Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Second Reading

16:39:00

Moved by

That the Bill be now read a second time.

My Lords, the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill is a short but important piece of legislation that removes a legal barrier preventing Roman Catholics holding the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This historic legal restriction applies specifically to Roman Catholics and not to people of different or no religious faith. For noble Lords who may not yet be acquainted with the role of the Lord High Commissioner—although I suspect from looking around the Chamber that most noble Lords know more than I do, even though my mother is Scottish and Church of Scotland—I shall try to shed light on the position. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who will speak later today, held that office between 2015 and 2016, being appointed by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I hope he will bear with me while I provide a brief explanation, and I look forward to his contribution. The Lord High Commissioner is the sovereign’s personal representative to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The General Assembly is the governing body of the Church of Scotland. It meets each May in Edinburgh, to hear reports, make laws and set the agenda for the Church of Scotland. The Lord High Commissioner is appointed as an observer to attend proceedings and to inform His Majesty the King personally about the business of the assembly. The Lord High Commissioner also undertakes important ceremonial duties, including addressing the General Assembly at its opening and closing sessions and attending the daily business on the sovereign’s behalf. The Lord High Commissioner undertakes official visits in Scotland, as well as hosting engagements at the Palace of Holyroodhouse. Historic legislation currently prevents the appointment of Roman Catholics to this role. The Claim of Right 1689 sets out restrictions against Roman Catholics being appointed to public offices in Scotland, which include the Lord High Commissioner. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 removed many legal restrictions on Roman Catholics. Crucially, however, it explicitly did not remove the restrictions against Roman Catholics holding the post of Lord High Commissioner. Therefore, there remains a legal barrier that prevents Roman Catholics undertaking this role. This Bill is concise and narrowly focused, and will deliver a straightforward but important change by enabling Roman Catholics to undertake the post of Lord High Commissioner. The immediate impact of the passing of this Bill will be to facilitate the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini, who is a Roman Catholic, as Lord High Commissioner for 2025. Lady Elish’s distinguished career encompasses law, justice and academia. In 2011, she was honoured as a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for her outstanding contributions to the administration of justice. Since 2012, she has served as principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford, and she was appointed pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford in 2017. In 2022, Her late Majesty the Queen appointed her to the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, and she participated in the Coronation in 2023. Should this Bill pass, she will make history as the first Roman Catholic to be appointed Lord High Commissioner. Lady Elish’s appointment would be a historic gesture of unity, good will and collaboration between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland, following the St Margaret declaration signed in 2022, as well as a continuing declaration of friendship between the two Churches. This combined effort between the two denominations is a welcome demonstration of how people from different religions and backgrounds in our society can unite to emphasise the values and issues that unite us all and can acknowledge our differences with respect and dignity. I note that the appointment of Lady Elish to the role of Lord High Commissioner has been warmly welcomed, including in the other place when this Bill was debated, taking note of her distinguished career and personal achievements. The legislation is before the House today on an accelerated timetable, which is necessary to ensure that Lady Elish’s appointment can be made ahead of the General Assembly in May. Subject to Royal Assent, the formalities of the appointment will begin. This process will include a formal commission for the office, accompanied by a royal warrant. I can reassure the House that the UK Government have worked closely with key stakeholders in the development of this legislation. While the Bill concerns a reserved matter, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke to the First Minister of Scotland and representatives of the Church of Scotland in advance of bringing forward this legislation. We thank them for their constructive and collaborative approach to this issue. The Government also engaged with the Catholic Church to ensure that it was kept informed ahead of the introduction of the legislation. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also discussed the matter with Lady Elish directly and we have absolutely no doubt that she will be an excellent Lord High Commissioner. I will briefly summarise this two-clause Bill. Clause 1 makes provision to allow a person of the Roman Catholic faith to hold the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Clause 2 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and the commencement of the Bill, including that it will commence on Royal Assent. To conclude, this Bill has a welcome aim and delivers a concise, albeit narrow, objective. I hope the Bill will receive support from all sides of the House. In that spirit, I commend it to the House. I beg to move.

