Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 21st October 2026
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberChurch Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 Read Hansard Text
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to open today’s debate on this straightforward yet important piece of legislation, which I hope will command broad support across the House. The purpose of this Bill is to remove historical legal barriers that prevent a Prime Minister who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the sovereign on Church appointments or a Minister from making appointments in their own right.
For the benefit of the House, it may be helpful to briefly set out the constitutional and historical context. Since the formal establishment of the Church of England in the 16th century, archbishops and bishops have been appointed by the sovereign as Supreme Governor. Over time, they came to do so on the advice of Ministers, and now the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, provides advice on these and other Church appointments that the sovereign makes. In practice, the Prime Minister does not choose between candidates, but rather provides formal advice on candidates following a selection process. Separately, certain Ministers—for instance, the Lord Chancellor—have, by virtue of their office, rights to act as a patron in parish-level Church appointments directly without the involvement of the sovereign. Again, this is following a selection process.
To understand why these restrictions remain on our statute book today, it is helpful to look briefly at the 19th century, when Parliament passed the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858. After the reformation, many people believed that religious unity under the Church of England and Church of Scotland was essential to maintain the peace. Gradual progress was then made to remove restrictions on worship outside of the established Churches and expand the role of non-Anglicans in political life.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It was the great Daniel O’Connell—elected Member of Parliament for County Clare in Ireland in 1828 but unable to take up his seat because he would not swear the Oath of Supremacy—who famously achieved Catholic emancipation through that 1829 Catholic relief Act. O’Connell was known as “The Liberator”, and Gladstone called him
“the greatest popular leader whom the world has ever seen”,
and yet to this day, there is no statue or portrait to O’Connell in this House. Does the Minister agree that today, 197 years on, the legacy of Daniel O’Connell, the Liberator, will finally be complete with full equality in elected office for both Catholics and Jews?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend makes a powerful intervention. She is right that the effect of this Bill will be to remove the last remaining discriminations against Catholics and Jews on the statute book. It is a historic moment, and I am very glad of it.
Sir Edward Leigh
Surely it will remain on the statute book that a member of the royal family cannot marry a Roman Catholic and inherit the Crown?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was making a point about the active role of Roman Catholics in public life, including in this place. I suspect that the Father of the House and I are not going to agree totally on this Bill, but as constituency neighbours I want to say that he does, as a professing Catholic, play a very active role both in this House and elsewhere. This Bill would take all force away from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and mean that none of its provisions have any force. That is slightly different from the question of the line of succession. For the purposes of this House and normal political activity in this country, the Bill will remove all restrictions.
Deirdre Costigan
Would the Minister agree that this Bill is about removing discrimination in elected office and not about inherited office?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is pithier than I am. Yes, this is about elected office. I will make a little progress, if right hon. and hon. Members do not mind.
Let me take you back to the reformation, Madam Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall said, until the mid-19th century, there were considerably more restrictions on Catholics and Jews, including an effective prohibition on becoming a Member of Parliament. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 removed many but not all of these legal barriers to Roman Catholic and Jewish participation in public life. This included permitting people of those faiths to become MPs and to serve in various civil and military offices, but the legislation retained certain exceptions, which this Bill seeks to address.
Under section 18 of the 1829 Act and section 4 of the 1858 Act, individuals professing the Catholic or Jewish faiths are restricted from giving advice to the sovereign in relation to Church appointments. The penalty for breaching these restrictions is being prevented from holding a civil or military office under the Crown, which includes serving as Prime Minister.
Until now there has never been a Prime Minister professing either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith while in office. Following the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) as Prime Minister in July, these 19th-century legal restrictions are now having a practical effect for the first time. To ensure that Church appointments can continue smoothly, the Prime Minister has temporarily transferred his responsibilities for advising the sovereign on Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor. But it would not be right to continue these arrangements indefinitely. I am sure that the whole House will agree with me that, in the 21st century, one’s faith should not be a barrier to carrying out any of the duties of high office.
Removing these restrictions from the statute book is the right thing to do. Moreover, it is important to uphold one of our core constitutional principles that the Prime Minister is the sovereign’s principal adviser and should be able to advise on Church appointments just like his predecessors.
This Bill resolves a live, practical issue and removes an outdated restriction that has no place in our modern parliamentary democracy. With hon. Members’ support, I hope that it will not detain the House for long.
