Succession to the Crown Bill
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deben
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Cormack will think again about this amendment. It is a very difficult situation—we are where we are—but if you read the Act of Succession, you see words which none of us in this House would like to see applied today to Her Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects, all of whom pray for Her Majesty every Sunday and every Mass. It is very difficult for us to take what is a piece of rampant discrimination. Frankly, for many of us, particularly the ex-Anglicans, the whole concept of a secular monarch being Supreme Governor of the Church of England is very odd, but we are where we are.
I merely ask my noble friend not to rub this in by adding yet more to it. Let us accept that both sides have come to what is an uneasy compromise in a world which thinks utterly differently. If you read the Act of Settlement, you have to wonder what the rest of the world must think about us tinkering with something that frankly ought not to be part of the constitution of the United Kingdom because it does not have anything to do with our view about equality and difference in a society such as ours. It is because of our history and we understand that and do not want to raise that, but please let us accept where the Government are.
I urge my noble friend not to press this. It is bad enough anyway. This merely makes it worse, and it would be helpful for my noble friend to recognise the degree of reticence on the Roman Catholic side on this issue, for many years and again now. Following the great wisdom that we have heard from the right reverend Prelate, this seems to be the moment to let it lie and to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I take a slightly different view from that of my noble friend Lord Deben and indeed have some sympathy with the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Cormack. As I see it, the Bill in its present form paves the way, possibly, for the heir to the Throne and hence the occupant of the Throne to be a Roman Catholic—although I know that there are other provisions that prevent that—and at the same time Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That seems to be an absurdity which has not been addressed by the Bill although it was pointed out in earlier stages.
I am happy to be told that I am entirely wrong in all this, that I have misunderstood that it will not happen and that there are ways and means of preventing it, in which case that is a good thing. That said, the position of the Roman Catholics as described by my noble friend is an important one, which likewise needs to be taken into account. I shall have a little bit more to say when we get to the Motion that the Bill do now pass, but for the mean time I address my remarks only to the amendment of my noble friend.
Lord Janvrin
I declare an interest as a former member of the Royal Household and I pay tribute to the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to see this important point discussed in this House. What has just been said about making explicit what is implicit is important, but this amendment is not absolutely necessary. There are three reasons for that.
First, as has just been stated, we are where we are, clearly, with the Act of Settlement and the law of the land that the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England. Secondly, we have heard on several occasions that whereas there is legal certainty about where we stand in terms of the Church of England, the Catholic position on mixed marriages is more flexible and nuanced in its term that it is a pastoral matter. That is important. Thirdly, there is a precedent. There is a mixed marriage in the Royal Family where the children have been brought up as members of the Church of England.
My concern is that if we in the United Kingdom start introducing amendments that are not absolutely necessary, there may be desires in other realms to do the same and to start unravelling what is a most important piece of legislation that will strengthen the monarchy. I hope that in considering whether to go ahead with this amendment we can bear in mind that we must not allow a compromise across the realms to be undermined for the sake of something that is nice to have but not absolutely necessary.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I understand that in tabling the amendment my noble friend Lord Cormack sought to put beyond doubt the requirement that the sovereign be a Protestant and in communion with the Church of England. I readily recognise the concerns expressed by my noble friend; at every stage of the Bill, he has clearly sought to find a means of addressing them. I readily acknowledge that this amendment is, to use his words, more modest than those that he moved in Committee and on Report. However, as has been indicated in our short debate, the Government believe that it is unnecessary as both the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement are unambiguous with regard to the requirement that the sovereign be a Protestant and in communion with the Church of England.
The Bill does not pave the way to change that. No one who is not in communion with the Church of England may ascend the throne. That rules out Roman Catholics as well as many other people. I have concerns that by attempting to reiterate this, and to single out the peculiar and particular prohibition on Roman Catholics, one risks causing offence. I am sure that that was not intended, but one does risk causing offence to many of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects when there is no good reason in law to do so. I do not believe that we should put into a Bill words that could cause unnecessary offence and reopen wounds. It has also been said that the amendment is unnecessary in law and could therefore lead to other jurisdictions that have responsibilities in this regard putting forward amendments and unpicking an agreement that has been very carefully constructed across the realms over a considerable time.
As the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the sovereign must be both Protestant and in communion with the Church of England. For this reason, we are not removing the bar on Roman Catholics acceding to the throne, as set out in the Act of Settlement and Bill of Rights. Of course, we have heard expressed in a number of our debates the perceived problem of the heir to the throne marrying a person of another faith. That problem exists under present law; it is not one created by the Bill. Clause 2 merely provides parity of treatment between Roman Catholics and people of all other non-Protestant faiths.
Nevertheless, I have recognised and understand the profound concerns that have been expressed. As the House knows, following a commitment made in Committee, I met Monsignor Stock on behalf of Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales to discuss this matter. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford indicated, Archbishop Nichols indicated that the wording had been discussed with the Cabinet Office. I have the specific consent of Monsignor Stock to say that he was speaking on behalf of Archbishop Nichols as president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, and can inform the House that the view taken by the Catholic Church in England and Wales is that in the instance of mixed marriages the approach of the Catholic Church is pastoral. It will always look to provide guidance that supports and strengthens the unity and indissolubility of the marriage. In this context the Catholic Church expects Catholic spouses to sincerely undertake to do all that they can to raise children in the Catholic Church. Where it has not been possible for the child of a mixed marriage to be brought up as a Catholic, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law.
Lord Trefgarne
Would it be possible for a copy of this letter to be placed in the Library of the House?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, this was not a letter, it was a form of words that was agreed between Monsignor Stock and the Cabinet Office that I have placed on the record. There was a letter to me from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford that enclosed a copy of a letter that indicated what I have just said. I do not believe that it is in my gift to say that it will be placed in the Library, but I reassure my noble friend that I have just used the words that were in that letter. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for his contribution to our debates, both today and on Report, and for what he did following Report in engaging further with Monsignor Stock and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. Indeed, on Report the right reverend Prelate, in a speech that I believe was very helpful to the House, concluded that the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter,
“bears out the Government’s assurance that the Roman Catholic rules are not a block to the smooth functioning of the proposed succession rules”. —[Official Report, 13/3/13; col. 282.]
As I have stated both in Committee and on Report, we have a very clear signal that the overriding concern in Catholic pastoral guidance to couples in mixed marriages is the unity and indissolubility of the marriage. We have an equally clear signal from the Church of England, included in their briefing note to Members, that:
“The present prohibition … is not necessary to support the requirement that the Sovereign join in communion with the Church of England”.
Again, I recognise the concern with which my noble friend moved his amendment. I reiterate that the requirement that the sovereign be a Protestant remains as solidly placed in law as ever. In this context, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I indicated on Report that I would report to the House once the necessary steps in each realm had been completed and we were in a position to commence the legislation simultaneously. I reiterate that commitment. As it may be of interest to your Lordships, I can inform the House that since our debate on Report, Royal Assent was given to the Canadian Succession to the Throne Act on 27 March. We received confirmation from the Government of Antigua and Barbuda that, based on the nature of their constitution, they will not need to legislate to give the changes effect, and that the Council of Australian Governments agreed on 19 April, last Friday, to a process to change their laws.
As I have indicated on a number of occasions, the provisions in this Bill have been carefully worked out in agreement with the realms, and it is important that we now proceed to pass this Bill and show that we have been able to fulfil the task asked of us by the realm Prime Ministers in Perth in 2001. It is an important piece of legislation that has its roots in securing better equality, and certainly we await with great expectation the birth of a child to their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. We wish them every health, in particular the Duchess as she proceeds towards the birth of her child. In doing so, we know that if this Bill passes, and if the required processes take place in the other realms, that child, irrespective of whether it is a boy or a girl, will take its place in line to the throne ahead of any subsequent siblings. Therefore, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I do not intend to delay the passage of this Bill for more than a few moments. It is sad that this Bill has been driven through with such speed. Many of us would have preferred a Joint Select Committee, for example, to consider some of the important constitutional implications that it raises, and indeed changes. However, that has not been the case, and therefore that, for now at least, must be that. This Bill has also set running the hare of what happens to the hereditary peerage with regard to the succession arrangements for hereditary peers. I must tell your Lordships that those arrangements are, as I understand it, a great deal more complicated even than they are for the Crown. I dare say that if Bills come forward for that purpose they will delay the noble and learned Lord very much longer than this Bill has.
