22 Jan 2013 : Column 227

We should perhaps reflect on how we got to this point. The Union of the Crowns came about in 1603. Had that been the only Union that we were considering today, I would indeed be a happy Unionist, because the monarch of Scotland took the Crown off England. Many would argue from a legal perspective that that would leave Scotland the successor state, given that the monarchy follows the Stuart line, rather than the Tudor line. That is an argument for another day, however.

Wayne David: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Tudor line began with Henry VII, who was a Welshman?

Mr MacNeil: I would be happy to acknowledge that. That was probably one of the few times when the Welsh beat the Scots. They certainly will not beat them in the rugby this spring. But we digress once more.

Had Scotland maintained its political independence, we could have kept the kingdoms united, but not the Parliaments. The Act of Settlement of 1701 was disliked by many for religious reasons, but it was also the precipitator of the tawdry political Union of 1707, which, with the help of the coercive Alien Act of 1705 and in concert with straightforward bribery, brought about the union of the two Parliaments.

Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): At the time of the Act of Union in 1707, were not a lot of the Scottish nobles—for want of a better word—bankrupt? Some people might think that that is where the coercion came in.

Mr MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the words of Burns. Those people were “bought and sold for English gold”. That gives me an idea about taking people back—the 150 who have a vested interest in Westminster, for example. All that Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government need to do is buy and sell them for Scottish gold. If the vested interests could be bought off in that way, we might bring about independence a bit earlier.

It was the Scottish reaction to the Act of Settlement of 1701 that led to the events that I was describing. The motivator was the desire not for a political superstate but for a unitary monarchy, and the question had to be decided before the death of Queen Anne. Fortunately, for the benefit of the House, the Scottish National party can allay the fears created by the Act of Settlement: the monarchy will continue to be shared with Scotland and England, and the need for the Acts of 1706 in England and 1707 in Scotland will disappear. We can therefore proceed to independence and dissolve the two Unions. I am sure that I am alone in this Chamber in holding that belief, but I am not alone in Scotland in so doing.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith): Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has kept the royal household informed at every stage of his plans?

Mr MacNeil: I do not have Her Majesty on my text message list, but if she wanted to drop me an e-mail, I would be happy to respond to it. However, I do know that her personal private secretary is a visitor to the Hebrides and has relatives there. The links are indeed

22 Jan 2013 : Column 228

multi-faceted, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth can testify. She, too, has links with the Hebrides and has worked in the royal household. As we can see, the monarchy reaches us all in many ways.

History aside, the Bill is surely flawed. Many people have described how flawed it is. It is only a halfway house —a real dog’s breakfast of broken biscuits. It deals with succession and partially with freedom of religion, but it leaves the question of full freedom of religion untouched. It also leaves with the monarch the bizarre, arcane requirement for marital approval of six people in the line of succession. Some cultures have an adaptation of that requirement in the form of arranged marriages, but here in Westminster, we are institutionalising it.

The Bill affects other realms as well, and I wonder whether they will progress further than this Parliament and deal with this issue more fully, rather than having a halfway house, waiting for Westminster to catch up—as it inevitably will some day. They are free and independent, and by doing so they will save themselves an immense amount of time and hassle in the future, but they will also signal their fairness and egalitarianism to the wider world. Indeed, in Australia, republican zest seems to appear from time to time.

It should be noted that in 1999, the Scottish Parliament pushed for a motion for the removal of any discrimination linked to the monarchy and the repeal of the Act of Settlement. So progressive opinion—at least in Scotland—is 14-years-old before this issue has come to Westminster. While there may be a lot of huff and puff here at Westminster about allowing the monarchy to be Catholic, practically, I do not think it really matters. I do not think that the current or future royals are likely to convert to Catholicism, any more than would the King of Norway or the Queen of Denmark. The fact that a Parliament has gone to such lengths to discriminate against a certain faith group is surely odd in an international context. No doubt it will be ripe for lampooning, perhaps on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” on CNN because it is a step back and truly bizarre. I am sure that history will judge it as bizarre, especially when we think that such contrary views existed in the Scottish Parliament 14 years ago. I am not sure whether bans on Catholics exist in Denmark and Norway—if they are so allergic to the idea—or whether bans against Protestants exist in Spain. Surely there is enough smeddum and sense in those societies to remove such proscriptions.

Equally, I hope that other monarchies do not hold the power over their relatives’ choice of spouse—a power that is rightly alien to their subjects when it comes to their nearest and dearest. When Scotland becomes independent in the next few years, we will certainly retain the monarch, as Canada, New Zealand and Australia have done, but we shall remove such infantile restrictions as we see here today. We will wait until the keystone Parliament—in a way Westminster will always be that mainly due to the residency of the monarch in close proximity to it—catches up. In the meantime, we can look forward to saying, “God save the Queen of an independent Scotland”.

3.42 pm

Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow a number of excellent speakers in the debate, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid

22 Jan 2013 : Column 229

Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). It is a rare privilege to speak in a debate so important and so long lasting in its effects as a Bill to change the succession to the Crown. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that this debate is of enormous importance, so having more time could be justified, but I hope that all the important views expressed in the debate will be heard clearly by the Government and that they will be able to respond in a reassuring way.

Perhaps only once in a couple of centuries, as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) pointed out, does an opportunity like this arise. In this country and on the continent, wars have been fought over royal successions, and in England we owe the birth of our political party system to a debate on succession. The Tory and Whig parties, which dominated the politics of the 18th century, were forged in the fire of the exclusion crisis of 1681, some aspects and implications of which have already been touched on today. As I alluded to in my maiden speech, I believe that our monarchy is one of this country’s great constitutional treasures. Its terms are not to be changed lightly and its history, stretching back over 1,000 years beyond 1066 to King Alfred and the Saxon kings, is something of which we are constantly reminded in this extraordinary building.

The most significant clause of today’s Bill will make a change that many believe is long overdue—equalising the right of women to succeed to the throne with that of men. I believe that this change is more than justified by the example of our current monarch. I do not believe that this is an example of political correctness, but one of learning from the examples that history and our recent experience can offer.

Indeed, through the long history of England and of the United Kingdom we have been blessed with some magnificent examples of female leadership in our monarchs. Perhaps in part because the opportunities were so rare, it has tended to be the case throughout world history that the queens who managed to overcome the obstacles of male-dominated institutions and laws have tended to be exceptional people. Overseas examples such as Maria Theresa of Austria or Catherine the Great of Russia made a lasting mark on their countries.

In England, the reign of the first Elizabeth was a period of trial and crowning glory, with the firm establishment of the Reformation, the defeat of the armada and the beginnings of England’s global influence. The reign of Anne saw the great victories of Marlborough, the establishment of the Protestant succession, and the famous bounty that endowed so many beautiful churches built by Wren across the city of London. The reign of Queen Victoria saw the apogee of Britain’s power and influence, the universal male franchise, and the construction of the very building in which we stand today—a glorious celebration of the union of Crown and Parliament.

However, perhaps more than any of those, it is our monarch today who enables us to see how valuable the role of female leadership can be. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth beautifully illustrated the importance of the Queen’s role and influence here at home. Our Queen, who celebrated her diamond jubilee so successfully last year—when, indeed, she visited Worcester, her “faithful city”—has played a particularly vital role in building and holding together a Commonwealth

22 Jan 2013 : Column 230

of nations, which form an unbelievably valuable network for the United Kingdom in the 21st century. She has calmly presided over dramatic changes that saw the constitutions of other countries overturned, and has provided a thread of continuity through one of the most dynamic and fast-moving periods in world history. Her wisdom and experience have proved equal or superior to those of any imaginable man placed in the same role, and the great charm with which she has conducted her reign has ensured the continuing attachment of the British people—and many other peoples around the world—to our monarchy.

When the first Elizabeth faced her moment of crisis, she reassured her people by saying:

“I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king”.

Our own Elizabeth has never needed to make such an apology for being female, and, in an age in which monarchs are no longer expected to lead their troops into battle but are expected to provide leadership and inspiration from a distance, she has proved beyond all doubt her ability to do both.

I mentioned the enormous value of the Commonwealth, and I welcome the fact that today’s debate is informed by extensive negotiations and discussions in that forum. In making their decisions on the Bill, Members can be reassured that the changes under discussion will have the support of other Commonwealth realms, and that they will strengthen and not endanger the bonds that Queen Elizabeth II has so painstakingly built with the nations of the Commonwealth.

I share some of the concerns that have been expressed today—particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset—about other aspects of the Bill, and I think it important for the Government to respond to them carefully. It seems strange to remove one discrimination against Catholics by enabling them to marry into the royal family while retaining another by not enabling them to inherit. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), however, made an important point about the ability of individuals, particularly adults, to make their own choices in that regard.

