Succession to the Crown Bill

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

It occurs to me that the Leader of the House must have a sense of humour. Today, as I am sure you know, Mr Speaker, is the anniversary of the death of his late Majesty King Henry VIII, so it seems only appropriate that we should be discussing the Succession to the Crown Bill on such an anniversary. After all, King Henry introduced three succession to the Crown Bills, and some of the problems we are dealing with today originate with his reign. I have proposed two further amendments, which you have graciously said, Mr Speaker, we can deal with in the course of our debate on the new clause, and I shall come to them secondarily.

New clause 1 is the crucial part of what I am proposing. It is a development within the context of the Bill to attend not just to one discrimination but to a second that is inherent within the current rules governing the succession. From time immemorial, the succession has gone to the eldest male heir, but since the Act of Settlement 1701 it has had to go to a Protestant. There has been a religious discrimination as well as discrimination on the grounds of sex. My new clause seeks to amend that to allow for anybody of any faith to succeed to the Crown while making provision for the established Church.

Many countries in the world have a Crown that is only temporal; they do not have a Crown that is spiritual as well. The mediaevalists debated at great length where power should rest in those two spheres, and I do not wish to rehearse the schoolmen’s arguments. There are, however, two distinct and separate powers and authorities: the temporal one that deals with the laws we live by and how we should lead our lives in respect of society; and the spiritual one that looks to the higher plane and the greater authority that comes with religious belief and religious conviction.

In our country, those two powers are merged in the Crown. The Crown is both the spiritual head of the Church and the temporal head of the nation for one part—and one part only—of the Crown. On Tuesday last week, on Second Reading and indeed in Committee, we debated whether that was right and how it applied in a more modern age. It is worth looking, as we did last week, at some of the detail. Because the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, she is or has under her an established Church in Scotland, but she is not formally head of it. She puts in a Lord High Commissioner to represent her at meetings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, but she is not the Supreme Governor of the established Church in Scotland in the way she is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. There is no established Church in Wales; there is no established Church in Northern Ireland. As far as I am aware, there is no established Church in Antigua and Barbuda, in Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher-Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon islands, Tuvalu or in Her Majesty’s other realms and territories. When we deal with one discrimination but not the other, therefore, we leave a discrimination that applies only to a very small part of the totality of the Crown.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a discrimination is inherent, and has been since time immemorial, in relation to the eldest? My hon. Friend refers to a discrimination in relation to the Protestant faith, but is there not also an in-built discrimination against younger male heirs?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Had my hon. Friend not been meeting His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales last Tuesday, he would have heard the debate on an amendment that I tabled to clarify this matter, because the current Bill, rather than maintaining any system of primogeniture, might simply create co-heirs. Of course, the concept of monarchy has an unfairness in it—the very word “monarchy” means that one will rule; it cannot be everybody in the country. However, the reasons for having discrimination on the grounds of faith—in 1688, formalised in the Act of Settlement in 1701—are very different from those that apply today.

Likewise, if you think back to Richard the Lionheart, Mr Speaker, as I am sure you often do, with his fine statue outside the House of Lords, you will acknowledge that it had been necessary since time immemorial to have a king who was able to fight, lead armies in battle and show his great strength, and that was easier for a male than for a female. The last king to lead troops into battle was George II.

Historically, therefore, there may have been reasons for having a religious discrimination, a discrimination on the grounds of sex, and the obvious discrimination within a monarchy of it being rule by one. As the discrimination on the grounds of sex is no longer necessary, or can no longer be argued for logically, nor can exclusions on the grounds of religion.

The reason for the religious bar in the late 17th and early 18th century was the genuine threat perceived by this country from the strong Catholic nations in Europe. In the reign of Elizabeth I, of course, the Spanish had been the threat, but by the reign of Queen Anne, the French were the greater concern. Through the secret treaty of Dover, Louis XIV tried to get Charles II to take a subsidy to establish a standing army that would enforce Catholicism on the nation as part of Louis XIV’s aim to get general European rule. You might be worried, Mr Speaker, about general European rule, but it is not in support of Catholicism.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, although it is worth bearing in mind that the House was controlled by Tories at the point at which the Act of Settlement was passed, so I am looking to revise a Tory piece of legislation.

