Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
I am pleased to support the Bill and am especially pleased that it has the support of the Church of England, although I wait to hear from the right reverend Prelate—perhaps I will be corrected. Rightly, it has attracted support from across the political spectrum.
My involvement in the Church of England and its organisations has been various. In the 1990s, while the Prime Minister, John Major, handled the archbishop appointments, I was the Secretary of State handling the bishops’ and other appointments because the Home Secretary, Michael Howard—now my noble friend Lord Howard—was Jewish. I was brought in to handle those. Indeed, that included presenting my respected friend, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, to Queen Elizabeth on his appointment as Bishop of London. I was a lay canon at Guildford Cathedral for many years, when Victor Stock served as dean. In my executive search capacity, I have assisted with the selection of a great number of non-clerical roles for the Church of England. Before that, I was on the council of the Church of England Children’s Society.
I came to have enormous admiration for the Church and for the seriousness with which it approaches the selection of those who are to take on leadership roles. An ecclesiastical appointment is quite unlike most others. Of course, the qualities of leadership matter, but there is something more profound involved. A bishop is being entrusted with the spiritual life of a diocese, with the pastoral care of its people and with the responsibility of representing the Church in the wider community. I find the process of discerning who might best fulfil that calling unique.
I am a strong supporter of the Church of England and its established position. I believe its relationship with the Crown and with Parliament is a central part of our national life, and one which serves this country well. It is not the subject of our debate today, but I really do welcome the Lords spiritual—although I would like them to remove their white gowns. I think they would look more appropriate if they just wore purple; only the person presiding over Prayers needs to wear a white gown—the Bishops know my view on this.
The Church has a presence in communities where few other national institutions remain. Its schools educate children from every background—and extraordinarily well; all my grandchildren went to Church of England primary schools. Its clergy are often among the first people called upon when a community experiences tragedy. When there is some terrible train, football or other disaster, it is almost always the Anglican priest who is called as the community leader. The contribution the Church makes to our national life extends far beyond those who attend church on a Sunday, as we all witnessed so clearly yet again on Remembrance Sunday.
I want to see this position protected and I am reassured that the Bill does nothing to undermine it. The legislation before us addresses an extraordinary historical anomaly. As the Leader said, the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 were, in their time, important advances in religious freedom, yet both retained restrictions preventing Roman Catholics and Jewish people advising the sovereign on appointments to the established Church. The penalties attached to these provisions were severe, including permanent disqualification from holding office under the Crown. It is striking that such language remains part of our law nearly two centuries later.
There is an interesting Conservative history to this. It was the Duke of Wellington, working with Sir Robert Peel, who secured Catholic emancipation in 1829, despite enormous opposition. Neither man was naturally inclined towards radical constitutional change. They understood, however, that there comes a point when an established institution is served better by reform than by the preservation of an injustice. I think there is something in that for today’s debate.
The present position is plainly tough to defend. A Prime Minister who is Muslim, Hindu or of no religious faith may advise the sovereign on Church appointments, but a Prime Minister who is Roman Catholic or Jewish may not. We cannot defend that. Of course, this has become a practical issue under the present Prime Minister, who has had to make alternative arrangements for the discharge of this responsibility, in the same way that my noble friend Lord Howard did in my time. I cannot see any reason why someone should be prevented from carrying out a constitutional duty of their office simply because of their religious faith.
Let me spend a moment on the appointments process itself, because I suspect that this is where some of the concern about the Bill may arise. The relationship between the Prime Minister and the Church in these matters has changed significantly over the years. It was not always thus. Gladstone thought the most important part of his job as Prime Minister was appointing bishops. Palmerston packed the Bishops’ Benches with Low Church evangelicals. I am looking forward to my noble friend Lord True giving us some very interesting Trollope as background; I hope he has done his homework. More recently, Margaret Thatcher had distinct views on, and her favourites in, the Church of England. John Major was restrained in his interventions —this was the time when I was supporting the process of bishops’ appointments but not archbishops’. Tony Blair was the last PM to exercise the power of veto. Gordon Brown ended the veto, in effect.
In 2007, following agreement between the Government and the Church, the arrangements were revised so that the Church’s own selection process became decisive. The Crown Nominations Commission now identifies the preferred candidate for an archbishopric or diocesan bishopric. The Prime Minister’s responsibility is to advise the sovereign on the appointment. It is a constitutional function, rather than an opportunity for the Government to choose whom they would prefer—tempting though that might be.
Having been involved in these appointments, I recognise how much thought the Church gives to this question. It is a particular characteristic of the Church of England: its breadth, its involvement in the wider community. Many people find a home in the Church of England, despite often disagreeing and having profoundly different views and prejudices, almost.