On balance, I think that this is a strong, simple Bill to update succession to the Crown. I especially welcome its most important provision, which will ensure that in future generations we can have more diamond queens, and perhaps more examples of the sort with which our British female monarchs have already been able to provide the world.

Three and a half centuries ago, my constituency of Worcester was the scene of the bloody battles that began and ended the English civil war. People who laid down their lives on both sides of those battles would view today’s proceedings with some approval. On one hand, the tens of thousands who fought for Parliament would see a Parliament infinitely more democratic than the one of their day, with the ability to rule on the royal succession and to engage in free debate on the matter. On the other hand, those who fought for Church and King—the “faithful city”, and its faithful citizens—would see the beginnings of another chapter in our monarchy, for which so many fought and died. As Member of Parliament for the “faithful city”, I am happy to support the Bill.

22 Jan 2013 : Column 231

3.48 pm

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”

22 Jan 2013 : Column 232

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—

22 Jan 2013 : Column 233

Mr MacNeil rose

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

22 Jan 2013 : Column 234

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.

4 pm

Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. It has been a great pleasure to listen to it. I have heard some excellent speeches, made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), with whom I profoundly disagree, and by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), with whom, frighteningly, I find much common cause—it is as frightening for me as it is for him. I was impressed, too, by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), with whom I very much agree. He does not speak so much for the Conservative party as for the constitution, and we all honour him for that.

I am profoundly pleased that I have had an opportunity to speak before my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because I suspect—I shall allow him to speak for himself—that when we hear him speak he will not prove himself to be so much a scion of high Toryism as a dangerous radical. We very much look forward to hearing what he says in the fullness of time.

I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, because the intention of the Bill is laudable and sensible, as it will update the rules on the succession to the Crown so that they are in keeping with the modern values of our people. A monarch must reign with consent: that is the case now, and it must be the case in future. The Bill removes unnecessary discrimination, and it tidies up what we might call the sinuous tentacles of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which is welcome. However, I should like to make a couple of points about the Bill’s provisions, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister, in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister, will be able to address so that I do not have to make them again in Committee.

In that positive spirit, I shall address the question of retrospection in clause 2. I am instinctively against retrospective legislation, no matter how good the intent

22 Jan 2013 : Column 235

might be. Clause 2 attempts to restore to the line of succession those people who have married Catholics down the years. I quite accept that we should remove the disqualification bar preventing people who have married Catholics from succeeding to the Crown, but in making those changes—the Earl of St Andrews, for example, and Prince Michael of Kent will be restored to the line of succession—we are changing the order of succession. Those further away than the Earl and Prince Michael are pushed further from the line of succession by the changes. If we are prepared to make changes to the order of succession by dint of restoring Catholics to that order, is it not right that we make clause 1 retrospective, so that female heirs of the Queen move up the order of succession? Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, is the only living person who would be affected, together with her heirs, so it would not be a massive change to the order of succession, but it would be a logical change and one in keeping with the retrospective nature of part of the Bill.

The second aspect that I wish to address relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda about the Royal Marriages Act 1772. I find myself, strangely enough, making common cause with him. Although I agree that we should remove the Act or change it so that there are not thousands of people to whose marriage the Queen could technically give or withhold consent, it is odd that clause 3 states that

“the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.”

Where did the number six come from? Why not three, five or 12? Six is not a prime number, a biblical number or a lucky number.

Mr MacNeil: The only thing that springs to mind is that if we add up the number in the Queen’s family and the number in Prince Charles’s family, we get six. That is the long and the short of it, I think.

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.

22 Jan 2013 : Column 236

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman may well be thinking of capricious monarchs such as Edward II. The 1772 Act, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset may prove to be a dead Act in any case, allows for any member of the royal family over the age of 25, having sought the approval of the Privy Council, after a year then to seek the consent of Parliament to their marriage. The Bill tightens up the rules significantly. Parliament and the Privy Council play no part in the matter. The monarch can choose or choose not to give consent to the marriage, whatever the age of a member of the royal family within the rules of succession. So the hon. Gentleman has a good point.

I would be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister why these changes have been proposed. If the point is for the monarch to have some control and leverage over those members of the royal family who are active and who are Royal Highnesses, why choose the number six? It is a narrow number. Why not simply say that the heirs of Queen Elizabeth II should have to ask consent of the monarch? That would be a nod towards the present Act, which recognises George II as the fount of all consent, as it were. It would honour Her Majesty in her diamond jubilee year. It would regularise the situation and give that sort of control to future monarchs. The Minister might be about to say that it would mean that in 200 or 300 years there could be hundreds or thousands of people to whom the monarch would have to give consent, but I suspect that no one here will be particularly concerned about that then—if nothing else has crumbled, our headstones almost certainly will have done.

I support the Bill in broad terms and shall vote to give it a Second Reading, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns that I and other Members of the House have raised to ensure that it is robust; will stand the test of time; recognises and can deal with any unforeseen and foreseen consequences; and provides us with a settled settlement.-

4.10 pm

Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): I rise to speak briefly in this debate. I very much welcome the provision in the Bill that will mean that a younger brother will no longer be preferred to an older sister in the succession to the Crown. It is long overdue. It is an important step on the long and tortuous trek to greater equality of opportunity between men and women in our society. It is a reminder that, in modernising the centuries of tradition, custom and practice that we have all absorbed as part of our upbringing, we need to look at all aspects of our lives and our society in order to develop a society that affords greater equality between men and women.

It is easy to forget, because Her Gracious Majesty has had such a long and successful reign, that had she had brothers, she would not have become Queen unless they and their children had passed away before her. It is welcome that women and men will now be treated equally in the succession to the throne. It gets rid of one more prejudice and sets a good example.

I welcome the clause that allows a potential heir to marry a Roman Catholic without losing the right to succeed to the throne, because that removes a particular religious prejudice. As has been pointed out, marriage to people of other faiths does not disqualify someone

22 Jan 2013 : Column 237

from succeeding to the throne. However, the clause raises a question about the religion of any children of that marriage. Whatever religion they are brought up in, and regardless of whether they have any deeply held religious beliefs, they have to become a member of the Church of England in order to remain in line to the throne. Is that a reasonable requirement? Does it not mean that people will simply pay lip service to religion? Is it reasonable for the monarch, our Head of State, to be obliged to be a defender of the faith and to have a specific role in the Church of England? We would not have to worry about whether potential heirs to the throne were brought up in any particular faith, or indeed no faith, if we did not expect the monarch to be an adherent of one particular faith.

We all know the historic reasons for that situation and why the Head of State is expected to be an Anglican, but we now live in very different times. We live in a society in which there are many different religious views. In the UK today, apart from the centuries-old Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, we have a non-conformist tradition that is hundreds of years old. We have people of many other faiths and many people who do not have a faith at all. The Church of England is not the established Church of the whole United Kingdom. In response to the rise of non-conformists in Wales, the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920, and there has not been an established Church in Northern Ireland since 1871.

The clause is a missed opportunity. It misses the opportunity to decouple the role of monarch from a specific role in the Church of England, which will continue to prevent anyone of any other faith or none from succeeding to the throne. It seems to me that we cannot legislate for someone’s faith. If someone has a faith, they have a faith, and if they do not, they do not, but if someone is expected to take on the role of monarch, we are putting them in a situation in which they will have to pay lip service to a faith, possibly one in which they do not believe, making a mockery of those who have a true faith.

I completely fail to understand the clause about the six persons next in line to the throne requiring the monarch’s consent to marriage. Having had so much equality legislation, we are now legislating for someone to be prejudiced, whether on a personal basis or for any reason, out of jealousy or spite. The clause seems to make absolutely no sense.

Yes, we very much welcome the opportunity for an elder sister to be preferred over her younger brother in the succession to the throne, but I have serious questions about other clauses and the opportunities that could have been taken to do things better.

4.14 pm

Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con): I rise to speak in support of the Succession to the Crown Bill. I will not detain the House for too long; I will focus my remarks on a significant change—that the gender of a child born after 28 October 2011 will have no relevance in determining the succession to the throne.

We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), a man of great knowledge whom we listened to with great interest. He said that a number of the statutes that the Bill may affect had been

22 Jan 2013 : Column 238

asleep for 300 years or so. He may have a point, but it is possible to wake statutes up from their slumber from time to time, rearrange them slightly, improve their sleeping positions and let them settle down and drift off to sleep again until further improvement is required.

Some may say that in 2013 the changes are overdue or at the very least timely, not least in the wake of Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee celebrations last year and the fine example of leadership set by Her Majesty the Queen; I hope to return to that subject in due course.

