Harris on the Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

5.05.33pm BST (GMT +0100) Sun 5th Apr 2009

• Evan Harris (Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat): ' . . THIS is a welcome opportunity to debate what most people, if not every right-thinking person, would consider to be the outrageous discrimination in our constitution against Roman Catholics and the equally unfair treatment of women . . '

John Spellar (Comptroller, HM Household; Warley, Labour): I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

• Evan Harris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is first appropriate for the House to offer its thanks to the Queen for her permission to hold this debate. It clearly indicates that, at my request, the Government have been in discussion with Buckingham palace about this matter. Indeed, the Prime Minister has announced that that was the case. I just hope that the discussions concern more than just seeking permission to hold the debate.

This is a welcome opportunity to debate what most people, if not every right-thinking person, would consider to be the outrageous discrimination in our constitution against Roman Catholics and the equally unfair treatment of women. I come to this not from a religious perspective but one of recognising that whatever someone's religious views-or their views of the royal family-our constitution should not be based on unjustified discrimination.

Denis MacShane (Rotherham, Labour): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early. Before he develops his arguments, may I offer him my congratulations? By introducing this Bill, he has moved the Government. It is said that Parliament is a poodle and achieves nothing, but we have one of our most senior and illustrious Secretaries of State, the Secretary of State for Justice, in his place on a Friday morning, and we have also had the Deputy Leader of the House making massive concessions on the "Today" programme this morning. I therefore congratulate the hon. Gentleman on putting this issue before the House and the nation, and I wish him well with his Bill.

• Evan Harris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support on this and on other important matters, and I recognise his contribution to fundamental issues of human rights and freedoms. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to welcome real progress from the Government on this issue. I look forward to hearing the Government's view to determine whether real progress has been made, because the measure of that will be whether we see action in this term. Some 12 years ago, the Labour party's manifesto said that the Labour Government would end unjustified discrimination wherever it existed, and I strongly supported that. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Justice-I am pleased that he is in his place this morning-or the Minister. However, those words and the sincerity behind them are not in the end sufficient when dealing with such discrimination. We need legislation. That is what we are here for, and that is the true power of Parliament.

Peter Bottomley (Worthing West, Conservative): My prediction is that we will need the next Conservative Government to carry this through, but we will listen to the Minister. Those of us who are Christians have a responsibility to bring the denominations together, and this measure would help to do that. To those who would argue that the succession of the crown from father to eldest son is the normal process, I point out that that has not happened since Edward III, and even then his father had not died, so we do have some power to make changes.

I am an expert neither in bringing together the Churches nor in history, but I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is interesting to note that the Bill has brought together a coalition-I was going to say an unholy coalition, but that would be wrong. Some people, on behalf of the Church of England, feel that the Church should not countenance the continuation of this discrimination. Some people, on behalf of Roman Catholics-I hope that we will hear from them later and I shall refer to their views-feel it is wrong that this ongoing discrimination is allowed to continue. And some people-I include myself in this category-come from a more secular, liberal angle, and ask how one single religion can be singled out and picked on for discrimination in a way that is not appropriate in today's world, or indeed yesterday's world.

Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat): As someone who was brought up in the Anglican tradition, I greatly welcome the Bill. In 1991, I was given leave to propose a ten-minute Bill that would have changed the sexist rules of succession and required the monarch to pay income tax. The following week, the palace announced that the monarch would pay income tax, so my hon. Friend should be encouraged: just by doing this he will have made significant progress, and things could happen very quickly, if the Government are helpful.

• Evan Harris: My hon. Friend did indeed propose that Bill in 1991, and part of it was implemented voluntarily. I do not seek to speak for the royal family, but I cannot see that the change would cause them a problem. They cannot opt to make the changes themselves, because it requires legislation. It is specifically a matter for Parliament. It need not be a matter for the Executive if they merely get behind this Bill as a vehicle to achieve it. If it were to require Executive action, I am sure that Parliament would want to provide as much as help as possible, because I think that there is a majority in favour of so doing.

