Church of England press release:
The Church of England has today submitted its response to the Government’s consultation on Civil Partnerships in Religious Premises.
A Church of England spokesman said: “Given the decision that Parliament has already taken to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in the Equality Act 2010, the response focuses on the need to assure that the forthcoming regulations continue to provide unfettered freedom for each religious tradition to resolve these matters in accordance with its own convictions and its own internal procedures of governance.
“That means that there needs to be an ‘opting in’ mechanism of the kind that the Government has proposed. In the case of the Church of England that would mean that its churches would not be able to become approved premises for the registration of civil partnerships until and unless the General Synod had first decided as a matter of policy that that should be possible.”
The full text of the submission that addresses the specific questions raised by the consultation is set out below.
Some key passages relating to whether the Church of England will allow its premises to be so used are copied below the fold (emphasis added).
33 CommentsThe Tablet had an article last week by Francis Davis entitled Players in the public square.
Catholic bishops are often overshadowed in the national debate by their Anglican counterparts, as shown in the furore caused by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s critique of the Coalition Government last week. A Catholic academic and political adviser asks why this may be…
A sample of the analysis:
23 Comments…For a start, there are more than 100 Church of England bishops across 43 dioceses compared with 29 Catholic bishops across 19 dioceses in England. Catholic bishops in these dioceses shepherd around 4,000 clergy in England while the Anglican tally is double that number, bringing with them spouses and children whose joys and sorrows have direct consequences for the success of diocesan ministry.
The Anglicans have more than twice the number of schools – 4,820 with more than a million pupils – giving them greater presence in communities and opportunities for encounter. These schools are mainly primaries while the Catholic Church has far more secondary schools. There are 2,000 Catholic schools altogether in England and Wales educating 860,000 children.
I have also selected for closer examination the 19 Church of England bishops whose dioceses most closely compare with their Catholic counterparts. In these dioceses, Catholic bishops are generally older and remain in post longer than the Anglicans. The average Catholic episcopal age is 66 and their average service a decade at the diocesan helm compared to 60 and just over seven years for the Anglicans. Church of England bishops normally retire a decade younger than their Catholic counterparts.
This contrast in institutional reach and episcopal age is mirrored by matters of formation and experience. Each of the 19 Church of England bishops I surveyed had at least one degree from Oxford, Cambridge, London or another leading university. Only nine Catholic bishops in England have degrees from outside Catholic institutions, with some having pursued all their studies from secondary age in a seminary. Four of the current Anglican bishops have published more books between them than all English Catholic bishops combined since the Second Vatican Council. This is not only a question of class, as half of both groups surveyed were schooled in grammar or other state schools…
Third Sector reports:
The charity Catholic Care has been refused permission to appeal against a ruling that it cannot exclude gay couples from using its adoption service.
That earlier ruling was reported here on 26 April: Charity Tribunal rejects appeal from Catholic adoption agency.
This latest ruling can be found at Decision on Application for Permission to Appeal (7 June 2011).
6 Comments…In the document, Alison McKenna, principal judge of the charity tribunal, wrote: “I have concluded that the grounds of appeal before me do not identify ‘errors of law’ in the decision.
“In the circumstances, I conclude that there is no power for the tribunal to review its decision in this case and I have also, for the same reasons, concluded that permission to appeal should be refused.”
Benjamin James, a solicitor at the law firm Bircham Dyson Bell, acting on behalf of Catholic Care, told Third Sector the charity could appeal to the Upper Tribunal for a review of the charity tribunal’s decision not to allow the appeal. He said trustees had not decided whether to do so.
Press release from the Equality and Human Rights Commission: Religion or belief discrimination in Britain
A review of research evidence commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission indicates there are different perceptions about the legal protections for religion or belief and about the level of discrimination towards different religions or beliefs.
Evidence in the report shows that people’s understanding of their rights around religion or belief is not always matched by recent changes to equality law. The Commission is concerned that this could be preventing people from using their rights…
View the report: Religious discrimination in Britain: A review of research evidence, 2000-10 by Paul Weller of the University of Derby.
(The Commission’s statistical briefing paper on Religion or Belief is also available.)
Read the interview with Trevor Phillips in the Telegraph: Trevor Phillips wades into debate on religion in modern society by Jonathan Wynne-Jones. This interview has provoked a lot of reactions from all sides, and I will add some further links to these later.