The Bill makes changes that reflect not only examples of successful female monarchs but the reality of working life across the country; I think particularly of my own constituency. In Erewash, there is a long-standing industrial heritage involving what some would say were traditionally male occupations—upholstery, mining, lace making and engineering have been key industries there.

However, from the heritage of Erewash have arisen industries that have grown, changed and been able to allow strong female leadership to develop across many sectors. There are many instances of women being the main breadwinners in families, my mother being one example. There are many other women in management and in schools. There are also women entrepreneurs who have started small businesses in Erewash and a number of women serving and working hard on the Erewash partnership board, our local enterprise board. There are also many examples of strong female leadership in community groups and voluntary organisations; indeed, Erewash has been represented by three different female MPs since 1992—a tradition that some of us hope will continue for a long time.

It simply makes no sense in 2013 not to apply such rules to the succession of our monarch. I have always been a committed royalist and proud to be so. My family can, to say the least, boast no royal connections or history, but I was raised to respect and support our Queen and country. My family are far from having royal connections, although my great-great aunt Amy was married to one of the farm workers on the Sandringham estate. My mother can recollect visiting the cottage on the estate as a child.

I return to the comments that I made at the outset. Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II has set a fine example during her 60 or so years on the throne. There is every reason to make necessary changes through the Succession to the Crown Bill now. Elizabeth II has brought a stability to our ever-changing and modernising world, but she has embraced her duties and responsibilities and moved with the times.

There are many other examples of strong female monarchs throughout our history, all of whom have their place in setting the scene for this timely change to the rules of succession. I have a particular love for Tudor history, an interest that I developed at school and continued through university. My all-time favourite monarch by far is Elizabeth I; in my office, I have a print of Elizabeth I addressing Parliament. Her courage and determination were among her many qualities which resulted in such a lengthy and successful reign. One skill, of which I am sure you would approve, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that she took much enjoyment and time in preparing her speeches to address Parliament—a skill and a habit in which I am sure we are all well versed.

22 Jan 2013 : Column 239

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It occurs to me that Elizabeth I got extraordinarily angry when the Commons dared to discuss the succession and, indeed, imprisoned Members of Parliament for doing so. I therefore wonder whether my hon. Friend might not admire her quite so much in that respect.

Jessica Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, I am sure, agrees that there is a fine history in this country of monarchs hiding their feelings. Whatever historians may report in future, the private thoughts of the current Queen Elizabeth remain private.

Mr MacNeil: I am a bit alarmed by what the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said about Queen Elizabeth I. Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom is Queen at the moment, so I hope we do not end up in the Tower.

Jessica Lee: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this point, which has already been raised, and believes that the current monarch is Elizabeth I. I, for one, will not enter into that debate any further.

I will end by quoting from what is perhaps one of the most famous and well-documented speeches made by Elizabeth I. It provides another reason to support the Bill and is a timely reminder that leadership requires determination and strength rather than on whether the sovereign is a man or a woman. When Elizabeth addressed her troops at Tilbury in 1588 in the midst of the threat from the Spanish armada, she famously said, midway through her speech:

“I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too”.

In supporting the changes to the rules on primogeniture, if there were ever words to put the case squarely that women can perform a task of great leadership and strength, they are those words.

4.21 pm

Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): At the outset, I declare an interest in that the changes brought about today will continue to discriminate against people of my faith, but I have absolutely no problem with that. In respect of those people against whom the law will continue to perpetuate discrimination, we have to recognise that that discrimination has worked consistently to date. It is utter folly on the part of the Government to unpick this settled matter, and I believe that they need to tread a lot more carefully. I agree with the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) that we should tread very cautiously and avoid rushing headlong towards the implementation of changes when little consideration and less consultation appear to have been part of the process. We simply do not know what the consequences of the changes will be or what they will achieve.

I say for the record that I agree with the provision to change the rules on primogeniture and believe that it will find wide public approval. However, we have not sought public support for this change to our constitution, and the Government should make provision for wider consultation before they implement it. We ought to be

22 Jan 2013 : Column 240

forward-looking and recognise that making such a change now has the potential for significant consequences downstream.

Clause 2(1) opens up a royal Pandora’s box. We should be minimising points of potential crisis, not creating the certainty that there will be a crisis. That is why so many amendments were tabled on this specific matter. While I welcome the points raised and reiterated by the Minister about what the Bill does and does not do, I believe it would be reasonable to insert in it a provision that ensures that the offspring of the monarch—our future monarch, the heir to the throne—will be brought up in the communion of the Anglican Church. I think that would keep a lot of sleeping dogs at rest.

My amendment gives expression to the Government’s own words that the Bill does not change the rule that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic. If that is the case, they will make satisfactory provision for that in legislation that could alter that settled position. Clarity here would be a welcome addition to the Bill. However, I have listened carefully to the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that that was outside the scope of this Bill. I accept that point and will reflect on it when and if we come to a Division later.

Without such a provision, the Bill could create a set of circumstances wherein a future heir will have to make a choice between faith and throne. To create a situation in which a person has to choose whether to discard a closely held faith for a position is simply unjust. We need to ensure that we do not create the conditions for such a crisis. The Bill suggests that faith in this day and age is a disposable commodity, which is pure secularism. We should avoid that and make the matter clear in the Bill.

If the Act of Succession remains unchanged by the Bill, the Government have a duty to ensure that the Bill does not create confusion at a later stage when a future heir could be brought up in a different faith and then have to discard it in order to inherit. It would be far better to leave the matter alone or to insert a clause that makes it clear that the future Defender of the Faith will be brought up in the Anglican faith, irrespective of the religious faith of one of their parents. Otherwise, the Government should be honest and consider introducing legislation that disestablishes the Church. That is a matter for another day, but one that I hope this Government will not pursue, because it would be a retrograde step.

We have a great and glorious history, exemplified by the ongoing standing of our monarch not only in this nation but across the world, and by how much she is cherished by this nation. We should tread very carefully in trying to unpick and unravel aspects of our constitution that are best left well alone, as they continue to serve purpose for which they were developed.

4.27 pm

Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. Clause 1 is absolute common sense, especially in today’s world. It is a welcome step and I am pleased that it is my Government who have introduced it, though admittedly with cross-party support.

I will spend most of my speech addressing clause 2. I say at the outset that I support an established Church in

22 Jan 2013 : Column 241

this country and am happy for it to be the Church of England. Indeed, the whole question of who is eligible to be the heir to the throne or, indeed, to be the sovereign of our nation rests on their Church of England faith. In addition, much is connected with marriage—indeed, it was arguments with the Pope back in the 16th century that led to the establishment of the Church of England, which led to the thorny issues that we are examining today and, let us not forget, to several hundred years of persecution of people on the basis of their faith.

I recognise that the Bill is a symbolic gesture, and on those grounds I welcome and support it, but we should also recognise that it is only a token gesture: the person who will benefit from it is the person in line to the throne, not necessarily their children or, indeed, their spouse, if they are of the Catholic faith. Although I do not pretend to be a canon lawyer, there are certainly things that we need to explore along those lines. It is somewhat ironic that the two Ministers leading the Bill through the House are both self-proclaimed atheists. I suppose that means that they are able to take a dispassionate view of the Bill, but perhaps they do not understand the sensitivity or frustration felt by people of faith about the entrenchment and discrimination that the Bill will undoubtedly perpetuate.

Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that, ultimately, the monarch, regardless of whatever rules Parliament creates, governs with the consent of Parliament and the people, and that plenty of monarchs, regardless of what the statute of their day said, have found to their cost the error of no longer having the consent of Parliament and the people?

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.

22 Jan 2013 : Column 242

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.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think Henry VI would disagree with my hon. Friend on that.

Dr Coffey: I am sure that the bishop who confers confirmation on the majority of pupils in Eton college is not the Archbishop of Westminster.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred to certain royals who had married Catholics. Again, I do not want to get too personal, but one of his examples was a marriage that was dissolved and then annulled a year later; within a month, the same people had married, but the Pope had refused dispensation for marriage in a Catholic church on the grounds that the person who could have been heir to the throne had written explicitly that his children could not be brought up in the Roman Catholic Church but would be brought up in the Church of England. As we know, centuries of back and forth between the Church of Rome and the monarch of England meant that five years later, Pope John Paul II allowed that situation to be validated, which I am sure was welcome.

22 Jan 2013 : Column 243

Such things happen the other way. My grandfather in Godmanchester was brought up as a Salvationist but became a Catholic to marry my grandmother in Dublin. I appreciate that sometimes the Church of Rome can be demanding the other way in wanting to encourage marriages of similar faiths. However, I diverge. My point is that it is important that the Government realise how, in matters of faith, making bland statements about people in church marrying those of a different religion could automatically dismiss the important religious views of the spouse to be. When one of the people due to be heir to the throne married a Catholic, that Catholic converted to the Church of England—out of love, I am sure, for her future husband—but we should not take such issues lightly. This provision is a welcome step, but we should acknowledge that although it removes one element of discrimination, it will entrench others until we have a fresh Act of Parliament.

