Lord Elton
My Lords, I observe that this matter is outwith the terms of the Long Title. However, the Title has been postponed and it is possible to amend it, if necessary.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
I thank my noble friend Lord True for the amendment and for the sensitive and thoughtful way in which he moved it and presented his concerns. Indeed, I seek to reassure him that the amendment is unnecessary.
Subsections (1) and (2) of the proposed new clause state the current position in respect of heirs of the body and adoption or artificial reproduction. I recognise that my noble friend indicated that he was not making any claims as to the drafting of the amendment but he said something that I have previously said—it is important that the succession is removed from controversy and there should be certainty. Subsection (3) could be an opportunity for some controversy if a case had to come before both Houses of Parliament. However, the spirit in which my noble friend moved the amendment was to try to seek some clarity on this matter.
The laws governing succession to the Crown that require that the descendant be the natural-born child of a husband and wife have been enshrined in our constitution for generations. Children who have been adopted may not succeed to the Throne, whether their new parents are of opposite sexes or the same sex. As my noble friend said, it is immaterial; indeed, even without the Bill, the issues he raised are pertinent. I repeat that children who have been adopted may not succeed to the Throne, irrespective of whether the parents are of opposite sexes or the same sex.
It was never our intention to codify all aspects of succession to the Throne in the Bill. Rather, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated, the agreement reached among the realms was quite specifically limited to removing the male bias and ending a specific discrimination against Roman Catholics, and it is not appropriate that we go beyond what was expressly agreed.
Although the Adoption Act 1976 and the Family Law Reform Act 1987 refer only to the succession of titles being left unchanged by their reforms, the Lord Chancellor stated at Second Reading of the Bill that became the 1987 Act that there was no intention to alter the rules on the descent of the Crown. It is also worth noting, as my noble friend observed, that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 states that nothing in the Act,
“affects succession to any dignity or title”,
or,
“renders any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title”.
The Bill will maintain the position under the Adoption Act and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 referred to above. It will not change the way the Crown, or titles or dignities, descend. We also consider it to be unnecessary to define marriage for the purposes of this proposed new clause as set out in subsection (1). Only a natural-born child of a husband and wife can succeed to the Throne. That is quite clear. I have tried to keep my response brief and concise, and I hope that it provides the reassurance that my noble friend seeks and has properly raised. I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will take time to consider this matter between now and Report, and that my noble friend will also occupy that time. The answer that my noble and learned friend has given does not entirely cover everything because becoming Queen or King is rather more than receiving a dignity or title. The term used in the Bill is “possessing” the Crown, which is different from inheriting a title, and that is surely what we are concerned about.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
We will certainly reflect on this matter and I can assure my noble friend that considerable consideration has been given to it. However, I take the points that he and my noble friend Lord True made and will give further consideration to them. Nevertheless, I hope that I clearly indicated our view with regard to an “heir of the body”.
Lord Elton
I accept that that is the current position. I hope that we shall be reassured if it remains the same on Report.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cormack for introducing this amendment. It has generated a passionate debate and raised important issues, not least ones also reflected in our Second Reading debate about the upbringing of children should there be a mixed marriage. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, quite properly indicated that this Bill is limited in its scope and does not deal with the established church or the monarch as Supreme Governor. I know the passion with which my noble friend Lord Forsyth takes a view—which I share—on the wording of some 17th century legislation. That wording is offensive, but as the noble Lord recognised from his early attempts with a Private Member’s Bill, these matters are hugely complex and I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate place to deal with them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, indicated, at Second Reading he and the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, asked if I would meet representatives of the Catholic Church. I did so earlier this week. I can inform the House that I came away with a clear message that in the instance of mixed marriages the approach of the Roman Catholic Church is a pastoral one. It was considerably stressed to me that the Catholic Church will always look to provide guidance that supports and strengthens the unity of the partnership and the indissolubility of marriage. It is in this context that the Catholic Church expects Catholic spouses sincerely to undertake to do all they can to raise their children within the Catholic Church.
However, where it has not been possible for the child of a mixed marriage to be brought up as a Catholic, it has been drawn to my attention that the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law. The clear signal was that the overriding concern in Catholic pastoral guidance to couples in mixed marriages—it was drawn to my attention that there are many mixed marriages today in England and Wales—is the unity and indissolubility of the marriage. I assure the House that it is not the case that the children of all mixed Protestant and Catholic marriages must be brought up in the Catholic faith.
It is also important to note the important concept within the Catholic Church of subsidiarity. As a Presbyterian I do not pretend to understand it, but it is one that I have certainly heard associated with the Catholic Church. We perhaps debate the word in another context, but within the organisation of the Catholic Church, subsidiarity is an important concept and much decision-making is devolved to a local level, including decisions relating to mixed marriages. Quite simply, the Vatican does not get involved. My noble friend Lord Deben highlighted both the constitutional implications and significance if the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cormack were to be carried. It would raise constitutional issues and would put the Pope in a very difficult position, one that I suspect the Vatican does not aspire to have thrust upon it. In its recent letter to Members of your Lordships’ House on this issue, the Church of England stated:
“The present prohibition…is not necessary to support the requirement that the Sovereign join in communion with the Church of England”—
that is, the prohibition on marrying a Catholic—and therefore:
“Its proposed removal is a welcome symbolic and practical measure consistent with respect for the principle of religious liberty”.
The Archbishop of Westminster, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, welcomed the decision of the Government to give heirs to the Throne the freedom to marry a Catholic, and recognised the importance of the position of the established church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
What was the Government’s motivation in removing the prohibition on the heir to the Throne marrying a Catholic? Was it to enable the heir to the Throne to marry a Catholic, or was it to remove the discrimination against Catholics?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, it was both. It was to allow someone in the line of succession to the Throne to marry a Catholic and to remove that discrimination. I know that the noble Lord’s subsequent question would be, “Why don’t you remove the ultimate discrimination?”. However, as he acknowledged, from his own efforts to do something, this is a much more complex issue. He says that he does not wish to disestablish the Church of England. Many would argue that if we went down that road, it possibly would lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England. There is a proper debate to be had there, but this emphasises that that is not the purpose of this Bill. However, where an opportunity has arisen to remove at least one area of discrimination, it has properly been seized.