I understand that some Members might raise questions about why non-Anglican Prime Ministers or Ministers should be able to advise the sovereign on appointments to a Church whose faith or denomination they do not share. However, the Government firmly reject that view. The legal restrictions that we are seeking to repeal only apply to individuals professing the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths. They do not apply to people of other faiths, other Christian denominations or no faith at all. That is why former Prime Ministers Rishi Sunak, a professed Hindu, and Sir Keir Starmer, a professed atheist, as well as many other non-Anglican Prime Ministers in the 20th century were able to advise the sovereign on Church appointments without risking disbarment from office.
While the Church of England is the established Church, one of our country’s great strengths is that it is made up of people of different faiths and backgrounds, who should all enjoy equal treatment under our laws. To suggest that a Minister must personally share the faith of the established Church in order to convey its advice would be to misunderstand the constitutional role of the Crown’s principal adviser.
As a modern parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, the King is the Head of State and acts on the advice of his Ministers, who are accountable to the electorate and to this place. It is therefore right that the Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is able to advise the King on Church appointments.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I support the principle of the Bill and obviously will not oppose it. May I ask the Minister to unpack the point he just made about the role of the Prime Minister in conveying the advice of the Church on appointments? That is exactly how it works at the moment. As the Minister said, the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, and ultimately it is the sovereign who has authority to make episcopal appointments. Does he agree that the Prime Minister has a function to play in the advice given to the sovereign, or does he think this is purely a procedural matter in which the Prime Minister is simply transmitting advice that he receives from the Church hierarchy?
Mr Falconer
The point I was seeking to cover is that it is an important constitutional principle that the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, including in his role as the head of the established Church. Clearly, in practice—I think this is well known to the House—the Prime Minister does not take an active role in selecting members of the clergy, but that does not mean that it is wise to continue with this discrimination, in particular against Catholics and Jews.
Clause 1 makes provision to repeal sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and to repeal the Jews Relief Act 1858 in its entirety, lifting all statutory restrictions on Ministers advising on or making Church appointments. Crucially, the Bill treats and removes restrictions on Roman Catholic and Jewish individuals in exactly the same way, ensuring complete parity and equal treatment between both faiths.
The clause also removes outdated restrictions on making Church appointments, referring to rights of patronage such as those held by the Lord Chancellor to directly nominate vicars to parish benefices. While those provisions have been partially repealed and are generally no longer of any practical effect, completely repealing them removes any lingering legal uncertainty.
Clause 2 sets out the UK-wide territorial extent and provides for commencement immediately on Royal Assent.
Members may recall that last year we passed a similar piece of legislation: the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Act 2025. The Government’s approach is both principled and pragmatic. We address archaic, centuries-old statutory restrictions such as these as and when they have a live practical impact on public life. Last year, we acted to facilitate the historic appointment of Lady Angiolini—a practising Catholic—to the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. We are bringing forward this Bill now because these 19th-century provisions are having an impact on ministerial advice for the first time.
No doubt, there may be questions about whether we will need a third Bill to address further historical religious restrictions. Let me reassure hon. Members that, with the passage of this Bill, the job is complete. Following this legislation, I assure the House that there will be no remaining religious restrictions affecting Ministers and other individuals appointed by the Crown, and we are confident that no further such action will ever be required.
There we are: a short, simple and straightforward Bill. While it will take up only a few lines of our statute book, this legislation corrects an archaic historical wrong and ensures that our constitutional arrangements reflect a modern, equal society where no Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is restricted from being able to advise the sovereign. I hope that the Bill will receive support from all sides. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process, the Ayes were 295 and the Noes were 111, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Before we move on, just a note to the Minister: I am sure that he meant to refer to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton. I call the shadow Minister.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
It is a pleasure to close what has been a genuinely fascinating debate. I give thanks to hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their thoughtful contributions, in addition to their support for this worthwhile and historic piece of legislation. As we heard earlier from the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), this important Bill will facilitate the removal of an outdated 19th-century restriction. We have spent a lot of time today talking about history, and who does not enjoy a little conversation about history? I certainly do, and I know the Minister of State would agree. It is enjoyable to be involved in preparing for a debate where someone uses a phrase like “not since the reformation”. It reminds us of the scale and scope of what we do in this place, but we are here to talk about where we are in 2026.
This Bill ensures that any Prime Minister, regardless of their religious beliefs, can advise the sovereign on Church appointments. We have heard in this debate a number of views and contributions from Members across the House. I welcome support for this Bill from across the House, including from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. Religious freedom and tolerance of faith before the law are crucial principles that we must uphold.
