Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

15:29

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Ms Cummins. I have a question about the possible hybridity of this Bill. A hybrid Bill is when a Government Bill—a public Bill—is used to affect only one person. As we see in paragraph 13 of the explanatory notes,

“The Prime Minister professes the Roman Catholic faith. He is therefore prevented from fulfilling his constitutional role”—

exactly. The Bill is therefore specifically referring to one person.

I know that in answer, Madam Deputy Speaker, you might say that this will also benefit Catholics and Jews in the future, but we have to deal with the situation as we find it now. We cannot deal with hypothetical issues. It is rather as if we had a Bill to address a condition that has affected only one person in the past 500 years. Of course, we have not had a Catholic Prime Minister for 500 years. Indeed, there was not a Prime Minister who was Catholic 500 years ago; there was not even a Prime Minister 500 years ago. The chance is therefore vanishingly small that in the immediate future, this Bill will be activated.

Of course, I never try to cause trouble, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am not asking for an answer now, but I think it is a moot point that you might ask your Clerks to investigate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and he can have his answer now. The Bill removes a disqualification from two categories of persons as set out in clause 1. The number of people who currently fall into those categories for the purposes of the Bill is not relevant to the test of hybridity. I am sure that the Clerk of Legislation will be happy to discuss the matter further with the right hon. Gentleman.

I call the Minister.

15:31

[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.

15:45

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Let me be clear from the outset that His Majesty’s official Opposition welcome the Government’s recognition that this anomaly needs correcting, and we will not oppose the Bill. We fully support the principle that no Prime Minister should be legally prevented from discharging all their constitutional duties because of their faith.

The restrictions in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 are, as the Minister said, plainly outdated and have no place in a modern democratic society. The idea that someone should be prevented from exercising the full responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister simply because of their religious belief is clearly not fit for the 21st century. Indeed, it is remarkable that almost two centuries after those Acts were passed, provisions remain on our statute book that distinguish between those who are permitted to advise the sovereign on Church appointments and those who are not, purely on the grounds of their faith.

When one looks at the provisions that the Bill repeals, both their severity and their inconsistency are striking. The law as it stands prevents persons of the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths from being involved, directly or indirectly, in advising the Crown on appointments in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland. Moreover, the punishments written into those laws are severe. Under the Roman Catholic Relief Act, a Catholic advising the sovereign on a Church appointment is

“deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown.”

The Jews Relief Act contains a similar threat.

As the existing laws discriminate against Jewish people and Roman Catholics only, they have created the glaring inconsistency that the Minister referred to: my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the former Prime Minister, a practising Hindu, and his successor Keir Starmer, an atheist, were not legally prevented from advising on Church of England appointments, as the current Prime Minister, who is a Catholic, has been. At a time when we rightly celebrate religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law, it cannot be right that the holder of the highest political office in our country should face a legislative bar if they are Roman Catholic or Jewish.

Though we agree with the Prime Minister that these laws are an “archaic anomaly”, as shadow Minister I cannot let the occasion pass without a gentle reminder of the Government’s rather sudden conversion to treating the Bill as an urgent priority. On 5 March last year, the Lord Privy Seal wrote to Members of the other House, stating that the Government were considering how to address historical restrictions on Roman Catholics and Jews advising the Crown on appointments in the Anglican Church, but when asked about progress in parliamentary questions last autumn, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), said that though the Government would keep the matter under review,

“given other pressing issues, this is not a current priority.”

It is hard not to notice that removing this statutory bar remained “not a current priority” for the Cabinet Office right up until a Roman Catholic Prime Minister took office.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) observed last week, some people looking at the challenges facing the country today may well feel that there are more important things for the Government to do, although when he rose to make his point of order at the start of this debate, I wondered whether he was going to declare an interest—an ambition for No. 10 that might be affected by this legislation. However, the Bill is rightly before us today, and on this issue, as on any issue of constitutional change, it is important that the Government proceed with clarity and care.

In the interests of scrutinising the legislation constructively, could the Minister clarify three points for the House? First, can he confirm that the Bill is strictly and narrowly focused on removing these discriminatory restrictions, and that there are no unintended knock-on effects elsewhere in statute? Secondly, after becoming Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) transferred responsibility for Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor to ensure that such appointments could continue. Can the Minister confirm that this arrangement is temporary, and will remain in place only until this legislation has received Royal Assent and come into force? Thirdly, can the Minister reassure the House that this legislation will not alter the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the established Church?