My noble friend Lord Deben made the point that, if this genuinely is an issue, it already exists in another context. My noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine raised the point at Second Reading which my noble friend Lord Deben made about Islam. My noble friend Lady Falkner asked whether the perceived,
“constraints on the children of Catholics being bought up—and the Catholic Church’s perspective on that—would be different if the monarch was married to a Muslim, as is currently permissible? Muslim children are, likewise, expected to be brought up in mixed marriages as Muslims. So the anomaly exists in the case of other faiths, but perhaps not in the case of Catholics”.—[Official Report, 14/2/13; col. 805.]
That was the point that my noble friend was making. Therefore, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cormack seeks to address one problem but does not extend to include every faith that currently exists. It is certainly not the Government’s plan that we should do so.
We will obviously return to this issue of establishment and whether the sovereign could be a Catholic in some of the later amendments. However, I readily appreciate the very human concerns. When you are dealing with affairs of state and issues of the constitution, you must remember that you are also talking about two people who want to get married. That is why it is appropriate that there is a pastoral dimension to this and that it is done at a pastoral level. I hope that, with these reassurances, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for his response, but not entirely convinced. We have had an interesting short debate. Some of the language used by my noble friend Lord Deben was reminiscent of the 18th century pamphlet at its best. He could be a little more careful about his use of the words “insulting” and “preposterous” merely because he does not happen to agree with the arguments advanced.
The fact is that many people in this country are concerned. Parliament has a duty to address this issue. Mentioning a foreign power in legislation is by no means unprecedented. However, I take the point of my noble friend Lord Fellowes; indeed, I made it obliquely myself in my introductory remarks when I said that I was not wedded to the words of the amendment. I wanted to have a debate on the subject. This we have had. I would be glad to talk to my noble friend Lord Fellowes and others before deciding whether to pursue this, which I may well do on Report. The issue deserves mature and thoughtful debate. It is of importance for we do not know how long. There may be no problem in the next century; there may be one within a very few years. One just does not know. However, when we are legislating in good faith for a long time—in spite of the fact that no Parliament can bind its successors; we can repeal whatever we like tomorrow—we have to do our best to make it as clear, precise and right as we possibly can. This is why my noble friend Lord True was wise to introduce his debate. We need to try to anticipate the sort of problems that may exist, if only to answer them and have them answered by Ministers and others before we move on to see the Bill on the statute book, which it assuredly will be before too much longer.
While expressing the hope of discussions with my noble and learned friend the Minister and others before Report stage, and reserving the right to introduce an amendment on Report—certainly not in the same words, but along similar lines—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
These amendments go to the heart of whether the present Anglican establishment in England can or even should remain in its present form. They raise issues which it would be irresponsible to dismiss out of hand. Therefore, I suggest that all parties come together sooner rather than later to ensure that the subject remains a topic for further parliamentary consideration. That might be by way of using the existing committee structure—perhaps the Constitution Committees in both Houses might wish to take this on—or even through the facility in your Lordships’ House for setting up a committee for this very purpose. It seems to us that the spirit of change, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the points just made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, are too important to be left on the table. They need to be addressed, otherwise they will rancour, come back and hit us in places that we do not necessarily understand at this time.
I sense in the debates that we have had so far a willingness to engage at a level which is not possible within this Bill because of its particular purposes and focus but which would help to create a better understanding at least and possibly an opportunity for a road map for change. It would be important to take that up.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne indicated in moving this amendment, this is one of the key issues raised by this Bill. Certainly, his Amendments 10 and 11 and the consequential ones to the schedules are interesting and were flagged up at Second Reading. They are an interesting way of addressing what has been seen as a dilemma: if the sovereign was to be a Roman Catholic, how could that person also be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England?
When I tried to answer my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s question as to whether the proposal was to allow the heir to the Throne to marry a Roman Catholic or to remove discrimination, I think I said that it was both, and it is. Clause 2 is of symbolic importance because it removes a discrimination which I believe does not have a place in our society today. As I think I also indicated, and as has been accepted across the Chamber, these issues with regard to the sovereign being a Roman Catholic go much wider than the person who may ascend to the Throne being married to a Roman Catholic. The Government are committed to the Church of England as the established church in England with the sovereign as its Supreme Governor. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, says about a possible further examination. Certainly, the Government have no plans to do so. Indeed, the Government suggesting to Select Committees what they may or may not do probably is not good form. But he has made his proposal and there will be others who will have heard it. It may be that a Select Committee will choose to do that but I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Government to take that initiative.
I now turn to the idea of separation of the roles of sovereign and Supreme Governor.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Before my noble and learned friend leaves that point, will he indicate whether the Government are ready to enable such work to be done given the compression of time that we have had in discussing these matters? Would they be prepared to permit the Bill to proceed at a pace which would allow a Select Committee, such as the Constitution Committee, to consider these matters?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am afraid that I will have to disappoint my noble friend in my answer. I do not believe that this is the appropriate Bill for taking this forward. This Bill seeks to deliver on three particular issues and I do not believe that that would be appropriate. I do not diminish the importance of the issues. It is very obvious that some people see this Bill as a Trojan horse for disestablishment and some are frightened in the opposite direction. I do not believe that this Bill is appropriate for that. Therefore, I cannot give my noble friend the encouragement or the assurance that he seeks with regard to allowing such a discussion. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was suggesting that it should be done in a timescale that would affect this Bill.
On the idea of separating the roles of sovereign and Supreme Governor of the Church of England, obviously it is self evident that that would represent a very major change to the role of the monarch in relation to the established church and undoubtedly would require extensive consultation. It is a significant diversion from the traditional role of the monarchy over recent centuries. The Government consider that the change in the law effected by Clause 2 is a valuable one but we do not believe that it is necessary for the Bill to go beyond that and to delve into the significant wider issues that this amendment raises.
The proposed amendments also open up a series of extremely difficult questions about the relationship between the sovereign and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and indeed whether such an arrangement could support the continued established place of the Church of England. For example, how would the coronation and accession oaths be taken? The oath of accession includes a promise to maintain and preserve the Protestant religion and Presbyterian Church Government. Who would take this oath? Presumably it would not be appropriate for a regent who is a Supreme Governor of the Church of England to give any oath in respect of the Church of Scotland, and therefore would not be sovereign to make that statement. That one issue shows the host of different issues that would come up when the issue is examined in more detail.