In response to why we are bringing forward this legislation at this time, when there are undoubtedly more important issues, I simply say two things: one, the Government are handling this in a pragmatic way, tackling minor constitutional issues as and when they arise. This is an obvious problem with an obvious solution. The legislation is pragmatic, quick and will not detain the House long, despite the enjoyable history lesson that we have had today. Secondly, I am a strong believer that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and our ambition is a matter of public record: to rewire the state and to deliver the largest re-industrialisation of our nations and regions in at least a generation and the biggest redistribution of power our country has ever seen.
In response to the specific issues raised by the Members of the official Opposition, let me say that this is a narrowly focused Bill without knock-on consequences. The temporary arrangement in respect of the Lord Chancellor will be brought to an end once this Bill has been passed, and there are no wider constitutional changes. I am happy to give a firm commitment in that regard. This is not a wider constitutional change, and the existing arrangements between the Crown, the Government and the established Church will remain.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) talked about the wider role of religion in public life. It was an interesting contribution, but this is a tightly focused Bill which deals with this issue and this issue alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) also entertained the House, although I should say that I do not express a preference for any particular religion in No. 10, and I say that as a lapsed Methodist, if one can even be such a thing. I am very happy to have a Catholic Prime Minister, although once a Methodist always a Methodist—much like “once a Whip, always a Whip”.
The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), entertained us with a historical tour de force. I am afraid I do not have any historical forebears such as his to call upon, so I will simply say that it is right and proper that the senior adviser to the sovereign, the Prime Minister, should be able to advise the sovereign.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) talked about political input. That is not what we are talking about today, so in a sense we may differ on that point, but it was nonetheless a thoughtful contribution.
The debate has indicated that there is clear support for this legislation on both sides of the House. When I speak to my constituents, whether at Gateshead’s Jewish Kehilla or at Cardinal Hume Catholic School, I want the students there to know that they can play a full role in democratic life, where their faith is no barrier, and I know that that view is shared across the House. I look forward to hearing further from hon. Members during the remaining stages due to follow shortly, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 21st October 2026
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberChurch Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 Read Hansard Text
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
I hope that I will not detain the Committee for long in dealing with the two clauses.
Clause 1 is the only operative clause of the Bill. Its purpose is to remove the restrictions that prevent a person who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths from advising the sovereign on Church appointments. It also removes parallel restrictions that prevent a person of those faiths from making Church appointments, when they have a right to do so by virtue of their office. Some office holders appointed by the sovereign, such as the Lord Chancellor, have the right to nominate someone directly to a benefice—for example, the right to nominate the local vicar of a parish. The sovereign has no involvement in those appointments. The clause achieves that by repealing sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 in their entirety. It also contains some consequential repeals of Church legislation that cross-referred to some of these provisions. Finally, the clause provides that once it comes into force, no person can be convicted under the provisions in section 18 of the 1829 Act or section 4 of the 1858 Act.
Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. The Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom, and applies UK-wide. It will come into force on Royal Assent, which will ensure that the Prime Minister can assume his constitutional duty to advise the sovereign on Church appointments without delay.
It is clear that the Bill commands broad consensus, and I am grateful to colleagues for their approach to it. I look forward very much to the rest of today’s debate, and to seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will keep my remarks brief. As we have heard, this Bill’s purpose is to lift archaic historical restrictions that prevent an individual of the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the sovereign on Church appointments, or from making Church appointments where their office gives them the right to directly nominate someone. The Bill will therefore ensure that the current Prime Minister and, indeed, any future Prime Minister who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith can perform their constitutional responsibility to advise the sovereign on these matters without risking disbarment from public office.
I give heartfelt thanks for the insightful contributions of hon. and right hon. Members, particularly the Father of the House and my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I thank the Opposition for the spirit with which they have approached the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) acknowledged, today’s debates have featured some very thoughtful contributions about the development of our constitutional arrangements.
I am grateful for the support of hon. Members from across the House for the approach that we have taken. I know that the House will agree that although the Bill is modest, it is an important step forward in ensuring that our laws reflect our belief that a Prime Minister’s faith should not restrict their ability to undertake their role. I commend this Bill to the House.
Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 10th November 2026
(3 days, 21 hours ago)
Lords ChamberChurch Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open today’s debate on this short, straightforward but important Bill, which comes to this House following its passage, with cross-party support, in the other place. The purpose of the Bill is simple: it removes historic legal barriers that prevent individuals who profess either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths advising the sovereign on certain Church appointments or making such appointments in their own right where their office gives them that function.
It would be helpful to look at the historical context, because I know this House has a deep appreciation for our constitutional history. To understand why the Bill is necessary, we must briefly look back at where it all began. Following the Reformation, it was widely believed that religious unity under the Church of England was essential for maintaining peace and security. As a result, a number of restrictions were imposed on worship outside the Church. Parliament only gradually removed these restrictions, as well as limits on the role of non-Anglicans in public life.
