Twenty-six Anglican bishops are given seats as of right in the House of Lords.
The UK is the only western democracy which reserves seats for clerics in its legislature.
This is unfair, undemocratic and undesirable. It's time to abolish the bishops' bench.
Two archbishops and 24 bishops of the Church of England currently have automatic seats in the House of Lords. They are sometimes known as 'the lords spiritual'.
We campaign for a secular upper house with no specific religious representation, whether of Christian denominations or any other faiths. In a secular state no religion or its leaders should have a privileged role in the legislature.
Any serious proposals to reform the House of Lords must address the unjustified privilege of the bishops' bench.
62% of Brits think no religious clerics should have an automatic right to seats in the House of Lords.
After over a century of decline in religious attendance in Britain, the claim that bishops — or any other religious representatives — speak for any significant constituency is not warranted. Less than 1% of the British population now attend Anglican services on the average Sunday.
In addition, the presence of religious leaders amounts to double representation of religious interests as many peers already identify themselves as being religiously motivated. Retired religious leaders are often appointed as peers.
Bishops do not have any "special moral insight" unavailable to everybody else. The idea that bishops or any other 'religious leaders' have any monopoly on issues of morality is offensive to many non-religious citizens. Those who profess no religion are no less capable of making moral and ethical judgements.
In an increasingly secular society the role of religious representatives in our legislature has become irrelevant, and has stood in the way of progressive legislation.
Take action!
1. Write to your MP
Ask your MP to help end the archaic, unfair and undemocratic bishops’ bench in the House of Lords.
2. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
3. Join the National Secular Society
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
Secularism defended during Lords debate on religion
Posted: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:25
The Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Falkner has given a spirited defence of secularism during an otherwise largely deferential debate about the role of religion in public life.
Her intervention came during a debate moved by Lord Singh of Wimbledon to ask the Government what assessment they had made of the role of religion in society in the UK.
Lady Falkner emphasised the role and importance of the secular space in public life and said religions have just as much right to express their views as anyone else, but those views should not be privileged in the framing of public policy and law. She said Secularism, often unjustly maligned, is becoming more widely understood and recognised as its importance in a multi-religious society becomes more appreciated. She told the House of Lords that separating religion and state enables those of all religions and none to participate as equal citizens.
She continued: "In a society in which church attendance continues to dwindle and congregations age - I am sure there are anecdotal exceptions, but the statistics are very clear - we rapidly approach a time when we need to think about the extent to which religious precepts should be allowed, often through the workings of both Houses, to override the view of the people on sensitive social issues. When I say "the view of the people", I mean even religious people."
In a later intervention, Baroness Flather said she was "pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, put in a word or two that did not quite pass for praise of religion." She declared herself as a secularist and atheist but distanced herself from Richard Dawkins, saying "not all atheists are like him."
Lord Singh, opening the debate, bemoaned the "bad press" received by religion and complained about faith being "pushed into the margins of society". He said keeping religion out of public life was akin to keeping ethical considerations out of politics.
Despite numerous claims of religion being marginalised, The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells made full use of his privileged position in the House of Lords to sing its praises. He did, however, describe the recent Synod vote not to allow female bishops as a "public relations disaster and a serious setback".
Crossbench peer Lord Bilimoria expressed his sadness that religion is declining in the UK and asked if the Government was doing enough to encourage and promote religion. He added "What religions do more than anything else is promote integrity and values."
During a thoughtful intervention, another crossbench peer, Lord Hameed said: "Religion binds people together in communities, and politics helps to mediate peacefully between their differences. One of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century came when politics was turned into a religion. The single greatest risk to the 21st century is that the opposite may occur, not when politics is religionised, but when religion is politicised."
Conservative Peer and former Secretary of State for Education, Lord Patten, told peers it was important to recognise that Governments can benefit from the spiritual guidance and advice of religious groups, but warned "religion should not be a matter for Parliament, despite the presence of the "reverend Prelates and most reverend Primates in your Lordships' House."
The crossbench peer Lord Curry of Kirkharle then expressed deep concern about "the increasing dominance of secularism". He suggested that as a consequence, many Christians found themselves not only marginalised but in some cases victimised. He said he was sure that this applies to other faiths, too. He added, "Doing God and doing good is what millions of people in Britain want the freedom to do today."
Conservative peer Baroness Berridge used her speech to commend the Charity Commission's recent decision to refuse charitable status to the Exclusive Brethren and dismissed concerns that the charitable status of other religions was at risk.
She explained that she has family in the Brethren herself, so knows how they work: "They hold to the doctrine of separation, so exclusives cannot live in semi-detached houses, as they share a party wall with non-Brethren.
"They cannot eat with non-Brethren, cannot have friends with non-Brethren; they have no TV, radio, cafes, restaurants, etc. They can attend only Brethren schools and they now work only for Brethren businesses. Attending university is banned."
"Groups about whom there is credible evidence that they harm health, split families and send no one to university can exist in a liberal society, but whether they should be charities is very much open to doubt," she added.
"The religion and public benefit guidance needs to be clarified, but we also need clarity on the outer limits of what is acceptable behaviour for all religious groups."
1,175 religious organisations successfully applied to the Commission for charity status in the past year. Just one – the Brethren – was turned down for public benefit reasons.
Winding up the debate, the Minister for Faith and Communities, Baroness Warsi, again stressed the "vital role" religion plays in British society. To underline the importance attached to religion by the Government she then went on to point out the vast amounts of money they are spending on various interfaith projects.
