| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that I may ask him to explain something. He used the word "disapply" just now in relation to special circumstances. Does that mean that the Secretary of State would be entitled to ignore particular facts?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not think that it would mean that the Secretary of State would ignore certain facts. However, he has discretion to disapply the provision. That is the important point. I hope that the examples that I have given clarify that matter to the noble Lord's satisfaction.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful for the Minister's reply on Amendment No. 26. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for supporting my comments on Amendment No. 25 and on the other amendments in the grouping we are discussing. If I may say so, those remarks were made more impressive by their brevity.
However, given that the Government think that the word "thinks" needs to be changed, as we have seen in regard to Clause 4 and in the proposed government
amendments to Clause 65, we are disappointed that they have not given a rather more positive and immediate response to our concerns. I feel that I must test the opinion of the Committee.5.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 121.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Biffen, L.
Blackwell, L.
Blaker, L.
Blatch, B.
Bledisloe, V.
Boardman, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnham, L.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chorley, L.
Clark of Kempston, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Crickhowell, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Elton, L.
Erroll, E.
Flather, B.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Glentoran, L.
Gray of Contin, L.
Hanham, B.
Hanningfield, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Higgins, L.
Holderness, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Jopling, L.
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Kingsland, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mancroft, L.
Mar, C.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Monro of Langholm, L.
Monson, L.
Moynihan, L.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Noakes, B.
Northbourne, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Onslow, E.
Palmer, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Platt of Writtle, B.
Plumb, L.
Rees, L.
Renton, L.
Rogan, L.
Sandwich, E.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selborne, E.
Skelmersdale, L.
Stewartby, L.
Stodart of Leaston, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Trefgarne, L.
Vivian, L.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Warnock, B.
Weatherill, L.
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blease, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Chan, L.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Eatwell, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Greengross, B.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Hayman, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Islwyn, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jeger, B.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Jones, L.
Jordan, L.
Judd, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Morgan, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Moser, L.
Orme, L.
Ouseley, L.
Parekh, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Paul, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rooker, L.
Sandberg, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Serota, B.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Walker of Doncaster, L.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 34 not moved.]
Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 35:
- Page 81, line 31, leave out "the Second"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37, 39 and 40, which are concerned with the same point.
These are probing amendments; under no circumstances would I divide the House on the matter. They follow up a question that I asked the Minister on
Second Reading and a helpfully detailed reply that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was kind enough to send me. I emphasise that I am making a political, not a legal, point.The amendments relate to the oaths of allegiance for new British citizens, which are proposed in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. The wording as it stands styles the Queen as "Queen Elizabeth the Second". I am suggesting that in the Bill Her Majesty should simply be entitled "Queen Elizabeth".
I understand why the Government carried over into the Bill the same wording as that used in the oaths employed under the British Nationality Act 1981. That is logical and legally correct. "Elizabeth the Second" was the title that Her Majesty adopted under the Royal Titles Act 1953. When that title was challenged in that year in the Court of Session in Scotland, the challenge failed and the matter was settled.
Her Majesty's legal title as Queen Elizabeth the Second is well known and accepted. At the same time, the sensitivity of the people in Scotland has been increasingly taken into account over the years in a number of ways. The pillar boxes in which we post our letters in Scotland, for example, have long borne the initials "ER" rather than "EIIR", as they do south of the Border, recognising that there has been no previous Queen Elizabeth of Scotland. At the recent Scottish Jubilee service in Glasgow, the Queen was named throughout as either "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth" or "Her Majesty the Queen".
The Minister points out in his letter that, so far as the Government know, no one taking the present oath of allegiance has ever objected to its formulation. I suggest that that is hardly surprising. Someone who is keen to become a British citizen is unlikely to quibble at that particular detail. But the day may come when there is a problem. We have a Scots Parliament now. There is a growing sense of Scots identity, happily within a growing understanding of Scotland's place as a nation within a nation and as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
Nationality matters are reserved under the Scotland Act to the Westminster Parliament. But I suggest that this Westminster Parliament cannot and must not ignore what is going on north of the Border. All of us who believe in the Union must constantly remind the Government of that.
The Government are right legally in the oath that they propose. But I suggest, with diffidence, that they look to their politics. In fact, there is clearly no need to refer in the oath to "Queen Elizabeth the Second". I have discovered that the oath which Members of Parliament and Peers take at Westminster happens, for no other reason than precedent, to be simply one of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth. "Queen Elizabeth II" is not mentioned in our oath. Why do we not follow suit in this Bill?
The Government appear to be alienating enough voters at present for their comfort. I suggest that a little more sensitivity in relation to this matter would be wise. If they pay no heed to this suggestion, they may well regret it.
I want to ask the noble Lord one other question. It has been drawn to my attention by a noble Lord that the oaths included in the schedule to the Bill do not include an affirmation for those who wish to swear allegiance to the Queen but do not believe in God. Is that an omission or is there a reason for it? It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us. I hope that the Government will listen to what I am saying. I believe that they would be very wise to do so. I beg to move.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page