The bishops' bench refers to the two archbishops and 24 bishops of the Church of England who sit alongside peers in the House of Lords. They are also known as the Lords Spiritual. None are elected, and none are from dioceses in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
None of the Lords Spiritual are elected. And none are from dioceses in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. The archbishops of Canterbury and York and the bishops of Durham, London and Winchester all automatically get seats in the House of Lords. The next 21 are given to the longest-serving bishops, regardless of their skillset.
The system of giving automatic seats to the bishops dates back to medieval social elitism. Only two other countries involve religious clerics in law-making: Vatican City, and Iran.
Despite being unelected, the bishops have the right to vote and debate, and have a privileged position from which to exert inappropriate influence on our national way of life. They have acquired this right solely by virtue of their position in the hierarchy of one particular church – a church which is ever-decreasing in formal membership.
The bishops are unaccountable to the public. Their only qualification is that the Church appointed them, rather than personal merit. On the strength of this, they are able to argue and vote for the Church's self-interest both through privileged access to ministers and civil servants, and speaking in the Lords where they can also put down legislative amendments. In other walks of life, those who have a conflict of interest generally abstain from voting on such matters in the exercise of impartiality and fairness.
The automatic appointment of religious leaders amounts in many cases to double representation of religious interests, as many temporal peers already identify themselves as being religiously motivated.
In an increasingly secular society the role of religious representatives in our legislature has become increasingly irrelevant. The Bishops' Bench continues to this day to block progressive legislation and reform, not least in the realm of equality law. The Church has used its privileged position to secure exemptions and concessions from equality law, as well as obstructing equality outside its own constituency, for example in its opposition to civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. It even attempted to exempt itself from the Human Rights Act.
The House of Lords is considering reducing its numbers, but its plan does not include the bishops. This means the bishops are set to make up an even larger proportion of the Lords, further eroding democracy.
The bishops' bench is not popular with the public:
- A 2022 survey found over 60% of UK adults think bishops should have no place in Parliament.
- In 2021 53% of Brits said the House of Lords should not continue to have places for C of E bishops, according to YouGov. Just 16% said it should, with 31% saying they didn't know.
- In a 2018 survey, when asked whether clerics, priests, and clergy should make laws, the overwhelming majority of respondents (78%) disagreed that they should be so involved. Only 10% agreed, with 13% uncertain.
- A 2017 survey found 62% of British people think that no religious clerics should have an automatic right to seats in the House of Lords. Only 8% of people said the bishops should retain their seats.
There is widespread doubt about the appropriateness of reserving seats in the House of Lords exclusively for CofE bishops among CofE clergy themselves.
According to a 2023 survey, 60% of priests back reform of the bishops' bench, including nearly 45% who say the seats should be opened up to other faith leaders, and over 8% who say their numbers should be reduced. Nearly 7% think Lords Spiritual should be abolished altogether.
Less than 37% say the bishops' bench should be left unchanged.
Meanwhile, 89% think it is inappropriate for archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to publicly criticise government policies. This clearly creates a tension in his role as a member of the legislature, and his role as an Anglican bishop.
The bishops represent the interests of an increasingly shrinking Anglican minority.
Christians are now a minority in Britain. And the number of Church of England members is smaller still. According to the Church's own figures, normal Sunday CofE attendance for all ages represents just 0.9% of the English population.
The bishops do not necessarily represent even their own congregation. They frequently diverge with the opinions of UK Anglicans on issues including reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, assisted dying and women in the clergy.
It is commonly argued that the bishops bring a unique 'ethical and spiritual insight' to the affairs of Parliament and so speak for all believers, not just Christians, and unbelievers too.
We reject the implication that the bishops somehow provide special moral insights denied to other members of the House. The idea that bishops or any other religious leaders have any monopoly on issues of morality is offensive to many UK citizens. This is made more so by continuing revelations over the role of the Church's hierarchy in appearing to cover up child abuse and their continuing institutional homophobia.
While members of the bishops' bench occasionally take popular positions, there are no credible examples of genuinely moral or popular issues which would not be raised without their presence. Indeed the ability of the bishops to 'claim credit' for issues worked on by peers of many parties and none, show their degree of political organisation and public relations experience.
While Christianity is an undeniably important part of the UK's history and culture, Christians are now a minority in Britain. We can no longer be called a 'Christian country'.
Arguments that the bishops' bench is a 'time-honoured tradition' do not justify the practice continuing at the expense of democracy.
None of the arguments for retaining religious representation in the House of Lords are based on anything other than attempts to further embed religious privilege in the government of multi-cultural, multi-faith and increasingly 'no faith' Britain.
There are proposals to augment existing Anglican representatives with religious leaders from other faiths in the name of 'fairness'. This is the wrong approach and would in fact introduce further unfairness. It is vitally important that any reforms made to the House of Lords should not include any specific religious representation whether ex-officio or appointed, whether of Christian denominations or any other faiths.
The majority of the country, by far, are not practising Christians. There are countless religious minorities, some very large, some very small. Any selection process for religious representatives would be deeply divisive.
Fantastic - it's great you'd like to help! One of the best ways to help our campaigns is to join the National Secular Society today.
Other action points to help our campaign can be found at the bottom of the main campaign page here.
