- Falkland Islands: Argentina Ambassador Says Self-Determination 'Does .. by Asa Bennett, Huffington Post UK
- Let’s be honest. There’s a clear link with Islam (£) by David Aaronovitch, The Times
- Intellectual property is an innovation killer by Joshua Lachkovic , KernalMag
- Dumb Idea Hall of Fame by Aaron David Miller, Foreign Policy
- Nadine Dorries threatens Cameron's Party Leadership by Nadine Dorries, Daily Mail
- Boris set for party leadership? by Traci Watson, USAToday
- Anti-Israel students deface Star of David at student conference by Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post
- Jihadist Videos on University Facebook by Rupert Sutton, Huffington Post UK
- Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose by Alex Massie, Spectator UK
- Green tax on conservatories by James Slack and Tamara Cohen, Daily Mail
This isn't the 16th Century: it's time to kick the Bishops out of the House of Lords
Reform starts here. The Lords Spiritual have no right to seats in Britain's upper chamber anymore, explains David Morris.
The presence of the Lords Spiritual is a long-standing institution in the UK Houses of Parliament. In fact, prior to the dissolution on monasteries, there were more of them than the Life and Hereditary Peers (collectively known as 'Lords Temporal').
There was a period where there weren't any, but the Clergy Act saw them re-introduced. Nowadays, there are twenty-six - a figure which includes the two Archbishops.
The recently-introduced House of Lords Reform Bill proposed that the number of Lords Spiritual be reduced - a process which would be phased over a period of time. However, there are strong reasons for removing this group altogether.
Point 92 of the draft Bill reads:
"The Government proposes that in a fully reformed second chamber which had an appointed element there should continue to be a role for the established Church. However, in line with proposals for a reduction in the size of the second chamber, the Government proposes that the number of reserved places for Church of England Archbishops and Bishops should also be reduced, from twenty-six to a maximum of twelve."
The remaining twelve would include the two Archbishops and the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The others would be included based on seniority. However, there is nothing in the draft Bill that states why they should be there.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bishops only have a presence in the Lords due to the dominance of the Christian religion in England several hundred years ago.
On January 27th, 2010, Tim Stevens, the Bishop of Leicester gave a speech to open a debate about the continuation of the Lords Spiritual. Naturally, he gave several reasons why they should be there, but none are particularly strong. The following is a summary of what he said:
- Removing them doesn't solve any of the constitutional problems;
- They have valuable and unmatched connections to local communities;
- Both religious leaders and existing peers want them to remain;
- Religion is still popular and many people prefer to seek advice from their Bishop;
- They are a reminder of the role they have played in the development of many of our institutions;
- They don't just contribute to religious matters.
The first point may be true, but their continued presence won't solve any of the problems either.
It is also true about having local connections. However, there are other ways for the Lords to interact with communities. For example, peers could still discuss matters with Bishops if they weren't members of the Lords. Peers could also work with local groups and members of the House of Commons.
If Peers received advice in these ways, the church would still have a voice (even though many have argued there should be a clear separation between church and state - as is the case in the United States).
To back up his argument about there being support amongst Peers, he cited a ComRes poll of 100 members of the House of Lords (roughly thirteen percent) where forty-five percent of respondents favoured no change. The problem is that the figure isn't even a majority of a relatively small sample size. So, the majority of respondents do want change.
As for religious leaders, he only consulted those based in Leicester and Leeds. That is clearly not representative of the entire country and there is no research out there which covers the whole of the United Kingdom.
To back up his point about the popularity of religion, Bishop Stevens noted that there is a weekly attendance of over one million and that is more than the membership of the British Humanist Association and political parties. This is true. One million is a significant figure, but that means that there are many others who don't go to church (for various reasons). Those people would not be represented by the Lords Spiritual, as they might their elected peers.
It's worth remembering that there are many other religions that have a large presence in this country nowadays. Obviously this is a big change from the times when the Lords Spiritual were first introduced (and in comparison to when they were re-introduced). This means that the group are not representative of the modern-day United Kingdom.
As for the other points, we don't need the Lords Spiritual to remind us of the role of the Church in the history of the United Kingdom. Also, they may contribute to debates on a full range of issues, but so do other peers and that means they provide no added value in that area.
