Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Harriett Baldwin

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I think this is my third attempt to make progress on this issue in this House. I want to end the constitutional sexism that means that an eighth of the seats in the other place are reserved for men only. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who tried to introduce the Bill in March 2019; he is a champion of true equality. I pay tribute to Charlotte Carew Pole of Daughters’ Rights, who helps to keep this just cause alive in this place. Our former colleague Mary Macleod also tried to bring in a similar Bill. Even though this is this Bill’s Second Reading, it is not the second time that the issue has come up in the Commons, and it will keep coming up until things change.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for her good, kind words. This has been a long battle. I thank her for her persistence on the issue. It is a battle worth fighting, and I hope that she will continue to fight for it. Does she agree that the issue we are discussing is completely and utterly unacceptable—one of the last bastions of unacceptable discrimination—and that this House should have nothing to do with it any longer?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his endorsement. I agree, as does almost everyone I have met, and I will go through some of that agreement in my remarks.

As someone who has had the privilege to be both a Foreign Office Minister and the chair of the British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union, I found it hard to meet parliamentarians from other parts of the world and say that our unwritten constitution had created a great outcome for women in this Parliament, because we still have this anomaly of inbuilt sexism. For over 70 years, our country was graced by a female sovereign, who was the perfect embodiment of the benefits of female succession. That is probably one of the reasons why this place changed the succession to the Crown in 2013.

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 meant that the firstborn child of Prince George will be in line to succeed him. The Act ended male primogeniture for the Crown, but we left undone any wider reform to make male primogeniture in the United Kingdom a part of history. As a result, in this very Parliament, a quarter of the way through the 21st century, we still have a situation where an eighth of the seats in the other place are reserved for men only. I will repeat that because I find it so shocking: an eighth of the seats in the upper House of this Parliament are permanently reserved for men only, through the system of reserving 92 seats for hereditary peerages.

Whatever our views of the other place or of hereditary peerages more generally—personally, I value the contribution that they make and the perspective they bring, but I understand that there are other points of view—I hope we can all agree that, in 2024, embedded sex discrimination is simply not acceptable. Women are being treated unfairly for no reason other than that they are women. That has terrible real-world consequences. In fact, 13% of the land in the UK is owned by women and 87% is owned by men. Boys are twice as likely as girls to inherit the family business. If we cannot change inequality at the top of our society, we will never be able to change inequality for the whole of our society. Put simply, daughters should be treated the same as sons across society. If it is good enough for succession to the Crown, it should be good enough for everyone else. Hereditary peerages in the other place should go automatically to the eldest child, which at the moment very rarely happens.

I have listened to many points of view on this topic since I first introduced the Bill, and I have reflected on those comments and changed it; it is not the same Bill that I presented last time. I hoped that by making these changes, I might persuade the Government to support it. Clause 1(1) provides that succession to hereditary peerages only does not depend on sex. I have deliberately narrowed the scope of the Bill to focus on peerages because of the constitutional implications, as they are eligible to be elected to our upper House. On the register to stand as hereditary peers, there are 210 people who wish to put themselves forward should there be a by-election, and I understand that of those 210 people, only one is female. That demonstrates that it is already possible to be a female hereditary peer, but under the current system it does not happen as routinely as it does for men.

Unlike my earlier Bill, the scope does not include baronetcies and other titles, in order to address the objection that the Bill has too wide a scope and would intrude into the private lives of those 1,500 to 1,800 families who would never be in our legislature. I have done that with some reluctance, but in order to get the Government to support my Bill.

Clause 1(2) would phase the provision in gradually and—again, listening to comments from people—when there is already an identified male heir in the line of succession, the change would take place at the next point of succession. That would gradually phase in the change, which is another concession I am making to get the Government’s support.

Clause 2 makes it clear, again in response to objections, that the Bill is entirely about the titles and that any decision about wills, property or inheritance is completely distinct from the issue of the title. Clause 4, again addressing an objection, would exempt the peerages and titles that are still held by the Crown. I have, therefore, gone a long way in this new version of the Bill to address the concerns I have heard. As a Conservative, I stand for equality of opportunity. We should want every person born in this country to enjoy the same chance to make a difference, to thrive and to prosper. I personally will not give up until this posh glass ceiling is broken.

Another concern that I heard raised was, “What about their lordships? What might they do if, Lord forbid, this Bill should reach the other place?” I want to put on record my gratitude to the Earl of Devon, no less, who has agreed to take the Bill through the other place. Fortunately, we have some recent comments from Hansard that reflect the mood in the other place, because on 9 February, Lord Northbrook secured a Second Reading of his Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill, which takes a different approach; it would allow female succession only if no man was available—no comment needed.

Lord Northbrook said,

“As I said in 2015, I understand that Section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 now makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex where both sexes may perform the function required. This would apply to peerages. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned to me at the time that if a legitimate female issue, where the peerage would otherwise become extinct, referred a case to the European Court of Human Rights, they could well have a chance of success. I would perfectly well understand if some heirs might wish to take this route.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2024; Vol. 835, c. 1915.]

Male primogeniture could therefore be illegal anyway in some cases, if tested by the courts.

On Second Reading in the other place, the following supportive points were made about my Bill. The Earl of Sandwich said,

“The campaign for female succession must be encouraged, and has had approval, if not support, from within government at a high level. Harriett Baldwin’s Private Member’s Bill in another place attracted a lot of attention, while, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, Penny Mordaunt”—

the Leader of the House—

“referred to this as a ‘posh glass ceiling’. Even our own noble Lord, Lord True, seemed to be sympathetic, though could not actually support the Bill. Let us see if His Majesty’s Government can look more favourably on it this time.”

Viscount Astor said that Lord Northbrook’s Bill

“does not go far enough… it should be a Bill that brings the peerage into line with the Crown.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2024; Vol. 835, c. 1919.]

Lord Lucas said,

“I share the vision that…women are equal with men in every respect…and I would very much like to see that applied to peerage inheritance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2024; Vol. 835, c. 1920.]

Lord Addington said,

“However, if we are going to do this, we should follow the example of the Royal Family. The oldest child is the only way you can really make this equal going forward. It”—

Lord Northbrook’s Bill—

“could be interpreted as an attempt at a small step forward, but it is out of date and out of time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 2024; Vol. 835, c. 1921.]

Baroness Noakes was supportive of the way forward being inheritance by the eldest child, and of course Baroness Chapman for the Opposition was supportive, too. In fact, I have personally contacted every single one of the 92 hereditary peers and not had a single person object. If there are objections, they are well hidden in the other place.

In fact, I have had the following supportive replies. Lord Hampton told me that he supports the principle behind my Bill. Earl Howe said,

“I am very much in favour of the principle behind your Bill.”

Lord Willoughby de Broke said,

“I will certainly support it, if only because two of our best monarchs have been Queens and it’s absurd that girls are excluded by male primogeniture.”

What are the Government’s objections and why are they not supportive of the Bill, because I fear that I will be talked out? Many members of the Government are supportive, and I am sorry that the collective decision of the Government is not a supportive one. This is a missed opportunity for the Government to champion wider support for women with another step forward.

[Philip Davies]

I commend my hon. Friend for all her extensive consultation on this issue. It seems from what she says that no logical reason has been given to be against the measures in the Bill other than self-interest and pure old sexism. Those seem to be the only two possible ways someone could oppose the Bill. Given that, I encourage her to keep going with this Bill and to find further dates down the line. In the meantime, we can hopefully encourage the Government and Opposition to find their way to supporting the Bill, and it can then be nodded through at a later date.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Such wonderfully encouraging words from my hon. Friend! I believe that by making the changes I have to the substance of the Bill, I have addressed any substantive concerns that the Government might have. I have heard the objection that it is just too complicated, too time-consuming—basically, a faff for which there is not enough parliamentary time. I have been told that it is not a doorstep issue or retail issue, and it is true that few people would ever raise it with me on the doorstep. I am sure that colleagues would say the same. However, it is important because when we mention what it is about, people immediately understand how pernicious it is if sexism is embedded in our legislature in this way.

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Harriett Baldwin

Friday 25th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)]

It is truly a privilege to be able to respond on behalf of the Government to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). I congratulate him on winning a number so high up the ballot for his private Member’s Bill and on his success in bringing forward this measure today.

To some people the impersonation of our military heroes may seem a trifling matter, worthy more of humour than of concern. There is, for instance, the case of a man who claimed to be a member of the entirely fictitious Royal Warwickshire Dog Handlers, and another who went to great lengths to have the commando dagger insignia tattooed on his arm, only to find out that it was pointing in the wrong direction. Men who seemed plausible would, on closer examination—to borrow a phrase—appear to have spent more time in a fancy dress shop than on the front line.

This has been an excellent debate. We have heard not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, but from my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who shared with us the example from his constituency of a UKIP councillor who wore the most implausible range of medals and was eventually forced to stand down. At the same time he was discovered to be a bigamist, which demonstrates that people who are impertinent enough to pretend to be recipients of medals to which they are not entitled may well be capable of crossing the threshold of propriety and doing other completely unacceptable things.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), in an extensive, detailed and well-researched speech lasting about 70 minutes, presented the case against the Bill. He argued passionately on behalf of those who wish to continue to impersonate people who are entitled to wear medals. He was on the side of Walter Mitty, but I have to say that the mood of the House is not with him.

[Philip Davies]

First, as the Minister knows, I was not on the side of Walter Mitty, and it is rather insulting of her to say that I was. Secondly, perhaps she could explain in passing why on 3 May this year the Ministry of Defence agreed with me, whereas now, in November it agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. Can she tell us what has changed in the meantime?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend was certainly making a case for opposing the Bill. In a moment, I shall come to our reasons for supporting it.

We heard a very good speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who chairs the Defence Committee. We are grateful for the time that his Committee spent taking evidence on the Bill, and for the insights that it has shared in its report. He gave another good example of the perhaps unintended consequences of failing to make this a criminal offence by telling us that his partner’s father had been questioned, during an event specifically for veterans, about his entitlement to wear the medal of which he is so rightly proud.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) argued passionately in favour of allowing people who wear medals in “Blackadder” and other dramatic events to be covered by the exemptions in the Bill.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am glad that my hon. Friend made that intervention. He has rightly put a wonderful example on the record. I know that many people throughout the country are very grateful to be receiving the Légion d’Honneur from the French Government at this time.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton)—along with the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)— supports the Bill. He gave a very good example of how important it is that the Bill should protect the rights of family members to wear their loved ones’ medals, saying he proudly wears on his right breast on Remembrance Day the medals his father won for his service.

The mood of the House today is that the dishonest behaviour and egregious examples we have heard about are not harmless fun or mindless eccentricity; in actual fact, their implications are far greater and their ramifications far graver than many would appreciate at first glance, and all the more so when they involve the unauthorised wearing of decorations and medals. That is, first, because it is a gross affront to those who have genuinely served their country at considerable risk to themselves and who, as is intended, wear their medals with great pride. As Siegfried Sassoon wrote in “Memoirs of an Infantry Officer”:

“nobody knew how much a decoration was worth except the man who received it.”

But this is about more than feelings, important as they are, which brings me to my second point: wearing unauthorised medals is harmful because it undermines the integrity of our formal military honours system, a historical system that has honoured the bravery and dedication of our world-class armed forces since the 19th century. Thirdly, and perhaps most crucially, by undermining that system bogus medal-wearers erode the vital bond of trust and respect between the public and the armed forces.

It is for those very significant reasons that during the first world war the Defence of the Realm Regulation 41 made it an offence to

“wear a decoration or medal without authority”.

As we have heard in several contributions today, that prohibition was transferred into statute after the war, and later incorporated into the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955. I should also mention that it is still an offence under the Uniforms Act 1894 to wear a military uniform without authority, and that offence carries a maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding level 3.

In the early years of this century, when the Armed Forces Act 2006 was drafted, the concern about Walter Mittys was not widespread, and the then Labour Government decided not to carry forward the offences into the new Act. The most egregious acts of deception in this regard, where the individual uses medals to which he is not entitled in order to obtain a financial advantage, are crimes of fraud and, as such, are rightly punishable at a much higher level.

The American Stolen Valor Act 2013 covers only the higher military awards for bravery, as well as certain other military awards such as the Purple Heart and some awards for combat service. But that Act makes it an offence only if the awards are being worn for gain. Nevertheless, the Government recognise the concern about the gap not covered by the Fraud Act 2006, which the Bill seeks to address. It is for that reason, I point out in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, that the Government support the Bill. I know that there are questions about the extent of the problem.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister has explained, as she said she would, why the Government are supporting the Bill, but she has not covered why the Government did not support exactly the same measures proposed in the e-petition in May this year.

[Harriett Baldwin]

The Secretary of State has been thoroughly convinced by the excellent case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, by the power of his argument in the Chamber and by the way he has worked so constructively to address our previous concerns in his proposed legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley questioned the extent of the problem in this country. I am grateful to the Defence Committee for producing its extremely thorough report, which acknowledges that the precise level of the problem is difficult to determine. There is clearly a greater awareness of it as an issue, perhaps because of the greater visibility afforded by social media and the appearance of groups dedicated to exposing these Walter Mittys. It is for that reason, and those that I have previously outlined, that the Government are now happy to offer support to the Bill.

The Committee’s report was ably summarised by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, who chairs the Committee, and it raised issues for the Government to consider beyond those immediately addressed by the Bill—in particular, the question of establishing a searchable database of holders of awards. Details of individual bravery or gallantry awards are published in the London Gazette—indeed, that is the origin of the term “gazetted” in relation to medals. However, the creation of a searchable database of holders would raise concerns about personal data and individual security. There is also the matter of who would be responsible for it and who would maintain it. It would be a long-term task for someone. When it comes to the various types and levels of campaign awards, a different issue arises—one of scale. For example, the Operational Service Medal for Afghanistan alone was issued to 150,000 recipients.