I believe strongly that the Church of England must continue to lead in the appointment of its bishops. I was pleased to read the statement by the Church Commissioners confirming that the Bill will leave the arrangements agreed in 2007 entirely unaffected. The same process will apply whatever the religious beliefs of the Prime Minister. A Prime Minister who belongs to the Church of England has no greater personal discretion over the choice of candidate than one who belongs to another faith.
The Bill also leaves untouched the position of the sovereign as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. It does not affect the requirement that the sovereign be in communion with the Church and safeguards the position between Church and state.
I welcome the Bill. It removes discrimination. It is a great step forward and I add my support.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I must add to the noble Baroness’s very interesting speech that Tony Blair, the last Prime Minister actively to be involved in the appointment of Church of England bishops, had a Roman Catholic adviser on faith, Francis Campbell, who later became the first Roman Catholic to be our representative at the Vatican.
The Bill reflects how far Britain has come from its historical anti-Catholic foundations. We still celebrate the Glorious Revolution of 1689 and its Bill of Rights, although we have forgotten the latter’s strongly anti-Catholic language, which states that
“it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist”.
We have also forgotten that Bonfire Night is an anti-Catholic festival.
As a Liberal, I rejoice that this country has in my lifetime become so much more tolerant of different approaches to faith or lack of faith. When I was a chorister at Westminster Abbey, we were all aware of political appointments within the Church of England, not only of bishops: one of our canons, it was whispered, had been appointed, controversially, by Ramsay MacDonald; and then of course there was the “Red Dean” of Canterbury.
I absorbed an instinctive suspicion of Roman Catholics from the children’s books I read; in particular, those of Charles Kingsley, an Anglican priest as well as a professor of history at Cambridge. The first Catholics I met, however, were the choristers of Westminster Cathedral when we played them at cricket.
In the past half-century, we have made great strides towards understanding and tolerance, not only among the different Christian denominations but towards other faiths. In 1953, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster preferred to watch the Coronation procession from a gallery outside Westminster Abbey, rather than directly witnessing this heretical ceremony. Fifty years later, his successor read the first lesson at a service commemorating the Coronation, with representatives of Britain’s other faiths sitting in the transept in front of him. Not long thereafter, the Pope himself visited the abbey, and one of those who welcomed him was the abbey’s first female canon.
Therefore, this short Bill marks another small step towards a more open and mutually tolerant national society. Our Prime Ministers are drawn from diverse backgrounds. The relationship between the Church of England and the state is a dynamic one, which changes as our society evolves.
My party has long been in favour of disestablishment and carried that through in Wales and Ireland. I remain an antidisestablishmentarian because, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, I see this as a national Church, involved in local communities and playing the role of a national Church in the most inclusive way that it can. It represents our Christian heritage and the values that that has embedded in our democratic life.
The relationship between politics, religion and identity is contested and complicated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, said, Margaret Thatcher was shocked, as Prime Minister, that the Archbishop of Canterbury included a prayer for the Argentinian dead in the thanksgiving service after the Falklands War, and she later intervened to block bishops who might be as forgiving as him.
Danny Kruger, in the Commons debate on this Bill, condemned our current bishops as “left wing”, while Sir Edward Leigh accused them of spouting “woke rubbish”, but it is the responsibility of faith leaders to remind us of the values that underpin society, even when the message is uncomfortable. I first learned about political values, I think, from listening to sermons in Westminster Abbey on the social message of the Christian gospel. The current Pope, like his predecessor, reminds his flock and the political leaders whom he meets that the poor and the marginal deserve help and respect. I am sorry that some consider such a message left wing or woke.
We have not entirely lost the prejudices against outsiders and heretics that marked previous generations. Elements of antisemitism still drift around the edges of our society. Prejudices against Muslims have replaced prejudices against Catholics and Jews, and there are some politicians who are twisting the Christian faith to promote nationalist and racialist division in Britain, the United States and elsewhere. Happily, our Church of England is a broad church and works hard to be inclusive. I have sat next to the president of the Bradford Council for Mosques in Bradford Cathedral and I have listened to the choir of the Belsize Square Synagogue in Westminster Abbey at a service in which the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, gave the sermon.
Mutual tolerance and interfaith dialogue play an important part in holding our diverse national community together. This Bill takes us a step further in that direction by removing now archaic discrimination against Jewish and Catholic Prime Ministers. It leaves us with a set of arrangements for Church and state that are a bit eccentric and still rely on conventions and understandings to work successfully, but that is how our unwritten constitution is supposed to work.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I fear I will strike a slightly different note. I welcome the Bill and particularly the use of the word “discriminatory” in its title, but I will take this opportunity to ask why we cannot go further and completely eliminate ancient, archaic religious discrimination or favour from every part of the UK’s constitutional settlement.