Succession to the Crown Bill
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Elton
My Lords, my amendment has been grouped so that the first and last stand together. My noble friend has fully explained the circumstances that make the amendment necessary. He has traced the identification of the monarch from the Act of Settlement through various other Acts to the present. The question is whether that is a continuous and incontestable line or whether there is doubt thrown upon it. He has demonstrated that there is doubt—a point that I picked up in Committee. Doubt is thrown on it by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. We have discussed that in Committee but there are rather more noble Lords here than there were on that day, so it is worth repeating that Section 48(7) of the HFEA 2008 recites what is not to be altered or touched by what is in that Act.
The two things caught out are titles and other honours. To the lay mind, that does not embrace the possession of the Crown, which is the subject of this Bill, and therefore does not seem to offer any of the protection that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate says that it offers. I cannot see the principle by which it could. The principle will apply to the 1987 Act—that is in the same letter from the Lord Advocate referred to by my noble friend. Another letter refers to “us”—being the Government—and the Lord Advocate says that the, “lesser includes the greater”. I think that was the phrase. If that is right, my noble and learned friend should know that that brings instantly to my mind an image of a bar, other than the one to which he was called, and a quart being poured into a pint pot with an awful mess on the taproom floor. The greater surely includes the lesser, rather than the other way round. However, that is irrelevant because that referred to another Act, and he did not advance that argument in the case of this Act.
My simple point is that the Act that the Government say purports to provide protection for the succession of the Crown does not do so. It specifically mentions other objects. Incidentally, my noble and learned friend referred to this in Committee, almost subliminally. If I were a psychiatrist, I would be interested to know how he would interpret the fact that he said:
“The Bill will maintain the position under the Adoption Act and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 referred to above. It will not change the way the Crown, or titles”—
not “and”, but “or titles”—
“or dignities, descend”.—[Official Report, 28/2/13; col. 1217.]
It seems to me that that betrays the fact that it is a separate concept; it is not contained in that definition. Therefore, I ask my noble and learned friend to consider before Third Reading putting in the words of my amendment, which would clarify this beyond doubt. Even if my noble and learned friend and the Government think that this is unnecessary—like him, if I embrace the lesser and the greater—it is still not harmful. If they are wrong and we are right, it needs to be done.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I broadly support my noble friend Lord True in his amendment. Indeed, at an earlier stage of my deliberations about today’s proceedings, I thought of tabling an amendment to do something similar to what he is now proposing. Having read my noble friend’s amendment, however, I thought better of it and withdrew my amendment for the time being.
My only reservation about my noble friend’s amendment is proposed new subsection (3) of the new clause, which says that the proposed new section,
“should not apply in any case where both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution to the effect that it shall not apply”.
I would have thought that proposed new subsections (1) and (2) were absolute considerations, thought to apply willy-nilly, and Parliament ought not to have the right to overturn them. However, that is a small point compared to the principle of what he is proposing, which, in general, I support.
Lord Jopling
My Lords, I am afraid that I have not been able to play a part in the earlier consideration of this Bill. However, I looked at proposed new subsection (2) of my noble friend Lord True’s amendment, which says:
“A person is disqualified from succeeding to the Crown as an heir to the body of a Royal Marriage if they are not the offspring of both parties to that Marriage”.
That takes me back 20 years when, in another place down the Corridor, I had cause to study the embryology Bill, which was going through the Commons at that time. A constituency case came to me of a couple who had found that they could not have a child; the lady had no uterus, but she ovulated. They therefore found a surrogate mother and had the egg from the wife, which was fertilised by the husband, implanted in the surrogate mother. In this case, the surrogate mother gave birth to twins. My constituents brought the twins back to have them registered, and the registrar of births, deaths and marriages said, “Sorry, although you may be the genetic parents of these children, you are going to have to adopt them”. They said, “Don’t be so stupid—we are the genetic parents. Why should we have to adopt our own children?”. This was an anomaly that I took up and caused that Bill to be changed with the help of my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke, who was the Home Secretary at the time. The change meant that in a case such as that, if an application were made to the High Court, a judge could deem that parents of children who were the genetic offspring of those parents were full parents by an order of the judge in the High Court. That, as far as I understand it, is still the law.
My question to the Minister, thinking of my noble friend’s amendment, is: what would happen in a case like that, where the offspring of both parents are created in circumstances such as the ones I just described? Would it be necessary for the royal parents to apply to the High Court? Surrogacy is becoming much more common and it is not impossible that this could happen in the future. In this sort of circumstance, when the child of a royal marriage was created in this way, would it be necessary to apply to the High Court for that child to be deemed, in the words of the amendment, the “offspring of both parties”? It is rather important that this should be clarified now because it could give rise to considerable difficulties in the future.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I, too, broadly support the principle behind the amendment, but I ask my noble and learned friend about a related matter which I raised in Committee but did not get a full and clear answer. Is it in order and open to the sovereign to confer on his or her eldest daughter the princessdom, if I may call it that, of Wales? We know that the princedom of Wales is in the gift of the sovereign—my noble and learned friend explained that at the previous stage, but he was not clear whether it could go through the female line if that was the wish and view of the sovereign of the day. I hope that he can help me with that.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, as we said in Committee, the Duchy is about property, business, title and, indeed, money. Although we agree that those are, as my noble friend said, important issues and we would undoubtedly welcome the end of the inequality—the mistreatment, we might say, of women—as regards the Duchy, they do not concern the Crown succession and therefore, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, we feel that they are not appropriate for the Bill.
I also repeat the comment that I made in Committee in response to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about the experience that that gives to a monarch. I said then that the current monarch has done extraordinarily well without having had that title. Perhaps we can take this moment to hope that she is soon fully recovered.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, like others, I am interested to see how much clarification emerges from consideration of this amendment. I was very interested to hear of the policy shifts in the Roman Catholic Church. I was not aware how far they had gone. I very much welcome the fact that Anglicans and Roman Catholics can agree on the line described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, so I will not support the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment; it goes in the right direction. It may not be perfectly worded, but the principle is right.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, I am not an Anglican; I am an Irish Presbyterian. Presbyterianism is the main religion in two parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland and Northern Ireland. The head of the Presbyterian Church, the Moderator, is not the head of a sovereign state; nor is the head of the Methodist Church the head of a sovereign state. That is where the crux of the matter rests.
Noble Lords may recall the crisis confronted by the Social Democrat Government in Belgium when the late King Baudouin was forced to abdicate. At that time, the Social Democrat Government in Brussels introduced social legislation; I forget whether it was on family planning, divorce or another family issue. They presented the Act of Parliament to the King for royal assent. The King said that he had two loyalties—to the state of Belgium and to the Vatican state—and he had to make a decision on which got priority. He came down in favour of the Vatican. As a result, he had to abdicate. A regent was appointed who then signed the Social Democrat Act of Parliament, and then the King was restored to power. It was a very neat exercise. However, it is also a warning and a lesson to the United Kingdom.
I found the right reverend Prelate’s account of the talks between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church very instructive and helpful, but I still think that an area of ambiguity remains. That being the case, although I am not an Anglican, I come down in favour of the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
“(2) The other provisions of this Act shall be brought into force by statutory instrument subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we touched on this matter in Committee. Under the present provisions, the Bill can be brought into force, bit by bit, by order of the Lord President of the Council, who is, of course, Mr Clegg at present.
This is not a personal matter. My complaint is not that it happens to be Mr Clegg in his present role but that there is a single Minister at all. A Bill of this nature and this importance should not be brought into force, bit by bit, at the request of a single Minister, however senior and distinguished. That is the essence of my complaint, so I propose that it should be brought into force by statutory instrument, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I hope your Lordships will agree, and I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, my noble friend very succinctly makes his point about the commencement of the Bill. I fully accept that this has nothing to do with the personality of the Lord President. As I explained earlier, it happens that he has ministerial responsibility for constitutional and elections law.
