What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
While Nottingham born and bred, I have lived in Derbyshire for 20 years and am proud to represent South Derbyshire. Many ex-miners who I have met in this place, in South Derbyshire and in Derbyshire more broadly would like to thank you for your leadership on this matter in our neck of the woods.
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.
I am incredibly disappointed in today’s decision on Jackdaw; I believe that it flies in the face of all the evidence and will do nothing to lower people’s energy bills, create jobs or improve our energy security. The Minister has a strong record in making the case for Britain to be a renewable energy superpower, so can he confirm that today’s decision in no way implies or means that the approval of Rosebank will automatically follow?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The human impact of the illegal use of e-bikes was powerfully set out by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) at the beginning of the debate. It is certainly something we are aware of in my constituency, where Peggy Maxwell, who is 94, was mown down by a teenager on a Sur-Ron e-bike. Peggy suffered a broken neck, back, clavicle and ribs, and was hospitalised for three months. Many people would not have expected Peggy to come back from those injuries at her age, but she is determined and formidable, and she did. Last month, she attended a public meeting on e-bikes we held in Lochore with her family, who are now also campaigning for new laws on their use. I add to the calls from right across the Chamber for more action on enforcement, point of sale regulation, and diversion from the illegal use of e-bikes. In Scotland, that requires action from both Westminster and Holyrood. I have been working on the issue with David Barratt, MSP for Cowdenbeath, and I am pleased that he secured a commitment from the Scottish Government that any bikes seized by the police will be destroyed and not sold on. That should be the course of action taken by all police forces. This Government have taken more action to give police more powers to seize e-bikes. It is vital that the Scottish Government take similar action for forces in Scotland. It is important to consider what action we need to take on point of sale. Many people buying these bikes will be unaware that they cannot be used on public roads. Vendors need to provide information to the people who are buying these bikes, often for their children. We also have to consider further action on regulation and registration, and I support the comments by my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on that. Vendors need to have more responsibilities for this issue placed on them by Government. Finally, on diversion, we have a great charity in my constituency, Kingdom Off Road Motorcycle Club, which gives people who have previously used e-bikes illegally the chance to use them safely and legally on a purpose-designed track, often on bikes that have been seized by the police. That sounds like a really good approach, and I hope we can see that supported across the country. The enjoyment and convenience of e-bikes and e-scooters for some is now seriously outweighed by the harms caused for many, and it is time for this Government to take further action.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this vital debate and her excellent opening speech. My office has been inundated with complaints from residents, particularly in Glenrothes, about unacceptable delays to Royal Mail deliveries. I therefore put out an appeal for information on social media, and in just a few days around 400 people replied to that one post with their experiences. Even after the revisions to the universal service obligation to reduce the frequency of second-class deliveries, seven in 10 of the people who contacted us said they were waiting a fortnight or more for their mail deliveries. Residents also reported post being delivered in bundles dating back weeks, as the hon. Lady said. That is simply not acceptable.
