Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The point I was seeking to cover is that it is an important constitutional principle that the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, including in his role as the head of the established Church. Clearly, in practice—I think this is well known to the House—the Prime Minister does not take an active role in selecting members of the clergy, but that does not mean that it is wise to continue with this discrimination, in particular against Catholics and Jews.

Clause 1 makes provision to repeal sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and to repeal the Jews Relief Act 1858 in its entirety, lifting all statutory restrictions on Ministers advising on or making Church appointments. Crucially, the Bill treats and removes restrictions on Roman Catholic and Jewish individuals in exactly the same way, ensuring complete parity and equal treatment between both faiths.

The clause also removes outdated restrictions on making Church appointments, referring to rights of patronage such as those held by the Lord Chancellor to directly nominate vicars to parish benefices. While those provisions have been partially repealed and are generally no longer of any practical effect, completely repealing them removes any lingering legal uncertainty.

Clause 2 sets out the UK-wide territorial extent and provides for commencement immediately on Royal Assent.

Members may recall that last year we passed a similar piece of legislation: the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Act 2025. The Government’s approach is both principled and pragmatic. We address archaic, centuries-old statutory restrictions such as these as and when they have a live practical impact on public life. Last year, we acted to facilitate the historic appointment of Lady Angiolini—a practising Catholic—to the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. We are bringing forward this Bill now because these 19th-century provisions are having an impact on ministerial advice for the first time.

No doubt, there may be questions about whether we will need a third Bill to address further historical religious restrictions. Let me reassure hon. Members that, with the passage of this Bill, the job is complete. Following this legislation, I assure the House that there will be no remaining religious restrictions affecting Ministers and other individuals appointed by the Crown, and we are confident that no further such action will ever be required.

There we are: a short, simple and straightforward Bill. While it will take up only a few lines of our statute book, this legislation corrects an archaic historical wrong and ensures that our constitutional arrangements reflect a modern, equal society where no Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is restricted from being able to advise the sovereign. I hope that the Bill will receive support from all sides. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions.

On the draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process, the Ayes were 295 and the Noes were 111, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Before we move on, just a note to the Minister: I am sure that he meant to refer to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

[Lisa Smart]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Mr or Madam Deputy Speaker, but should use our names. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable.

Clause 1

Repeal of discriminatory provision concerning the making of appointments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)]

I hope that I will not detain the Committee for long in dealing with the two clauses.

Clause 1 is the only operative clause of the Bill. Its purpose is to remove the restrictions that prevent a person who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths from advising the sovereign on Church appointments. It also removes parallel restrictions that prevent a person of those faiths from making Church appointments, when they have a right to do so by virtue of their office. Some office holders appointed by the sovereign, such as the Lord Chancellor, have the right to nominate someone directly to a benefice—for example, the right to nominate the local vicar of a parish. The sovereign has no involvement in those appointments. The clause achieves that by repealing sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 in their entirety. It also contains some consequential repeals of Church legislation that cross-referred to some of these provisions. Finally, the clause provides that once it comes into force, no person can be convicted under the provisions in section 18 of the 1829 Act or section 4 of the 1858 Act.

Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. The Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom, and applies UK-wide. It will come into force on Royal Assent, which will ensure that the Prime Minister can assume his constitutional duty to advise the sovereign on Church appointments without delay.

It is clear that the Bill commands broad consensus, and I am grateful to colleagues for their approach to it. I look forward very much to the rest of today’s debate, and to seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I rise briefly on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition to confirm our support for clause 1 standing part of the Bill. Clause 1 is the operative heart of this legislation and repeals the remaining provisions to which the Minister referred. In some ways, it feels rather fitting that the Committee is considering this clause on 21 October, Trafalgar Day, because although the nation rightly remembers Lord Nelson today, another great hero of the Napoleonic wars, the Duke of Wellington, who was Prime Minister, together with Sir Robert Peel in this House, drove Catholic emancipation on to the statute book through the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.

At the time, the Act was seen as a radically progressive measure. Indeed, such was the strength of feeling that Wellington was only able to overcome the fierce opposition of King George IV and peers in the House of Lords by threatening that his Tory Government would resign and warning the King and their lordships that the incoming Whig Administration would be immeasurably worse. As students of parliamentary history will know, the resulting split in Wellington’s party ushered in a decade and a half of Whig dominance. I am bound to say that I am rather pleased that there is considerably more cross-party consensus on today’s reform.

There is, however, an important historical lesson in how we view the statutes that clause 1 amends. Both the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the subsequent Jews Relief Act 1858 were seen in their own day as wildly progressive steps forward that tore down centuries-old barriers to public life. The restrictions they left behind on advising the sovereign on Church appointments were the political compromises of the 19th century, but nearly 200 years on, what was introduced as a 19th-century compromise is now an archaic anomaly and unacceptable discrimination.

Over the decades, Parliament has rightly repealed or amended many of the other restrictive measures originally contained in both the 1829 and 1858 Acts, and clause 1 simply finishes that long historical journey. By removing these final statutory prohibitions and their draconian penalties, it ensures that the legal bar on a Roman Catholic or Jewish Prime Minister fulfilling their constitutional duties by advising the monarch on Church appointments is similarly consigned to history. His Majesty’s Opposition therefore support clauses 1 and 2 standing part of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified.

[The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I will keep my remarks brief. As we have heard, this Bill’s purpose is to lift archaic historical restrictions that prevent an individual of the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the sovereign on Church appointments, or from making Church appointments where their office gives them the right to directly nominate someone. The Bill will therefore ensure that the current Prime Minister and, indeed, any future Prime Minister who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith can perform their constitutional responsibility to advise the sovereign on these matters without risking disbarment from public office.

I give heartfelt thanks for the insightful contributions of hon. and right hon. Members, particularly the Father of the House and my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I thank the Opposition for the spirit with which they have approached the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) acknowledged, today’s debates have featured some very thoughtful contributions about the development of our constitutional arrangements.

I am grateful for the support of hon. Members from across the House for the approach that we have taken. I know that the House will agree that although the Bill is modest, it is an important step forward in ensuring that our laws reflect our belief that a Prime Minister’s faith should not restrict their ability to undertake their role. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.