Lady Warsi said the Government was committed to maintaining the status of religious education as a compulsory subject that all pupils must study, and to the provision of collective worship in schools. She also repeated Communities Secretary Eric Pickles' assertion, and with equally careful wording but also with no basis, that council prayers at the start of Council meetings are now legal.
She concluded:
"When I first set the tone for this Government's faith agenda in 2010, declaring that we would "do God", many warned that this was something that a government Minister should not say. Two years on, I am heartened to see that so many Ministers have got behind this agenda, and our actions demonstrate the importance that we attach to the role of religion in British society."
Bishops come under fire but Lords Reform now looks a distant prospect
Posted: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:17
An attempt by the Government to reform the House of Lords looks doomed after 91 Conservative MPs defied their party whip this week and voted against plans for a mainly elected second chamber.
Despite the rebellion (the biggest yet for the coalition) the Government still comfortably won the vote on the principle of its proposed reforms to Parliament with a majority of 338, but it faced defeat on the "programme motion" – which would have set out a timetable for the Lords Reform Bill to get through the Commons. Labour had planned to join Conservative rebels in opposing the motion, saying 10 scheduled days of debate was not enough to give proper scrutiny of the reform.
In order to avoid a humiliating defeat, the Government has now delayed a vote on this motion until the autumn, hoping it can talk the rebels round.
Nick Clegg said the vote for the plans had been a "huge triumph" and then warned the Tories that there would be "consequences" if they failed to back the bill.
During the two day debate there was much criticism of the plans to retain the bench of Church of England bishops – albeit reduced from 26 to 12.
The most outspoken speech came from Nia Griffith, Labour MP for Llanelli, who said the bishops were not representative of all Christians in the UK, never mind those of different faiths or no faith at all.
She said:
"The Church of England is not the established Church of the United Kingdom. The Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920, in Northern Ireland there has not been an established Church since 1871 and the Church of Scotland Act 1921 acknowledged that the Kirk had never been the established Church of Scotland and so could not be disestablished. Many countries specifically separate Church and state, even countries with a clearly dominant religion, such as Italy or Spain.
"Equality legislation in this country outlaws discrimination between men and women, yet for this reformed 21st century second Chamber, the Bill proposes to include bishops from the Church of England, which has fudged on equal rights. After years and years, yet again this week the Church is fudging on women bishops, and we have had nothing but exceptions and excuses, and a ridiculous amendment that would allow parishes that do not accept women bishops to request a male bishop. This would not be allowed in other workplaces and would be a disgrace even within a non-established Church or religion, but it is utterly deplorable that a so-called established Church chooses to flout the spirit of the law of the land. It is totally unacceptable to give 12 places with voting rights in a reformed 21st century second Chamber to bishops in an organisation that still does not give equal rights to women to allow them to become bishops and which has actually contemplated an amendment that would undermine their authority.
"I oppose reserving the 12 places for bishops of the Church of England in the second Chamber because it is not the established Church of the whole UK, because the appointment of bishops does not conform to the spirit of equality legislation and because it is high time that we separated Church and state. If this is really a reform for the future, it is a good opportunity not to include bishops. I ask the Government seriously to consider that issue."
Chris Bryant, Labour MP for Rhondda said it was "bizarre" to have the bishops of the Church of England in the House of Lords. He added "I would move an amendment to get rid of all the bishops."
Ian Lucas, Labour MP for Wrexham, said having bishops as Members was "wrong". He added:"Giving precedence to Church of England clerics is an extraordinary thing to do, and it is even more inexplicable on this very day, when the Church of England has decided not to appoint women bishops. Is not having such a clause in the Bill a breach of the European convention on human rights?"
Karl Turner, Labour MP for Hull, pointed out that the Deputy Prime Minister had undermined his argument for the need for electoral legitimacy by maintaining an appointed element and failing to use the opportunity to reform the role of bishops.
Thomas Docherty, Labour MP for Dunfermline and West Fife agreed that the issue of Church of England bishops needed to be addressed. He said: "I do not believe that the Church of England should sit in the House of Lords or the senate."
Graeme Morrice, Labour MP for Livingston, said many of his constituents had expressed strong feelings about the place of bishops in the Lords.
He said:
"My constituents have been unanimous in their view that this reform is an opportunity to end the automatic right of bishops to sit in the Lords. I very much hope that whatever form the new second Chamber takes, it will contain a diversity of representatives, but they should be there because the people have put their trust in them at the ballot box, rather than because they hold a particular religious office."
Mark Lazarowicz, Lab/Co-op MP for Edinburgh North and Leith said he agreed with Opposition colleagues who argue against reserved places for Church of England bishops.
"Many bishops who attend the Lords do offer an independent and critical voice, and it has challenged over-mighty Governments of all parties, but such a challenge should come from those whose authority to speak is derived from election, not from appointment. As many Members have pointed out, the additional objection is that, by giving a privileged place to leaders of one faith group, we discriminate against every other faith group, let alone against agnostics and atheists."
Mr William Bain, Labour MP for Glasgow North East also criticised plans for keeping reserved seats for Church of England clergy. He said: "The UK would remain one of only two legislatures in the world, along with Iran's, to continue such religious representation, even though 60% of the public say that bishops should not sit in Parliament."
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, commented: "It seems there is going to have to be a rethink of this Bill before it has any chance of succeeding, which would give the opportunity for the coalition to rethink the provisions in relation to the bishops. It is clear that there would be little resistance to the abolition of the Lords Spiritual and plenty of applause for it. Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron should be bold and truly modernise the House of Lords."
Read the debates in full on Hansard:
