Succession to the Crown Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, I support the objective of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, although I have reservations about its wording. I should say hastily that I am speaking for myself and not as a former member of the Royal Household. The House may have noticed that earlier there was a small cluster of former members of the Royal Household, but we have now widened the gaps between each other.

My view is based on the limited scope of this Bill and the assumption that we are not talking about the establishment of the church or about changing the position of the monarch being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and thus the requirement that the Supreme Governor should join in communion with the Church of England. That, to my mind, is not the issue, rather it is much more limited to the proposal in the Bill. At Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether we could seek greater clarity on the requirement that those in the line of succession must be brought up within the Anglican faith. All I am seeking to do is to minimise misunderstandings that otherwise could arise from the passing of this Bill in connection with Clause 2.

There is a disparity between what the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said, and what the Archbishop of Westminster said at the time of the Perth agreement in October 2011. Archbishop Rowan Williams said that,

“there needs to be a clear understanding that the heir is brought up in”,

the Church of England environment. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster said:

“I fully recognise the importance of the position of the established church … in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today”.

That is a helpful message, but the two are not clearly in line, and in my view there is something of a lack of clarity in this. Of course, this is something that may never happen in our lifetime, but nevertheless it could happen. It is in order to minimise the risk of misunderstanding that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is moving the amendment.

In my Second Reading speech I suggested that the Minister should agree to have some further discussions with the Roman Catholic leadership in this country to see whether we cannot get a clearer understanding, and I would be grateful if, when he comes to respond to the debate, he would let us know if he has anything to report at this stage.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cormack for introducing this amendment. It has generated a passionate debate and raised important issues, not least ones also reflected in our Second Reading debate about the upbringing of children should there be a mixed marriage. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, quite properly indicated that this Bill is limited in its scope and does not deal with the established church or the monarch as Supreme Governor. I know the passion with which my noble friend Lord Forsyth takes a view—which I share—on the wording of some 17th century legislation. That wording is offensive, but as the noble Lord recognised from his early attempts with a Private Member’s Bill, these matters are hugely complex and I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate place to deal with them.

As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, indicated, at Second Reading he and the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, asked if I would meet representatives of the Catholic Church. I did so earlier this week. I can inform the House that I came away with a clear message that in the instance of mixed marriages the approach of the Roman Catholic Church is a pastoral one. It was considerably stressed to me that the Catholic Church will always look to provide guidance that supports and strengthens the unity of the partnership and the indissolubility of marriage. It is in this context that the Catholic Church expects Catholic spouses sincerely to undertake to do all they can to raise their children within the Catholic Church.

However, where it has not been possible for the child of a mixed marriage to be brought up as a Catholic, it has been drawn to my attention that the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law. The clear signal was that the overriding concern in Catholic pastoral guidance to couples in mixed marriages—it was drawn to my attention that there are many mixed marriages today in England and Wales—is the unity and indissolubility of the marriage. I assure the House that it is not the case that the children of all mixed Protestant and Catholic marriages must be brought up in the Catholic faith.

It is also important to note the important concept within the Catholic Church of subsidiarity. As a Presbyterian I do not pretend to understand it, but it is one that I have certainly heard associated with the Catholic Church. We perhaps debate the word in another context, but within the organisation of the Catholic Church, subsidiarity is an important concept and much decision-making is devolved to a local level, including decisions relating to mixed marriages. Quite simply, the Vatican does not get involved. My noble friend Lord Deben highlighted both the constitutional implications and significance if the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cormack were to be carried. It would raise constitutional issues and would put the Pope in a very difficult position, one that I suspect the Vatican does not aspire to have thrust upon it. In its recent letter to Members of your Lordships’ House on this issue, the Church of England stated:

“The present prohibition…is not necessary to support the requirement that the Sovereign join in communion with the Church of England”—

that is, the prohibition on marrying a Catholic—and therefore:

“Its proposed removal is a welcome symbolic and practical measure consistent with respect for the principle of religious liberty”.

The Archbishop of Westminster, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, welcomed the decision of the Government to give heirs to the Throne the freedom to marry a Catholic, and recognised the importance of the position of the established church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

What was the Government’s motivation in removing the prohibition on the heir to the Throne marrying a Catholic? Was it to enable the heir to the Throne to marry a Catholic, or was it to remove the discrimination against Catholics?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it was both. It was to allow someone in the line of succession to the Throne to marry a Catholic and to remove that discrimination. I know that the noble Lord’s subsequent question would be, “Why don’t you remove the ultimate discrimination?”. However, as he acknowledged, from his own efforts to do something, this is a much more complex issue. He says that he does not wish to disestablish the Church of England. Many would argue that if we went down that road, it possibly would lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England. There is a proper debate to be had there, but this emphasises that that is not the purpose of this Bill. However, where an opportunity has arisen to remove at least one area of discrimination, it has properly been seized.

