Jump to content

Succession to the Crown Act 2013

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Devatipan (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 25 April 2013 (→Gender). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is about the bill published in 2012. For previous proposals of the same name, see Royal Succession Bills and Acts.
Succession to the Crown Act 2013
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long titleAn Act to make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes.
Introduced byNick Clegg PC (LD)
Cabinet Office
Territorial extent United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories
Dates
Royal assent25 April 2013
Commencementpending passage by other realms
Status: Unknown

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 is a piece of legislation in the United Kingdom, altering the laws of succession to the British throne.[1] It was published on 13 December 2012 and has been passed by both houses of parliament. It received Royal Assent on 25 April 2013, during the Prorogation of Parliament.[2]

Background

Main article: Perth Agreement

On 28 October 2011, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held in Perth, Western Australia, the heads of government of the 16 Commonwealth realms, which share Elizabeth II as head of state, announced that they would introduce legislation in all 16 countries to end the primacy of males over females and the disqualification of persons married to Catholic spouses in the succession to the Crown.[3]

In a letter to the other Realms' heads of government, prior to the Perth Agreement, British Prime Minister David Cameron additionally proposed to limit the requirement to obtain the monarch's permission to marry to the first six people in line to the throne.[4]

On 4 December 2012, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced:

"[T]he Government has received final consent from all the Commonwealth realms to press ahead with a landmark bill to end the centuries-old discrimination against women in line to the British throne at the soonest possible opportunity.
This confirmation means that the Government will seek to introduce the Succession to the Crown Bill in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity allowed by the parliamentary timetable.[5]

The bill was published on 13 December 2012.

Bill stages

The first reading (introduction) of the bill in the House of Commons took place on 13 December 2012.[6] Passage of an Allocation of Time motion, the second reading, and the committee stage (in the form of a Committee of the Whole House) took place on 22 January 2013.[7] The report stage and third reading (passage) took place on 28 January 2013.[8] The only amendment made in the House of Commons was to insert the words "from the marriage" after the word "descendants" in clause 3(3), which was passed without debate.[9]

The first reading of the bill in the House of Lords took place on 29 January 2013.[10] The bill passed second reading on 14 February 2013 and was reviewed by committee on 28 February 2013. The report stage was on 13 March 2013.[11] The bill was passed at the third reading on 22 April.[12] No amendments were made to the bill in the House of Lords, and it received the Royal Assent on 25 April 2013.[13]

Legislation

The purpose of the Succession to the Crown Act is to give effect in the United Kingdom to the agreement between heads of government. However, the British government intends that the bill, once passed, would not take effect until the other Commonwealth realms also gave effect to the agreement.[14]

European Convention on Human Rights

Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires a minister in charge of a bill in either House of Parliament to make a statement about the compatibility of the provisions of the Bill with the ECHR Convention rights (as defined by section 1 of that Act). Accordingly, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, a Liberal Democrat member of the Privy Council, issued the following statement, which was printed in the explanatory notes to the bill:

"In my view the provisions of the Succession to the Crown Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."[15]

The explanatory notes further state that:

“The right to succeed to a throne does not appear to have been litigated in the Strasbourg courts and the Government’s view is that they would hold that decisions on a state’s constitutional arrangements such as succession were a matter for that state and not for them. [...] [T]he Government does not consider that the Strasbourg courts would say that the right to the Crown itself was a property right but a right related to the constitution." [16]

Provisions

When the bill as amended in committee became law, the following provisions were enacted:

Gender

Males born after 28 October 2011 do not precede their elder sisters in the line of succession.[17] This means that the first child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be expected to ascend the throne, regardless of his or her gender and that of any younger siblings.[18] However, the relative positions in the line of succession of the currently living members of the immediate royal family are not altered.[note 1]

Marriage to Roman Catholics

Under the Act of Settlement, marrying a Roman Catholic disqualifies a person from succeeding to the Crown. The Succession to the Crown Act repealed this rule[19] and removed the disqualification from living people who were disqualified by the rule.[20][21]
The Cabinet does not expect this clause to "affect anyone with a realistic prospect of succeeding to the Throne".[22][note 2]

The Royal Marriages Act 1772 is repealed.[23] Instead, only the first six persons in line to the throne are required the sovereign's approval to marry.[24] Marriage without the sovereign's consent would disqualify the person and the person's descendants from the marriage from succeeding to the Crown.[25] The marriage would, however, be legally valid.

