Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove male-preference primogeniture in succession to hereditary peerages and estates.
This motion is about building fairness, modernity and equality in our society. All hon. Members will agree with the simple premise that women play an integral role in society and that we want them all to have the opportunity to achieve their potential. I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far to increase fairness and equality in society since 2010, through initiating the Lord Davies women on boards review; encouraging women to set up businesses through business mentors; setting up the Women’s Business Council; setting the target that 50% of new appointments to boards of public bodies should be women; announcing a new system of shared parental leave; extending free child care; closing the gender pay gap; and extending the right to request flexible working. All these things will give women a better chance to play their full part in society, in the workplace and in public life.
Today’s motion is another step that needs to be taken to promote gender equality in our society. Currently, for most hereditary peerages, there is male-preference cognatic primogeniture, which means that the firstborn son will, in most cases, inherit the entire estate and that, if there are no sons, it will go to another male descendant. Now is a good time to consider this issue, as the Succession to the Crown Bill makes its way through Parliament. Like the majority of hon. Members, I welcome the changes it will bring. Her Majesty the Queen is leading the way and showing us how the monarchy can change and adapt for modern times, without losing the history and tradition that make it so special and fundamental to our culture.
During the debate on the Bill, many of my hon. Friends in this Chamber and the other place, including the noble Lord Lucas and Baroness Symons, asked why male-preference inheritance would continue to apply in hereditary peerages after being removed from the monarchy. I agreed with the Government that the Bill should focus on the monarchy, but we now have an opportunity to get rid of the current discrimination. The recent changes in the monarchy leave the aristocracy two steps behind, because, as it stands today, a woman such as Her Majesty the Queen can inherit the throne in the absence of men.
The 9 million viewers of “Downton Abbey” will no doubt be familiar with the story where the Earl of Grantham is unable to leave his title and estate to his eldest daughter, Lady Mary. We might think of “Downton Abbey” as depicting a quaint historical era, but that remains the situation today, and I believe that the time is right to address this issue. Hon. Members might ask, “Why bother to change something that affects only very few people?” I personally believe that this is about much more than titles and the aristocracy; this is symbolic. It is about the principles of fairness and equality. I urge the Government to consult, because it is another way to show how important women are to society and how much we need women to have an equal role in business, in the community and in the nation.
As many have pointed out, the current situation in the aristocracy is complex, with different rules applying in different family situations. Indeed, the noble Lord Strathclyde, the former Leader of the House of Lords, responding to a question on this issue, said:
“The Government believe that it is time to deal with the issue of succession to the Crown, and there is no simple read-across to succession to the hereditary peerage, which is infinitely more complicated and affects many more families.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 380.]
He was absolutely right, but I was brought up to believe that anything is possible, and I believe we can change things, no matter how complex. Frankly, if we can get 16 Commonwealth realms to agree to Crown succession, I am sure we can achieve this, too.
The current situation is complex. Older baronies were created by means of a writ of summons to Parliament. These baronies became heritable over time and tend to descend through the bloodline, with preference for males, but not excluding females. Later peerages were mostly created by patent. These peerages typically descend to the male heir; however, special remainders have sometimes been granted for war leaders such as Nelson, Kitchener and Mountbatten that give the peerages an extra chance of survival. In Scotland, peerages vary according to their limitation, which could be to a male heir, an heir of either sex or a series of named individuals.
According to “Debrett’s Peerage and Baronetage 2011”, there are just 13 hereditary peeresses in their own right: six in England and six in Scotland, while one—Countess Mountbatten—is a peeress of the United Kingdom. In the majority of cases these days, a peerage is a dignity only and is not necessarily bound up with real estate. However, in some cases there is a direct link, known as an “entail”. I will not dwell at length on any individual story that brings to life this unfairness, as these are personal, family situations. However, there are many examples that we can consider, such as Baron Braybrooke, whose title will go to his fourth cousin once removed, rather than one of his eight daughters, whom I am sure are more than competent to succeed. The Duke of Rutland’s three daughters will not inherit their family seat, Belvoir castle. Of the 92 hereditary peers taking their seats in the House of Lords, there are only two women: Lady Saltoun and the Countess of Mar. This is clear evidence that there is something not right about the current system.