My noble friend Lord Deben made the point that, if this genuinely is an issue, it already exists in another context. My noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine raised the point at Second Reading which my noble friend Lord Deben made about Islam. My noble friend Lady Falkner asked whether the perceived,

“constraints on the children of Catholics being bought up—and the Catholic Church’s perspective on that—would be different if the monarch was married to a Muslim, as is currently permissible? Muslim children are, likewise, expected to be brought up in mixed marriages as Muslims. So the anomaly exists in the case of other faiths, but perhaps not in the case of Catholics”.—[Official Report, 14/2/13; col. 805.]

That was the point that my noble friend was making. Therefore, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cormack seeks to address one problem but does not extend to include every faith that currently exists. It is certainly not the Government’s plan that we should do so.

We will obviously return to this issue of establishment and whether the sovereign could be a Catholic in some of the later amendments. However, I readily appreciate the very human concerns. When you are dealing with affairs of state and issues of the constitution, you must remember that you are also talking about two people who want to get married. That is why it is appropriate that there is a pastoral dimension to this and that it is done at a pastoral level. I hope that, with these reassurances, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this amendment and pick up a point which my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace made in his response to the previous amendment when, with typical skill, he used something I said as an argument against me. I had said that the issue was too complex to be dealt with by a Private Member’s Bill. I was persuaded by the late Lord St John of Fawsley that this was not a matter suitable for being dealt with by a Private Member’s Bill and was best left to the Government to deal with. It is not really good enough for the Government to say that this is a very complicated area and it would mean having to deal with the whole issue of maintaining an established church and therefore we have gone for half a loaf. In my speech on the previous amendment I asked my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace to explain why it is not possible to devise a basis on which the monarch can remain head of the Church of England but not actually be of the Anglican faith. This amendment, moved by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and supported by my noble friend Lord Northbrook, is a particular approach.

I do not think it is necessary to create a regency in order to do so. We did not have the opportunity to hear the view of the Church of England in respect of the previous amendment. Even if the Government’s position is that they will not do it in this Bill, it is disappointing that they are not able to explain what the options and difficulties are about it. My noble and learned friend did not fall into the trap when I intervened in his speech and asked him what the Government are trying to do here. Are they trying to end discrimination against Roman Catholics or are they just trying to enable the heir to the Throne to marry a Roman Catholic? I would be horrified if it is the latter. Of course, that is a good thing to do—if two people want to get married they should be able to do so—but I thought that this was part of a wider agenda of ending discrimination against Catholics. We need to understand why the Bill has not provided for that and why the idea contained in the amendment could not provide a way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I apologise if I did not make myself clear. I did not mean to suggest that it was as Supreme Governor of the Church of England that she made the oath with regard to the Presbyterian Church Government in Scotland. I was in fact suggesting the opposite; it would not be appropriate for someone who was appointed as a regent—a Supreme Governor—to make that oath. I think that that would be wholly inappropriate. It raises the question of whether a monarch who was indeed a member of the Roman Catholic Church would be in a position to make any commitment regarding the maintenance of the Protestant religion and the system of Presbyterian Church Government.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Why?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Trefgarne replies, perhaps I may pick up on a point where I do not believe that the argument of my noble friend Lord True holds. Under the law as it stands—and there is no proposal here, nor do the Government have any proposals to change the law—the sovereign may not be, nor have been, a Roman Catholic. Therefore, the situation which my noble friend Lord True suggested, where the sovereign comes to the Throne having to agonise as to whether to renounce the Catholic religion, just would not arise, because, having been a Catholic, he or she would not be eligible to ascend to the Throne.