16:45:00

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for introducing the Bill. As she says, it is a simple and straightforward Bill which will enable a most distinguished Scottish lawyer, Lady Elish Angiolini, to take up her appointment as His Majesty the King’s Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I can assure the House that it has the full support of His Majesty’s Opposition and we were very grateful to be able to consent to accelerated consideration through the usual channels. As my honourable friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said in another place, this Bill is an important step towards full equality for Roman Catholics under British law. There is in fact a long Conservative tradition of supporting Catholic emancipation, which the noble Baroness alluded to. In fact, the first Duke of Wellington risked the future of his own Government to secure the passage of the Catholic Relief Act in 1829, which granted Roman Catholics the right to take up positions of trust and responsibility in public life. There were some objections from some quarters in Scotland at the time, which might be why we are here today. The passage of that 1829 Act led Britain out of shameful centuries of penal laws against Roman Catholics. The Bill before us today shows how far we have come since 1829. I remember it was Sir Keir Starmer who in 2002 wrote an important article calling for an end to another disqualification of Roman Catholics—of people who married Catholics from succession to the Crown. It was good that the coalition Government took that up and passed the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which ended that disqualification of Roman Catholics. We are always ready to support Sir Keir in good ideas and the attempt to reduce any element of discrimination in public life has universal support. I hope we can continue to foster greater acceptance and a stronger tradition of ecumenism for the future. This Bill achieves that. We are absolutely united across this House in opposition to discrimination. In government, we worked to foster stronger relationships between all communities, whatever differences of religion they may have had, and we will work with Ministers in this Government to continue that work, as we are doing today. As the noble Baroness said, the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is one of the most significant roles in Scottish public life. Our sovereign has appointed Lord High Commissioners as representatives since 1690, for only rarely have sovereigns attended the General Assembly in person. The King is not the head of the Church of Scotland, so the Lord High Commissioner is a representative to the General Assembly, not a member of the Assembly itself, and it is therefore not a requirement for them to be a Presbyterian or a member of the Church of Scotland. Lady Elish Angiolini has an impeccable record of public service, having served as Scotland’s first female Lord Advocate, and she has had a distinguished legal and academic career. We on this side also welcome her appointment. Indeed, the decision to appoint Lady Elish, the first Roman Catholic to receive the King’s commission to be his representative to the General Assembly, is a momentous one. As the noble Baroness rightly said, it builds on the St Margaret Declaration of November 2022, in which the Church of Scotland made: “An historic declaration of friendship between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland”. We welcome this continued commitment to friendship between those two great Churches. Before I conclude, I note that the Government say they are looking also to make changes to other, similar areas of law. In her letter to all Peers of 5 March 2025, the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal wrote that the Government were considering how to address historic restrictions on Roman Catholics and Jews advising the Crown on appointments in the Anglican Church. Perhaps she will take this opportunity, either now or in a letter, to set out in further detail what is intended. It might be helpful to know when the Government intend to bring such proposals forward, which I am inclined to think that we on this side would want to support. In conclusion, we wholeheartedly support the Bill. We wish to see it pass swiftly through your Lordships’ House ahead of the next meeting of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in May this year, as the noble Baroness told us. We have absolutely no doubt that Lady Elish Angiolini will fulfil her duties assiduously and we wish her well as she prepares to take up her important role as Lord High Commissioner.

16:51:00

My Lords, I am happy to follow the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord True, in welcoming the Bill. I shall start by declaring interests: I am a member and elder of the Church of Scotland and a former moderator of the General Assembly. I have known Lady Elish. We served in government together in Scotland in the early 2000s and then, when she was Lord Advocate, I was the Advocate-General for Scotland, so we had a lot of dealings with each other. I certainly consider Elish and her husband Dominic to be good personal friends. I should probably also declare another interest: she has invited me to stay overnight at Holyrood Palace during the General Assembly—assuming, of course, that the legislation has passed. I congratulate the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal on giving a very good analysis and description of the role of the Lord High Commissioner, which I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will be able to elaborate on. It shows, as I said last week in one of our debates, that you can have a national Church that enjoys a positive and assertive relationship with the sovereign without the need for its senior clergy to be in the legislature. Maybe there are lessons to learn from that in other ways. Repealing the provision in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 brings us into the 21st century. Like the noble Lord, Lord True, I am pleased that the noble Baroness has indicated that the Government will look at other religious discrimination that still exists, with a view to bringing forward some consultation. If she could elaborate on that, that would be very welcome. I noted too that the noble Baroness made the following statement under the Human Rights Act: “In my view the provisions of the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”— which of course they are. Indeed, they help to implement convention rights. The noble Baroness’s equivalent in 1829 would not have been able to make such a declaration, which is a sign of the times. I am not quite sure what happened then—whether it was the fact that the Church of Scotland and others in Scotland made representations to the Duke of Wellington for the exclusion, or whether it was just that, knowing the slightly febrile situation in the religious atmosphere of Scotland in the early 19th century, the Government took the view that it was probably better to avoid such a controversy. But controversy there would have been and there was no way it would have been acceptable in 1829. Nor, I am ashamed to say, would it have been acceptable in 1929. During a shameful period in the Church of Scotland’s history in the 1920s and early 1930s, General Assemblies often became obsessive about Irish immigration into Scotland. They perceived a threat to our cultural identity and that the people coming in would take Scottish jobs, and some Scots demanded immediate repatriation. Now, we may have echoes of some things that are going on today, but we should remind ourselves that these attitudes were there. I think it says something that the person we are discussing today, Lady Elish, is of Irish descent, and a female Roman Catholic of Irish descent becoming the Lord High Commissioner shows the progress that we have made. In 1935, thousands demonstrated violently in Edinburgh when the freedom of the city was granted to the Prime Minister of Australia, Joseph Lyons, because he was a Roman Catholic. That was less than 90 years ago and it shows just what we have to do. Progress has been made. Ecumenical links have been strengthened over the years and, as has already been referred to, the St Margaret declaration of friendship between the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, in which as moderator I was pleased to play a part, was delivered and achieved on the back of much mutual respect and good will, not least on the part of the Scottish Catholic Bishops’ Conference by Archbishop Leo Cushley. It was signed in November 2022 and was seen as a landmark and, I hope, as a signal to the rest of Scotland. However, to say that everything in the garden is rosy would be wrong. When my predecessor as Moderator of the General Assembly, the very reverend Dr Martin Fair, made his valedictory address to the General Assembly in 2021, among the things he said was the Kirk’s mission. He said: “For as long as anti-Catholic, anti-Irish bile is spewed onto our streets by so-called football fans - there is work for us to do”. I think we would certainly endorse that. The St Margaret declaration says in its very first paragraph: “We recognise each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, and we wish to express our friendship and respect for one another as fellow Christians, citizens and partners in announcing the kingdom of God in our land”. I would say amen to that. This Bill is in the spirit of that declaration.