Some responses:
Evangelical Alliance Evangelical Alliance responds to Trevor Phillips on religious freedom and Trevor Phillips’ comments on freedom of religion and belief miss the point, says Evangelical Alliance
Christian Concern Equality Commission questions Christian ‘integration’
British Humanist Association Humanists call for EHRC Chair Trevor Phillips to apologise, following ‘sectarian and divisive’ statements
3 CommentsUpdated twice on Monday evening
There has been an outburst of media reports yesterday all based on the release by the Church of England of a legal opinion prepared by the Legal Office, with this title. Many of them are wildly inaccurate.
The document was officially published here, and an html version is now available here.
As the cover note shows, this is published to synod members for information only. No synodical action is planned in respect of it.
I attach for the information of Synod members a copy of a note on the Equality
Act prepared by the Legal Office in connection with episcopal appointments for
members of Crown Nominations Commissions and diocesan bishops and their
Advisory Groups.
The document is identical to the one leaked over three weeks ago to the Guardian and published in full by them. See the links in this report on TA dated 26 May: House of Bishops tied in knots over gay bishops and in particular this link to “legal document”.
Updated paragraph
The regular pre-synod press briefing is scheduled for this morning. There may be more to report following that event. took place this morning. It was confirmed that this document is being issued for information only (due at least in part to having been previously leaked by the Guardian) and that it presages no synodical action and proposes no change from recent past practice in selecting bishops.
Second update
Reform has issued a press statement: Reform calls for legal advice on Bishops’ Appointments to be withdrawn.
37 CommentsThe Anglican Church of Canada has produced further material, in addition to its excellent study guide and linked materials which were mentioned earlier.
see the press release: Governance Working Group analyzes Covenant.
…This GWG report is one step in the Anglican Church of Canada’s ongoing consideration of the Covenant. A resolution at General Synod 2010 (A137) requested several actions to advance this work. First, the Anglican Communion Working Group was asked to prepare materials for parishes and dioceses to study the Covenant and give feedback. These materials were released June 9 and are available online.
Both the GWG and the Faith, Worship, and Ministry Committee were asked to assess the Covenant by “providing advice on the theological, ecclesiological, legal, and constitutional implications.”
The resolution also requested that “conversations, both within the Anglican Church of Canada and across the Communion, reflect the values of openness, transparency, generosity of spirit, and integrity, which have been requested repeatedly in the context of the discussion of controversial matters within the Communion.”
After this period of consideration, the Council of General Synod will bring a recommendation regarding adoption of the Covenant to General Synod 2013.
The report itself is here as a PDF. There is also an Executive Summary, also a PDF.
I have reproduced below the fold those parts of the Executive Summary which are of most relevance outside Canada. A read of the full report is highly recommended, as many of the issues raised by it should be of concern to all Anglicans worldwide.
13 CommentsThe Anglican Journal reports: Canada’s top court denies appeal to dissident Vancouver churches
Press releases:
New Westminster: Supreme Court Denies Leave to Appeal
Anglican Network in Canada: Congregations Evicted from their Church Buildings
http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2011/06/17/anic-news-release-supreme-court/
Letters:
Pastoral letter from the Bishop of New Westminster (pdf)
Letter from the Canadian primate to the Bishop of New Westminster (pdf)
Press reports:
Vancouver Sun Top court refuses to hear appeal over four parish properties
National Post Breakaway Anglicans lose last legal avenue to claim ownership of church buildings, land
21 CommentsUpdated Friday morning
The Telegraph has a report about what the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Tony Baldry MP, has written in this week’s Church Times about the row following the article published last week in the New Statesman by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Tim Ross wrote this: Baldry: Archbishop must stop ‘shouting’ at ministers
The Archbishop of Canterbury should stop “shouting” at the government like a noisy protester in Parliament Square if he wants Church of England bishops to keep their seats in the House of Lords, a senior Conservative MP has suggested.
Here’s an excerpt:
Writing in the Church Times newspaper, he said that “dismayed” Tory MPs and ministers “simply feel monumentally misunderstood by the Archbishop”, who they believe has failed to grasp the scale of the financial difficulties that the coalition inherited from Labour.
Mr Baldry said that when he was appointed to be commissioner last year, he hoped it would be possible to avoid the “disintegration” of the relationship between the Church and Parliament.
“I am disappointed that, less than a year into this Parliament – a Parliament almost certainly of a five-year term – the perception of many MPs sitting on the Coalition benches is that the Church of England is shouting at us from the other side of the street,” he said.
“Later in this Parliament, the Church of England is going to want the understanding of MPs, not least when they debate the place of the Church of England in a reformed, mainly elected Second Chamber.”
He suggested that a further source of friction could develop over plans to consecrate women bishops, which have already caused an internal rift and led hundreds of Anglicans to convert to Roman Catholicism in protest.
Some MPs want the government to strip the Church of its exemption from equality rules and force traditionalists to accept women bishops.
The original is now available to all subscriber-only for one week, but here is one sentence from it that may explain why it is not the substance of the NS article but the reporting of it that is the cause of this response:
They [government ministers] simply feel monumentally misunderstood by the Archbishop. Lambeth Palace took care to circulate the full texts of the Archbishop’s New Statesman editorial to every MP; but, so far as my colleagues are concerned, it is no good responding to criticism by saying that that is not what the Archbishop said. In public life and politics, it is what is heard that matters.
Further update The full text of Baldry’s article is available via this page.
30 CommentsThe Sydney Morning Herald reported that Same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, says Jensen
ALLOWING same-sex couples to marry could lead to the acceptance of polygamy and incest, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, has warned.
Writing in the church’s newspaper, Southern Cross, Dr Jensen said the push for same-sex unions to be enshrined in the Marriage Act was not a drive for the extension of rights but the redefinition of ”one of the indispensable foundations of community”…
The full text of Archbishop Jensen’s article in Southern Cross titled Real Marriage can be found here (pdf).
Reaction in Australia was quite strong, see these letters, and also this report: Jensen gay marriage comments alarmist: AME.
35 CommentsAustralian Marriage Equality convenor Alex Greenwich hit back at the comments, saying any amendments to the Marriage Act would only mean that celebrants outside the Anglican community could perform same-sex marriages.
“The Archbishop should acknowledge we live in a secular, multi-faith society, and as such he must understand that his views should not be imposed on those religions that want to perform same-sex marriages, such as the Quakers and progressive Synagogues,” Mr Greenwich said in a statement on Saturday.
“Not one of the alarmist predictions made by the Archbishop have come to pass in any of the countries that allow same-sex marriages to take place, including Catholic Spain, Portugal and Argentina.”
Affirming Catholicism is holding a day conference on Thursday 30 June at St Matthew’s Westminster.
The full title is: Thy Kingdom Come! Prayer and Mission in the building of The Kingdom.
Details can be found here.
Speakers include:
Victoria Coren has written this: Bashing the Bishop.
… Dr. William’s oeuvre has caught the imagination, snatched headlines and triggered a national debate. Maybe we should swap jobs? Except I’d make a terrible archbishop.
It’s exactly what he should be doing, of course: getting stuck in to matters of public ethics, questioning the national conscience, being a strong and relevant voice on issues of social concern. I can understand why some in the press feel obliged to disagree with him – and this is a good thing; we all want to live in a country of robust debate – but the way that some have slammed him for speaking out at all is just embarrassing. It’s like they don’t understand who he is, what he does or what the role’s about…
(The NoTW article she mentions is here.)
Paul Vallely wrote at the Independent on Aid and what the Archbishop should have said.
Those naughty people at the New Statesman. Apparently when the Archbishop of Canterbury arrived to do his week as guest editor he was planning to write the main editorial on aid to Africa. But Rowan Williams was persuaded to offer, instead, his thoughts on the state of the coalition government one year in. The paper got the headlines it wanted but we have been deprived of his thoughts on the place we used to call the dark continent. So what might he have said? And why does it matter?
At least one other bishop has spoken up in support of the archbishop:
John Pritchard of Oxford is reported in the Witney Gazette Bishop John joins attack on ‘disastrous’ Government cuts.
3 CommentsUpdated Monday evening
The Church of St-Matthew-in-the-City in Auckland, New Zealand published this petition on its website: Petition to the Anglican Bishops of New Zealand. The heading reads:
Stop White Collar Crime – Ask NZ bishops to end their discrimination against gays and lesbians
Following an explanation of the specific NZ circumstances, it says:
We respectfully ask the bishops of the Anglican Church in New Zealand to be true to the values of the Gospel and end the discriminatory practices that prevent the selection and ordination of gays and lesbians who are in committed relationships.
