Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, 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 Equality (Titles) Bill [HL], has consented to place her prerogative, so far as affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. That I am doing so, with at least some small hope of success, would have delighted the first holder of my title, Mary Lucas, who was a most successful and energetic woman, who took on her husband’s derelict estates and created a basis of great prosperity, which lasted for 200 years—sadly, only 200 years—after her. It would have delighted even more her aunt, Margaret Lucas, later Margaret Cavendish, who was an author, a scientist, and a regular part of the debates around the Royal Society, as it was being founded. She ended up buried in Westminster Abbey. But the dents that they made in the carapace of male supremacy were soon forgotten. It has only been the progress that we have seen in the past 150 years that has made, gradually and steadily, enough of a difference for us to stand today at a position where Margaret Cavendish is in print again, in Penguin. There is an International Margaret Cavendish Society, with professors from more than 70 countries, many of them men. One day—says I, looking firmly to the north-east—we will have a female Lucasian professorship of mathematics.
I find myself looking at my daughters with great pleasure, knowing that they can stand in this world as equal in any way to a man, that they see that in themselves, and that in many parts of our society that is fully acknowledged. But there is a lot left to do. I am conscious of how hard it is for women in particular to return to their careers having taken time out to look after children. At the other end of the spectrum is the old ogre of the Royal and Ancient. One day that will fall—my father played his part in the MCC admitting women. I am sure that we will get around to golf. A fascinating study was done the other day by Harvard Business School on gender equity among its students, which showed how much of a problem we still have. I know that this House concerns itself with the representation of women on boards of major companies.
There is a lot left to do but, as with the past, this will be a slow process of small, persistent but absolutely determined progress. In that context, this Bill has an important part to play, because history, symbols, respect and, to some extent, privilege, go with titles. It is important that we should play our part in the progress of the equality of men and women and should not shrink from following the example set by Her Majesty the Queen in making the succession to titles an equal thing between men and women.
This is a permissive Bill. It does not seek to compel Peers to change the pattern of inheritance of their titles. Peerages are complicated things. In many families, there is a pattern of legitimate expectation that a younger son will be the one to inherit. He may have settled his life on the expectation that he will take on the rights and obligations that go with a particular title. Still in many families there is a pattern of property and the arrangements made for the preservation and succession of that property, which would be disrupted by a Bill that was sudden and compulsory. My noble friend Lord Jopling has written to me saying that he would very much prefer the idea of compulsion. I see the advantage of it, but if it was to be part of a Bill like this it would have to be long delayed. Eventual certainty would be liveable with. If one knew that this Bill would be compulsory in 100 years’ time, people could plan towards it and we would get there in the end. But for the moment, in order not to cause great disruption to already settled lives, we are best to respect the slow march of history and say that making this Bill permissive rather than compulsory is the best way to go about things.
My noble friend also raised the question of whether the arrangements in the Bill would lead to family quarrels. Clauses 3 and 4 require that a Peer apply for permission to make changes to the pattern of inheritance and that he carries his family with him in doing so. Looking at my own family, I can see that we will have some interesting discussions on how the pattern of inheritance should be organised, should this Bill go through. That is not something that we should shrink from. We have a greater responsibility to make the world a more equal place. Having to take a decision is not beyond most of us, even if it is a difficult one. Many of us have taken harder decisions in our lives.
There is also a provision in the Bill for special remainder—that a son with expectations can be allowed to succeed on the basis that, after his succession, any future succession will be to the oldest child. For many families that will provide a way in which the reasonable expectations of living children can be properly accommodated while allowing the whole family to make the change which I think it is time to make.
I am sure this Bill could do with some polishing despite the best efforts of Megan Conway and Simon Burton in the Legislation Office, for whose help I am immensely grateful. I hope for support from the Government and that they will be willing to see this Bill taken forward. In that case, I shall be very grateful for the opportunity that that will provide to gain their expert help in polishing some of the corners of inheritance such as heraldry in a way which will not upset the college too much.
I also have great pleasure in including in the Bill Clause 10, which to my mind rights an old inequity which it is high time we dealt with. Why should the wives of Peers have the right to a courtesy title when the husbands of Baronesses do not? That proposal came from my honourable friend Oliver Colvile in another place. He had his own Bill on the subject and with his permission I have picked up his wording. I am persuaded that it is perfect as it is. However, I should be interested to hear what noble Lords have to say about that. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I might start with one or two personal remarks. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, say that she is opposed to male primogeniture as a principle. Speaking as a third child, I am not entirely an enthusiast for primogeniture as such. Sitting and listening to the debate, I have been ruminating on other forms of inheritance, particularly among aristocratic and ruling families. The Salic law has been quoted—we all remember that passage in Shakespeare in which the discussion about the Salic law and whether women can inherit comes up. In early Viking kingdoms, as I recall, it was the roughest and toughest who inherited, and the others just had to put up with it. The Ottoman succession went further than that: the most successful inherited and then killed off most of his brothers. The Saudi succession is extremely interesting: the family has now created a council to consider who shall succeed to the Saudi kingdom.