It is appropriate to recognise the significant contributions to this debate that were made before I had the good fortune to come high up in the private Members' Bill ballot. For example, I recognise the work of Mr. Leigh, who on 8 March 2005 introduced the Royal Marriages (Freedom of Religion) Bill. We see eye to eye on very few issues-perhaps this one and fox hunting are the exceptions-but I have great respect for the consistent position that he has taken on this issue, and for the fact that, although he may not be an enthusiast for everything in the Bill, he was willing to recognise its importance and the fact that it was partly inspired by the action he had taken and to put his name to it as a sponsor. I am grateful to him for being in his place today and for his support as a senior parliamentarian and Catholic.

Mr. Gummer, in February 2007, introduced the succinctly titled Catholics (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill as a ten-minute Bill. Peter Bottomley mentioned the next Conservative Government, but the right hon. Gentleman's Bill showed that even the Conservative party-I do not mean this in a party political way, but one has to remember what the adjective "conservative" can mean-has no problem with this proposal. I believe that we will hear confirmation of that from its Front-Bench spokesman. Indeed, many of the calls for some of the Bill's provisions have come from Conservative Back Benchers, and not necessarily those of a radical persuasion.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary), HM Treasury; Ealing North, Labour): As the hon. Gentleman moves down the roll of honour on this issue, and before he mentions Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, who introduced a Bill on the issue twice, once in 1997 and once in 1998, will he mention Kevin McNamara, a former Member of Parliament for Hull, who introduced the Treason Felony, Act of Settlement and Parliamentary Oath Bill in 2001 and who was, above all, a consistent, clear, precise and logical voice for this move? Over many years, Kevin fought for the same principles of equality that the hon. Gentleman raises today.

• Evan Harris: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentions Kevin McNamara. I was going to come on to him next, but the hon. Gentleman has put it far better than I could. I had my disagreements with Kevin McNamara about discrimination in the school system against people who were not of the right religion, but he was clear on this issue and I shall quote him later.

Stephen Pound invites me to refer to Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, and it is appropriate to recognise that he tried twice in the House of Lords to address these issues, especially the unfair treatment of women in the line of succession. That is another example of the opportunities that the Government have had to hear the argument in both Houses and to take action.

The case that I put in my Bill can be found in a book by Professor Vernon Bogdanor, who is, I am pleased to say, one of my constituents. In "The Monarchy and the Constitution", published in 1995, he says at the end of chapter 2:

"The rules relating to succession, being a product of the religious struggles of the seventeenth century, are now ripe for reform. The statute specifically prohibiting a Roman Catholic or someone married to a Roman Catholic from occupying the throne is deeply offensive to Catholics, not only in Britain, but also in those Commonwealth countries with large Catholic populations such as Canada and Australia. It should be repealed."

I think that we will hear more about the Commonwealth later in the debate. Professor Bogdanor goes on:

"In an era of equality of opportunity, moreover, it will appear increasingly anomalous for male heirs still to take precedence over female. There is at the time of writing a male heir apparent with two sons. Therefore, the succession is unlikely to be affected by any alteration in the law allowing for it to be passed to the eldest child of the sovereign irrespective of gender, as in Sweden. The time is ripe, surely, for such a reform.

Most urgent of all, however, is a reform of the Royal Marriages Act. There are, perhaps, few more absurd pieces of legislation on the statute book. The purpose of the Act, as stated in its preamble, that 'marriages in the Royal Family are of the highest importance to the state', can...easily be achieved without needing to invoke its complicated paraphernalia.

There is no reason why a marriage made in contravention, perhaps unconscious contravention, of its provisions by someone who was unaware of his or her descent from George II"-

I am reminded of a recent television programme which showed that there was a notable descendant of that line in a relatively high office in this country- "should be void. It would be better simply to deprive the person concerned of the right to succession, as would occur if he or she married a Catholic."

He goes on to say: "The fundamental weakness of the Act, however, is that it applies to many who are quite remote from the throne and who are never likely to succeed. Conversely, someone who may well succeed-for example, an heir presumptive whose mother has married into a foreign family-would fall outside the provisions of the Act. An obvious reform would be to make provision for the sovereign's approval to be required for the marriages, of the descendants not of George II, but of George VI, or, better still, simply for the first five people in the line of succession."

Professor Bogdanor concludes: "Any member of the royal family to whom it applied would still, of course, have the right to renounce his or her rights of succession and contract a civil marriage, as Princess Margaret could have done in 1955. The second route provided for in the Royal Marriages Act, the declaration at the age of 25, is otiose and should be removed."

Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour): The hon. Gentleman knows that I support the Bill-and if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall amplify the reasons why I support it and why I wish to amend it-but I think that even he is missing the central, fundamental point that is repugnant. It is not only the spouses of the monarch or the princes who are discriminated against, but the monarch him or herself. It is unacceptable in this day and age that a Head of State has to be an adherent-a communicant-of one particular religious faith. That is what is bonkers and repugnant.

• Evan Harris: In fact, the extract from Professor Bogdanor's book that I read out implies that he wants that provision to be changed as well, but let me be clear: my Bill would not affect the requirement that the monarch should be not only a Protestant but in communion with the Church of England-although the exact terms of that provision in relation to the Church of Scotland are not entirely clear. There is nothing in the Bill that would affect the establishment of the Church of England. That is a wholly separate debate, and one that I do not intend my Bill to influence or initiate.

My Bill has no implications for the future of the royal family as our monarchy. I support the monarchy, although I know that that may undermine my credibility in some radical circles. I would not have introduced the Bill if I thought I was wasting my time; there are other causes relating to human rights and discrimination to which I could turn my attention. I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, therefore, in that my Bill does not go as far as he might like, but I think that politics is often the art of what is possible and practical. This limited measure is possible, it is practical and it could be done.

Peter Bottomley (Worthing West, Conservative): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be slightly more ambitious. The practice of politics should be making possible what is right. The measure he is proposing is right for the Churches, right for the royal family and right for the country. When those interests come together, a measure should be supported, without delay.

• Evan Harris: Of course I accept that. Andrew Mackinlay says that he supports the Bill. However, what is in the Bill is possible and practical, whereas it would be more difficult to go further. I wish him luck in the ballot next time.

Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour): I have great affection for the hon. Gentleman and his success, but I hope that he will discuss the long title of his Bill, which refers to the law of succession. The Bill is therefore amendable. If, contrary to his better judgment, he asks me to sit on the Committee that scrutinises the Bill, I shall try to amend it at that stage, so that it allows for the point I just raised.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary), HM Treasury; Ealing North, Labour): Resist!

• Evan Harris: I am asked to resist that suggestion. I do not want to get ahead of myself by thinking about the Committee: that is a distant dream at 10 o'clock in the morning on a Friday, discussing a private Member's Bill.

I shall deal first with the discrimination against women. Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, whom I have had the pleasure and the privilege to meet, is one of the members of the royal family whom I hold in the highest regard for her work and her sense of duty. She is the second-eldest child of the Queen, yet she is tenth in line to the throne. That is not acceptable in this day and age. It does not require her to complain; it is just obvious that that is unacceptable. It is no slight to her younger brothers to say that; it is just wrong that a woman should have to give way.

To encourage the hon. Member for Ealing, North, I shall cite the words of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, in the 1998 House of Lords debate on his Bill. He is, after all, a Member of the House of Lords and the Government have not seen fit to change his status. He said that his Bill, which is equivalent to mine in this respect,

"would have no effect on the present Royal Family, making no difference to the status of the Princess Royal, so it could hardly be described as a revolutionary concept. While I am on the subject of the Princess Royal, I would suggest that had she been the first born, this debate would not be taking place in a half empty House of Lords on a Friday afternoon, but in every household in the country. Although I am delighted by the prospect of King Charles III, I am not fearful of Queen Anne II."-[ Hansard, House of Lords, 27 February 1998; Vol. 586, c. 909.]

That is the point, is it not? It simply seems unfair, especially in the light of the historical contribution made by female monarchs. There is no evidence that the present arrangement is in any way justified. I am surprised that the Government have taken so long to deal with the matter.

I shall deal now with the bar on Catholics marrying into the royal family. That is a specific, singled-out discrimination and the language of the statute on which it is based is offensive to Catholics and, indeed, to people who are offended by other people being offensive. It was a product of its time, but it is not a product of this time. The Prime Minister said this morning that he thought that, in the 21st century, people would not expect those provisions to exist. I think that that is an understatement: such provisions would be surprising in the 20th century or the 19th.

I have my differences with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, but at least no one-although some have tried-could accuse me of being a Vatican stooge in proposing the Bill. I can be cleared ab initio of such a charge.

Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative): There is nothing wrong with being a Vatican stooge.

