Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Sue Gray Report

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I have said, I cannot comment on the ongoing Met investigation, but what I can say is that the Prime Minister has said—or the Government have now said—that at the end of the process, following the Met investigation, the Prime Minister will ask Sue Gray to update her work in the light of what is found and we will publish that update.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, I think the House will agree that if the Labour, Liberal or Conservative parties fund anyone’s work, that is a matter for them, but anyone who is funded by the taxpayer should comply with the Nolan principles—the Seven Principles of Public Life—of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. There seems to have been a distinct lack of coherence and those cultural values. Can the Minister comment on whether she feels that the balance has changed too far, with those working in No. 10 being short-term political appointments rather than longer-term civil servants with greater judgment who can exercise that discretion in very difficult circumstances?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The Prime Minister has said that he will act and make changes to the way that No. 10 and the Cabinet Office are run. I do not want to prejudge that, but he has said that in the coming days we will say more on this matter and I will be happy to update the House when that happens.

COP 26

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am surprised that the noble Baroness did not realise that this was, in fact, the first COP decision that included a position on loss and damage, which is a recognition of how seriously developed countries are taking their obligations. The Glasgow dialogue was launched better to co-ordinate financial support for extreme impacts, and it agreed that there would be a dialogue between parties, relevant organisations and stakeholders to discuss the arrangements for funding activities to avert, minimise and address loss and damage. We also established the functions of the Santiago network, which will provide technical assistance to developing countries to address loss and damage. So progress was most certainly made.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the tremendous commitment and energy given to COP 26. My first global environment conference was on saving the ozone layer with Margaret Thatcher in 1988, which was British science-based. It was a global movement, with the Montreal treaty, business getting involved and a massive public campaign. Well, how much has happened. My real delight is that it is not only nations but regions and communities that will deliver these commitments. I was there to represent the Humber region, the greatest provider of carbon in the country, and it is going net zero, with a major wind farm, major investment in hydrogen and major investment in carbon capture. This is a community—local authorities and business leaders—with political support, taking action into its hands. We are none of spectators; we are all participants. If the Minister can find her way to Hull, I would very much like to introduce her to these remarkable leaders.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. She is absolutely right. So many people played such an important part in COP 26. It was attended by 120 world leaders. There were over 38,000 delegates from 194 countries. We brought together thousands of delegates from civil society, indigenous peoples, business, youth groups and women’s groups—all coming together with a common goal. I would be delighted to visit Hull if she would like to arrange it.

Leaving the European Union

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I agree that the House of Commons faces one of its most significant votes for many years. I will not prejudge the outcome of that vote. The deal is a good one, and I hope that the Commons will vote for it.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the country is heartily sick of the political shenanigans around this subject? The people voted to leave. There is enormous admiration for the Prime Minister’s tenacity, courage, level head and patriotic heart. It is time to settle for the best deal on offer and put the interests of the country and our people first.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank my noble friend. That chimes very strongly with the message from the public on this issue.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Wednesday 27th May 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, it is a special privilege to be invited to move this Motion for the humble Address. Her Majesty’s presence today again demonstrates her exemplary dedication to duty. The Queen represents the unity of our nation. Like her predecessors and her successors, she is the person to whom Ministers owe their allegiance. We so much also appreciate the presence of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

This is a momentous year for the monarchy. We rejoice that, in September, the Queen becomes the longest-serving sovereign in our history. There will be widespread celebrations in recognition of her extraordinary contribution throughout this country, the Commonwealth and many other lands. Admiration and affection for the Queen extend far beyond our shores. In November, in her 90th year, she will attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malta, maintaining her lifelong commitment to the Commonwealth—a central part of her life, of our national history, and of our future.

We also celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. We now recognise it as a pivot in our history. Magna Carta established that the Crown is not unfettered and that government must work within rules. Barons and the church stood up to executive authority in establishing the rule of law. The charter was not initially a great success. It was revoked and subsequently replaced. On occasion, the power of the Crown has had to be constrained or confronted by force, a situation foreseen in the Great Charter. During the English Civil War, the gates of the city of Hull were shut against the King.