More than 200 years ago, in 1787, the newly independent United States embraced a constitution that affirmed that religious affiliation should never be a requirement of public office. More than 100 years ago, in 1905, our neighbour France separated church and state, and there is no religious barrier or privilege in the constitutional frameworks of Germany or Italy. Iran is the only country in the world, besides the UK, that embeds clerics of one religion in a position of political power. Half the members of Iran’s highest legislative body are clerics appointed by the Supreme Leader.
Bishops appointed by right to this House represent only one faith and only English dioceses. As we are all well aware, bishops from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no representation in our ranks. This is surely wholly inappropriate in a modern Britain of many faiths and no faith.
The most telling data about real religious conviction in the United Kingdom comes from Scotland, where humanist marriage, unlike in England, is legal and where couples of any faith and no faith can exercise real choice about where and how they marry. With that choice, nearly half of Scots choose a civil wedding, 30% choose a humanist wedding and only 5% opt for the Church of Scotland, which, of course, is part of the Anglican Communion. The final 20% of Scots marry according to other religious faiths.
Lord Birt (CB)
I am sorry, but the right reverend Prelate is speaking after me. I ask him to say whatever he wants to say then, as I am making an argument.
There can be no case, in a country of many faiths and no faith, for a single English Church to be embedded in our Parliament, although I stress that clerics of distinction of any faith—I have encountered many in my life and, indeed, in this House—would always be welcome in this House as individuals of merit.
Finally, I am a strong believer in the monarchy as a unifying institution, representing and articulating our highest and most consensual values, but in modern Britain we should not maintain a requirement from the Bill of Rights 1689 that the monarch cannot be a Catholic but rather must be a Protestant and in communion with a Church from only one part of the United Kingdom.
All this is an unwelcome tangle, a legacy of a troubled and divisive past well captured in the Leader of the House’s opening remarks—a past spread over many centuries. Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that it is now time to consider how that legacy can be disentangled and to identify exactly how we can best secularise the British state and constitution?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, whether or not my robes add to or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, asserts, detract from my contribution to the debate, I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill. I hope that my words will not be deemed left wing or “woke rubbish”, whatever may have been said of bishops in another place, or archaic, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, just averred. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that I am no ayatollah. As he would not give way a few moments ago, I also need to assure your Lordships’ House that the Church of Scotland is not part of the Anglican Communion. Indeed, it does not have bishops.
This is a modest but important Bill that brings our constitution to closer alignment with the values of modern Britain. The restriction preventing those who profess the Catholic or Jewish faiths from advising the crown on church appointments has its origins in a very different period. I and other Christians believe that God created humans equally and in his own image, each of us with inherent value and purpose. In a democracy, this is reflected in equal opportunity for participation in public and civic life—a right that must be defended regardless of faith or creed. The strength of our UK democracy is derived from the unique diversity of its participants.
As a Member of this House, it is my proud vocation to support the interests of thriving and vibrant communities right across the diocese of Manchester. Manchester is a place where people of all faiths and none come together to participate in community life. If our democracy and communities are to continue to thrive, there can be no justification for retaining the discriminatory provision that the Bill seeks to repeal. That is why I am so pleased to support it. Indeed, it is precisely these principles that it is the duty of the established Church to uphold—a duty that is facilitated all the more by the unique relationship with the state that it has had since Reformation days.
In practice, the appointments process for bishops will be unaffected by this Bill. The process is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, assured us, led by the Church. Although the Prime Minister’s role in advising the sovereign is a constitutional duty, it does not, and has not now for quite some time, involve the exercise of personal choice between different candidates.
However, that does not mean that the Prime Minister and his office are out of the picture. Their interests, on behalf of the nation, are represented on the Crown Nominations Commission through the Prime Minister’s appointments secretary. This person, though a non-voting member, is fully involved in the wide-ranging consultations that take place ahead of a nomination, and is present and able to participate fully in the conversations that take place during the commission’s meetings. I have every confidence that Manchester will be much blessed over the coming months, as I head towards my retirement, by the involvement of the Prime Minister’s appointments secretary in helping the city of Manchester and its surrounds to identify the right person to be the next bishop for that diocese.
Considerable Downing Street involvement at that stage in the process is the proper route to ensuring that candidates can serve wider society at both diocesan and national level, while also serving the structures of the Church. I have been through these processes myself, 13 years ago. No process is perfect, but I think they are at least as robust as those by which Lords temporal arrive in your Lordships’ House.
Once a name has emerged, with that Downing Street involvement, the secretary will convey it, together with a detailed rationale for the nomination, to the Prime Minister. The PM then seeks the assent of the nominee, before concluding it by forwarding the nomination on to the Crown. Those final processes may be formal, but they remain important because they are an expression of the constitutional relationship between Church and state. They do not require the Prime Minister personally to espouse any faith. Indeed, they are neither strengthened nor weakened by the religious affiliations of the person who happens to hold that office on any particular day.