I could not agree more with those important points. They show that, from Cornwall right up to Scotland, the problems are the same and need to be addressed by Royal Mail. I will come to my proposals later in my speech. We heard from people whose credit had been affected by a missed bill, people who missed jury citations and people who were penalised after car tax reminders never arrived. A number of Members have mentioned issues around health service appointments. Most worrying for me, 100 constituents received late NHS letters. Unacceptably, 45 missed an appointment or received a letter after the date. A constituent waited three years to get on to a consultant’s priority list, but she never received the letter and subsequently lost her place. A primary school-age child missed a vital appointed at Edinburgh sick kids hospital. A teenager was struck off the Victoria hospital’s dermatology department in Kirkcaldy for not turning up, although it was entirely outwith their control. Seventeen people managed to attend an appointment only because of a text or call reminder, as the letter was not received in time. Royal Mail has said to us that it has a priority barcode for NHS letters. I have checked with NHS Fife. It is using the code, and the letters are still not arriving on time, so Royal Mail must address the situation urgently. It is obvious to all those who are aware of the situation that the new delivery system, which management said was going to make a big difference, is in fact failing, particularly for second-class mail. My constituents have been told at the counter that more lucrative parcels are being prioritised over letters. It is striking that not a single constituent who has complained or got in contact with us put any blame on our overworked local posties. As many Members said, the situation is putting our postal staff under unacceptable pressure at work. Understaffing and longer routes mean that they are being asked to do the impossible. That drives up absence rates, which only makes the situation worse. According to the CWU, which has done so much work to campaign on this issue, Royal Mail is losing about 400 postal staff a week. I again urge the management to get around the table with the union and end the recruitment and retention crisis. So many of the problems that we face in the service today are caused by the recruitment and retention issues, so we must support our hard-working postal staff. The situation in Glenrothes has improved marginally of late, but only on a short-term basis, because workers were brought in temporarily from Dundee. That is clearly not a sustainable solution, so a root-and-branch change is required, not quick fixes or plastering over the cracks. I urge Royal Mail to listen to the contributions from across the Chamber today and to the thousands of people across Glenrothes and Mid Fife who rely on this lifeline.
10. What steps he is taking with the Secretary of State for Defence to support veterans who served in Operation Banner.
Fife is home to more veterans than any other part of Scotland, many of whom gave dedicated service to this country as part of Operation Banner. Can my right hon. Friend assure these veterans, whom many Members spoke of in the debates this week, that their rights and welfare will be not only always protected, but extended through our pledge to the armed forces covenant?
This decision will be welcomed by skilled energy workers across Scotland and the UK, who will have a key role in making our transition towards renewables successful. For that reason, a positive decision on Rosebank in the future would also be welcome. This project, though, will create and sustain some 300 skilled energy jobs. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will work with the Scottish Government to ensure we have the right training in place for our energy workers for the future? Could some of the resources within the North sea wealth fund contribute to that aim?
Sir David Bell’s review lays bare the extent of antisemitism within our education system. The Government are funding a partnership between the Archdiocese of Birmingham and the Board of Deputies to help pupils recognise and challenge antisemitism, including conspiracy theories spread through online gaming. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing its results and explain how successful approaches will reach every school in Birmingham, including in the constituency of Edgbaston?
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful case about something that, I think we can all agree, is utterly abhorrent. I want to ask about proposed new subsection 46D(9), which, as she rightly emphasised, would ban the adaptation of something into a CSA doll. Does the Bill also ban the supplying of parts to allow that to happen? She has mentioned that the Bill would look at banning the supply of CSA dolls. There is also separately a concern about modifying an object into a CSA doll. Is there a potential loophole whereby supplying the parts to enable the modification would not be covered by the Bill, which would address only the supply of entire CSA dolls?
9. What steps he is taking with the Secretary of State for Defence to support veterans who served in Operation Banner.
At the heart of this lies a really important principle. Can my right hon. Friend set out why those of us on the Government Benches do not believe it is morally acceptable to offer immunity to terrorists involved in killing not only innocent civilians but, as we have just heard, those brave servicepeople who served their country on Operation Banner?
Q9. Endometriosis affects about 1 in 10 women in the UK, and I have heard from many women in Colchester and north-east Essex who are living in chronic pain with the condition—a pain that is prolonged by unnecessarily long waits for treatment and diagnosis. What steps are the Government taking to speed up access to treatment?