As I have indicated, the Government have no intention of introducing any change in this matter. Given that both the Catholic Church and the Church of England have been very supportive of the changes that are actually in the Bill, I believe that we have found an appropriate balance through the legislation as drafted. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Erroll
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I could help him on the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Every year, at the opening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the monarch promises to defend the Presbyterian Church Government in Scotland—I will not get the words exactly right. I think that she does that in a personal capacity, not as head of the Anglican Church. She promises to defend it, so there is no reason why a Catholic monarch could not still promise to defend the Presbyterian Church Government in Scotland. To confuse that with Presbyterianism in England would be different.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I apologise if I did not make myself clear. I did not mean to suggest that it was as Supreme Governor of the Church of England that she made the oath with regard to the Presbyterian Church Government in Scotland. I was in fact suggesting the opposite; it would not be appropriate for someone who was appointed as a regent—a Supreme Governor—to make that oath. I think that that would be wholly inappropriate. It raises the question of whether a monarch who was indeed a member of the Roman Catholic Church would be in a position to make any commitment regarding the maintenance of the Protestant religion and the system of Presbyterian Church Government.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My noble friend Lord Forsyth asks why. I think that it raises some very interesting issues that have not been thought through. This is why I say that we should not go down this road. I do not propose to go down this road; I suggest that there is a host of issues, and that is why we should not go down the road proposed by the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the problem is that the noble and learned Lord says this opens up greatly different avenues. However, frankly, the Government ought to have thought about these avenues before they brought in the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
With all respect to my noble friend, that is the reason why the Government have not gone down this road. The Government have actually sought to do three very clear things: remove the male bias in succession; remove the current prohibition on someone in the line of succession marrying a Catholic; and repeal the prohibitions in the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and replace them with others. Those are three very precise points. I made the point that to go wider than that raises the kind of issues I highlighted. That is one reason why the Government have not gone down this road.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, by ignoring the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Trefgarne, it seems that the Government are just leaving everything to chance, in the case of there being a Catholic heir.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
This is not leaving it to chance. The law as it stands at the moment is quite clear that a Catholic cannot ascend the throne.
Lord True
My Lords, the problem was articulated at Second Reading, and I do not wish to extend this debate too much. The problem ultimately will be a human problem, as it was in 1936. That human problem, if it arises, will concern a child who is an heir, either the heir presumptive or a child who by some accident becomes the next in line, a popular expectant heir to the throne, who, whether from birth or by proximity to the Catholic faith when being brought up, believes that they cannot take up the duties of a monarch without the support of the church that they love. That might well be the Catholic Church.
The problem with the halfway house that we have before us is that it opens the door to such a crisis without resolving all the complexities that my noble friend quite rightly said lie at the end of that path. That human drama will be played out in the 21st century through all eyes of the media and television as almost a piece of spectacle—it was in 1936. That is the danger that many Peers sought to point out at Second Reading. I could not support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cormack; equally, I think that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is flawed, because I agree with my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench that there are things that a regent could not undertake.
There is a danger in the lack of clarity inherent in this Bill, for well meaning reasons, opening a door to a place we know not where. Not all discrimination in this matter lies on the Anglican side—I speak as one who lives the most happy of mixed marriages but who is never permitted to go to the altar table to share communion with my wife. Let us go forward with caution. It is not right for the Government so readily to detach the opening of the door by the legitimisation of a marriage from a proper and serious contemplation of the potential consequences if a human drama comes to be played out when an heir believes that they can proceed only with the support of the Catholic faith, whether they professed it previously or profess it at the time when they become heir to the Throne.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Trefgarne replies, perhaps I may pick up on a point where I do not believe that the argument of my noble friend Lord True holds. Under the law as it stands—and there is no proposal here, nor do the Government have any proposals to change the law—the sovereign may not be, nor have been, a Roman Catholic. Therefore, the situation which my noble friend Lord True suggested, where the sovereign comes to the Throne having to agonise as to whether to renounce the Catholic religion, just would not arise, because, having been a Catholic, he or she would not be eligible to ascend to the Throne.
I entirely concur with my noble friend’s opening remarks: these are very much human matters at the end of the day. There is a human dimension to it, and that is why, in response to the earlier debate, I sought to reflect the discussions which I had with representatives of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales so that this is looked at at a pastoral, human level, which seeks to reflect the importance of the union of a partnership and the indissolubility of marriage. It is against that background that decisions should be made and advice given with regard to the upbringing of a family. I accept that there is a human dimension to this, but I should perhaps clarify that the dilemma that my noble friend was suggesting cannot occur because the position is that the sovereign must not be, or have been, a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I had not appreciated this until my noble and learned friend said it: he said that not only would a Catholic not be able to ascend to the Throne but that someone who had been a Catholic but had then converted to be an Anglican could not ascend to the Throne. That has nothing whatever to do with the position of being Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That is a simple discrimination against Catholics. My noble and learned friend said, “Oh, the reason that we have made this Bill focus on just these three areas is because the issues are so complex”. It is clear that he will not accept the amendment, and I accept some of his arguments for that—but, in listening to this debate, can he not see that there are a number of issues? The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested that we should have a Select Committee, or some kind of body to look at these issues, and park the Bill while that is going on. What is the rush here? What is the reason for our needing to rush forward with this legislation at this pace?
Perhaps at the end of the day, it might be concluded that it was impossible to reconcile maintaining an established Church with removing this discrimination against Catholics. However, if the Government say, “Oh well, this is just a Bill that’s dealing with these matters”, bear in mind that this legislation has to be approved by all the other Parliaments around the world. Would they not think it very odd if we came forward with this Bill now and then a short while later came forward with the other bit of it? Or is the proposition that this is just too difficult? If it is too difficult, why on earth did the Government embark on this journey in the first place?