In the 19th century, Parliament passed the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858, removing many of the long-standing restrictions on the participation of Catholic and Jewish people in public life. Those Acts were major steps forward to establish the rights and freedoms of Catholic and Jewish citizens. However, these Acts also retained certain restrictions on some of their rights and freedoms. Those are the provisions with which the Bill is concerned.
During the Bill’s passage in the other place, Members reflected on that longer history of emancipation and reform, invoking great figures such as Daniel O’Connell and recalling the constitutional importance that earlier generations attached to these questions. As William Gladstone recognised in his own efforts to dismantle remaining religious tests in public life later in the 19th century, maintaining statutory discrimination against specific faiths is incompatible with a modern, representative democracy.
Over the past two centuries, successive Parliaments have slowly but surely removed almost all the remaining restrictions imposed on the holders of political office as and when needed. I recall being a Member of the other place when, in 2001, Parliament removed the restriction on Catholic priests to sit and vote in the House of Commons. The late David Cairns then became an MP, having previously been a Catholic priest. Most recently, noble Lords will recall our debate last year, when Parliament passed legislation to ensure that Lady Elish Angiolini could become the first Roman Catholic to hold the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I also confirmed in that debate that further legislation would follow, and a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord True, the Leader of the Opposition, welcomed such small, focused Bills to address this issue.
The specific provisions restricting advice on Church appointments remained on the statute book not out of deliberate policy but simply because they had never been tested by reality. It may seem surprising, due to the diversity of our country, that until now we have never had a Prime Minister who professed the Catholic or Jewish faith. Nearly two centuries since those 19th century emancipation Acts were passed, the House is now asked to remove from the statute book provisions that discriminate between faiths in a way that cannot be justified today.
Under Section 18 of the 1829 Act and Section 4 of the 1858 Act, individuals professing the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths are restricted from advising the sovereign in relation to certain Church appointments. Until this year, those provisions had not had a practical effect on the exercise of prime ministerial functions. Following the appointment in July of a Prime Minister who professes the Roman Catholic faith, they now do.
To ensure that Church appointments could continue without interruption, the Government have put in place temporary administrative arrangements so that the relevant responsibilities are currently exercised by the Lord Chancellor. However, it would not be right or proper to continue these interim arrangements indefinitely. In the 21st century, one’s religious beliefs should not be a barrier to carrying out the full constitutional responsibilities of political office. The Prime Minister is the sovereign’s principal adviser and must be able to advise on all matters.
I am particularly aware, looking to the Lords spiritual—I am pleased to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in his place—that any legislation touching on the relationship between Church and state requires careful consideration. I therefore want to make it clear that this is a narrow Bill. It does not reopen wider questions about establishment, nor does it alter the constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the Church of England.
The Bill proceeds instead from a simple proposition: that where the Prime Minister has a constitutional role in advising the sovereign, the law should not single out Roman Catholic and Jewish people alone and prevent them undertaking that role. That is especially clear when the law has never prevented Prime Ministers of other faiths, other Christian denominations or no faith providing such advice.
Questions were raised in the other place about the precise nature of the Prime Minister’s role in Church appointments, including the appropriate level of involvement. The Government’s position, as set out in response, is that although, in practice, the Prime Minister does not generally take an active role in selecting clergy, it remains an important constitutional principle that the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, should be able to advise on these matters without discrimination on grounds of faith.
The Bill achieves this through two short clauses. Clause 1 repeals Sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and repeals the Jews Relief Act 1858 in its entirety. In doing so, it removes the statutory restrictions on Ministers advising on or making Church appointments. It also removes outdated restrictions relating to rights of patronage exercised by officeholders such as the Lord Chancellor. Crucially, it removes the restrictions affecting Roman Catholics and Jews in the same way, ensuring parity and equal treatment. Clause 2 deals with the extent, commencement and short title. The Bill extends across the United Kingdom and will come into force on Royal Assent.
Finally, as I mentioned, last year we passed the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Act to resolve a similar historical anomaly. With the passage of the Bill before us, I assure the House that the job is complete. There will be no remaining statutory religious restrictions affecting Ministers and other individuals appointed by the Crown, and we are entirely confident that no further action of this kind will be required.