Finally, while we support removing the statutory bar, we also believe that it is important to maintain sensible constitutional practice, so it is the Opposition’s clear recommendation that it would be sensible for Prime Ministers who do not consider themselves to be part of the congregation of the Church of England to delegate the active decision-making on appointments to others, as recent prime Ministers have done, while retaining their formal constitutional role in advising the monarch. His Majesty’s official Opposition look forward to scrutinising the Bill in Committee and in its later stages, but we will support its Second Reading.

15:51

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I first want to put on record my strong support for this Bill, which removes discriminatory provisions preventing people of the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the monarch on certain Crown appointments. The Bill is based on the rightful principle that everyone in society, regardless of what faith they follow, or of whether they follow a faith at all, should be treated equally in public life. It is unconscionable that anyone of a certain religion, be they Prime Minister or otherwise, should face legislation that gives them inferior treatment—or, on the flip side, preferential treatment—to those of different faiths, or of no faith at all.

Once we have accepted this principle, however, it is clear that there are other areas where work needs to be done to remove differences in treatment in our society based on religion, and I would welcome a broader Bill from the Government on these topics. Census data from 2011 and 2021 showed that we are now an exceptionally religiously diverse country, largely due to the rise in those who report having no religion—they are up 8.5 million to 22.5 million overall, or over a third of the population of England and Wales.

I am a secularist, and while I am not religious, many religious people are secularists, too. I believe that politicians with a faith should be free to speak from the perspective that that faith gives them, but that no faith should be privileged. This Bill firmly aligns with that secularist principle. In my view, the logic of the Bill forces us to ask some other questions about religion in public life. Why, for example, do we have guaranteed seats for clergy of a certain faith in the House of Lords? While I have no doubt that many of them are knowledgeable and dutiful in their work—and I know many personally—I do not believe that their religious position should warrant a seat in Parliament. I ask the House how that can be seen any differently from the discriminatory provisions that the Bill rightfully seeks to repeal.

That is not unlike certain other things that happen. In collective worship in state-funded schools, children may be forced into religious practices, such as class prayers or singing Christian hymns in the morning, regardless of their faith. That is a matter of law at present. The need to challenge religious discrimination in the public sphere is, I would argue, another subject that arises naturally once we accept the principles of the Bill, so I want to make a couple of brief points on that subject.

I want to make it clear that secularist principles are not opposed to religion in any way. I believe, as I am sure we all do, in the freedom to have whatever faith, or lack thereof, one might choose—in freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. For that principle to be fully realised, however, we need a level playing field. This Bill is based on an idea, and I would welcome further discussion of what logically follows from that in public life as a whole.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

15:59

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats have long advocated for modernisation and improvement across the Houses of Parliament. We continue to support legislation that modernises, and hope to see many more moves towards ensuring that Westminster is representative of the country as a whole.

For almost 200 years, the law has said that a Roman Catholic Minister, or later a Jewish Minister, may not advise the monarch on appointments in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland. Those restrictions never applied to people of other faiths or no faith at all. They were aimed squarely at two communities and are rooted in the anti-Catholicism and antisemitism of the age in which they were written. The Prime Minister has called this an “antiquated and archaic anomaly”, and of course he is right to do so. It cannot be acceptable in 2026 that someone who holds the confidence of this House should be barred from part of their job because of their faith. We are told that Church House is content with the change, and the National Secular Society has said that the ban is

“increasingly difficult to justify in a modern liberal democracy”.

It is rare to find that much agreement on a question involving Church and state, and the Government are right to make this change in the law.

Liberal Democrats believe in freedom of belief. Everyone should be able to practise their faith, or none, without fear of discrimination or state interference. That principle should apply at the very top of public life as much as anywhere else. Removing this bar sends a message that the highest offices in our country are open to people of every background. But I note that this is the very first Bill brought under this Prime Minister. It is a sensible fix to a problem he faces personally, but there are more widespread problems with how our democracy works—problems that affect every one of our constituents—and they still await action.

Take the other place. Liberal Democrats have long called for a House of Lords with a democratic mandate—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I urge the hon. Lady to stay within the scope of the Bill. The previous speaker, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), escaped me leaping to my feet by carefully tying his comments to the provisions of the Bill; I trust she will do likewise.

