European Council and Nuclear Security Summit

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly agree that we do not want bluster and bombast; we want a talked process. But we have to be clear that a really good offer of a talked process and a contact group was on the table and the Russians refused to engage with it. That is why I think that the action taken—limited to start with, but growing—is necessary to demonstrate that there are two paths Russia can take: one of increased international isolation, and one of talks. As for the extension of NATO, I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but there must be many people in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia who, looking at their own country and the future they want, and because they have Russian minorities there, must feel glad that they have the protective cloak of NATO.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

By annexing Crimea, Russia stands in flagrant breach of its commitments under the Budapest agreement of 1994, to which the United Kingdom and the United States are signatories. I say to my right hon. Friend, whose leadership on this I salute—it is a shame that some other European countries have not been so resolute—that if we are to deter Russia from further breaches of that agreement, we need to do more than issue hollow threats of further measures that are as yet unspecified. At the risk of being accused of being slightly militaristic about this, I will add that this is what NATO is for. I suggest that we need to consider a NATO maritime force to deter Russia from going further and annexing eastern Ukraine, which would give it a land corridor to Crimea, and indeed to Odessa.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he says. There are two things we need to stress here. One is that NATO is a defensive alliance and we should now be working hard to reassure NATO members about our commitment to their collective security and all the things that means. That is very important, and President Obama was very clear about it at the G7 meeting. The second thing we need to do—here I part company a little bit with my hon. Friend—is to make clear what steps we would take if Russia were to go further in eastern Ukraine. Those would be economic steps, but do not let us doubt how strong and powerful they could be. My argument in the European Council has been, given we know that if Russia were to go into eastern Ukraine we would have to put in place pretty robust sanctions, that it is worth trying to set out some of the arguments in advance so that Russia can see the very serious consequence of these actions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am immensely proud of the fact that, while in the last Parliament we had 19 women Conservative MPs, the figure has risen to closer to 50 in this Parliament. That is progress. Do I want us to go further and faster? Yes I do, and we will start by targeting the hon. Gentleman’s seat at the next election.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on sticking to their economic guns, which is producing prosperity for the kingdom, not least in Aldershot, where the number of JSA claimants has decreased by a third over the past year. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that it would be a huge and foolish mistake if the British people were to place their trust in the shadow Chancellor, who has never owned up to the last Labour Government’s responsibility for the catastrophic budget deficit and who now sticks to the unreconstructed socialist policy of tax and spend, which would ruin Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes his point with characteristic strength and clarity. The fact is that the Labour party has learned no lessons from the past and says that it would do it all over again. It has tax and employment policies that would cost jobs, and businesses are now saying that it has not got a clue. I do not know whether Members have seen the film “Gravity”, but the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor remind me of two people who have stepped out into a void with absolutely no idea of what to do next. Like that great film, this is a tragedy made right here in Britain.

Baroness Thatcher's Legacy

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I have agreed with the Minister to take a number of interventions on the basis that all the interventions are of a pleasant nature.

Margaret Hilda Thatcher, born on 13 October 1925, died Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven on 8 April 2013, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 until 1990, Member of Parliament for Finchley from 1959 until 1992. I was in America visiting my oldest daughter, an aspiring actress, who lives in Hollywood when she knocked on my bedroom door and broke the news that Margaret Thatcher had died. As she is an actress, I did not initially believe what she had said. I could not get back in time for the very moving occasion when the House paid its own tributes, so I am unashamedly using this occasion to pay my tribute to Margaret Thatcher.

I would like to refer Members to a speech I gave from this very place—from where I also made my maiden speech—on 7 December 1990. [Interruption.] As my good friend, the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), says from a sedentary position, he was there when I made it. It was on a Friday, and I can do no better than quote the motion I initiated:

“That this House notes the political developments in the United Kingdom since 1979; salutes the right honourable Member for Finchley for the part she has played in these developments; congratulates her upon her leadership of the country as Prime Minister for eleven and a half years and pays tribute to the many fine personal qualities that she brought to the performance of her duties, including, in particular, her integrity, steadfastness and courage; and looks forward to her continued contribution to the political life of this country.”—[Official Report, 7 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 564.]

Of course, 20 years ago I was a little upset about the way in which Margaret was removed from office. I have calmed down now and am in a position to reflect on her life and the service she gave to her country.

Only today, I was contacted by a councillor in Grantham, Councillor Davies; apparently—this is independent of the council—a statue to Margaret is definitely going to be erected there. I support that campaign and I hope that other hon. Members will do likewise in Grantham. I visited Grantham earlier this year, having never been before, and visited Margaret’s birthplace, which is now a health spa. The place is very humble; it certainly was a humble little shop that she used to run, but obviously Grantham has changed and the place is right opposite an Asda. If Margaret had been born in my constituency, we would be celebrating the fact that we had that great citizen as one of our local residents.

I can think of no other British politician whose legacy is as lasting or far-reaching as Margaret’s. There can be no doubt that her philosophy has influenced every aspect of our lives today. I have been a member of the Conservative party for 45 years and I would never have joined it all those years ago were it not for Margaret. I was a resident in the London borough of Newham, which contains the constituency that produced the first ever Labour Member of Parliament, Keir Hardie. I was sick to death of people reminiscing about how the good old days were and how to get out of poverty. I wanted someone to inspire me with a philosophy that would get me out of poverty if I followed it, and for me that person was Margaret Thatcher.

I missed our earlier debate here, but I did attend the ceremonial funeral. I thought that Margaret’s funeral was an absolute tribute to those who organised it and to this country. It was a privilege for me, and for so many of my colleagues who did not really know Margaret—they were not in the House when she was an MP—but were inspired in every way by the person she was.

When Margaret became the leader in 1979, Britain was, as we all know, the sick man of Europe—we were the Greece of our times, seeking aid from the International Monetary Fund. The rot was really setting in. Interest rates were staggeringly high, at nearly 14%, the impact of which we appreciate if we recall what they are today. Inflation was in double digits and the top rate of tax was 83%. The power was in the hands of the unions, which gave us the winter of discontent. The three-day week was fresh in the memory of many, the dead could not be buried and rubbish was not being collected. I was there, living during those times; I have not read it in a book—I experienced it. Evidently, all was not well and something had to change.

Baroness Thatcher did not, however, as many have claimed, break the post-war consensus; the post-war consensus had destroyed itself. It was the job of the then Mrs Thatcher to build a new Britain from the ashes. In the words of Lord Healey, of all people,

“the time had come for a shift from government to the market, as far as economic policy was concerned, and ending the rule of the trade unions in deciding policy.”