4.36 pm

Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con): I did not intend to speak in this debate but I am one of three Members of Parliament whose constituency includes a significant amount of land belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster. The constituency of my neighbour the Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), includes large areas of the duchy—including a very fine pub, the Inn at Whitewell, which is owned by Her Majesty the Queen, or the duchy—as does that of my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). We are therefore acutely aware of the nuanced differences between the monarch—the sovereign—and the Duke of Lancaster, as our Queen is known in the county palatine of Lancashire.

When we consider the impact of the Bill, it is important to understand how it could impact on the other titles, assets and offices of our sovereign. I am looking for clarity. I do not oppose the principle of what the Bill seeks to achieve, although I sometimes perhaps favour the route of the old clan chieftains in Scotland of choosing the most appropriate person to succeed rather than the oldest or youngest, or a male or female. The Saxons sometimes adopted a similar tactic.

Today the duchy is more than just a title; it represents huge amounts of land and assets. It owns about 19,000 hectares of land, valued at £350 million in 2010, so a significant asset is attached to the title, and we must understand the problem that the Bill may create. In the next debate, it is important that the Government set out clearly the position that may need to be addressed.

The current Duchy of Lancaster is the second creation, set up for John of Gaunt, son of Edward III, in 1362. It became a powerful duchy, and as a result, when Henry Bolingbroke succeeded as Henry IV and was crowned in 1399, he was keen to ensure that his inheritance and that of his children was kept separate from the Crown and the sovereign, as at that time kings tended to lose their crowns.

Damian Collins: My hon. Friend raises an important point about Henry Bolingbroke, but is that not a demonstration of the flexible nature of the powers of succession, given that he usurped the Crown?

22 Jan 2013 : Column 244

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.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Having considered the Duchy of Lancaster, will my hon. Friend consider the Duchy of Normandy, and whether the Queen’s possessions as Duke of Normandy might divert to a younger male child when the Crown went to an elder female one?

Mr Wallace: I am not an expert on the other duchies in this land, but my hon. Friend proves the point that interfering with succession and fiddling with titles is easier said than done, especially when the titles are so old that they date back to some of the first interferences in succession and the Crown. When the title is linked so much to assets, the House is owed a clear explanation.

Christopher Pincher: Will my hon. Friend invite the Minister to make clear what will happen to the assets and title of the Duchy of Cornwall, which have historically passed through the male line through male primogeniture?

Mr Wallace: I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that there is a difference between the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall.

22 Jan 2013 : Column 245

My understanding is that the latter comes into existence with the heir to the throne and effectively dissolves when the monarch dies. The Duchy of Lancaster goes back far longer. As far as we can see, it is a separate title and therefore cannot be excluded without excluding the assets that go with it.

I do not expect the Minister to have the 1485 charter at her disposal, or that anyone will be able to produce the answer instantly. I am sure it will take far greater legal brains to produce a clear, concise solution. There might be no problem at all: the charter may make it clear that it does not matter whether the heir is male or female, dealing only with the definition of “sovereign”. That may be the answer, but we need clarity.

As ever, changes such as this are easier said than done. That shows how far back our historical ties go. For 700 years the Duchy of Lancaster has owned some of the land in my constituency. Some of my constituents are tenants of the Duchy of Lancaster and rely for their livelihoods on such things being made clear. They, like Her Majesty the Queen and her assets, deserve that clarity.

Martin Horwood: I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman and perhaps Ministers about any risk to the Queen’s assets. There is an editorial cut-off date in clause 1, so the measure applies only to persons born after 28 October 2011. On a constituency note, that must be reassuring to my constituent Zara Phillips, who would otherwise have gone nine places up the order of succession. I am sure her marriage to Mike Tindall would have been approved all the same.

Mr Wallace: My hon. Friend’s point is well made, but the position is unclear. The Government want to get this right, so I hope they will furnish the House with the clarity I seek.

4.44 pm

Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con): I should probably declare an interest. During the Glorious Revolution, my family plotted in an ice house to remove the Catholics and bring William of Orange to this country. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and I should have a meeting later to try to resolve our differences. That was many years ago, and times have changed considerably since—[Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member say, “Not enough!”, but thank heavens there are a few dinosaurs left.

Wayne David: I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman was relying on parliamentary approval to make sure that he is not in any way conflicting with the laws of the land.

Richard Drax: Treason, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is implying, does not apply to my family—certainly not, and certainly not to me today.

I will speak briefly, because so much has been said and said so well, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I concur with every word he said. I also concur with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, not least about the problems we would have if a Roman Catholic married into the royal family.

22 Jan 2013 : Column 246

Under current rules, that heir would not be able to take the throne without more amendments to Acts and regulations, which could cause huge angst and difficulty in the years ahead. Either we do the whole thing, or we do not tinker with our constitution, as we are attempting to do.

So many hundreds of years of history have brought the country to this point. We must not ignore the fact that our history comes with bloodshed, religion, all kinds of glorious moments and some very sad ones. We are here at this point today and we should respect hugely what has gone before. I am nervous that nearly 700 years of tradition will be trampled on in two days. Two days of debate is not long enough, and I beg those on the Front Bench to give us more time to discuss this. I am sure that similar views will be expressed in the other place.

We have no mandate to change or tinker with the succession. It was not in our manifesto. My postbag, like those of colleagues I am sure, is not bulging with requests to do what we propose to do. In fact, my postbag is bulging with other, far more serious issues, not least the EU, immigration, jobs and all the other big issues we face. In fact, the only letters I have received on this matter—a lot of them—are from republicans who see any move to tinker with our royal family as a chance to rid the country of our monarchy. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members support the Queen, as I do, and are loyal subjects. It is interesting that even the slightest opening has produced an opportunity for republicans, who want to see the royal family gone, to try and exploit.

Damian Collins: Does my hon. Friend not agree, though, that it would be fairer to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to resolve this matter before they produce their first child?

Richard Drax: That is a good point, but as I understand it the legislation will be retrospective to 28 October 2011 anyway, so why the rush? If that is what is leading us to make this decision so quickly, I would say that it is another reason why we should not be doing so. Republicanism is one example, dare I say it, of the law of unintended consequences.

As I understand it, the Bill was not introduced in the House of Commons until every Commonwealth realm had consented in writing. We are told that the palace has been consulted, but I believe there is still much work to be done. It is a sad day when we are fast-tracking a Bill on this honoured institution through this place in such a short time. As I said, the Bill is going to be retrospective and, as I understand it, the changes will apply to any child born after 28 October 2011. Why not allow us, the law-makers, more time for consideration?

We owe our country’s stability—indeed, the existence of the monarchy itself—to a series of Acts and laws stretching back centuries. They include the Treason Act 1351, the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the Regency Act 1937. If we insist on proceeding with this Bill, I understand that we will need to amend no fewer than nine Bills and nine Acts.

My final objection to this Bill is that far wiser heads than mine have counselled against such changes, which will have unforeseen and unintended consequences that

22 Jan 2013 : Column 247

could shake the foundations of our country. Even the Labour Government under Blair shied away from this, because the complexities outweighed the benefits.

Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): My hon. Friend is outlining his objections to the Bill and the speed with which it is rushing through, but does he agree with the principle—I speak as a Roman Catholic myself—of stopping discrimination against Roman Catholics in accession?

Richard Drax: As I understand it, the Bill will not stop discrimination. A Roman Catholic child is not able to inherit the throne under the current law, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset outlined at the start of this debate, so Roman Catholics are still being discriminated against. As my hon. Friend also said, either we change the whole thing or we do not touch it at all.

Wayne David: Just for the record, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, although he was correct to say that the Labour Government under Blair shied away from these changes, the Labour Government under Brown embraced them?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Under who?

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.

4.52 pm

Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): The problem with this Bill is in the detail—it has not been properly and carefully considered or well thought through. It is, therefore, full of problems.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) about the issues concerning the Duchy of Lancaster, which seemed to take Ministers completely by surprise, as if they had given not a moment’s thought to an ancient title that is with the Crown, but not the Crown. That leads on, as I intervened on him to say, to the question of the Dukedom of Normandy, under which the Crown holds the Channel Islands. Have the Channel Islands been involved in these discussions? They are not mentioned in the list of realms otherwise. Have they brought forward proposals

22 Jan 2013 : Column 248

to change their feudal overlord—the role that the Duke of Normandy plays—in the Channel Islands? Will the Dukedom of Normandy be subject to clause 1 of the Bill? The same issue applies to the Duchy of Lancaster.

