Should bishops remain in the Lords?

Amid the tumult of constitutional reform, an ancient privilege fundamental to Britain's makeup is under threat. But will it really matter if bishops are barred from sitting in the Lords?

By Alex Stevenson

One of the most distinctive features of the 'mother of all parliaments' is the institutionalised guarantee of seats for the Church of England's top cloth. Twenty-six bishops are allowed to sit in the Lords by virtue of their ecclesiastical position as the 'lords spiritual'.

It was the case half a millennium ago. It is the case today. It may not be the case in ten years' time.

Up for grabs is the entire makeup of parliament's second chamber - the extent of its powers, how it will be chosen, even its name. Jack Straw revealed yesterday his preference is for the Lords to be renamed the Senate. That gives a flavour of the extent of the changes afoot.

If the current government gets its way a third of the Lords would be elected at the next general election. In the election after that, another third would become elected.

Then a difficult choice would have to be made between shifting to an 80 per cent elected chamber or going the whole hog, and making the entire body representative. In the latter scenario, bishops would automatically be swept away.

In the four-fifths alternative, they could retain a reduced link to parliament. They could be protected, alongside other prominent individuals like retired military chiefs and the astronomer-royal.

This is not just theoretical star-gazing. The Commons backed both options last year and all main parties are committed as a result. The next ten years, therefore, will see an intensive debate take place about all these issues. Among them, the role of the Church of England in British public life stands tall.

Removing bishops from the Lords, or Senate, or whatever the second chamber will be called, is unsurprisingly not something the Church would be happy to surrender. Yesterday Straw suggested bishops might decide it is "appropriate" to bow out on their own accord. A spokesman for the Church told politics.co.uk there was no such view at present.

"This is a guess which has no basis in what the Church of England has said thus far," the spokesman said.

"The Church has been consistent in challenging the case for a wholly elected chamber."

No surprises there. As Straw acknowledged, pushing through these reforms will be hard-fought. Breaking with tradition is not easily done. Achieving any kinds of Lords reform, a century after the Parliament Act, has been a monumental struggle. As Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy said, it breeds its own kind of patience.

"We're talking about keeping a system when the parts of the UK [other than England] get Anglicanism through the back door," he pointed out.

Not much has changed since February 2007, when the Archbishop of York John Sentamu reminded peers of the constitutional role of the Church.

"We do not see ourselves as representatives, but as connectors with the people and parishes of England," he said in the debate on Lords reform. "Ours is a sacred trust - to remind your Lordships' House of the common law of this nation, in which true religion, virtue, morals and law are always intermingled; they have never been separated."

Not all agree with that viewpoint. The British Humanists Association, for one, argues the claim that bishops are "uniquely qualified to provide ethical and spiritual insights... is factually incorrect and offensive". It objects to their exclusive presence in the chamber. Its calls their ongoing privilege "an affront to democratic principles".

The battle lines have been drawn. This is not just about the technical debates over the extent to which the Church will be disestablished if it is barred from the Lords. It forms part of a much wider debate: the role of religion in society.

Britain will have to decide within the next decade whether it will maintain the centuries-old link between parliament and its bishops or sweep the church aside. "These arguments will work themselves out in the wash," Straw said blithely yesterday. Easier said than done.