At the heart of our society and at the heart of this House is a belief in justice. We believe in being fair and in the rule of law to protect and bind all citizens. Parliament has evolved as an institution and this House still evolves. We face and accept criticism, some of which is justified, but much is not. Parliament is fundamental to our healthy democracy and we should speak up for this institution and strive to make it stronger.

Other anniversaries concern armed conflict, including the continuing struggle of the 1914-18 war. In particular this year, and this month, sees the 70th anniversary of VE Day. We and others fought against tyranny, against those who did not believe in justice, and against those who rejected the rule of law. With millions in other countries, many of our countrymen gave their lives for what we hold dear. As one born after that war, perhaps I may say how great our debt is to them. Dunkirk, El Alamein and the Normandy landings will live on in our history for ever. We must continue the struggle to help others around the world achieve what we take for granted, and sometimes a little too much for granted. Our task in Parliament is to be vigilant. We are here not for our own good, but for the public good. We must never lose sight of our fundamental values. There will be times when we disagree about how to achieve our goal, but I trust that we will never disagree about the goal itself.

We have the freedom to resolve our disputes by debate and general elections. Returning from the exertions of recent weeks, we each have our memories. My highlight involved supporting the excellent candidate for West Worthing, now joyfully returned for his 40th year in the other place. I used my best powers of persuasion on the doorstep and one resident replied, “I didn’t know who to vote for till I met you, love, but now I know I’m voting for the other side”. There have been many victors and losers in the recent election, but perhaps we can all agree that the greatest losers were the pollsters.

Let me pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, who, after a gap of 31 years, participated in government in a principled and courageous manner. We appreciate the devastating effect of losing so many prominent and valued parliamentarians. Let me also recognise the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for her outstanding service as Leader both in government and in opposition.

With their retirement, we have said farewell to many eminent and long-standing colleagues. I particularly identify my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, a man I served as PPS to in the Foreign Office. He occupied two of the major offices of state with the greatest distinction. There are others, and we send them our best wishes.

Moving to this Parliament, we are delighted that the Leader of the House is now in her rightful place as a full member of the Cabinet. In a short space of time, my noble friend has established her quality: calm, tenacious and collegiate. We are in safe hands. Indeed, this election was certainly a victory for women. When I became a Member of the other place more than 30 years ago, when the first female Leader of this House, the late Lady Young, was in office, I was one of 24 female MPs—fewer than 4%. We now welcome 191 female Members in the other place, almost 30% better than the figures in this House, along with the much-improved participation by people of black and ethnic-minority backgrounds. This is a far cry from the 19th century, when the Earl of Chesterfield—statesman, man of letters and wit—remarked that:

“Women, then, are only children of a larger growth; they have an entertaining tattle, and sometimes wit; but for solid reasoning, good sense, I never knew … one that had ... acted consequentially for four-and-twenty hours together”.

Only a century ago, Margot Asquith, the outspoken wife of the Liberal Prime Minister, said:

“No amount of education will make women first-rate politicians. Can you see a woman becoming Prime Minister? I cannot imagine a greater calamity for these islands than to be put under the guidance of a woman in Downing Street”.

Margaret Thatcher was chosen by her colleagues as the best person in 1975. The country chose her as Prime Minister in 1979. She transformed this country and our position in the world.

The Economist—that bastion of enlightened liberal values—has finally appointed a woman as its 17th, and first female, editor. Nearly 200 years ago, responding to calls for women’s suffrage, it asked:

“Would they give up their noble calling as wives and mothers … to become incompetent surgeons, third-rate physicians, shallow lawyers, wordy, inconsiderate and excitable senators, or hasty, impulsive and discredited Ministers of State?”.

Closer to the point, perhaps, 100 years ago, the editor of the Economist quipped:

“You can get a first-class woman for the price of a second-class man”.

Nothing changes.