• Evan Harris: That may be so, but sometimes there is something wrong with being seen to be a Vatican stooge. That is the point. In correspondence, after I had announced the title of the Bill, I was surprised to find that, despite understanding the limits of the measure, a small number of people still feel that it would threaten the nature of this country if, in future, the mother-or potentially the father-of the heir to the throne were a Catholic, disseminating in some way loyalty to the Vatican and the Holy See rather than to this country. I just think that that is wild conspiracy of the sort of which the Catholic Church has found itself the victim on more than one occasion in recent times.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough said of his Bill:

"That provision, which is discriminatory and applies only to Roman Catholics is wrong and should be removed from our statute law."

In his speech on his ten-minute Bill, he mentioned that Cardinal O'Brien, the Primate of Scotland, had made a public statement as a result of the Bill being brought forward. He quoted the Cardinal as saying that the provision was

"clearly discriminatory and a breach of the human rights of members of the royal family...it should be repealed."

The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that

"Prince William would be barred from the succession if he were to marry a Roman Catholic, but if his bride became a Roman Catholic after the marriage ceremony, he could go on to become the monarch."

The hon. Gentleman went on to say, "That is ridiculous"- [Interruption.]-a statement that is echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (David Howarth), and for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), on the Front Bench.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gainsborough for his liberal outlook; I was fascinated to see that he went on to say:

"A male member of the royal family, if he were so inclined, could choose to contract a civil partnership with a Roman Catholic man, under recent legislation" -[ Hansard, 8 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1392.]

and would not be disqualified. We are talking about an antediluvian measure, and the hon. Gentleman put the matter very well.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I deal with another point from his speech, as he put the argument so clearly. He pointed out that people allege that in the Catholic Church, a couple in what is called a mixed marriage-that is not his phrase-are required to bring up any children as Roman Catholics. He says that that is not the case in any event. I hope that I will get the chance to explain the historical example that he went on to provide.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said how strongly he felt when introducing his private Member's Bill, the Catholics (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill:

"In a civilised society there ought to be no reason to introduce this Bill. If we proposed a Bill on the Floor of the House of Commons that would make it illegal for the heir to the throne to marry a Muslim, a Methodist or a Mormon, that would be intolerable in a free society, yet the heir to the throne is still not allowed to marry a member of what is, on any Sunday, the largest worshipping community in this country. That is an insult to the Catholic community because it suggests that, somehow or other, being a Roman Catholic means being less of a citizen than someone belonging to any other religious denomination.

I admit that I feel ashamed that I did not introduce the Bill before, when I was an Anglican. Since becoming a Catholic, I have recognised what the attitude towards this denomination means. For that reason, I am trying to make up for the history."-[ Hansard, 20 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 154.]

I spoke to the right hon. Gentleman before today's debate, and his view has not changed. He put his point very well. I think it is appropriate, given that I am not a Roman Catholic, to read those testaments, and so to allow Roman Catholics to say how insulting they find the provision. Kevin McNamara-

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary), HM Treasury; Ealing North, Labour): rose-

• Evan Harris: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will get in my quote from Kevin McNamara, who pre-empted me on the issue. He said, in debate on his ten-minute Bill, the Treason Felony, Act of Settlement and Parliamentary Oath Bill:

"the Act of Settlement...is extremely offensive in that regard. It stipulates that those who profess the Popish religion can neither be monarchs nor marry into the royal family."-[ Hansard, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 320.]

He pointed out that Members of the Scottish Parliament unanimously adopted a motion expressing their wish that the discriminatory aspects of the Act be repealed. However, the matter is reserved to the United Kingdom, and to the UK Parliament, as Kevin McNamara pointed out, so it is up to us to address the issue.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary), HM Treasury; Ealing North, Labour): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he has been most generous in giving way. Before he moves away from that issue, may I point out that, as he will be aware, in 1688 the Bill of Rights was originally intended for the

"effectual preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament"?

As I look around me this morning, I see that there has been some progress. Does he agree that at the root of the provision is fear, and that that fear is now utterly irrelevant?

• Evan Harris: That is a point well made. Of course, we are here primarily as parliamentarians, but those who wish to identify themselves with the religion have the ability to do that. If one considers the psephology, we see there is no sign, even in Scottish seats, that any preference is given to people with a particular religion-or, I trust, a lack of religion-when standing for Parliament.