Marriages legally void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 will be treated as never having been void, except for purposes relating to the succession to the Crown, provided the following conditions are met:[26]

  1. Neither party to the marriage was one of the six persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage.
  2. No consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that act, in respect of the marriage.[note 3]
  3. In all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the act applied to it.
  4. No person acted before the coming into force of section 3 on the basis that the marriage was void.[note 4]

Consequential amendments

Provisions in the Acts of Union 1707, between England and Scotland, and in the Acts of Union 1800, between Great Britain and Ireland, that involve the Crown will be "subject to provisions of" the bill.[27] Several clauses in the Bill of Rights 1689[note 5][note 6] and the Act of Settlement 1701[note 7][note 8][note 9] involving marriages with "papists" (Catholics) would be repealed.[28] Any references to provisions relating to "the succession to, or possession of, the Crown" would also include, by reference, the provisions of this bill.[29]

However, the clauses that ban Catholic succession were not repealed. Catholics are still officially termed as being “naturally dead and deemed to be dead” in terms of succession. This discrimination was first legislated in the English Bill of Rights in 1689.[30] Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con) also confirmed “the Act of Settlement deems somebody who has been a Catholic for a minute to be “dead” in terms of the succession, and it passes over them “as if they were dead”. It is an absolute. If at any moment in their whole life they were in communion with Rome, they are excluded from the throne, deemed to be dead”. Mark Durkan (SDLP) compared this with McCarthyism, “In effect, it is the McCarthyite question: “Are you now or have you ever been a Catholic?” For anybody who has ever been a Catholic in any shape or form, that is it, they are out; they count as dead for these purposes”.[31]

As the monarch's eldest son would no longer automatically be heir apparent, the Treason Act 1351 would also be amended, such that an act or attempt to murder the monarch's "eldest Son and Heir" would become "eldest child and Heir", while "if a Man do violate [...] the Wife the King's eldest Son and Heir" would become "... son if the heir".[28] The result of the second amendment is that rape of the eldest son's wife would only be high treason if that son is the heir apparent. The Treason Act already provides for high treason in the case of "if a Man do violate [...] the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried".

As Clause 3 of the bill would require the immediate royal family to obtain permission to marry, the Regency Act 1937 would be amended to require the regent to not be disqualified by Clause 3(3).[28]

Commencement

Any provision of the bill would not come into force until a commencement order is issued by the Lord President of the Council.[32] The British Government intends to bring all of the bill's provisions into force simultaneously in all sixteen Commonwealth Realms.[33]

Territorial extent

The Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom. It has no provision on extent, but by necessary implication it will extend to the Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories, following the precedent of other Acts affecting the Sovereign such as the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Acts of 1937, 1943 and 1953.[34]

Commentary

Royal family

On 6 January 2013, the Daily Mail reported that the Prince of Wales had "serious concerns" about the proposed legislation:

"[I]n a meeting with Richard Heaton, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, the Prince is said to have raised concerns about what will happen if his grandchild is allowed to marry a Roman Catholic (under canon law 1125 of the Catholic Church).[35]... [and] the potential impact of changing the rules of Royal succession for other titles that are currently passed down the male line."[36]

A spokesman for the Cabinet Office and a spokesman for the Prince declined to comment on the Daily Mail report.[36] On 9 January 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron said in regards to the proposals that "there has been very thorough contact between No. 10 Downing Street and the palace, and all the issues are settled and agreed."[37]

Church of England

On 21 January 2013, the Church of England published a briefing endorsing the bill's provisions and stating, "The use of fast-tracking procedures [for the bill] is acceptable."[38] The same day, the Telegraph reported that the Church of England had written to MPs to express its official backing for the proposed changes.[39]

House of Commons

A report on the rules of royal succession was prepared by the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee of the House of Commons, chaired by Graham Allen, and was published in December 2011. The report welcomed the proposals, but drew attention to "connected issues that may be raised when the proposals are debated, depending on the scope of the bill, especially the future role of the Crown in the Church of England, and the continued ineligibility of women to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, which remains a matter of public interest for as long as it has an impact on gender balance in the House of Lords."[40]

On 9 September 2012, the British government published a response to the report, reiterating that it intended to implement the Perth Agreement but had no plans to change the laws of succession to peerages or the established status of the Church of England.[41]

House of Lords

On 21 January 2013, the House of Lords Constitution Committee published a report opposing the Government's plan to fast-track the bill, citing the legislation's "constitutional significance" and "possible unintended consequences."[42]

In response, the Government expanded the time allocated for the bill's debate in the House of Commons from one day to two days,[43] and it decided not to fast-track the bill in the House of Lords, where the normal time limits were observed.[44]

Notes

  1. ^ As of January 2013, the person highest in the line of succession who would be displaced by this provision is Tane Lewis (b. 2012),[citation needed] who is 26th in the line of succession, ahead of his elder sister.
  2. ^ If Protestants who married Catholics were not barred from the throne, the first such person in the line of succession as of January 2013 would be George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews[citation needed] (who was disqualified by his marriage to Sylvana Tomaselli in 1988), who would be 33rd in the line of succession.
  3. ^ That is, this clause would not apply to marriages for which prior consent was asked, but not given.
  4. ^ That is, the clause does not reestablish a marriage as valid if somebody already litigated on the grounds that the marriage was void.
  5. ^ "And whereas it hath [been] found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety [...] of this [...] [Kingdom] to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist [...]" (emphasis added)
  6. ^ "That all and every person and persons that is [...] or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded and be for ever [uncapable] to inherit[...] the Crowne [...] of this Realme[...] and the said Crowne [...] shall [...] descend to [...] Protestants as should have inherited [...] the same in case the said person or persons soe reconciled [...] or Marrying as aforesaid [...] were naturally dead" (emphasis added)
  7. ^ "[E]very Person [...] should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded [...] to inherit [...] the Crown [...] of this Realm[...]" (emphasis added)
  8. ^ [I]n case the said Person or Persons [...] or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead." (emphasis added)
  9. ^ "That all and every Person and Persons who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown [...] and is are [...] or shall profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be subject to such Incapacities[...]" (emphasis added)