16:57:00

My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill and it is a great pleasure to follow the former moderator, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. This is indeed a necessary reform which, as the Lord Privy Seal has told us, clears the way for Lady Elish Angiolini to take up her appointment in just a few weeks’ time. It will also settle the issue for the future, which in itself is very much to be welcomed. This amendment could not, of course, have been achieved without the full support of the Church of Scotland, to whose wisdom I wish to pay tribute. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has reminded us, we do not have to look all that far back into our history to a time when its response might have been very different. My reason for contributing to this debate is that I had the immense privilege of serving as the Lord High Commissioner on two occasions, in 2015 and 2016. That experience enables me to assure your Lordships that the question as to which denomination of the Christian faith the person belongs is wholly immaterial to his or her ability to perform the duties of that office, so I should like to say just a few words about what the office involves. The duties of the office will be defined in a commission under His Majesty’s sign manual that Lady Elish will receive when she presents herself at the opening of the General Assembly. It will commission and warrant her to represent His Majesty at the General Assembly as his High Commissioner specially appointed to that office, no more and no less than that. It will authorise her “to do all and everything belonging to the power and place of a High Commissioner to a General Assembly as fully and freely in all respects as any other in that High Station hath done or might have done in any time heretofore and as We Ourselves might do if Personally present”. She will, in short, be His Majesty’s personal representative to do what he would have done if he had been there himself. It will not be her function to participate in the work of the assembly or to perform any religious duties. She will sit high above in the Royal Gallery as an observer, from where her only function will be to deliver two speeches, one at the opening and the other at the closing sederunt. Her opening speech will, as tradition requires, begin by stating that His Majesty the King has commanded her to assure those attending the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland of his great sense of their steady and firm zeal for his service and to assure them on his behalf of his resolution to maintain the Presbyterian Church covenant in Scotland. She will also offer to the incoming moderator warmest congratulations on her appointment and wish her a most happy and successful year in office. Her final speech will end by, in the King’s name, bidding everyone farewell and, in between, she will attend the General Assembly’s morning services throughout the week and a Sunday service in St Giles’ Cathedral, where she will sit in a place of honour as the King’s representative. Those are the formal requirements. As for the rest, there is an immensely busy programme of ceremonial: of receptions, of lunches and dinners which she must host, and of visits to organisations and places of the kind that His Majesty would have wished to do had he been there. She will travel everywhere in a car with no number plate, with a police escort to speed her through the traffic. She will reside, throughout the week, in the Palace of Holyroodhouse, where a large and rather beautiful fountain will always play in the courtyard. A guard of honour will be on parade and the full national anthem will be played whenever she appears at the door of the palace to carry out her duties elsewhere on the King’s behalf. All good things must come to an end of course. The police escort will have disappeared when she returns to her car at the end of the closing sederunt. When she returns to the palace, she will find, like Cinderella, that the guard of honour has disappeared and the fountain has been turned off. She will then have to use her own car when she drives herself home. But she will have an audience with His Majesty some weeks later, to report to him on her week as his High Commissioner, and there is the possibility that, all being well, she will be invited to do the same next year. For all this, she has my very best wishes.

17:01:00

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Hope. We on these Benches welcome this Bill and, as we have already heard, so does the Church of Scotland. The Columba declaration was signed in 2016 between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, which means we work closely together in mutual respect and appreciation. We are both established churches of this United Kingdom, though how the establishment is manifested in our national life is, of course, different. We have heard that the Bill will amend the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, which still prohibits Roman Catholics from holding the role of the Lord High Commissioner. Given the prohibition does not exist for those with other faith or belief, or for those of no faith, this is a welcome and long overdue change. Indeed, previous officeholders have been Episcopalians, Free Church and from other Christian denominations, so this Bill will remove a legal discrimination that is no longer relevant or required. That it is long overdue for repeal is obvious by the fact that I believe its continuing effect came as a surprise to those making the most recent appointment, so the speed at which this short and straightforward Bill needs to go through is both understandable and entirely justified. As we have heard, Lady Elish has already contributed significantly to Scottish national life and is clearly well qualified. On these Benches, we support this important change to ensure that the role of the Lord High Commissioner can function as it needs to and to remove a long-standing prohibition whose time is long past.

17:03:00

My Lords, I join others in welcoming this Bill and will briefly touch on three connected points: the positive, and fortunately prevailing, attitude towards religious tolerance; that also towards human rights; and, in regard to ecumenism, free thinking and free speech, the significant contributions to each of these made by all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. All of us are delighted that His Majesty the King has appointed Lady Elish Angiolini to be Lord High Commissioner this May at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, that appointment enabled once this Bill has amended the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. Nevertheless, while the present Bill deals with this purpose, when she comes to wind up, can the Leader of the House agree that to avoid confusion and give further clarity at least two more related aspects have to be addressed in due course? My noble friend Lord True referred to yet another. For, to manage conformity with the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974, the reference to the Lord High Chancellor should be removed from the 1829 Act. Equally, to align with the Equality Act 2010 and Article 9.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and other legislation relating to Roman Catholics ought to be carefully re-examined, along with the Jews Relief Act 1858. Your Lordships will know that the assembly week is of two separate parts. First, chaired by the new Moderator in the Church assembly itself, come relevant Church business discussions; yet they do so alongside transparent and topical debates on issues such as those taken recently on the assisted dying controversy and the current European crisis in Ukraine. Secondly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has just indicated, at the same time, and away from the General Assembly having opened it, the Lord High Commissioner gives useful encouragement and support by visiting Church and social care projects in Scotland. We are indeed fortunate to have heard participate in our debate today the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who is a recent Moderator of the Church of Scotland, as we also are to have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as a previous Lord High Commissioner to its General Assembly. As standard-bearer for Scotland, it is a great honour and privilege for me to carry the royal banner of Scotland at the opening of the General Assembly every May, and, among the large gathering of those attending, to be able to witness an unequivocal solidarity of good purpose and good will. Not least does this attitude, and that of the Church of Scotland, also reflect a positive approach towards those of other faiths. For, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has said, the Church of Scotland already works with other churches in Scotland and across the world to form ecumenical partnership bodies, such as ACTS, or Action of Churches Together in Scotland; CEC, the Conference of European Churches; and WCC, the World Council of Churches. To some extent, this achievement of the Church of Scotland is perhaps mirrored here by the Lords spiritual, mentioned in a moving Committee stage tribute last week by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, who himself has converted to Catholicism. For, in the context of ecumenism, he eloquently explained how and why two otherwise different objectives become consistent with one another instead. The first is that within a reformed House, yet on their same Bench and under their existing statute, the Lords spiritual would continue to speak for all Christian faiths as they anyway naturally do, rather than just for the Anglican faith. However, the second is that HOLAC should in any case separately appoint to this House some different faith representatives, to sit here on the same Bench as our existing independent non-political Cross-Bench Peers. The parallel to that is the way in which Scottish Presbyterianism, while remaining the established form of church government in Scotland, already reaches out to welcome and respect other Christian faiths and their different forms of Christian worship, thereby also embracing free speech, free thinking and free worship: the cornerstones of the European Convention on Human Rights, which we debate tomorrow, in a debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In commemorating its 75th anniversary, we give thanks for what this convention has done and will continue to do. For that is not just to heal the wounds of Europe. It is also to provide soft power direction and stability throughout the world.

17:09:00

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome this Bill and look forward to Lady Elish opening the General Assembly in May. By any measure, this is an overdue Bill. We have just five minutes each to canter through a history that began five centuries ago. It began in the 16th century with the declaration of Scotland as a Protestant nation, and continued into the 17th century, with the passing of the Claim of Right Act, which restricted Catholics’ access to public office; the 18th century, and the Act of Union; the 19th century, and the relief Act that swept away most of the anti-Catholic restrictions, but not this one; and the 20th century, when ugly sectarianism scarred Scotland. Today, we are repealing only this specific anti-Catholic prescription. The narrow scope, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has made clear, is because of the imminence of the General Assembly in May. Lady Elish will be an outstanding Lord High Commissioner. She is only the fifth woman to hold the role in almost 500 years. Let us hope those odds also improve. As we have heard, the Lord High Commissioner attends the assembly as the monarch’s representative, because the monarch is not head of the Church of Scotland but simply a member. This reflects the core tenet of Presbyterianism, and the broader reformed tradition, that everyone is equal in the sight of God. I have just three minutes left to raise a trinity of issues: the Churches, Scottish society and the future. First, the Churches: as we have heard, the Lord High Commissioner is a Crown, not a Church, appointment, but as my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has noted, it is right and proper to acknowledge how sectarianism scarred the Kirk and Scottish society, most egregiously in the interwar years. The journey to ecumenicalism has sometimes been a long one. I grew up in an ecumenical community dedicated to interfaith dialogue, and I recognise the continuing work and witnesses of the Church and faith groups of all kinds. Today’s mainstream churches want nothing to do with sectarianism. In our secular age, church people of whatever denomination invariably have more in common than anything that divides them. Sectarianism has been pushed to the fringes and is now a cultural phenomenon rather than a religious one. So where does Scottish society stand? In the other place, it was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who piloted this Bill. He, like me, attended a west of Scotland secondary school 40 years ago, but on a different side of the divide. Later, as fellow students, we talked about sectarianism. Therefore, as a daughter of the manse, I learned about Irish music, the bookies and Guinness. These were stories that I did not share with my teetotal granny, who, like Keir Hardie, has signed the pledge at 17 and celebrated Hogmanay with ginger wine. This enrichment from getting to know other communities and traditions has since accelerated. My children have just completed 12 years in Glasgow schools and witnessed little of the past tensions. As a Glasgow friend pithily summed it up to me last weekend, “Wendy, in our youth there were 50,000 people singing sectarian songs on the terraces; now it’s just 10,000”. The data bears this out. Today, religious hate crimes number 500 a year in Scotland, while race hate crimes hover around a shameful 4,000. Therefore, the best verdict on sectarianism is perhaps, “Down, but not yet out”. My final word is about the future. This Bill—very belatedly—enshrines tolerance. We should all take pride that last year, Scotland had a Muslim First Minister and the UK had a Hindu Prime Minister. As we look around our world today, we must not only defend but celebrate difference. There is something else to be proud of: this is a Scottish Bill—an exceptionally rare thing in Westminster these days. The passing of power to Holyrood a quarter of a century ago ended the era where Scottish legislation piled up at the end of a very long Westminster queue. Holyrood, of course, was the stage on which Lady Elish first shone. I wish her godspeed; we look forward to her Sermon on the Mount, and I hope the General Assembly impresses this most able of Lord High Commissioners with its wisdom, kindness and compassion.

