Succession to the Crown Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is not arcane; it is a pragmatic judgment. The Bill retains the requirement for permission from the monarch for those wishing to marry who are in the immediate line of succession. It seeks to confine what had become a sprawling requirement to a much more limited and pragmatic one.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I simply do not understand why the monarch would want to retain the right to forbid somebody to marry and to declare their marriage null and void because consent was not granted. On what basis would they refuse to grant consent—because someone involved was illegitimate, not wealthy enough, a commoner or an actress? Those are reasons that have previously been used for not consenting.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

That, of course, is a matter for the monarch. It is a power of the monarch’s that has not been brought into that much dispute for a prolonged period. We had a choice: we could either remove it altogether or trim it radically to the six individuals in the immediate line of succession.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said, I accept that there is a certain arbitrariness about the figure of six; it could be seven or five. The principle to limit the powers of the monarch to grant permission to marry to those who are in the immediate line of succession seemed to us to be the right balance to strike, but I accept that perfectly valid arguments of principle could be made otherwise. It is, however, a very dramatic change—pragmatic, but dramatic none the less—from the precedent that has been set from the days of George III.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I really want to make progress now.

The reform that limits permission to the six who are in line to the throne is made for practical reasons; the other two reforms are more about our values. The current rules of succession belong to a bygone era; they reflect old prejudices and old fears. Today we do not support laws that discriminate on either religious or gender grounds. They have no place in modern Britain, and certainly not in our monarchy—an institution central to our constitution, to the Commonwealth, and to our national identity too. With the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge expecting a baby and our having just celebrated our Queen’s 60-year reign, this Bill is timely as well as popular. It is also straightforward and enjoys support across the House, which, as I should know, is a rare thing in constitutional reform issues.

I will come to the Catholic provisions in a few moments, because I am aware that, as we have already heard, some hon. Members have concerns about their implications. On female succession, the real question that we need to ask is why it has taken us so long. This is a nation that prides itself on pioneering equality between the sexes: a nation of great Queens such as Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II. A woman can, and has, been Head of the UK Government, yet still on our statute books, with Parliament’s official backing, we have succession laws based on the supposed superiority of men. That anachronism is out of step with our society, it sends the wrong message to the rest of the world, and it is time for the rules to change.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

That is a practical and perfectly reasonable assumption to make. I would highlight the fact, however, that under the current provisions, even if we did not proceed with the Bill, an heir to the throne could marry someone of the Hindu faith and yet decide, not least because they would be acutely aware of their place and duty in the line of succession to the throne, that their children, if they had any, were to be brought up in the Anglican faith. That assumption acts as a bedrock underneath the status quo. We are only extrapolating that by adding the Catholic faith to all the other faiths that can be involved in a marriage to heirs to the throne.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for giving way—he is being very generous. Does he believe that the monarch would legally be able to refuse consent to a marriage merely on the basis of somebody marrying a Roman Catholic? There is no provision that says what the monarch must bear in mind and, indeed, the old legislation, which we are repealing, makes it clear that it is the monarch with the Privy Council who makes the decision, whereas in this Bill it is just the monarch on their own.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we are not seeking to specify in legislation the terms in which the monarch provides that consent. We are certainly not specifying that that should be done according to the faith of the person who is marrying an heir to the throne.

In matters of constitutional significance, we should of course always proceed with care. Yes, we must always think through the potential knock-on effects of reform, but we also need to move with the times. Discrimination is discrimination wherever we find it, and just as we respect our traditions and cherish our monarchy, the House must never tolerate prejudice in our laws. Equality is, after all, a great British tradition too. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

We are talking about the monarch of the United Kingdom, not everybody else in the country. We have to acknowledge that we have a constitutional monarchy that is quite unique.