There is absolutely nothing unusual in a Bill including a power for a Minister to commence provisions in an Act on a date and at a time to be specified by order and without that order being subject to any particular parliamentary procedure, negative or affirmative. Parliament will already have given its approval and the Act that is brought into force will be unamended; it will remain unchanged. Therefore, there is no reason for it to return to Parliament so that Parliament can confirm what it has already agreed.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, my noble and learned friend has gone further than he went in Committee, which is reasonable and acceptable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
“Commencement
This Act shall come into force when all the relevant Commonwealth Parliaments have given their assent to all of its provisions.”
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am concerned—I think that there was reference to this in the letter that my noble and learned friend very kindly wrote to me the other day—about the possibility of different parts of the Bill coming into force at different times in different parts of the Commonwealth. For example, it seems possible for one nation to agree that the eldest child of the sovereign became its head of state and for another nation not to agree, or at least to delay agreeing—and therefore it might be the second child of the sovereign who became its head of state. That seems to be a confusion and complication that we would not wish to see. My amendment proposes that we should wait until all the nations that want to agree have agreed, so we avoid that difficulty. My amendment proposes that the Act will come into force when all the relevant Commonwealth Parliaments have given their consent to all its provisions. The word “relevant” relates, of course, to the fact that some Commonwealth nations do not have our Queen as their head of state. Therefore, their consent is irrelevant.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will be persuaded as to the point that I have made. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point about the simultaneous implementation of these provisions in all the realms of which Her Majesty is Queen—and clearly for the right reason, as he gives it. It would not be helpful, nor would it be the policy intent of any of the realms that have agreed to this, that there should be divergence between different realms as to the head of state. Indeed, it is the intention that the effect will be given once all the realms have done what is necessary before the Bill is brought into force, as indicated in response to Amendment 5. I noted the interest that the House has taken as to how changes will be given effect in the different Commonwealth realms, and I have given an undertaking that the Government will lay a Statement before Parliament ahead of the commencement order to indicate how the realms have given effect to the Perth agreement.
It may help the House if I give an update on how the other realms are taking forward these changes. I have referred before to the preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931. It states:
“And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom”.
This being part of a preamble and not being in the body of the Act, these words impose no legal obligations. However, the Government recognise that they carry considerable political weight and as such have undertaken to agree these changes with other realms’ Governments and to seek their consent to the legislation before introducing it into Parliament.
The New Zealand Government have co-ordinated this discussion, which culminated in all realms giving their written consent to the introduction of this Bill and their assurance that, based on the Bill as drafted, they were in a position to give the policy the same effect in their country. In doing so, some realms decided that legislation or parliamentary consent was required. Others have been clear that no further steps are necessary and that the changes will be brought about by the changes effected by the United Kingdom Government. In our view, it is in accord with the principle of the Statute of Westminster that it should be for each realm to decide what, if anything, is necessary or desirable to give effect to the agreement. Thus, although the preamble refers to the assent of the Parliaments of the dominions, we do not believe that it is for the United Kingdom to insist that parliamentary approval is obtained. I can confirm that in the case of some realms a referendum is necessary before changes to their constitution are made. However, we are not aware that any realm intends to amend its constitution, so the question of its undertaking a referendum on this issue does not at present arise.
As regards the detail of each realm, the Pacific realms of Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands are all content that because of the wording of their constitutions no changes to their laws will be required to implement the changes to the law of succession in their respective countries. We do not believe that they intend to consult their Parliaments further on this matter.
As regards Australia, on 7 December 2012, in a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments, the Prime Minister, state premiers and territory chief ministers reiterated the support of all Australian Governments for the changes to the rules of royal succession proposed by the United Kingdom. Australia has not yet reached agreement with all states and territories on the specific method of implementation in Australia but legislation will be required, probably at both Commonwealth and state levels. Indeed, Queensland has already introduced its own Succession to the Crown Bill.
The New Zealand Bill was introduced on 18 February and its provisions mirror those of the United Kingdom Bill, although it additionally amends, where necessary, New Zealand specific legislation: for example, the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988.
The Canadian Bill has now been introduced into the Canadian senate. The Canadian Government’s view is that the laws of succession are UK law and not Canadian law. The Canadian Bill therefore does not seek amendments to the rules of succession. Instead, the Bill states that Parliament has assented to the changes set out in the United Kingdom Bill. The Canadian Bill will come into force on a date set by an Order in Council.
Jamaica and Belize have stated that, based on the nature of their constitutions, no legislative change will be required to give the changes effect domestically. We do not believe that they intend to consult their Parliaments further on this matter. The relevant oaths under the constitutions of Jamaica and Belize make reference to:
“Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law”.
The constitutions do not contain any express provisions defining “Her Majesty” or setting out the rules of succession, but we understand that Jamaica and Belize take the view that the reference in the oath to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty is to the heirs and successors under UK law—or, in other words, that it is implicit in their constitutions that the question of succession to the Crown in right of Belize and Jamaica is resolved by the law of the United Kingdom.
We believe that it would be open to the other Caribbean realms to take a similar view, but it is, of course, for them to decide how best to give the changes effect. The United Kingdom and New Zealand are in ongoing discussions with each realm to support the work they are doing.
I thought it would be useful to put that on the record because I know that in earlier debates interest was shown in that matter. I reiterate that it is intended that these measures will come into effect at the same time when all the realms of which Her Majesty is head of state have concluded their appropriate arrangements. In responding to an earlier debate, I indicated that the Government would make a Statement to Parliament prior to introducing the commencement order, indicating what has happened in each realm. Indeed, the reason why there is flexibility in the commencement order is to achieve that very purpose. In light of those comments, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
No, my Lords, I do not, and I do not think that I would help the House if I tried to speculate.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. He has gone further than he did at the previous stage of the Bill and I am grateful to him for that. I am also grateful to him for his letter—five pages, no less—which he wrote to me since the previous stage, which has likewise been very helpful. He has said that he will lay a Statement before Parliament as each step is reached. If I may assume that that Statement will be a situation report and will perhaps describe the other nations where progress has not yet been achieved, I am content. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Just so there is no ambiguity or misunderstanding, I think I said that before introducing the commencement order, we will make a Statement—it will not be a sort of running commentary—indicating what has been done in each realm to give effect to these changes.
Succession to the Crown Bill
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will hesitate for a moment or two so that colleagues can leave the Chamber. We will then take his Amendment 1.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have never quite understood, and do not now understand, why it is thought so necessary that this Bill should be driven through with such speed. The plain fact is that the arrangements it seeks to change—I do not disagree with all of them—have been in place in some cases for many hundreds of years. Why we need not only to drive the Bill through swiftly but also to backdate one of its provisions is not immediately obvious to me. I therefore propose that, at the end of the first clause, we should provide that it should come into effect in, say, 50 years’ time, which is a very short time in relation to how long these arrangements have been in place. That would be an appropriate change to the Bill and I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, given that we support the Bill, this amendment does sound rather like, “Please make me chaste, but not quite yet”. Some of us have waited, particularly for the first part of it, for many years and we certainly would not want to see any delay. Therefore, we hope that the amendment will not be passed.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, the effect of my noble friend’s amendment would be, as he has indicated, to delay the removal of the male gender bias in the line of succession for almost 50 years. Perhaps I may pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Elton and his reference to the report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. It is fair to say that since that committee reported, there has not been any undue haste. The time made available for debate on this Bill in the other place was not even fully used up, and in your Lordships’ House we are proceeding in the normal fashion with the appropriate elapses of time between the different stages. There is certainly no intention to cut short the debate in this House.
My noble friend has asked why we are doing this now and at this speed. The position is that the Prime Ministers of 16 Commonwealth nations, of which Her Majesty is the head of state, agreed during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Perth in October 2011—that is why the date has been put into the Bill—to work together towards a common approach to amending the rules on the succession to their respective Crowns. It is fair to say that that was the product of considerable work and discussion over many years. Indeed, discussions were ongoing during the previous Administration in this country. All these countries wish to see change in two areas, the first of which is covered by this clause, and that is to end the system of male preference primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. It is right and appropriate that this clause will remove a piece of long-standing discrimination against women that may well have been acceptable in earlier centuries, to which my noble friend referred. This provision will modernise and affirm the place of our constitutional monarchy.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, said that:
“If in the future within the line of succession a younger son were to take precedence over an older daughter, it would seem to be at least controversial and at worst discriminatory, out of date and out of touch. To make this change now, therefore, strengthens the monarchy because it avoids any risk of such deep controversy”.—[Official Report, 14/2/13; col. 802.]