17:14:00

My Lords, I rise with a certain nervousness to contribute to this debate. One might assume that, as an Englishman, albeit with Scottish ancestry on my late father’s side linked to an area near Selkirk in the Borders, I would have only a passing interest in this measure. I am neither a Catholic nor a practising Presbyterian, nor a member of the Church of Scotland, although in my teens I was a regular attender at the fellowship of youth at my local Presbyterian church in Newcastle upon Tyne—more linked, I think, to the facilities for table tennis than anything to do with my religious denomination. I happen to live in a village in Yorkshire which was a recusant community and the home for a long time of Guy Fawkes and his family. None of that is enough to compel me to speak but, in strongly supporting this short but important measure, I would like briefly to draw on my experience as the Government’s Scottish Whip in the House of Commons between 1990 and 1994—an interesting experience, to say the least. Apart from duties entailing the encouragement of some real personalities of whom I had the care, who will today remain nameless, to join me in the same Lobby at least occasionally, I had the important but pleasant duty of entertaining the Moderator of the Church of Scotland soon after appointment each year on their visit to the United Kingdom Houses of Parliament. I was able to provide a suitable pot of English breakfast tea—I do not think there is a Scottish equivalent—in the House of Commons Dining Room and a meeting with the Speaker in his rooms, with perhaps a visit to the chapel to round things off. It was all very congenial. After a year or two of this, I suddenly had an inspired thought: why not invite the visiting Moderator to offer the Prayers at the commencement of proceedings in the House of Commons on the day he was with us? After all, he was a Christian. I rushed to arrange this with the authorities. Little did I realise that what I was proposing was not only totally unacceptable but apparently an affront to our constitutional and spiritual conventions. If my idea was adopted, what next? Might I even come to suggest that a similar function be performed by a senior Catholic priest on a visit from Rome? I was strongly reprimanded and withdrew what I had thought a seemingly innocent and even helpful proposal. Such a precedent was clearly not welcome here. I refrained from suggesting it again during my remaining term as Scottish Whip. I say all this because it shows how there are still impediments to ecumenism, even in our Parliament. I hope that, when we carry out further reform of this House, we might consider extending the hand of unity in religion a little further than at present. Back to Scotland: from what I have heard, it seems as though this anomalous situation arising never occurred to anyone before the decision to appoint the new Lord High Commissioner was well advanced. Hence the need for speed in these legislative changes, which need to be in place before the General Assembly meets in May. If true, that seems rather extraordinary. I hope there will now be a re-examination of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and all other legislation relating to religious discrimination which may remain on the statute book to ensure that we do not have to carry out such an exercise again. I am encouraged to know that the Government seem to have agreed to consider this. In the meantime, I find the monarch’s appointment of the Lord High Commissioner very refreshing. With understanding and diplomacy, it must surely be a very positive and progressive initiative. Of course, there is one remaining area of discrimination. I hardly dare mention it, but what if the monarch or a successor were to adopt the Catholic faith? That would be a totally new and mighty challenge, even to the most reasonable minds in this House. I wish the new Lord High Commissioner all the very best in her new role. I just hope that she will have enough time to attend matches at both Ibrox and Celtic Park.

17:18:00

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, in this relatively unusual outburst of ecumenism among Scots. It is also a pleasure to join the chorus of unanimity which has characterised this Bill’s progress here and in the other place. I have often had occasion to chafe against the time restrictions on Back-Bench contributions in your Lordships’ House, but, given my unqualified support for this Bill and the absence of any dissenting voices, I will keep my contribution short. I cannot guarantee, however, that it will not in part be repetitive of other noble Lords’. This legislation is becomingly simple, and rights an obvious wrong. As we have heard, it amends the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 to allow the sovereign to nominate Lady Elish Angiolini as His Majesty’s High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, much as Section 1 of the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 opened that office to members of the Roman Catholic faith. It is no surprise that it is His Majesty King Charles’s nomination of Lady Elish that has prompted this important legislation. His commitment to interfaith dialogue and mutual respect between different faiths was a constant animating principle during his time as Prince of Wales, and the Bill before your Lordships’ House today represents a further step towards formal equality. The Promissory Oaths Act 1871 already removed a bar to people professing the Jewish faith holding the office of Lord High Commissioner. In that context, I refer to the briefing paper of the Law Society of Scotland, which I thank for identifying the remaining elements of the Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 which hold trace elements of religious discrimination that remain part of British law. I commend my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, and the Prime Minister, for their energy in seeking to tackle those remaining matters of discrimination as soon as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, referred to, the sooner that can be done, the better, because, as we all know, legislation holds both a practical and a symbolic value. In this particular context, a Bill which removes these historic anomalies would not just be overwhelmingly welcomed in Scotland by the Roman Catholic community and others but would be a worthy symbol of positive change for a Government who base their whole term of service on changing, and this is one of the many changes which need to be added to their list. As we have already heard, the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini exemplifies, and gives expression to, the historic St Margaret declaration of friendship between the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland, signed in 2022. I am pleased to have been reminded by my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that this was during his term of office, and I am not surprised that he was part of the process which caused that to happen. I thank him for his contribution.