There is widespread agreement that the Crown should be able to pass through the male and the female lines. It is accepted by many people that—by the virtue of a succession of Acts of Parliament, actually—we have had the good fortune to have a most remarkable selection of Queens as our sovereign. However, it is also worth bearing in mind—there is only a tiny little note on page 5 of the Library research paper to contradict this—that there is, in the ordinary commonlaw of England, no primogeniture among women. There is a note from a legal textbook which claims that the Crown is different, but I want to know whether that is actually true, because when we look at the succession of female sovereigns, we see that almost all have succeeded by Act of Parliament. Mary I took precedence over Elizabeth I by virtue of Henry VIII’s Third Succession Act of 1543. The Bill of Rights gave Queen Mary precedence over Queen Anne. The Act of Settlement gave the Electress Sophia precedence over her elder sister, Louise, who, in spite of being alive at the time, was ignored altogether in the succession. Victoria was the only claimant. The succession of our own Queen is the only instance in which there has been female primogeniture. At every other time, the succession has been established by law. I do not understand why the Bill does not clarify that point.

Wayne David: My understanding is that there was no legal basis for the present Queen to become Queen. There was an argument that she and her sister should hold the throne jointly, and it was only as a result of a Privy Council decision that common sense dictated that the senior of the two sisters should become the monarch.

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

22 Jan 2013 : Column 249

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.

Sir Alan Beith: Is it not unreasonable, however, to ask a Roman Catholic to become the Supreme Governor of the Church of England—the hon. Gentleman obviously recognises that, given his suggestion of a regency—or to conform to the Presbyterian Church when in Scotland?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It would be perfectly reasonable to leave the law of the land as it is, or to make provision for a regency, which would address the problem. Under the Regency Act 1937, the regent would be required to be a Protestant and would therefore be able to carry out the functions of Supreme Governor of the Church of England for a period when the Crown was being held by a Catholic.

Again, however, there are issues with the detail. I raised with the Minister the issue of Counsellors of State. Who is eligible to be a Counsellor of State is set out in the Regency Act 1937. It is usually the closest members of the sovereign’s family, including people who are not of the blood royal, so this includes the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen mother and the Duke of Edinburgh: they both were or are eligible to be Counsellors of State. Once a Catholic is allowed to marry an heir to the throne, it is perfectly possible for the two Counsellors of State—they always act in pairs—to be Catholics. During a brief incapacity of the Crown or during the Crown’s absence abroad, appointments in the Church of England would have to be made by Roman Catholics, which is a felony under the Catholic Emancipation Act 1829. It seems to me that Her Majesty’s Government are simply not aware of the detail of our constitutional settlement, and have pushed this clause through without considering the detailed ramifications.

The bit of the Bill for which I have the most sympathy is the clause abolishing the Royal Marriages Act 1772. I intervened earlier to cite a quotation from it that makes it the most nonsensical Act on the statute book since the marriage of Princess Alexandra, as she then was, to the then Prince of Wales. Princess Alexandra and her descendants were exempt under the section I read out earlier to the effect that royal princesses who married foreigners and their heirs were exempted from the Act. The marriage of Princess Louisa, the daughter of George II,

22 Jan 2013 : Column 250

exempted her line, and through Princess Alexandra our current Queen and all the members of her family are exempted. This Act of Parliament has only affected people for whom it did not really matter who they married and it has not affected the people for whom it did matter who they married.

It seems slightly eccentric to update this Act in a more aggressive form than the one currently on the statute book. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) said, the ability to get an exclusion from Parliament at the age of 25 has been removed, so more onerous legislation has resulted, taking people out of the line of succession rather than simply invalidating the marriage. Provisions have been put in place that are harsher than those of an Act that was completely ineffective against those with whom it was supposed to deal.

I am not going to vote against Second Reading. I am not going to try to cause a Division against the serried ranks of the establishment. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and Her Majesty’s Government line up their forces to push through a Bill of political correctness—not gone mad, but simply not thought through. I wish that when we considered, debated and changed our constitution, we did it with plenty of time, thoughtfulness and detail.

Pretty much every speech we have heard today has raised an issue that should have been thought about, but has been ignored. Why has it been rushed through? Because it is convenient. Once the two Front-Bench teams are in agreement, the days of the week could be renamed if they felt like doing it. There is nothing so silly as cannot be done by them jointly. That, I am afraid, is what we find with this Bill. Let us hope that when we come to Report—or more likely, perhaps, in the other place—the technicalities and the detail can be gone through, so that we do not find that the Duke of Lancaster ends up being one person and the sovereign another; so that we do not find that the Church of England is accidentally being run for a week by a couple of Papists who happen to be Counsellors of State; so that we do not find that an onerous charge is put on royal marriages so that the royals cannot marry when they want—or, indeed, so that the more junior members of the royal family cannot marry at all because if they are not subject to the Royal Marriages Act 1772, they are excluded from ordinary marriage legislation, so how are they going to get married? I really think that it is time to have a look at the detail.

5.4 pm

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): Like several other Members, I had not planned to speak on Second Reading, but then I thought about some of the issues involving the Duchy of Cornwall. Others have referred to the Duchy of Lancaster and, indeed, to the Duchy of Normandy, which I had not considered but which I believe has a separate status, in that it was not created by a monarch but was held by previous monarchs prior to their accession to the throne of England. I was interested when the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) tempted the usual channels to consider creating a new calendar for the country, as Napoleon did during one of his tenures, but I shall not pursue that issue.

22 Jan 2013 : Column 251

The hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) were proud of the Celtic identity of at least two of the houses that have ruled over England and, in one case, Scotland. We have of course been a multicultural nation: Norman French, Welsh, Scots, and people of German descent have reigned over us successively. Perhaps at some time in the future there will be a dynastic war, following which an Anglo-Saxon will reclaim the throne on which Harold last sat.

I am interested in the religious dimension, which other Members have already explored. On Sunday, after attending mass as a Roman Catholic, I moved to the other side of Bodmin to attend the Anglican christening of my niece. A warm welcome was extended to all of us by the rector of the church of St Petroc, who was keen to inform us that the Norman font had been moved, that it was one of the oldest parts of the church, and that it had escaped the damage done by that great vandal King Henry VIII. I wondered which of the Churches I was delighting in at that point, as the rector seemed so eager to draw attention to something with which I might have been a little more in agreement.

In principle, I am very happy with the proposal in the Bill to update the rules of succession in line with changes in society so that an eldest female child can inherit the throne. The hon. Member for Caerphilly listed countries that had got there before us. If Hanover had got there before us in the 1830s, the history of western Europe might have been different. Had the kingdom of Hanover still been united with the United Kingdom, it might have had all kinds of influences when it came to the unification of Germany.

As one who represents a Cornish constituency, however, I am keen to explore issues relating to the Duchy of Cornwall. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who spoke about the Duchy of Lancaster, said that it was his understanding that the Duchy of Cornwall was recreated whenever there was a male heir, but that is not my understanding. My understanding is that it does not disappear and revert to the Crown in its entirety, but is held by the Crown pending the arrival of a future male heir to the throne. The institution of the Duchy is a continuous organisation, which has been keen to assert its rights on a number of occasions throughout history: its right to the foreshore, for instance, and its right to bona vacantia in Cornwall.

The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North spoke of the property that is owned. I am not as familiar with the Duchy of Lancaster as he is, but I think that there is a distinction between the rights to property that the Duchy of Cornwall, for example, owns elsewhere in the country as a private estate, and the rights that it has in terms of the territory of Cornwall, which are far deeper. Perhaps at some point I could discuss the issue with the Minister, or, indeed, with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

Those involved in the tin mining industry in Cornwall had their own Parliament, the Stannary Parliament. It was dissolved in 1753, which is not an incredibly long time ago in constitutional terms. The question of who becomes the Duke of Cornwall is not just financial; it is far more important than that, because it also involves a constitutional issue. The Bill makes it more likely that

22 Jan 2013 : Column 252

there will be periods without a Duke of Cornwall when the heir to the throne is female. I hope that the Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister will agree to meet me to discuss some of these issues and that prior to such a meeting they might allow me to have access to the translation of the charters that established the Duchy of Cornwall. They might have those to hand and that would allow us to have an interesting exploration into what might be done to deal with these issues as they pertain to the Duchy of Cornwall.

5.9 pm

Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): This has been a fantastically interesting debate and I am sorry that there has not been a greater attendance in the House. Let me draw the House’s attention to the following, which the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said in 2011:

“The fundamental nature of our constitution means that it should be changed only with due care and consideration”.