Wikipedia lists the first 40 individuals in line to the throne, and there are some remarkable omissions. At No. 24 in the list is the Duke of Kent, the son of Prince George, the Duke of Kent. Then it says:

"skipped George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews...(XMP)"

The "XMP" in superscript apparently means "excluded because of marrying a papist". The list continues:

"skipped Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick...(XP)"

I think that the "XP" may mean that the person became a Catholic. It continues:

"skipped Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor...(XP)".

At No. 25, Lady Amelia Windsor-daughter of George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews-hangs in there, but then the list says:

"skipped Lord Nicholas Windsor...(XP)"

and

"skipped Albert Windsor...(XP)".

And so it goes on. So even in the literature, we can see that the rules have a current effect, even if not a practical effect.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary), HM Treasury; Ealing North, Labour): I would be reluctant to use the expression "hangs in there" in the context of this debate. Can the hon. Gentleman say where, on that list, the Speaker of the House of Commons appears?

• Evan Harris: I did not realise that this was a quiz. I say to my tutor that my list only goes up to No. 40, and that is the Earl of Harewood. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to expand on his point-but not at too great a length, I hope-later.

On public opinion, fortuitously-it is amazing how much interest has been shown on the issue just today-this morning the BBC conducted an opinion poll, asking what the public thought about the matter. I am usually very severe on loaded questions, but I thought that these questions were very balanced. The BBC asked whether William should be allowed to succeed to the throne if he married a Roman Catholic. Some 81 per cent. of people thought he should, while 15 per cent. thought that would be wrong. When asked whether a woman should yield in precedence to younger brothers, 89 per cent. thought not, with a handful thinking that she should. I do not know of any political policy-not even among those in the Liberal Democrat manifesto-that has anything like two-thirds support, let alone more than 80 per cent. support, in the country.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative): What about a referendum on the EU treaty?

• Evan Harris: I do not think that even a referendum on the EU treaty would have 89 per cent. support, unless the Daily Mail or, say, The Shipley Post, conducted a phone-in poll of a selected sample. I say that in all seriousness, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point. The figures are significant. We are talking about a huge proportion. It is not as though there were a significant number of people who felt strongly that the current rules should be maintained. Indeed, in the same poll, only-I say "only"-76 per cent. of people said that they supported the monarchy, so more people support fairness in the monarchy than support the monarchy. The monarchy would be even more popular, I would argue, if it dealt with those problems, because then they would not be seen as a barrier to supporting the monarchy. The changes are therefore in the interests of the monarchy, and I do not believe-I have no information that makes me certain of this-that the monarchy cannot see that.

Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat): Does my hon. Friend accept that, as my hon. Friend David Howarth and I were just discussing, public opinion may also have been affected by the fact that, if we look back over the history of Britain, we see that when woman have been given power, they have done extremely well? Almost without exception, our female monarchs have been fantastic, and we have had a woman Prime Minister who, whatever one thought of her policies, was highly regarded as a holder of that post. The reality is that the public want more women to take high office; that must be a conclusion.

• Evan Harris: I would encourage hon. Members to focus on the topic at hand. The Bill provides enough key issues.

There is clearly support across the House for such measures from Members who have given up opportunities to introduce private Members' Bills to propose them, on both sides of the House and in both Houses. There is also public support. I do not believe there is any opposition from Opposition Front-Benchers. Indeed, I look forward to hearing unanimous support for the Bill from them. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge is bound by party policy to support the measure, but I think he would have supported it anyway, as he was probably responsible for the party policy in the first place.

It is important to turn to the Government's position, particularly as the Secretary of State is still with us in the Chamber. As I noted, the Government said 12 years ago that they were keen to get rid of unjustified discrimination wherever it existed, and I hope they will accept-

Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour): The Government did indeed say that we would get rid of unjustified discrimination wherever it existed, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we have a record second to none in that respect. We had the Lawrence inquiry. We introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which is now widely recognised as some of the best anti-discrimination legislation in respect of race anywhere in the world. It was we who ensured that we got rid of the hated and fantastically discriminatory section 28. It was I as Home Secretary who sponsored the equalisation of the age of consent. We have done a huge amount in respect of anti-discrimination against women and to equalise people's chances and respect for different faiths and religions. The hon. Gentleman will also know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House-

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker): Order. I am reluctant to stop the right hon. Gentleman, but he appears to be embarking on a speech. Is he about to pose a question to Dr. Harris?

Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House is about to introduce a very comprehensive equality Bill?

• Evan Harris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. The Government do not need to be defensive about their record, and I am not saying that he is. I and my hon. Friends voted for every one of those measures and, on occasion, urged the Government to go further. There is no difference between us on those proposals. Clearly, their record is better than that of the previous Government, so when he says their record is second to none, I certainly accept that it is better than that of the previous Government and previous Governments, except the Government that included Roy Jenkins. For their time, that Government were possibly more radical. They did not wait for public approval-I am not saying that the present Government did-but that Government did not legislate at a time when public opinion was liberal on homosexuality.

Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour): The Justice Secretary said in an aside, "Come on Andrew," because he saw my body language indicating dissent. I remind him and the House that when he became Home Secretary, I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Government at the earliest legislative opportunity to alter the law preventing an ordained Catholic man becoming a Member of Parliament. The parliamentary reply, which is on the record, was no. Then the Labour party selected such a man for the constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow. We did the right thing for the wrong reason.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is falling into the same trap as the Secretary of State. I believe he is seeking to catch my eye later, and if successful, he will be able to make those points.

• Evan Harris: The hon. Member for Thurrock will indeed have a chance, as I am on the last part of my speech, in which I shall look at the Government's position and pose some questions to the Minister. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is present-I recognise that he is a busy man-and that the Deputy Leader of the House has stayed for the debate.

I gave the Deputy Leader of the House notice that I intended to quote from his excellent work on constitutional reform. He produced a pamphlet relatively recently called "Powers to the People", in which he identified things that could be improved. I shall quote from it as I know the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his view that these things need to happen. He wrote in that document:

"The succession to the crown is presently determined by the Act of Settlement 1701, which stipulates that the throne shall pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant descendants according to the principle of male preference primogeniture. This means that the crown passes to the eldest son and his descendants before it would pass to a daughter or her line. Even if the eldest child were a daughter, she would not accede to the throne unless the male line had been exhausted."

Indeed, we know that daughters are not heirs apparent. They are heirs presumptive, in case there is male issue later.

The pamphlet continues:

"Clearly this is unfair-and most other European monarchies-

Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway are cited, which I would say have a record second to none, compared to our country-

"have already changed their equivalent acts of succession to provide for absolute primogeniture, so that men and women are guaranteed equality.

Whilst the UK could only proceed with reform in this with the agreement of other Commonwealth nations who share the monarch, there is a strong argument for reform now, before Prince William or Prince Harry has children. If William's first child were to be a girl and his second a boy, it would be inconceivable that the daughter should not inherit the crown. For that very reason, in Sweden the succession was changed when there was already a male presumptive heir who was replaced in favour of his elder sister."

The hon. Gentleman goes on to say:

"The Act of Settlement also requires that any descendant who is or becomes a Roman Catholic, or who marries a Roman Catholic, is barred from the succession."

He goes on to cite the example of Prince Michael of Kent, and he points out-this was written in 2008-that:

"In May of this year, Princess Anne's son Peter Philips ... married his Canadian fiancé Autumn Kelly-only after she had converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism in order to secure his place in the pecking order for the succession."

Even the most proselytising evangelical Protestant would not see that as a particularly efficient way of picking up converts.

The document continues:

"The Act also stipulates that the sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England, must swear to preserve the church, and to uphold the Protestant line of succession."

The hon. Gentleman goes further than my Bill when he states:

"The government has tended to oppose such moves on the grounds that if there were no bar to a Catholic taking the throne the monarch's role as Governor of the Church of England would be in question. However, several senior members of the Church of England, including the former Archbishop of York, have argued for the repeal of these provisions, at least so as to allow the monarch or heir to the throne to marry a Catholic."

So we come back to the limited measures in the Bill.

I cannot understand, which is why I asked the Minister, why the Government have not made more progress on the issue. The Bill states that it is for this Parliament to do so. There is a provision specifying that there must be consultation with the Commonwealth before the measure can have effect. I accept that the wording of the provision may be too wide because it refers to consulting

"the government of every Commonwealth country",

whereas only 15 Commonwealth countries need to be consulted. I am prepared to accept that there is an obligation on the Executive to consult those Governments, but I do not think there would be opposition, and there is no veto.

