Succession to the Crown Bill

Earl of Erroll Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lang, for his historical insight. As a mere contemporary historian, I think more in months than decades. However, I note that in the period I have studied, families have become rather smaller; having two or four children seems to be slightly more normal now. If it is true that the Deputy Prime Minister took six as a purely arbitrary figure, perhaps it is connected to his belief that 600 is an appropriate number for MPs in the House along the way. However, I am sure that that was not the case.

The purpose of the need for consent is to recognise the interests of the Crown, as advised by the Privy Council, and to acknowledge the public interest in the question of the potential consort to our head of state. We do not imagine that any likely heir would seek marriage with the head of state of another country with whom perhaps we have less than friendly relations, but clearly there is a public interest, and an interest to the body politic, as well as to the lovebirds concerned, in such a matter. Therefore, there is reason to consider the matter of such an intended marriage in this way, with the consent of the monarch, because we know that that means that those wider considerations will be brought to bear—I assume with due advice from Ministers. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Stevenson asked about the sort of advice that might be proffered in cases where consent might not be given. The Minister might like to suggest some of those scenarios, if thought has been given to them.

There is no indication that any such need for consent—perhaps the case of the late Princess Margaret disproves this—has ever caused a problem. I refer to the need for consent rather than consent being given. Of course, I am sure that if there were such cases in the past, they were kept fairly discreet.

Despite the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, the figure of six appears fairly sensible. It is one more than has ever been needed, but not so large that those whose chances of succession frankly are tiny need to take the time of the monarch and his or her advisers by requiring their consent. We look forward to any further comments from the Minister.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, pointed out that families tend to be smaller, but we live longer. For instance, the reigning monarch is about to become a great-grandmother. Taking an average of two to four children, which is three, when there are three children in the first generation and three sets of three children in the second generation, we have already reached our figure of 12. The next generation will go beyond 12, yet we are still looking at the first line. It would be only too easy for a disaster to happen to one line, so the noble Baroness proved the case that six is too few, and we should forget about longevity.

[Lord True]

My Lords, my name is on the amendment but all the arguments were made in a compelling speech by my noble friend. The remarks of my noble friend Lord Forsyth were also conclusive. Perhaps the Minister will consider the following: once the child for whom we are rushing out this legislation is born, how will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to one of the daughters of the Duke of York that she will have to seek permission but her sister will not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook]

As a supplementary, could I ask whether having been amended in the Commons, the Bill now has to be reapproved by the heads of government?

[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.