Lord Cormack
I would like to add a word. There is a real danger that we are treating exceptionally complex matters far too simplistically. The constitution of our country, which is not written, has often been compared to a beautifully constructed watch—take away one ostensibly tiny piece of the mechanism and the whole thing falls apart. Some fairly unpleasant things were said about my amendment earlier on, but there we are; that is the rough and tumble of debate. However, I really believe that those of us who are concerned about this issue—coming from slightly different points of view, I accept—are on to something that the Government have not bothered to think through. They have said, “Oh look, this is so complex that we’ll just concentrate on these things”, which is equivalent to saying, “This watch is beautifully constructed; we’ll just look at the hands in the face and forget the bit behind”. There is merit in the interesting suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—if I may have his attention for a moment—or at least in the Minister calling a meeting in his room for people who are concerned, and possibly in going forward to a special committee. This is not really the ideal forum for a detailed discussion of these exceptionally important and complex matters, which reach out we know not where.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I have already responded to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and indicated that I am not in a position on behalf of the Government to commit to establishing a committee to look at these matters. It is clear that there are committees of this House and indeed of the other place that could do so. Obviously the Government would contribute to any such committee that we had invited to do this, but I do not believe that that is a pathway that is inconsistent—nor did the noble Lord suggest this—with proceeding with the relatively straightforward, although constitutionally important, issues that are in the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, at the end of Second Reading a week or so ago, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, moved to refer this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, I suggested then to your Lordships that it would have been much better considered by a Select Committee of the House to which witnesses could have been called and had their evidence taken—perhaps even a Joint Select Committee involving Members of the other place. However, the Minister refused to agree to that; oh no, we would go to a Committee of the Whole House, as we are now doing.
If ever there was a case of unlooked-for consequences, this Bill is certainly it. There are a number of aspects of this matter that quite clearly the Government have simply not considered or, if they have, they have chosen to disregard. That is really not good enough, and we are going to have to return to this issue at the next stage for sure. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
I do not intend to speak to this amendment at any length. We have covered some of its detail, although by no means all of it, in recent discussions, but I would like to hear what the Minister’s response to it would be. Without wishing to detain your Lordships, therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the position with regard to this amendment is very similar. It is a different structure for having, as it were, a divergence between the person who is the sovereign and the person who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Some of the difficulties and arguments which were expressed with regard to the regency are also applicable to the slightly different structure proposed in Amendment 11. I am not sure that I can elaborate on that much further as I think that the arguments are very similar.
Lord Trefgarne
I understand what my noble and learned friend is saying. However, the amendment that I now propose does not confine itself to the Roman Catholic faith, or the possibility of the sovereign or the heir to the Throne being Roman Catholic, but deals with all other possible faiths. At the moment, many legal restrictions apply to the Roman Catholic faith in this regard but none applies to Muslims, the Jewish faith or any faith other than the Anglican and Roman Catholic faiths. Therefore, that matter certainly bears additional consideration, but perhaps not today. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lang for this amendment, and not least for the way in which he moved it. Although it was entertaining in many respects, I fully recognise his points. I am not being disparaging—I enjoyed his speech. It was a very good speech and his points were interesting. It is important to point out that none of the people who were in and out actually ascended the Throne. I take his point, which is a pertinent one. Reference has been made on more than one occasion—in another place, too—to the issue of Princess Victoria, as she was known when she was born, being fifth in line to the Throne. There has not been a monarch since the 1772 Act who has been any further out at birth.
Perhaps my mind was working along similar lines to that of my noble friend because I also asked whether it is worth considering when the provision actually bites—which, of course, is at the point of marriage. Since the 1772 Act came on to the statute book, the person who was furthest away from the Throne at the time of consent to a marriage being sought and given was, indeed, around the same time as my noble friend was talking about: King William IV was third in line to the Throne when he married and when he sought and was given consent for his marriage under the 1772 Act. So, in the 240 years since the Act was passed, William IV has been the furthest away from the Throne at the time of his marriage. Again, I am not pretending that there is perfection in this, and I do not believe that a Select Committee could attain perfection in this either. The proposal for six therefore still allows a considerable amount of leeway—which is probably not the right word, but it is the most appropriate word that comes to mind at the moment.
It is important to remind ourselves that a balance needs to be found between mitigating against catastrophic but remote hypothetical events of a line being wiped out and the risk of impinging unnecessarily upon the lives of those who are distant from the Throne. Clearly, my noble friend Lord Lang would prefer to give greater weight to the former; my noble friend Lord Northbrook gives greater weight to the other end of the spectrum. I will not found my argument on that. As three is the farthest away from the Throne at the time of marriage, I believe that six is reasonable. This is bearing in mind that, on the other side of the coin, it can impinge unnecessarily upon the lives of those who are that much more distant from the Throne.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, what representations have the Government had from anyone about their lives being impinged unnecessarily in this matter?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
We have not had the representations that one would expect to receive. I suspect that under the present law there are people who, understandably, do not know that, as a descendant of King George II, they are expected to get consent from the sovereign if they wish to marry. Indeed, we seek in this Bill to address the issue of those who have, as it were, unwittingly married.
The other important point perhaps addresses the point made by my noble friend about the European Convention on Human Rights. There are two issues here. First, the European Court of Human Rights has generally been very reluctant to engage in issues which go to the heart of a nation’s constitution and who should be their head of state. Secondly, unlike the 1772 Act, which made a marriage void if the consent of the Sovereign was not forthcoming, this does nothing so significant. It simply removes the person from the line of succession and the marriage will still be valid. It means only that the person who had not received consent would not take their place in the line of succession.
My noble friend Lord Lang asked where the number six arose from. Ahead of the Perth agreement my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to each realm Government proposing changes to the law of succession principally with regard to the removal of male bias and the bar on the heir marrying a Catholic. At that point the realm Governments were also made aware of the issues surrounding the Royal Marriages Act and the view of this Government that it was outdated. Subsequent discussions with the realm Governments were led by New Zealand which concluded that it was in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate for those who are genuinely close to the Throne to seek consent to marry. To avoid the same problems presented by the Royal Marriages Act in attaching a monarchical consent requirement to the descendants of a specific monarch—at Second Reading I think that someone suggested that we could make it the descendants of George VI rather than George II; that was thought to store up problems for the future—the number six was proposed and agreed. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister then wrote to each of the realm Prime Ministers to confirm their consent to this provision.
I apologise that I was unable to respond to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne at Second Reading when he asked whether consent had ever actually been refused under the 1772 Act. So far as the Government are aware, there has been no instance when the sovereign’s consent to a royal marriage has been refused. My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked in relation to Amendment 14 whether the common law still applies to monarchical consent in cases such as the remarriage of a dowager queen. There is a good argument that the 1772 Act replaced all common law provisions on royal consent to marriages, but it also could be argued that because the 1772 Act applies to the descendants of George II, the common law requirement might conceivably still apply to members of the Royal Family who are not descendants of George II, for example in the remarriage of a dowager queen or a prince consort. But these instances would not affect the line of succession and it is important to recognise that what we are doing here relates only to that. The Bill is concerned with people who may become the sovereign, not with members of the wider Royal Family. It has a specific purpose.
As I say, no number will be perfect, but if one considers that, in the 240 years since the 1772 Act went on to the statute book, the furthest away in line from the Throne at the time when consent for marriage was sought was three; we are allowing for three more. I believe that the figure is a rational one and I would invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lang of Monkton
My Lords, I know that my noble and learned friend has a job to do, and that is to get this Bill through intact. I have no doubt that those are the orders he has been given and that the word “Resist” is printed on every page of his brief. The fact remains, however, that he must have heard the almost unanimous voices in this Chamber expressing their support for an expansion of the number from six. My noble friend Lord Northbrook offered an alternative of either four or zero. I would live with zero, but only if the provisions that still require the sovereign to be a member of the Church of England were withdrawn. That would remove the tension that this Bill otherwise builds into the royal succession; that is, between those who are allowed to marry Catholics and those who cannot inherit the Throne unless they are members of the Church of England.
My noble friends Lord Lexden, Lord Lyell, Lord Forsyth and Lord True gave some fine additional historical examples of the sort of problem that can arise in these circumstances. My noble friend Lord Lexden mentioned in particular the history of the gun pellets through the window at Sidmouth and that house in the rainstorm during which Prince Edward contracted an illness from which he died a week later, thus precipitating Princess Victoria up the line. There was another incident, I believe, when a pony and trap bearing the princess panicked and sped off, and she very nearly died. In answer to the question put by my noble friend Lord Lexden, if she had died, my belief is that Prince Ernest Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, would have inherited the Throne. He subsequently went on to become the King of Hanover where male primogeniture still predominated, when King George IV, I suppose it would have been, could not have inherited that Throne when it became vacant.
My noble and learned friend said some very kind things about what I have proposed and the arguments I advanced, but then proceeded to reject them without going further than talking about “arbitrary” and “pragmatic”. If I heard him correctly, he said that none of the historical characters I mentioned had reached the Throne. Queen Victoria reached the Throne, and he has not risen to that point.
Lord Lang of Monkton
Perhaps I may finish my argument before he denounces or deals with it. Queen Victoria would then have had to give consent to herself before she could have married Prince Albert. My noble and learned friend will argue, “Ah, but she would have been guided by Ministers”. Lord Melbourne was a pussycat who doted on Queen Victoria and he would not have said no. He had enough problems already with Lady Caroline Lamb. I shall give way to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I apologise if my noble friend misunderstood me; I said that no one whom he mentioned, who had gone into the list of six, come out of the list and then gone back into it, had actually gone on to inherit the Throne. That was my point. Of course, Queen Victoria as Princess Victoria inherited the Throne, but I think that the idea of the sovereign giving consent to him or herself is one that has possibly arisen on other cases too. I cannot immediately think of what they were, but that is not even an anomaly; one cannot give consent to oneself.
Lord Lang of Monkton
If I burned the night oil I might be able to find an example. What my noble friend says simply underlines the fact that he did not answer the point about Queen Victoria having to give consent to her own marriage. That must be a fault in the Bill, and I ask him to consider it further before we reach Report.
My noble and learned friend concluded by saying that no number is perfect. I agree, but six is demonstrably imperfect. So much of this Bill has been shown to be ill considered and imperfect, creating anomalies and potential for long-term difficulties of a very considerable nature. When we legislate in a Bill of this kind, we are legislating not just for decades, but for centuries, and so many points have been made today that require further thought. I will withdraw the amendment, but I will consider whether I should bring it forward again on Report. I hope that my noble and learned friend will give very serious thought to what most people in this House—and, I believe, in the other place as well—consider to be an ongoing problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Elton for his amendment, which gives me a welcome opportunity to explain why the amendment that he is seeking to delete was inserted in Committee in the House of Commons.
The effect of the Bill as originally presented, as indeed would be the effect of my noble friend’s amendment, would be to disqualify all descendants from any marriage of a person when a marriage of that person was not consented to. For example—and in fact the other way round from what my noble friend suggested—if a person in the line of succession married with consent and had children, their spouse died and they remarried without consent and had children, the children of the first marriage, which had been consented to, could be disqualified.
The intention of subsection (4) is to disqualify from the line of succession any royal descendants from a marriage not approved by the sovereign. It would go too far also to disqualify descendants from a previous marriage for which consent had been obtained. For these reasons, the amendment to include the words “from the marriage” was tabled and accepted in another place. That is entirely consistent with the agreement that was reached with the other realms and removes a possible ambiguity. The other realms were fully informed of this drafting change before it was proposed.
We will come later to an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that relates to the bringing into effect of the Bill. There is no date set. I do not want to pre-empt that amendment and that discussion, but if my noble friend Lord Elton looks at Clause 5, “Commencement and short title”, he will see that provision is made for it to come into force,
“on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint”.
The purpose of that is so these measures can all come in together on the same date and, I think, at the same time, in the 16 different realms.
Some realms are dealing with this in different ways. Some, such as New Zealand and Canada, will legislate to ensure that the changes take effect in their country. I believe that the Bill was brought into the New Zealand Parliament last week. Other realms, such as Papua New Guinea and Jamaica, have found that they do not need to legislate. The intention is that when all realms have done what is necessary regarding their arrangements, the measures will be brought into effect at the same time. There is no date set.
It has been said that the Bill was rushed through the other place. As I have said on more than one occasion, the Bill did not even take up the time allocated to it in the other place, so I am not sure what could have been done if more time was allocated. It is a simple fact that the time was not taken up.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To argue that it did not take up the time and to try and present this as treating an important constitutional measure properly is quite unfair. The point is that all stages of this Bill were carried out over two days in the other place. The conventions have been that constitutional Bills are dealt with over a proper passage of time so that people can make points, the Government can think about them and perhaps even come back with a suggestion for change. By tradition, constitutional Bills have always been taken on the Floor of the House of Commons. To try to argue that this Bill was not rushed through the other place in an untimely manner, with many Members’ speeches protesting about the way it was handled, is a little misleading.
