HL Deb 02 July 2002 vol 637 cc120-2

2.45 p.m.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they plan to repeal the Act of Settlement 1701.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)

My Lords, we have no plans to legislate in this area.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for that reply. Is he aware that in an interview with the Glasgow-based Herald newspaper shortly before the election in June last year the Prime Minister described the Act as "plainly discriminatory" and said: Obviously, in principle, it can't be right that Catholics are unable to succeed"? Those views are widely shared by leaders of both the Anglican and the Roman Catholic Churches and by a number of members of the Cabinet. While I understand the pressures on parliamentary time, would it not be sensible, once the new Archbishop of Canterbury has been appointed, for the consultations with the leaders of the Commonwealth countries, which will be necessary before progress is made in this area, to be undertaken so that possibly we can have legislation in the next Parliament?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I am aware of the Prime Minister's comments. The Act could be said to be discriminatory in nature, but it is not discriminatory in impact. Where legislation could have far-reaching effects on our historical constitutional arrangements, both in the United Kingdom and in the Commonwealth, it is a good principle—I would recommend to your Lordships—to consider legislative change only where it can be maintained that there is a clear and pressing need for change.

There are 20 members of the Royal Family in the line of succession after the Prince of Wales, all of whom are eligible to succeed and have been unaffected by the Act of Settlement. The Act of Settlement therefore has no present discriminatory impact. As for consultations with our Commonwealth partners, since we have no plans to legislate, such consultation would be premature.

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords, during a debate regarding Church and State in your Lordships' Chamber on 22nd May 2002, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it would be an enormously complex undertaking with regard to the Church and State if he were to attempt to repeal various Acts, including the Act of Settlement 1701, without, damaging the tapestry of the constitution".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; col. 812.] Would the noble and learned Lord agree that he has already made certain parts of the constitution threadbare by his and the Government's incoherent meddling with the constitution?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I certainly would not agree with that. The constitutional reform programme of the last Parliament extended to human rights, it extended to devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it extended to freedom of information and it extended to reform of your Lordships' House. In all those areas there was a clear and pressing need for change. In this area there is not.

The Lord Bishop of St Albans

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that relationships between Christian denominations in this country, including those between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, are generally extremely good? Is he aware, however, that there are some significant differences between our Churches which impinge, for example, on how Anglican orders are viewed; how children in marriages between Roman Catholics and other Christians are to be brought up; and that perceptions of discrimination exist on different sides within the Church and not just one? Does he accept that the interests of those who pursue this matter may not be religious at all, but might be based upon an understanding of discrimination which in this case could be described as over simple?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I am not sure that that is an over-simple question, if I may say so. What I would say is that I am aware of these matters but I do not think that there is at present any general public interest in the repeal of the Act of Settlement. To the extent that there is ongoing debate, the Government will monitor it.

Lord Alton of Liverpool

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that, short of total repeal, those parts of the Act of Settlement that are discriminatory—whether in a practical sense or by perception—could be dealt with in a rather more piecemeal way? Does he further accept that the issue does not trouble people from a Catholic tradition, or indeed from most religious traditions? Most people in this country who have religious belief are full of joy that we have so little discrimination and that there is such a pluralistic and tolerant society in which people can enjoy their religious practice according to their conscience.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I agree, of course, with the second part of that question. As to the Act of Settlement, in whole or in part, I repeat that I believe that there is no clear and pressing need for repeal or reform.

Earl Russell

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is correct to say that, at present, none of the top 20 in succession to the throne happens to be a Roman Catholic. Is there any way in which he can know that none of them will be converted in the near future?

Did he by any chance read an article in The Times by Mary Ann Sieghart about three months ago? It stated that during the past 20 years there has been a quite remarkable change in the direction of civil and religious equality for Roman Catholics in this country. Does he agree that that change cannot be complete until the offending passage in the Act of Settlement is removed? Will he therefore initiate international consultations accordingly?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, first, of course I recognise that people can be converted. I am not sure that the noble Earl is ripe for conversion in any particular direction. As for the article by Mary Ann Sieghart, yes, I read it. But I repeat that, whereas it can be said that the Act of Settlement is discriminatory in nature, it has no discriminatory impact today. If it were ever likely to have, the matter would have to be addressed.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that Prince James Francis Edward Stuart should have become King in 1701 on the death of his father. Does he agree that the Act of Settlement was this Parliament's response to the Act of Security passed by the Parliament of Scotland, reserving to Scotland the right to choose their own King? Does he further agree that James Francis Edward poses no threat today and, accordingly, that the Act of Settlement—that piece of 18th century Whig paranoia, which led to parliamentary Union—can be safely laid to rest?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, all that I should like to say about that is that noble Lords will appreciate, as does the noble Earl, that the Act of Settlement was legislation passed by a previous administration.