I entirely concur with my noble friend’s opening remarks: these are very much human matters at the end of the day. There is a human dimension to it, and that is why, in response to the earlier debate, I sought to reflect the discussions which I had with representatives of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales so that this is looked at at a pastoral, human level, which seeks to reflect the importance of the union of a partnership and the indissolubility of marriage. It is against that background that decisions should be made and advice given with regard to the upbringing of a family. I accept that there is a human dimension to this, but I should perhaps clarify that the dilemma that my noble friend was suggesting cannot occur because the position is that the sovereign must not be, or have been, a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I had not appreciated this until my noble and learned friend said it: he said that not only would a Catholic not be able to ascend to the Throne but that someone who had been a Catholic but had then converted to be an Anglican could not ascend to the Throne. That has nothing whatever to do with the position of being Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That is a simple discrimination against Catholics. My noble and learned friend said, “Oh, the reason that we have made this Bill focus on just these three areas is because the issues are so complex”. It is clear that he will not accept the amendment, and I accept some of his arguments for that—but, in listening to this debate, can he not see that there are a number of issues? The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested that we should have a Select Committee, or some kind of body to look at these issues, and park the Bill while that is going on. What is the rush here? What is the reason for our needing to rush forward with this legislation at this pace?

Perhaps at the end of the day, it might be concluded that it was impossible to reconcile maintaining an established Church with removing this discrimination against Catholics. However, if the Government say, “Oh well, this is just a Bill that’s dealing with these matters”, bear in mind that this legislation has to be approved by all the other Parliaments around the world. Would they not think it very odd if we came forward with this Bill now and then a short while later came forward with the other bit of it? Or is the proposition that this is just too difficult? If it is too difficult, why on earth did the Government embark on this journey in the first place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lyell]

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lang for this amendment, and not least for the way in which he moved it. Although it was entertaining in many respects, I fully recognise his points. I am not being disparaging—I enjoyed his speech. It was a very good speech and his points were interesting. It is important to point out that none of the people who were in and out actually ascended the Throne. I take his point, which is a pertinent one. Reference has been made on more than one occasion—in another place, too—to the issue of Princess Victoria, as she was known when she was born, being fifth in line to the Throne. There has not been a monarch since the 1772 Act who has been any further out at birth.

Perhaps my mind was working along similar lines to that of my noble friend because I also asked whether it is worth considering when the provision actually bites—which, of course, is at the point of marriage. Since the 1772 Act came on to the statute book, the person who was furthest away from the Throne at the time of consent to a marriage being sought and given was, indeed, around the same time as my noble friend was talking about: King William IV was third in line to the Throne when he married and when he sought and was given consent for his marriage under the 1772 Act. So, in the 240 years since the Act was passed, William IV has been the furthest away from the Throne at the time of his marriage. Again, I am not pretending that there is perfection in this, and I do not believe that a Select Committee could attain perfection in this either. The proposal for six therefore still allows a considerable amount of leeway—which is probably not the right word, but it is the most appropriate word that comes to mind at the moment.

It is important to remind ourselves that a balance needs to be found between mitigating against catastrophic but remote hypothetical events of a line being wiped out and the risk of impinging unnecessarily upon the lives of those who are distant from the Throne. Clearly, my noble friend Lord Lang would prefer to give greater weight to the former; my noble friend Lord Northbrook gives greater weight to the other end of the spectrum. I will not found my argument on that. As three is the farthest away from the Throne at the time of marriage, I believe that six is reasonable. This is bearing in mind that, on the other side of the coin, it can impinge unnecessarily upon the lives of those who are that much more distant from the Throne.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, what representations have the Government had from anyone about their lives being impinged unnecessarily in this matter?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

We have not had the representations that one would expect to receive. I suspect that under the present law there are people who, understandably, do not know that, as a descendant of King George II, they are expected to get consent from the sovereign if they wish to marry. Indeed, we seek in this Bill to address the issue of those who have, as it were, unwittingly married.

The other important point perhaps addresses the point made by my noble friend about the European Convention on Human Rights. There are two issues here. First, the European Court of Human Rights has generally been very reluctant to engage in issues which go to the heart of a nation’s constitution and who should be their head of state. Secondly, unlike the 1772 Act, which made a marriage void if the consent of the Sovereign was not forthcoming, this does nothing so significant. It simply removes the person from the line of succession and the marriage will still be valid. It means only that the person who had not received consent would not take their place in the line of succession.

My noble friend Lord Lang asked where the number six arose from. Ahead of the Perth agreement my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to each realm Government proposing changes to the law of succession principally with regard to the removal of male bias and the bar on the heir marrying a Catholic. At that point the realm Governments were also made aware of the issues surrounding the Royal Marriages Act and the view of this Government that it was outdated. Subsequent discussions with the realm Governments were led by New Zealand which concluded that it was in the public interest and reasonable and proportionate for those who are genuinely close to the Throne to seek consent to marry. To avoid the same problems presented by the Royal Marriages Act in attaching a monarchical consent requirement to the descendants of a specific monarch—at Second Reading I think that someone suggested that we could make it the descendants of George VI rather than George II; that was thought to store up problems for the future—the number six was proposed and agreed. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister then wrote to each of the realm Prime Ministers to confirm their consent to this provision.