The origins of the current stipulation are in ancient common law, whereby the monarch has a duty and right of care relating to the upbringing of his or her close relatives. However, that was taken significantly further by the Royal Marriages Act 1772. Although that statute was promoted by George III’s antagonism towards the marriage of his two brothers to women whom he saw as unacceptable, it was drafted in such a way that it went much further than was necessary to respond to his immediate concerns. Indeed, the ramifications of that law mean that today literally hundreds of individuals are obliged to go through a formal legal process involving the monarch and the Privy Council to have their marriages approved. The Bill introduces a change so that any future prohibitions are of eligibility to the line of succession rather than of the marriage.

I do not question the proposed change, but I would nevertheless welcome clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), of why royal consent is now to be required for the first six people in line to the throne. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that it is a pragmatic move, but there has to be some rationale behind it. The constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor has suggested that the figure might be five, and others have suggested larger or smaller numbers. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why six has been the number chosen.

[Chris Bryant]

What does my hon. Friend think would happen to somebody who was No. 7 in line and then suddenly became No. 6?

[Wayne David]

That is an interesting hypothetical question, and I would certainly welcome the Minister’s response, as it is the Government who have put forward the figure of six.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed, absolutely. They were based on the prejudices of the past. To look at our history, we can go through the length of this building and see representations of royalty in portraits, coats or arms and statues—there must be at least a thousand—but where would we look to find mementos of the work of the Chartists, the Levellers or the suffragettes? There are precious few, yet they, not royalty, were the ones who contributed to the development of our democracy.

[Chris Bryant]

I have been wondering about this tinkering business that we heard about from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). Can my hon. Friend point out to that hon. Gentleman that Richard II, Edward II, Richard III, Henry VI, Edward IV and Edward VIII—at least; I have left several out, no doubt—were removed expressly by or through the intervention of Parliament. It is a long-established tradition that the succession is a matter for Parliament.

[Paul Flynn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) is the victim of a romantic delusion that history does not support. We should take pride in the traditions of this House.

What we have before us is a piece of rushed legislation, and we all know legislation introduced in haste usually turns out to be bad legislation. Take the idea that we modernise the system by retaining in it the right for a relative to determine that people should not be allowed to marry the person they love. That is not modern; it is another anachronism from the distant past, but we are retaining it and allowing the monarch to have absolute power over the love lives of six relatives. That seems extraordinary. Who put that in? Who decided that that was a good idea?

One problem with the Bill is its narrowness, which means that we cannot discuss the interesting amendments that have been tabled, including one I mentioned briefly earlier that would allow the country a choice. We are in the position, when we look to the next Head of State, of being infantilised by our own Ministers. We are told that certain letters cannot be published because if they were they would imperil the status of the next monarch. Well, if they do, we should hear about that. If there is a doubt in those letters, why on earth can we not, as the elected representatives of the people, have those letters published? Yet the Government recently decided, in spite of a court ruling and a freedom of information ruling, that those letters from the heir to the throne should remain absolutely secret, because if we saw them we might decide that perhaps he is not the right person to be on the throne. What can the country do?

We are still enshrining the mediaeval idea that it is the son—now the daughter, which is a slight improvement—who will inherit, but why not other members of the family? Would not the country like a choice? In a world of referendums and choice, it would be sensible for us to consider a Bill that would allow the country to decide who will have the vital role of Head of State, looking at the situation in about 20 years’ time, when all sorts of factors will be in play. Should it be the heir? Should it be another member of the royal family? Or should it be citizen A. N. Other? I believe that the country might like the choice.

I am very grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. Like all Members of the House of Commons, I think, I will support the Bill, but I believe we have to bear in mind the points that have been made. On religious grounds, the Bill strengthens the prejudice of the past by not allowing all citizens the chance to become monarch. An amendment was tabled to try to future-proof the measure, saying that in the future there might be an inheritor to the throne who decides on a same-sex marriage. What would the situation be then? Would the progeny of that marriage, either by adoption or artificial insemination, be next in line? One could see advantages in bringing new blood into the royal line, which we have seen successfully recently.