[Lisa Smart]

I am always grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for guidance on what is in and out of scope, and I am always pleased when we are able to talk about modernisation, as this Bill does. I encourage the Government to go further, faster—an encouragement that the Liberal Democrats always give when they are on their feet talking about political and constitutional reform.

On prime ministerial advice and appointments, which I hope you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, is very much in scope, these appointments often ingrain patronage and reinforce elitism, which causes many people to lose faith in politics. We would encourage the Government to get to considering proposals such as the Burns report, which looked at cutting the House of Lords to 600 peers. We think the Government could do far more, but that is perhaps for another debate on another day. None of the changes that we Liberal Democrats would encourage, whether it is putting the ministerial code into law or ensuring a fairer voting system, are terribly complicated. All they do is restore trust in politics.

We support the Bill. Discrimination on grounds of faith has no place in our law, and I am glad to see the change come in today, but I hope the Minister will very much treat this as a starting point, rather than the limit of his ambitions for political and constitutional reform. If the Government are serious about modernising our institutions, they should go further, faster, and the Lib Dems will keep pressing them to do exactly that.

15:58

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As an Anglican, there is a little bit of me that would always like to see an Anglican as Prime Minister, but I recognise that that is not always desirable or possible. In fact, despite the historical measures relating to Catholic emancipation that we have discussed today, of course Roman Catholicism never did go away. Catholics practised their faith in private, often in fear of their life. The secret of the success of the Church of England is that it is the original broad church. Even within the Anglican communion, there are people who hold a whole variety of views, and allowing our Prime Minister, a Roman Catholic, to perform his constitutional function of advising the monarchy is very much in keeping with that tradition.

A week last Sunday, I attended the High Sheriff’s legal service at Derby cathedral. It was for Dr Syed Yusuf Iftikhar, an NHS consultant who came from Pakistan and served for over 40 years in the NHS. It brought together people from different faith communities, and was led by the Dean of Derby, the Very Rev. Peter Robinson, but we had representatives from the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu faiths. That is the Church of England at its best, particularly at a time when we see division in our society. We have talked about antisemitism today, but recently we have unfortunately seen racist aspects to our political parties here. The Church of England has an excellent role to play in bringing communities together, and many of us will see that on Remembrance Sunday next month.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech. Does he agree with me that the value of this Bill is that it could strengthen the Church of England and reconnect it with the political community of which it is properly a part? Does he agree with me that, as I said when I intervened on the Minister, it is not right to leave the appointment of bishops purely to the bureaucrats at Church House and committees there, and that it is a proper subject for politics? We have heard the suggestion that this is a second-order priority, and I recognise that there are more pressing concerns for the country, but this stuff matters—Gladstone thought the most important part of his job as Prime Minister was appointing bishops. My concern about the debate so far is that the Bill has been interpreted as some great step of progressive modernisation that clearly ends with the exclusion of Christianity from political life altogether. Does he agree that what we actually we need to do is strengthen the role of the Church of England in the political community and remind the Prime Minister of this very important part of his or her job?

[Jonathan Davies]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Church of England is strengthened by bringing in more voices. It often does that already through the use of ecumenical canons in some cathedrals. The Bill is a step forward that will ensure that the Church brings in those perspectives, which will strengthen its hand in the future and bring our communities together in the way that it does so well.

I thank the Minister for bringing this legislation to the House. It is an important step forward. I wish the Prime Minister well—from an Anglican to a Catholic—as he takes forward the important constitutional role of advising the monarch on the future leaders of the Church of England.

16:00

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Before I begin my speech, I had better declare an interest, because I know it is not widely known that I am a Roman Catholic. I do not oppose the Bill. The discrimination that we suffered for centuries was absolutely horrible. It was not discrimination as we understand it in the modern world—my direct ancestor, the blessed Richard Leigh, was hung, drawn and quartered simply for denying that Elizabeth I should be the head of the Church in England. Obviously, I welcome anything that ends discrimination.

However, I hope the Minister will forgive me if I make a few points to try to find out why he is moving this Bill now. Obviously, it is because we have a Catholic Prime Minister, but as the Opposition spokesman said, there has been little enthusiasm for such legislation until now. If we are to have such a Bill, particularly when there are many other pressing matters, it should achieve something, but this Bill will change absolutely nothing.

