Proceeding contribution from Philip Davies (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Friday, 27 March 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill.
Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill
I am sure that our friends in Hansard will be able to correct us on this point, but I fear that the hon. Gentleman misheard what I said. I did say that all unnecessary change was bad. I thank him, too, for his incredibly generous remarks, of which I am certainly not worthy, either. The issue about Catholics particularly affects my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who made his point very well. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who also pointed out particularly well how ridiculous the bar on Catholics is. I perfectly understand the arguments. However, I am not wholly sure whether the change is entirely necessary. I am not sure how many cases there have been in which the provision has needed to be invoked, or in which there was a problem. I think that such cases are few and far between. I am not sure that it is at the top of the issues raised by the man on the Clapham omnibus at the moment. I certainly share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham): surely the Government have far better things to be doing with their time, particularly at the moment, than to go down that route. The arguments for the repeal of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 are perfectly logical. Vernon Bogdanor described it as the most absurd piece of legislation on the statute book. We have all heard about how it originated; it was, in effect, passed in a fit of pique, and that is hardly how legislation should be passed. In the 2005 debate, Lord Falconer, arguing why it should be repealed, made the point that the longer the current provisions remain on the statute book, the more couples there will be who are covered by the Act. I perfectly understand all those arguments. I certainly have a problem with the vehicle that is being used to make the changes—a private Member's Bill. I do not think that that is the right vehicle to take the matters forward. Despite what has been said, we are talking about a major constitutional matter. The Government should introduce the changes themselves, if they feel so inclined, and that should really be done with consent and common support. When considering whether to support the Bill today, one has to ask whether the measures should be introduced through a private Member's Bill. I do not believe that they should be. In answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, if there were a Division on the Bill, I would not vote for it. I would either abstain or vote against it, because I do not think that it is the right vehicle for such a constitutional change.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 490 c612-3
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Commonwealth Church of England Catholicism Church and state Women Equality Discrimination Marriage Monarchy Religion Succession Religious freedom Royal family
- Legislation
- Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:58:17 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_544342
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_544342
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_544342