As I have said, I was privileged enough to have been elected, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), in 1983. Indeed, it was from this very spot that I made my maiden speech on the community charge. I believe that people called it the “poll tax” then, but I never referred to it as such.

The House was absolutely packed and my speech followed that of Sir Ted Heath. Matthew Parris was on the Bench behind me and in your place, Mr Speaker, was the late Jack Weatherill. It was a fantastic occasion and I flatter myself that Margaret, as she sat on the Front Bench where my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is sitting now, listened to my support for the policy.

Margaret Thatcher was absolutely inspirational. This is not a criticism, Mr Speaker, so please do not take offence, but I was thinking about the debate last week. In those days, the Chamber was full of giants. There were many experts and I was in awe of everyone, but 30 years on I am not in awe of anyone. I feel that this is now a Chamber of amateurs. I do not mean that in a nasty sense, but in a sense of the way we are now. One has to look to the other place for the real experts. We are all sent here, however articulate we are or not, as equals. As my voice was not heard last Thursday, I am very glad that my voice is being heard this evening in praise of Margaret Thatcher and her great legacy.

Margaret Thatcher understood that people had the opportunity to be upwardly mobile. The right to buy gave to millions. In my then constituency of Basildon, we had 30,000 houses in public ownership and it gave many people the chance to own their property for the first time. Share ownership trebled during Margaret’s decade. Historically, long-term financial gains are made in housing and equity investment, unlike cash savings, which are often gobbled up by inflation. As people were interested in business and the economy as newly empowered shareowners and mortgage bearers, strikes were naturally much less appealing and the power of the unions was broken.

Britain became a place to aspire to be and we were back in business. I remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford was then a local councillor in Basildon. People began to work together to build growth and it is no coincidence that in the ’80s many successful start-ups were born, including Waterstones, Dairy Crest, Bloomsbury, Sky and Virgin Atlantic. I recall that my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot and for Bexleyheath and Crayford and I received an invitation from the chairman of British Airways. Lord King grasped the great opportunity he was offered; he was another inspirational leader.

Of course, there is also the fundamental legacy of privatisation and economic policy. That policy was never reversed by successive Governments and has been copied all over the world. As late as 1977, the UK Government were still nationalising industry—aerospace and ship building—and Baroness Thatcher had to reverse the trend to resuscitate our country, which was then known as the sick man of Europe. More than 50 companies were put back into the hands of the people, including huge companies such as British Gas, British Telecom and British Airways. Not only was £50 billion raised for the Treasury, but competition was birthed and private shareholding grew. The consumer benefited, with gas prices falling by 25% in 1995 and telecom charges falling by 40%. The basic rate of tax fell from 33% in 1979 to 23% by the time Margaret left office. A strong pro-aspiration message was heard. Incredibly, 29 million working days were lost to strikes in 1979, whereas that figure was down to 2 million in 1990—an absolutely staggering decline.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is paying a wonderful tribute to the salvation of the nation. Does he agree that the figures he has just given for the reduction in the number of strikes from 29 million days lost to 2 million days are evidence that far from being divisive, that magnificent woman was responsible for restoring to the members of trade unions power that had been seized by their leaders to use for political purposes?

[Mr Amess]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I paid tribute to him when he was appointed as Margaret’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. If only he had been her Parliamentary Private Secretary a little earlier, she would never have lost by four votes, but that is probably rewriting history. I absolutely agree about how Margaret’s legacy has been completely misrepresented.

Contrary to left-wing opinion, Britain’s manufacturing production rose by 7.5% during Baroness Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister. In short, because of policies such as the right to buy, share ownership, privatisation, tax cuts and fewer days lost to strikes, Baroness Thatcher was able to bring Britain back from the brink and build a stronger economy.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Absolutely. Although we have spoken with great moral certitude in this debate, the fact is that our contribution to an attack on Syria would be infinitesimal. Have we not degraded our own armed forces in the past three years, contrary to repeated warnings from myself and others? Do we have an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean? In reality, we would simply be hanging on to the coat tails of President Obama. He was foolish enough to issue a red line. His credibility is on the line, not the credibility of the British people or ourselves. We do not have to follow him in this foolish gesture.

We know that we cannot destroy the chemical stocks of President Assad. We know that we can only degrade them. We know that no significant group in Syria would praise us, apart from these famous rebels, whom we have been supporting over the past two years. Who are these rebels? Does the west seriously want Assad to lose power? Do we want him replaced by a regime that includes Sunni jihadists? That is why we have over the years been buttressing what has been a stable regime. It is simply not in our national interest to bomb Syria. It would not degrade his chemical stocks and it might result in more pressure being placed on minorities in Syria.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying and he is making some very powerful points. Is he aware of comments from Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch and formerly a respected ambassador to Damascus, who has said in the last couple of days that if the regime was to fall, chaos would follow, because the kind of jihadists to whom my hon. Friend has referred would take control, which would be hugely against the interests of the UK?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Absolutely. We have heard very little about what is happening on the ground in Syria. How many of those who have spoken with such moral certainty have actually visited Syria? I must confess I have only been there once, but as far as I could see, the minorities were protected. The 2 million Christians are protected by Assad. What will be their fate when Assad falls? What will be the fate of the 2 million Alawites? What will be the fate of the 22 other minorities? How much does the House know about what is actually happening in Syria? Yet we believe that we, who know so little about the complexities of the situation, have the moral right to commit execution on people. That is what we are talking about. We cannot send cruise missiles into a country without killing people. That is what we would be doing. What right has the House to say with any certainty that we know what went on that day? What right have we to say that we can sort out the situation? No, there is a better way—the way of peace and diplomacy, not of war. I cannot, therefore, support the motion tonight. I give some credit to the Prime Minister, but I will not vote for the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Our long debate today has served two valuable purposes. First, it has served to underline the huge complexity of the issues before the House and the country. As one who came to the debate as a sceptic about military intervention, I have found it extremely useful and I hope that the country and the newspapers will have observed that Parliament is taking this issue very seriously.

Secondly, the debate has served a valuable purpose in enabling the Prime Minister and the Government to set out their precise position. In that respect, the categoric statement by the Prime Minister that it is not the Government’s intention to get involved in the wider Syrian civil war is hugely welcome. As many hon. Members have said, the message that we are getting from our constituents throughout the country is that there is no appetite for further military intervention by this country when no British national interest can be identified. I personally indorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the nature of the opposition in Syria, many of whom, I think, are absolutely disgusting. I cannot see, personally, that there is much likelihood of a better flavour of regime than the present one; my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) made that point too.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is talking about a specific, narrowly focused response to the use of chemical weapons. That is the sole objective. My colleague the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), said that doing nothing was equal to appeasement, and that the two issues could be kept completely separate. I am not sure that is possible, but just simply focusing—

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the two statements—that one can be involved in military action and somehow keep out of the civil war in Syria? Surely that action involves us, necessarily, in that civil war.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely valid point. That is a question that, as parliamentarians, we are entitled to ask: to what extent would the nature of the operation that the Government are proposing constitute taking sides? Hon. Members have made that point already, but let me address my concerns about the clinical strike.

I fully understand the argument that doing nothing would send a green light, that there would be further atrocities by Assad or others, and that it would send a message to others in possession of chemical weapons that they could get away, with impunity, with using those revolting weapons. There are extremely difficult issues here. However, we need to ask ourselves some questions. If it is the Government’s position that there is a narrowly defined objective, which is to send the message, “This is unacceptable. We do not wish to get involved in the wider civil war, but we wish to send you a message, ‘Do this again to your people and you will be zapped,’” I believe that we have the military means to deliver a precision strike. However, I think we need to ask ourselves, “What would the consequences be?” The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) asked the question: “What if this does not work and Assad continues? What then do we do?” What is the response of Russia likely to be? As parliamentarians, it is entirely right and proper that we ask such questions on behalf of ourselves and our constituents. That is what the country expects and I hope the Government will provide some answers to those points. If this does not work, what happens then? Will we get our hand in the mangle and be drawn into further military operations beyond clinical strikes? I expect to support the Government tonight because I think the Opposition have been playing politics with this issue.

Tributes to Baroness Thatcher

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

This is a sad day for those of us who were privileged to serve as either officers or, in my case, foot soldiers in Margaret Thatcher’s great army, but as the Leader of the Opposition said, in what I thought was a very generous speech, it is also an opportunity for the nation to pause, reflect and recall the extraordinary achievements she secured in just 11 years.

Many of my colleagues are too young to remember what Britain was like when Margaret Thatcher won the 1979 election, but we older ones can remember the rubbish piled up in the streets, corpses being left unburied and industry being held to ransom by the likes of Red Robbo. Britain was basically a basket-case. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer was recalled from an aeroplane at Heathrow to come and answer to the International Monetary Fund.

Margaret Thatcher arrived as a new breed; not just a woman, but, as the Prime Minister said, a conviction politician who was driven by a belief that Britain, and the British people themselves, deserved better. She did not need a focus group to decide what she believed in. She was driven by a set of clear Conservative principles, underpinned by a fundamental belief that it was free enterprise that would deliver the prosperity she so craved for our people in the aftermath of the second world war and the malaise to which the Prime Minister referred.

When I became a shadow Minister in 2002, I received a hand-written note congratulating me and advising me, “Know your facts.” In that spirit, I wish to remind the House of a couple of facts. Margaret Thatcher believed in sound money, as the Prime Minister said, and in her time public sector borrowing fell from 4.1% to 1% of GDP. The national debt was cut from 43.6% to 26.7% of GDP. She took on the trade union barons and restored the trade unions to their members. It is interesting to look at the figures: in 1979, 29.8 million days were lost to industrial action, or strikes, but that figure was cut to 2 million by the time she left office, and last year it was fewer than 250,000. Such has been the change that this divisive woman wrought to industrial relations in our country.

She also abolished exchange controls. In about 1972 I went on a demonstration outside the Bank of England—I was running the Society for Individual Freedom at the time—and I held a placard that read, “End Exchange Controls”. I did not really understand what it was all about, because I had not yet embarked on my banking career, but I had a vague notion that it was some sort of ghastly second world war regulation. The first thing Geoffrey Howe did after becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer was abolish exchange controls. For those of our young people who do not understand what I am talking about, as I did not then, let me explain. In those days, when we went abroad we were allowed to take 30 quid out of the country, and our passports had to be stamped to show that we were entitled to do so. It is important that we take this opportunity to remind people of the changes that have been wrought. I was working in a bank at the time. I took all the regulations relating to exchange controls off the shelves and have them at home to remind myself, and anybody else who might need to, of the iniquity of exchange controls.

She also ended the party line. I do not mean the line that we are so privileged to receive from central office every morning. Again, I remind those who are a little younger that the party line, which we had at home, meant that a telephone, which was graciously provided by something called the General Post Office, could not be used if a neighbour who shared the line was already using it. I remember in the late 1990s all the smart, Armani-suited new Labour types clutching their mobile phones. Those friends and comrades should not forget that had it not been for us privatising the telecommunications industry, they would not have had their mobile phones. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor can try to phone a friend, but the trouble is that he has not got one. I am sorry—that was a bit divisive.

We have heard of her other domestic achievements, but of course she did not do everything. I, my right hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and many others in the No Turning Back group urged her to go further and faster—we were called the “Don’t Turn Your Back” group for some obscure reason. I remember that we proposed to her a system in education whereby the money followed the pupil. At an NTB dinner, she told us, “Grow up boys and be your age. We can’t possibly do anything like that.” We were all crestfallen and went home very disappointed that the Prime Minister had not listened. Come the general election in 1987, we were out canvassing all day long and would turn on the telly at night to see what was going on at the centre. There was the press conference, with the Prime Minister in the middle and Ken Baker to her side. She said, “We’ve got this new idea about education. The money follows the pupil.” That was what we had proposed to her and she had told us to grow up and that we could not possibly do anything like that. That was the art of Margaret Thatcher’s political argument, of which the Prime Minister spoke: she challenged people and made sure that they got their facts right. She challenged that proposal and found that it was a policy worth pursuing.

Abroad, of course, she forged that close relationship with Ronald Reagan and the United States. I heard the story that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) mentioned about Ronald Reagan from Bob Tuttle, the former American ambassador. It is absolutely right that they really did admire her. She was no poodle of the United States, however. She challenged them and that is what they admired about her.

She ended the cold war and it is terribly important to understand that at that time we all felt a sense of potential nuclear holocaust. Together with Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, she made the world a better place and liberated millions of eastern Europeans who had been subjected to tyranny. This divisive lady was responsible for introducing harmony across the iron curtain.

Her will to recover the Falkland Islands is now legendary and I wear my Falkland Islands tie with pride today as a symbol of Margaret Thatcher’s determination.

That extraordinary engendering of a new respect across the world for the United Kingdom had commercial advantage. One of the biggest deals we have ever done was the al-Yamamah defence deal with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which today is worth tens of billions of pounds, sustaining high-tech jobs across the United Kingdom. She played a huge part in that. When she went there, she observed all the courtesies of the Arab world—a long dress, long sleeves and a scarf—but I am quite sure that when she flashed her eyes at King Fahd it was all a done deal.

We have heard about the liberation of Kuwait and the winning of the EU rebate. In the latter case, again, she had a simple message for the country. That was one of her secrets. Members might remember Robin Day interviewed her and gave a great spiel about how her belligerence and her determination to get the rebate would put off our European partners. She paused and said, “But Robin, it’s our money. We want it back.” To date, we have had £75 billion back, so let no one deny her the pomp and circumstance of next week’s funeral.

Of course, she did fall out over Europe, and she did sign the Single European Act, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned. I did not sign it—I was not a Minister—but I did vote against it on Third Reading. When I became her Parliamentary Private Secretary, I said to her, “A lot of people in the House are saying, Margaret, that your belligerence on Europe is hardly justified when you signed the Single European Act.” She said to me, “Yes, I did sign it, but I understood it to apply solely to the single market in goods and services. I was assured that it would not be extended to working time and other areas. The fact that I was betrayed is why I feel so passionately about it.”

She was a fervent patriot. She profoundly believed in this country; she loved this country and she did not wish to sign up to a united states of Europe—neither do I, nor do my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House. Of course, we were not alone in that. I remember a conversation in the Lobby that was not seen by any of the media involving me, Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, Tony Benn and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). It was absolutely marvellous to hear the entire expression of unity about how evil, as it were, the common market was in the way it was trying to drive a united states of Europe.

Margaret Thatcher lost office and I was her Parliamentary Private Secretary after that. She was angry; people around the world could not understand it and it is important to remember that she was never beaten by the British people. She was never even beaten by the Conservative party—54% of us voted for her, but that was four votes short of the majority required. I think that the Conservative party, and the country, suffered as a consequence of that, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on doing all he can to try to revive those Thatcherite principles that did so much to revive our country in the 1980s.

I will tell one wonderful story, and then I will wind up my remarks. I went to see Margaret Thatcher after I lost my seat in Staffordshire in 1992 and asked her, “What are you doing this weekend, Margaret?” She said, “Well, I’m going to Paris. I am going to have dinner with President Mitterrand.” I asked, “What are you going to say?”, and she said, “I am going to tell him that if France signs the Maastricht treaty, France est mort.” I said, “I think actually that it’s ‘La France’”. She said, “Yes. La France est mort.” I said, “Well, because it’s ‘La France’, you have to say ‘morte’” She went round the room saying, “La France est morte. La France est morte”, and that weekend she went off to dinner with President Mitterrand. In my view it is no coincidence that on Monday morning, President Mitterrand announced that France would hold a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. The eyes of Caligula and the mouth of Marilyn Monroe, perhaps.

After losing my seat in 1992 in Cannock and Burntwood, I was told that if I did not distance myself from Margaret Thatcher, I would never get a seat again. However, I had a wonderful letter from Enoch Powell who said, “My Dear Gerald, Hard luck but be of good cheer. Fidelity to persons or to principles is seldom unrewarded.” Thank you to the people of Aldershot who rewarded me by offering me the first seat that came up after the 1992 general election, which I think rather worried No. 10 at the time. I have not changed my principles; I have been a supporter of Margaret Thatcher from the very first time she put her name forward to be leader of our party and I do not regret that. I think she has been the salvation of the nation, and that she restored our position in the world.

None of us can forget Margaret Thatcher’s extraordinary elegance. I remember coming to the Chamber at about 4 o’clock in the morning during an all-night sitting—none of you lot know what an all-night sitting is about, but we used to have them regularly. It was 4 o’clock in the morning, people had had a bit to drink and, for us chaps, there was a bit of stubble and it was really pretty unpleasant. I was sitting on the Front Bench wondering when this purgatory was going end, and then there was a frisson at the back of the Chair. All of a sudden, in walked the Prime Minister, not a hair out of place, hand bag there, smiling. We sort of slid up the Bench and looked at the Prime Minister, saying, “Here I am.” She was an inspiration to us all and she inspired huge loyalty. When I asked Bob Kingston, her personal protection officer, what it was like working for her, he said, “I would catch bullets between my teeth to save that woman.”

The soldiers whom Margaret Thatcher so admired reciprocated and admired her. I was at the Painted Hall for the 25th anniversary of the Falklands campaign. A lot of people who had been injured, either mentally or physically, were there. When Margaret Thatcher got up to leave, there was the most astonishing roar from men who had been maimed, cheering their warrior leader who had instructed them to go into battle and they wanted to pay tribute to her.

As people have said, Margaret Thatcher showed immense kindness. In my case, when Neil Hamilton and I faced extinction after we were defamed by the BBC “Panorama” programme, it took a bit of time to see the chairman of the party—who happened to be Norman Tebbit—but only a couple of days to see the Prime Minister. She listened for 25 minutes and at the end she turned to the Chief Whip, John Wakeham, and said, “These are members of our party in good standing. Please ensure that they get the necessary support.” We got that support. We won our libel action and the director general of the BBC was fired, and as a result of Margaret Thatcher’s kindness, we were able to resume our political careers.

I will close by quoting Enoch Powell, who, at the time of the Falklands campaign, made an interesting observation. Before the campaign, he had said that the Iron Lady would be tested, but on 17 June 1982, he said this to the Prime Minister:

“Is the right hon. Lady aware that the report has now been received from the public analyst on a certain substance recently subjected to analysis and that I have obtained a copy of the report? It shows that the substance under test consisted of ferrous matter of the highest quality, that it is of exceptional tensile strength, is highly resistant to wear and tear and to stress, and may be used with advantage for all national purposes?”—[Official Report, 17 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 1082.]

What advantage the nation had in the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, the greatest peacetime Prime Minister this nation has ever seen. Next week, we will have our opportunity to give her the send-off she so fully deserves for her selfless sacrifice to the nation.

Royal Charter on Press Conduct

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

May I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) on the fantastic job that he has done in articulating the concerns that many of us had, particularly on this side of the House, for which we did not get much thanks in the press? He behaved with extraordinary dignity and great tenacity.

[George Eustice]

Did my hon. Friend expect any thanks from the press?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Funnily enough, no, and I am happy to put that on the record. I also wish to congratulate Hacked Off because, whatever else one may say, it did act as a focal point, it did provide a concise briefing and it did help us along a tortuous path. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on having shown serious leadership in this matter; it needed bringing to a head and he has brought it to a head. I also wish to put on the record the fact that he has been here throughout these proceedings, which is more than I have been here for. So I congratulate him on what he has done, as well as the Leader of the Opposition. He has not been able to be here the whole time because he has had other things to do, but the Prime Minister has shown his commitment to trying to resolve this matter.