Many groups, such as the British Humanist Association, Labour Humanists and the National Secular Society have argued (for a long time) that the Lords Spiritual should be removed from the second chamber. As you can see, many of the current arguments to support their existence are not strong enough. There is also no explicit reason in the House of Lords Reform Bill for their presence.
To ensure proper reform that makes the House of Lords less biased towards one religion and make the chamber more representative of the modern state of the nation, the Lords Spiritual should go.
David Morris is the author of the Life Downloaded blog
Print
I am not a religious person in the least but if we are to have lords spiritual, and I think we should, they should be from the original religion of this country not any imported along with the mass immigration we have seen. I think to have a group of people who are not motivated by having to toe the line for a past favour and who are supposedly not political, is fundamentally good the for the chamber. One would hope their input would be entirely for the benefit of their flock making it an interesting change from the others. Unfortunately they do tend to be too left wing for my liking but hey what the heck.
"The BHA and the NSS are vile, hateful organisations"
Wow there's a vile and hateful statement if ever I saw one. What exactly is it about an organization who’s stated desire is for “... a world where everyone lives cooperatively on the basis of shared human values and respect for human rights...” that you find so horrible Matt?
Do they force you to question your mindless beliefs?
The author suggests that bishops only reprsent those who go to church. That's the same as arguing that politicians only represent those who attend party meetings.
@Steve
Thank you for your patronising contribution.
I'm not an Anglican, indeed, I'm not particularly religious at all. But I've long seen the benefits that religion can play within a community. Come to some of the housing estates of South London, and see what religious organisations and the Church are doing in these areas. Or religious schools that are trying to instil values of respect and responsibility.
If you are prepared to judge an organisation purely by its meaningless, vacuous mission statements, rather than the nature of the campaign that they are conducting, then I would suggest that is rather naive.
I note that you make no attempt to answer the first question but do at least clarify that you are 'not particularly religious' which really clears that one up.
My own experience of religion in South London is rather less rose-tinted than yours, clouded as it is by the local Anglican vicar who comes round demanding 5% of one's salary if you are unfortunate enough to fall within the associated CofE school catchment area and inflicts creationism on the children of any parent foolish or desperate enough to attend church in the hope that their darlings can get a school place without the associated extortion.
Well done to them. A great example to us all.
Separation of religion and state is one of the hallmarks of a civilised polity. No bishops in the Lords. (And the C of E should be disestablished - and that's not a 'lefty' idea it's the original American idea.)
The Voice of Reason II: "...original religion of this country not any imported..."
Which religion would that be? I'm sure you don't mean Christianity is an imported religion to these isles. No?
There is no doubt that there is a strong argument for excluding bishops form the house of lords. The problem must be viewed constitutionally.
The bishops sit in the HoL because we have a Church established by law, with the Queen as Supreme Governor. Laws passed by the CofE Synod need to be passed by Parliament, and the sovereignty of the Monarch is recognised and conferred by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
To remove the bishops from the HoL effectively disestablishes the Church, or at least changes the settlement. That will require further legislation and throws up many constitutional questions. Removing the Bishops may be the right thing to do, but it will lead to a change in the constitutional settlement of the country.
Removing the bishops from the Lords need not change the relationship between the Church and the Sovereign, any more than is the case in Scotland.
Presently, the bishops are the only members of the HoL who retire - retaining their 'club rights' to e.g. free parking and use of the House as a dining club. this should stop immediately and bishops should not do it anyway.
Also, some bishops are too eager to spend time in the Lords rather than in their diocese. It is often easier to find them in the former rather than the latter.
If, as individuals, they have something to contribute to the life of the Upper House, let them be available, like the rest of us for inclusion on their merits.
The only dreadful consequence of taking the State out of the Church and vice-versa is that episcopal appointments would be even more controlled by the Church's own secretive bureaucracy, headed, for these purposes, by the wife of a serving bishop - an arrangement hugely criticised but not open to redress.
Sign up to receive updates from
The Commentator website!
Typical lefty nonsense that wants to see this country continue to take a dump all over its history.
We are not a Muslim country, we are not a Hindu country. Our country is Christian, our head of state is the head of the Anglican Church.
Just because the CoE has been intent on self-harm for the last few decades doesn't mean that we should jettison its historical significance to the character of our nation.
Never listen to crap about our institutions being unrepresentative. They are representative. They are representative of our history as a proud Christian country.
The BHA and the NSS are vile, hateful organisations.
Society is denigrating into an immoral cesspit. We need the Church more than ever.