THEOS—WRITTEN EVIDENCE
1. Introduction
a) Theos is a Christian think tank which carries
out research into the role and place of religion in society. Though
we have worked with a number of churches and other faith groups,
we are not aligned with or funded by any particular denomination.
We do not represent the views of any faith institution.
b) We operate on the principle that religious
voices should be given a fair hearing in the public square, for
reasons set out below. Our key piece of work on the issue of 'religious
representation' in the House of Lords (Coming off the Bench:
The Past Present and Future of the Religious Representation in
the House of Lords, 2007) endorses the Wakeham Commission's
recommendation of a reduction in the number of bishops in a reformed
second chamber and the addition a broader religious element that
reflects the increased religious diversity of the United Kingdom.
c) This submission outlines how that recommendation
might be explored in the context of the Draft Bill.
2. The principle of religious representation
a) We recognise that some groups argue that there
is no positive case for a religious presence in a reformed chamber.
Against this argument we observe that:
i) The religious demography of the nation is
increasingly complicated, but it is still the case that a significant
part of the population not only identifies with a religious tradition,
but practices a faith. The British Social Attitude Survey reports
that 21 per cent of the population attends religious services
or meetings once a month or more, and 49 per cent claim a religious
affiliation. These figures equate to approximately 32 million
and 14 million people respectively. In comparison, the Labour
Force Survey suggests that 26.6 per cent of the labour force is
in union membership (6.5 million), and it is estimated that well
under five hundred thousand people are members of political parties.
ii) There is strong evidence to suggest that
religious affiliation correlates with high levels of social capital.
Research into the UK Citizenship Survey and the European Values
Survey data sets shows that religious people in the UK are more
likely to volunteer regularly in their local community; to feel
a greater sense of belonging to their local community and Britain;
to have higher levels of trust in other people and social institutions;
and to feel that they can influence decisions locally and nationally.
iii) The House of Lords often debates issues
of deep moral import. Given the long history and broad extent
of religious traditions within Britain, it is important that they
are present and visible as participants in such contentious debates.
iv) It is often argued that the presence of the
Church of England bishops is anachronistic and that any religious
presence at all would be internationally anomalous. The relationship
between religion and state in every country round the world, including
those in apparently secularised Western Europe, is complex, intertwined
and the result of years (centuries) of history particular to that
nation. In Western Europe alone, there are instances of multiple
established churches (e.g., Finland), of states collecting church
taxes and paying clergy (e.g., Denmark and Iceland), along with
various other arrangements (Norway, Greece, Switzerland). It is
simply wrong to say that the UK position is somehow aberrant.
We should not seek to imitate some theoretical, abstract, model
of alleged church-state neutrality, but rather to work within
the boundaries of the traditions and existing social conditions
that are particular to the UK.
3. The existing arrangements
a) The factors outlined above do not mean that
there should necessarily be religious voices—whether
Church of England bishops or otherwise—as of right in any
reformed second chamber. However, to provide space for such voices
is entirely within the logic and the spirit of the Draft Bill
as it stands. It would also align with public support for a second
chamber which includes independence, expertise and the ongoing
presence of figures who would not ordinarily seek election.
b) The bishops currently provide a service to
the House which is deep but narrow. On the one hand, they bring
a degree of 'connectedness': through an early ministry in parish
life, the life of their diocese/region, the broader life of the
worldwide Anglican Communion, and through working closely with
civil society organisations, locally and nationally. On the other
hand, and while there is evidence of increased activity, most
participate in the House infrequently. Quite legitimately, their
proper focus is their pastoral ministry in their own community.
Members of the Committee will know that this means that the Lords
Spiritual do not and could not act as a 'religious party' in the
House. They do not tend to vote in numbers, and when they do they
are often found in different lobbies. They have only affected
the outcome of divisions in very rare cases.
c) On this point, it seems to be that a majority
of the work in the House of Lords is done by less than half of
the bishops. The Church of England's work in Parliament would
not, therefore, unduly suffer if their numbers were reduced to
12. It may be that they could fulfil a similar level of activity
with an even smaller number, provided that the remaining bishops
were given the appropriate level of support in their Diocese.
We acknowledge, however, that there are practical considerations
which must be borne in mind (for instance, daily prayers and the
passage of Church of England legislation). Similarly, their number
should not be so small as to force them into acting simply as
bishops to the House of Lords: it is advantageous that they retain
strong diocesan links and carry out work beyond Parliament.
d) Public opinion polls—specifically the
2010 ICM poll for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust—have
been cited in support of the removal of the bishops from the House.
We note that other polls have shown public views to be fairly
evenly split on the issue (e.g., a 2007 ComRes poll for the BBC).
Here, in the event that the episcopal presence was to be maintained,
65 per cent thought that the entitlement to sit in the upper chamber
should also be extended to non-Anglican religious leaders.
4. A broader religious presence
a) The bishops of the Church of England are unusually,
but not uniquely, well placed to serve in a House that offers
independence and expertise. Leading religious figures (e.g., Lord
Sacks and Lord Singh) are offered seats in the House of Lords
under the ordinary criteria of the Lords Appointments Commission
(though all parties in the appointments process could be encouraged
to be more proactive when it comes to similar candidates).
b) The existing arrangements are ecclesiologically
and theologically appropriate to the Church of England, since
its place is founded both on the historical and symbolic link
between church and state, and on the substantive contribution
that the bishops have been able to make over time. These arrangements
clearly do not pertain to other religious traditions. Not only
do they have different internal structures but also different
understandings of the proper relationship between church and state.
Roman Catholic Canon law prohibitions on clerics taking up positions
in legislative assemblies are a case in point.
c) Therefore, the question of what mechanism
could be deployed in order the select broader religious representation
is clearly a vexed one. It is our view, however, that this is
a practical difficultly, rather than one that in principle
should prevent a broader religious presence in the House.
i) In the first instance, it is probably misguided
and unnecessary to approach this on a principle of seeking to
create a socially reflective religious presence in the House of
Lords.
ii) It seems wise to adopt a more flexible approach
in which the Appointments Commission takes the lead. It would
rarely be appropriate to have religious appointees who, like the
bishops, would take their seat qua a senior clerical position,
though some non-Anglican Christian denominations might more naturally
produce figures of internal authority. Nevertheless, the existing
approach of the Appointments Commission—which in many ways
could be described as acknowledging the way in which some religious
figures command broad public respect over time—could be
formally acknowledged and strengthened.
iii) Beyond this, we see several ways in which
the Bill could be shaped. One way forward would be to approach
each five- yearly round of appointments with an explicit intention
to see religious traditions represented in the wider appointed
portion of the House, separately from the 12 (or potentially fewer)
positions for the Church of England Bishops. Another would be
to reduce the number of bishops still further (perhaps to 8, including
London, Canterbury and York for the sake of the symbolic connection
with a further 5 selected from the wider pool) and to have the
remaining supernumerary 'Lords Spiritual' positions filled by
the Appointments Commission with a mix of individuals from non-Anglican
Christian communities, and then prominent lay figures from religious
minorities.
5. Concluding points
a) The Draft Bill and White Paper suggests that
the 12 bishops should be selected by the Church of England, but
without specifying a mechanism. We recommend that the Committee
should give further consideration to this issue. Transparency
of process is clearly an important test for any remaining appointed
element.
b) The Establishment of the Church of England
is an important background concern. Clearly, the presence of the
bishops in the House of Lords is not a necessary condition of
Establishment. However, it is clearly part of the 'ecology' of
Establishment. There is no groundswell of opinion amongst religious
minorities for an undoing or substantial renegotiation of this
relationship. Indeed, anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that
religious minorities in the UK are particularly keen on the visible
presence of religious figures qua religious figures in the House
of Lords, and this is key to remember in the attempt to create
a fair, responsive and representative second chamber.
24 November 2011
| 
