Equality (Titles) Bill [HL]

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment 2, which will make no sense without it. The rest of the amendments in the group —I have not worked out which ones they are and I am sorry for that; there are quite a lot of them—relate to wherever the Bill states,

“hereditary peerage or hereditary title”.

Where it does, I have taken out “hereditary peerage”, so that from then on the Bill will always read just “hereditary title”. It would then be consistent with Amendment 2 throughout. That makes it much simpler than changing it throughout. I recommend that we accept this amendment in order that Amendment 2 is logical. My challenge is trying to work out all the other ones which are the same. If you see something with my name on it saying “remove ‘hereditary peerage or’” it is in order to ensure that the Bill just refers to “hereditary title”. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 7 and 8 by reason of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

9: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “hereditary title” and insert “baronetcy or other heritable office of the Crown or State”

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

The question is that Amendment 9 be agreed to.

[Lord Trefgarne]

Can we not debate this amendment?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My understanding is that it has already been debated, but I may be wrong about that.

[The Earl of Erroll]

Perhaps I might help on this. As a result of my two amendments being agreed, Amendment 9, which I do not think was entirely expected, may make the provision gibberish. I feel that part of what we might have to do on Report is tidy up, because we have several competing amendments all trying to cover the same subject. It may be wise if we tidy up on Report.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Perhaps I may take the noble Earl’s implied advice and suggest that, if that be the case, the amendment be not moved at this stage.

[A noble Lord]

Or withdrawn.

[The Earl of Caithness]

I am happy not to move it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I believe that it has not been moved but it has been debated. I am looking to the clerks for advice, but I think that that is the case; in which case, the amendment is not moved.

Amendment 9 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, my interpretation of what we are doing with this Bill, or what we are supposed to be doing, is to make an unfair system significantly fairer, and this can be done in a straightforward manner. It is worth reiterating the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that there should not be gender discrimination in Britain full stop.

It is on this basis that I have tabled Amendment 10, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for supporting it as well as those which would remove the petitioning and special remainder clauses, Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5. The noble Lord gives his apologies that he cannot be here today, as he is currently on his way to Hong Kong, otherwise he would have spoken in this debate. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for supporting Amendment 10.

Clause 1, uncoupled from Clause 2, will mean simply that succession can and will take place by a living heir, regardless of gender, on the death of the present incumbent as soon as the Act comes into force. As the Campaign for Equality of Women in the Peerage has put it:

“It is not in a man’s gift to bestow equality on women”.

This should not be decided on the whim of a male incumbent or even around the dining-room table. No male incumbent should have the right to decide whether women will inherit, but this is exactly what will happen if the petitioning clauses stand.

I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is trying very hard to find a compromise solution, that there will be women who find this even more insulting to them than the status quo, because we would move from an institutionalised sexism—at least you know where you stand—to a personalised one. This is unacceptable.

There is a lot of talk about the expectations of young men, but is that more important than the hopes of young women? Even if the Bill passes in its present form, it will not prevent the current generation of elder daughters who are considering doing so from taking their cases to Strasbourg. The beauty of Parliament deciding in a properly cut and dried manner that when the Act comes into force, there will be gender equality full stop, is that there will be no further argument, uncertainty or litigation, which petitioning might otherwise promote.

In combination with the removal of Clause 2, the amendment ensures that succession may be at any age —again, irrespective of gender. I believe that that is widely supported. Clause 2 contains the stipulation that the woman has to be 21. It is simple. If the man can inherit from any age, the woman should, too. There is no other argument.

It is important to get the Bill right. This is its most crucial aspect. My approach makes the Bill fairer, much simpler and gives it a more realistic chance of getting through Parliament, which many would like. It should be a mandatory, not a permissive Bill. I hope that the Government will support that position. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 12 by reason of pre-emption.

Amendment 11 (to Amendment 10)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, in the circumstances I believe that it is my duty to put the amendment to the voices. Therefore the question is that Amendment 10 be agreed to.

Amendment 10 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Amendment 12 has been pre-empted so it cannot be considered further.

Amendment 13

Moved by