Although in theory one name is pushed across the Prime Minister’s desk, when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister he effectively ended the veto. The last time the veto was exercised was by Tony Blair, shortly after the 1997 election when he objected to two candidates to be Bishop of Liverpool. John Major exercised his power on one occasion, I think. As hon. Members might expect, Mrs Thatcher viewed the process with immense enthusiasm and exercised her power rather more regularly. If we are to have a Bill, it has to achieve something, but frankly this power of the Prime Minister has fallen into abeyance.

That did not occur in the past. As we have heard, in the 19th century Prime Ministers viewed this part of their job as having great importance—we have heard about Gladstone—but it was worse than that. It was not that they were simply trying to appoint the best people to the job; they viewed their role as entirely political. Those of us who love Trollope will know the novel “Barchester Towers”. The central plot is that the Government change and the candidate—I forget now whether he was a Whig or a Tory—is promptly prevented from taking up a bishopric.

Viscount Palmerston packed the bishops’ Bench with low-church evangelicals. Given that there were 26 bishops in the House of Lords and therefore they had important political power, successive Prime Ministers deliberately packed the episcopal Bench with their appointments, which caused some upset. To heed the lessons of 19th century history—a fascinating subject—[Interruption.] Ah, I see the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) wishes to intervene.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry to jump up again, but I want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman. That was no doubt the case in the 19th century, but if he reads the brilliant book by Mark Vickers called “God In Number 10”, which is a history of 20th century Prime Ministers from Balfour to Blair, he will see that it is an opposite story. The book is a remarkable account of how very different Prime Ministers all took their responsibilities seriously, as the right hon. Gentleman said, right up to John Major. They honoured the fact that different dioceses had different traditions, and they tried to ensure that there was ecumenical balance in the Church of England. I do not think it is beyond a Prime Minister of any party to take their job seriously, think about the right balance of the Church of England and maintain the broad church. What we do not want bureaucrats in the Church of England appointing each other, which is what we have at the moment—that is why they are all left wing. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that we need a genuinely broad church that includes people from different political traditions.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very interesting point of view from our Reform colleague. It is interesting to think that at some future date the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might appoint bishops, but we will see—it may or may not happen.

[Jonathan Davies]

I hope that we will be appointing Anglican bishops and not bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church if the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) becomes Prime Minister.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My wife is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. [Laughter.]

The Oxford movement of the 1830s was established precisely because faithful Anglicans grew disturbed that a secularised, reformed Parliament that included non-Anglicans held absolute power over the doctrine and leadership of the Church of England. Indeed, the House of Commons historically had an enormous interest in the matter—there were huge debates in the 1920s over the nature of the prayer book, and these Benches were packed with people who were interested. What a pity that these wonderful debates do not attract similar attention. In his many reflections on the relationship between Church and state, Cardinal Newman, who was central to the Oxford movement during his time as an Anglican earlier in life, feared that the state would reduce the Church to nothing more than a Department of Government.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We are now 200 years on from that time, and legislation is coming forward for Church appointments. Given what the House is trying to achieve through this Bill, we must reflect the changes in today’s society and its cultural and religious make-up. The fact is that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has changed greatly. That being the case, what the House is trying to achieve today is to be welcomed.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We of course have to reflect changes in society.

I have made the point that this measure will make no practical difference, so I wonder why it is really necessary. My other point is that it would be extremely unwise and would dig up past controversies if any Catholic Prime Minister were to appoint an Anglican bishop. I hear what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) says, but I do not think it makes sense for somebody who is an atheist, like Keir Starmer, or a Hindu or a Catholic to appoint an Anglican bishop. I just cannot see the logic in that. Frankly, the practice has been discontinued, and it will not happen again.

[Jonathan Davies]

The important thing for the Father of the House to remember is that the Anglican Church is not like the Roman Catholic Church; we would not send a Protestant representative to the conclave to pick a pope. We are talking about the state Church of this country, which is answerable to Parliament, and the Prime Minister, as the most senior member of the Government, therefore has a role to play in advising the monarch. At the moment we have a situation in which a Hindu, such as the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), could advise the monarch, but a Roman Catholic could not. That is why we need to move this legislation forward.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

By the way, I just want to make the point that I love the Anglican Church. I love the fact that we have an established Church. I think it is wonderful that in our country we proclaim the value of religion and that bishops sit in the House of Lords—although I have to say to most of them seem to spout rather woke rubbish most of the time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I admire the right hon. Member enormously, but I might have to give him the same warning about staying in scope this afternoon.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think that—

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Will the Father of the House give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course.