The fundamental point is that the reason for the provision on religious discrimination no longer exists in the way that it did in the late 17th and early 18th century.

[Michael Ellis]

I am rather surprised to hear my hon. Friend’s comments, because although I had to be absent from the Chamber during the debate last week, I think I read in the parliamentary record that he had no objection to being called a Papist, despite the antiquity of that term, because he understood that it represented part of this country’s history. Does he depart from that now in saying that the historical aspect of the Protestant ascendancy in this country is not relevant today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I also think that the law should represent the reality. It is inconceivable that if a sovereign of Canada—including, obviously, Quebec—decided to convert to Roman Catholicism, that sovereign would be deposed, thrown out and replaced. I think that even in this country and even with an established Church, we cannot accept the idea that a sovereign on the throne who decided to convert to Rome would be suddenly chucked out of Buckingham palace. When the law has moved away from the reality, and we are amending the law in any event, perhaps it makes sense to carry out a comprehensive reform of the law to make the two match up.

[Michael Ellis]

Is not my hon. Friend’s point further strengthened by the fact that those of other faiths, such as mine—the Jewish faith—are not excluded in the same way?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There is a part of the Act of Settlement that requires the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England, so I am not absolutely certain that my hon. Friend is correct, but my new clause would get rid of the bar for all religions. This is not simply a Catholic issue. I have concentrated more on the Catholic issue because that was the reasoning behind the Act of Settlement and the reason for its becoming part of our law, and also because clause 2 of the Bill deals with marriage to Catholics. Marriage to Catholics is a specific Catholic exclusion, but communion with the Church of England is the requirement when it comes to inheriting the throne.

Let me explain why I support an established Church. My new clause provides for the maintaining of a Protestant head of the Church of England. That is partly to do with our history and traditions, which we see even on the Mace. It has a cross on its top as a symbol of the shared Christianity that this country has had since its very foundations as a nation, going all the way back to St Augustine coming and converting England and the ultimate joining together of the Crowns. Christianity has run through our history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and that might have been an amendment worthy of consideration. It is not the amendment I tabled. My amendment sought to maintain the supreme governorship of the Church of England in a regency whenever the sovereign was not in communion with the Anglican Church under the Regency Act 1937, which requires the regent to be a Protestant and to meet the terms of the Act of Settlement. I would prefer to keep things that way because the Crown and the headship of the Church of England could come back together when a future sovereign was an Anglican, and my approach would not permanently separate the two. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward new thoughts on the matter; one of the reasons why it would have been better to have had a longer time for, and longer gaps in, debating this important subject is because then such ideas could have been discussed.

My new clause is extremely simple. It is a recognition—no matter how much I am sometimes reluctant to recognise it—that the modern world is different from the early 18th century. There may have been many glories in the early 18th century, but one of the glories of this modern age is that we are tolerant—we are tolerant of different religions. We believe that people practising other faiths is something to be welcomed and encouraged, and that has made us a stronger nation rather than a weaker one. Therefore there should no longer be a bar on the grounds of faith in respect of the sovereign, as long as we can make provision for the established Church of England, which there is and which I support.

That circle can be squared by providing for a regency. That relatively simple and straightforward proposal deals with a problem that people have recognised in this country for many decades; we have not suddenly woken up and realised that a non-member of the Church of England cannot become sovereign. Bills have been presented to Parliament to deal with that, and this seems the right time to be doing it, as we are legislating on the Crown succession and we are in discussion with the Commonwealth members who also have the Queen as sovereign to see whether they will agree to it.

[Michael Ellis]

Is it not the case that his holiness the Pope, who wears the triple crown, is also a temporal sovereign? Would it not be a requirement of that office that he be of the Catholic faith? Does that situation have any similarity with the point that my hon. Friend is making?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Much though I admire his late Holiness Pope Pius IX, he was the last Pope to exercise effective temporal power. His Prime Minister was assassinated in Rome, and from that point on, the Papacy’s temporal power in Italy has been restricted to the vicinity of the Holy See—that very small amount of land. Suggesting that we should open up the Holy See to non-Catholics when there are only about 2,000 residents, almost all of whom are in holy orders, is faintly although engagingly absurd.

[Michael Ellis]

It is a point of principle.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The principle is different, although it is worth noting that the only two anointed sovereigns in Christendom are the Pope and the Queen, which says something about their antiquity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman, who I hope is not in that unhappy state, that an excommunicated Catholic would be excluded from succession to the Crown because that person would have been in communion with Rome at some point. It is an absolute. If at any moment in their whole life they were in communion with Rome, they are excluded from the throne, deemed to be dead. That cannot be the intention of the clause that allows a Catholic to marry an heir to the throne. That will simply create confusion and we will not know who the monarch is going to be.

[Michael Ellis]

I think that, in canon law, it may be canon 1125 which refers to best endeavours. Is it not the case that he who brings up a child in the Catholic faith or attempts to do so by using best endeavours is defeated in those endeavours if it be a legal impossibility? So the issue as to the connection of that infant child to the Crown and the Catholicism or otherwise of that infant child is dealt with in that way. Best endeavours cannot be achieved if it is a legal impossibility.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend misses the point. It is a question of the succession. It may be that somebody has been brought up as a Catholic who is relatively remote from succeeding to the Crown, but in a “Kind Hearts and Coronets” way suddenly becomes much closer. That person would be excluded, but more importantly, the best efforts issue means that there is a lack of clarity as to whether or not such a child has been excluded.

Are we saying that a Catholic can marry into the Crown but must then immediately say, on the birth of any child, that this child has not been anywhere near a Catholic church? How are we classifying this connection with Rome that in the Act of Settlement is a very broad connection for a very good reason: at that point people were worried about the Old Pretender. They thought that his Catholic upbringing made him a threat from the moment of his birth. That is why it is all-encompassing, and we are now amending the law to allow a Catholic to marry into the throne, without dealing with the technicalities that follow from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about the obnoxious nature of any legislation, however ancient it may be, that is prejudicial to any religion. Those of my faith and many others are also excluded in the same way, because of that legislation. Why does he think that, whereas other examples of bias towards or prejudice against other religions have been done away with centuries ago, in many cases, or certainly many decades ago, this one remains? Does he think it might be due to the internecine complexity of the issue, rather than any prejudice?

[John McDonnell]

That may well have been the case in the past, but I think we have moved on. When the issue was debated in a different form—I think it was on a private Member’s Bill promoted by Evan Harris—Lord Falconer did the maths, calculated the large number of descendants that could have a claim to the throne and argued that we did not have parliamentary time and that the issue was irrelevant anyway. If we change the proposal on marriage, however, it may soon become very relevant, because we would not want to bar a future monarch from marrying a Catholic, a Jew or a Muslim. I think that that will come on to the agenda very quickly, whereas in the past parliamentary time was not found for it because it was not seen to be relevant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

No, I am not a supporter of the Duke of Bavaria.

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury potentially taking over the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but would that not be rather incongruous? The Archbishop of Canterbury, at least in theory, is appointed by the sovereign. The sovereign would therefore be appointing an archbishop who would then take over their role, as far as the primacy of the Church is concerned.

[Mr Leigh]

This was an idea proffered by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and perhaps it was a mistake for me even to mention it. We are now in danger of dancing on the head of a pin and getting into a level of complexity that is not helping the argument.

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill seeks to extend by law the rights in the Act of Settlement to all heirs of Sophia of Hanover, not just to the boys and men who would succeed under common law principles. By so doing, however, it seeks to create binding rights in law in favour of a very small group of additional potential future beneficiaries among the female heirs of Sophia of Hanover on the basis of birth alone.

[Michael Ellis]

A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said that the monarchy had done nothing in the past 100 years for the advent of democracy in this country. May I suggest that he is wholly and unavowedly in error and that in fact the monarchy has done much in the last 100 years and more to act as a pillar in the protection of democracy?

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

Perhaps we should not get into a discussion about precisely how the Queen has dealt with these matters. From my standpoint, I see her as someone who has used her position in the Church of England in a way that is generally beneficial to society, by setting out the importance of spiritual things and laying emphasis—as she did in her most recent Christmas broadcast—on some of the moral and ethical conclusions that one might draw from these things. That is something of a satisfaction to non-conformists, Roman Catholics and members of the Church of Scotland, with which she has a continuing relationship—it is her Church in Scotland. In all those respects she has been exemplary in the way she has used those positions.

However, I turn to amendments 1 and 2, because—

[Michael Ellis]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Alan Beith]

I want to get on to amendments 1 and 2, because I am anxious that we get this right and I am interested in what the Government have to say about them.

It seems to me that the wording in the Act of Settlement might well preclude someone who, let us say, as a teenager or young adult chooses to be in the Church of England rather than the Catholic Church, having had experience of both in their lives. They could be automatically excluded by those features of their early involvement with the Roman Catholic Church that fell within the extended definition in the Act of Settlement of what constitutes having been a Catholic. Unless we deal with that, our legislation will be defective and will fail to fulfil its intended purpose, because at some future date it might exclude someone from being the sovereign even though they were in communion with the Church of England and wanted to uphold the Protestant reformed religion, as the coronation oath requires.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Chloe Smith]

I will be equally as brief as the hon. Gentleman. I, too, understand that the effect of his amendment would be to make the gender of any person in the line of succession irrelevant when determining succession to the throne. I put it to him that the Government did not make an omission; the way we set out the Bill was a deliberate choice. His amendment would change the current line of succession. Specifically—I suspect he has this in mind—their Royal Highnesses Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, and their descendants, would move below Her Royal Highness Princess Anne and her descendants. The Government do not believe it is fair or reasonable to alter the legitimate expectations of those currently in line to the throne. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a retrospective provision and there would need to be good reason for it.

Commonwealth leaders have agreed to remove the male bias in succession to the Crown for the future. For reasons we have already discussed at length, the Government view that agreement as being important to maintain, and it does not envisage the current order of succession being disturbed. Rather, when new members of the royal family are born they will enter the line of succession without there being any preference for males over females, and I know that the hon. Gentleman shares that latter principle with me.

[Michael Ellis]

Does the Minister agree that not only would it be intrinsically unfair to adopt an ex post facto aspect to the Bill by applying it retrospectively to those who have lived in the current order of succession for many years—their adult lives—but it would breach the principle of avoiding retrospective legislation in this House?

[Miss Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I note that the different clauses of this Bill do carry slightly different connotations of retrospectivity. I would be happy to explain that, but we did cover some of those issues in detail in Committee. He is right to say that what is relevant in clause 1 is the legitimate expectations of those currently close to the throne in the line of succession. We do face a question about what is fair and reasonable to them. Clause 1 strikes a fair balance by providing that gender is irrelevant in this regard for persons born after the date of the agreement reached by the Commonwealth realms on 28 October 2011. That element of retrospection is justifiable.

An important practical element and effect of the measure is that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a daughter and then a son, the daughter would precede the son in the line of succession. I believe that all hon. Members know that that is an example of the point behind clause 1. It is also clear that that deals with a future occurrence, as opposed to altering the legitimate expectations of those currently in line to the throne. For that reason, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I am a member of that Committee and I venture to suggest that there is no more important person to the home affairs of this country than our sovereign lady the Queen.

The unwritten constitution of this great country is rather like the roof over the temple of Solomon, and the monarchy is the central pillar holding up that roof. Other pillars include this House, the other place, the judiciary and the law courts. Perhaps even the press are a pillar of the constitution—although rather a stunted pillar so perhaps more of a balustrade. Nevertheless, one might argue that a number of pillars hold up the roof of our constitution. It is a multi-pillared structure—one might almost say a Parthenon—and one must be cautious before one chips away at those pillars. The consequence of such actions can be a structural collapse, and we all know that those who are beneath the structure chipping away at it can be the victims of such a calamity. I would exercise all due diligence and all due caution before instituting any changes, such as those that are envisaged.

However, I support the Bill. On balance, 300 years is about the right period of time—it is not overly hurried—for the provisions being changed by the Bill to be looked at afresh. Some aspects of the Bill are appropriate because they renew the ageing—one might even say decrepit—parts of the constitution and the ancient structure that I mentioned. It is always right to consider that this country of ours and the monarchy that heads it has always changed with the times. The monarchy has always tended to adapt to changing times. Recently, Queen Victoria, by her character and temperament—[Interruption.] Recently, in constitutional terms. When Queen Victoria came to the throne she represented a considerable change from the Georgian sovereigns who went before her. Her conduct, her decorum and the manner in which she reigned were lessons to her descendants.

There is no doubt that there is unacceptable prejudice currently written into the constitution of this country by such Acts of Parliament as the Act of Settlement 1701.

[Keith Vaz]

I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far, but does he agree with me and other Members of the House that there is unfinished business in respect of modernisation—for example, the succession to baronetcies? These are issues that we should return to in the future.

[Michael Ellis]

For my part, I prefer to leave the structures alone if we can possibly do so. I think there is something to be said for the ancient customs, traditions and privileges of this country, and we should be very cautious about making changes willy-nilly because of their unintended consequences.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He said, I believe, in a debate last Tuesday from which I was absent but which I have read in the Official Report, that he does not take offence at the terms of the Act of Settlement because it is the history of this country. I admire that and I wish more people would take such a mature view of such things. All too often people are quick to find offence where none should be taken. There is an inbuilt prejudice against other religions, my own included. Because those religions may not be in communion with the Church of England, their adherents cannot be eligible to be sovereign of this country, but I for one take no offence at that because it is part of the noble history of this country and it seems to me that there are reasons why we should retain that. Principal among them is the establishment of the Church of England.

The prejudices that exist are based not on current thinking but on historical reasons, and have been left unchanged only because Members of this House in recent generations have taken the view, presumably, that they have more important things to do than change them or because changing them involves great complexity. For that reason, as well as for many others, I admire my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for being the one who brought these measures before the House. Whereas others have spoken of them and made supportive noises about them for many years, the Deputy Prime Minister has done it, and I congratulate him on that.

With reference to male primogeniture, one has only to look at the long and noble history of this country to see that we have been very fortunate with our female sovereigns. There should certainly be no reason why we should deny or make it more difficult for females to succeed to the Crown. We have the example of our current Queen and of Queen Victoria, and I dare say of those queens who were not queens regnant but queens consort. I am thinking of the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Her late Majesty Queen Mary, who also were exemplars of duty, service to their country, and spirit. I have no problem with removing the male primogeniture aspect, as the Bill does.

However, I would not go as far as others and seek to defenestrate completely those parts of the constitution which in some way can be said to be prejudicial to some group or other. For example, one could argue that the law that says that the oldest person, whether male or female, should take precedence over young siblings is also biased. It is also prejudicial because it is ageist in that it favours older over younger. One could go on ad absurdum. I suggest that we try not to get too concerned about removing all aspects of the legal fictions that the law has had to develop over the years.

For example, when, for the purpose of inheritance, both the father and the eldest son die in the same instance, such as in a road traffic accident, the law assumes that the older died before the younger, even if it is transparent that they both died instantly in an accident. That is because the law has to develop types of legal regulation—legal fiction, one might call it—in order to make sense. I use this as an example to indicate with caution that attractive though it is in principle to remove all types of bias, there will always be some type of bias within the system, but the Bill goes some way towards rectifying the most egregious examples.

The Bill also deals with the Royal Marriages Act 1772. The Act has become redundant in as much as it is difficult to operate effectively.

[Wayne David]

The hon. Gentleman says the Act is redundant. Would it not be more accurate to say that it is a ridiculous piece of legislation?

[Michael Ellis]

I do not go so far as to say it is a ridiculous piece of legislation because there is a good reason why the sovereign should have a right over those closest to him or her in their marriage arrangements. The hon. Gentleman must also agree with that principle, because he said he agreed with the principle that the number should be reduced to six. So whether it be the heirs of Electress Sophia or whether it be six people, the principle remains the same. The sovereign has special rights and responsibilities. Of course it is true that in ordinary families no head of the family would have such a say, but it is nonsense to suggest that the royal family should be in that position. It is right that some demarcation be made so that the sovereign can exercise control. My understanding is that in other constitutional monarchies similar provisions apply, whereby restrictions are placed on the marriage rights of those closest in line.

I support the Bill. I commend it to the House. Although I emphasise that I would exercise extreme caution when chipping away at the pillars of our constitution, in my submission the Bill should have the support of the House.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). When he talked about the temple of Solomon, I was somewhat concerned about the number of pillars he was adding to the established archaeology of the building. The fact that it was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar many centuries ago also made me worry about quite what direction the hon. Gentleman was going in, let alone whether we were going to start talking about how many wives and concubines Solomon had under the provisions of his own royal marriages Act.

I support the two main thrusts of what the Bill is trying to do, but I think that we will end up ruing its passage. That is not because I disagree with the principle of abolishing male-preference primogeniture so that women can inherit equally with men, nor because of the minor adjustment to the provision on those who marry Roman Catholics being allowed to continue in the succession. My problem with the Bill is that it does something very significant that I do not think the Government intend it to do. The Royal Marriages Act 1772 provided that an individual who was in line to the throne had to get consent from the monarch at the time of marriage. If the monarch refused to provide that consent, or the individual refused to ask for it, their marriage would simply become null and void. I do not think that any of us believes that anybody should be able to declare anybody else’s marriage null and void.

The new legislation that we are seeking to agree will have no effect on the validity of the marriage, but it means that the person will be removed from the succession. That matters because throughout the whole history of English Parliaments, Scottish Parliaments and Irish Parliaments, the succession has always been determined by Parliament, not the monarch. Parliament decided what should happen at the deposition of Edward II. In the case of Richard II, the decision was made by the shortest Parliament in our history—a one-day Parliament in Westminster Hall gathered by Henry Bolingbroke. One could argue that it was not a proper Parliament because Richard II was not present, but none the less the Commons, the Lords and the Church, gathered together, made the decision on who should be the new monarch.

[Michael Ellis]

May I suggest that Parliament will still make the decision, because it could intercede and put someone back in the line of succession if they had been excluded for this reason?

[Chris Bryant]

That is not in the Bill. Indeed, the Government have said that it is entirely a matter for the Crown, in the double sense of the monarch and the monarch’s Ministers, who might have a role in advising the monarch.

Incidentally, I would not want to be a monarch apart from Elizabeth with a “II” in my title, but when James II was removed, Parliament decided, through the Bill of Rights and then the Act of Settlement, to hand over a joint monarchy to William and Mary rather than to anybody else. Then, when the Stuart line was going to end with Queen Anne, Parliament decided how the succession should proceed. Again, when Edward VIII tried to abdicate in 1936, the abdication could be allowed only because there was a statute of Parliament the next day.

European Council

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bloated Brussels bureaucrats are talking balderdash when they refuse to offer a single cut, despite the fact that more than 200 Commission staff earn more than he does and that they apparently have up to 93 holiday days a year?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that it is perfectly possible to save money in the Commission’s budget. Its staff have things such as automatic promotions, very generous pension arrangements and expatriation allowances for living in Brussels, even if they have been there for 30 years. It is time to have a clear-out of such things and the Commission needs to be convinced of that. Part of the point of building the alliance is to say to the Commission, “You really have to look at your own budget.” That is not the whole answer, because administration makes up only 6% of the total, but it can make a contribution.

European Council

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We obviously need an agreement over time about the future funding of the European Union, and it makes sense to have a discussion about that. I am very clear about where that discussion needs to lead, and my view on that is not going to change. If we can come to an agreement in November, so be it, and if we cannot, so be it—happy to talk, but not happy to spend a lot of money.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

The French press are today criticising their own Government, and talking about a financial exile because of punitive tax rates. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be a good idea for Labour Front Benchers to take out a subscription for some of the French press, so that they understand how significantly poor punitive tax rates are for the economy?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an absolutely excellent suggestion. Labour Front Benchers also ought to consider the effect of a financial transactions tax, because that will be pushed ahead by some EU members. It would be a great mistake to start piling on extra taxes—[Interruption.] “Is that our policy?” I have no idea what the policy is of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls). The real problem is that neither does he.

G20 Summit

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Ellis. [Interruption.]

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not want to hurry the hon. Gentleman, but we can hear his question when he has calmed down and when he is ready.

[Michael Ellis]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rather ridiculous posturing by the Argentines at the G20 summit tries to hide the fact that it is they who are the real colonialists, because they wish to ignore the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islands people themselves?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. At the heart of the UN charter is the concept of self-determination, which is why I think that the referendum is important. In many ways, we do not need it to happen in order to know the wishes of the Falkland islanders, which have always been clear, but none the less I think that it will underline that and people will be able to see that it is not Britain that is behaving in a colonialist way but that we are simply doing what the Falkland islanders want us to do.

Diamond Jubilee

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

The preamble to every Act of Parliament that has received Royal Assent in the last 60 years refers to the fact that it is enacted by

“the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty”,

as well as by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and by the Commons, in Parliament assembled. That is indeed fitting terminology, in that there has been a real excellence in Her Majesty the Queen’s devotion, integrity, honour, service and duty to her people over the past 60 years. The Queen serves as an indefatigable unifying influence in an increasingly diverse nation and a Commonwealth of Nations composed of a plethora of countries with different languages, cultures, religions and forms of government.

Her Majesty’s commitment and public service are without parallel. When she was on a tour of Africa at the age of 21, the then Princess Elizabeth declared that her

“whole life, whether it be long or short, would be dedicated to the service”

of her people. And it has been. I venture to suggest that Queen Elizabeth’s ancestors would be proud of her—her late father particularly so—and that her heirs and successors will be driven to follow her example. The Queen is a model sovereign, who has performed her demanding constitutional functions with extraordinarily consistent good judgment. She has touched millions of lives through her innumerable visits. She inspires utter devotion from her regiments and the Church of which she is supreme governor. In the Commonwealth, the Queen has made an enduring contribution to the lives of millions of her people around the world. By her side throughout this period of change has been His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who has been in her heart and mind since she was 13 years of age.

In 1977, for the silver jubilee, and in 2002, for the golden jubilee, peers and Members of Parliament contributed to a gift on the parliamentary estate to be enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of visitors. Late in 2010, in keeping with that tradition, I established an all-party group. With the help of the then Serjeant at Arms of this House, Jill Pay, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, Lieutenant-General David Leakey, and the conservation architect of the estate, Adam Watrobski, I was soon able to approach you, Mr Speaker, and the then Lord Speaker, Baroness Hayman, in order to seek, through your good offices, a request to any Member of this House or the other place who wished to contribute, to make such private donation as they saw fit to a stained glass depiction of the royal arms, to be placed in the north window of Westminster Hall. After renovations have been completed in the coming months, that window will show the first royal arms to be displayed in the north window since the time of King Henry VIII. They will be opposite the arms of His late Majesty, King George VI, the Queen’s father.

No public funds whatever have been used for the manufacture of the stained glass window, or for its monumental display case or its forthcoming installation. That is thanks to the generosity of hundreds of parliamentarians from all sides in both Houses who, in response to your letter, Mr Speaker, have donated a total of £98,396 for this gift, which will allow a modest surplus to be remitted to the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust charity. That generosity is a manifestation of the enormous respect and profound gratitude felt by this Parliament for the selfless and uninterrupted service of our beloved sovereign. God save the Queen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

3. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport on arrangements in Northern Ireland to mark the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport on arrangements in Northern Ireland to mark the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

11. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport on arrangements in Northern Ireland to mark the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on attracting so many teams to his area. In Northern Ireland we have the Australian boxing team, the Chinese gymnastics team—which is probably capable of even greater contortions than Opposition Treasury spokesmen—and the Irish Paralympics teams, which will hold pre-games training events in Northern Ireland. For the golfers among us, we also hope that the Irish open championship will be followed in due course by the British open.

[Michael Ellis]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the events of 2012 present a wonderful opportunity for Northern Ireland to showcase itself as an excellent place for tourists to visit, both from other constituent parts of the United Kingdom and from around the world?

[Mr Swire]

Yes, I most certainly do—2012 is the year to visit Northern Ireland, with the launch of “Your Time, Our Place” last week, before returning in 2013 for the UK city of culture. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his sterling work in encouraging Members to donate to his window to commemorate Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. I did a quick ring-round of the Northern Ireland Office, and I am glad to say that I have donated—although I have not told my wife—the Secretary of State has donated and our Minister in the Lords has donated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Members from both sides of the House and in both Houses on their generosity in responding to the letter from Mr Speaker and the Lords’ Speaker in supporting a gift for Her Majesty the Queen for her forthcoming diamond jubilee from this Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in praising everyone who contributed to this very imaginative and sensible gift for Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. Perhaps I could pay particular tribute to him because he has worked so hard to make this work. I think it will be a fitting tribute and it is something that the country should focus on. To have a diamond jubilee is an extraordinary thing for us to be able to celebrate in our lifetimes.

Public Disorder

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Now that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is sitting on this side of the House and working so hard, he will make them workable.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

This week saw the busiest night for the London fire brigade since the blitz in terms of the number of fires in one night. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending the brave and dedicated public service that firefighters provide throughout this country, and in thanking police officers, including dozens from Northamptonshire police, who left their force areas to help other forces that were in need of assistance?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly praise Northamptonshire police, but I praise again the firefighters in London and elsewhere who did such magnificent work. I was told one story of a woman firefighter who was on her way to work when a rioter pushed her off her moped and took it away, but instead of going home she just called a taxi, appeared for work and got on with fighting fires in London. It is that sort of spirit that we should praise in the House today.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Tempting as it would be, under our system politicians in one Government cannot order the publication of papers in another Government, fascinating though it might sometimes be.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

The Home Affairs Committee issued a report at 5 o’clock this morning that was critical of police whose evidence yesterday and last week included attempts to pass the buck to alleged wrongdoers for not co-operating with the police. Does the Prime Minister agree that alleged wrongdoers often do not co-operate with the police, and that the police should follow the evidence where it takes them?

[The Prime Minister]

The police must absolutely do that. They know that that is what everyone in this House wants and what the country expects. They now have a properly resourced police investigation, it is under new leadership, and we all wish them well with what they are doing.

Ninetieth Birthday of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

The Duke of Edinburgh is clearly someone who does not take well to compliments, but he will just have to put up with them this week, because quite frankly he deserves those compliments, not just because it is his 90th birthday on Friday, but because for more than 60 years, since their marriage in 1947, he has been the bedrock of support for Her Majesty the Queen—the constant and loyal support and the dutiful and honourable consort, perpetually at her side over the 59 years of her reign so far and, please God, for years to come. He is the longest-living consort in 1,000 years of British history, surpassing, only a couple of years ago, Queen Charlotte, the consort of King George III—but I am reliably informed that that is the only thing he has in common with Queen Charlotte.

The Duke may be 90 years old, but he has something to teach the youngest generations, and that is the principle of duty and service, as we have heard from other hon. Members. Nowadays, many people are accustomed to doing something only if they want to do it and only if it suits them. Many have an expectation of what their rights are, but not of what their responsibilities may be.

Many of the prince’s generation, maturing in the 1940s, understood the importance of doing a thing because it was the right thing to do for someone else, or for the country—but of course that sense of duty is not entirely extinguished today; very far from it. I had the honour of spending two days at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, last week, and I met many young cadets in their 20s and even younger who are very much focused on serving others—a willingness to serve, and certainly not for financial reward. They want to give something back.

The British are a very generous people and give vast sums and amounts of time to charities, and that is reflected in Her Majesty’s Government’s international development policy, but the Duke has done a great deal for this country over generations, as well as supporting the Queen. Not the least of those is the welfare of young children, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago. The Duke established the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme in 1956, and it has seen more than 7 million work to achieve an award. He meets the gold award winners personally.

The Duke is patron of some 800 organisations and has flown almost 6,000 hours in dozens of aircraft, but he was always what would now be called a type A personality—a leader. At Salem, as a pre-teenage boy in the early 1930s, the Nazis started to creep into school life, but Prince Philip used apparently to break into fits of laughter when he saw them and clearly even then considered them contemptible. Perhaps that is not surprising when one considers that his late mother is honoured in Yad Vashem in Israel as “Righteous Among the Nations”.

The Duke went on to be head boy, or guardian, at school in Gordonstoun. At the Royal Naval college he came top of the class and won the King’s dirk. He captained a warship at an extremely early age during world war two, and he served on battleships and destroyers throughout the second world war, even being mentioned in dispatches. He was involved in the allied invasion of Sicily, and was in Tokyo bay to witness the surrender of the imperial Japanese.

Still carrying out hundreds of public engagements a year at the age of 89, the Duke has given so many speeches that they apparently take up several volumes of shelf space, and he has never done anything that would affect his personal integrity or the integrity of the Crown. It is clear that his grandchildren love and respect him. He has borne the vicious cruelty, at times, of the press in this country with dignity and poise, and he has never once in public life done anything to embarrass Her Majesty the Queen or to weaken the dignity or integrity of the Crown—despite the odd controversial remark.

The Duke should be, and I believe is, a guiding light to others showing the correct way to behave with duty, honour, service and tradition.

Question put and agreed to, nemine contradicente.