That is why this is an appropriate time to make the change, because it will be done without affecting anyone who currently would have a prior claim on the throne. If, however, we wait for a situation where there may be a daughter and then a younger brother, and we tried to make the change then, it is inevitable that that would be more controversial.
Perhaps it is also worth reflecting that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have as their first born a son, have only sons or, indeed, have only daughters, the effect of this clause may not bite until the next generation, possibly after 2060. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, made clear, it would be controversial and possibly even destabilising to the monarchy to have this kind of debate at that point. We look forward to the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first child knowing that we can celebrate, when this Bill is passed, that whether the baby is a boy or a girl they will have an equal claim to the Throne. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I hope that we will not hear too much more about the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference where it was all said to be agreed. These matters are not agreed by ministerial diktat, however senior and distinguished the Ministers may be, but by the Parliaments of the countries concerned, and in some cases by a referendum as well. When the Heads of Government agreed all this in Perth back in 2010, it was subject to parliamentary approval in the relevant countries. That parliamentary approval has not yet been received, not least in this country. I hope very much that we will be thinking in terms of parliamentary approval rather than ministerial diktat, upon which my noble and learned friend seems to be relying.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I entirely accept what my noble friend says on the importance of the Parliaments; indeed some of the realms do not necessarily feel they need parliamentary approval, but obviously in this country we do. I am sure that he would agree that we needed prior agreement before any measures could go forward to the respective Parliaments.
Lord Trefgarne
Yes, but that is not included in this clause. That said, I do not wish to delay your Lordships on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mancroft
My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend’s very important amendment. I was going to make the point that I have heard repeated again and again—which my noble friend Lord Lexden has made very strongly for me—that not only does the Duke of Cornwall need a Duchy but the Duchy needs a Duke. Estates, businesses, or whatever you may choose to call them in the modern day and age, that are run by councils, groups of trustees or boards of directors are all very well but in the case particularly of a large agricultural estate such as the Duchy or Cornwall—and there is none larger or better run—the present Duchy of Cornwall runs so well because the Duke of Cornwall has taken such an interest in it, and if there were not a Duke, regardless of that Duke’s sex, I think that would not happen. My noble friend Lord Lexden’s point is absolutely valid.
Another point that has been made, which I will repeat, is that the splitting apart of ancient titles is unsatisfactory and untidy. In dealing with important constitutional matters, although these are technicalities and perhaps of interest only to historians, politicians and noble Lords who can be bothered to spend their Thursday afternoons in your Lordships’ House, they are important matters and need to be done tidily. I do not think they are done tidily in the Bill.
Lastly, when my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace responds, will he assure the House that the Duke of Cornwall—the Prince of Wales—was consulted over this and that he is comfortable with the way in which the Bill is going forward? I do not wish my noble and learned friend the Minister to breach any confidences or step outside the correct procedures but it would give comfort to the House to know that the Government had consulted His Royal Highness and that the Duchy and the council and the Duke of Cornwall himself were comfortable with the way in which this is proceeding.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships on this matter. All I will say is that a number of years ago now I had to deal with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in his capacity as the Duke of Cornwall in connection with the use of Dartmoor as a military training area. He dealt with it with enormous skill and understanding and we were grateful to him for that. If this amendment seeks to preserve and encourage those arrangements, I am in favour of it.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support this amendment, but for rather different reasons from those of some other noble Lords who have spoken. It is ironic to me that we are having a debate, quite rightly, about equality between men and women in inheriting titles. I understood from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said at Second Reading that if the next heir to the Throne is a lady, she could be called either the Prince of Wales or the Princess of Wales—heaven knows; I would have thought she would be a princess, but I am no expert. If she can be called the Princess of Wales, why can she not be called the Duchess of Cornwall, or the Duke of Cornwall, or whichever way we want to put it? It seems extraordinary, really.
At Second Reading, I spoke about a number of issues that I had with the current structure of the duchy: whether it is in the private or public sector; what it does with its revenue; and the ability of the Prince of Wales to approve legislation. Frankly, this is one of the few Bills that he and Her Majesty should have a view on because it affects them in their roles. However, there are an awful lot of other issues on which I have not put amendments down because I was advised that they were a bit outside the Long Title, so I shall be looking to prepare and propose a Private Member’s Bill on some of these issues in the next Session, I hope. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that he had been Attorney-General to the Duchy of Cornwall, I thought, “Fine, the Duchy is getting free legal advice from some of the best lawyers in the land”. However, it then goes to tribunals and says it is a private organisation. Well, no other private organisations get free legal advice from an attorney-general. There are many other issues to discuss on that, but I support the amendment as a logical extension to the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Northbrook for introducing this amendment, which has generated a considerable amount of debate and discussion. I understand where he and other noble Lords who contributed to the debate are coming from as they seek to remove gender bias in the descent of the Duchy of Cornwall. I will try to clarify the current situation. The title can pass only to the eldest son and heir of the monarch. Thus—as has been indicated—when she was heir presumptive to the throne, Her Majesty, as Princess Elizabeth, did not hold the title of Duke of Cornwall.
As has been said, the title and inheritance of the Duchy were created by King Edward III in 1337, and vested in the Black Prince by a charter having the authority of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Deben said that this was an opportunity seek to remove anomalies. It is fair to say that this one is perhaps even slightly more anomalous than it might appear on the surface. The mode of descent specified by the charter is unusual, and differs from that which commonly occurs in respect of hereditary titles. The monarch’s eldest son is automatically Duke of Cornwall immediately that he becomes heir apparent. However, if the monarch has a son who is the heir apparent and that son dies before the monarch, leaving a son of his own—a grandson of the monarch—the grandson would become heir apparent but would not be Duke of Cornwall because he is not the son of the monarch. It is not just a question of daughters not inheriting the title; it would be that grandsons did not, either.
With the Duchy of Cornwall we therefore have an unusual and interesting piece of English history that does not conform to the standard rules of descent for hereditary titles. However, it is exactly that: a piece of English history and not an issue that is of direct relevance to the succession to the Crown—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated—nor to the other realms of the Commonwealth. I made it clear at Second Reading that it is not the Government’s intention to deal in this legislation with UK-specific matters. This amendment very much falls into that category.
My noble friend Lord Lang referred to other titles, to which the same arguments apply. I tried during my reply at Second Reading to set out what would happen to these. I am happy to write to my noble friend to outline the cases in these situations.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, when the Minister writes to our noble friend Lord Lang on the various other titles, would he include an answer to the point I raised at Second Reading: whether the Princedom of Wales can be passed to a female if the sovereign of the day so decides? He was not able to give me an answer to that at Second Reading, as I recall. If he could touch on the matter in his letter to our noble friend Lord Lang, I would be greatly obliged.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I understand that the creation of the Princedom of Wales, let along the matter of it going to a daughter, is very much a matter for the personal decision of the sovereign. The current Prince of Wales did not automatically become Prince of Wales upon Her Majesty’s accession in 1952; that did not happen until 1958. It is a matter for the sovereign, and I will seek to set that out in a letter which I will copy to others who contribute to this debate.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised a query about the efficient running of the estate between 1936 and 1952. There have of course throughout history been stretches when there has been no Duke of Cornwall, and the Duchy continues to today. I pay tribute to the leadership which the present Duke of Cornwall has given. When I was in the other place, my constituency, Orkney and Shetland, could not have been more remote from Cornwall. Even in Orkney and Shetland, however, we were aware of the work of the Duke of Cornwall on his estate. I see my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart in his place. Certainly, closer to home, I know of the work of the Duke of Rothesay in respect of the Castle of Mey estates since he inherited them from his late grandmother. Those tributes were rightly paid.
Succession to the Crown Bill
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I will be brief. I am sure that the Minister will give good answers to the questions raised. Perhaps he may also, for my clarification, let us know about the implications for adoption in this. I am sure that it is in the noble and learned Lord’s briefing. We agree that the Bill is to change the rules of succession as regards gender and the ability to marry someone of the Catholic faith, rather than open up and perhaps decide on interesting issues. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord True, this issue is remote. We are talking about some years ahead, and perhaps we might leave the matter to our heirs and successors to decide.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I share some of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord True. The plain fact is that the single-sex marriage legislation that is on its way through Parliament appears to be generating some unlooked-for consequences—and this issue may well be one of them. I hope that my noble and learned friend can reassure us.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I observe that this matter is outwith the terms of the Long Title. However, the Title has been postponed and it is possible to amend it, if necessary.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I apologise for being unable to be here earlier, as I had a long-standing engagement, and also for not being able to participate in the earlier stages of this Bill. I am afraid that unusually, because I have the highest regard for my noble friend, I do not feel able to support this amendment at all.
I have some history on this matter. I believe that the provisions contained in the 18th century legislation with quite vile language about Roman Catholics should be removed from the statute book. As Secretary of State, I think I described it as the constitution’s grubby little secret. When I first came to this House, I was unwise enough to bring forward a Private Member’s Bill to deal with this issue. I was ambushed at the very first stage by my late and much missed friend, Lord St. John of Fawsley, who by use of procedure, prevented me from even being able to speak to my Bill or to introduce it again for a year. As a result, I realised that this was a much more complex issue which required considerable discussion and was not suitable for Private Members’ Bills.
It is therefore a great disappointment that this legislation has been rushed through the House of Commons as it has, without proper debate, on a timetable which we normally reserve for Bills concerned with terrorism or some immediate national interest. For the life of me, I do not see why these matters have been dealt with so quickly. In opposing this amendment, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Deben spelled out so clearly—I will not repeat the arguments—I would like to say as a member of the Church of Scotland, although I worship in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, so I am a kind of hybrid, I find it extraordinary that the opportunity was not taken in this legislation to remove the prohibition on the monarch themselves being a Catholic.
I have a specific question for the Minister to deal with, on which my noble friend Lord Deben touched. As I understand it, the role of the monarch as head of the Church of England is not a canonical role, and therefore there is no reason, as my noble friend said, why the monarch has to be a member of the Church of England. There may be other issues that arise from that, and I appreciate that the example of James VII or James II—depending on your perspective—may not have been an entirely happy one. However, it did not end in tears because he was a Catholic and head of the Church of England; some other issues resulted in it ending in tears.
The Deputy Prime Minister has brought forward this legislation on the basis of extending equality, although it is rather ironic that we should be talking about equality in the context of the monarchy. It seems to me quite extraordinary that we have not been able to take that further step and remove the prohibition on the monarch being a Catholic. In the 18th century, there were very good reasons for having this language; it was about the security of the nation. Indeed, the very Act of Union itself occurred as a deal; the Scots were bailed out from the huge losses which had been created by the Darien scheme, and in return the Protestant succession was secured. That was what it was about. Therefore, to leave on our statute book words which cause great offence to many Catholics and non-Catholics in our country is shocking and it is sad that the Bill does not deal with it.
In support of his amendment, my noble friend Lord Cormack has suggested that some deal would be done with the Vatican. Of course, we have to have regard to our constitutional history but, as my noble friend Lord Deben pointed out, the independence of the monarchy is fundamental to our constitution. Although the Vatican is no longer a foreign power which will encourage the French or anyone else to usurp the Throne—those days are long since past—it would be totally inappropriate to have an amendment of this kind. However, I agree with my noble friend in so far as moving this amendment highlights the anomalous position of this legislation.
I should just make it clear that I would not want to see the Church of England cease to be the established church. My goodness me, secularism is rampant in our country at the moment; this is not the moment for something of that kind and I would not support it. The heir to the Throne has talked about being “Defender of Faiths”, and it is a mistake for the Church of England to appear to take a position that has the unfortunate effect of making people believe that it cannot continue to be an established church while removing that discriminatory language from our statute and constitution.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the objective of my noble friend Lord Cormack’s amendment, but I have considerable doubt as to whether it will achieve what he seeks.
I rather doubt whether the Vatican would be willing to give the sort of undertaking that my noble friend suggests. It sounds as though that would be very difficult indeed for it. Whether or not our sovereign might be of some different faith, not of the Church of England and perhaps even Roman Catholic, is a wholly different but of course crucial issue. I have tabled subsequent amendments that touch upon that, although I suspect that we have discussed it pretty fully under this amendment. I think that my noble friend’s amendment will not achieve what he desires and I hope, therefore, that he will not press it.
Lord Fellowes
My Lords, I, too, much regret that I was unavoidably prevented from attending Second Reading but I hope that I may none the less speak briefly to this amendment.
First, I support the Bill wholeheartedly. Furthermore, I understand and agree with the motives behind the amendment. Both the Bill and the amendment are timely and necessary. I fear, however, that I cannot support the amendment as drafted. More clarity and public commitment from the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of the upbringing of an heir to the Throne would indeed be most welcome, but I think that that desired outcome would be more likely to be achieved by quiet negotiation than by ultimatum. The amendment has a ring of ultimatum about it, at least to me. For that reason I cannot give it my support. None the less, I hope that we can find a satisfactory form of words that carries perhaps less threat and more promise, both to the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.
Lord Trefgarne
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, this amendment, together with Amendments 6 to 9, go to the very heart of the issue we have just been discussing. Together they provide for a fundamental change in the present prevention which applies to our sovereign being a member of the Roman Catholic faith. This is a huge issue. I do not think it would be right to deal with it rapidly in the course of the swift passage of this legislation. I therefore will not proceed with these amendments.
Lord Trefgarne
“(6) In the event of a person of the Roman Catholic faith succeeding to the Crown by virtue of subsection (5), the title of Defender of the Faith and the function of Supreme Governor of the Church of England shall pass to a regent qualifying with the provisions of section 3 of the Regency Act 1937.”
Lord Trefgarne
My noble friend Lord Northbrook has attached his name to the amendment. It raises a slightly different issue. It is another way of dealing with the matter touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in his Amendment 4. It is a way of dealing with this matter by way of a regency. Your Lordships have considered and discussed this possibility on previous amendments and I ask your Lordships to consider it again now. I beg to move.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in his amendment. I first raised the issue in my speech at Second Reading, so I claim a little credit for the idea. As my noble friend has said, it sidesteps a key problem if the heir is a Catholic and keeps a link between church and Crown.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My noble friend Lord Forsyth asks why. I think that it raises some very interesting issues that have not been thought through. This is why I say that we should not go down this road. I do not propose to go down this road; I suggest that there is a host of issues, and that is why we should not go down the road proposed by the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the problem is that the noble and learned Lord says this opens up greatly different avenues. However, frankly, the Government ought to have thought about these avenues before they brought in the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
With all respect to my noble friend, that is the reason why the Government have not gone down this road. The Government have actually sought to do three very clear things: remove the male bias in succession; remove the current prohibition on someone in the line of succession marrying a Catholic; and repeal the prohibitions in the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and replace them with others. Those are three very precise points. I made the point that to go wider than that raises the kind of issues I highlighted. That is one reason why the Government have not gone down this road.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I have already responded to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and indicated that I am not in a position on behalf of the Government to commit to establishing a committee to look at these matters. It is clear that there are committees of this House and indeed of the other place that could do so. Obviously the Government would contribute to any such committee that we had invited to do this, but I do not believe that that is a pathway that is inconsistent—nor did the noble Lord suggest this—with proceeding with the relatively straightforward, although constitutionally important, issues that are in the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, at the end of Second Reading a week or so ago, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, moved to refer this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, I suggested then to your Lordships that it would have been much better considered by a Select Committee of the House to which witnesses could have been called and had their evidence taken—perhaps even a Joint Select Committee involving Members of the other place. However, the Minister refused to agree to that; oh no, we would go to a Committee of the Whole House, as we are now doing.
If ever there was a case of unlooked-for consequences, this Bill is certainly it. There are a number of aspects of this matter that quite clearly the Government have simply not considered or, if they have, they have chosen to disregard. That is really not good enough, and we are going to have to return to this issue at the next stage for sure. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
“Removal of disqualification arising from individual’s religion
(1) A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of that person not joining in communion with the Church of England as by law established; and all provisions to the contrary in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement are accordingly superseded.