Bishop Philip Richardson, Bishop in Taranaki then wrote this response: White collar crime?
And the anglicantaonga website also published a news article about the exchange, Bishop refutes “white collar crime”.
A new petition urging bishops to end their “discrimination” against gays and lesbians misunderstands both church law and the power of bishops to change church doctrine.
That’s the view of Bishop Philip Richardson, who has released a public response to the “Stop White Collar Crime ” petition being driven by Auckland’s St-Matthew-in-the-City…
Both Kiwianglo’s Blog and Anglican Down Under have drawn attention to this. Both seem to think this dialogue is a good development. Scroll down here to see Ron Smith’s comments. Peter Carrell has identified the following key passage from Bishop Richardson’s response:
I believe that General Synod needs to reach an agreed position on these three inter-related issues, in the following order:
First , whether sexual orientation towards those of one’s own gender is a consequence of wilful human sinfulness, or an expression of God-given diversity. This in itself requires the process of collective biblical exegesis, prayer and discussion and debate which we are engaged in.
Depending on our collective answer to the first question, the church might then be in a position to move to the development of a formulary for the blessing of committed, life-long, monogamous, relationships other than marriage.
It is worth making the point that as bishops of the Diocese of Waikato and Taranaki we have suspended the licenses of heterosexual ministers living in relationships other than marriage (for example, in civil unions) for exactly the reason that there is no agreed position in this church on the status of committed relationships other than marriage.
Thirdly, the church could agree that such relationships so blessed and formally recognised by the church meet the standards of holiness of life that is the call on every Christian life, and is required to be reflected in the lives of those called by God and affirmed by the church to holy orders.
Update
Bosco Peters has written a response to this: Gay Ordinations Invalid?
For our earlier report on the New Zealand situation, see New Zealand Maori diocese rejects Covenant.
Now, Bosco Peters reports that a second Maori diocese has also voted against it. See Maori momentum growing against Anglican Covenant. Below is the text of the motion, see Bosco’s post for further analysis.
1 CommentTE HUI AMORANGI O TE TAIRAWHITI
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
TURANGA-NUI-A-KIWASaturday 11 June 2011
Motion concerning the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant
IT IS MOVED:
That for the purposes of providing feedback to Te Hinota Whanui (General Synod) and Te Runanganui o Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa, Te Hui Amorangi o Te Tairawhiti wishes to express the following:
- We have carefully considered the text of The Anglican Communion Covenant, and what we know of the context in which it was proposed;
- In terms of our shared Mihingare and Anglican heritage, our call to communion, and our call to ministry and mission, the Covenant offers us nothing new or more compelling than the Spiritual Covenant that we already have with each other through faith in Jesus Christ;
- We see that Section Four of The Anglican Communion Covenant propose measures of compliance and discipline – including “relational consequences” and being declared “incompatible with the Covenant” – that go against our Gospel imperative to “love one another” (John 13:34-35).
We note that our sister Amorangi, Te Hui Amorangi o Te Manawa o Te Wheke, has stated its opposition to The Anglican Communion Covenant because:
- It is a threat to the rangatiratanga of the Tangata Whenua;
- It does not reflect our understanding of being Anglican in these Islands; and
- We should instead focus on the restoration of justice for Tangata Whenua under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
We agree with Te Hui Amorangi o Te Manawa o Te Wheke, and choose here to stand in solidarity with them.
For the reasons expressed above, Te Hui Amorangi o Te Tairawhiti states that it is opposed to the adoption of The Anglican Communion Covenant.
MOVED: Rev Don Tamihere SECONDED: Rev Connie Tuheke-Ferris
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH ACCLAMATION
A Private Member’s Bill has been introduced into the House of Lords by Baroness Cox entitled Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill.
To make further provision about arbitration and mediation services and the
application of equality legislation to such services; to make provision about
the protection of victims of domestic abuse; and for connected purposes.
The full text of the bill is available as a PDF file, and there are also explanatory notes.
Some news reports:
Guardian Bill limiting sharia law is motivated by ‘concern for Muslim women’
Telegraph Plans to curb influence of sharia courts to be unveiled
This bill has won support from an improbable alliance of lobbying groups:
Andrew Brown explains, in The state cannot curb sharia law alone.