This establishment relationship is not designed for the Church of England to secure special privileges for itself. The established Church exists to serve people of all faiths and none; to create space for freedom and coexistence; to build bridges across diverse communities; and to encourage a mutual sense of responsibility to our neighbours, our communities and the wider world around us. I am not sure that that is what the ayatollahs in Iran do. In my diocese, I have chaired the Greater Manchester police ethics committee, a large housing association, the Manchester Homelessness Partnership, the GM faith and community leaders group and numerous other non-Church bodies. I will not even go into the things I have done at national Church level. My local church has worked to inspire social action, to foster belonging and to protect the free practice of all faiths in the UK.
Beyond the appointment of bishops, as we have heard, there are certain other ecclesiastical appointments, such as to Crown livings, that may belong, primarily by patronage, to the First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Chancellor or some other government or parliamentary officeholder. In practice, Downing Street officers exercise those functions on a day-to-day basis and take an active part in the proceedings. I or any of my colleagues—my right reverend friend the Bishop of Norwich is here with me—would be glad to bore noble Lords in the bar on some other occasion if they have interest in that amount of detail, but I would argue that it does not present your Lordships with any matters of concern. It is through its relationship with the state that our established Church is uniquely empowered to fulfil this vocational service.
The repeal of this discriminatory provision will strengthen not only the important relationship between Church and state but the constitution itself, by better reflecting the principles of religious freedom and equal citizenship. I welcome the opportunity to support this Bill tonight.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to sound curmudgeonly or to cause any offence. I am speaking entirely personally, of course, and as a Roman Catholic. While I do not actively oppose the Bill to the point of wishing to table amendments to it in Committee, I am not entirely supportive of it either. The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said that it was a narrow Bill and I propose to treat it narrowly and look at what it says, unlike some other noble Lords who have helpfully and illuminatingly spread their speeches across a broader canvas.
My first concern is to do with rushing constitutional legislation through Parliament. There is no need for this rush. We have had too much constitutional change over the last 30 years—too much of it ill considered and some of it rushed and not properly connected. A great deal of it should be reversed. Here we have another pattern of rushing ahead with a piece of constitutional change. I will come back to this question, but what is the reason for the rush? The Explanatory Notes say that it is because the Prime Minister is a Catholic. He is on the verge of exercising his constitutional duty and, if we do not pass this legislation, he will be precluded from exercising it.
So what change is the Bill going to make? We have already had it explained to us that, in effect, the Prime Minister acts as a postbox between a careful and cautious selection process carried out by the Church of England on the one hand and the monarch on the other. Is all that is going to happen that the postbox moves from one desk to another? If so, I ask myself, what is the import of the religious denomination of a postbox? It seems to me of no significance whatever. On the other hand, it is possible that there will be change. We have not explored this question because the arrangement reached with no public consultation—this is part of a pattern—by Gordon Brown that changed our constitutional arrangements on this matter is something that could be reversed. If it were to be reversed, I can see that the Prime Minister would be doing something where the denomination of the person doing it could have some significance. We have not quite been told: is there any intention to change current practice? If there is no intention, given that the function is essentially no more than a postbox, what is the rush?
No Catholic, as far as I am aware, has called for this change. This would be nowhere in the list of priorities that Catholics would like to see Parliament engage with, ideally on an urgent basis. Off the top of my head, there are about half a dozen things that I could think of, but one instance would be a greater level of support for our Catholic schools and their expansion. That would be highly appreciated by Catholics, since they suffer to some extent from a rather suspicious eye cast on them by a secular bureaucracy. That would be a priority for the Catholic Church, but this would be nowhere. No sensible Catholic would ever want to be involved in appointing Anglican bishops. I am not sure who would.
I say no Catholic would want to, but there is the possibility that there is one Catholic who has been asking for this to happen. The Prime Minister has said that he professes the Catholic faith. We do not entirely know how much he is personally the driver behind this Bill because, as the noble Baroness said, the process could easily be said to have been set in hand back in March 2025—it is part of a process. But then again, where is the urgency coming from in all of this?
I turn to what I think were the original intentions of those who made the legislation in the 19th century when they admitted Catholics to Parliament for the first time in a couple of hundred years—I will come to Jews later, if I may. Essentially, the Test Act that excluded Catholics was the post-Titus Oates one in the 1670s. Catholics could sit in Parliament until then. Then it was reversed in 1829, as has been recounted. I think the original intention was to try to ensure that, from that point, the monarch would still be advised by someone who was of the Anglican faith, or at least a Protestant Christian. Nobody at that time—it was a failure of the imagination, if you like—could conceive that there might ever be a Hindu or a Muslim Prime Minister. In 1829, Jews were still excluded from sitting in Parliament. In fact, atheists were also excluded until well into the 19th century and the Bradlaugh case. They were excluded by the oath because they could not take it, and the Charles Bradlaugh case changed that. In 1829, there was no prospect of an atheist Prime Minister any more than there was, in practice, of a Hindu or a Muslim Prime Minister. So the idea that you preserve the role of advising the monarch on Anglican appointments to an Anglican Prime Minister and adviser, or at the very least, a Protestant Christian, seems to me to be a sensible one.