There are many aspects to the law of succession that we need to consider. This is not a full modernisation; it is a tinkering. I believe that pressure has probably been put on the Government to ensure that this reform is very limited. In it are the seeds of future problems that will be obvious in the years ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Macleod]

I think we would all agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady referred to Her Majesty being the Queen of Scotland as well. So far, none of the Ministers has referred to any consultations with the Church of Scotland about this. I wonder whether the hon. Lady knows whether there have been any such consultations.

[Mary Macleod]

I have no knowledge of whether those discussions have taken place, but I am sure that the Minister will respond in due course.

As we have discussed, succession to the throne is currently based on the principle of male primogeniture, according to which male heirs take precedence and the right of succession belongs to the eldest son. However, many countries, including Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, have already changed that so that the right of succession passes to the sovereign’s eldest child, irrespective of gender. I believe it is now time for change in this country, too, especially when former female monarchs have played an outstanding role in our history and at a time when women are playing such an important role in society. There is agreement among the general public that the rule of primogeniture in particular should change, thereby showing that the monarchy is continuing to adapt to modern times.

There have been many attempts to amend Crown succession over the years—one parliamentary paper lists 12 private Members’ Bills, from Members in all parts of the House, that have attempted to do so since 1979. Therefore, this is a Bill that can be supported by many Members of the House across the different parties. As has been mentioned, the marriage of His Royal Highness Prince William and Kate Middleton and their subsequent announcement that, God willing, they will have a child in six months’ time, provides further impetus to make these changes once and for all.

Some have commented on the timing and the process of change of which this Bill is a part, but since this issue was raised—many raised it in years gone by before it was raised at the meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011—there has been a process of external discussion and debate for the last 15 months. As we can see, the Chamber is not full today, and I hope that everyone who wishes to speak will get a chance to do so. I therefore feel that there has been appropriate time to consider the issues, given the scope of the Bill.

In today’s modern world, where there is a conscious focus on equal opportunities and breaking the glass ceiling, it would seem realistic to expect that the succession principle will be challenged. The Government have done a lot of work trying to get more women on boards, more women in Parliament and more women to set up businesses and, of course, we have had a female Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). He is a sort of hereditary MP himself, so he knows a little bit about “hereditary”—and we have a few of them around. I was not entirely sure where he was going with the “diamond queen” thing; “diamond geezers” was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan).

I wholeheartedly support one of the main principles of the Bill, namely the change in the male preference primogeniture rules that have come to us through common law. We have taken far too long to resolve the issue. Other countries with constitutional monarchies got on with it much earlier: Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands all dealt with it in the 1980s. Indeed, it was much more difficult for Sweden, because at the time the heir to the throne was a boy, Carl Philip, who was ousted from his hereditary status by his older sister Victoria. Sweden took a more courageous decision and we have been rather slow, perhaps because we have felt so confident about our current monarch. So I support the change in the Bill but I do have some worries. A great deal of reference has been made to Pandora’s box, but that is the wrong image to use, because at the bottom of that box was always hope.

The more worrying concern is that when we pull out one of the threads of the constitution, there is a danger of unravelling the whole jumper—if the jumper is indeed made out of threads. I worry because the religion of the monarch in this country depends on a suite of legislation. The Coronation Oath Act 1688 makes it clear in precisely what words the monarch shall accept the throne and what oath they shall make at their coronation. That was reformed in the 20th century and, in fact, Her Majesty the Queen did not use the prescribed oath, as laid down in legislation. We need to address that issue; in the past Parliament has decided what the oath should be, not the monarch.

[Dan Rogerson]

Several hon. Members in the Chamber have examined the issues involved, as have many others, who are busy elsewhere, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that out in the country at large there will be little understanding of them? This is perhaps part of the problem. Our constitutional history is fascinating, but if we had a far more transparent and, dare I say it, written constitution, people might understand more deeply what we are talking about.

[Chris Bryant]

I have always been in favour of a written constitution, but that is not what we are debating. The important job of work that we have to do when we write elements of our constitution into statute is to make sure that they meet any possible eventualities that could come down the road, because we can never imagine precisely what is going to happen. In 1936, we had a crisis because there were no means by which the monarch could abdicate, so we had the odd situation where the monarch announced his abdication and the next day legislation had to be got through the House. As was said earlier, that took only 10 minutes, but none the less we had to make legislation on the hoof.

The Act of Settlement contains two clauses that make different provisions in relation to the monarch. As the hon. Member for 1642 said, section II says that anyone who

“is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist”

shall be excluded from the succession. So I raise the genuine point: if someone marries a Roman Catholic in a Catholic church—the Minister said that Her Majesty has been to a Roman Catholic church—it is difficult to see how that person is not then reconciled to the See of Rome. I hope that the Church of England will be reconciled to the See of Rome. The advances we have seen in ecumenism over the years do not just mean that we have rejected the ludicrous prejudice that there was about Catholicism and the belief that somehow or other a Catholic could not be a patriot. We need to go further, and I hope that in the ecumene of all the Churches there will be reconciliation one day. I know that that is the view of the most recent Archbishop of Canterbury and I suspect it is the view of the current one, so it would seem odd if it were not then the view of the monarch. I want to start asking whether we do not need to change all the provisions in relation to the religion of the monarch. As an Anglican, I would have no fear of a Roman Catholic who accepted a series of oaths to protect the Church of England, as established by law—

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

In 1960, President Kennedy, a Catholic, took an oath and it did not commit him, in any way, to being against non-Catholics.

[Chris Bryant]

No, but that was a big issue in the election of that period. The situation is somewhat different in America, as it has a clear division of state and religion whereas this country expressly does not. We have two established Churches in this country: the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. [Interruption.] Yes, the Church of Scotland is established by law.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

That is always an issue of debate. As I understand it, the Church of Scotland does not see itself as the established Church and takes great pride in that fact. I hate to correct my hon. Friend on such an issue, because I know that he is an expert.

[Chris Bryant]

No, no—I am not a Calvinist. I merely point out to my right hon. Friend that one of the provisions of the 1706 and 1707 Acts of Union is that the monarch, when accepting the Scottish throne, has to make a separate accession oath that guarantees the protection of the Church of Scotland. That is why I say that several provisions in law relate to the religion of the monarch. Section III of the Act of Settlement states that the monarch

“shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England”.

That is yet another provision.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Surely the position is that although the Church of Scotland is not and never has been established in the sense that the Church of England is, with a degree of parliamentary control, it is a national Church in Scotland and the Queen attends the Presbyterian Church in Scotland and takes communion within that Church. That is where her Scottish allegiance lies, rather than with the Scottish Episcopal Church.

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. I was not confusing the Church of Scotland with the Piscies, as it were—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will give way to the hon. Lady; it is not male primogeniture any more.

[Dr Coffey]

I believe that the website of the royal household states that the Church of Scotland is established, but that Her Majesty is an ordinary member and not its Supreme Governor.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, but that does not change the fact that when somebody becomes monarch, they have to make an accession oath on the Church of Scotland. That is my only point. We have a suite of legislation and once we start pulling at one of the elements of it there is a danger we will unpack the whole lot.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have given way rather too often already.

I would quite like to change things as I think there are many different ways of being an established Church. I do not want to disestablish the Church of England, but I think that it could be established in a different way.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Let me move on to the Royal Marriages Act. The Act came into being because George III’s brother, Henry, Duke of Cumberland, had in 1771 married a woman, Mrs Anne Horton, who was not only a widow but a commoner. Horace Walpole thought that

“her coquetry was so active, so varied and yet so habitual, that it was difficult not to see through it and…difficult to resist it.”

It was on those lines, broadly speaking, that the King was opposed to his brother’s marriage. Once the Act was introduced, he learned that his other brother, William, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh, had married Maria Walpole, daughter of Sir Edward Walpole and granddaughter of Sir Robert, who was also a widow and, in addition to all the other problems she might have had, was illegitimate.

The King was somewhat scandalised by all that and the Act was brought in, but it was a phenomenal failure as a piece of legislation because in 1785 the Prince of Wales, George III’s son, married Maria Fitzherbert, who was not only a Roman Catholic but the aunt of a cardinal and who was twice widowed. The King was furious and refused to give consent; the marriage was consequently declared null and void, although even at the moment of his death the former Prince of Wales insisted on having the portrait of Maria Fitzherbert around his neck. In 1793, another relative, Prince Augustus Frederick, had his marriage to Lady Augusta Murray declared invalid. When she died, he married illegally yet again without permission of the throne.

The Act has been a phenomenally unsuccessful piece of legislation and I do not understand why we are keeping any element of it. Why should the monarch decide who their next of kin and the five others who come afterwards should be able to marry and on what basis will they make that decision? All the previous decisions have related to whether someone was a commoner, an actress or illegitimate, and I do not think that any of those issues would concern the British people today. In other countries that still have a similar provision it is not the decision of the monarch—it is the decision of Parliament. Indeed, in the Netherlands, it was decided that one person would be excluded from the succession because of their marriage. Personally, I do not think that we should make those decisions at all.

It is bizarre to insist on six members of the royal family in the line of succession, rather than two, five, 25 or whatever. I urge the Minister to explain why she feels that it is important to keep that provision. If we are going to keep it, there should be a role for Ministers to advise the monarch on whether to refuse consent. Otherwise, someone who was No. 7 will suddenly become No. 6, or someone who was No. 6 may suddenly become No. 7—as will happen later this year. Those people would be free to marry in whatever way they wanted if they were not No. 6.

I warmly support the broad thrust of the two main measures in the Bill, but I am worried that where the Government are going will unpick other things that we should look at in the round, not just in a short Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s arithmetic, flawed though it may be. Perhaps that is why he is a member of the Scottish National party. I look forward to the Minister explaining what the rationale is.

As the hon. Member for Rhondda rightly pointed out, if we put in place a rule that says that the monarch can and must give consent to the marrying of the six persons nearest in line to the throne, imagine a scenario where a monarch has three children, who each have two or three children. The monarch will soon be in the invidious position where grandchild No. 4, who is fifth in line to the throne, must seek consent of the monarch to marry, but grandchild No. 6, who is seventh in line to the throne, need not seek that consent. That does not seem fair.

[Chris Bryant]

Also, we do not have a capricious monarch at present, but there have certainly been capricious monarchs in the past who might deliberately want to affect the succession and might therefore refuse consent capriciously. There is no means in the Act whereby anybody can prevent the monarch from exercising their judgment capriciously so as directly to exclude a particular person. Surely in the end the monarch should be decided either by straightforward succession or by Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend, who is also of my faith, makes an excellent point. Of course, the situation he describes led to the execution of a monarch in times past. Frankly, the person with whom they replaced him is one of the people whom I am determined to write out of parliamentary history at some point, if possible by removing the statue outside. We will leave that debate for another day, but it is not only because he banned Christmas—we can just imagine how miserable he was.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) seems to share his concern. It was interesting to hear the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) ask why someone being deemed the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is invalidated by their not being a member of the Church of England. Would a member of the Church of Scotland or the Church in Wales have to convert formally to the Church of England to take up the role of sovereign? I know that Her Majesty takes her faith very seriously—that is one of her many admirable qualities.

[Chris Bryant]

My history of Parliament is coming out next year, just to inform the hon. Lady that there is no point in her writing one now.

The main reason why a monarch has to have a relationship with the Church of England is that they have to be crowned. The coronation service is provided for in canon law, and therefore in statute law.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and look forward to seeing his book. I see him in the Library regularly, where I assume he is researching it assiduously.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will note the fact that the title of Defender of the Faith was originally granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521. It was then rescinded nine years later, after Henry VIII decided to remove himself from the Church of Rome. It was Parliament that restored that title in 1544.

[Chris Bryant]

At the King’s insistence.

[Dr Coffey]

Indeed, but it still decided to do so.

Of course I will not oppose the Bill, and I welcome large parts of it, but the point that I am trying to make is that we should not pretend that it is some great second Catholic emancipation that will remove any particular discrimination.

The question was raised today about what would happen if a future sovereign chose to marry outside the Church of England, of if they chose to marry somebody of the same sex under other legislation that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office are taking through the House. That marriage ceremony would not be recognised by the Church of England under the proposed laws, so what would it mean for their being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England in future?

I do not wish to get into personal things, but it is not a state secret that the Deputy Prime Minister has married a Catholic and his children are being brought up in the Catholic faith. That matter is taken seriously in various parts of canon law, and although, as I said, I do not pretend to be a canon lawyer, I wish to make various points about that. Back in 1970, in the motu proprio on mixed marriage, the Church acted to remove automatic excommunication as long as people tried to ensure that their children would be brought up Catholic. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) will be relieved to know that in the same motu proprio, the penalty for parents who sent their children to non-Catholic schools was removed. Although his alma mater produced a martyr in the Reformation, one cannot say that that school is a Catholic one. I am sure he is about to intervene on me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

One reason I do not oppose the Bill is that I do not live in a fantasy world in which Parliament and others have never interfered with the succession. In fact, if Parliament had not, we might still have a Stuart king. I, as a Scot descended from Jacobites, would probably have been quite happy with that.

[Chris Bryant]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not listen to his Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). If Henry Bolingbroke did usurp the throne, the present monarch is not the right monarch. I think it was decided by Parliament that Richard II had already abdicated and relinquished the throne and that therefore there was a vacancy, much as happened in 1688.

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. However, Henry IV’s first act on the throne was to pass the charter of duchy liberties, in which he asserted that the duchy was his possession, separate from those of the sovereign and the Crown. That was confirmed by Henry VII in 1485, and for the benefit of officials and Whitehall it is important to note that there has since been no fresh settlement. Perhaps the clarity we are looking for is found way back in 1485.

This is why clarity is important. The Bill, with which I agree, could create an eldest daughter as sovereign, who will take precedent over a younger son. Perhaps that is where the problem lies. If a monarch has two children, the eldest a daughter and the youngest a son, the Bill empowers the eldest to become the next sovereign. It makes no mention of the Duchy of Lancaster or the title of Duke of Lancaster, separate from the Crown, and nor does it mention what will happen to the assets. Without clarity, the Bill might mean that we have today stripped Her Majesty the Queen of £300 million-worth of assets from her inventory.

I do not believe that that is what is intended, but clarity is needed. It is easy to ensure that the income is diverted to the sovereign. It is highly likely that existing statute provides that income from the Duchies of Lancaster and of Cornwall will continue, but the question of ownership and the title requires clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

As my hon. Friend rather amusingly says, “Under who?” Indeed, I do not think we have seen the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) for some time.

To sum up, as a Member of Parliament—

[Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Drax]

I am just about to finish and the hon. Gentleman was a little disparaging earlier, so I am not exactly too keen to give way to him right now.

I would like this matter to be considered an awful lot further before any unforeseen pitfalls and unwanted legislation arise. At the moment, I would argue that it appears unseemingly hasty to go down this route. We are Conservatives—I am a Conservative—and we have to protect and conserve our ancient traditions. They are there for a reason, and if we must change them, we should do so reverently and with due consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman makes that point extraordinarily well. This is the time, while we are legislating on the issue, to clarify the order of precedence among sisters. Otherwise, there is a risk that clause 1 will simply provide that the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would be co-heirs to the Crown. The question whether Princess Margaret could have claimed the throne in 1952 is an interesting one. Surely the best time to settle this once and for all is while we are legislating on the matter. We should make it clear that, at least as far as succession to the Crown is concerned, female primogeniture has the same effect as male primogeniture, and that the co-heiress problem that exists in peerages will not apply.