A bill to limit the scope of courts is laudable, but sharia law’s discriminatory aspects must be undermined by Muslims.
He writes:
3 Comments…What is politically interesting about this is that it represents an alliance of Christians and atheists along with what one might call normal secularists who just dislike institutionalised sexism and exploitation. The campaign against sharia law has long been confined to a leftwing atheist ghetto. Cox has broken it out of that. It’s to the credit of both parties that Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society appeared next to an American Christian missionary at the launch of the bill yesterday.
There’s no doubt that the bill will be used by some people to stir up distrust and hatred of Muslims. But I don’t think that is in itself a good enough reason to oppose it. What it does is to make explicit the fact that Islam is practised like any other religion in Britain, under the rules that parliament makes…
From the Anglican Journal New resources help unpack the Anglican Covenant
Canadian Anglican parishes and individuals who would like to learn more about the proposed Anglican Covenant will soon have a study guide at their fingertips.
The Anglican Church of Canada’s Anglican Covenant Working Group has released the study guide on the national church’s website in time for Pentecost, June 12.
“We’re encouraging people to look at the [details of the Covenant] and to reflect on what its implications are,” diocese of Ontario Bishop George Bruce, chair of the working group, said in an interview.
And on the official church website, Anglican Covenant study now available.
The Anglican Church of Canada has released a study guide to help parishes and dioceses consider the Anglican Covenant, a document that, if adopted, would define the relations among the provinces of the Anglican Communion. The material was prepared by the Anglican Communion Working Group, chaired by Bishop George Bruce…
Exploring the Anglican Covenant is available as a PDF file from here.
6 CommentsUpdated again Friday evening
This is a selection from the huge volume of articles written today (Thursday) in response to the New Statesman article by Rowan Williams.
Church Mouse What Rowan really said in the New Statesman
Nick Baines Feeding frenzy
Andrew Brown Cif belief Rowan Williams is not interested in party politics
Gary Gibbon Channel 4 News Will Archbishop’s criticism spark repeat of 1980s?
Jonathan Wynne-Jones Telegraph Anyone who wants Britain’s Christian heritage preserved must be glad that Rowan Williams spoke out
Cranmer Three cheers for the Archbishop of Canterbury
Friday morning update
Church Times Primate criticises ‘policies for which no one voted’
Giles Fraser Guardian Archbishop of the opposition
Guardian editorial: Welfare reform: Canterbury tales
Financial Times editorial: Pundit in purple
Telegraph editorial The Archbishop should not have played politics
Independent Leading article: Voice in the wilderness
Gregory Cameron interviewed by BBC Wales video Archbishop of Canterbury ‘right to ask questions’
Friday evening update
Daily Mail editorial Politics, morality and a discredited archbishop
Jonathan Wynne-Jones Telegraph Why the Catholic Church stands to gain from Rowan Williams’ outburst
Church Mouse Top five silly things said in the news yesterday
Nick Spencer Cif belief An archbishop who can spark national debate
Stephanie Flanders BBC God, poverty and the government (includes video interview with Ian Duncan Smith)
Simon Barrow Ekklesia Daily Mail tries to launch a ‘holy war’
15 CommentsBy an extraordinary coincidence, Theos has chosen today to publish its report, Turbulent Priests? (link to PDF copy)
2 Comments‘Turbulent Priests?’, by Daniel Gover, examines the political interventions of Rowan Williams, George Carey and Robert Runcie since 1979.
Covering issues as wide ranging as asylum, criminal justice, military conflict and church schools, the report seeks to answer the question: does the Archbishop of Canterbury contribute a moral voice in support of the common good that is much needed in contemporary British politics?
Updated again Thursday noon
Update the New Statesman has now published the full text of the leading article: The government needs to know how afraid people are by Rowan Williams.
I can imagine a New Statesman reader looking at the contents of this issue and mentally supplying: “That’s enough coalition ministers (Ed).” After all, the NS has never exactly been a platform for the establishment to explain itself. But it seems worth encouraging the present government to clarify what it is aiming for in two or three key areas, in the hope of sparking a livelier debate about where we are going – and perhaps even to discover what the left’s big idea currently is…
other updates at the bottom
Tim Ross has a front page story in Thursday’s Telegraph, headlined Rowan Williams condemns ‘frightening’ Coalition.