[Mike Kane]

The poor Anglican bishops. The old joke is that they have only two good days in their whole career: their consecration day and their retirement day. The Father of the House mentioned one of the great converts to the Church of Rome in the 19th century, Cardinal Newman. We also had Cardinal Manning in the 19th century, whereas the 20th century produced for us Widdecombe and Gummer. I was wondering what his opinion of that was.

I think the whole House should join me in congratulating the Father of the House on becoming a knight of the Pontifical Equestrian Order of Saint Gregory the Great, effectively becoming a papal knight, which is a rarely bestowed honour. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I think we are all very proud of him for that. As we gallop towards 200 years since Catholic emancipation in 1829, I note that there is no piece of artwork in this House dedicated to Daniel O’Connell and that campaign. Does the Father of the House agree that we should rectify that in the next three years?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am very grateful to my good friend, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for that intervention. Actually, I see him on my fridge every night, from when we were introduced to Benedict XVI—there we were in the row. Every time I open my fridge, I see the hon. Gentleman. He is an ornament of this House.

I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want to make one final point. I have asked whether it is actually wise for a Catholic, a Jew or a Hindu to appoint an Anglican bishop, or to have any say, but there is a wider debate about whether—although we believe in the established Church, and the Prime Minister in effect is not involved—there is any reason why the Prime Minister should be involved. I am afraid I have to tell the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that although I agree that in any other organisation, people rise through committees, it is all quite dull and there are safe options, the intrusion or lack of intrusion of the Prime Minister makes no difference. If we were going to have an entirely logical Bill, surely we would remove this power of the Prime Minister altogether—although it is never exercised, so the Bill is not going to achieve anything—and pass the role of final arbiter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire will not agree with me, but that would be entirely logical. I just do not see the logic in having a politician appoint the head of a Church nowadays, not that they ever do it. I apologise for my comments, but I hope that they give a different perspective on this Bill.

16:12

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), although I fear I might not be able to provide such an entertaining and historical perspective.

I had intended to speak in this debate as I thought I might be the only Anglican to do so, but the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) has beaten me to it. As a member of the established Church, I—unlike my right hon. Friend—agree for once with Reform. I would actually like some political input into appointments to the bishops’ Bench and one or two other Church appointments. I would like to think that whoever we elect as Prime Minister, he or she would take a very serious view of making appointments to an institution that not only has a vast historical perspective, but plays a major part in education, for example. I cannot remember the number, but the Church of England has many schools in virtually every constituency up and down the country, and the bishops can often play a major part in that. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I see that you are reminding me to stay within the scope of the Bill.

Turning to the argument about the appointment of bishops, like the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), I think we should return to the system in which the Prime Minister is offered a choice, and the points I have made should be taken into consideration during that process. I know that my right hon. Friend the Father of the House loves the established Church. Indeed, when I was his constituency agent, I used to build in visits to choral evensong in Lincoln as often as I could.

Coming back to the substance of the Bill, I fully support the fact that a Prime Minister of whatever faith should have an input into senior appointments in the Church of England.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

16:15

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

This has been one of the most interesting, wide-ranging and perhaps unexpected debates that I have had the pleasure to listen to in this House, with fascinating contributions from the hon. Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon.

As we conclude Second Reading, I am pleased to reaffirm our support from the Opposition Benches for the changes before us. The provisions that are being repealed go against our principles of religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law. To single out Roman Catholics and Jews and prevent them from carrying out the responsibilities of public office solely because of their faith is not a distinction that has any place in modern Britain.

As a Roman Catholic, I find it extraordinary that such a restriction has remained on the statute book for so long, but this is not ultimately about any one faith; it is about the fundamental principle that a person’s religious beliefs should not prevent them from discharging the responsibilities of public office. As an Opposition, we are also clear that constitutional change, however sensible, should be approached carefully. We therefore welcome the narrow scope of the legislation and look forward to confirmation from the Minister regarding the preservation of the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the established Church.

There remains a sensible distinction between the Prime Minister retaining their formal constitutional responsibility for advising the sovereign and, where appropriate, delegating active involvement in the appointments process. That respects equality before the law and the particular constitutional position of the established Church.

We can respect the traditions and institutions that have shaped our country while ensuring that they are updated to remove discriminatory or outdated practices. Two hundred years ago, I would not have been permitted to enter this Chamber or to speak from this Dispatch Box. Progress towards equality has been made throughout our history, and I welcome this latest step. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I am therefore pleased to support this Bill.

16:17

[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).