(2) Where a person who succeeds to the Crown or possesses it declares to the Privy Council that he or she is not in communion with the Church of England as by law established, the person who is next in line of succession to the Crown and who is in communion with the Church of England shall perform the functions of Supreme Governor of the Church of England in the name of and on behalf of the Sovereign.
(3) The provisions in subsections (3) to (5) of section 3 of the Regency Act 1937 apply to such a person who is Supreme Governor, with the substitution for references to the Regent of references to the Supreme Governor.”
Lord Trefgarne
I do not intend to speak to this amendment at any length. We have covered some of its detail, although by no means all of it, in recent discussions, but I would like to hear what the Minister’s response to it would be. Without wishing to detain your Lordships, therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the position with regard to this amendment is very similar. It is a different structure for having, as it were, a divergence between the person who is the sovereign and the person who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Some of the difficulties and arguments which were expressed with regard to the regency are also applicable to the slightly different structure proposed in Amendment 11. I am not sure that I can elaborate on that much further as I think that the arguments are very similar.
Lord Trefgarne
I understand what my noble and learned friend is saying. However, the amendment that I now propose does not confine itself to the Roman Catholic faith, or the possibility of the sovereign or the heir to the Throne being Roman Catholic, but deals with all other possible faiths. At the moment, many legal restrictions apply to the Roman Catholic faith in this regard but none applies to Muslims, the Jewish faith or any faith other than the Anglican and Roman Catholic faiths. Therefore, that matter certainly bears additional consideration, but perhaps not today. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Lang, who has proposed a perfectly sensible amendment. I am sure that my noble and learned friend will be able to accept it if for no other reason than that his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that the choice of six was purely arbitrary. My noble friend has made a strong and powerful case and what struck me most about his speech was the sheer serendipity of this matter. If this Bill had been in place—as someone in the other place pointed out during the somewhat truncated debate on the matter—the Kaiser would have ended up sharing the throne of the United Kingdom. These changes are unpredictable; the only difference I have with my noble friend Lord Lang is why he chose 12, not six.
I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness will not resort to the usual trick of saying, “Well, on the one hand, there is an amendment that says it should be fewer and on the other there is an amendment that says it should be more; I think it’s probably right that we got it somewhere in between”. I hope I have not taken his speech from him, because that would be a disgraceful response to what was a very well argued case, which demolished the basis on which the Government had reached their conclusion. If, however, my noble and learned friend finds that he cannot accept the number 12, it makes the case even stronger for having a special committee to look at these matters and consider them more carefully, so that we can get a number which actually makes sense.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I would like to make a short intervention at this point; it is a serious point. We are not approving marriages: we are saying whether the people who marry can remain in line to the Throne. There are some categories of marriage that we might consider would make it inappropriate for the person concerned to remain in line to the Throne. Others have mentioned the single-sex marriage legislation that is going through Parliament. It might well be that a future sovereign would feel disinclined to approve a marriage of that kind, lawful though it might otherwise be. I put that serious proposition to the Minister. Like my noble friend Lord Lang, I favour an increase in the proposed number.
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.
Lord Trefgarne
“(7) No consent granted or refused under this section shall be challenged in any court of the United Kingdom.”
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I am anxious to know—I believe that others may be as well—whether a consent granted or refused by the sovereign in respect of a marriage to which he or she is required to give consent can be challenged in the court by means of judicial review. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend would clarify the position.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for raising an issue which I think he raised at Second Reading. The effect of his amendment would be to ensure that in no instance could the sovereign’s consent or otherwise to a royal marriage be challenged in the courts. It has to be said that over the 240 years when consent has been required, it has not been tested in the courts. But in the Government’s view the decision, given that it is a decision taken by the sovereign, could not be challenged in the sovereign’s courts. We do not believe it to be necessary to provide for this in the Bill. Indeed, whether the number is six or 12, it is an unlikely event that someone so close to the Throne would contemplate such an action. My point is that the decision would be one made by the sovereign and would not be challengeable in the courts of the sovereign.
Lord True
My Lords, as I said earlier, is it not the case that in the early 1830s Augustus d'Este, the son of the Duke of Sussex by a marriage unapproved under the Royal Marriages Act 1772, did in fact posit documents in Chancery to challenge the legitimacy of the action? Furthermore, in 1843 papers were put before the Committee for Privileges of this House, and the case was heard by this House in 1844. There is certainly an historic precedent and, as I mentioned in passing, a challenge. Some of the issues that came up today are perhaps rather wider than Clause 3. To my mind, this goes to reinforce the points made by a number of noble Lords about the need for absolute clarity, and the fortification of what we are doing against potential challenge in the courts that now exists.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I hope that between now and the next stage the noble and learned Lord may on reflection be able to offer a more forthright assurance than that which he has been able to give so far, if I may say so. The fact is that the process for judicial review in this country is a comparatively new one. It has only been going for the last 15 or 20 years. Therefore the fact of there being no precedent is not much of a comfort to the noble and learned Lord, if I may say so. I would be grateful if he would consider this further before the next stage and perhaps take into account the case referred to by my noble friend Lord True.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I shall certainly reflect on it further. It will not come as a surprise to my noble friend that this has already been the subject of some reflection. However, if he indeed wishes to return to this at Report, we will do so. To take up the point made by my noble friend Lord True about the Sussex peerage case, my understanding is that this case was not about whether consent had been refused unlawfully. I think the issue was that consent had not actually been sought.
Lord Trefgarne
If I may say so to my noble and learned friend, there is clearly scope for some further reflection on this matter. I will raise this at the next stage of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
“(2) The other provisions of this Act shall be brought into force by statutory instrument subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, under the Bill as it is presently before us, I refer to subsection (2) of Clause 5, which states that:
“The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.”
The Lord President of the Council is of course my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, for whom nobody has greater respect than I do—most of the time, anyway. Is it really right that a major piece of constitutional change, such as is represented by this Bill, should be brought into force by the diktat of one sole Minister, however distinguished and however senior, without any sort of further parliamentary involvement? I really do not think that is right. I do not in any way wish to make this a personal matter, but I do not think that any Minister should have this power regarding a major, important constitutional change of this kind. I hope that on reflection my noble and learned friend will agree. Therefore, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
Lord True
My Lords, what has been said about the Deputy Prime Minister, for whom I share respect, is valid: specifying that particular Minister is a slightly questionable way of proceeding. Will my noble and learned friend confirm that it is not part of the Perth agreement that the Deputy Prime Minister should be personally responsible, so that we can look at that matter at a later stage?
To be fair to the Deputy Prime Minister, he has taken a major part in pushing this forward, and I think that that is acknowledged, but we must not be seen to be getting into a position where a young couple whose child is to be born are exploited in any way politically. We do not want grand press conferences by any particular Minister saying, “This is all happening, if this baby is a girl, because of what I have done”, and so on. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister would not fall into that temptation, but perhaps if Parliament, in its wisdom, slightly depersonalised the amendment on Report, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne proposes, there might be wisdom in that.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I would like to say a few words about Amendment 17, which I believe is grouped with this one. That is a slightly separate point, if I may say so. I am picking up the point that my noble friend Lord Northbrook has made, that the parliamentary approval process in many of the Commonwealth countries includes a referendum and is over and above whatever Ministers may have agreed over lunch, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth put it. The fact is that parliamentary approval is required in most, if not all, the Commonwealth countries concerned, and in some of them a referendum is also required. Presumably that cannot be done overnight, so it would be better if the Bill came into force when all the Commonwealth countries had consented to it.
We have a problem if some of the countries approve and some do not. You would not have to think too tortuously to conceive of a situation at some future point where the late sovereign’s eldest child in one country was to be their head of state and the second child, who was a boy, was head of state of another. That is clearly absurd, so we need to speak with one voice on this matter as far as the Commonwealth is concerned. It might therefore be best to wait until they have all agreed.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, this picks up on some issues that were debated earlier. I should clarify that the reason why the Bill specifies the Lord President is that the ministerial responsibility for constitutional and elections law currently rests with him. The Privy Council is also involved in constitutional matters. Indeed, credit should go to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister because I do not think that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister was in Perth. It was not simply a case of discussing this matter over lunch; it was more than that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was involved in this issue in a previous incarnation under the previous Administration.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord may not have been involved in any lunches but I think that he was involved in efforts at No. 10 to try to forge some of the agreements to take this matter forward. That indicates that this issue did not suddenly emerge at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in Perth, Australia. It was the opportune time, with the Heads of Government being present, for that agreement to be finalised, but a considerable amount of work and discussion went on ahead of that. As I have indicated, the reason why the Lord President is referred to is due to the current ministerial responsibilities.
