Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time)

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I warmly support the amendment proposed by the firebrand from North East Somerset. There is an extraordinary coalition of opinion behind the view that more time should be given: it includes royalists, republicans and, allegedly, a member of the royal family, although we cannot draw on his name in support of it. We find ourselves in that position because we have opened Pandora’s box. Long-established opinion was that we should not touch the Act of Settlement at all—it was part of the settled constitution of the land; many people, including Catholics, were opposed to any change; and even though others regarded the gender bias as an outrage, they did not want to open the succession to the throne to further debate—but as we are having the debate now, and as we have these debates only once every 300 years, it is worth suggesting some reforms appropriate for future centuries.

There is no hurry to pass this Bill. If we change the reference to children “born after 28 October” to children “whenever born”, that would solve a number of problems, including the problem of whether it can be applied to the birth of the royal child and in the future. If this is such a splendid idea, I cannot see any reason why it should not operate straight away. It is unlikely that it would have many effects, because most of the possible senior inheritors of the throne are male anyway.

We must consider the opinion of this country on the choice that was handed down to us at a time when they believed in the divine right of kings. I can remember Alf Garnett pointing out to the “Scouse git”, in the manner of working-class knowledge, that royalty were descended from God, and I was told as a child that they had blue blood in their veins, but I think we can now regard royalty as being as good and virtuous, or as frail and fragile, as the rest of us. We are unanimous in paying tribute to Her Majesty, who has had a faultless reign in which she has made no attempt to meddle in politics, but if we look back at history, that has not always been the case. We have had plenty of monarchs who were mad, bad or sad—some all three—and we cannot say with any certainty that future monarchs will have the same personality and strength of character as the Queen.

Apart from their ceremonial rule, the monarch plays a crucial role as Head of State. Insufficient attention has been given to what Robert Rhodes James, a greatly respected Member of the House and historian, wrote about the situation in the Conservative party when it was about to topple Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister. He said that there was great concern in the top echelons of the Tory party about the fact that Mrs Thatcher wanted to call a general election. Parliament could not stop her; the Conservative party could not stop her; the Cabinet could not stop her; but the monarch could. In that situation, the monarch would act and play a vital role as Head of State by overruling a Prime Minister who was acting in their own interests rather than the interests of the country.

It is important that we consider the personality and character of the next Head of State, and I believe that there is a case for considering skipping a generation. It should be up to the public to decide. If the Queen lives as long as her mother, as we all hope she does, we are unlikely to have a change of Head of State for another 20 years, at which time the present heir will be in his late 80s. There will be other considerations, too: doubts have been expressed about his personality and involvement in politics. We should have more time to discuss all the amendments that have been tabled, including the proposal that the public should consider skipping a generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. None of the arguments or excuses that might be offered for simply microwaving the Bill through in its present form—as the Government are doing today, without looking at the suspect content that we will still be leaving on the statute book—will stand. Those of us who are calling for more time are not calling for hugely more time, nor are we talking about the sort of grand world tour that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would love to go on to consult people in those other Chambers.

I know that some Members, including probably the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), have a deep allegiance to the Crown. I know that the former Member for North Antrim, who just happened to have the same name as the current hon. Member, used to state straightforwardly that he was loyal to the Crown so long as the Crown remained Protestant. I am sensitive to why people have their own issues and their own thoughts, but other people have a different conscience and a different approach.

If some people’s loyalty or allegiance to the Crown is qualified by that religious precondition, those of us in the House who do not share that view have to ask why we, as the price of taking up membership in the House, are forced to recite a form of words that we do not believe. We pledge allegiance to the sovereign and to her heirs and successors, and remember, the Bill will make a change that has implications for who the heirs and successors might be. People are concerned about some of the consequences and the conundrums that might arise as a result of these changes. But I hope that those who have such sensitivities and concerns about succession will have some sensitivity to those of us who are forced, as the price of representing our constituents, to use either the affirmation or the oath. I use the affirmation, and I then hand my letter of protest about that to the Speaker. I use it under protest because I will not swear a lie. I will not swear a lie that I will bear allegiance to someone to whom—

[Paul Flynn]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the last time the House discussed an alternative oath, 140 Members voted in favour of it, for all kinds of reasons? It is reasonable that we should return to the matter and have an alternative oath for those who find that they are not telling the truth when they take the oath. It is possible to put words before it or after it which negate the oath.

[Mark Durkan]

I entirely support my hon. Friend. I indicate that I am reciting the formula only in order to represent my constituents, then I read my formula. No doubt other hon. Members have other ways of doing that. I do that, as I indicated earlier, not to be subversive or offensive in any way, but to be true to the integrity of my own position. I would expect no less from anybody who does not share my views or who deeply differs from those views.

If hon. Members get a chance during the limited time that we have on the Bill to make the point that their allegiance to the Crown depends on its religious attachment in future, will they also consider whether it is reasonable to expect a pledge of allegiance to the Crown to be imposed on the rest us who either do not share that religious precondition or who simply do not share the constitutional outlook which I know is cherished by so many in the House, but is just not part of my make-up as a constitutional Irish nationalist?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those further points. He seeks to draw me on one of the amendments he has tabled. In brief, I assure him that my view, and that of the Government, is that there is no need for his amendment because those parts of the legislation to which it relates still stand. That leads me to an extremely important point: the Bill, as it stands, has an extremely narrow scope. Therefore, in the view of the usual channels and the Government, it is receiving the correct amount of parliamentary time for debate.

[Paul Flynn]

There is universal approval in the House for the ending of gender discrimination, but does the Minister not agree that the Bill, rather than getting rid of a religious discrimination, actually reinforces it by excluding people from other religions—evangelical Christians, Catholics, Jews and Muslims—from the possibility of ever becoming Head of State?

[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.