We have heard this afternoon, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), about how little the Government have taken into account the potential unforeseen consequences that could arise from this measure, which has been described by Andrew Roberts in The Daily Telegraph as “blithely fiddling” with the constitution.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made an incredibly powerful speech on the importance of the constitution, the Crown and all the traditions, eccentricities and contradictions that are so much part and parcel of 1,000 years of this nation’s history and which we tinker with at our peril. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly made the important point that once we start unpicking the thread, we never know where it is going to end. I am pleased to be able to agree with him on that, if not on everything else. The constitution is incredibly important, which is why we should have more time to debate this measure.

My second point is that the idea that the European Court of Human Rights should have any say in our deliberations on this matter is so fatuous and offensive that it should be struck out completely—how dare it ever seek to interfere with what we discuss on these matters in this House.

My third point relates to the question of female succession. I had the privilege of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the greatest Prime Minister since the grandfather of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex. I refer to the noble Baroness Thatcher, to whom I am utterly and irredeemably devoted. She was the salvation of the nation, and so I cannot argue against the idea that female succession is in the interests of the nation—Margaret Thatcher clearly proved that it is. Our sovereign has also done this country astonishingly good service. I do not believe that any sovereign has so lived up to their coronation oath as Her Majesty the Queen, and this nation is beginning to understand the contribution that she has made to the stability of this nation. That confirms everything that my right hon. Friend said.

My real problem is with the risk to the established Church that arises from the Bill. I believe that the established Church and the Crown are indissolubly

22 Jan 2013 : Column 253

linked. We will be allowing the heir to the throne to marry a Catholic and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has pointed out, under the rules of the Catholic Church the children have to be brought up in the Catholic faith. There would therefore arise a potential conflict of interest in the mind of that person as to which was going to command their loyalty—their loyalty to their faith or their loyalty to the Crown. The issue has not been properly examined, and I support amendment 16, tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), which would spell it out and make things crystal clear—it is not anti-Catholic.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) that my mother wrote a book called “A Plain Man’s Guide to the Glorious Revolution, 1688”. It was on sale in this place and it sold many copies. The point my mother always made was about how Catholicism was seen in the 17th century. People were not prejudiced against it; they feared it, because it was seen as owing allegiance beyond these islands. That was why Catholicism represented a threat; it is rather like how some of us see the European Union today or how some of us saw communism in the latter part of the 20th century. To measure the Catholicism of those times against our views today is a mistake; we should put it in its historical context. I salute my hon. Friend and his ancestors for what they did.

There are serious issues that we need to consider. We need to address the question of what happens if the heir to the throne were to marry a Muslim or a Hindu. What would that do to the United Kingdom?

Daniel Kawczynski rose

Sir Gerald Howarth: I will not give way because the Minister needs to wind up the debate.

All the points made in this House today by my hon. Friends and Members of all parties have illustrated that we should have had much more time to discuss this Bill on the Floor of the House.

5.14 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith): I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for a most compelling debate that has highlighted the gravity of the changes we are making to the UK’s constitution by removing two pieces of discrimination that must not remain on our statute book. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said when opening the debate, the Bill is in many ways about equality. It turns a page on centuries of discrimination and prejudice on religious and gender grounds in one of our most important institutions—the monarchy.

It falls to me to respond to a number of the important issues raised. First, I welcome the support shown around the Chamber, including that of the loyal Opposition. I also welcome the range of experience that came through in the comments made, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in his place, and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I welcome the passion that has been shown by Members such as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is also not in his

22 Jan 2013 : Column 254

place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), even though they were on different sides of the debate. I also welcome the erudition shown by Members such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and—need I mention him—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

Let me begin on the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) finished: he asked what would happen if an heir to the throne were to marry a Muslim or somebody of any other faith. That is possible today and the Bill should not raise further fears. We should be able to accept, debate and deal with that question in the 21st century.

I want to start with the implications for the established Church of the changes we have discussed today. I reassure all hon. Members that the changes proposed in the Bill are limited to removing the bar on marriage to a Roman Catholic. I think all Members know that. The Bill does not allow a Roman Catholic to accede to the throne and in no way touches the basis of the established Church. Indeed, the Church of England has made that clear in its own words. I have already quoted the words in the other place of the Bishop of Blackburn, which are helpful to our debate.

Various points were made about the Church of Scotland that raised some interest across the Chamber. I understand that the Church of Scotland does not define itself as an established Church, but I shall not go further into that debate as I do not have time to do so. I reassure the House, however, that the Church of Scotland, among others, was consulted in the course of our work.

Various Members raised the possibility of an heir entering into a mixed Anglican and Catholic marriage and discussed what would happen under Roman Catholic canon law. Some feared that that could lead to a constitutional crisis, and I want to reassure them. There is an example of that in the royal family in Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor, the son and daughter of Prince Michael of Kent. He married a Catholic, but the children have been brought up in the Anglican communion. I suggest that that is a pragmatic example in the modern monarchy. I would not dream of taking on my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, but I note that various guidance has been published in the intervening years that might provide practical advice.

Dr Thérèse Coffey: My hon. Friend refers to Princess Michael of Kent. When Prince and Princess Michael married in 1978, they did not marry in a Catholic church. That was corrected five years later, after her children had been born.

Miss Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that point for the edification of our colleagues, but I do not see how that detracts from the main point that it has been possible to take a pragmatic view of how the modern monarchy must function. We have already spoken about the relevant guidance, which suggests that one should do one’s best to have the children raised as Catholics but that there could be just and reasonable cause for not doing so. The protection of the place of the established Church is a rather large cause and some colleagues mentioned that. The Church of England, as I have said, has made it clear that the requirement to join communion with the Church of England is not

22 Jan 2013 : Column 255

affected by the Bill. The Archbishop of Westminster has confirmed that he recognises the importance of the position of the established Church in protecting and fostering faith in our society.

Daniel Kawczynski: I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends, but it is important in this day and age to remove specific reference to Roman Catholics. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, we spend a great deal of time making sure that minority groups do not suffer discrimination, and as a Roman Catholic I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to pursue this matter as speedily as possible. It is rather insulting for Catholics to be in this position—not that I am going to marry a member of the royal family or anything.

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

22 Jan 2013 : Column 256

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—

Wayne David rose

Miss Smith: I am afraid that I am about to run out of time. It remains for me to deal with the point from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) about children who are adopted or born as a result of donor eggs. I can clarify that it is only the children of a husband and wife who are entitled to succeed, not adopted children or those born from artificial insemination.

I commend the Bill to the House—

Wayne David: I thank the Minister for her response. May I press her on the issue of the figure of six? Can she give a slightly more detailed explanation, rather than saying, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that that was a pragmatic decision or that there was some historical precedent? Can she be more specific and—

5.26 pm

Four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, this day).

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

22 Jan 2013 : Column 257

Succession to the Crown Bill

Considered in Committee (Order, this day)

[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

Clause 1

Succession to the Crown not to depend on gender

5.26 pm

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Smith: The purpose of the Bill has been well explained in the debate on the allocation of time motion and on Second Reading. Clause 1 simply removes male bias primogeniture in the succession to the throne.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is not present to move the amendment that he tabled to clause 1. I think that is because when the Speaker announced the amendments that had been selected, he referred only to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) to the allocation of time motion.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): For clarification, rather than on a point of order, the amendment appears on the selection list.

Wayne David: I support the motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move amendment 4, page 1, line 9, after ‘person’, insert

‘who married a person of the Roman Catholic faith’.

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am sorry, Mr Hoyle. I will get it right in the end. It is so difficult when people have so many titles, like Her Majesty. It causes confusion, even for those of us who try to specialise in such important aspects.


My amendment is a minor one that is intended to clarify which person clause 2(2) refers to, because we do not want to refer to the wrong person. The amendment refers to a person

“who married a person of the Roman Catholic faith”,

because I am concerned that the part of clause 2(2) that reads,

“where the person concerned is alive”,

could be taken to mean not the person who married the Catholic, but the person who was the subject of that marriage, or indeed the person who was its product.

22 Jan 2013 : Column 258

Mr MacNeil: It occurs to me that, together with the need to style Queen Elizabeth as Queen Elizabeth II, the obsession with whether or not the monarch is Catholic only really applies in England—it does not seem to apply to Wales or Scotland, and it certainly does not apply to the other realms. It is so important at the moment because the monarchy resides within England, which colours or clouds the rest of the debate. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is an interesting point. I am sure that Her Majesty’s other realms will consider whether or not the whole of clause 2 is a matter of great concern to them, because Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other realms do not have established Churches and so need not worry whether or not the sovereign is married to a Catholic. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that it is essentially a matter of concern in so far as Her Majesty is the Queen of England, rather than Queen of the other territories.

My amendment is very narrow. Clause 2(2) reads as follows:

“Subsection (1) applies in relation to marriages occurring before the time of the coming into force of this section where the person concerned is alive at that time”.

Who does that mean? It could mean a person who was excluded from the succession many years ago as a result of marrying a Catholic and who happens to be alive at the time the Act comes into force. Therefore, we might find that we will need to rearrange the whole succession because the clause is not clear about who that person is. I think that the Government’s intention is that that is the person who contracted the marriage to a Catholic. To put a name to it, we are talking about someone such as His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent.

Mr MacNeil: Once it has been established who is first, second and third in line to the throne, the line of succession is in many ways academic. I am sure that whoever was 10th or 20th in line was not considered much in the time of Robert the Bruce, Edward I or whoever happened to be the monarch in these islands at the time. It is purely an academic matter to be discussed at many dinner tables across the land. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman’s opinion is.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: That is an interesting thought, but I think that it is important that the line of succession should be clear and in no doubt. I think that legislation relating to the succession to the Crown needs to be unambiguous and not allow potential risks to come in because of a mistake in the drafting. We want to know who our sovereign will be, to whom we owe loyalty and all such things, and that might not be possible if we do not know the line of succession.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the succession can leap about. We have been fortunate enough in recent generations to have had a very clear succession and large royal families, but we can sometimes get down to a very small number of heirs, and we see that ordinary hereditary titles can sometimes go to very remote cousins, so who is in line to the throne is very important.

Obviously, there are other amendments that I have tabled. I have concerns about the clause as a whole and whether it should stand part of the Bill—

22 Jan 2013 : Column 259

The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone): Order. I remind the Committee that we are dealing only with the narrow amendment that is being moved at the moment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thank you for that guidance, Mr Bone. That is the amendment I am moving. It is intended to be helpful and clarifying. Were it to be sent to the other realms in which Her Majesty is sovereign, I would have thought that they would not find it unduly objectionable. Therefore, I bring it to the Government’s attention and hope that they will consider it carefully.

Miss Smith: Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who through the amendment seeks to make the intention behind clause 2 crystal clear. Clause 2(1) stops a person being disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or being the monarch because of marriage to a Roman Catholic. The amendment would add words to subsection (2) so that it read slightly differently.

My hon. Friend is trying to make crystal clear that the person referred to in subsection (2) is also the person referred to in subsection (1), who would not be disqualified as a result of having married a Roman Catholic. I sincerely thank him for his amendment.

The Government’s view is that the clarification is not required. We believe that the clause is clear as it stands. For the benefit of the record, I should say that the person referred to in subsection (2) is the person who should not be disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of their marriage to a Roman Catholic. I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, although I am grateful for the intention behind it. I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

Wayne David: I very much agree with the Minister’s interpretation; that is my understanding as well. It is important to stress that the intention is made clear not only in the words of subsections (1) and (2) but in the clause heading. I suggest that the amendment is otiose.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Having listened to the Minister, I would not wish to divide the House given the limited time available. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss Chloe Smith: I am grateful to be able to spend a little more time on this stand part debate than on the first; it is clear that the majority of this afternoon’s debate has focused on clause 2.

Clause 2 provides for a major change to the laws of succession to the Crown agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Perth in 2011. It removes the bar on anyone who marries a Roman Catholic from becoming monarch; that is the purpose of subsection (1). Subsection (2) applies the change retrospectively to anyone who is currently in the line of succession. That means that people who have lost their place in the line of succession because of their marriage to a Roman Catholic will regain their place. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth

22 Jan 2013 : Column 260

(Christopher Pincher), I should say that that will not affect anybody who is particularly high up in the line of succession.

Some have suggested that the change could bring into question the position of the established Church of England. We have discussed that issue extensively on Second Reading and in Committee. I give again my full reassurance that the change has no implications for the position of the established Church or for the monarch as the head of the Church of England, because there are no changes to the part of the Act of Settlement that requires the monarch to be a Protestant. I note the interest of some in the Chamber in that point and I re-emphasise it here in Committee. All the clause will do is remove a specifically anti-Catholic provision that bars a person from succeeding to the Crown or possessing it if they are married to a Catholic. As I said, it is worth remembering that there is no bar on the heir to the throne marrying anybody else.

Chris Bryant: I want to clarify the point that I have asked about twice and that no Minister has replied to. Clause 2 says that someone who marries a Roman Catholic can succeed to the Crown, but clause 3 allows the monarch to remove somebody from the succession by refusing to consent to their marriage. As no reason has to be given why consent is not provided, it could be because the person is Roman Catholic, could it not?

Miss Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question again because there was unfortunately little time to answer it in detail when winding up the Second Reading debate. It might be worth looking back at some precedents. The point about whether, under clause 3, the monarch would be advised by Ministers was also raised on Second Reading. I hope you will forgive me, Mr Bone, if I deal a little with clause 3 in this debate. In 1967, when there was a question about the marriage—in that case, marriage following a divorce—of a member of the royal family, the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, devised a formula that ran along these lines: “The Cabinet has advised the Queen to give her consent and Her Majesty has signified her intention to do so.” That provides an insight into how such advice to the monarch might operate. We have had many debates, connected to this topic and more widely in the media, about advice to and from the monarch and the publication of such correspondence, and I will not stray on to that territory now. However, it should be perfectly reasonable and practical to imagine that there would be such advice to the monarch.

The hon. Gentleman asks specifically whether that would include withholding consent to marriage because the person is a Catholic. I will not answer that today because, for a range of reasons, there should be space within such advice with regard to consent. As I explained at the end of Second Reading, it is not unreasonable to have the notion of consent to marriage. After all, we are dealing with those who may become Head of State in due course, so there is a matter of public interest. I hope that that begins to provide an answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr MacNeil: If I recall correctly, the Minister mentioned the monarch being Protestant. Does she mean Church of England, or could the monarch be a member of any other Protestant Church?

22 Jan 2013 : Column 261

Miss Smith: I beg your pardon, Mr Bone, if I have been lax in my words. I do not recall saying that, but if I did, I should have said Church of England, because, as we have been discussing, the monarch is in communion with the Church of England. However, it is also the case that we have a Protestant succession in this country.

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): The Minister suggested that under clause 3(1) consent could be refused for a variety of reasons, but does not clause 2(1) limit the prerogative such that a refusal of consent as a result of marriage to a person of the Roman Catholic faith would be unlawful?

Miss Smith: Mr Bone, I hope you will forgive me if I stray too far into clause 3—

The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone): Order. I am grateful to the Minister, because that is exactly my opinion. We will have a chance to debate clause 3, so perhaps we could stick to clause 2 for the moment.

Miss Smith: Clause 2 is extremely clear that the monarch may not be a Roman Catholic. I think that that is the simplest expression of the lawfulness entailed in the clause.

Sir Alan Beith: It will not be clear if confusion persists over the matter of Protestant or Church of England. For example, Prince Albert was a Lutheran when he married Queen Victoria; he was a Protestant, not a Catholic. The Hanoverians were Lutherans when they came to the throne. We have a Protestant succession but it also involves supreme governorship of the Church of England.

Miss Smith: Again, I am grateful for the chance to be extremely clear. There are no changes to the parts of the Act of Settlement that require the monarch to be a Protestant. I hope that that is sufficiently clear.

Chris Bryant: But in addition, the monarch has to be in communion with the Church of England. That is very clear in section 3 of the Act of Settlement.

Miss Smith: There are many, many sections of the Act of Settlement that we are not dealing with today, and I suspect that that is one of them.

Clause 2 removes a specifically anti-Catholic provision that bars a person from succeeding to the throne or possessing it if they are married to a Catholic.

Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): I think that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) was trying to draw the Minister’s attention to the provisions in clause 2(1) and suggesting that that might answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). It states:

“A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith.”

That, of itself, would not preclude Her Majesty from refusing a marriage on the grounds of somebody being a Roman Catholic. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood seemed to suggest that that answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda. Does it?

22 Jan 2013 : Column 262

5.45 pm

Miss Smith: Again, I suspect that we will have to address that when we discuss clause 3 and are able to go into more detail as to what it does or does not permit. As I told the hon. Member for Rhondda, I am not willing to go through a list of the rules that might be applied to the monarch’s consent. I do not believe that that has been done in matters of tradition before when consent has been sought, but that is a matter for clause 3. Clause 2 is absolutely clear about lifting the bar on marrying a Roman Catholic but, as I have said, it does not change the parts of the Act of Settlement that require the monarch to be a Protestant and in communion with the Church of England.

Ian Paisley: The more I listen to the Minister today, the more I realise that she has been at pains to emphasise and explain the point that I have made in amendment 16. I have also received reassurances from her verbally and from the Library’s paperwork. That is why I believe my amendment makes eminent sense, because it says exactly what the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box—

The Temporary Chair: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but because his amendment has not been selected, we cannot debate it.

Ian Paisley: The point that I had hoped to make without making you cross with me, Mr Bone, is that the Minister could take the issue away—or perhaps get something from the House of Lords—and then bring back an amended Bill to the House next week. There is clarity in my amendment—

“provided that person remains in communion with the Church of England in accordance with section 3 of the Act of Settlement”—

and if the Minister were prepared to accept that, the matter would be resolved. It would clear up a lot of the confusion that has been voiced today, and the Bill would then have intent, thrust and clarity.

Sir Alan Beith: I am glad to be under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, as we discuss the details of this provision. Clause 2 is an important clause, but it raises complications and difficulties, to which hon. Members of all parties have been right to draw attention in order to check whether we are getting this right and achieving the objective.

We are in a different world from that in which the legislation that the Bill will change was created. As hon. Members have said, that was a time when Catholicism represented an actual political threat to the United Kingdom, because of the behaviour of some Catholic powers in Europe. We are long past that era now—indeed, we are in an era in which Catholics and Protestants are aware that they have more things in common—some very important things in common—than they have matters of difference, and an era in which there are many mixed marriages between Catholics and Protestants. We should recognise that people find ways of accommodating and even sharing in the benefits of both approaches to the Christian faith.

A further fact that we cannot simply cast aside is that we have a long national tradition associated with a Protestant monarchy and an established Protestant Church in England—the Church of England—which has its own long and complex history, including its own Catholic

22 Jan 2013 : Column 263

elements. We have a long-established situation in Scotland, dating from the Union of the Crowns, whereby the monarch is expected to uphold the position of a national Presbyterian Church in Scotland and to conform to it and attend its services when in Scotland. Protestantism is also a resonant feature of life in Wales and Northern Ireland, as, indeed, is Catholicism in both places. All that is part of our history and we cannot throw it lightly aside.

Mr MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman touches on the past. It strikes me that perhaps the great worry in the past was not theological as much as it was about the imperialist ambitions of neighbouring nations—France, probably, and Spain to an extent.

Sir Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is at the root of the bars and prohibitions that we are discussing now. There were of course strongly felt theological differences, and there was a time when to be a Member of this House, a person had to swear an oath against transubstantiation and the Pope’s ability to relieve them of any obligations resulting from falsely swearing such an oath. It was very stringent. Later, and rightly, it was changed.

The hon. Gentleman comes from an island with an extraordinary and honourable tradition of adherence to the Roman Catholic faith, without a break, since before the Reformation. It is an unusual part of the British Isles in that respect. Where he lives. there has always been diversity in these matters.

Mr MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman mentions the geography and history of my constituency, and he is correct that the island that I happen to be from has that Catholic tradition associated with it. The recent census showed that the southern part of the Hebrides had the most Catholic areas in Scotland, but also that the most Protestant areas in Scotland were in my constituency, in Lewis, Harris and North Uist in the northern isles. It is interesting to note that there has never been any religious tension between the two at all.

Sir Alan Beith: The two versions of Christianity live side by side remarkably happily in the Western Isles.

The purpose of the Bill is not to change the Protestant succession, as the Minister has made clear. If it were, we would have to spend a lot longer on it considering many more detailed and complicated clauses, and there would be many more concerns to deal with. Nor will it disestablish the Church of England—it retains the monarch’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England—or change the situation in Scotland, where the monarch will continue to be expected to be a loyal supporter of the Church of Scotland and its work, as the Queen notably is, while having good relations with the other religious communities in Scotland.

The problem that arises is the one that I refer to as the early age problem. A decision to bring up a child of such a marriage as a Roman Catholic, whether taken entirely voluntarily or under the provisions of some Roman Catholic law, would result in that child being debarred from taking up the Crown unless they renounced

22 Jan 2013 : Column 264

the faith in which they had been brought up. That is perfectly possible, as was mentioned earlier, but it is quite a limitation to place upon a child.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Act of Settlement mentions

“all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome”,

so if a child were baptised a Catholic, I do not think there would be any subsequent opportunity for them to abandon Catholicism. The decision would be that of their parents at the time of their birth.

Sir Alan Beith: That is an interesting argument but I am not persuaded by it in the first instance. It seems to me that it has always been possible for a person to renounce the religion in which they were brought up. It had not previously occurred to me that the way in which we currently define the position would invalidate such a renunciation as removing a barrier to taking up the Crown.

Dan Rogerson: My right hon. Friend has hit on the spirit in which the law would probably be interpreted now. At some point, long before the Acts to which Members have referred today were passed, no members of the Church of England would have been able to escape that position, as they would all originally have been baptised Roman Catholics.

Sir Alan Beith: That is a further interesting point. The problem is there and we should not ignore it, and I think any wise parents would have to consider it. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will have had to consider it when he married. I would expect a couple from the royal family to exercise a lot of care and wisdom in making such a decision. However, we have to recognise that we are placing a potentially serious limitation on the children of a marriage such as we are considering, and giving their parents quite a dilemma.

Chris Bryant: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman away from the point about baptism? There is no such thing as Roman Catholic baptism or Anglican baptism: there is Christian baptism. No Church has ever suggested that there should be a rebaptism when somebody changes their religious denomination. The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the bringing up of children, but it does not apply to baptism.

Sir Alan Beith: Absolutely, and had I decided to spend more time dealing with the argument put by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I would have looked into other questions such the significance of first communion at the age of eight or nine, for example, and whether someone would subsequently be allowed to renounce it. Most parents would prefer that such a position was not reached, but I refer to it because it is a real problem. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised another intriguing issue that could be the subject of an amendment to the Bill, although one that I think the Government might resist on the grounds that it would limit the powers of the sovereign in a family matter—it is a rather unique family situation. Most of us would like to have some influence over the choice of our children’s spouses,

22 Jan 2013 : Column 265

and some may feel that they have less influence than they would like, at least in the initial choice of boyfriend or girlfriend or whatever, but the royal family is in a special situation and I think it would be reasonable of the Government to resist fettering the sovereign’s ability to exercise the six-person limitation provided for in the Bill. I understand why they might want to do so.

Paul Flynn: In imposing this archaic rule and virtually choosing partners for people, which we would denounce in every other field, and in putting the emphasis on religion, when we know that half the population has no religion—

The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I know that clauses 2 and 3 are closely linked, but we are shifting quickly into clause 3. The sooner we finish with the clause 2 stand part debate, the sooner we will get to clause 3.

Sir Alan Beith: I do not want to be drawn into clause 3. We are considering whether the effect of clause 2 might be undermined by clause 3, and that has much to do with clause 2, but I suspect—I do not intend to say this again when we debate clause 3, so I will say it now —that it is something we will have to live with in order to produce a sensible outcome. The Bill as it stands provides a reasonable outcome to the problems I have described, but there is no escaping the fact that some problems will remain.


Mark Durkan: I want to take up the Minister’s point that this clause removes a line of discrimination from law. That is clearly what it does—up to a point. It removes a blatant bit of sectarian discrimination that would prevent somebody from remaining in the line of succession if they married a Roman Catholic. However, as we have heard, it still requires us all to subscribe to the notion that the Crown must remain Protestant and that somebody can only be Head of State in the United Kingdom on the basis of one particular faith. That is a sectarian provision.

Mr MacNeil: For clarity, it is more than the Crown must remain Protestant; the Crown must remain Church of England. If we are talking about the personality of the monarch’s faith, surely when the monarch crosses a border or moves across the sea, his or her religion does not change.

Mark Durkan: Well in some respects, as I understand from the current debate, the sovereign’s religion does change when they cross a border. The Church with which they are deemed to be in communion changes when the sovereign crosses the border from the Church of England to the Church of Scotland, not the Episcopal Church in Scotland. That is just from listening to this debate. We are getting into areas that I know little about and do not particularly want to know a lot about. Some of this debate reminds me of the old advert for Baxters soup: “The difference is in the thickness.”

Yes, obviously there is an emphasis on communion with the Church of England because of the role of the Crown and the governorship of that Church, but there is also the Protestant line of succession, as the Minister has said.

22 Jan 2013 : Column 266

Mr MacNeil: I will try not to be too thick about this. Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, would he be happier if the terms were “must be Church of England” rather than “cannot be a Catholic”? To put a political dimension on the matter, as a Scottish nationalist and a monarchist, I would be quite happy to share a monarchy with England if the monarch had to be Church of England. That would be no problem for me.