---

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

The chances are very limited. One should never say never, but there is a lot to do. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said, in what was, with respect, the weakest part of his speech, that we would have to consult—I think that that was the verb he used, and it was certainly used by Mr. John Humphrys on the "Today" programme this morning—the Heads of Government of the relevant Commonwealth realms. Indeed, clause 4(2) states:""No order may be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has consulted the government of every Commonwealth country on the provisions of this Act."" The idea is that we pass the Bill and then we find out what Commonwealth Heads of Government think about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock comprehensively answered that point by pointing out that the Swedish Government had taken that approach, with unacceptable results as far as the Swedish royal family were concerned. The Commonwealth is no longer the empire, or even the British Commonwealth: it is the Commonwealth and all its members are equal. The members of the Commonwealth would be right to be offended if, contrary to the clear statement in the Statute of Westminster 1931, we were to bounce them into a take-it-or-leave-it position, which had already become the law. The preamble to the Statute of Westminster states that any changes touching on""the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions"—" now the Commonwealth countries—""as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."" There is a slightly arcane argument about whether, as the preamble to the statute, that statement has legal force—I shall not offer a view, because preambles to modern statutes are unusual—but it plainly has huge moral force. No serious British Government of any complexion could ignore part of a solemn compact with, originally, the dominions and now the Commonwealth. The recent judgment in the Superior Court of Ontario of Mr. Justice Roleau, in the case of O'Donohue v. Canada, also made it clear that the arrangements have to be symmetrical between one member of the Commonwealth and another. In his judgment, the learned judge said:""The office of the Queen is such a fundamental part of our constitutional structure that amendments to the Constitution…require the unanimous consent of the federal and provincial governments"." He continued:""Applying that reasoning to the present case, it is clear that Canada's structure as a constitutional monarchy and the principle of sharing the British monarch are fundamental to our constitutional framework. In light of the preamble's"" —that to the Statute of Westminster—""clear statement that we are to share the Crown with the United Kingdom, it is axiomatic that the rules of succession for the monarchy must be shared and be in symmetry with those of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries. One cannot accept the monarch but reject the legitimacy or legality of the rules by which this monarch is selected."" He went on to say that""if symmetry…were to be maintained, any changes to the rules of succession would have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth."" That is the position set out by legal authorities in Canada, and it has to be the position followed by any Government.