Succession to the Crown Bill

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

There are therefore genuine issues and questions left by the degree to which the Government have legislated to date, as well as the form and limits of the legislation to date. Unless those other issues are addressed—by these amendments or others—the Government will leave us still harbouring the doubt that clause 3(1) is really about ensuring that the issues opened up by clause 2 will never actually arise in practice. I do not believe that is good enough. We as legislators cannot say, “We’re going to put in place flawed legislation that we know gives rise to all these other questions, but we’re content either that it’s not going to happen or that it’s not going to happen soon enough.” As legislators, we have to address things in our time according to what is right, what is fair and what is proper. In the 21st century, we should not be leaving any residual form of discrimination against any person of any one religion.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I must begin by saying that I do not have to declare an interest in the debate today, in that I am not related in any way to any member of the royal family—unlike some Members of the House. Nor am I related to a Welsh saint; I have been assured that, despite my name, there is no connection whatever.

I rise to respond to this excellent debate with some trepidation. I have to express some strong reservations, but I want to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). His speech introducing the new clause was a veritable tour de force, if I may use that language. It was a wonderful speech; it is a long time since we have heard such a wonderfully erudite exposition in the House. It was very much about equality between the members of all religious faiths and none in regard to the ability to hold the position of monarch of this country. That theme was taken up powerfully by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who said that new clause 1 highlighted what many people consider to be a continuing anachronism.

It should be recognised, as several constitutional historians have done, that the monarchy today has a number of symbolic roles attached to it, including the Head of the Commonwealth and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Some might question whether it is correct to describe those roles as symbolic, but the reality is that we live in an increasingly secular society and that many people are now quite rightly questioning the close connection between Church and state.

There is no doubt in my mind that Parliament must have this debate. We should also have a debate on the question of disestablishment. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) mentioned the fact that the Church in Wales had been disestablished since 1920. Speaking as a Welshman and a member of that Church, I recognise that that has created a sound constitutional relationship between that Church and the monarch in England. However, that debate and the debate on religious equality in regard to the throne are debates for another time. That is not to say that we must shy away from those debates—quite the opposite, in fact—but we must recognise that this is a limited, narrowly defined Bill.

The Bill has had a long gestation period, starting with the work done by the previous Government and continuing under this Government. Its contents have been agreed by the Heads of Government in the Commonwealth. If the whole issue were to be reopened in the way that has been suggested, we would have to go back to square one and begin the long, convoluted process again. I am sure all Members would accept that that would be neither helpful nor desirable.

It is also important to note, as we have been discussing the international element to the Bill in relation to the Commonwealth, that Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands might abdicate in favour of her son. I mention this because the Netherlands is one of the countries that has abolished male primogeniture, and I very much hope that the House will follow that good Dutch example.

It was made clear in our previous debate on the Bill that although the legislation might appear straightforward at first glance, it is in fact extremely complex. The nature of the constitutional relationship between the monarchy and the Government is byzantine, to say the least, and there will inevitably be unintended consequences that will have to be scrutinised in great detail.

I should like to ask for greater clarification on one such detail relating to new clause 1. As I understand it, the hon. Member for North East Somerset believes that the monarch could still be the head of the Church of England if he or she were in communion with the Church, but if that were not the case, he is suggesting that the next in line of succession could fulfil the role. What would happen, however, if that individual were not a member of the Church of England?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The regent would assume the role under the Regency Act 1937, which requires that the regent should meet all the criteria laid down in the Act of Settlement. They would therefore have to be a Protestant, and in communion with the Church of England. The whole point of the new clause is to ensure that the supreme governorship of the Church of England remains with a Protestant.

[Wayne David]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might come back with that response. However, the difficulty with the regency legislation is that there is more than one Act. There have been a number of amending Acts. He referred to the 1937 Act, but since then there have been what some people have referred to as ad hoc departures from that legislation. In fact, the Act talks about the best person succeeding to the throne, rather than the next in line. What on earth does that mean? How do we define the “best person”? This underlines the point that the legislation will inevitably have unintended consequences that will have to be looked at in detail, with a cool head, over a reasonable period of time.

Nevertheless, we have had an excellent debate this afternoon. We have focused on the tightly defined legislation before us, but Members have also rightly taken the opportunity to extend the debate. We have now begun to open the new chapter of constitutional debate that we need to have in this country. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for North East Somerset will not press the new clause to a vote.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today for their erudite and comprehensive contributions. I join the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) in being a fan of middle English and old English; if he would like to join me in the Tea Room some time, I am sure that we could discuss that.

Through amendments 1 and 2, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is seeking to ensure that a child of the Roman Catholic faith may later convert to the Protestant faith and succeed to the throne. Let me first deal with the Government’s understanding of the Act of Settlement, which we share with him. The law in this area is certainly not easy, but on balance, we agree with his interpretation of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights as meaning that a Roman Catholic may not convert to the Protestant faith and then succeed to the throne. This is, however, an aspect of our constitution that we do not think has ever been tested. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) noted that such circumstances would be unlikely to arise within our lifetimes. The bar appears to be on anyone who has ever “professed” the Roman Catholic faith, or held communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Once disqualified, they are excluded for ever from succeeding to the throne.

I should like to make a few points on amendments 1 and 2 before I turn to new clause 1. My first point relates to scope. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, the scope of the Bill is narrow. I appreciate that there are reasons to criticise the law as it stands, but the amendments stray into new territory and go beyond the limited aims of the Bill. In passing, I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). We missed him in the earlier debates last week, but he enlivened us today when he came as close as anyone has done in the debate to asking, “Is the Pope a Catholic?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

During this debate many hon. Members have asked the Government to take account of unintended consequences, and I humbly suggest that I am pointing out an unintended consequence of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset.

We have heard several mentions in the debate of the support afforded to the Bill by the Archbishop of Westminster, who welcomed

“the decision of Her Majesty’s Government to give heirs to the throne the freedom to marry a Catholic”.

Importantly, he also recognised the importance of the position of the established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society. I balance that against the Church of England’s comments, which are likewise supportive. Given that both the Catholic Church and the Church of England have been extremely supportive of the changes, I believe that we have found an appropriate balance in the Bill. I do not think there is an appetite in the country at large to change or damage the position of the established Church in this country.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister accept the reality of change in this extremely complex constitutional area? Whatever the moral arguments in favour of change, they must nevertheless be matched to the practicalities of constitutional change and achieving the necessary consensus to bring about that change.

[Miss Smith]

I welcome the comments of the hon. Gentleman, who brings me back to the point that I do not believe there is a consensus among the public for any radical divergence from the traditional arrangements for the established Church in this country.

In new clause 1, my hon. Friend proposes a perhaps rather ingenious solution: splitting the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England from the role of sovereign, in a method akin to a regency. Such a split would represent a fundamental change to the role of the monarch in English society in relation to the established Church, and could not be considered without extensive consultation. I am delighted that the House had sufficient time to debate all the matters that were in scope last week, but new clause 1 suggests a more radical diversion from the traditional role of the monarchy. There is not public support for the proposed change, which opens up a series of extremely difficult questions about what the relationship would be between the sovereign and the Supreme Governor, and whether such arrangements could continue to support the established place of the Church of England. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) raised a question about how the coronation and accession oaths could be made to work in such an instance.

The Government have no intention of going further than the limited scope of the Bill as presented. The amendments and the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset would introduce instability and uncertainty of a type that is not welcome in the institution we are discussing, which has served the country well for generations in its temporal role and in its spiritual role as articulated. As there is neither public support for the admirably comprehensive arguments that have been made, nor appropriate space for consultation on them considering that the legislation must be taken through many other realms, I invite my hon. Friend to seek leave to withdraw his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

We have had a good debate today, and there were excellent debates last week on Second Reading and in Committee. I am glad the Government made the right decision to allow sufficient time for a proper and full debate in the House.

