighteningly, I find much common cause—it is as frightening for me as it is for him. I was impressed, too, by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), with whom I very much agree. He does not speak so much for the Conservative party as for the constitution, and we all honour him for that.

I am profoundly pleased that I have had an opportunity to speak before my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because I suspect—I shall allow him to speak for himself—that when we hear him speak he will not prove himself to be so much a scion of high Toryism as a dangerous radical. We very much look forward to hearing what he says in the fullness of time.

I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, because the intention of the Bill is laudable and sensible, as it will update the rules on the succession to the Crown so that they are in keeping with the modern values of our people. A monarch must reign with consent: that is the case now, and it must be the case in future. The Bill removes unnecessary discrimination, and it tidies up what we might call the sinuous tentacles of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which is welcome. However, I should like to make a couple of points about the Bill’s provisions, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister, in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister, will be able to address so that I do not have to make them again in Committee.

In that positive spirit, I shall address the question of retrospection in clause 2. I am instinctively against retrospective legislation, no matter how good the intent might be. Clause 2 attempts to restore to the line of succession those people who have married Catholics down the years. I quite accept that we should remove the disqualification bar preventing people who have married Catholics from succeeding to the Crown, but in making those changes—the Earl of St Andrews, for example, and Prince Michael of Kent will be restored to the line of succession—we are changing the order of succession. Those further away than the Earl and Prince Michael are pushed further from the line of succession by the changes. If we are prepared to make changes to the order of succession by dint of restoring Catholics to that order, is it not right that we make clause 1 retrospective, so that female heirs of the Queen move up the order of succession? Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, is the only living person who would be affected, together with her heirs, so it would not be a massive change to the order of succession, but it would be a logical change and one in keeping with the retrospective nature of part of the Bill.

The second aspect that I wish to address relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda about the Royal Marriages Act 1772. I find myself, strangely enough, making common cause with him. Although I agree that we should remove the Act or change it so that there are not thousands of people to whose marriage the Queen could technically give or withhold consent, it is odd that clause 3 states that

“the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.”

Where did the number six come from? Why not three, five or 12? Six is not a prime number, a biblical number or a lucky number.

[Mr MacNeil]

The only thing that springs to mind is that if we add up the number in the Queen’s family and the number in Prince Charles’s family, we get six. That is the long and the short of it, I think.

[Christopher Pincher]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s arithmetic, flawed though it may be. Perhaps that is why he is a member of the Scottish National party. I look forward to the Minister explaining what the rationale is.

As the hon. Member for Rhondda rightly pointed out, if we put in place a rule that says that the monarch can and must give consent to the marrying of the six persons nearest in line to the throne, imagine a scenario where a monarch has three children, who each have two or three children. The monarch will soon be in the invidious position where grandchild No. 4, who is fifth in line to the throne, must seek consent of the monarch to marry, but grandchild No. 6, who is seventh in line to the throne, need not seek that consent. That does not seem fair.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Christopher Pincher

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

rose—