BRITISH HUMANIST ASSOCIATION—WRITTEN EVIDENCE
1. The British Humanist Association (BHA) welcomes
the opportunity to give evidence to the Joint Committee scrutinising
the White Paper and Draft House of Lords Reform Bill. Our remarks
in this submission are limited to the issue of the place of Bishops
in the House of Lords and we make particular comment on the specific
proposals set out in the White Paper and Draft Bill. We have attached
as an appendix to this submission a comprehensive briefing Religious
Representatives in the House of Lords, which we commend to
the Joint Committee and request that it is accepted as supporting
evidence to this submission.
2. The BHA believes that the best constitutional
system is one that is secular, that is one where state institutions
and religious institutions are separate and the state is neutral
on matters of religion or belief. We believe that such a state
is the best way to guarantee individual human rights, to ensure
everyone is equal before the law, and to protect against privilege
or discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. The BHA does
not take a position on what a reformed House of Lords should look
like, whether it should be elected or partially elected. However,
it is our position that there should be no reserved places for
Bishops of the Church of England, or for any other religious representatives,
in Parliament.
3. We have long argued for the removal of the
right of Bishops to sit in the House of Lords, especially since
the prospects for reform became (slightly) greater in 2002, and
the public are strongly on our side in wanting to remove this
religious privilege. Last year the BHA worked with Power 2010
on an initiative which saw thousands of people write directly
to the Bishops in the House of Lords, calling on them to engage
positively with democratic renewal.
4. An ICM survey conducted on behalf of the Joseph
Rowntree Reform Trust in March 2010 found that 74 per cent of
the British public—including 70 per cent of Christians—believe
it is wrong that Bishops have an automatic right to a seat in
the House of Lords[61].
Many parliamentarians from across Parties and Peers in the crossbenches
would share that view, and both the Labour Party and the Liberal
Democrats have policy positions on Lords Reform which would mean
an end to reserved seats for the Bishops[62].
5. We are extremely disappointed that the White
Paper and Draft Bill ignores the strength of feeling amongst people
and organisations, both religious and non-religious alike, who
want to see an end to the privileged place for the Church of England
in Parliament through having reserved places for its Bishops in
the House of Lords. However, we welcome the statement in the White
Paper that the Joint Committee will 'consider options including
a wholly elected House' (p12). We could not urge the Joint
Committee more strongly to look again at the issue of the Lords
Spiritual and to recommend that there are no automatic, reserved
places in any reformed chamber.
The proposals
6. The White Paper and Draft Bill propose to
retain reserved places in Parliament for the established Church[63].
The UK is the only democratic state to do this, and this is in
spite of the fact that the Church of England commands little public
support, with only 23 per cent of the population professing to
be affiliated to the Church of England, according to the 2010
British Social Attitudes survey (and of this number, half never
attend church).
7. The presence of the Church of England in the
House of Lords entrenches a privileged position for one particular
branch of one particular religion that cannot be justified in
today's society, which is not only multi-faith but increasingly
non-religious. It is at odds with the aspiration of a more legitimate
and representative second chamber and with recognition of a plural
society. Moreover, by virtue of their position as Bishops of the
Church of England, the proposals effectively reserve seats in
the House of Lords for heterosexual men, or celibate gay men,
of the same denomination. This unabashed discrimination has no
place in a modern Parliament.
8. The proposals do not simply maintain the
status quo but create a new, independent and largely unaccountable
bloc for the Church of England in Parliament.
9. The House of Lords Reform Draft Bill and White
Paper propose to retain the right of Bishops to sit in Parliament
but with a reduced number of 12 Bishops (from 26) sitting as ex-officio
members 'in line with proposals for a reduction in the size of
the second chamber' (p8). However, in a smaller chamber of 300
Peers, that would represent a proportional increase from 3 per
cent to 4 per cent. We cannot see any good reason to maintain
the reserved seats for Bishops and certainly can see no legitimate
justification for increasing their proportional place in the chamber.
We recommend that the Joint Committee rejects this proposal.
10. The White Paper and Draft Bill also propose
that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of
London, Durham and Winchester will continue to be members of the
House of Lords, and to give the Church of England new powers to
decide which of the remaining 7 of the 12 Bishops will sit in
the chamber. If there are to be reserved seats for Bishops of
any number, we cannot see any reason why the Church should be
permitted more say than at present over who takes those places
in the House of Lords.
11. Although they would have the same speaking
and voting rights as other members of the reformed House of Lords,
the Bishops would continue to sit in Parliament on a different
basis from other members. Following transition periods, in a fully
reformed chamber, the Government proposes that (p23):
· Bishops
would not be entitled to a salary or pension in the reformed House
of Lords;
· Bishops
would be exempt from the tax deeming provision;
· Bishops
would be entitled to claim allowances under the scheme administered
by the IPSA for members of the reformed House of Lords;
· They
would be subject to the disqualification provision;
· They
would not be subject to the serious offence provision and those
on expulsion and suspension as it is anticipated that such members
would be subject to the disciplinary procedures established by
the Church of England.
12. Through maintaining a special status for
Bishops in a reformed chamber where they will not receive a wage
(although they would be entitled to other benefits), they will
not be accountable to Parliament in the same way as other members.
More important, arguably, is their exemption from the serious
offence provision and those on expulsion and suspension. These
provisions ensure that on the most serious matters, Bishops in
the House of Lords will be accountable to the Church of England
and not to Parliament.
13. We believe that these proposals are counter
to the aims of creating a more democratic and accountable chamber,
and as such cannot be justified. Indeed, no justification is provided
in the White Paper for creating an essentially new position for
Bishops in a reformed chamber, over which the Church of England
has far more control and say than at present.
14. If there are to be reserved seats for Church
of England Bishops in the House of Lords (which we strongly oppose)
there are a number of ways that the Draft Bill could be amended
so as to ensure that Parliament, and not a religious institution,
has authority over those who sit in Parliament and we urge
the Joint Committee to examine the proposals with a view to amending
them in line with the cross-Party commitment to creating a more
democratic chamber.
About the BHA
15. The BHA is the national charity working on
behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical and fulfilling
lives on the basis of reason and humanity. Founded in 1896, we
have over 28,000 members and supporters and
over 90 local and special interest affiliates.
7 October 2011
61 ICM Research, Lords Survey, March 10-11 2010 http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/survey_on_bishops_icm.pdf
Back
62
The Labour Party's policy is for a wholly elected House of Lords,
as set out in its 2010 election manifesto http://www.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf,
and the Liberal Democrat's longstanding policy is also for a wholly
elected House of Lords and they reaffirmed at their 2011 annual
conference that even in a partially appointed chamber, there should
be no reserved seats for Bishops. Back
63
Although it is important to note that there is no constitutional
link between establishment and having reserved places for Bishops
in Parliament. See Appendix, 5) Wouldn't removal of the Bishops
mean disestablishment of the Church of England? for details. Back
| 