Lord Northbrook
Perhaps I may add to my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s comments. At least 17 amendments were put down in Committee in the other place. Only two were actually discussed. I am sorry, but to say that all the amendments put down in Committee were discussed is not the truth.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Unlike in your Lordships’ House, where every amendment tabled can be debated, amendments are selected in the other place by the Speaker. The system is different. I will not argue which is better, but I find it worth while in your Lordships’ House that we can go through every amendment that is within scope and debate it. It helps us to undertake the scrutiny role which is appropriately ours. I hope that your Lordships feel that the time allocated to this Bill and the proper phasing of it through the different stages is appropriate. As I have already said, the realm Governments were alerted to the drafting change, were given an opportunity to comment and all expressed satisfaction with it.
Lord Lexden
I shall belatedly put my question about what my noble and learned friend was saying about the passage of the legislation in the other realms. Should one infer that if anything goes wrong in any of these realms and the legislation is not implemented, then the legislation falls everywhere and will not be implemented in this realm?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is certainly my understanding. That is why we have the implementation clause. Even if we pass this the intention is that the provisions will not commence until all realms have done what is necessary in each of their territories.
Lord Elton
My Lords, as this is the realm in which the Queen is perceived as being principally the head, Supreme Governor, monarch and the rest of it, presumably the legislation in the other realms and territories is, in a sense, consequential. Therefore I was a little surprised to hear that they are already putting things on their statute books while we have not finalised what we are putting on our statute book. The question I again ask is: what is the procedure? The timing, I gather, is terminus ante quem non; there is no time by which we have to get this done, so the pressure is off. The next question is: what do we use that time for and how does it impact on the other members of the Commonwealth and the territories? If we were, for instance, to adopt my noble friend Lord Lang’s eminently sensible suggestions—or, indeed, the less sensible, in my view, suggestions of my noble friend Lord Northbrook—would that require those countries which already had something on the statute book to adjust it? Or are they simply saying, “We hereby agree with whatever the United Kingdom Parliament finalises”? It is difficult to know how all this is negotiated and how that affects our dealings in the Chamber.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I will try to help. When we come to later amendments, if there is any further information I can give or anything I say needs to be corrected, I will do so. Some of the realms take the view that under their own procedures they require legislation. It is not for this Parliament to determine what happens in other countries. At Second Reading I reported that a Bill had already passed through the lower House in Canada and had been presented in the upper Chamber. As I said, a Bill was presented to the New Zealand Parliament last week.
Other realms take the lead from this Parliament and have indicated that they do not believe that they will need separate legislation. Their arrangements are such that their head of state will be the person who is the head of state of the United Kingdom. The important point in all of this is that we are passing legislation which will be used in some countries, but it has been done on the basis of an agreement that has been reached.
If the Bill were changed with substantive effect, the other realms would need to adjust their legislation where they are legislating and make sure that the same changes are given effect. That would obviously require the agreement reached between the 16 realms.
As I indicated earlier, the amendment that was moved in the other place was circulated and the other realms were given the opportunity to comment before it was brought forward. They indicated that they were fine. I do not think that it was a substantive amendment, but it was nevertheless one on which we sought to ensure that there was proper consultation and information given and an opportunity to comment. Clearly, if there were a change with substantive effect, that would require further agreement.
Lord Elton
Is it a matter of interest in Canada, for instance, whether the number six, 12 or four appears in the Bill at the point we were looking at just now? If so, what will the Canadians do about it?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I do not think that I have seen the Canadian legislation but, in as much as it is giving effect to the same agreement, I would anticipate that the number six is there. If there were to be change, as I indicated in my previous contribution, that would have to be agreed with all the other realms. I will stand corrected, and in response to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne’s subsequent amendment I can clarify that. However, my understanding is that all the realms would have to agree if there was a substantive change.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I do not necessarily accept that it is unconventional. If this Parliament had decided what it wished to do and dictated the matter to the other realms—that have legitimate interest in who is their head of state—it would not have been consistent with the notion of countries such as Australia and New Zealand being independent from the United Kingdom. It was always anticipated that if there were to be a change, agreement would be reached. However, as I said in an exchange during the first amendment with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, it was important that we sought to get agreement among all the realms and for the changes to be implemented as appropriate in each country. It would have been wrong if we had dictated what the terms should be. Considerable agreement was reached, which New Zealand was responsible for co-ordinating.
It is not as unprecedented as it sometimes sounds; we agree international treaties which Parliament is then asked to ratify. This is not exactly on the same lines but it is important to have that agreement. At the time, everyone seemed to think it was right to seek agreement and then to put the proposals before Parliament. This is a process which predates this Government and has been going on for some time.
Lord Cormack
Is my noble and learned friend saying that, because the Prime Minister has given that undertaking to international colleagues, we ratify this in every last particular? Or is he saying that we have the parliamentary process and therefore while we must adhere to the principles we can deal with the detail? There is a very big difference between the two, so which is it? Do we have the authority, as a House and as a Parliament, to alter the details, from six to 12 for instance, or do we not? If not, it is frankly an abuse of parliamentary procedure.
The Earl of Erroll
On that subject, I may be able to assist. It depends on whether they passed Acts in the parliaments to say that they would agree to whatever we do or whether they try to enact the particular provisions. It would be worth the Minister looking at how they implemented it in Canada or Australia. Did they say, “We will assent to whatever”, or did they say, “This is what we are going to do”? For simplicity, I suspect that they may have gone down the route of saying, “We will assent to whatever the UK Parliament decides”. If so, it solves the problem; though the Executive may enter into treaties on behalf of the Crown, it is for Parliament to enact the rules that govern the Executive and therefore Parliament legislates and forms the principles of these things. If this were a treaty, I would have said it was then in the power of the Executive to agree this. If it is not a treaty, it is in Parliament’s remit to decide what is done. I suggest the Minister should look at how these countries have enacted it into their local laws.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, different realms do it in different ways. To pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, with regard to the amendment raised by my noble friend Lord Elton—on the same subject matter we are discussing now—it does not change the substance of the agreement but rather seeks to remove a possible ambiguity. It was circulated among the other realms, their comments were sought and they were satisfied with that.
