Mehdi Hasan
:Woolwich Attack: Demonising Muslims Won't Help
Mario Dunn
:Royal Mail Privatisation - Do We Want This?
Mike Judge
:Cameron Isn't Redefining Marriage, He's Wrecking It
Dr James Hannam
:A Plea From a Eurosceptic Tory
James Bloodworth
:Don't Give the Woolwich Attacks a Meaning They Don't Deserve
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 26 - 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 26 to a maximum of 12."
The remaining 12 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 (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:
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 13%) where 45% 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 feel represented by the Lords Spiritual.
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.
In short, 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.
So, what do you think?
Follow David M Morris on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LifeDownloaded
The article says that there are "problems" with the Bishops' membership of the second chamber, but doesn't state what these are. Is Mr. Morris suggesting that these "problems" are greater than for those peers who bought their entitlement by donating to a political party, or those who are ennobled for having a successful TV show? Or is it really, that they profess a standard of ethics that relies on a Christian point of view? That in itself, is not sufficient reason for their removal. Religious of all faiths contribute a substantial amount to their local communities throughout this country:none of the other major faith groups, whether Muslim, Jew, Seikh, Hundu, Buddist, have ever suggested that the CofE Bishops should be removed from the Second Chamber: in fact many have spoken of the importance of the ethical contribution they bring to the debates. So it is only the Humanists (membership of the BHA stands at around 28,000 - more turn out to a 1st division football match) who have this problem, a small irrelevant group whose bark is far worse than their bite, unless we are suggesting that the Leeds United Supporters Club should also be represented in the second chamber?
Religion, especially Christianity, is *dying* in Britain, the bishop cites 1M faithful, who are no doubt old simpletons who fear not only their own physical deaths, but the death of their pathetic way of life...Neither they or the laughable Church of England provide one iota of value to our country, so that is what they will receive in return - Nothing.
Dissolve the monarchy.
Disestablish the church.
No members sitting in government without being elected.
It won't solve all our problems, but not modernising our system of government, will prevent us from dealing with them in a way free from the influence of a minority of interested parties.
Does the House of Peers actually do anything? I've seen them in their fancy clothes on CSPAN when the Queen did her address to the Parliament, but I've never heard of what they do the rest of the time.
As far as disestablishing the churches, that sounds like a good idea. Our Episcopal Church is the same as your Anglican, only private and it seems to be doing just fine.
Yours truly, an Anglophile American
Firstly, they make up such a small percentage of an Upper Chamber already far inferior to the elected House that it is unlikely they will constitute a decisive voting bloc.
Most significantly, however, is that the C of E rarely takes a hardline stance or preaches scripture on controversial issues. Perhaps they are afraid that an argument based on religion will be dismissed as irrational, however they may also be concerned that to speak in such terms would distort the real debate into one regarding the role of religion in politics. Ironically, it is more likely for a member of a church other than the established one to base their argument on religion; catholic MPs are required to vote in accordance with their church's teachings on pain of excommunication. This lead to the paradoxical situation during the debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill where Gordon Brown was forced to allow his MPs a free vote in order to protect their religious liberty, despite those MPs being compelled by another controlling agent.
While I support attempts to separate church and state, particularly when the church in question represents only a minority of citizens, completely removing the influence of religion on politics is sadly impossible if we are to respect the dictates of the conscience of polititians.