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate. I am the proud daughter of a police officer, and one of the things my dad always instilled in me was the importance of community policing: people knowing who their local neighbourhood officer is, building a relationship with them, and seeing them out and about in their local streets. My constituents also share that view. I am really pleased that as a result of the actions that this Labour Government have taken, there are now more neighbourhood police officers in my community and they are making a big difference. I say a big thank you in particular to Inspector Betsy Palmer, PC Joe Meritt, Sergeant Andy Murray and PCSO Fraser Sinclair, who I met recently and who do a brilliant job, day in, day out, to keep our communities safe. However, they told me that one thing they spend far too much of their time on is tackling the scourge of illegal bikes. I am fed up, and my constituents are fed up with having to pull children out of the way in a park when a bike or a Sur-Ron zooms past them at 30mph, or having to slam on the brakes while driving down the street because someone in a balaclava is doing a wheelie in front of them It is simply not good enough. I was very grateful to the Minister for her recent correspondence with me on this issue and I am grateful to the Government for giving the police additional powers to seize and destroy those bikes, but we need to do more. I ask the Minister—if she would not mind—to think again and to tell me today both how we can do more to regulate the sale of those bikes and close the loopholes that mean those Sur-Rons can be ridden by people gleefully around the streets of my constituency, and how we can support our local police to tackle this problem.
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Within my constituency, the communications I recently held with residents on antisocial behaviour highlighted major concerns about e-bikes and other powered bikes being ridden not just around town, but in abandoned china clay pits, on footpaths and along other rights of way. My constituents rightly raised concerns about safety and the impact of antisocial behaviour, where rules are deliberately ignored by riders, on those shared spaces. Those concerns should not be dismissed; our constituents are right to expect the law to be enforced effectively, so I welcome the Government’s additional powers to seize and dispose of dangerous vehicles being used unlawfully, and the wider efforts to tackle the sale of unsafe and illegal products. Those measures should help us to ensure that the enforcement agencies can respond much more effectively. At the same time, however, there is a wider point to contribute to this debate, particularly when it comes to young people. Many young people are drawn to e-bikes because of the freedom, the independence and the sense of community that they offer. That interest in itself is not a problem to be regulated, as strict as we must be in some of the other measures we have described today; it can be channelled into sports, into skills, into training and volunteering opportunities. I highlight the work of the Cornwall Bicycle Project in Par, which provides those vital skills and the volunteering and community engagement opportunities, engaging people from a wide range of backgrounds, including those who have struggled in mainstream education and are looking for routes into employment and training. The model ensures that the enthusiasm for e-bikes can be channelled in a positive way: it can offer a practical route into learning new skills, it can build confidence and responsibility, and it can create connections within those communities. Lastly, I recognise the role that Imerys has played more broadly in supporting access to nature, outdoor recreation and sports within the china clay area—but it should not be down to one company to solve this huge issue in our area. Local authorities, police, business, community organisations and education providers need to be supported by our Government in a strategic manner to play their part.
Today’s decision feels like a backwards step in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels, but one of our biggest challenges is the £88 billion-worth of UK pensions that are invested in this dying market—some 10 times what those funds invest in clean energy sources. What pressure is the Minister bringing to bear to wean our pension funds off those damaging fossil fuel investments?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing the debate. I will focus my comments on the cycle hire regulations in Southwark. We should be a success story of more lanes and more users, but—and I have a big butt, which makes me a wobbly cyclist—the number of complaints, increasingly from other cyclists, is colossal and rising. The need to regulate is only too apparent when visiting any transport interchange in Southwark. Last week, dumped bikes blocked the only pedestrian crossing from London Bridge station on to the bridge itself, not in rush hour, but on a Saturday lunch time. I get so many complaints, including from Stephen about bike dumping at Canada Water; from Sacha about bikes in pedestrian areas and local parks; and from Sanjay about insurance after a recent collision. Then there is Whelan’s, a pub in Rotherhithe with a bike bay outside that overflows regularly with dumped bikes, blocking the way of customers and blocking a bus stop, but most worryingly, blocking the delivery of beer to the pub. A pub without beer cannot stay open very long. It is on a red route, so alternatives are limited. I am working with Lime and others to address this issue, and I raised it directly with the City Hall’s cycling commissioner last week, but a business and jobs are at risk through the failure of Lime and others to regulate themselves. Regulations are necessary and welcome. I hope the Minister will tell us this morning when the next consultation on secondary legislation will come forward, but I hope he also recognises that some solutions are available now. Southwark council could replicate Ealing and remove bikes at cost to the providers. Constructively, the council could move the bay outside Whelan’s to the verges on the opposite side of Rotherhithe Old Road. Council inaction is inexcusable, especially under a Green leader who last year filmed a promotional video for Lime inside the council office, breaking council rules. I await the council investigation into that with some interest. Inaction is also inexcusable because the council announced a new deal for discounted bike use three months ago in an arrangement that has delivered no better management of bikes, and not one person has yet had a discounted fare. It is an amateur, premature fanfare of a scheme. Conditions should have been set for clearing bikes with the providers. Lime claims it has 400 staff to clear bays and more need directing to those sites, but it says Southwark council sends no one to them. Council inaction is even more inexcusable because Lime has a £500 million fund to provide bays that local authorities can bid for. Embarrassingly, Southwark has bid for nothing—that is the summit of its aspiration for our community. It seems the Greens and their Lib Dem sidekicks in Southwark are too busy obsessing over Israel and international affairs to get on with helping people in our community. It is frankly incompetent and I will be pushing further to help everyone affected.
rose—
On the point about Westminster council and data, does the hon. Gentleman support the Mayor of London’s request that the new Government regulations require all providers to share information on how many bikes and vehicles they have on the road in our capital, and wherever else they are operated? I obviously have a London interest.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the CWU. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this important debate. Of course, Ms Lewell, it is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you in the Chair. If we need an example of disaster and chaos in privatising a public asset, we need look no further than Royal Mail. The water industry is a close challenger, but we would have an even longer debate if we were to discuss the issues in Royal Mail versus the issues in the privatised water industry. We need to recognise that in 2013 Royal Mail was privatised by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. It is important to know that the root cause of the issues is that privatisation, which has been a disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned that one option we should consider is renationalising Royal Mail, and I support that. In my constituency of Stockport, I conducted an online survey—I do not need to reiterate the points about doing postal surveys, which would probably never get there or come back in time—and 89% of respondents experienced a service disruption or delays to Royal Mail deliveries and were dissatisfied with Royal Mail. I do not want to repeat the points that have already been made, but I have also been to my local delivery office on numerous occasions and the postal men and women do a fantastic job. None of us in this House on a cross-party basis has issues with our postal workers. The issue is with the toxic management, how the business is run and the lack of governance. It could be argued that Royal Mail management is better off paying the fine than actually meeting its obligations to the public. Stamp prices keep going up, but letter deliveries keep getting worse. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) suggested that there should be no further rises in the price of stamps until Royal Mail can demonstrate on a long-term basis that it has consistently improved letter delivery standards. Just this week a resident reported that a first-class letter took over 10 days to arrive and they received birthday cards a week late. Another constituent, from Ainsdale Grove in Reddish in my constituency, contacted me to say that their entire street received large batches of delayed post, with some letters dating back to 25 September. That is completely unacceptable. As I said, I am a proud member of the CWU, but I want to see Royal Mail management working with the CWU. There have been reports that almost 400 postal workers are leaving their jobs at Royal Mail—there must be an extremely toxic culture for that number of people to be leaving. I could say a lot more, but time is limited.
The Government claim that approving Jackdaw will help fund clean energy—making them, if you like, both the arsonist and the firefighter. The North sea is a declining basin, though, meaning that it is a rapidly shrinking tax base. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects the North sea to provide just £100 million in tax per year by 2030. At that rate, the oil and gas sector would take 20 years to match the Government’s injection into the energy wealth fund today, so does the Minister see that approving Jackdaw is a false economy?
The Minister will know that the climate science is clear that opening any new North sea oil and gasfields is incompatible with achieving our Paris climate agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. He will know that Jackdaw alone is worth 35 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, and Rosebank a further 250 million tonnes. What can he say to my constituents in Walthamstow who are still clearing up after the wildfires that burned down their homes and damaged their houses, and are now terrified about flooding from El Niño, about how this decision, our work on reducing emissions and the fund that he has mentioned will help to protect their future?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate. I will confine my remarks to e-bikes. Let me begin by emphasising that legal e-bikes have an important role to play in sustainable transport and active travel, but vehicles that do not meet the definition of an electrically assisted pedal cycle and are used on the highway are illegal road vehicles and should be banned from sale. Earlier this year, I presented a Bill that proposed exactly that. Illegal e-bikes, whether sold as such or converted using kits, pose serious safety risks. They reach speeds for which their frames and braking systems were never designed. They kill pedestrians and endanger other road users. Their batteries catch fire and cause devastating house fires and death. They facilitate criminal activity such as phone theft and drug dealing and they are a persistent nuisance in parks, on pavements and around stations. Their ready availability online also undermines legitimate markets, depressing the sale of legal, tested EAPCs and low-powered motorcycles. Meanwhile, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau settles millions of pounds in claims every single year for accidents involving illegal bikes, and the cost is borne by law-abiding motorists through higher premiums. The Government must act with urgency to tackle this problem. They have the means to do so: the Product Regulation and Metrology Act gives Ministers powers to designate products that are unsafe and regulate to remove them from sale. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade about using those powers? Does he agree that the continued availability of illegal e-bikes is undermining confidence in legitimate cycling and risks tarnishing the cycling celebration that is the Tour de France when it comes to Britain—and, more importantly, my constituency—next year?
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the loophole for off-road bikes, which is exploited in the use of illegal e-bikes, has existed since the Road Traffic Act 1988 and could have been closed in the past 14 years?
Today’s decision is probably not a surprise to most people. It will make a relatively limited difference to energy security, and probably very little difference to pricing, but I very much welcome what the Minister said about it being part of a transition, and about us not ripping up the policy commitment to no wider exploration. I agree with him that this decision is consistent with our manifesto pledge. We need to move to heat pumps and electric vehicles, and to make other changes for industry, but does the Minister agree that the absolute priority is bringing down electricity prices and getting us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster? What else will he do, in this Budget and Budgets to come, to make sure that we achieve that?
I warmly welcome this decision. New drilling in the North sea is good for energy security, national security and jobs, including jobs in my constituency of Hartlepool and in the supply chain. Jobs in Hartlepool have been created in new nuclear and renewables, too. Does it frustrate the Minister, as it frustrates me, when certain populist politicians put their ideology ahead of fact and would destroy jobs in renewables, nuclear and North sea oil and gas in my constituency and across the country?
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. It is a pleasure to open today’s debate on this straightforward yet important piece of legislation, which I hope will command broad support across the House. The purpose of this Bill is to remove historical legal barriers that prevent a Prime Minister who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the sovereign on Church appointments or a Minister from making appointments in their own right. For the benefit of the House, it may be helpful to briefly set out the constitutional and historical context. Since the formal establishment of the Church of England in the 16th century, archbishops and bishops have been appointed by the sovereign as Supreme Governor. Over time, they came to do so on the advice of Ministers, and now the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, provides advice on these and other Church appointments that the sovereign makes. In practice, the Prime Minister does not choose between candidates, but rather provides formal advice on candidates following a selection process. Separately, certain Ministers—for instance, the Lord Chancellor—have, by virtue of their office, rights to act as a patron in parish-level Church appointments directly without the involvement of the sovereign. Again, this is following a selection process. To understand why these restrictions remain on our statute book today, it is helpful to look briefly at the 19th century, when Parliament passed the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858. After the reformation, many people believed that religious unity under the Church of England and Church of Scotland was essential to maintain the peace. Gradual progress was then made to remove restrictions on worship outside of the established Churches and expand the role of non-Anglicans in political life.