With regard to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I understand different realms are dealing with this in different ways. At least one of them, I think, is saying that it approves of the law passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. Others are approving more substantive legislation, and some believe no legislation is necessary at all. It varies, but at the heart of it was an agreement on the substance—namely, the removal of male bias in terms of succession to the Throne; the removal of the barrier of the person in line of succession marrying a Roman Catholic; and the abolition of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and its replacement with the sovereign’s consent for the first six in line. Earlier, in my response to my noble friend Lord Lang, I indicated that I do not think that that was in the original Perth agreement but was subsequently agreed. The number of six was agreed with the realms.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. Will he be kind enough to write to those of us who have an interest detailing how each of the realms concerned will deal with this matter? Would there be any merit in us trying to persuade those parliaments perhaps to accept my noble friend Lord Lang’s injunction to change from six to 12? If one of them did so, what would happen then? Would we have to go back and look at it again? How would it be resolved?
Lord Cormack
Further to that and, in a sense, even more pertinent, if this Bill should pass Report stage in this House and the other place endorses the change of six to 12, is my noble friend saying that that would invalidate this international agreement? Does this Parliament have authority in this matter or not?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Forsyth asked about being informed. Obviously, developments are in train. I will try to give him and others who have contributed information as up to date as possible. With regard to my noble friend Lord Cormack’s question, if we were to make a substantive change, before any implementation could take place, we would have to ensure that there was agreement among all the realms. On a substantive matter such as the six to 12, it would not be a happy situation to have a disjunction between the realms.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I am anxious to know—I believe that others may be as well—whether a consent granted or refused by the sovereign in respect of a marriage to which he or she is required to give consent can be challenged in the court by means of judicial review. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend would clarify the position.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for raising an issue which I think he raised at Second Reading. The effect of his amendment would be to ensure that in no instance could the sovereign’s consent or otherwise to a royal marriage be challenged in the courts. It has to be said that over the 240 years when consent has been required, it has not been tested in the courts. But in the Government’s view the decision, given that it is a decision taken by the sovereign, could not be challenged in the sovereign’s courts. We do not believe it to be necessary to provide for this in the Bill. Indeed, whether the number is six or 12, it is an unlikely event that someone so close to the Throne would contemplate such an action. My point is that the decision would be one made by the sovereign and would not be challengeable in the courts of the sovereign.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I hope that between now and the next stage the noble and learned Lord may on reflection be able to offer a more forthright assurance than that which he has been able to give so far, if I may say so. The fact is that the process for judicial review in this country is a comparatively new one. It has only been going for the last 15 or 20 years. Therefore the fact of there being no precedent is not much of a comfort to the noble and learned Lord, if I may say so. I would be grateful if he would consider this further before the next stage and perhaps take into account the case referred to by my noble friend Lord True.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I shall certainly reflect on it further. It will not come as a surprise to my noble friend that this has already been the subject of some reflection. However, if he indeed wishes to return to this at Report, we will do so. To take up the point made by my noble friend Lord True about the Sussex peerage case, my understanding is that this case was not about whether consent had been refused unlawfully. I think the issue was that consent had not actually been sought.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I would like to say a few words about Amendment 17, which I believe is grouped with this one. That is a slightly separate point, if I may say so. I am picking up the point that my noble friend Lord Northbrook has made, that the parliamentary approval process in many of the Commonwealth countries includes a referendum and is over and above whatever Ministers may have agreed over lunch, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth put it. The fact is that parliamentary approval is required in most, if not all, the Commonwealth countries concerned, and in some of them a referendum is also required. Presumably that cannot be done overnight, so it would be better if the Bill came into force when all the Commonwealth countries had consented to it.
We have a problem if some of the countries approve and some do not. You would not have to think too tortuously to conceive of a situation at some future point where the late sovereign’s eldest child in one country was to be their head of state and the second child, who was a boy, was head of state of another. That is clearly absurd, so we need to speak with one voice on this matter as far as the Commonwealth is concerned. It might therefore be best to wait until they have all agreed.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, this picks up on some issues that were debated earlier. I should clarify that the reason why the Bill specifies the Lord President is that the ministerial responsibility for constitutional and elections law currently rests with him. The Privy Council is also involved in constitutional matters. Indeed, credit should go to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister because I do not think that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister was in Perth. It was not simply a case of discussing this matter over lunch; it was more than that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was involved in this issue in a previous incarnation under the previous Administration.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord may not have been involved in any lunches but I think that he was involved in efforts at No. 10 to try to forge some of the agreements to take this matter forward. That indicates that this issue did not suddenly emerge at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in Perth, Australia. It was the opportune time, with the Heads of Government being present, for that agreement to be finalised, but a considerable amount of work and discussion went on ahead of that. As I have indicated, the reason why the Lord President is referred to is due to the current ministerial responsibilities.
I am not wholly unsympathetic to the idea that we might have a subsequent form of approval, but it is not common for Parliament to approve commencement orders. This is a commencement order. It is not as if it is an order that will make amendments to anything or promulgate a new set of regulations; it simply commences something which Parliament will already have approved through the proper parliamentary procedures. Indeed, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose reports the House sets great store by, found no fault with this provision. Given that this matter has been debated, I wonder what further steps we could take. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, indicated that there might be an opportunity to reassure both Houses that each of the realms had done what was necessary under their own provisions. I am very sceptical about that but it does service to the arguments that have been put to consider it. We have made it clear—I must again give this reassurance—that we will commence the legislation only once we are satisfied that each realm has taken the necessary steps to give effect to the changes. There is flexibility in the commencement date to ensure that the laws across the realms are consistently applied.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook raised the question of referendums. This was also picked up by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. My understanding is that referendums would be necessary in other realms only if they decided to amend their constitutions. We do not believe that any realm intends to do so. Officials working on this legislation do their utmost to try to keep in touch with the different realms and they have been given no indication by any realm that it intends to hold a referendum. However, as I indicated to my noble friend Lord Forsyth on an earlier amendment, I will do my best to give an update on where each realm is in terms of what process they are proposing. Perhaps in that context I could helpfully clarify the position on referendums. However, I emphasise to your Lordships’ House that it is our understanding that no realm has flagged up that it intends to have a referendum.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am happy to accept that and I am sure that my noble and learned friend means what he says. However, I had heard that different referenda were needed in the different states of Australia. I hope that he can tell me that I am wrong about that.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I repeat that I have not heard about any referendums. The Council of Australian Governments is currently considering the means by which Australia will implement the changes to the laws of succession. It is quite properly a matter for each realm to determine for itself how it should do this. I will try to update the House on these matters as best I can.
