Written evidence from Humanists UK[1] (MHL04)

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Membership of the House of Lords inquiry

SUMMARY

●          We are concerned about the convention that former archbishops are given life peerages upon retirement from the Church of England; or any other convention (if there is such a convention) that peerages are awarded to holders of particular religious offices, merely by virtue of their holding that office.

●          While understanding it may be out of scope for this inquiry, we also oppose the automatic right for 26 Church of England bishops to be appointed to the House of Lords as of right.

Recommendations

We endorse recommendations made by the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) in its 2020 publication Time for Reflection: A report on religion or belief in the UK Parliament,[2] which focuses on reform to make the House of Lords a more inclusive place and more reflective of the people it serves. Of relevance to this inquiry these recommendations include:

●          The Bishoprics Act 1878 and the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 be repealed, thereby removing the automatic right of the various bishops and Archbishops to sit in the House of Lords.

●          The House of Lords Appointments Commission should avoid any custom or practice of awarding peerages to individuals by virtue of being representatives of any religion or denomination, including awarding life peerages to former archbishops, and appoint religious leaders only on merit in the same way as for everyone else.

INTRODUCTION

While we have responded to multiple questions from the Committee’s inquiry, we are limiting our response to our concern about the automatic appointment of 26 Church of England bishops in the House of Lords, as well as the appointment process which sees retiring Archbishops of Canterbury and York routinely awarded life privileges.

Demographics

The latest British Social Attitudes Survey shows that the share of the population belonging to no religion has continued to grow, standing at 53%, with 12% Anglicans, 7% Catholics, 18% other Christians (so 37% Christian total), and 9% all other religions. More than that, it shows that the share of non-religious people will continue to rise over the coming decades, with some 68% of 18-24 year olds saying they belong to no religion, versus just 18% saying they are Christians – including just 0.7% saying they are Anglicans.[3] However, the House of Lords is heavily Christian, even ignoring the bishops. After the last election 72% of peers swore in on the New Testament, 6% on other religious texts, 2% generically swore an oath, and just 20% said a secular affirmation. Then there are the 26 bishops of the Church of England appointed by right and daily opening of proceedings with Anglican prayers. These arrangements in themselves mean the House of Lords does not reflect the diverse make-up of the UK.

Background on bishops in the House of Lords

In its chapter on ‘Bishops in the House of Lords’,[4] the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group comprehensively argues against the automatic rights of bishops, or indeed any religious representative, to sit in the House of Lords as of right. We consider the arguments for this in our consultation response.

The role of the Lords Spiritual is active and influential in law-making. But not only do they speak, vote, and serve on committees like other peers, bishops are subject to a number of privileges:

●          They have their own bench so they always get seats when others have to compete. This is particularly disadvantageous to non-Christian peers who do not attend prayers and who are less likely to get seats for the most popular debates.

●          They have privileged speaking rights over other peers – when a bishop wants to speak, others are expected to give way.[5]

●          They are exempted from the portions of the Code of Conduct of the Lords that forbid payment for providing advice and services, enabling them to advocate on behalf of the Church of England.[6]

RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

Are the current arrangements for appointments to the House of Lords sufficiently robust to produce an effective and trusted Chamber?

No, the current arrangements of appointments to the House of Lords undermines its ability to produce an effective and trusted chamber. Although we understand that this happens as of right due to the Bishoprics Act 1878 and the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 and therefore may be out of scope for this inquiry, we raise our concerns about the automatic right of Church of England bishops to be appointed to the House of Lords as of right as it is unfair, unjustified, and unpopular.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London, Winchester, and Durham, and (subject to current temporary arrangements for accelerating the appointment of women bishops to the House) the next 21 most senior (by length of appointment) diocesan bishops sit in the House of Lords ex-officio in the House of Lords.

The fact that 26 Church of England bishops are permitted to not only sit but, as outlined above, have sitting and speaking privileges over other peers as of automatic right undermines the Lords’ effectiveness and trust. The UK is one of only two sovereign states in the world to award seats in its legislature to religious representatives as of right, with the other being Iran.

This automatic right for one particular branch of one particular religion is hard to justify in today’s plural society. The UK is increasingly diverse in regards to religion or belief, and the number of adults and young people identifying as non-religious is growing as stated above.

Further, public opinion is opposed to the automatic right of bishops to sit in the Lords. Over 60% of those responding to a survey conducted in 2022 said bishops should no longer have automatic seats in Parliament.[7]

It is geographically unfair too. The bishops only represent England, leaving Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland unrepresented.

We are aware that bishops may not necessarily represent the views of Anglicans. The views of the bishops may in fact be controversial and rejected by a clear majority of people in the UK with equally sincerely held convictions – even by a majority of those who define themselves as protestants. A pertinent example is the [then] recent vote on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, where polls show that 81% of protestants ‘think that a person who is suffering unbearably from a terminal illness should be allowed by law to receive medical help to die, if that is what they want’ but the bishops opposed the Bill.

How should the rules governing the appointments process be set out? Is guidance and convention sufficient or is a statutory basis for such appointments required?

The appointments process should be amended to avoid the custom of awarding peerages to individuals merely by virtue of being representatives of any religion or denomination, including awarding life peerages to former archbishops. Religious leaders can definitely be in the Lords but should only be appointed on the same meritocratic basis as for everyone else.

All Archbishops of Canterbury and York of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries were awarded peerages upon retirement, with the exception of two who died in office and one who retired from ill health. Other former Lords Spiritual have also been awarded peerages:

Similarly, all former Archbishops of York since the turn of the 20th century have been awarded peerages, save for one who died in office, one who reportedly died before his peerage could be legally created, and one who resigned owing to ill health and died shortly thereafter:

Other religious leaders have also been awarded life peerages, but these are arguably on the meritocratic basis described above.

Is HOLAC carrying out its role effectively?

As stated above, we challenge the custom of the Commission awarding life peerages to former archbishops.

What reforms, if any, should be made to the current appointments process?

To recap, we endorse the recommendations in the APPHG’s report Time for Reflection that:

●       The Bishoprics Act 1878 and the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 be repealed, thereby removing the automatic right of the various bishops and Archbishops to sit in the House of Lords.

●       The House of Lords Appointments Commission should avoid any custom or practice of awarding peerages to individuals by virtue of being representatives of any religion or denomination, including awarding life peerages to former archbishops, and appoint religious leaders only on merit in the same way as for everyone else.

August 2023