Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Lexden and Lord Lyell

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment that my noble friend Lord Lang has explained so fully and convincingly, leaving very little further to be said. Today, we expect families to be of modest size and assume that the future will closely resemble the present. That is surely an arrogant and misconceived assumption. Historically, the monarch’s immediate family has often been extremely large in number, and the Bill ought to provide for a recurrence of a substantial number in their immediate family by extending to 12 the members of the Royal Family for whose marriages royal approval will be required.

How hard it is in any family to secure the triumph of good behaviour. It has been said of George III’s abundant offspring that that they inspired the nation about as much as a procession of Banquo’s descendants inspired Macbeth. The strength of the Crown in those days rested wholly on the character of King George III himself. We should also remember the fragility and impermanence of the world’s order. Reference was tellingly made by my noble friend Lord Lang to the position of Queen Victoria, who was fifth in line of succession at the time of her birth—a position that then oscillated considerably, as my noble friend amusingly told us. However, Queen Victoria very nearly did not inherit. A boy named Hook, out shooting sparrows, sent a shower of pellets through the window of the house in Sidmouth where the future Queen and Empress had been taken shortly after her birth. She narrowly escaped some of the pellets, tearing the sleeve of her nightgown. If the boy Hook had, by terrible mischance, removed Queen Victoria, that game of musical chairs over the succession that my noble friend described would have begun all over again.

I do not believe that six is enough. The number should be extended to 12, although, at the same time—turning to my noble friend Lord Northbrook’s amendment—a strong argument can be made for removing the need for approval altogether. The worldly Lord Melbourne put it in conversation with Queen Victoria. Referring to her disreputable uncles, he said that,

“though the Marriage Act may have been a very good thing in many ways, still it sent them, like so many wild beasts, into society, making love wherever they went and then saying they were very sorry, but they could not marry because their father would not give permission”.

Nevertheless, I do not favour the complete disappearance of the monarchical duty. Unsuitable marriages need to be prevented and 12 is the right number for the monarch’s approval.

[Lord Lyell]

My Lords, perhaps I may chuck a very small pebble into this debate. My noble friend Lord Lang gave the most marvellous dissertation, but I would advise your Lordships to take care to skip along to the Library to take a glance at either Burke’s or Debrett’s Peerage. Your Lordships should look, above all, at the consanguinity and the very long chance of the arm of the blood relationship. Your Lordships may not be aware that Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was the ninth child of the Earl of Strathmore. The eighth child was the grandfather of the current Earl of Strathmore. In that bloodline, it shows that there is a very long list of candidates, which might even rival that of my noble friend Lord Lang. I do not think that six is enough and perhaps one day, my noble and learned friend will be able to explain to me what I seem to remember from my earlier studies of Scottish law, when women come into the law of succession, which may have been changed. Would my noble and learned friend, let alone my noble friend Lord Lang, please take note that six is not enough?

Control of Donations and Regulation of Loans etc. (Extension of the Prescribed Period) (Northern Ireland) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Lexden and Lord Lyell

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, this order is plainly necessary, and I thank my noble friend for explaining it so fully and clearly. As she said, it would be entirely inappropriate to make changes that would oblige the political parties of Northern Ireland to divulge to the public at large full details of their donations and loans when the state of politics in the Province is so unstable and the security situation so fraught. In today’s volatile circumstances, those Northern Ireland parties that feel strongly that the identities of their donors and lenders should continue to be protected must remain free to protect them—certainly for the time being. I know that that remains the view of the Ulster Unionist Party, which is the party to which I have always felt closest during the 45 years in which I have taken a keen interest in Ulster’s politics. This interest was sharpened in the late 1970s when I worked as an adviser to Airey Neave.

At the same time, unionist principle demands that as soon as possible the same general arrangements for the disclosure of donations and loans should apply throughout all parts of our country. That, rightly, is the Government’s aim, as it was the aim of their predecessors. Understandably, the independent and highly regarded Electoral Commission, to which my noble friend rightly paid tribute, is pressing for that aim to be accomplished as soon as possible. In 2010, a full consultation exercise took place in the Province. Research carried out by the commission last year suggested that only 7% of the public there favour the retention of confidentiality, with nearly two-thirds supporting disclosure and over 30% declaring themselves happy with either. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Government are right to hasten carefully and slowly in this matter. As in so many other areas, decisive action needs to follow the emergence of widespread consensus among the local parties in accordance with the principles of the Belfast agreement. It does not exist at the moment.

Let us hope that, proceeding with patience and understanding, our Government are able to move forward on the basis of consensus when this order expires at the end of September next year. In the mean time, those Northern Ireland parties that wish to publish information about their donations and loans, and have the agreement of those involved, are of course at perfect liberty to do so. Such steps may well help hasten the overall pace of change.

Much controversy naturally attaches to the question of retrospective disclosure when this order is replaced by new legislation in due course. The Electoral Commission, the advice of which is valued so highly, is all for it, while retaining the confidentiality of information that would enable individual donors and lenders in years gone by to be identified. For my part, I am deeply sceptical about the expediency of any retrospective disclosure. Would it not be best to draw a line under earlier years and apply new rules of transparency and disclosure from the point at which they are introduced?

I support the order wholeheartedly. Along with my noble friend Lord Bew, who cannot be here this afternoon, I look forward eagerly to the forthcoming legislation that will replace it, providing for fuller transparency in future.

[Lord Lyell]

My Lords, I support the forthright comments of my noble friend Lord Lexden. He mentioned a period of 45 years. My period of nearly five and a half years in Northern Ireland was luckily not connected too much with financial provisions in politics; I got into quite enough trouble with agricultural financial provisions.

I seem to remember taking part in this debate the last time we discussed this, probably in 2010. I take on board everything that has been said by my noble friend Lord Lexden about the need to continue being discreet, secret or reasonable about donations and where the money comes from. I hope nothing much has changed gravely in that time.

Might the Minister be kind enough to explain the significance of the date of 30 September 2014? It seems odd. Is it the end of what is expected to be the parliamentary Recess? Is the Assembly going to be dancing with delight? Are we to be in here? I am curious as to why that particular date was chosen— “19 months”, as it is spelled out.

The Minister could write to me later on the second line of the Explanatory Note. It starts with, “Special provisions”, et cetera, and then refers to,

“loans and donations made to political parties and,”—

I love this phrase—

“other regulated recipients (such as members of political parties and holders of elective office)”.

I am curious. Has anything changed since this last was defined, or is anything new? Would I be a recipient as a past officeholder in Northern Ireland? Would I be regulated as a recipient? Fortunately, I would keep my oar out of Northern Ireland political donations. I would be grateful for guidance from my noble friend as to what has changed, particularly since we last discussed this. Again, can she clarify to me the significance of 30 September 2014? I hope that I shall still be around, active and not brain dead, in your Lordships’ House. When we come to discuss this again, I hope to be able to congratulate the Minister, my noble friend Lord Lexden and all those who come to speak. I am grateful for the Minister’s clear exposition this afternoon.