I turn to the gracious Speech. Having served as a Minister and Secretary of State for Health, I welcome the Government’s unequivocal commitment to the NHS, reinforced by the Prime Minister’s first public speech on returning to Downing Street. Implementing the NHS five-year plan, integrating health and social care, ensuring the NHS works on a seven-day basis and improving access to GPs are all important goals. The focus on mental health is particularly welcome to many in this House who, like me, have long championed this critical cause. With such an array of esteemed experts in this House the workload of the Lords Minister is especially onerous. How much we admire the courageous, courteous and knowledgeable approach of our noble friend Lord Howe. He has magnificently handled this brief for the past 18 years. We congratulate him on his appointment as Deputy Leader. We look forward to David Prior’s contributions. Like father, like son. Is this a modification of the hereditary principle?

We welcome other newly appointed talented Peers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, of Tottenham, an acclaimed pensions expert and campaigner —especially valuable in this House, perhaps.

The stewardship of the NHS is a demanding but rewarding activity. The Secretary of State’s reappointment gives us confidence, with his formidable effectiveness and commitment. He was head boy of the local school when I was first elected and, delightfully, my constituency successor. The House will be aware that the politics of health are hard fought, although my noble friend Lord Fowler, who so memorably proposed the loyal Address last year, managed to undertake the herculean tasks of being Secretary of State for both heath and social security at the same time.

During a particularly difficult debate, I told the chief whip, “I understand what being a Minister involves. It is like my three great-uncles who were killed in the First World War. When the whistle blows, you get out of the trenches and walk towards the guns”. “If your ministerial colleagues understood that better, Virginia, life would be much easier”, was the response of my now noble friend Lord Ryder. Having been vigorously challenged on the “Today” programme by the then president of the BMA, he left the studio in excellent spirits, amiably saying, “Well done, Virginia, I hope that helps with the Chancellor”.

Another time, when emotions ran high, our doctor daughter, wearing the mandatory name badge, was asked by an agitated patient, “Are you a relation of that Virginia Bottomley?”. “My mother assures me there is the closest possible connection”, was her careful response and the subject dropped.

I greatly valued the assistance of the brightest and best young member of the research department, David Cameron, now happily re-elected Prime Minister. Another adviser was a much-loved late Member of this House, Lord Hussey. He argued that being chairman of the BBC and chairman of the Marsden had great similarities. Each involved the management of passion in an institution virtually regarded as a national religion, where sentiment all too easily obstructed innovation and obscured the need for courageous decisions and for change.

The central theme underpinning the gracious Speech is the Government’s commitment to work in the interests of everyone in our country to adopt a one-nation approach, supporting aspiration and giving new opportunities to the most disadvantaged. Bringing different parts of our country and our nation together is at the heart of the programme. As the first female to become a member of the one nation group, I especially welcome this—one nation, north, south, east and west, including our great cities, our towns, villages and countryside.

I mentioned Hull earlier. I have the honour of being the chancellor of the University of Hull, succeeding the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. Could there be another politics department with two Members of this House—my noble friend Lord Norton and the noble Lord, Lord Parekh? Many others have an association with it. I am also sheriff of the city. The city exemplifies civic pride. It was the home of William Wilberforce. The founder of the university, Thomas Ferens, served as its MP, notably giving away his fortune for the betterment of others. There is a sense of fair play and of pulling together at times of stress, such as during the floods and where the sports teams are concerned—Hull City will be back in the Premier League.

The city, like the nation, has faced great upheaval. It was heavily bombed in both world wars. It has endured economic adversity. Building the northern powerhouse will benefit Hull, along with many other major industrial cities. Hull now faces the future with greater confidence. It has attracted industry, including the Siemens offshore wind turbine plant, and your Lordships will know that it is to be the 2017 UK City of Culture, when the eyes of the nation will be on Hull.

Over the past 50 years we have seen astonishing change—the disappearance of empire, profound social movement, enormous economic and political changes—of which our monarch has been at the heart. This House is another part of bringing people together in a way that no other country or Chamber does. People from all races and religions, a variety of ages and varied backgrounds, politicians and civil servants, the military, academics, scientists, judges and clerics: it is an extraordinary gathering. We are proud of our history. It is pride not for its own sake, but for what that history represents. We fight for precious values. We have a magnificent Head of State. We are fortunate in enjoying freedoms often denied to others. In this House, we are the successors of the barons and bishops who pressed King John to affix his seal to the Great Charter. We have great responsibilities. We must fulfil them. I beg to move the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty.