Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Mike Wood Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Let me be clear from the outset that His Majesty’s official Opposition welcome the Government’s recognition that this anomaly needs correcting, and we will not oppose the Bill. We fully support the principle that no Prime Minister should be legally prevented from discharging all their constitutional duties because of their faith.

The restrictions in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 are, as the Minister said, plainly outdated and have no place in a modern democratic society. The idea that someone should be prevented from exercising the full responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister simply because of their religious belief is clearly not fit for the 21st century. Indeed, it is remarkable that almost two centuries after those Acts were passed, provisions remain on our statute book that distinguish between those who are permitted to advise the sovereign on Church appointments and those who are not, purely on the grounds of their faith.

When one looks at the provisions that the Bill repeals, both their severity and their inconsistency are striking. The law as it stands prevents persons of the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths from being involved, directly or indirectly, in advising the Crown on appointments in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland. Moreover, the punishments written into those laws are severe. Under the Roman Catholic Relief Act, a Catholic advising the sovereign on a Church appointment is

“deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown.”

The Jews Relief Act contains a similar threat.

As the existing laws discriminate against Jewish people and Roman Catholics only, they have created the glaring inconsistency that the Minister referred to: my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the former Prime Minister, a practising Hindu, and his successor Keir Starmer, an atheist, were not legally prevented from advising on Church of England appointments, as the current Prime Minister, who is a Catholic, has been. At a time when we rightly celebrate religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law, it cannot be right that the holder of the highest political office in our country should face a legislative bar if they are Roman Catholic or Jewish.

Though we agree with the Prime Minister that these laws are an “archaic anomaly”, as shadow Minister I cannot let the occasion pass without a gentle reminder of the Government’s rather sudden conversion to treating the Bill as an urgent priority. On 5 March last year, the Lord Privy Seal wrote to Members of the other House, stating that the Government were considering how to address historical restrictions on Roman Catholics and Jews advising the Crown on appointments in the Anglican Church, but when asked about progress in parliamentary questions last autumn, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), said that though the Government would keep the matter under review,

“given other pressing issues, this is not a current priority.”

It is hard not to notice that removing this statutory bar remained “not a current priority” for the Cabinet Office right up until a Roman Catholic Prime Minister took office.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) observed last week, some people looking at the challenges facing the country today may well feel that there are more important things for the Government to do, although when he rose to make his point of order at the start of this debate, I wondered whether he was going to declare an interest—an ambition for No. 10 that might be affected by this legislation. However, the Bill is rightly before us today, and on this issue, as on any issue of constitutional change, it is important that the Government proceed with clarity and care.

In the interests of scrutinising the legislation constructively, could the Minister clarify three points for the House? First, can he confirm that the Bill is strictly and narrowly focused on removing these discriminatory restrictions, and that there are no unintended knock-on effects elsewhere in statute? Secondly, after becoming Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) transferred responsibility for Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor to ensure that such appointments could continue. Can the Minister confirm that this arrangement is temporary, and will remain in place only until this legislation has received Royal Assent and come into force? Thirdly, can the Minister reassure the House that this legislation will not alter the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the established Church?

Finally, while we support removing the statutory bar, we also believe that it is important to maintain sensible constitutional practice, so it is the Opposition’s clear recommendation that it would be sensible for Prime Ministers who do not consider themselves to be part of the congregation of the Church of England to delegate the active decision-making on appointments to others, as recent prime Ministers have done, while retaining their formal constitutional role in advising the monarch. His Majesty’s official Opposition look forward to scrutinising the Bill in Committee and in its later stages, but we will support its Second Reading.

Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Mike Wood Excerpts

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

As we reach Third Reading, I am pleased to again reaffirm our support for this measure, as we work to ensure that this particular anachronism will soon be consigned to history. Our constitutional arrangements are the product of centuries of history, and we on these Benches believe we should always approach changes to them with appropriate care. Our constitution has evolved considerably since the 19th century, reflecting the changing character of our country and the diversity of the people who serve it, and it is entirely reasonable that our laws should evolve with it.

Respect for our history does not require us to preserve every historical anomaly. There is a clear distinction between respecting our constitutional traditions and allowing outdated 19th-century restrictions to remain on the statute book simply because they have always been there. At the same time, the established Church occupies a distinctive place in our constitutional settlement, and the relationship between Church and state is one that has developed over centuries. In correcting the historical injustice, it is vital that we preserve both our established constitutional arrangement, and the independence and integrity of the Church appointments process.

In practical terms, when appointing bishops and archbishops, the Church of England presents a candidate to the Prime Minister, who then advises the monarch on who to install in that role. For nearly 20 years, the Prime Minister has not had much of a role in the selection of Church of England bishops, and Downing Street’s involvement in the process has become largely a formality. That is why, alongside supporting this Bill with the repeal of these discriminatory criminal provisions, His Majesty’s Opposition has suggested that the clear and respectful convention for the future, following recent precedent, should be that Prime Ministers who are not members of the Church of England should retain their formal constitutional role in advising the sovereign while continuing to delegate any active involvement in the decision-making process to others.

The ability to serve as Prime Minister and to exercise the full responsibilities of that office should depend on the confidence of this House and the ability of the individual concerned, not their religious belief. On that fundamental principle, the whole House can unite today, so we support the Third Reading of this Bill and wish it well as it proceeds to the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.