Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful intervention. She is right that the effect of this Bill will be to remove the last remaining discriminations against Catholics and Jews on the statute book. It is a historic moment, and I am very glad of it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Surely it will remain on the statute book that a member of the royal family cannot marry a Roman Catholic and inherit the Crown?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was making a point about the active role of Roman Catholics in public life, including in this place. I suspect that the Father of the House and I are not going to agree totally on this Bill, but as constituency neighbours I want to say that he does, as a professing Catholic, play a very active role both in this House and elsewhere. This Bill would take all force away from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and mean that none of its provisions have any force. That is slightly different from the question of the line of succession. For the purposes of this House and normal political activity in this country, the Bill will remove all restrictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Danny Kruger]

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

[Jonathan Davies]

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We of course have to reflect changes in society.

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

[Jonathan Davies]

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think that—

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

Will the Father of the House give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course.

[Mike Kane]

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

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

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