Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th November 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.