HL Deb 17 November 1953 vol 184 cc301-9

2.42 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS)

My Lords, I have to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I fear that I have to ask the indulgence of the House in that I am suffering this afternoon from a common infirmity. I hope that I shall make myself heard, but if noble Lords are unable to hear me, perhaps they will make the fact known. This Bill is a Bill to amend the Regency Act of 1937. It conies from the other House following upon a gracious Message which had been read to that House, as it was read to this House a few days ago. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships at once of the purport of that Message and the object of this Bill by reading a few words of the Preamble to the Bill, which states as succinctly as I could what is its purpose.

The Preamble to the Bill which I now present to the House is in these terms: Whereas Your Majesty, by Your Majesty's Royal Message to both Houses of Parliament, has been pleased to recommend that Parliament should consider the expediency of providing that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh should be the Regent if a child of Your Majesty and His Royal Highness accedes to the Throne while under the age of eighteen years or if a Regency becomes necessary during the lifetime of Your Majesty while there is no child or grandchild of Your Majesty and His Royal Highness who can be the Regent, and also the expediency of amending the law so that the heir apparent or heir presumptive to the Throne should be capable of being Regent if he or she has attained the age of eighteen years: And whereas Your Majesty by the same Message recommended that Parliament should consider the amendment of the Regency Acts, 1937 and 1943, so as to add Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to the persons to whom, as Counsellors of State, royal functions can be delegated. As your Lordships see, the Bill deals with two different matters: first, Regency—the necessity of a Regent in certain events; and, secondly, the provision of Counsellors of State for a different event. So far as Regency is concerned, the necessity may arise in one of two ways, which are indicated in the Preamble. In the first place, it may happen that the successor to the Throne succeeds while yet under age. Her Majesty the Queen has taken these unfortunate possibilities into account in her Message, and one must mention them, however deplorable the possibility may be. Supposing the Queen died, leaving as Heir to the Throne her son, or it might be her daughter, still under age (and I would remind your Lordships that by the Common Law the Sovereign attains full age on reaching eighteen years, not, as her subjects do, on attaining twenty-one years), if the successor to the Throne should not be eighteen years of age when he or she succeeds, there must be a Regent. The other possibility is this—equally deplorable to contemplate, but nevertheless necessary to be contemplated: that the Sovereign herself may be totally incapacitated in the course of her Reign. Then, equally, it is necessary that a Regent should be appointed.

The Regency Act, 1937, made provision for each of those eventualities. It provided that in the case of there being the necessity for a Regent, that Regent should be the next person in succession to the Throne. To translate that into the terms of to-day, supposing this event were to happen at an early date, the next successor to the Throne who is of full age being the Princess Margaret, the Princess Margaret would become Regent. The purpose of the amending Bill is to provide that, in that event, and indeed, in either of those events to which I have referred, the Regent should be the Duke of Edinburgh. That is the wish of Her Majesty it is the declared wish of Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret—my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had her express authority for saying that in the other House, and I repeat it here and it is a wish on their part which I think is echoed by the whole of the people, who have come to recognise the great service which the Duke of Edinburgh has, in this short space of time, rendered, and the firm hold which he has now acquired on the confidence and affections of the people. Accordingly, the purpose of this Bill, in the first place, is to amend the Regency Act by providing that, in the event of the minority of the successor to the Throne, the Duke of Edinburgh should be Regent; and that in the event of the total incapacity of the Queen during her Reign, he also should be Regent, but only until there is an Heir Apparent to the Throne, child or grandchild, who attains the age of eighteen years.

The second purpose of this amending Bill is one which must commend itself to everybody—namely, to provide that amongst those Counsellors of State who may be appointed in the event of a temporary absence, and only a temporary absence, of the Queen, there shall be included the name of the Queen Mother. I venture to think that in doing this we shall not only get the advantage of the great wisdom and experience of the Queen Mother, but shall also have an opportunity of showing to her how deep is the hold which she, also, has upon the affections and loyalty of the people.

I do not think I need deal with the Bill at any great length, but perhaps your Lordships will be good enough to turn to it. It is a short Bill, but as an amending Bill it is a little difficult to follow without reference to the Act which it amends. By Clause 1 it is provided that: If a Regency becomes necessary under the Regency Act, 1937, on the succession to the Crown of a child of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh while under the age of eighteen years, His Royal Highness, if living, shall be the Regent. I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is simply an ad hoc amendment of the Act, and it goes no further than it says: if the event should happen that the Duke of Edinburgh was not living upon the occasion of the necessity for a Regent, then the old Act would stand, and Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret would be the Regent.

Subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the other eventuality. It says: If a Regency becomes necessary under the Regency Act, 1937, during the reign of Her present Majesty, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, if living, shall be the Regent unless, or (as the case may be) until, there is a child or grandchild of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness who can under the provisions of the said Act be the Regent. That deals with the other possibility to which I have referred, of the total incapacity of the Sovereign. Subsection (3) is machinery. It provides that the preceding provisions of the Act shall have effect subject to the appropriate disqualifications. For instance, under the Regency Act, 1937, a person is not qualified to be a Regent if he is not domiciled in this country, or if he is disqualified under the Act of Settlement—that is to say, he is either himself a Roman Catholic or married to a Roman Catholic. In such a case the provisions of this subsection would not take effect. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 is also a machinery provision, to give effect to what has been previously provided. Clause 2 is consistent. As I told your Lordships, the heir to the Throne succeeds on reaching the of eighteen years. It seems proper that if he is thought by law qualified to reign at the age of eighteen years, so also is he qualified to become Regent. Accordingly, Clause 2 provides that the heir apparent shall, for the purpose of the Regency Act, be deemed to be of full age if he or she has attained the age of eighteen years. Clause 3 deals with that other matter which I have mentioned. It provides that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother shall be added to the persons whom subsection (2) of section six of the Regency Act, 1937,…requires, subject as therein mentioned, to be the Counsellors of State for the purposes of any delegation of royal functions under that section, and accordingly during her life that section shall have effect as if a reference to her were inserted in subsection (2) thereof next after the reference to the wife or husband of the Sovereign. I do not think there is anything in Clause 4 to which I should call attention. I would add only this. This is an amending Bill, and nothing more. It has been suggested that it might have been better to repeal the 1937 Act and substitute a new Act altogether. In that view I do not concur. I think it is a wise provision to have an Act permanently in force, providing a general pattern to which you can add or subtract, as the occasion may require. Anybody who has taken the trouble, as I have, to delve into the records of this House and see what happened in 1811, when there was no permanent Act and when the Sovereign was totally incapacitated and unable to give his Assent to any Acts, will realise the importance of there being an Act which will operate automatically. Accordingly, we have thought it wise—and I hope your Lordships will concur—to proceed by way of amendment of this Act for the particular purpose which we now have in mind, and not to introduce any General Act substituting a different provision as to Regency. If there is any further point which requires explanation I shall, of course, be only too happy to give it, but I think I have made sufficiently clear to the House what is the purpose, the limited purpose, of this Bill. I beg to move that the Bill he read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

2.54 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, in matters concerning our Royal Family there is fortunately no controversy between the Parties in this House. We give this Bill our most cordial support, and we will do all we can to facilitate its passage through the House with the least possible delay. I am sorry for the Lord Chancellor's voice, but in spite of the handicap under which he was suffering he made himself heard perfectly well. He never had an easier case to argue. Even if we had not heard him, we should most certainly have concurred in what he was saying.

The proposition to which he asks us to give our assent is almost self-evident. In the unhappy event or events which we are contemplating, what should be done? It is obvious that if the mother dies, the father should be the guardian of his children, unless there is strong reason for the contrary; and, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, not only is there no reason whatever to the contrary, but there is every reason, from what we know of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, that that normal principle should apply. And if his Royal Highness is to be the guardian of his children, since the children or one of the children would presumably succeed to the Throne, surely he should also be the Regent. We have been assured, both in the Bill and again by the Lord Chancellor, that the Bill accords with the wishes of Her Majesty and with the wishes of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, it is in no sense an exclusion Bill in regard to Her Royal Highness. It seems to me obvious that this scheme is the right scheme, and that we ought to give our assent to it. I am sure your Lordships will give your assent to it, devoutly hoping, as we all do, that the contingencies against which we are providing will never in fact take place.

When we turn to precedents, surely it is enough to think of Queen Victoria and the Prince Consort. In precisely similar circumstances, the Parliament of that day made provision that the Prince Consort should act in this capacity. Therefore we have good precedent to guide us, and it is obviously sensible that we should accede to Her Majesty's wishes. With regard to the other branch of the Bill, which adds Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to the Counsellors of State, that, surely, is right, too. She has had great experience which she is willing to put at the disposal of the country, and we should indeed be foolish if we did not make it possible to avail ourselves of her services.