I am not wholly unsympathetic to the idea that we might have a subsequent form of approval, but it is not common for Parliament to approve commencement orders. This is a commencement order. It is not as if it is an order that will make amendments to anything or promulgate a new set of regulations; it simply commences something which Parliament will already have approved through the proper parliamentary procedures. Indeed, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose reports the House sets great store by, found no fault with this provision. Given that this matter has been debated, I wonder what further steps we could take. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, indicated that there might be an opportunity to reassure both Houses that each of the realms had done what was necessary under their own provisions. I am very sceptical about that but it does service to the arguments that have been put to consider it. We have made it clear—I must again give this reassurance—that we will commence the legislation only once we are satisfied that each realm has taken the necessary steps to give effect to the changes. There is flexibility in the commencement date to ensure that the laws across the realms are consistently applied.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook raised the question of referendums. This was also picked up by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. My understanding is that referendums would be necessary in other realms only if they decided to amend their constitutions. We do not believe that any realm intends to do so. Officials working on this legislation do their utmost to try to keep in touch with the different realms and they have been given no indication by any realm that it intends to hold a referendum. However, as I indicated to my noble friend Lord Forsyth on an earlier amendment, I will do my best to give an update on where each realm is in terms of what process they are proposing. Perhaps in that context I could helpfully clarify the position on referendums. However, I emphasise to your Lordships’ House that it is our understanding that no realm has flagged up that it intends to have a referendum.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am happy to accept that and I am sure that my noble and learned friend means what he says. However, I had heard that different referenda were needed in the different states of Australia. I hope that he can tell me that I am wrong about that.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I repeat that I have not heard about any referendums. The Council of Australian Governments is currently considering the means by which Australia will implement the changes to the laws of succession. It is quite properly a matter for each realm to determine for itself how it should do this. I will try to update the House on these matters as best I can.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I apologise to my noble friend because I forgot about his point on that. The Future Business indeed indicates that Report will be on 13 March. I know that during these deliberations, I have indicated on more than one occasion a willingness to meet one or more of your Lordships. Someone from my private office is in the Box and will, no doubt, be noting that. I will certainly endeavour to ensure that purposeful meetings can take place and provide an opportunity for discussion in time for any amendments that noble Lords wish to table.
With regard to the list, I should say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the reason I perhaps hesitate to say how up to date we can get is that that is something I have been asking for. I understand that being bang up to date and complete is more challenging than it may seem. My officials have obviously heard this debate, and I assure the House that we will make the position as up to date as we can.
Succession to the Crown Bill
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, I wish to begin by expressing admiration for the attitude that has been taken by the 16 realms towards the appropriate changes to the succession to the Crown. It is almost beyond debate that the gender disqualification should be removed in the 21st century. I do not wish to dwell on the positive aspects of the Bill, which are strong and which I think this House would wish to support, but I would rather wish to draw my noble friend’s attention to the unresolved issue of the religion of the monarch.
Some years ago, shortly after I entered this House, I proposed a Motion that was widely, although not universally, supported, calling for the disestablishment of the Church. As we live in a united kingdom, it is rather strange to have two established Churches. My father was Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland and was the Queen’s representative there. She was potentially wearing two hats: one as the head of the Church of Scotland and one as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
Yes, it is an established Church. It seems to me that the time has come to recognise that the essence of Christianity is tolerance and to love thy neighbour as thyself. That cannot be entirely consistent with an exclusive attitude towards other religions. This is not a matter that presses down on our constitution at this time, but it is a matter of growing concern that we observe even in Europe rulings made by Governments about other religions, about what clothes they may wear, what turrets they may have on their places of worship. Those should not be matters for the state, they should be decided by the churches themselves, as long as they do not interfere with the freedom of worship of the individual.
I am happy that a move has been made, with the agreement of 15 other realms of the Commonwealth, to enable the heir to the Throne to marry a Roman Catholic, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang said, that reveals problems that will almost certainly arise in future. It is not clear what the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church is to the education of the children of Roman Catholics. In so far as statements have been made by the Church itself, as opposed to those made by the Deputy Prime Minister, it appears that bringing up the children of a Roman Catholic in the Roman Catholic religion is a requirement. I am bound to say that that creates a degree of instability to which the noble Lord, Lord Lang, was right to point.
At this time in our country, we ought to recognise that a Buddhist or a Quaker could succeed to the Throne, but that would not put any kind of threat on the stability of our society. As the noble Lord, Lord Lang said, the history of the monarchy has been linked to the established Church. I am sorry to say that I think that it has been a regrettable history. It has led to persecution of people for their individual faiths. It has led, for example, to our greatest playwright, William Shakespeare, concealing his religion and having to live under cover. It has led, in the reign of the first Queen Elizabeth, to the massacre of Roman Catholics as a matter of system.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, in rising to intervene in this debate, let me start by saying that a powerful case can be made for the line of descent for the Crown being through the sovereign’s eldest child rather than the eldest son in the first instance. That said, I am not sure that the Government have really considered all the implications of this proposal. For example—the Minister referred to this—most hereditary peerages descend through the eldest male heir, where there is one, or sideways if there is not. Against that background, what will happen in respect of the hereditary peerages held by the sovereign other than the Crown itself? For example, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is also the Earl of Chester, the Duke of Cornwall, the Duke of Rothesay, the Earl of Carrick and Baron Renfrew. What happens to them? They are all hereditary titles. They will also presumably descend with the Crown. Does that mean that they will now go through the female line as the Crown will? I hope my noble friend will be able to explain that.
His Royal Highness Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh holds at least two other hereditary titles: the Barony of Greenwich and the Earldom of Merioneth. These, likewise, are hereditary titles which will presumably one day be inherited by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. What will happen to those titles thereafter if there is a female heir in due course?
If the principle of descent through the first-born child rather than the eldest son is important, then surely the same arguments apply in respect of the hereditary peerage. While a very few peerages—mostly Scottish ones—can and do descend through the female line, most do not, but the principle is the same and ought to be applied to hereditary peerages as to the sovereign. I hope the Minister will be able to explain in more detail why this Bill does not deal with hereditary peerages. I recognise that he touched on this in his opening remarks, but this matter cannot be left unaddressed.
Clause 2 removes disqualification from succeeding to the Crown arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic. Again, I am not persuaded that the Government considered all the implications of this apparently simple change. Is it not the case that when a Protestant marries a Roman Catholic—the noble Lord, Lord Luce, referred to this—the couple are required by Roman Catholic law to bring up their children as Roman Catholics, as has been mentioned already? The pressure upon people in a two-faith marriage to bring up their children as Catholics is pretty strong. I know that from within my own experience. Thus it follows, it would seem to me, that in certain circumstances the heir to the Throne and future Supreme Governor of the Church of England could be a Roman Catholic. Although it is apparently the case that at one point in the Middle Ages a former Archbishop of Canterbury was appointed to the Holy See, that is hardly a suitable precedent.
Clause 3 relates to the sovereign’s consent in respect of certain royal marriages. This provision apparently replaces earlier provisions relating to royal marriages, mostly in the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which is to be repealed. Has any consent required by the 1772 Act ever been refused, and if so, what were the consequences? Under the new arrangement, the consent, if granted, must be confirmed as provided in Clause 3(2). Could the consents required under Clause 3, or more likely refusal of consent, be challenged by, for example, judicial review? Such a consent once granted cannot, I suspect, be so challenged, but perhaps a refusal could be. I hope that my noble friend can offer some guidance on that.