I am calling for a consultation on the issue today because I believe that in society we should have equality when it comes to gender. Women have proved time and again that they are more than capable of any task in business, politics, the community or public life. The role of women has changed dramatically in the course of history. In this day and age, it is therefore quite wrong that women are so unlikely to inherit peerages. I agreed wholeheartedly with the noble Lord Fellowes of West Stafford, who put it perfectly:
“If you’re asking me if I find it ridiculous that…a perfectly sentient adult woman has no rights of inheritance whatsoever when it comes to a hereditary title, I think it’s outrageous”.
Gone are the days when daughters in the nobility were simply married off, with titles and estates left to their “warrior-like” sons, who alone were considered trustworthy enough to protect the future title and estate. Frankly, that sounds rather laughable now, in a world where girls are significantly outperforming boys in education and where the skills of financial management and accountancy are far more important than those of physical warfare. We have come a long way in terms of women’s rights in many areas—the right to vote, to become a Member of Parliament and even to be Prime Minister. As chairman of the all-party group on women in Parliament, I want to increase the numbers of women in the House of Commons and the other place. This Bill may even be a way of achieving that.
Given that this is a complex issue, I believe the first step is to have a consultation, to find the best approach to bring about this change. Different approaches could be considered, including asking the monarch to change the patent for particular titles; sponsoring a private Bill relevant to a particular case; creating a new statutory framework that allowed families to change the rules voluntarily; or passing an Act of Parliament to create a new statutory framework. The UK would not be trail-blazing in taking this issue forward. In 2006, King Juan Carlos I of Spain issued a decree reforming the succession to noble titles. He said:
“Men and women have an equal right of succession in Grandee of Spain and nobility titles, and no person may be given preference in the normal order of succession for reasons of gender”.
Personally, I would favour the final option: a new statutory framework that would cover all situations, to ensure clarity and efficiency.
The role of women over the centuries has changed in society. The monarchy is about to change to recognise the important role of women. I believe hereditary peerages need to change, too. This is a matter of fairness and it is right that we as Members of Parliament did our best to get rid of discrimination and ensure fairness in all aspects of society. Today, let us celebrate the modern role of women and look to promote equality in all parts of society, so that every woman in this country can aspire to and achieve her potential. I hope the House will support this Motion and give me leave to introduce it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mary Macleod, Oliver Colvile, Penny Mordaunt, Yasmin Qureshi, Jane Ellison and Mrs Eleanor Laing present the Bill.
Mary Macleod accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 May, and to be printed (Bill 153).
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I wondered whether the hon. Lady was hailing a taxi. I am afraid that I am not available for that purpose, but I am happy to respond to her attempted point of order.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I know that colleagues will want to get on with the main business, but I wish to raise a brief point of order.
The Justice and Security Bill goes to the other place for its final stages tomorrow, but this House has still not been informed whether the introduction of secret courts affects habeas corpus. Indeed, the House has had no fewer than four different answers from the Minister without Portfolio, ranging from “yes”, “no” and “not sure” to “I’ll check”. Will you rule, Mr Speaker, on whether the Minister without Portfolio should come back to the House before the Bill gets its Royal Assent to tell us what the right answer is?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. It is not actually a point of order for the Chair, but I would say that the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), has been in this House, if memory serves, for more than 42 and a half years and it will be 43 years in June. I think he takes his responsibilities to the House very seriously. If, as a result of the matters described by the hon. Lady, there is a requirement for clarification, I feel sure that the Minister without Portfolio will provide it at the appropriate time. We will leave it there for today.