HL Deb 17 April 1989 vol 506 cc543-4

2.44 p.m.

The Earl of Onslowasked Her Majesty's Government:

On what criteria the Prime Minister chooses which of the candidates selected by the Church of England to recommend to the Crown for episcopal appointment.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's recommendations are dependent on advice received from within the Church both on the candidates proposed and on the needs of the particular appointment. Such advice is confidential.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, my noble friend has omitted to say whether it is necessary for the candidate to be a Christian or is that confined to the see of Durham?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend would expect me to give details of particular cases. The advice given has always been kept confidential because of the need to protect the prerogative of the Crown.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, can the Leader of the House give an assurance that the political views or attitudes of the candidates are not one of the criteria taken into account by the Prime Minister when she recommends an appointment to Her Majesty the Queen? Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, in view of the criticisms of the Church of England by members of the present administration, can he say whether or not the administration, from the Prime Minister down, still believes in the principles of an established Church?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, perhaps I may say that the final question asked by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat wide of the original Question. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I am being deliberately unhelpful when I say that I do not think that I can add very much to what I said to my noble friend Lord Onslow in answer to his supplementary question except to say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has always scrupulously adhered to the arrangement first announced by the then Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, was that particular arrangement not a total change of the constitution, carried out without any consultation with either House of Parliament but merely a cobbled agreement between the Church and the then Prime Minister's office? Did that not delete from the prerogative of the Crown and the Prime Minister?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend is right in that assumption. The choice has never been unlimited as there can only be a limited number of suitably qualified candidates in any given case. The arrangements introduced in 1977 were designed expressly to ensure that there was a more complete appraisal of the available candidates.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the greatest hope for the restoration of tranquility and stability within the Church of England would lie in the restoration of the original balance in the choice of candidates between the high, low and middle or evangelical Catholic and middle stump, and that the imbalance of the recent past should now be corrected?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, my noble friend has given a very interesting point of view; but once again it falls fairly wide of the original Question.

Lord St. John of Fawsley

My Lords, may I ask a friendly question from next door? Is it the case that under these arrangements the Prime Minister has a discretion to alter the order of names as received from the Church; and does Her Majesty enjoy the same discretion?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, my remarks about the prerogative of the Crown apply even more resoundingly in answer to my noble friend's supplementary question than to previous questions. However, I repeat that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear on many occasions that she has always scrupulously adhered to that agreement.