It was not signed during my term of office, but it was worked up during my term of office, and then approved at the General Assembly when I stood down, and signed by my successor.

I thank the noble and learned Lord for that clarification. None the less, I will not withdraw my thanks and congratulations to him. It is perhaps difficult for anyone who has not lived in Scotland to appreciate just what an extraordinary step that represented, and, still further, what the sovereign’s appointment of an Irish-born Catholic woman as Lord High Commissioner represents. The spirit of ecumenism, amity and fraternity between different Christian denominations is at the heart of this legislation. In his 1995 encyclical on ecumenism, Pope John Paul II pleaded with Catholic leaders to adopt a fraternal attitude to the members of other denominations in the following words: “We should therefore pray … for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble, gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them”. Whatever one’s view of Catholicism, Christianity or faith in general, it is hard to quarrel with those sentiments. In that spirit, it is perhaps appropriate that the nomination of Lady Elish has taken place so close to the King’s state visit to the Vatican, as he continues to demonstrate his commitment to interfaith dialogue. It has been said, but bears repeating, that Lady Elish has a record of distinguished public service, and a career that already encompasses several firsts. Noble Lords will recall the opening of Evelyn Waugh’s Decline and Fall, in which he describes “the sound of English county families baying for broken glass”. Lady Elish must be used to a similar—though rather more wholesome—sound, given the number of glass ceilings that she has shattered in the course of her distinguished career. As she does so yet again, I wish her well in her new appointment, and give my wholehearted support to the Bill before your Lordships’ House.

17:24:00

My Lords, while it is not a registrable interest, I am a member of the Church of Scotland, an elder of the Church and, with recent effect, a worship leader. With that background, I value the presence of the Bishops in your Lordships’ House as Lords spiritual; I am not sure that we voice that appreciation often enough. It is good to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in her place: I see her and her spiritual colleagues less as advocates for the Church of England and much more as disciples of Christ and the manifestation of a Christian presence in Parliament, and I welcome that enhancement. I am not precious about which Christian denomination discharges that role, and that is not intended to be disrespectful to the Church of England. What matters to me is that, across our different Christian denominations, we believe in the word of God as contained in the scriptures and we seek to live out that example. That is the tremendous strength that we have in common and what cements us together. So, as a child growing up in a sectarian Scotland, there was a lot which I found baffling. I heard the playground slights, the derogatory remarks about those from a different Christian background. What I found increasingly incomprehensible was that these two denominations, the Protestant Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church were apparently commanded to do the same thing, to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and … love thy neighbour as thyself”. Perversely, this was traduced by so-called adherents of both Churches to a crass representation of hatred, intolerance and bigotry. Let me be clear that the transgressors were not the practitioners within the two denominations but the so-called hangers-on, whose grasp of theology was tenuous, whose bigotry was entrenched and who personified a complete absence of Christian love and forgiveness. People were judged, dismissed as of no value and written off because of their surname, how they spelled their surname or where they went to school. Fortunately, increasing enlightenment and tolerance over decades have brought about much-needed change. I pay tribute to all the Churches in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament, the politicians and the charities that have worked so hard to erase this ugly stain of sectarianism. My own parish church in Bishopton has a great relationship with our friends in Our Lady of Lourdes, the local Roman Catholic church, and there are many similar examples to be found across Scotland. Playing her part in this transformation with characteristic skill and compassion was Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The historic and memorable visit by Pope Benedict to Scotland in 2010, when he was received by Her Majesty at Holyrood Palace, was a watershed moment. I was privileged to be there and the sense of history being made, of a new age of tolerance, was tangible. This Bill is the essence of brevity but, in simple terms, removes an unjustifiable inequality. It abolishes an impediment which has existed for 196 years to a person of the Roman Catholic faith becoming, at the choice of the monarch, the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland. A Christian might be moved to say “Amen: what more is there to add?” As a Member of your Lordships’ House, I say, “A wrong at last righted, and high time too”. I can think of no more appropriate and distinguished incumbent under these new arrangements than Lady Elish Angiolini. To her, I extend my very best wishes and I support the Bill.