It is very important that we hold fast for a moment and remember that we did not create this crisis in the first place—it was created by others. It was created by a total failure of self-regulation over decades, by a failure to implement the findings of successive inquiries and by serial criminality in the press. The only point I would make to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) is that although these were criminal offences and they are now going through the courts, this serial criminality betrayed a corruption at the heart of our media—if not condoned, this behaviour was certainly overlooked. So the hysterical response to much of what we have been saying has been out of place. The day after 44 of us signed a letter to The Guardian—this is the only time I have knowingly signed something for The Guardian—The Daily Telegraph had half of its page 2 saying, “Tory MPs tainted by scandal in bid to end free press”. What sort of responsible press is that? I hope that The Daily Telegraph is taking note, but of course I will be denounced for this tomorrow as being “Closetly determined to end a free press.”

I wish to make three brief points. First, it is good that all three main parties, and indeed the minority parties, have agreed this outcome. It would have been bad news if there had not been agreement. We would have seen divide and rule, and acrimony, so those from all parts of the House who participated in bringing this about deserve our congratulations. It is also important to put on the record the fact that it is the historic duty of this House to remedy injustice—that is not the job of the European Court of Human Rights; it is the job of this Parliament and this House—and in seeking to bring about this change, we have sought to do that.

My second point is that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) is absolutely right to say that we should not set too much store by what has been achieved today. A huge amount of detail still has to be worked out and it will require a lot of good will on the part of all the media and the regulators to bring that about. May I just indulge the House for a moment on a slight word of caution to those who wish to see their apologies on page 1? When I sued Private Eye for libel—sadly, my hon. and learned Friend was not my Queen’s counsel at the time—we had agreed the damages, the apology and everything else, but the late Mr Peter Carter-Ruck said that it would not agree to put the apology in a box. Private Eye had agreed to put it on the same page as the offending article had been but would not agree to a box. I insisted that I could not possibly agree without having my apology in a box. Eventually Private Eye agreed, so on the day of publication I went down to the news stand and turned to page 4 or whatever it was. Sure enough there was the apology in the terms agreed—absolutely wonderful—and it was in a box. And so was every other story on the page! So we must beware what we wish for.

My third and final point is that this approach should be seen on all sides as an opportunity. It is an opportunity for a free press to move forward and to act fearlessly but to remedy the wrongs that they have recently perpetrated. It is an opportunity to ensure that ordinary people are given a fair crack of the whip and that we do not see a repetition of the kind of dreadful character assassination and misery caused to ordinary people, who have no remedy and have no voice in this House. If we achieve that, we shall have strengthened the British press and made them an example for the rest of world, and we shall have done a great service to the citizens of these islands.

Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time)

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Again, I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. We need time to consider constitutional issues properly, because they have complex knock-on effects and their phraseology is crucial to how the Crown might pass in future. If mistakes are made now, we could discover that we end up with consequences that we do not want, or indeed—this comes back to my amendments to this allocation of time motion—that we are not able to consider matters that are very pertinent to parts of the Bill because the phrasing is too narrow and things have been done within a time limit that makes it very hard to extend into these issues.

My amendments seek to allow for an instruction to be debated that would widen the scope of the Bill to include the consequence of a marriage to a Catholic. I speak as a Catholic or, in the terminology of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, as a “Papist”—as a member of the “Popish” religion—and I am happy to do so. I find no shame in being called that; I rather prefer it to the more politically correct phraseology of “person of the Roman Catholic faith”, which is rather middle-management-speak, if I may say so.

It is proposed in the Bill that a Catholic may marry an heir to the throne but may not then maintain the succession by bringing up a child of that marriage as a Catholic. The reason I object to that is because it is an attack on the teaching of the Catholic Church. Canon 1125 states specifically that the bishop, who can give a dispensation for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, is not to do so unless

“the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church”.

When I got married, it was with great pleasure and joy that I was able to make that promise, because there is no finer thing to be able to pass on to one’s children than one’s own religion; there is nothing finer than to have that hope of faith, that joy of salvation that comes from passing on what has come from one’s own forebears through the generations. In this Bill and under this allocation of time motion, the House is not allowed to consider the natural consequence of what is being proposed by Her Majesty’s Government. I would therefore like the amendment to be made so that we are able to consider the natural consequences of what the legislation proposes.

I would like us to also be able to amend the legislation so that a child of such a marriage that the law would allow could be a Catholic, but to protect the position of the Church of England, which obviously cannot be led by a non-member of that Church, so that under the Regency Act 1937 a regent would be appointed to take on the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and to hold the title “Defender of the Faith”—a papal title that has been taken by the Crown since the reign of Henry VIII. That is an entirely logical extension of what is proposed in the Bill and time ought to be allowed to debate it, because when we start these changes and decide that in this modern age we need to be more politically correct and allow Catholics to marry into the throne, we have to consider the consequence.

The consequence of what is being proposed is to leave in the deeply hostile anti-Catholic language contained in the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights. Such language would not conceivably be used by any Member of this House in this more modern age. The consequence is to leave all that, but to take out just a few words. If I may, Mr Speaker, it might be worth my reading out a little of this language:

“And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme”.

We are proposing to remove from that fewer than a dozen words and leave the main substance intact. I would happily accept no change at all, because that is the history of our nation.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is an extremely great man. As a churchwarden in the Church of England, I salute the Catholic Church for its adherence to a principle that has not always been so prevalent in the Church of England. He raises some interesting points, and his amendment proposing that there should a regent who should be responsible for answering to the Church of England would create a fundamental change in our constitution. Accordingly, I entirely agree with him that this matter should not be rushed through this House or through Parliament. We should not trifle with the constitution of this realm in such a fashion, so I support entirely what he has just said.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend because that is the crux of my view. Let us suppose that we were to make no change. We live with the great history of this nation day by day, and it is a history that I am proud of and love; when we change it, we have to think carefully about the words we use. We have to think about the great offence given to Her Majesty’s loyal Catholic subjects by going back to the language of the Act of Settlement with a minor amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

One of the curious aspects of the debate is that we could take almost as long to discuss what is already wrong with the status quo, which is what the hon. Gentleman would like us to do.

I must deal with a number of points that have been made across the Chamber today. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for removing the male bias in primogeniture, and I think that other Members of the House fully support our view on that.

As a Conservative, I do not talk here for political correctness; I talk here for religious equality and freedom. I think it is important that the Bill will end a long-standing piece of unique discrimination. The current provisions are uniquely anti-Catholic because they bar the heir from marrying a Papist or a member of the Roman Catholic faith—whatever term one wishes to use—but I think that much of that terminology is the product of a different age, when the kingdom was threatened by expansionist Catholic realms elsewhere. However, those provisions do not apply to anybody else. They do not apply to atheists, Muslims, Jews, people of no religion or any combination of religions. I believe in the freedom that the Bill will open up by removing that unique piece of discrimination. The changes also do not affect in any way the place of the established Church of England.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Forgive me, but my hon. Friend cannot say that the issue does not affect the established Church of England and that the Bill ends discrimination; it is discriminatory by definition that the Church of England should be the established Church in these islands. What my—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that it is inadvertent and a consequence of the interest in the subject, but interventions are now eliding into the subject matter of the Second Reading debate. The matter with which we are concerned now is purely the allocation of time motion. The Minister is offering her view in response to the contributions to that debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be patient and volunteer his further thoughts ere long.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, which reinforces exactly the one I am making. The Committee will take a deliberate decision to amend only the legislation it needs to amend, and will not take the opportunity to do away with the offensive, discriminatory and provocative language. Such language will remain on the statute books—the language of the law of the land—which is offensive. Why would the Committee take a decision at this point in the 21st century not to make laws of our time and for the future?

To my mind, it is not acceptable for people to be satisfied by such received sectarianism, and it is a matter of sadness that it remains. That is my difficulty with clause 2. I welcome the fact that it makes a difference, but I have a fundamental problem with the fact that it says, “Everything else can stay the same. That’s okay. We’re happy with that sort of language.” We should be repulsed by the language that the Committee says should stay on the statute book.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am delighted to take part in Committee under your tutelage, Mr Bone, and to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and other hon. Members. There is a paradox in the situation in which we find ourselves. The Government are seeking to end part of a discriminatory law, and yet have resurrected rather a lot of hurt, as expressed by the hon. Member for Foyle and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). Perpetuating this debate could lead to further hurt.

As an Anglican on the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England, the last thing I seek to do is to offend those in the Catholic Church, but I should tell my hon. Friend that he might at least allow us to take communion when we attend his Church. When he attends ours, he is allowed to take communion with us. Perhaps that little bit of discrimination could be ended by the Catholic Church.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

If my hon. Friend has been able to get a tweet from the Vatican to indicate a change in policy, I would be delighted to give way to him.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It is incredibly concise and relevant to clause 2. My simple point is that the matter to which my hon. Friend refers is one for the Papacy. I do not have the authority to do as he asks.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am sure the day will come when such authority is conferred by the Vatican upon my hon. Friend, such is the power of his language.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) made the point that the two Churches are coming together, and that Christian Churches generally are doing so. That is imperative, particularly given the rise of Islamic fundamentalism not just around the world, but in our country. The issue of succession and religion—which is what clause 2 is all about—is very significant. I welcome the fact that the Minister has put it on the record that section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 will remain firmly part of the law of this land. While an heir to the throne may be entitled to marry a Catholic, no one who is not in communion with the Church of England shall be sovereign of this country. It is important that that is stated, and I am grateful to the Minister. The reason I was prepared to support the additional confirmation of that by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was that one is so aware of the zeal with which the present Administration prosecute their enthusiasm for modernisation that one does not want this to be subject to any form of modernisation. It is imperative that that is clear, and it has been made clear.

I will repeat the point I made on Second Reading as I had to make it in a rather curtailed style. If the heir to the throne were to marry a Catholic, the Catholic ordinances had not changed and the children were to be brought up in the Catholic faith—the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—those children would face a decision on whether to be loyal to the Catholic faith or to renounce it, and subscribe to being in communion with the Church of England. Therefore, clause 2 does have consequences, and this is not a question of semantics between the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

It is important to all Christians that the sovereign remains, as every coin of the realm testifies, the defender of the faith. I wonder how many children in our schools are taught that. If we put our hands in our pockets and look at our coins, we see the two letters “FD”, which stand for fidei defensor: defender of the faith, the Christian faith. All of us, whether we are Catholic, Congregationalist, Church of England, Baptist or whatever, have a huge interest in ensuring that the Christian faith remains at the heart of this nation, for it is that faith that has formed this nation. It is that faith that has given birth to the enthusiasm for liberty that has attracted so many people of other faiths to come to this country. While the hon. Member for Foyle may find this difficult—I salute the spirit with which he promoted his case—I do not believe it right to be anything other than uncompromising. This House—this Parliament—is governed by the values of the Christian Church and faith. It is therefore imperative that we are crystal clear.

[Paul Flynn]

In the hon. Gentleman’s hyperbole about the religious nature of the country, does he recall that the majority of people describe themselves as atheists, and that the number of those who describe themselves as adherents to the Church of England is 19%? That figure is dropping and the number who describe themselves as atheist is increasing. Has he not got a rather romantic view of society, and are we not legislating for the past, not the future?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I think the latest figures show that 60% of the country are adherents to the Christian faith. I do not know if I have a romantic view or not, but what I do know is that this nation, which has become a magnet for people from all over the world, has been forged and fashioned by the Christian faith.

It is a matter of deep concern to me that the leadership of my Church is completely consumed by other matters—in particular, homosexuality and women bishops—at a time when this nation is crying out for spiritual leadership, so I make no apologies for stating what I have said. That is why there is more to this measure than there might appear to be on the face of it. It is also why it is important that Parliament should be able to consider clause 2 in detail—because I think it goes deep into the heart of this nation.

We are not faced with a decision today, next week or next year, because as yet there is no successor to the son of the heir to the throne. We are therefore talking about something that is a long way off. Nevertheless, it is right that Parliament should debate these matters and be absolutely clear in the laws we pass and not leave them to the courts. It is wrong for the Opposition spokesman to assert that the clause heading is clear, because I think I am right in saying that the courts do not take into account the headings of clauses. I am sorry to be a bit pedantic, but that the courts take into account solely what is in the text of the legislation.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he allows me to point out that the 2011 census found that there were only 29,000 atheists in England and Wales, compared with 33.2 million who said they were Christian. That is why, once again, this point should be emphasised in our legislation, and why we should make it boldly and unashamedly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am happy to make common cause with the hon. Gentleman in that endeavour. I entirely agree with him and that is why I have sought to use this opportunity to express my views. To reiterate, I am an active member of the Church of England—I am a church warden of the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot and proud of being so—and I am hugely concerned. I fear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset expressed so eloquently, this legislation will lead to all sorts of intricacies that have not been foreseen, and I am afraid that this issue is one of them.

