All 2 Debates between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Earl of Clancarty

Succession to the Crown Act 2013

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Earl of Clancarty
Wednesday 26th February 2014

(10 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness Portrait Lord Wallace of Tankerness
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is important that all 16 realms agree. Indeed, the intention is that when they all have put in place the necessary legislation there will be a simultaneous order to give effect in each of the realms. I make it clear that all realms that took the view that legislation is required have passed the requisite legislation, with the exception of Australia. As I informed your Lordships’ House at Third Reading, the Council of Australian Governments agreed that respective states would legislate first, requesting that the Commonwealth legislation be brought forward by the Canberra Government. To date, three states have enacted legislation; two have introduced legislation; and South Australia has yet to introduce legislation because it is in the middle of an election campaign.

Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, although the new succession arrangements are to be welcomed, does the Minister not believe that it is wholly inconsistent not to similarly reform all hereditary titles so they are gender equal?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Portrait Lord Wallace of Tankerness
- Hansard - -

My Lords, this issue was raised during our debates. It was indicated that numerous issues would arise with regard to hereditary titles which did specifically arise with regard to the succession to the Crown—and indeed I think my noble friend Lord Lucas has a Private Member’s Bill which has had one day in Committee, where there was an opportunity to debate that issue.

Scotland: Constitutional Future

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Earl of Clancarty
Monday 26th March 2012

(12 years, 8 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness Portrait Lord Wallace of Tankerness
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, makes an important distinction between a question about a referendum on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and one that would necessarily involve other parts of the United Kingdom. That is why the Government believe it is inappropriate for any referendum to have two questions. He is right to say that if there is to be further devolution, there must be some means of engaging other parts of the United Kingdom. The main provisions of the Scotland Bill, which we are currently debating, were included in the manifestos of the three parties at the last general election.

Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Have the Government given any thought to a consultation on England’s constitutional future, bearing in mind that with the increasingly powerful and dedicated representation that the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament afford to their citizens, this country is going to feel increasingly left out?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Portrait Lord Wallace of Tankerness
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I hope that in our arguments and debates about a referendum on Scotland’s future, we can make it clear that not only do we believe that Scotland is better off within the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom is better off with Scotland.

The noble Earl will be aware that a commission has been set up to look at the implications of devolution for the procedures in the House of Commons, under the chairmanship of the Sir William Mackay. We await the outcome of that commission.