The Bill, rather tendentiously, includes “Discriminatory” in the Short Title, but is it discriminatory? We discriminate all the time. It is bad and reprehensible discrimination if we exclude someone on grounds that are irrelevant, such as saying they cannot vote because of the colour of their skin, but is it really discriminatory to say that somebody advising on Anglican matters should be an Anglican? That seems pertinent to me.
None of my remarks relate, of course, to people of the Jewish faith, and I look forward to hearing my noble friend Lord Wolfson on that. However, I have some concerns, and I hope that some of my questions might be answered.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
I very much like listening to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but I cannot agree with him on this occasion. He says that no Catholics want this change—well, I am one who does, although I do not personally expect to benefit from it.
Some 24 years ago, Tony Blair appointed me to become Northern Ireland Secretary, and of course I was a Catholic then as I am a Catholic now. My predecessor, my noble friend Lord Reid, was the first Catholic Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It had been the convention ever since the creation of that office that a Catholic should not occupy it, for obvious reasons, but the world had changed by 2002. In fact, when I was Secretary of State, the late Ian Paisley used to call me the Apostle Paul, and that would not have been said 30 years before—something much more robust would have been the nature of his commentary then on a Catholic Secretary of State.
I very much support this Bill, because 200 year-old Acts of Parliament really need to be repealed for the Catholic and Jewish communities in our country. When you look back on the religious faith of quite recent Prime Ministers, Harold Wilson was a Methodist; Jim Callaghan, despite his name, was a Baptist; Mrs Thatcher started out as a Methodist and became an Anglican, and, as we have heard, was very interested in appointing bishops; Rishi Sunak was a Hindu; and Keir Starmer was an atheist. However, all of them had the right to appoint Anglican bishops, even though none of them, perhaps with the exception of Mrs Thatcher, is likely to have taken it that seriously. Since 2007, quite rightly, it is for the Church of England itself to determine who should be the bishops and the archbishops.
When I discussed on many occasions these matters in the other place, I reminded my fellow Members of Parliament that I was a Welshman representing a Welsh constituency, where the Church is disestablished. I therefore excused myself from taking part in legislation, for example, on women priests, on the basis that, first, I was a Catholic and, secondly, I was a Welsh Catholic and the Church is disestablished. However, I made it absolutely clear down there, as I do in this place, that I believe that the presence of the Church of England Bishops in this Chamber is a good and right one. They bring great wisdom and compassion to this place, always contributing excellently to our debates. I am personally in favour of the continuance of the Bishops of the Church of England in the House of Lords.
I must say that it has taken too long for this legislation to emerge. It may be a little too quick for the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but it is absolutely the right thing to do. I hope it goes through quickly and that perhaps, in years to come, any remaining archaic legislation shall be dealt with in a similar way.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I welcome this short Bill, but sometimes the shortest Bills close the longest chapters.
The Jews Relief Act 1858 was a landmark in the emancipation of British Jews. My own family came to Britain after its passage, settling in Tredegar, just up the road from the birthplace of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, in the south Wales valleys, and, within a few generations, one of their descendants could sit in this House and serve as a Minister of the Crown. The Act therefore marked a decisive change in the relationship between the Jewish community and the state. It represented not merely toleration but the promise of equal participation in the public life of this country. That is a story about this country of which I am immensely proud, but Parliament had not quite finished the job.
Section IV of that Act still prohibits anyone “professing the Jewish Religion” from advising the sovereign “directly or indirectly” on certain Church appointments. The penalty for doing so, as my noble friend pointed out, is “a high Misdemeanor”. It carries permanent disqualification from any Crown office, both civil and military, and the prohibition is in very sweeping terms. It is not confined to a Prime Minister tendering advice to a sovereign; “directly or indirectly” would reach advisers and other Ministers involved in the process.
This is not merely a historical curiosity. When I served as a Minister at the Ministry of Justice, my responsibilities included the Crown dependencies. However, because I am Jewish, I could not advise the Crown on appointments of Anglican clergy in the Crown dependencies. I therefore have the unusual distinction of having been personally inconvenienced by an Act of Parliament passed in 1858. It is an odd experience to find that a provision enacted in the middle of the 19th century still has a practical bearing on the duties of a 21st-century Minister. That illustrates why the repeal of obsolete discrimination is more than a matter of tidying up the statute book.
The serious point is that discriminatory laws matter even when they are rarely invoked. The objection is not that this law is old; many old laws are actually good laws. It is that the law makes a person’s religion determine whether he may discharge the responsibilities of a secular office. The anomaly, as we have heard, is striking. A Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or atheist Prime Minister may advise, but a Jewish or Catholic Prime Minister cannot. Of course, Disraeli himself, our first Prime Minister of Jewish birth, escaped the strictures of this Act only because, as a child, he was converted to Anglicanism. As a matter of short interest—I do not have time to go into it—that was because his father had fallen out with the local synagogue. Some things do not change. It illustrates that the distinction was not only, so to speak, between Jews and Catholics and others; the distinction was even between somebody born Jewish but who later converted to Anglicanism and somebody who continued to profess the religion of his ancestors.
There is an important constitutional distinction as well. The Church is perfectly entitled to impose religious qualifications for religious office, but advising the sovereign is a constitutional responsibility of the Prime Minister, not a spiritual function, and the religion of the officeholder should not determine whether that responsibility may be discharged. There are respectable arguments to be had about the proper place of politicians in church appointments and about an established Church itself. Neither question is raised by this Bill and neither needs to be resolved this evening. The short point is this: so long as Parliament gives the function to the Prime Minister, it cannot sensibly make its exercise dependent on whether the Prime Minister is Jewish or Roman Catholic, or neither.
When the late Lord Sacks of blessed memory was Chief Rabbi, he was a notable defender of the established Church. He memorably compared the Church of England to the host at a cocktail party whose responsibility it is to make everyone else feel at home. The serious point is that he believed, as I do, that minority faiths are at home and flourish best not in a society which banishes religion from public life but in one which gives faith a recognised and respected place. For him and for me, the establishment of the Church of England is not a threat to religious minorities but is, in fact, a protection for them. He also argued that establishment could secure a place for religion in the public square for the benefit of faiths beyond the established Church, which is a very important point.
The provisions by which the 1858 Act achieved Jewish emancipation have all long since been superseded or repealed. The Promissory Oaths Act 1871 removed restrictions on Jews holding public office. The Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986 repealed the earlier part of Section 4, concerning rights of presentation to ecclesiastical benefices. The point of the present Bill, therefore, is not to undo emancipation, but rather to remove the last discriminatory remnant of the legislation that helped to achieve it. I therefore have just one question for the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, which might in fact be the easiest question I will ever ask her. The Bill repeals the Jews Relief Act 1858 in its entirety, as she said. I ask only, given the Act’s historical significance, will she therefore expressly confirm that its repeal removes no surviving right or protection enjoyed by Jewish citizens, but instead removes the last remaining disability imposed by that legislation?
The Jews who came to Tredegar, including my family, sought a country in which their religion would not determine the limits of their citizenship. The 1858 Act had been a great step towards fulfilling that promise, but Parliament had left the job unfinished. This Bill, nearly 170 years later, completes that job.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I speak warmly in favour of this historically significant Bill and follow some remarkable and distinguished speeches. I start with an aside. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and I have had a debate about the number of pages per Bill, which has grown remorselessly over the last 70 years. I am glad to congratulate her on introducing a Bill that will bring the average down.
As we have heard, we are amending the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858. Both, at their time, were significant advances in toleration. Catholic emancipation, as we have also heard, had been a major theme of controversy going back decades, but every time proposals reached anywhere near this Chamber, they ran into the formidable barrier of that strong English Protestant identity going back to the Armada.
What changed in 1829 and ensured that the Roman Catholic Relief Act reached the statute book were two things. First, the great Daniel O’Connell, who they called the Liberator, had run a huge and peaceful campaign over the previous years among Catholics, largely in Ireland. He won a by-election in County Clare in 1828 on the issue of emancipation, but, under the existing laws, of course, was unable to take his seat in Parliament. Secondly, the Duke of Wellington, revered victor of Waterloo and, by 1829, the Prime Minister, feared civil war in Ireland unless the law changed. Such was his authority at the time, along with Peel’s, that he was able to turn a deeply held Tory opposition to change into reluctant support, so the Bill passed.
However, as Wellington said in introducing the Second Reading, he was committed to a Church of England monarchy, which in his view meant that the advice that the monarch received on Church matters needed to be from people who explicitly shared that faith—hence the sections of the Act we are repealing today. Even so, at the time, not everyone in this Chamber backed the Bill. The Bishops at the time were divided. Both Archbishops opposed the entire Bill because, as the Archbishop of Canterbury put it, it was their “duty” to protect the Protestant religion.
As soon as the Bill had passed, Daniel O’Connell, to his credit, began advising British Jews on how they might make similar progress. It took a while, but ultimately was far less controversial. Thus, today we are completing that process of Catholic and Jewish emancipation—surely a proud moment for all of us.
The passage of this Bill today would signify three ways in which our society has changed wholly for the better in the two centuries since 1829. First, the Church of England itself has changed radically. Not only is the Archbishop of Canterbury a woman—unimaginable to the Duke of Wellington—but throughout the institution, as we have heard, there is an openness to and inclusivity of diverse perspectives. In addition, since Faith in the City in 1985, and even as far back as William Temple, the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1940s, the Church of England has become a regular advocate of social change. In my time working in the Blair Administration, working with the Church of England on the biggest expansion of Church of England provision of education for many years was a great privilege and pleasure.
The second change is that, in parallel, our whole society has also changed radically for the better. Over the decades, first of all, intolerance became tolerance, and then tolerance itself was replaced by an active commitment to diversity and inclusion, as in today’s Bill. We should be collectively proud of that and resist any signs of retreat from it. By the way, responding to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, with whom I had the privilege of working in past years, I would not swap what they have in the US, France, Germany or Italy for what we have here, for the relationship between the Church and state and for the diverse and inclusive society that, for all its faults, we have been able to build.
Thirdly, in passing this Bill, we can congratulate our current Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, on successfully defying his distinguished predecessor the Duke of Wellington. As Daniel Maclise’s epic painting in the Royal Gallery over there illustrates, not even Napoleon managed that. I like to imagine that, somewhere beyond his grave in Dublin, there is a gentle smile this evening on the lips of the Liberator, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. We are debating what may become the first Act of Parliament under Prime Minister Burnham, which is perhaps appropriate given the personal nature of it.
This has been a characteristically interesting debate. I knew that it would be, given the speakers’ list. I enjoyed the curmudgeonly contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I am a beneficiary of the Oaths Act 1888, which he referred to. However, I did reflect on the fact that he said it was a rushed measure, which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred to. In my experience, criticism of change is often levelled by those most reluctant and resistant to it. They say it is not the right time or that it is rushed or premature—only to find out, after a little bit of research, that it was previously debated in 1869. In the debate we had not long ago on breaking the automatic right of someone with a peerage to sit in this House until they die, the criticism of haste was presented. I remarked that we had passed a resolution on this very aspect in 1910. Therefore, this Bill cannot by any reasonable measure be described as premature or rushed. It is appropriate. It is just 200 years out of date.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in his excellent contribution, was right to point out that, if discrimination is on the statute book, it still has an effect simply by being there, and we are rightly changing. The Leader of the House, in her excellent opening of this debate, said that we have been moving over time, slowly but surely. It was a bit more of the slowly than the surely. There was an excellent House of Commons briefing for the proceedings there. I liked a part of it which referred to a debate almost to the day a century ago. The House of Commons was debating Church of England legislation. George Lansbury said that the fact that
“a Jew, an infidel, a Turk, a Buddhist, a Christian Scientist, or a Theosophist may have the right to appoint these people when a Roman Catholic is not allowed this privilege … is perfectly absurd”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/1926; col. 1575.]
That was 100 years ago. So, yes, we have been debating this for quite a while. He was right then. We are right now. Seeing the change is appropriate.
I live north of the border. I will not intervene on the previous discussion with regards to structure of the Kirk. However, for over 100 years, since the Church of Scotland Act 1921, we have had the spiritual, structural and organisational independence of the Kirk. I miss dearly my friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who found no distinction between his political, public and religious life as Moderator of the General Assembly. He to me was a model. We disagreed, because I am not spiritual, but I miss him deeply. I am sure that he will be turning in his grave when he hears what I am about to say with regard to disestablishmentarianism.
Interestingly, another of my predecessors as Liberal leader, Viscount Samuel, High Commissioner of Palestine, also was able to bring that public and religious combination together: a Jewish commissioner with a role in the appointment of the Grand Mufti and the Chief Rabbinate at that time. We can learn from history how there can be religious tolerance in organisations. However, fundamentally, I do not believe that faith should ever be the means by which we decide whether that person is fit to hold public office. The only reason why this Bill is needed now is that the Prime Minister of the day, whoever they are and whatever they believe, still plays a part in choosing bishops in the Church of England. It is establishment that creates the problem, not the discriminatory nature of the relief Act.
That is notwithstanding what my noble friend eloquently called his antidisestablishmentarianism. I have been waiting to say that word in Parliament, so I am glad to have the opportunity. His great sincerity highlighted the fact that there are some who believe that there should be establishment. I do not take that view. I believe that in our legislature there should not be reserved places for clerics. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, we are anomalous in the world with regard to that. This is for another time, when it comes to the overall aspect.
Religion should always be an issue of private conscience and never a matter of public policy. I do not believe that the state is bound to profess a religion. Therefore, I do not believe that the political leader should advise on religious affairs, nor that clerics should have reserved places in a legislature. However, since we are not rushing that aspect, in the meantime this Bill needs to pass and we should remove this anomaly. The issue of the wider aspect is for another day, but I hope that day will come.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I enjoy bonfire night and am sorry that it is being supplanted by an alien American festival. I have never seen it as anti-Catholic.
I thank the Lord Privy Seal for setting out the purposes of the Bill so clearly. I agreed with almost everything that she said. The purpose is simple. It removes a discriminatory bar which applied to Roman Catholics but not to Scottish Presbyterians such as Ramsay MacDonald and to Jews but not to English Hindus such as my right honourable friend Rishi Sunak. It retains a role for the Prime Minister as the sovereign’s principal advisor on matters relating to the established Church. How far that role should run has attracted different opinions in this very interesting short debate, but, from the point of view of His Majesty’s Opposition, that role is important and should remain.
We have noted that the Prime Minister, unlike Tony Blair, is an avowed Roman Catholic while in office. Boris Johnson was baptised as a Roman Catholic, but confirmed as an Anglican—no doubt to the great spiritual joy of his loving brother in faith, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. There are, then, fluidities in these matters, but they are relevant only because of the past anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish legislation. With the passage of this Bill, which we on this front Bench support, they will be relevant no more.
That said, I know that some outside the House, and perhaps here, take a different view. They ask, as my noble friend Lord Moylan did glancingly in a typically thought-provoking speech, why politicians who are of no faith or profess other faiths, such as our previous two Prime Ministers, should have a say in critical matters affecting preferment in the Church, but the Anglican Church has been the established Church for five centuries.
The question of the established Church is an issue, as we have heard, that is long dear to many in the Liberal and Liberal Democrat parties and to humanists. Indeed, one of the first uses of the Parliament Act by Asquith was to force the disestablishment of the Welsh Church in 1914. We heard this position adumbrated again, honestly, by the noble Lord, Lord Birt—even though he brooked no intervention on his argument—and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, in his elegant submission. I respectfully disagree with both of them.
There is a role for an established faith at the heart of the nation, as affirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in a thoughtful and very á point—can I say that in the House of Lords?—speech. It was also cogently expressed by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, who told us not only that had he been a target of the legislation we are appealing but of Chief Rabbi Sacks’s strong view on the place of an established faith at the heart of the nation. That was a view shared by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, from a different perspective in his speech. I agree with them.
However, with establishment comes a core constitutional role for the sovereign as the Supreme Governor of the Church. It is his Church and the bishops are his bishops, as we are all summoned here as his temporal barons. The sovereign’s principal adviser must have the lead constitutional role in advising the sovereign in relation to appointments that lead, potentially, to membership of this House. The leadership of the established Church matters and there is a wider public interest in that.
The role of the Prime Minister, as some have said, used to be wider, and I for one do not rule out that issue being re-examined. Perhaps I can be curmudgeonly for a second, but we should reflect on this. Since the restriction of the Prime Minister’s role by Gordon Brown in 2007, average Sunday attendance has declined by 41% and average weekly attendance by 39%, despite the welcome uptick since the pandemic. In any organisation suffering with humility such losses, there must be legitimate questions about leadership and how it is selected. Bishops, after all, are pastoral leaders. Three times it was said, “Feed my sheep”. Is the present system working to promote leaders who are as keen to nurture our parishes and as effective in increasing the army of the faithful as they are in construing the details of social security regulations?
Why is the present system, however worthy, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley so brilliantly explained, so cumbersome? Recently, the Times reported that there are currently 12 sees vacant, not counting suffragan bishops. Liverpool has been vacant since July 2025 and Bristol since September 2025, although there are interims. Guildford has been vacant since we were all so greatly saddened by the death of Bishop Andrew in March. The process of replacement is advertised to complete next summer. Consultation, as we have heard, is fine, but why must it be so long? Is that conducive to the public good and the good of the Church? Since Catholicism is in the air this evening, it is reasonable to point out that Pope Leo XIV was elected 17 days after the death of his predecessor.
I do not expect the noble Baroness to have the answer to this question this evening, although I would be grateful if she could place a note in the Library, as it is relevant to the question of the role of the Prime Minister. Can she tell the House how many of these delays in new appointments arise because appointments are being held up on a Prime Minister’s desk and how many from other aspects of the Church’s selection timetable?
Like others in the debate, I have strayed a little wider than the central simple point, which is removing discrimination and enabling the King’s principal adviser to act. I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I support the objective she set out. I pray with confidence that Mr Burnham will exercise his role wisely. I ask others to give this short Bill a very fair wind.
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.