I will conclude on a positive note. I again thank the Minister for putting it profoundly on the record that section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 remains firmly and centrally part of the law of this land.

[Chris Bryant]

It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth); it is only a shame that he is speaking from the Back Benches. It was rather nice when he was speaking from the Front Bench. They culled the wrong Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I thought. It is good to follow him also because he is a church warden and he will know that church warden was one of the first posts that women could be elected to in this country, long before they could be elected as MPs.

The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right on one point, which is that, in a sense, clause 2 opens a wound, but stitches up only part of it. The wound is actually much bigger. The provisions in the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights on Catholicism—only a tiny bit of which we are amending—are not only offensive, but meant to be offensive. They were deliberately intended as offensive legislation, to try to slap Catholicism on the face and send it flying. I know that the Minister wants to restrict things as much as possible and make this a tidy little Bill; none the less, the truth is that at some point we will have to get rid of all these provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry that my earlier intervention seemed like a speech, Mr Bone, but these are technically complex issues and one sometimes gets a bit more long-winded than one had intended.

During the debate, a number of hon. Members have asked about the specific requirement. I know, because I tabled an amendment on the matter that was not selected, that the Act of Settlement states that

“whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established.”

So it does refer to the Church of England and not simply to the Protestant Church.

I also want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the age of the child being a Catholic. I think that the earliest age is relevant, because the Act of Settlement goes on to say that

“the said Person or Persons so reconciled holding Communion professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead.”

The succession would pass as though they had died. I know that Christianity is all about the resurrection, but I do not think that statute law is. If a child of a marriage were christened and brought up a Catholic, that child would be deemed “naturally dead” under the Act of Settlement in relation to succession to the Crown. That is why the clause is, I think, so complex, without any further amendment. My view is that it would be better to leave well alone. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who looks as if he wants to intervene.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I wonder whether there is any way in which the Catholic Church might compromise, as it were, accepting that although the child could be brought up in the Catholic faith, in the event of their being in line for the throne the child would not be expected to do other than renounce the Catholic faith and accept the Church of England.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Yes, of course that would possible. A papal indult could be granted, but when I suggested that earlier, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) thought that that would not do at all, and that having our succession subject to the Papacy would create difficulties of its own. I see the validity of that point. My concern is that by introducing clause 2, we will be passing into law something that brings our law into direct contradiction with the requirements of the Catholic faith. That is what brings us back to the whole offensiveness of the language of the Act of the Settlement.

As I say, I would be happy to see no change at all. The way a country builds up and the way its monarchy develops is lost in the mists of time. To whom that monarchy goes is another issue. We have had discussions about whether the monarchy goes through a strict genealogical line. It does not. By the time of the reign of George V, there were 1,000 people closer to Charles I in the succession than his late Imperial Majesty. It is not something that has been taken back, as we look at Asser’s “Life of Alfred”, to Adam and Eve. Asser’s “Life of Alfred” begins with his genealogy going back to Adam and Eve, but that is not true. Our monarchy is, in fact, established by statute—initially by ancient statute from which it has then developed. The difficulty is that when we start changing part of the statute and allow one thing to happen, there are consequences that will have an effect on other parts of the structure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

My response was not in any way an attempt to fail to answer my hon. Friend’s question. As clause 2 will be a part of this legislation, it will be lawful for Ministers to refer to it. I would therefore say that clause 2 does apply to decisions made under clause 3.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly and my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested alternative ways of replacing or updating the Royal Marriages Act 1772. My hon. Friend suggested that we simply substitute descendants of George II with those of Elizabeth II, our current monarch, and the hon. Gentleman suggested that we do the same with regard to the descendants of George IV. Either of those approaches could lead to an identical ballooning of the problem that we have seen under the Royal Marriages Act. It is obvious that the situation would only get worse with time as more and more descendants came into existence. A sensible approach is to replace the unworkable provisions of the Royal Marriages Act with a measure that is limited, pragmatic, and, as the Bill suggests, subject to procedures including the Great Seal and Order in Council.

Finally, clause 3(5) makes provision that marriages previously made void by the Royal Marriages Act are not to be regarded as invalid, which is important. Subsection (6) ensures that the validity of the descent of the Crown from King George II down to the present day will not be affected by the changes in subsection (5). We have already covered the other subsections. The measures provide a sensible update. We have already dealt with the Government amendment that ensures that the clear policy intention behind the Bill is correctly expressed by it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Commencement and short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I rise to speak briefly to clause 5 because earlier, when I put it to the Deputy Prime Minister that this Bill, if and when it is enacted by this Parliament, will not be effective until such time as it has been ratified by the legislatures of the other 15 realms, the Deputy Prime Minister was unfortunately not able to give me an answer as to when he thought that process might be complete. Although I understand that he confirmed that this Bill will not be enacted until the other 15 realms have enacted their provisions, will my hon. Friend the Minister expand on and enlighten the House about subsection (3), which states that the provisions will come into force at different days and times?

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I shall certainly do my best. I thank my hon. Friend for seeking to end our debate with an issue about which we spoke earlier.

All the realms need to bring these measures into force. We have a clear commitment from them that they are doing so, and we are working closely with them to ensure smooth application. It is difficult to give a date today, but I shall endeavour to keep not only my hon. Friend, but the House updated on it. As I think he knows, not all the realms need to legislate, so slightly different processes will take place in each. The agreement between the Commonwealth countries is that the measures will apply from the point in 2011 when agreement was secured.

[Miss Smith]

I share that understanding. The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point that although other realms will make their provisions in slightly different procedural ways, we certainly expect that to happen and I look forward to them being brought into force.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I apologise for persisting in this, but much emphasis has been given throughout the day to the idea that, if we amend this Bill, that might prejudice the agreement that was reached at Perth. Presumably that stricture applies to all the other 15 realms. Does my hon. Friend have any intelligence to share with the House in how others see it? Also, if any of those 15 realms were to amend their legislation, would that affect us?

[Miss Smith]

As I said, I think it is best to acknowledge the challenges in that co-ordination process, and my hon. Friend makes clear some of the complexity involved. As I said, we are working with those realms to ensure smooth application of the legislation, and I look forward to keeping the House updated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

May I answer the question? The Sovereign Grant Act 2010 makes a very important change that touches on the succession to the Crown as far as the Duchy of Cornwall is concerned. As the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) may know, the convention is that the male heir to the throne has the title of Duchy of Cornwall conferred on him, but a female heir to the throne does not. The Bill does not change that situation, but the provisions of the Sovereign Grant Act mean that the financial support provided via the Duchy of Cornwall can, in future, be provided to female heirs to the throne as well. To that extent, there is a link between this very tightly circumscribed Bill and the provisions of the Sovereign Grant Act.