Finally, Clause 5 relates to the commencement and Short Title. This is an important constitutional measure that changes the law going back many centuries. For such a measure to come into force purely as and when the Lord President may decide is, to say the least, unusual. Nobody is a greater admirer of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister than I am—most of the time, anyway—but such an important constitutional measure should surely come into force when Parliament decides, not on the whim of a single Minister, no matter how senior. Should the Bill not come into force on Royal Assent? I appreciate that that cannot happen until all the Commonwealth nations have given their formal assent, which includes parliamentary approval in most cases, so perhaps some time ought to be allowed for that, but I do not think it is right that it should simply be decided upon by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
I have to confess that I am not overly enamoured by the Bill. It seems that much of it has not been as carefully thought through as it should have been. I referred to the Bill coming into force. I think there ought to be a sunset clause to the Bill so that if some of the Commonwealth nations do not decide within a reasonable period that they wish to be guided by the provisions of the Bill, it ought not to come into force. You surely cannot have a position where some nations have agreed to it and some have not.
I am not opposing the first principles of the Bill, but I believe that a number of its important features need careful consideration and, no doubt, amendment in Committee.
Lord Trefgarne
Perhaps I should pick up the point that my noble and learned friend made about the princedom of Wales. Would it be in order for the sovereign to make their eldest daughter, the heir apparent, the Princess of Wales?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That would be a matter for the sovereign, just as the present Prince of Wales did not automatically become so on the accession of the Queen. I think he was created Prince of Wales in 1958 and that his investiture was some 11 years later. It would be a matter for Her Majesty and I do not think we should be presuming or prejudging this—and in future it would not necessarily be Her Majesty. This is obviously not going to happen at the moment, so it would be a matter not for our present Queen but for our future sovereign to determine.
With regard to the royal titles in Scotland, a number of contributors, not least my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, pointed out that the peerage rules in Scotland are somewhat more generous to women, in some cases anyway. It is certainly our view that in the event of an elder sister becoming heir apparent, the Scottish titles currently held by the Prince of Wales—namely, the Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, the Duke of Rothesay, the Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isles and Baron of Renfrew—can pass automatically to a female heir apparent. These titles have always hung together and the removal of male bias in the line of succession could therefore not result in the detachment of these titles from the Crown. We have consulted the Court of the Lord Lyon, who is the official heraldry officer for Scotland, on this matter.
My noble friend also asked about the Duke of Edinburgh. The Duke of Edinburgh has a normal remainder to the heirs male of his body, but at the time of the marriage of the Earl of Wessex, it was announced that the Earl would eventually receive the title of Duke of Edinburgh. It is my understanding that there would probably have to be a creation of that; it would not automatically be inherited from his father. I say to my noble friend Lord Carlile that I will investigate further and write to him on the earldom of Merioneth.
This issue also gives rise to the question of hereditary peerages and a number of noble Lords contributed on this, some expressing concern and some hoping that this might indeed open the door to a change in the law. That just underlines the fact that it is not appropriate for this Bill. It goes much beyond the scope of it, although I do not for a moment minimise the importance of the issue. It would certainly not just be the Constitution Committee criticising us if we were suddenly to introduce in this Bill measures that were going to change the order of succession to peerages. My noble friend Lord Lucas reminded us, interestingly, that he inherited from his grandmother and mother but, as he pointed out, hereditary titles can very often go with financial interests and estates. These would not be issues to enter into lightly. As I indicated, they go beyond the scope of this Bill. I also remind your Lordships that even without this Bill, the rules of succession to the Crown already differ in most cases from the rules of succession to the peerage.
Clause 2 possibly generated the most concern and interest, not least because of what the implications would be if there is a marriage between an Anglican and a Roman Catholic. At the outset, let me say that it is important that we remove this element of discrimination, as a number of noble Lords who contributed to the debate made clear. This has been welcomed by both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. I was particularly struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, on the importance of the heir to the Throne being able to have a wider choice as to who may be their spouse. There was a sense of that around your Lordships’ House when he mentioned it. Given the particular challenges that go with the monarchy, I think that the noble Lord referred to the importance of lifetime love and support. That was a very poignant but relevant contribution to our debate.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, it is not the case that the children of all mixed Protestant and Catholic marriages must be brought up in the Catholic faith. Catholic teaching is clear and perhaps more practical than has sometimes been suggested. The guidance is set out in Matrimonia Mixta, an apostolic letter from Pope Paul VI in 1970, and Pontificium Consilium ad Christianorum Unitatem Fovendam: Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, published in 1993. The guidance requires the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage to do their best to have the children raised as Catholics but if, as I indicated earlier, there is a just and reasonable cause which would qualify, such as the protection of the place of the Established Church, under those circumstances the local bishop can grant permission for the marriage. That moves us onto another issue, which I will come on to.
I also indicated that the Archbishop of Westminster has welcomed the decision of the Government to give heirs to the Throne the freedom to marry a Catholic. Indeed, in doing so, he recognised the importance of the position of the Established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today. The noble Lords, Lord Luce and Lord Janvrin, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, asked whether it would be appropriate to have further discussions with the Roman Catholic Church. It is clear that there have already been discussions prior to this Bill but I will certainly try to ensure that officials meet representatives of the Catholic Church—indeed, I would be willing to meet them myself. I could not honestly predict the outcome but that suggestion seemed to command some support around the House. I would be willing to see whether that might produce anything that we could report back to the House at a future stage of our proceedings.
My noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton referred to my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister regarding taking the matter to the Vatican. At Second Reading in the House of Commons, my right honourable friend said:
“I want to be clear that there is absolutely no prospect of our entering into discussions with the Vatican in order to bring this Bill into effect”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/13; col. 215.]
The establishment of the Church of England has been a recurring matter that was raised in our debate. My noble friend Lord Maclennan and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that it was an appropriate occasion to give that issue an airing. My noble friend Lord Deben indicated, with considerable passion, how he thinks that trying to address one anomaly while leaving another open is not acceptable. My noble friend Lord Astor raised this issue. I will come back to the Church of Scotland in a moment but my noble friend Lord Trefgarne got it right.
I got the impression that my noble friend Lord Lang was concerned that some of the provisions here might lead to disestablishment, whereas other contributors to the debate—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, did so from the Front Bench—were saying that perhaps this should be an incentive to get on and have that debate. Again, this issue goes beyond the Bill. We believe that nothing in the Bill detracts in any way from the sovereign swearing an oath to maintain the Protestant religion. The proposed changes are limited to removing a discriminatory bar on marrying a Roman Catholic. That would not allow a Roman Catholic to accede to the Throne but I suspect that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, indicated, this debate is not going to go away. However, I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate place to deal with it.
The issue is that the Act of Settlement and the Accession Declaration Act, which was quoted by my noble friend Lord James, both make clear that the sovereign must be a Protestant, which of course George I was. The position in the Church of Scotland is that it is not an established church as such; the Queen is not the supreme governor of the Church of Scotland. The relationship between church and state is symbolised by the presence of the monarch or her Lord High Commissioner in attendance at the general assembly; indeed, my noble friend Lord Maclennan’s father was Lord High Commissioner, as several Members of your Lordships’ House have been. Although they are invited to address the assembly, they cannot intervene in its business.
As indicated, the oath of accession includes a promise to maintain and preserve the Protestant religion and Presbyterian Government, but the Kirk has not been established by the state—I declare an interest as an elder of the Church of Scotland—and neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Westminster Parliament is involved in Kirk appointments. To that extent, it does not operate as a state church in the way that the Church of England does. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who pointed out that in matters of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, the Church of Scotland is free from state interference, operating under a constitution largely contained in articles declaratory that were recognised by Parliament in 1921. So there is quite a significant difference there, but I suspect that this is an issue to which we will return.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, can I persuade my noble and learned friend not to press this Motion at this moment? I am not remotely trying to obstruct the progress of this measure, but I rather think that the Bill would be better considered in a Select Committee. If my noble and learned friend would be willing to put off pressing this Motion until, say, Monday, that would give us an opportunity to consider the possibility.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, we were given notice that my noble friend might raise this matter. We are going to make time available for proper consideration in Committee of the Bill and amendments that will be tabled to it. It has already, as was indicated, gone through the other place with more time allocated to it than proved necessary. As has been said by numerous contributors to the debate, there has been considerable dialogue, negotiation and discussion with the other realms. It has been carefully considered. I hope for and fully expect proper scrutiny when we move into Committee. I will certainly seek to ensure that the time is made available for that to happen.
I recognise the spirit in which my noble friend speaks. We can give the Bill sufficient scrutiny in a normal Committee.