This is a simple, straightforward and short Bill. Although it will take up only a few lines on our statute book, it will remove an outdated, archaic and unacceptable restriction. It will ensure that our constitutional arrangements reflect a modern, equal society where no Prime Minister, now or in the future, is restricted from advising the sovereign simply because of their faith. I hope the Bill will receive support from all sides of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a genuine privilege to listen to this evening’s debate. It has been thoughtful and at times thought-provoking as well. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I have to say that I was at one point reminded of Prime Minister Jim Hacker in the “Bishop’s Gambit” episode of “Yes, Prime Minister”, where he is given a choice of two candidates. One, he sees as a radical Marxist; the other he describes as an ultra-conservative member of the Church of England—a “rigid traditionalist”, I think he called him. He does not like either of them. Sir Humphrey runs rings around him trying to find a suitable alternative that is to the benefit of Sir Humphrey. I am sure that such a thing would never happen today.
It is an interesting perspective that this is of great interest to many people. It is no surprise that, as we have heard in this debate, Members of this House are interested in the historical perspective as well as the practical application. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for sharing his experience on this. It does address a live practical issue. I have to part company with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in the same way as did the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the rush. When we look back at the previous legislation that amended both those Acts, of 1828 and 1858, I think “rushed” is probably not the adjective that most of us would use in those circumstances.
It is completely wrong for any Prime Minister, whatever faith they profess, to be stopped from fulfilling their full constitutional duty under the law because of their religion. That is something we cannot accept in any circumstances. We should never give a constitutional responsibility to any Minister or Prime Minister and then make that responsibility conditional or discriminatory. That is the basis of the legislation here.
We have heard many interesting recollections. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, told us about Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington, who changed their minds and moved on this issue, splitting the Conservative Party of the time down the middle, with long consequences for future elections. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made some observations on religious discrimination, both generally and on how we face, for example, antisemitism in society. It would not reflect well on Parliament if we were to criticise that kind of discrimination yet fail to do something ourselves when we were able to do so. I am grateful for the comments that the noble Lord made on religious tolerance as well.
The views of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, are well recorded in the House on this issue. I would say to him that, although the separation of state is in the US constitution, when American Presidents are sworn in, they place their hand on the Bible and say at the end, “So help me, God”, even though they have the opportunity to affirm. I do not know whether other noble Lords have a similar recollection to myself, but it seems to me that American politicians are judged far more on issues of religion and are expected to engage with religion far more than elected politicians in the UK. Still, the noble Lord made his point and the House heard what he had to say. In the same way, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made the point about disestablishment of the Church of England. I do not agree with him, but both noble Lords shared their views in a respectful way.
I particularly welcomed the support of the right reverend Prelate. I welcomed the comments he made and thank him for his support. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked at the end about the reasons for delays in appointing bishops. That is a matter for the Church of England and its own process for appointments. I can assure the noble Lord that in no way has the Prime Minister failed to take up his responsibility or caused any delays. Those responsibilities have been fulfilled by the Lord Chancellor but, normally, from a political point of view, it would take a couple of weeks to make those decisions.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who will forever be known as the Apostle Paul, for pointing out the religious faiths of previous Prime Ministers. That is at the heart of this. Singling out those who are Jewish or Roman Catholic in a way that no other person of faith or no faith has been singled out is the issue we are trying to resolve.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked me whether this was the last remaining discrimination in that legislation and whether it removes any relief. I know that lawyers never ask a question to which they do not know the answer, and I can confirm that the answer to his easy question to me is yes, that is the case, and he was right to ask that. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Chittlehampton, for a thoughtful contribution. I am glad he raised the contribution of Daniel O’Connell. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, also mentioned Charles Bradlaugh. My understanding of Charles Bradlaugh is that he did not profess any faith. He was an atheist and wanted to affirm: that is what caused the delay, in the same way as the oath of office affected Lionel de Rothschild, who got elected as the first Jewish Member but was not able to take his seat. That, again, was the matter of the oath.
These things take too long. It is a gradual process, but today we have completed a process in which everybody in this House can take pride, whatever their views on the wider issues. There is clear cross-party consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is unhappy with the legislation, but I understand that he does not intend to propose any amendments. This is a Bill of two small clauses and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barber, for his understanding of how it is possible to do short Bills that have a major impact. This has great symbolic significance. As a lot of people, including the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Murphy, described, it matters to all of us, but particularly to those who are Jewish or Roman Catholic, that we should not have discriminatory legislation on our statute book. It does not disturb the current arrangements we have with the Church of England and with the Crown and it ensures that our statute book is fair. It allows Ministers of the Crown to discharge their full constitutional duties whatever religion they profess and ensures there is no discrimination.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. To have support from the noble Lord, Lord True, on the Conservative Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and across the House, shows that we go forward on this largely united on an important piece of legislation.