Lord Northbrook
Under Section 28 of the Constitution Act in Australia, the proposed law should be submitted in each state and territory to the electors qualified to vote for election of members in the House of Representatives.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As I indicated, it is up to each country to do it. We are not telling each country what to do and no one is suggesting that. It will be up to each country to determine, according to their own procedures, how that should be done. The key point is the flexibility built into the commencement clause: it will not be given effect to until we are satisfied that all realms have, by whatever procedures they consider proper and necessary, reached that position.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I need to be absolutely certain that I understand what my noble and learned friend has been saying. Is he saying that this legislation will not come into effect until it has been approved by all the realms? Is he also saying that this legislation will not come into effect unless and until all its provisions have been approved to the letter by all these realms? In other words, is he saying that if there is a difference of a minor degree between one realm and the legislation then the legislation would not be taken forward?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as I indicated at Second Reading, the intent is that it should be simultaneous commencement in each realm and therefore, by definition, it will not be brought into effect here. Clause 5 will come into effect on the day on which the Act is passed, but that is the commencement section. Otherwise, that then gives effect to what else is there in terms of the commencement order. If there is a material difference we would clearly not be in a position to commence. I think it was my noble friend who made the point that it would not be a very satisfactory position if two generations down the line the Crown went in one direction in one realm and in another direction in another realm. That is what we are seeking to avoid, that is why there was such an effort made to reach agreement and that is why it is important that, in translating that agreement, each realm does that by whatever means it thinks is appropriate according to its own procedures. When these are all done and delivering on the agreement has been reached, the commencement order would be made to ensure that commencement started simultaneously in each realm, delivering the same things.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do not want to detain the House or split hairs but my noble and learned friend said, “If there is a material difference”. I would not say that my noble friend Lord Lang’s amendment, which suggested changing from six to 12, made a material difference to the import or impact of the Bill. I would say that it was a perfectly sensible, minor adjustment. However, if one of the other realms, overwhelmed by the power of the argument put by my noble friend this afternoon, decided to change it from six to 12, would that mean that commencement would not proceed?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
There is an agreement reached and it is up to each realm to implement the agreement. If that agreement is, somehow or another, not implemented in a realm, then we do not have the unanimity to permit commencement.
Lord Cormack
My noble and learned friend deserves a gold medal for patience and good, even temper. He is much admired for that, and I mean that very sincerely. Could he confirm that 13 March is, indeed, the date? Will he produce for us, before that date, a list of precisely what is required in each realm? There seems to be some disagreement: my noble friend Lord Northbrook referred to the necessity for referenda but my noble and learned friend seemed to think there was no necessity. It would be very helpful and conducive to good debate and discussion in this place if, on Report, we had a piece of paper which lists the countries, lists the process and gives the date where we are at the moment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I apologise to my noble friend because I forgot about his point on that. The Future Business indeed indicates that Report will be on 13 March. I know that during these deliberations, I have indicated on more than one occasion a willingness to meet one or more of your Lordships. Someone from my private office is in the Box and will, no doubt, be noting that. I will certainly endeavour to ensure that purposeful meetings can take place and provide an opportunity for discussion in time for any amendments that noble Lords wish to table.
With regard to the list, I should say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the reason I perhaps hesitate to say how up to date we can get is that that is something I have been asking for. I understand that being bang up to date and complete is more challenging than it may seem. My officials have obviously heard this debate, and I assure the House that we will make the position as up to date as we can.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, we now move to the schedule to the Bill and another history lesson—the arcane matter of the Treason Act 1351, which most noble Lords will probably be surprised is still in existence.
One crime of treason that still exists is where a person owing allegiance to the Crown rapes either the King’s wife, the eldest daughter—if unmarried—or the wife of the eldest son and heir, who, in old French is,
“la compaigne leisne fitz & heir”.
In the past, such a person would be hung, drawn and quartered. Later, that was replaced by the death penalty, and now, following the abolition of the death penalty, the sentence would be life imprisonment. However, this crime has had no precedent in 660 years. Some people believe that two of Henry VIII’s wives, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, were executed under this Act. They were alleged to have had sex with others, but the word “violer” was used, and it was likely that they were not executed under this Act but under separate treason legislation at the time.
There has therefore been no precedent after 660 years, but the amendment seeks to amend the wording of the Treason Act 1351 to,
“eldest son if the heir”.
The Minister has said that the Bill is not a vehicle for UK-specific policy. However, Graham McBain, the eminent lawyer, believes that it is ridiculous to change a law that has no force anyway in the relevant Commonwealth countries. It has not been used in the UK for 660 years and my view is reinforced by a royal commission report of 1878 and a Law Commission report of 1972. The consequential amendment should therefore be deleted from the schedule. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as my noble friend said, the amendment removes the consequential amendments to the Treason Act 1351, which are necessary to ensure that the Act continues to have effect, given that the eldest son may not be the heir—in other words, if there is an older daughter and heir. I understand why my noble friend wishes to see the repeal of parts of the Treason Act, and he has rightly identified that the purpose of the Bill is not to deal with UK-specific issues.
I am tempted to observe that if all parts of criminal legislation that pass through your Lordships’ House have such a deterrent effect that no one offends against it for 660 years, we would be very satisfied. However, the point is that the purpose is to bring the provisions of the Bill into effect. It is a purely consequential change. However, I take the point made by my noble friend. As he is aware, there is more recent legislation relevant to treason and I have noted that the Law Commission has treason noted as a “simplification/codification project”. It will be interesting to see what recommendations it provides, but I do not think that this is the place to have a more fundamental review of the treason legislation. If, however, this legislation is to be on our statute book, it is important that it is consistent.
Lord Northbrook
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I believe that the consequential amendment in the schedule is unnecessary, as it is already contained in Section 12 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. I was not sure whether that should be repealed and am a little confused in this area.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My noble friend’s amendment removes the consequential amendments to the Regency Act, which are necessary to ensure that a person who has married without consent, and therefore loses their place in the line of succession, is also disqualified from being regent. I can assure my noble friend that this consequential amendment is necessary to harmonise the legislation, but also that there is no mistake in not going further and providing for a non-Protestant regent. This takes us back to an earlier debate, because in the sovereign’s absence, the regent undertakes duties related to the sovereign’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and must therefore be a Protestant. That is what underlies this: it is to ensure that there is consistency, given the provisions of this Bill. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbrook
I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.