---

Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

That may be so, but sometimes there is something wrong with being seen to be a Vatican stooge. That is the point. In correspondence, after I had announced the title of the Bill, I was surprised to find that, despite understanding the limits of the measure, a small number of people still feel that it would threaten the nature of this country if, in future, the mother—or potentially the father—of the heir to the throne were a Catholic, disseminating in some way loyalty to the Vatican and the Holy See rather than to this country. I just think that that is wild conspiracy of the sort of which the Catholic Church has found itself the victim on more than one occasion in recent times. The hon. Member for Gainsborough said of his Bill:""That provision, which is discriminatory and applies only to Roman Catholics is wrong and should be removed from our statute law."" In his speech on his ten-minute Bill, he mentioned that Cardinal O'Brien, the Primate of Scotland, had made a public statement as a result of the Bill being brought forward. He quoted the Cardinal as saying that the provision was""clearly discriminatory and a breach of the human rights of members of the royal family…it should be repealed."" The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that""Prince William would be barred from the succession if he were to marry a Roman Catholic, but if his bride became a Roman Catholic after the marriage ceremony, he could go on to become the monarch."" The hon. Gentleman went on to say, "That is ridiculous"—[Interruption.]—a statement that is echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (David Howarth), and for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), on the Front Bench. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gainsborough for his liberal outlook; I was fascinated to see that he went on to say:""A male member of the royal family, if he were so inclined, could choose to contract a civil partnership with a Roman Catholic man, under recent legislation" —[Official Report, 8 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1392.]" and would not be disqualified. We are talking about an antediluvian measure, and the hon. Gentleman put the matter very well. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I deal with another point from his speech, as he put the argument so clearly. He pointed out that people allege that in the Catholic Church, a couple in what is called a mixed marriage—that is not his phrase—are required to bring up any children as Roman Catholics. He says that that is not the case in any event. I hope that I will get the chance to explain the historical example that he went on to provide. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said how strongly he felt when introducing his private Member's Bill, the Catholics (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill:""In a civilised society there ought to be no reason to introduce this Bill. If we proposed a Bill on the Floor of the House of Commons that would make it illegal for the heir to the throne to marry a Muslim, a Methodist or a Mormon, that would be intolerable in a free society, yet the heir to the throne is still not allowed to marry a member of what is, on any Sunday, the largest worshipping community in this country. That is an insult to the Catholic community because it suggests that, somehow or other, being a Roman Catholic means being less of a citizen than someone belonging to any other religious denomination.""I admit that I feel ashamed that I did not introduce the Bill before, when I was an Anglican. Since becoming a Catholic, I have recognised what the attitude towards this denomination means. For that reason, I am trying to make up for the history."—[Official Report, 20 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 154.]" I spoke to the right hon. Gentleman before today's debate, and his view has not changed. He put his point very well. I think it is appropriate, given that I am not a Roman Catholic, to read those testaments, and so to allow Roman Catholics to say how insulting they find the provision. Kevin McNamara—