The Government could use the Bill, and the time that has been reserved for it, to introduce it at the same time as consulting. I do not understand why the Government said overnight that they did not support the Bill, even though they supported the principle behind it and the contents of it. I do not see how they can bring in their own Bill in time. Quaint though our constitution is, it specifies a five-year term for a Government, and that term will end, at least for this Parliament, next June. There is a Report stage day ready and waiting for this Bill. I am not selfish about it. The Government can take it, call it their own, and amend it as required, so that it did not come into force until

"such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint",

in order to ensure that everything is done right by the Commonwealth.

Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative): No Commonwealth country would object. That would be ridiculous. Consultation could be done with a phone call, and it could be completed within weeks.

• Evan Harris: In answer to a question on constitutional renewal, the Secretary of State said:

"Let me say to my hon. Friend that I speak on behalf of the Prime Minister: because of the position that Her Majesty occupies as Head of the Anglican Church, this is a rather more complicated matter than might be anticipated. We are certainly ready to consider it, and I fully understand that my hon. Friend, many on both sides of the House and thousands outside it, see that provision as antiquated."-[ Hansard, 25 March 2008; Vol. 474, c. 27.]

According to a report, however, two days later, at the No. 10 morning press briefing, the Prime Minister's spokesman seemed to dismiss the idea that any kind of reform was possible, given that "to bring about changes to the law on succession would be a very complex undertaking; it would involve the amendment or appeal"-sic-"of a number of items of related legislation, but it would also require the consent of legislators of member nations of the Commonwealth."

None of those things is a barrier, and I do not understand how the Government can say that it would be a complex piece of legislation; after all, the Secretary of State himself kindly set out in an answer of March 2008 what legislation would need to be reviewed to ensure that the Bill was accurate. There were nine such pieces of legislation. My judgment, and that of constitutional experts, is that the only repeals and amendments required are in the Bill. However, if the Secretary of State thinks I have missed one out or that one is unnecessary, I urge him to table amendments. If those amendments were reasonable and justified, I cannot conceive of circumstances in which I or any other Member who supports the Bill would object.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative): To help the hon. Gentleman on that point, I shall cite Lord Falconer. When speaking about the Bill, he said that the legislation affected would be the Bill of Rights 1688, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Union with Scotland Act 1707, the Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937.

• Evan Harris: Exactly. Hon. Members have been dealing with the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill through the night. The list of repeals and amendments in that, and in the Coroners and Justice Bill, is massive compared with what is, in angling terms, a tiddler of a Bill-even though its amendments are very important.

The case it clear. The Bill is a competent vehicle to make the changes and it is the Government's last opportunity in this parliamentary term to achieve what they say they want to do. They have not shown me any barrier to doing it, and I would like to make the Secretary of State an offer. I will have a wager with him: if he is able to make the changes, even without the Bill, in this parliamentary term, I will provide a week's MP's salary to a charity of his choice in Blackburn-and, indeed, to a charity in Dewsbury.

Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour): rose-

• Evan Harris: Let me finish outlining the terms of the wager. If the Secretary of State does not make the changes, he can delegate one of his Ministers-they can argue among themselves-to give a week's MP's salary to a charity of my choice in Oxford, West and Abingdon. Those are two-to-one odds; surely the right hon. Gentleman will take the bet.

Jack Straw (Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Blackburn, Labour): I have to make two points. First, that is completely contrary to the ministerial code. Secondly, is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is also contrary to the new Bribery Bill, which I published on Wednesday?

• Evan Harris: I understand that that is another overdue piece of legislation, but I suspect that it will become law before the commitment that the Government appeared to give-that they would solve the problems that I have been discussing-is met. Given the opinion polls, the mood of the House and the long-standing insult to women and Roman Catholics, we cannot allow the opportunity given by the Bill to pass us by. I do not claim that it is perfect, but it is the best shot that we have. I urge the Government to support the Bill-and, if they feel that a private Member's Bill is the wrong vehicle to go to Royal Assent, to take it over. Let us solve this problem once and for all.

Related Link:

• Full Debate in Parliament