Bishops’ bench questioned in hereditary peers bill debate

Peers have scrutinised the reserved seats for 26 Anglican bishops in the House of Lords during a debate on a bill to abolish hereditary peerages.

The National Secular Society briefed peers before the debate, urging them to raise the issue of the bishops' bench.

Hereditary peers question inconsistency

Crossbencher Charles Hay, who is a hereditary peer, described reserved seats for the bishops' bench as one of "three unfairnesses" in the House of Lords, along with hereditary peerages and Prime Ministerial patronage.

Another hereditary peer, Crossbencher Charles Courtenay, asked if it was not "more urgent" to address the bishops' bench. He noted recent media attention relating to "the conduct of the Lords Spiritual" in grappling with the Makin review and other abuse scandals.

The Earl of Shrewsbury, Conservative peer Charles Chetwynd-Talbot, questioned why the bill did not address the bishops' bench, saying "there will be no more reforms for a very long while".

Calls for amendment

Crossbench peer John Birt called for an amendment to the bill to also end the bishops' bench, which he described as "another feudal overhang".

He said recent abuse scandals in the Church "powerfully and emphatically" demonstrated the CofE "is losing moral authority", and called on the Leader of the House to explain why bishops should retain their "privileged position".

Labour peer Harriet Harman is reportedly considering an amendment to the bill which would address the bishops' bench.

Earlier this year, the NSS worked with a cross-party group of MPs to support a similar amendment when the bill was in the House of Commons. Labour whipped MPs to vote against the amendment, which was defeated.

Further Lords reform should include bishops' bench

Labour peer Ruth Lister said the position of bishops "has been rightly questioned", and should be included in further Lords reform. Conservative peer Benajmin Mancroft said there was "overwhelming support" for moving in that direction.

Conservative peer David Maclean asked why hereditary peers are "more indefensible" than the bishops. Conservative peer Richard Keen said there had been "complete silence" from the Government on the bishops' bench, which he described as "medieval".

Bishops represent only one nation of the UK

Lib Dem peer James Wallace remarked the bishops only come from dioceses in "one part of the United Kingdom", England.

He opposed guaranteed representation for other religious groups, noting the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland "made it clear" there should be "no faith representatives at all". He said it would be a "healthy thing" to end reserved seats for clerics in the legislature.

Labour peer Jeffrey Rooker said he would "vote to remove the clerics from lawmaking".

The bishop of Leeds said establishment – the basis for reserved seats for bishops – was not a "privilege" but an "obligation to serve". He said his life would be "considerably easier" if he only had one role.

He claimed bishops are "not whipped" and are "independently minded", despite voting en bloc to oppose marriage equality and assisted dying reform.

NSS: 'Injustice of guaranteed religious representation should be addressed now'

National Secular Society spokesperson Alejandro Sanchez said: "Peers, including the hereditaries themselves, are absolutely right to ask why the bishops' bench has not been included in this legislation.

"The Government is taking a pragmatic approach with this narrowly defined bill. But with parliamentary time at a premium, the injustice of guaranteed religious representation should be addressed now.

"Reserved seats for clerics are an anachronism in a 21^st century democracy. If bishops wish to participate in our political life, they are welcome to do so – on the basis of equality not privilege."