17:28:00

My Lords, it is really heartwarming to hear such unanimity in support of the Bill, and I, like others, welcome it with all my heart. I too am a Catholic Scot of Irish descent. I am also a close and admiring friend of Lady Angiolini and I am delighted that the King has been so insightful about this appointment, because it has initiated this legislative change but is also symbolic in what it is saying about his own values and about the importance of non-discrimination. That is what the Bill stands for: an end to discrimination. I want to remind people, because it is within my own memory, that the wonderful Lord James Mackay, who was a really fine Lord Chancellor, was forced to resign from the Free Presbyterian Church, to which he and his family had belonged all their lives, because he attended the Catholic funeral of two judges. That he had set foot in a Catholic church was deemed to be an abomination and he decided that he could not remain within the congregation that was making that determination. It is not that long ago since the very experience of sectarianism affected lives in the most horrible ways. If people married out—and that was on either side—they would basically be abandoned by their families. It was so frowned upon: people did not attend the weddings or marriage ceremonies of people who were daring to marry someone of a different religion. As a child in a family of four daughters, I remember the fear that we had. I was not baffled like the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie: I was frightened when my mother insisted that we remain indoors on 12 July, when there were going to be “Orange walks”, as they were called. They started at the foot of our road and my mother was frightened that, somehow or other, the violence that often took place might somehow mete out some ghastly experience on one of us. We lived with that, and we lived with the knowledge that members of our family had applied for jobs and, because they had clearly gone to Catholic schools, they had been refused the opportunity. In fact, when I made my decision that I wanted to be a lawyer—an advocate—I was warned that it would be very unlikely that a Catholic woman would be well received in the faculty of advocates at that time, back in the early 1970s. That was partly behind my choice to come south and study law in England, because I really did not want to face that sort of sectarianism. I am happy to say that it did not live within my own family. Only recently, a number of my nieces have married and chosen—because of the depth of commitment of their partner—to marry inside the Church of Scotland, but with a Catholic priest also giving a blessing. That is an example of people coming together in a very different way from the way that it was when I was a child. The appointment of Lady Angiolini is a really inspired, symbolic moment. She is an extraordinary and exceptional woman who is incredibly clever. She became the Lord Advocate in Scotland, having been a solicitor. That was not the normal route. She, like me, had not thought it was going to be possible to be an advocate. Yes, one or two Catholic men had become advocates in Scotland, but it was really not a route that seemed open to us. Many routes seemed to be closed; many admissions did not seem to be there for us. So the symbolism of this is very real, and to end sectarianism in Scotland is vitally important. I welcome, and listened to, my noble friend Lady Alexander with such pleasure. When she described the numbers of hate crimes involving sectarianism, it sounded celebratory, except that it is so accepted in some ways within Scotland that I do not know whether people go to the police to complain about sectarianism. Finally, one of our Prime Ministers—Tony Blair—became a Catholic once he stepped down from his role. I remember saying to my mother that Tony would go to Mass with his wife and children and describe how he was so active in their local Catholic church. She was shocked and said, “They’ll block him from becoming Prime Minister if people find out”. That was because people believed that we could not be there in those places. So we should be celebrating this piece of legislation.

17:34:00

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate and to hear so many personal experiences, views and opinions from both sides of the divide and from outside of the divide. It is a historic moment, but is coming way too late. I first met Elish Angiolini, as she was then, in 2000, when she was procurator fiscal for Grampian and the Highlands and Islands, and was living in my constituency. It was after that that she set up the victim liaison scheme. As a teenager, she had been a witness in a case, and was treated in such a cavalier and dismissive way by all the bigwigs in the establishment that she felt victims needed some kind of support, and so she set up that scheme, which, I understand, continues. She has obviously had a meteoric career—worked for and earned, all the way through—and she was respected by everyone, with very few words of criticism. If there have been any, it is because she has had the honesty to challenge something, as you would expect, because she is a professional. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace and others have talked about history, and we referred to the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. I wonder if I might indulge the House with a little more history. Going back to the 17th and 18th centuries, we should remember that, in effect, we had a long-running war of Protestant succession. We had the civil war. We then had James II—James VII of Scotland—trying to turn the country back to Catholicism and being expelled from the country. We then had the Glorious Revolution and the Act of 1689, and William and Mary. That, apparently, secured the Protestant succession—except that in 1715 there was an attempt to do something about it, and another attempt in 1745. Over many years, the attempt to reverse the Reformation—which was later and probably more fundamental in Scotland—generated very hostile attitudes between the Protestants and the Catholics, and laid the foundations for this discrimination. I found an interesting aspect of history from the aftermath of Culloden, the last war on British soil. A lot of people think that that was a war between the Scots and the English, but it was not; it was a civil war, mostly between Protestants and Catholics, and there were more Scots on the side of the King than there were on the side of the prince. But that is not the way it is remembered and told. Flora MacDonald helped Bonnie Prince Charlie to escape; she took him “over the sea to Skye”—by the way, it was from Benbecula to Skye, not the other way. It is assumed that she was a young Jacobite, but she was not: she was a Protestant, from South Uist. After Flora MacDonald was arrested, she said that she did it only because she was concerned for his safety and would have done it for anybody. She then married, emigrated to the colonies, to America, and established farms and plantations. Then the revolution happened; she and her husband sided with the King, which is not the obvious action of a young Jacobite, because she was not one. Unfortunately for them, they were on the losing side; the King lost and they were dispossessed of all their properties. Initially, they moved to Nova Scotia, but the compensation was not sufficient to sustain them, so they moved back to Skye, where she spent the rest of her days. The story is instructive to show that this is one of these moments of history which is not fully reported and understood, and definitely not always objectively digested. The point is that that created a legacy which has lasted so long. I have no doubt that, in 1829, people were not ready for this. It is absolutely the case that we should have been ready for it long before now, but the fact remains that it is only because the King appointed Lady Elish Angiolini that we have this legislation now. I am delighted it is happening and I hope we get it through as quickly as possible. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, and others, that, if there are any other bits and pieces of discrimination against anybody for their religious beliefs that have not been dealt with, we need to deal with them. I hope the Government will find the space and time to do so. We on these Benches support and welcome the Bill. I agree with everybody who has said that Lady Elish will be a magnificent Lord High Commissioner. She has all the experience, grace, charm and intelligence to make the most of it. It will be a great General Assembly. As it is so historic, it will probably be nearly as memorable as the one that my noble and learned friend was involved in. We are united in this. It should have happened long ago. Let it happen, and let it happen quickly.

