To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to introduce legislation to remove the restrictions on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics and to enable equal rights to succession to be enjoyed by daughters of the Sovereign.

My Lords, this is a complex issue. While there is no question of changing the constitutional role of the monarch or the Church of England as the established church, both my Right Honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have said that we have to deal with issues of discrimination here. The Laws concerning marriage to Catholics and the primacy of male members of the Royal Family should change, but that can happen only with the agreement of all the Commonwealth countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is the Head of State. Given the need for consensus across all the Queen's realms, this cannot happen overnight.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend, but given that the debate in the other place last Friday aroused much interest and showed strong levels of public support for ending these discriminations, I urge the Government to act more quickly and bring in a measure either to deal with both discriminations together or, if it is easier to get agreement, to deal with each of them in turn. Does my noble friend agree that it is wise to introduce these changes now when they can be considered on their own merits rather than being seen to favour one particular successor to the Crown over another?

My Lords, on my noble friend's second point, there is more than one view about whether this is the appropriate moment to take action. On her first point about whether we might remedy one of these issues and not the other, the problem is that the same difficulties apply when amending the law on succession to effect equal rights for females in the line of succession as to removing anti-Catholic provisions in the Act of Settlement. The Statute of Westminster 1931 requires the assent of the Parliaments of all those countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State.

My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that the ban on the heirs to the throne marrying Catholics is the constitution's grubby little secret? Does he recall that the previous Prime Minister, Mr Blair, promised to tackle this and gave exactly the same line as we are hearing from the Dispatch Box today? Just how long will it take this Government to deal with this question?

My Lords, I have already said that it is accepted by the Government that these are cases of discrimination and they need to be changed. However, this is a complex issue, as the noble Lord will understand; he was a member of a Government that I do not think sought to change the position as it was then and as it is now. He is right in the sense that this is discriminatory and that the Government have to do something about it. This is a complex issue which requires the agreement of those other countries in the Commonwealth which treat the Queen as their Head of State.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, was in first. Then perhaps we can go to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan.

My Lords, is it not the case that there is no specific statement in the Act of Settlement 1701 that prevents a person of the Roman Catholic faith becoming monarch? The words of the Act, if I remember rightly, are that the Crown shall devolve upon the Electress Sophia and the heirs of her body—followed by the words "being Protestant". It is not a case of Roman Catholics being proscribed, but rather of Protestants being prescribed.

My Lords, the noble Lord, as so often, is quite right.

My Lords, would it not be preferable for the Government to show that they prefer to anticipate problems? However, they have to face them.

My Lords, we are anticipating this problem; we have anticipated it. Discussions are taking place and will continue to take place, because this is a matter which, at some stage, needs to be resolved.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that in recent times, Protestants and Catholics have developed increasing bonds of affection and friendship, and that we have made a little progress ourselves in these matters since the 16thand 17th centuries? Will he repeat the fact that complex issues lie behind these matters and that there is no immediate practical need for action? That gives time for the necessary consultation to take place and for these matters to be presented in a way which is rooted in a genuine consensus.

My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate. However, we must keep moving on this; we cannot just use the excuse of discussions for not doing something about it. That does not detract from the fact—I repeat it—that this is a complex matter

My Lords, bearing in mind that the Act of Settlement inextricably links so many crucial components of our constitution with the monarchy and accepting that constitutional change in the United Kingdom must, despite the recent record of the Government, be based on consensus—in these matters, that means agreement by the Houses of Parliament, by the Church of England, by the Roman Catholic Church and other denominations, by the monarchy and by public opinion—does the Minister then agree that a Private Member's Bill is a wholly inappropriate way of promoting changes in this area?

Yes, my Lords.

My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the difficulty of this complex issue and consulting the Commonwealth, but have the Government started that consultation? Also, could he mention one Commonwealth country that would be against these proposals?

My Lords, I am certainly not going into the question of what Commonwealth countries may or may not have said on this issue; that would be quite inappropriate and wrong. As I understand it, discussions have started and are continuing.