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.
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.
My hon. Friend is pithier than I am. Yes, this is about elected office. I will make a little progress, if right hon. and hon. Members do not mind. Let me take you back to the reformation, Madam Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall said, until the mid-19th century, there were considerably more restrictions on Catholics and Jews, including an effective prohibition on becoming a Member of Parliament. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 removed many but not all of these legal barriers to Roman Catholic and Jewish participation in public life. This included permitting people of those faiths to become MPs and to serve in various civil and military offices, but the legislation retained certain exceptions, which this Bill seeks to address. Under section 18 of the 1829 Act and section 4 of the 1858 Act, individuals professing the Catholic or Jewish faiths are restricted from giving advice to the sovereign in relation to Church appointments. The penalty for breaching these restrictions is being prevented from holding a civil or military office under the Crown, which includes serving as Prime Minister. Until now there has never been a Prime Minister professing either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith while in office. Following the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) as Prime Minister in July, these 19th-century legal restrictions are now having a practical effect for the first time. To ensure that Church appointments can continue smoothly, the Prime Minister has temporarily transferred his responsibilities for advising the sovereign on Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor. But it would not be right to continue these arrangements indefinitely. I am sure that the whole House will agree with me that, in the 21st century, one’s faith should not be a barrier to carrying out any of the duties of high office. Removing these restrictions from the statute book is the right thing to do. Moreover, it is important to uphold one of our core constitutional principles that the Prime Minister is the sovereign’s principal adviser and should be able to advise on Church appointments just like his predecessors. This Bill resolves a live, practical issue and removes an outdated restriction that has no place in our modern parliamentary democracy. With hon. Members’ support, I hope that it will not detain the House for long. I understand that some Members might raise questions about why non-Anglican Prime Ministers or Ministers should be able to advise the sovereign on appointments to a Church whose faith or denomination they do not share. However, the Government firmly reject that view. The legal restrictions that we are seeking to repeal only apply to individuals professing the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths. They do not apply to people of other faiths, other Christian denominations or no faith at all. That is why former Prime Ministers Rishi Sunak, a professed Hindu, and Sir Keir Starmer, a professed atheist, as well as many other non-Anglican Prime Ministers in the 20th century were able to advise the sovereign on Church appointments without risking disbarment from office. While the Church of England is the established Church, one of our country’s great strengths is that it is made up of people of different faiths and backgrounds, who should all enjoy equal treatment under our laws. To suggest that a Minister must personally share the faith of the established Church in order to convey its advice would be to misunderstand the constitutional role of the Crown’s principal adviser. As a modern parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, the King is the Head of State and acts on the advice of his Ministers, who are accountable to the electorate and to this place. It is therefore right that the Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is able to advise the King on Church appointments.
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.
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.
Will the Father of the House give way?
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?
Does my hon. Friend agree that for former mineworkers and their families in Sherwood Forest, these pensions are deferred wages earned through years of hard and dangerous work, and that, with many members now facing ill health, there is no time to waste? Will he join me in urging the Government to use the Budget to secure a fair agreement on surpluses and ensure that bonus pensions are protected and rise with inflation?
Q15. My constituent Ian has a rare and aggressive form of cancer that is now, sadly, incurable. Clinicians have advised that regorafenib is the only remaining life-extending option. Until recently, the drug was provided free of charge through the compassionate use scheme. Following the Government’s announcement on VAT reform, the developer, Bayer, has withdrawn from the scheme—the only company to do so—leaving Ian with no further options. Ian does not have the luxury of time, so will the Prime Minister urgently commit to ensuring a solution to the VAT issue, to provide Bayer with certainty to rejoin the scheme, and will he meet my constituent to see the real-life impact of these life and death decisions?
First, Mr Speaker, I entirely respect your comments. I hope that in my time in this House I have always given you the impression that I take this House seriously. Your points have been noted, and I will absolutely take them back to the Department.