17:39:00

My Lords, it has been an absolute pleasure to be part of today’s debate and to listen to the contributions made. It may have been one of the easiest debates I have taken part in, such is the unanimity and warmth around the House. Lady Elish will know from the comments that have been made about her the support she has from across Parliament —it was the same in the other place—in the position that this legislation will enable her to take up. What I have found so impressive about this debate has been not just how passionate many noble Lords have been about the issue but the way in which the humanity and humour has come through, as well as some history lessons. As a mere Englishwoman, there is a lot that I have to learn. I declare that I am half Scottish. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, said that he hesitated before standing up to contribute. I think that English voices are welcome, as this is something that affects us all. Some of the stories and accounts that we have heard today show just how important, symbolic and valued this legislation is. I am really pleased to hear such strong support for the measures in the Bill, and that we can make progress towards removing a historic, and in many ways shameful, legal barrier. I will respond to some of the comments that were made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord True, was the first to make clear his strong support for this measure. He made the point that we should celebrate our unity but respect our differences; the two are not exclusive in any way at all. We have brought this legislation forward because of the practical and immediate effect that it will have, but noble Lords are right that there are a few—not many, now—historic restrictions. We will look into those, and, when I can report back to your Lordships’ House, I will do so. It is right that we do not want to be in this position again. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for declaring his interest. It was very helpful to the House, as was his knowledge of Lady Elish. It was with some relief, as I listened to him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to learn that I had not got it badly wrong, given the experience they have both had. They both spoke of the progress that has been made. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, obviously enjoyed his time in this role. It was a delightful speech—the memory of the fountain will remain with me always. He has explained to Lady Elish what will come and what is to be lost. The trappings of office are short-lived in many ways, but his description of the duties of the office was very helpful to the whole House. The voice of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was welcome in this context, as well. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made a strong case for co-operation between religions and across the board, including in your Lordships’ House. He spoke from the Law Society brief about the Lord Chancellor’s role and asked why it was not included here. I reassure him on that point that the Lord Chancellor’s relief Act was made obsolete by the 1974 legislation. I understand the desire to tidy up legislation, but the 1974 legislation had the practical effect of ensuring that there is no bar on Catholics taking on the role of Lord Chancellor. I hope that reassures him on that particular point. The speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Alexander of Cleveden, Lady Goldie and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, all showed, in powerful and passionate ways, the progress that has been made in society, but also how far we still have to go. As a child growing up, I was not aware of the same kind of sectarianism as other noble Baronesses. I saw a taste of it as a Northern Ireland Minister and it was quite illuminating for me. My noble friend Lord Browne and I served for a number of years together in the Northern Ireland Office. I remember talking to a group of schoolchildren where the Catholic boys’ school and the Protestant girls’ school had come together. They were doing events together and meeting; it was great. But when I asked the boys whether they would they date a girl from the other school, a couple of the Catholic lads said to me, “Oh no, we couldn’t”. That was some years ago now, but it just showed me how ingrained some of these things are, how hard we have to work and how we should never, ever take progress for granted as we make it but should always to fight to make further progress. I thank all those who spoke on that particular point. Religious hate crime is something that we can never tolerate, should never try to explain and should always do everything we can to deal with. On religious discrimination, for my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to have grown up feeling puzzled or frightened is completely unacceptable. We would not want any child to be feeling that way ever again. I thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws for reminding us about Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I remember hearing him speak about this. This was a man of enormous ability, compassion, humanity and values. I think it was a great sadness to him that in a church that he had been a member of for so long he was no longer able to worship because he, rightly, wanted to show his respect to friends who were Catholics by going to their funeral. It remained a sadness to him. Given his values and his humanity, just think what he would think of this Bill today. I think he would be enormously proud of it. There is probably little more I can say, because the speeches we have heard today have spoken for themselves. It has been an absolute privilege to engage in this debate. I think the point my noble friend Lord Browne made was that here we have an Irish Catholic woman taking on this role by sheer strength of her abilities and aptitude, and that has been welcomed. My noble friend Lord Browne also made a comment about how the King has opened up to different faiths. It just took me back to the Coronation, where four Members of your Lordship’s House representing four faiths had quite a central role, and what that said about the country we have become and the country we want to be. It has been a privilege to engage in this debate. We have other stages to go through, but it is an honour for me to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

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