I apologise that I was unable to respond to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne at Second Reading when he asked whether consent had ever actually been refused under the 1772 Act. So far as the Government are aware, there has been no instance when the sovereign’s consent to a royal marriage has been refused. My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked in relation to Amendment 14 whether the common law still applies to monarchical consent in cases such as the remarriage of a dowager queen. There is a good argument that the 1772 Act replaced all common law provisions on royal consent to marriages, but it also could be argued that because the 1772 Act applies to the descendants of George II, the common law requirement might conceivably still apply to members of the Royal Family who are not descendants of George II, for example in the remarriage of a dowager queen or a prince consort. But these instances would not affect the line of succession and it is important to recognise that what we are doing here relates only to that. The Bill is concerned with people who may become the sovereign, not with members of the wider Royal Family. It has a specific purpose.

As I say, no number will be perfect, but if one considers that, in the 240 years since the 1772 Act went on to the statute book, the furthest away in line from the Throne at the time when consent for marriage was sought was three; we are allowing for three more. I believe that the figure is a rational one and I would invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Elton for his amendment, which gives me a welcome opportunity to explain why the amendment that he is seeking to delete was inserted in Committee in the House of Commons.

The effect of the Bill as originally presented, as indeed would be the effect of my noble friend’s amendment, would be to disqualify all descendants from any marriage of a person when a marriage of that person was not consented to. For example—and in fact the other way round from what my noble friend suggested—if a person in the line of succession married with consent and had children, their spouse died and they remarried without consent and had children, the children of the first marriage, which had been consented to, could be disqualified.

The intention of subsection (4) is to disqualify from the line of succession any royal descendants from a marriage not approved by the sovereign. It would go too far also to disqualify descendants from a previous marriage for which consent had been obtained. For these reasons, the amendment to include the words “from the marriage” was tabled and accepted in another place. That is entirely consistent with the agreement that was reached with the other realms and removes a possible ambiguity. The other realms were fully informed of this drafting change before it was proposed.

We will come later to an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that relates to the bringing into effect of the Bill. There is no date set. I do not want to pre-empt that amendment and that discussion, but if my noble friend Lord Elton looks at Clause 5, “Commencement and short title”, he will see that provision is made for it to 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 purpose of that is so these measures can all come in together on the same date and, I think, at the same time, in the 16 different realms.

Some realms are dealing with this in different ways. Some, such as New Zealand and Canada, will legislate to ensure that the changes take effect in their country. I believe that the Bill was brought into the New Zealand Parliament last week. Other realms, such as Papua New Guinea and Jamaica, have found that they do not need to legislate. The intention is that when all realms have done what is necessary regarding their arrangements, the measures will be brought into effect at the same time. There is no date set.

It has been said that the Bill was rushed through the other place. As I have said on more than one occasion, the Bill did not even take up the time allocated to it in the other place, so I am not sure what could have been done if more time was allocated. It is a simple fact that the time was not taken up.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

To argue that it did not take up the time and to try and present this as treating an important constitutional measure properly is quite unfair. The point is that all stages of this Bill were carried out over two days in the other place. The conventions have been that constitutional Bills are dealt with over a proper passage of time so that people can make points, the Government can think about them and perhaps even come back with a suggestion for change. By tradition, constitutional Bills have always been taken on the Floor of the House of Commons. To try to argue that this Bill was not rushed through the other place in an untimely manner, with many Members’ speeches protesting about the way it was handled, is a little misleading.

[Lord Northbrook]

Perhaps I may add to my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s comments. At least 17 amendments were put down in Committee in the other place. Only two were actually discussed. I am sorry, but to say that all the amendments put down in Committee were discussed is not the truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Why did the Government choose to go about this in this rather unconventional way? Why did the Executive agree with other heads of government a process rather than asking Parliament to consider legislation and then seek agreement from the other interested states, which would also have given their parliamentarians an opportunity to be involved in the process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, different realms do it in different ways. To pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, with regard to the amendment raised by my noble friend Lord Elton—on the same subject matter we are discussing now—it does not change the substance of the agreement but rather seeks to remove a possible ambiguity. It was circulated among the other realms, their comments were sought and they were satisfied with that.