See also

References

  1. ^ "Bills before Parliament". parliament.uk.
  2. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, clause 5(4) (as introduced).
  3. ^ "Girls equal in British throne succession". BBC News. 28 October 2011. Retrieved 28 October 2011.
  4. ^ "Royal family: Cameron begins process to allow first born daughters to accede throne". The Telegraph. 12 October 2011. Retrieved 23 January 2013.
  5. ^ "Royal succession rules will be changed". Deputy Prime Minister's Office. 4 October 2012. Retrieved 5 February 2013.
  6. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121213/debtext/121213-0002.htm#12121342000015. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Commons. 13 December 2012. col. 471. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
  7. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130122/debtext/130122-0001.htm#13012239000002. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Commons. 22 January 2013. col. 186. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
  8. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130128/debtext/130128-0002.htm#13012834000001. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Commons. 28 January 2013. col. 695. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
  9. ^ Chloe Smith MP, Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office) (22 January 2013). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130122/debtext/130122-0004.htm. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 273. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
  10. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130129-0001.htm#13012966000411. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Lords. 29 January 2013. col. 1439. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
  11. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130313-0001.htm#13031351000661. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Lords. 13 March 2013. col. 267. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
  12. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130422-0001.htm#1304224000390. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Lords. 22 April 2013. col. 1216. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
  13. ^ UK Parliament website
  14. ^ Paragraph 10, Explanatory Notes. "It was agreed that the United Kingdom would be the first to draft legislation, but that this would not be introduced until the Government had secured the agreement of the other Commonwealth realms to the terms of the Bill, and would not be commenced until the appropriate domestic arrangements were in place in the other Commonwealth Realms."
  15. ^ Paragraph 46, Explanatory Notes
  16. ^ Paragraphs 48-50, Explanatory Notes.
  17. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, clause 1 (as introduced).
  18. ^ Paragraph 26, Explanatory Notes. "An effect of the proposed change is that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a daughter and then a son, the daughter would precede the son in the line of succession."
  19. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, clause 2(1) (as introduced).
  20. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, clause 2(2) (as introduced).
  21. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, Schedule paragraph 5 (as introduced).
  22. ^ Paragraph 28, Explanatory Notes.
  23. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, clause 3(4) (as introduced).
  24. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, clause 3(1) (as introduced).
  25. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, clause 3(3) (as amended).
  26. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, clause 3(5) (as introduced).
  27. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, clause 4(3) (as introduced).
  28. ^ a b c Schedule to Succession to the Crown Bill (as introduced).
  29. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, clause 4(2) (as introduced).
  30. ^ "Text of Bill of Rights". Avalon Law. Yale University.
  31. ^ "House of Commons Debates. 28 January 2013, c695". Parliament UK.
  32. ^ Succession to the Crown Bill, clause 5(2) (as introduced)
  33. ^ Paragraph 42, Explanatory Notes.
  34. ^ "Succession to the Crown Bill - Explanatory Notes".
  35. ^ "The Duchess of Cambridge and the right royal baby battle", London Evening Standard, 10 January 2013, retrieved 14 January 2013
  36. ^ a b "My fears on rushed new laws over Kate's baby, by Charles: Shake-up to let a daughter succeed to the throne 'has not been thought through', says Prince". Daily Mail. 6 January 2013. Retrieved 22 January 2013.
  37. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130109/debtext/130109-0001.htm#13010946000010. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Commons. 9 January 2013. col. 310. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
  38. ^ "Church of England Briefing - Succession to the Crown Bill".
  39. ^ "Nick Clegg urges 'equal rights' for royal girls as MPs prepare to debate rules of succession". The Telegraph. 21 January 2013. Retrieved 22 January 2013.
  40. ^ House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Rules of Royal Succession: Eleventh Report of Session 2010–12, 7 December 2011. Retrieved 3 December 2012
  41. ^ Rules of Royal Succession: Government Response to the Committee's Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12. Mark Harper MP, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, 10 September 2012.
  42. ^ Constitution Committee. "11th Report: The Succession to the Crown Bill". House of Lords.
  43. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130122/debtext/130122-0002.htm#13012253000001. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Commons. 22 January 2013. col. 201. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
  44. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130214-0002.htm. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Lords. 14 February 2013. col. 829. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2013&oldid=552139393"