In another place, the interesting question was raised by Mr. Gordon Walker as to whether the better principle would be not any longer to have the Counsellors of State, but to have some official, some personage, rather in the position of a Governor-General. The reason he advanced for that new scheme was that it would put this country on exactly the same footing as various countries of the Commonwealth. The Home Secretary said that he would like time to inquire into it. It is obviously a matter which needs careful consideration. I should be reluctant to express any decided view upon it. I can see strong arguments against it and I can see some attractions towards it, but it needs careful consideration and, I suppose, discussion with the Dominion representatives. It is a matter which might be looked into, but it obviously cannot be contemplated at the present time. Therefore, all we have to do—accepting the principle of Counsellors of State—is to add Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to the Counsellors, and that we shall all do without any hesitation whatever. I give this Bill my cordial support on behalf of the Party whom I have the honour to represent.

2.58 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, we all most earnestly hope and, indeed, may reasonably expect, that none of the contingencies contemplated by this Bill will occur. But they may, and what is sure is that it is the clear duty of Parliament to legislate accordingly. As the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken has said, the guardian of a Sovereign who is under age would naturally be his father. The person who should be responsible for his person, his education and his training should be, as in all other walks of life, the father. But if the father were guardian and were not the Regent, one could foresee the possibility of great difficulties arising should differences of opinion between those two persons occur in any matters of importance. And, indeed, one could imagine great controversies and friction if two different persons were to exercise the functions of guardian of the Sovereign and the Regent. Much injury would be done to the prestige of the Monarchy and, therefore, to the welfare of the State. If only for that reason, then, it is proper that His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh should be the Regent, especially since he has already won the respect, the confidence and the friendship of the whole nation.

The other provisions of the Bill seem to me not open to objection. I noted with interest that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, spoke about the suggestion made in the other House with respect to the provisions to be enacted concerning the absence of the Sovereign. I do not know that that proposal would have attracted much attention if it had not been made by a member of the late Government who was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. He even put down an Amendment to raise a point on the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, and therefore, it is becoming, I think, that we should make some observations on this particular proposal, even at this early stage.

Mr. Gordon Walker's suggestion was that in the case of the absence of the Sovereign, the Royal functions should be exercised by a Governor-General, for the reason that the Statute of Westminster enacts a complete equality of status between the United Kingdom and the other members of the Commonwealth, and that equality is not observed if this country monopolises, in a way, the symbols of unity—namely, has a special position in relation to the Crown. Undoubtedly a point such as this having once been raised, touching the relations of the Monarchy to the members of the Commonwealth, it at once becomes a question of great importance and delicacy, and demands serious consideration. But in this particular case, I would submit, the circumstances envisaged are really matters for the United Kingdom as such, for if the Sovereign is absent from this country it is the management of the affairs of this country that is raised in question by this proposal.

The difference between the United Kingdom and the other members of the Commonwealth resides in this: that by the Act of Succession, the Crown is vested in the Royal Family, and the Royal Family is resident in the United Kingdom; and when the Sovereign is absent it would be natural for his or her functions to be put into commission, so to speak, and to be exercised by other members of the Royal Family who are resident here. No such conditions exist in any other part of the Commonwealth, and I believe—in fact, we can have little doubt—that the people of this country would prefer, in the case of the absence of the Sovereign, that the Royal functions should be put into commission in the hands of other members of the Royal Family who are not absent, rather than be devolved on some figure in the public life of this country, no matter how eminent, who would have the same position as a Governor-General.

It is such considerations as this, I imagine, that have led to the constitution of a body of Counsellors of State who act in the event of the Sovereign's absence, and to the practice that that body should not include the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, or any other of the high dignitaries of State. Furthermore, this proposal would not apply to the Regency: that would be dealt with on one principle, and the absence of the Sovereign on another principle. I believe it is unlikely that the peoples of the other parts of the Commonwealth would regard the proposal as anything more than a merely logical formula to provide for equality of status and one which would not be consonant either with convenience or with considerations of sentiment. It would be far better to maintain the practice which has hitherto prevailed. If this new clause suggested in the other place were to be raised in your Lordships' House, I have little doubt that it would receive very little, if any, support. For the rest, we on these Benches trust that the Bill will pass speedily into law, without any substantial amendment.

3.6 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I should like to say one word of gratitude to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for the support they have given to this Bill. In particular, I would thank Lord Samuel for his observations on the suggestion that something should be substituted for the present system whereby Counsellors of State are appointed. I think we may be sure that if ever there was any intention to put down an Amendment on the Committee stage it will not be put down now, because his arguments seem to me singularly conclusive.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.