I think it was Baron Grey of Codnor whose title was in abeyance from the late 15th century until the late 1980s. That is an example of how having co-heiresses in common can lead to an extensive abeyance. Why is that detail ignored in the Bill? It seems to me that the main reasons are the rush to pass the legislation and the failure properly to consider the ramifications of what is being done. That also applies to how dukedoms will pass. Will they pass as ordinary titles, or are they to be deemed to be within the Crown? If they are deemed to be within the Crown, why is that not in the Bill?

I have already discussed my concerns about clause 2 in relation to Catholics. It is unreasonable of an Act of Parliament to allow a Catholic to do one thing then deny that Catholic the ability to carry out the requirements of his faith. That is an illogical position to take, and it will bring out all the anti-Catholic terminology of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights. Many Catholics can live comfortably with that terminology as part of our historical tradition, lost in the mists of time, but when it is brought firmly to our attention this week, it is a matter of the deepest concern. As other hon. Members have said, if a reform is to be made, it should be a thorough-going reform.

[Chris Bryant]

Is it not one of the ironies that clause 2 states that no one should be disqualified from succeeding to the throne through being married to a Catholic, yet clause 3 allows the monarch to exclude someone by refusing to consent to their marriage, potentially to a Roman Catholic?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is making a similar point to mine, which is that there has been a failure to consider the detail of the Bill. Trying to add two further clauses to the major provision that everyone was interested in has created confusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I wish my hon. Friend luck in that last endeavour. I thank him for his comments, which demonstrate the breadth of views that have been expressed this afternoon.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex asked whether the legislation would make it more likely that we will have a Catholic monarch. No, it does not. It makes it more likely that the heir to the throne may marry a Catholic—that is what the legislation does—but the bar remains on the sovereign being a Roman Catholic. There is no more need for a constitutional crisis now than there was before, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot.

I should like to deal with the point that has been raised a couple of times about, shall we say, the human misery of having to choose between one’s faith and the throne. Let us not forget that there is a particular piece of misery already available under the existing constitutional arrangements, which is not being able to marry the person you love. It is important to note that that is already available to anyone who wishes that particular form of difficulty. It is evident to everyone in the country that the huge public popularity of the wedding of certain members of the family in recent years shows that members of a modern monarchy do and can marry for love, and we ought to consider that as we discuss the tensions that that family may feel.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Miss Smith]

I am terribly sorry. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of chances to speak, and doubtless there will be more in Committee.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) wondered whether a female heir would be styled “the Princess of Wales”. The granting of royal titles is a matter for the sovereign, and it is not within the scope of the Bill. He made various points about the Duchy of Cornwall not passing to a female heir. Again, as a matter of title, that is a matter for the sovereign. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) to discuss the points that they made.

I turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. He began by raising something that is touched on in amendments which have not been selected for debate: the issue of two daughters and the clarity of succession. We are confident that it is clear, having regard to the succession to the Crown in 1952, that when a monarch dies the eldest daughter, if there are two, would succeed. We believe that there is no need to make statutory provision to address that. I am grateful for the points that my hon. Friend made about the Counsellors of State, who are the spouse of the monarch and the next four individuals in the line of succession, except where they are disqualified by virtue of being Roman Catholic. I thank my hon. Friend for the breadth of ground covered by his other points; we may have a chance to return to that.

Turning to retrospective measures, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested that clause 2 ought not to apply retrospectively. We are dealing with the need to respect realistic changes to the legitimate expectations of those closest to the throne, so there are differences in what clauses 1 and 2 do. We may come on to that in Committee. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) argued that in this day and age there was no need for anyone to seek the sovereign’s consent to marry. I remind him that it may well be in the public interest that consent should be given for the marriage of someone who may become our Head of State. Other European countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Spain and the Netherlands, require such consent.

Other points raised included whether the requirement of consent to the first six in line to the throne ought to apply to all descendants of Queen Elizabeth II. One factual answer is that the line of succession in recent history has rarely gone beyond six. A more amusing answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, if he will allow me, is that his ambition is not high enough if he does not aim to become Father of the House in 200 or 300 years’ time to be here to see that problem repeat itself should all the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II be allowed—