The modernisation of hereditary peerages is an interesting concept. Hereditary peerages are inherently non-modern. The whole series of grants and different rules for succession contained in ancient Scottish titles, some United Kingdom titles and elsewhere is part of the glory of the peculiar history of the British Isles and of our partly unwritten and considerably unmodernised constitution. When I receive letters talking about appeals to the European Court of Human Rights in order to modernise this principle, I feel slightly the same as I did when I read the front page of the Daily Mail on one day an attack on the European Court of Human Rights and a demand that Britain should leave, and seeing only two days later the Daily Mail join other newspapers in appealing to the European Court of Human Rights against the new press charter. There is something contradictory in the whole approach.
Belgian aristocratic succession, as I recall, has all sons of a baron with the courtesy title, baron, which is why so many people you meet in the Belgian diplomatic service are barons. There are all sorts of ways in which one might play around with all this; I am not sure that in a modern society we should be in favour of the proliferation of titles to which this might lead us.
However, the Government are committed to equality of treatment before the law, as evidenced by the legislation that they have already taken through this House, including the Succession to the Crown Act. The Government are therefore sympathetic to the motives behind the Bill, but they suggest that there are a number of areas where its approach does not present the best way to address equalities.
The Bill would not eliminate differences in treatment of the sexes, as discretion rests with the incumbent. Title-holders may therefore decide not to petition, and the practice of male heirs taking precedence would then continue—it is at the incumbent’s discretion whether to initiate any action. In taking such an approach, we would risk creating a patchwork of different treatment across the peerage and introducing uncertainty for those who currently expect or hope to inherit. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised a number of questions about property and inheritance which I shall not go into here, but I just mark that this is all part of a very complex picture.
While the Succession to the Crown Act could be given effect without disturbing the legitimate expectations of anyone in line for the throne, the same could not be said for any similar change of the rules governing the descent of hereditary titles. Clause 7 provides that, once a female heir has been allowed to succeed, females will be allowed to succeed in all future successions of that peerage and title. Is it right for the present Peer to make that decision for all future generations? If we were to make this minor constitutional change, surely it should be a conscious decision expressed through the will of Parliament rather than a decision left in the hands of each incumbent Peer. Before embarking on such a change, we would certainly want to undertake a full consultation—the pages of the Daily Telegraph would be full of letters for weeks, I suggest—and public discussion to ensure that the changes had no unintended consequences.
There are also a number of difficulties with the role envisaged for the Lord Chancellor. Reference is made to having regard to whether it would be grossly inequitable to allow a petition. However, it does not prescribe that the Lord Chancellor must grant that position unless that is the case. If the Lord Chancellor is not so confined, the basis for that decision is unclear, which could in turn put the Lord Chancellor in an invidious position.
Further, the Bill is not clear on what should happen where a Peer has a daughter and a son and the son has died, leaving his son in his place. Whether the daughter would displace the grandson is not entirely clear. There is also no provision for the daughter to make representations to the Lord Chancellor.
There were a number of interesting interventions on Clauses 9 and 10, including one from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. There is strength in the argument that it is inequitable for the wives of those honoured to be able to use courtesy titles while husbands and civil partners, whatever their gender, cannot. In terms of equality, there is an argument to dispense with that long-standing convention and to bring husbands and civil partners in line with wives of those receiving honours. I am interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, did not suggest that the way to make them equal is to remove courtesy titles altogether, but we will leave that for another time.
However, parliamentary legislation is not the traditional route to pursue any change, either extension or diminution, of courtesy titles. Courtesy titles are traditionally dealt with under the royal prerogative by way of royal licences. For example, the royal licence signed by the Queen on 30 April 2004 was the means by which courtesy titles were extended to adopted children of Peers. A royal licence was also the means by which justices of the Supreme Court were permitted to use the courtesy title of Lord or Lady in instances where they have not been created a Peer. So Clauses 9 and 10, while interesting, are not necessarily needed in the Bill. That is a question for the monarchy itself.
Having said that, the Government are studiously neutral on the Bill. We look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and seeing how far he will take it. We shall watch with interest how it proceeds.