As I have said before, although the Bill is small in size, it is constitutionally and practically significant. A number of hon. Members have made the point that we should not tamper with our constitution, and particularly the monarch’s role within it, unless we are very sure about the changes we are making. Moreover, it is important that there is a large measure of consensus that transcends usual political divisions. In that respect, I thank the Minister for the co-operation with Opposition Front Benchers. I, too, associate myself with his remarks on wishing the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge all the best for the birth of their first child. For the first time, we can be sure that we have established equality between the sexes.

Mixed marriage—so-called—was raised on a number of occasions during our debates. I accept that it is a theological discussion, but clear reassurances have been provided by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.

We discussed the resources of the Duchy of Cornwall last week. I am assured that money will go to the Treasury, and that, under the provisions of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, exactly the same money that would normally go to a male heir apparent will go to a female heir apparent via the Treasury. There is also the possibility that a female heir apparent could be the chair of the duchy, which is to be welcomed.

A number of hon. Members have been exercised because some people allege that there is a contradiction in clause 2(1) and clause 3(1). It is important to recognise that there is no contradiction—the clauses sit well together. The Government of the day will have a clear role and express a clear opinion to the monarch if the monarch’s right to deny the royal succession as it would normally take place is exercised. It is important to explain that the monarch is not a detached institution—we have a constitutional monarchy. That important point needs to be stressed time and again, but these are complicated and emotive issues. Will the Government consider providing additional explanation in the explanatory notes when the Bill goes to the other place, so that they provide further clarity?

That leads me on to the decision of the monarch regarding the six in line to succession. On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister specifically stated that the figure of six was seized on for pragmatic reasons, but the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), has said that the succession after Queen Victoria—the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) was extremely helpful on this point—set a useful precedent. Six is a reasonable figure that the Opposition can easily accept.

In conclusion, I am content with the reassurances that Ministers have provided and I look forward, once we have concluded our deliberations, to hearing the views that will be coherently expressed in the other place. The Bill is indeed an important piece of legislation. The roots of the monarchy as an institution are firmly embedded in our history—there is no doubt about that—but today the constitutional monarchy is a form of government that places the Head of State beyond political competition. That is surely to be welcomed. The sovereign, as well as being Head of State, is head of our nation. As one of our most distinguished constitutional experts has argued, the monarchy alone is in a position to interpret the nation to itself—that is its central function, its essential justification and its rationale. The Bill will help our constitutional monarchy fulfil that role even more effectively today and well into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

The hon. Gentleman says the Act is redundant. Would it not be more accurate to say that it is a ridiculous piece of legislation?

[Michael Ellis]

I do not go so far as to say it is a ridiculous piece of legislation because there is a good reason why the sovereign should have a right over those closest to him or her in their marriage arrangements. The hon. Gentleman must also agree with that principle, because he said he agreed with the principle that the number should be reduced to six. So whether it be the heirs of Electress Sophia or whether it be six people, the principle remains the same. The sovereign has special rights and responsibilities. Of course it is true that in ordinary families no head of the family would have such a say, but it is nonsense to suggest that the royal family should be in that position. It is right that some demarcation be made so that the sovereign can exercise control. My understanding is that in other constitutional monarchies similar provisions apply, whereby restrictions are placed on the marriage rights of those closest in line.

I support the Bill. I commend it to the House. Although I emphasise that I would exercise extreme caution when chipping away at the pillars of our constitution, in my submission the Bill should have the support of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Chloe Smith]

With brevity and the leave of the House, I simply want to confirm that I would be happy to expand the explanatory notes as the Bill goes to the other place. I also want to suggest that everyone in the House—

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Miss Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman not allow me the pleasure of simply saying, “God save the Queen”?

[Wayne David]

I have no objection at all—the Minister can say it again if she likes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned how the six people nearest in line to the throne could lose their place if the Queen did not consent to their marriage. It is important to say on the record that the explanatory notes state clearly that that would be the case; in fact, it says so in the summary on the front page. I do not think, therefore, that it is fair to say that the issue has not been referred to properly in the House—it has been referred to in the documents and in last week’s debate.

It is also important to remember that we are talking about a constitutional monarchy that has a close relationship with the Government of the day. I am sure that a monarch would not take any action if they believed that, in doing so, they would be acting incorrectly in the background.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Thank you for that short intervention.