The drafting of the Bill has been a long and careful process. I pay special tribute to Rebecca Kitteridge, New Zealand’s Cabinet Secretary, for her extraordinary work in making sure that these proposals can be effected across the Commonwealth realms. Agreeing constitutional change for 16 states, each with its own Government and legislature, is clearly a challenge. From the point at which the realms backed the reforms in principle in 2011, it took one year and two months to get full agreement in writing from everyone. In a phenomenal coincidence—one that I know is hard to believe—we received the final consent just hours before the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge announced that they are expecting a baby.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I will make a little more progress and then give way.

The palace has, of course, been actively involved in the process from the beginning, and both the Church of England and the Catholic Church have been kept informed throughout.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. Later in my remarks I will repeat verbatim the form that that support from the Church of England took.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

On the Commonwealth, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the 16 realms had given their approval just prior to the announcement of the royal pregnancy. However, that approval was still subject, was it not, to parliamentary endorsement in each of those countries? Therefore, will the Bill come into effect only once the relevant legislation has been enacted in all those countries? If so, when does he expect that that might happen?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My understanding is that it needs to come into force in all the realms. Interestingly, two of the realms, Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, do not, for their own reasons, need to go through the full legislative process. That is partly why we are so keen to keep the precision of the terms of the Bill and the narrowness of its scope, such that it can be easily adopted and digested under all the different parliamentary and legislative conventions that exist in the 16 Commonwealth realms. We now have a very short Bill of five clauses and a schedule. I urge the House to bear it in mind that, as I have explained, the Bill must be kept narrow in order to be adopted across all 16 Commonwealth realms.

I have heard it suggested that we should use the Bill to tackle the gender bias in hereditary titles whereby titles and the benefits that come with them leapfrog eldest daughters and are handed down to younger sons, or can be lost entirely when there is no male heir. Personally, I am sympathetic to that reform and can see why this seems like the natural time to do it, but, for purely practical reasons, it cannot and will not be done in this Bill. Nor can we can use the Bill to mop up any other constitutional odds and ends. Put simply, it cannot be broadened to include UK-specific reforms, because they are not relevant to the realms of the Commonwealth.

Turning to the all-important so-called Catholic question, the coalition Government are seeking to remove the current ban on heirs to the throne marrying Catholics; or, as the current legislation says, rather insultingly, depending on one’s point of view, from “marrying a Papist”. That law is a reflection of the times in which it was written. It followed nearly two centuries of religious strife within England, Scotland and Ireland; the threat of conflict with Louis XIV’s France and other Catholic powers; and tension with Rome. It was an era when legal defences seemed vital against a dangerous threat from abroad.

That does not just apply to the royal accession—in the 40 years after the Glorious Revolution a whole range of restrictions were put in place. Catholics could not vote, they were excluded from all professions and public offices and they could not go to university, could not teach, could not be the guardian of a child, could not buy land with a lease of more than 31 years and could not own a horse worth more than £5. Edmund Burke called the laws

“well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people…as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.”

Many of the laws were repealed relatively quickly. The ban on owning land was repealed in 1778 and that on voting and serving in the legal profession in 1793. By the time the ban on Catholics from serving in this House as MPs and from serving as judges was lifted in 1829, most of the main restrictions were gone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

This has been a fantastically interesting debate and I am sorry that there has not been a greater attendance in the House. Let me draw the House’s attention to the following, which the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said in 2011:

“The fundamental nature of our constitution means that it should be changed only with due care and consideration”.

We have heard this afternoon, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), about how little the Government have taken into account the potential unforeseen consequences that could arise from this measure, which has been described by Andrew Roberts in The Daily Telegraph as “blithely fiddling” with the constitution.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made an incredibly powerful speech on the importance of the constitution, the Crown and all the traditions, eccentricities and contradictions that are so much part and parcel of 1,000 years of this nation’s history and which we tinker with at our peril. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly made the important point that once we start unpicking the thread, we never know where it is going to end. I am pleased to be able to agree with him on that, if not on everything else. The constitution is incredibly important, which is why we should have more time to debate this measure.

My second point is that the idea that the European Court of Human Rights should have any say in our deliberations on this matter is so fatuous and offensive that it should be struck out completely—how dare it ever seek to interfere with what we discuss on these matters in this House.

My third point relates to the question of female succession. I had the privilege of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the greatest Prime Minister since the grandfather of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex. I refer to the noble Baroness Thatcher, to whom I am utterly and irredeemably devoted. She was the salvation of the nation, and so I cannot argue against the idea that female succession is in the interests of the nation—Margaret Thatcher clearly proved that it is. Our sovereign has also done this country astonishingly good service. I do not believe that any sovereign has so lived up to their coronation oath as Her Majesty the Queen, and this nation is beginning to understand the contribution that she has made to the stability of this nation. That confirms everything that my right hon. Friend said.

My real problem is with the risk to the established Church that arises from the Bill. I believe that the established Church and the Crown are indissolubly linked. We will be allowing the heir to the throne to marry a Catholic and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has pointed out, under the rules of the Catholic Church the children have to be brought up in the Catholic faith. There would therefore arise a potential conflict of interest in the mind of that person as to which was going to command their loyalty—their loyalty to their faith or their loyalty to the Crown. The issue has not been properly examined, and I support amendment 16, tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), which would spell it out and make things crystal clear—it is not anti-Catholic.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) that my mother wrote a book called “A Plain Man’s Guide to the Glorious Revolution, 1688”. It was on sale in this place and it sold many copies. The point my mother always made was about how Catholicism was seen in the 17th century. People were not prejudiced against it; they feared it, because it was seen as owing allegiance beyond these islands. That was why Catholicism represented a threat; it is rather like how some of us see the European Union today or how some of us saw communism in the latter part of the 20th century. To measure the Catholicism of those times against our views today is a mistake; we should put it in its historical context. I salute my hon. Friend and his ancestors for what they did.

There are serious issues that we need to consider. We need to address the question of what happens if the heir to the throne were to marry a Muslim or a Hindu. What would that do to the United Kingdom?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

rose—

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I will not give way because the Minister needs to wind up the debate.

All the points made in this House today by my hon. Friends and Members of all parties have illustrated that we should have had much more time to discuss this Bill on the Floor of the House.