With regard to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I understand different realms are dealing with this in different ways. At least one of them, I think, is saying that it approves of the law passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. Others are approving more substantive legislation, and some believe no legislation is necessary at all. It varies, but at the heart of it was an agreement on the substance—namely, the removal of male bias in terms of succession to the Throne; the removal of the barrier of the person in line of succession marrying a Roman Catholic; and the abolition of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and its replacement with the sovereign’s consent for the first six in line. Earlier, in my response to my noble friend Lord Lang, I indicated that I do not think that that was in the original Perth agreement but was subsequently agreed. The number of six was agreed with the realms.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. Will he be kind enough to write to those of us who have an interest detailing how each of the realms concerned will deal with this matter? Would there be any merit in us trying to persuade those parliaments perhaps to accept my noble friend Lord Lang’s injunction to change from six to 12? If one of them did so, what would happen then? Would we have to go back and look at it again? How would it be resolved?

[Lord Cormack]

Further to that and, in a sense, even more pertinent, if this Bill should pass Report stage in this House and the other place endorses the change of six to 12, is my noble friend saying that that would invalidate this international agreement? Does this Parliament have authority in this matter or not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I think that that falls outside the terms of the amendment. If I could return to my noble friend’s question, surely the answer to his worry is quite simple: at the end of line 31, insert the words, “subject to approval by both Houses”.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I was quite struck by an argument that my noble and learned friend used in an earlier amendment when he chided me, in arguing that it was important that Parliament was able to take account of the arguments of other parliaments, and suggested that I might be presenting this Parliament as dictating—as opposed to the Executive; it is okay for Ministers to decide things over lunch, but it would be dictating if Parliament made decisions. I see that he has a point there; if we had brought this legislation through both Houses, there might be a feeling in the other realms that we had it all cut and dried.

I have been reflecting on that in a humble way, and have been so persuaded by my noble and learned friend’s argument that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has got it 100% right. If, as my noble friend Lord Elton has just suggested, we were to amend the commencement provision to require approval by both Houses after the other realms had considered these matters, then we would have an opportunity to demonstrate to all those other realms how we were taking account of the views not just of their Ministers but of their parliamentarians. This proposal is actually a clever and ingenious way of delivering what the Minister himself said was appropriate only a few moments ago.

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, my queries actually applied to Amendment 17, which I think is grouped with this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

As I indicated, it is up to each country to do it. We are not telling each country what to do and no one is suggesting that. It will be up to each country to determine, according to their own procedures, how that should be done. The key point is the flexibility built into the commencement clause: it will not be given effect to until we are satisfied that all realms have, by whatever procedures they consider proper and necessary, reached that position.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I need to be absolutely certain that I understand what my noble and learned friend has been saying. Is he saying that this legislation will not come into effect until it has been approved by all the realms? Is he also saying that this legislation will not come into effect unless and until all its provisions have been approved to the letter by all these realms? In other words, is he saying that if there is a difference of a minor degree between one realm and the legislation then the legislation would not be taken forward?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I indicated at Second Reading, the intent is that it should be simultaneous commencement in each realm and therefore, by definition, it will not be brought into effect here. Clause 5 will come into effect on the day on which the Act is passed, but that is the commencement section. Otherwise, that then gives effect to what else is there in terms of the commencement order. If there is a material difference we would clearly not be in a position to commence. I think it was my noble friend who made the point that it would not be a very satisfactory position if two generations down the line the Crown went in one direction in one realm and in another direction in another realm. That is what we are seeking to avoid, that is why there was such an effort made to reach agreement and that is why it is important that, in translating that agreement, each realm does that by whatever means it thinks is appropriate according to its own procedures. When these are all done and delivering on the agreement has been reached, the commencement order would be made to ensure that commencement started simultaneously in each realm, delivering the same things.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not want to detain the House or split hairs but my noble and learned friend said, “If there is a material difference”. I would not say that my noble friend Lord Lang’s amendment, which suggested changing from six to 12, made a material difference to the import or impact of the Bill. I would say that it was a perfectly sensible, minor adjustment. However, if one of the other realms, overwhelmed by the power of the argument put by my noble friend this afternoon, decided to change it from six to 12, would that mean that commencement would not proceed?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

There is an agreement reached and it is up to each realm to implement the agreement. If that agreement is, somehow or another, not implemented in a realm, then we do not have the unanimity to permit commencement.