Dr Rowan Williams will launch a sustained attack on the Coalition in the most outspoken political intervention by an Archbishop of Canterbury for a generation.
He warns that the public is gripped by “fear” over the Government’s reforms to education, the NHS and the benefits system and accuses David Cameron and Nick Clegg of forcing through “radical policies for which no one voted”.
Openly questioning the democratic legitimacy of the Coalition, the Archbishop dismisses the Prime Minister’s “Big Society” as a “painfully stale” slogan, and claims that it is “not enough” for ministers to blame Britain’s economic and social problems on the last Labour government.
The comments come in an article he has written as guest editor of this week’s New Statesman magazine.
His two-page critique, titled “The government needs to know how afraid people are”, is the most forthright political criticism by such a senior cleric since Robert Runcie enraged Margaret Thatcher with a series of attacks in the 1980s.
Lambeth Palace is braced for an angry response but Dr Williams, who became Archbishop of Canterbury nine years ago, is understood to believe that the moment is right for him to enter the political debate…
Damian Thompson adds that Rowan Williams returns to Old Labour sloganising as he desperately tries to distract himself from Anglican meltdown.
The New Statesman itself reports the story this way: Archbishop of Canterbury: “no one voted” for the coalition’s policies.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has launched a remarkable attack on the coalition government, warning that it is committing the country to “radical, long-term policies for which no one voted.” In a leading article in tomorrow’s New Statesman, which he has guest-edited, Rowan Williams writes that the “anxiety and anger” felt by voters is a result of the coalition’s failure to expose its policies to “proper public argument”.
With specific reference to David Cameron’s health and education reforms, the Archbishop says that the government’s approach has created a mixture of “bafflement and indignation” among the public…
Updates
The Telegraph also has these:
Rowan Williams: timeline of Archbishop’s political views
Friction between Church and State: a history of outspoken Archbishops of Canterbury
Guardian Downing Street hits back at archbishop’s broadside
Telegraph Archbishop of Canterbury defended by Lord Tebbit
New Statesman Philip Pullman on what he owes to the Church of England
24 CommentsAccording to a recent report in the Telegraph,
European judges have ordered ministers to make a formal statement on whether it believes Christians’ rights have been infringed by previous decisions in the British courts, which have repeatedly dismissed their right to dress and act according to their beliefs.
The move by the European Court in Strasbourg is because Christians who believe they have suffered discrimination for their beliefs are taking a landmark legal fight the court…
Their cases have been selected by the European Court as of being of such legal significance that they be examined further.
Once ministers have responded the court will decide whether to have full hearings on them.
You can read the two documents filed with the European Court of Human Rights first here and then here.
This analysis of the subject area by Philip Henson is very helpful: Discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. Scroll down to Persecuted Christians? for his discussion of these four cases:
How many of you have forgotten about the “big four” – the cases of Lillian Ladele, Gary McFarlane, Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida? What do these people all have in common? The answer is that they have all recently issued applications at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
The European angle has been massively overlooked almost all legal commentators, but it is the ECHR which will be the final battleground in the struggle for a superior right.
The British Humanist Association had this comment: European Court of Human Rights considers hearing cases which demand more privilege for Christianity.
The Christian Legal Centre had: European Court to rule on Christian discrimination cases.
4 CommentsTwo recent articles on this topic:
Diversity and democracy: Reforming the Lords by Patrick McGlinchey at Left Foot Forward.
The inclusion in the white paper of a 20 per cent appointed chamber option is a cause for concern. However, it is the proposal to allow 12 Church of England bishops to retain their seats as Lords Spiritual that could fundamentally hold the House of Lords back from democratisation and diversification.
To give special law-making privileges to one faith group over all others is almost unheard of among democratic nations
Indeed, the only global equivalent is the ‘Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran’, which gives Islamic clerics similar privileges to Church of England bishops. In modern Britain, this system is clearly an outdated one which does not enjoy the support of our citizens.
An ICM poll commissioned by the Joseph Roundtree Reform Trust as part of the Power 2010 political reform initiative found that two-thirds of the public think anyone who sits in the House for Lords and votes on laws should be elected, and 70 per cent of Christians believe it is wrong that some Church of England bishops are given an automatic seat in parliament…
Their Lordships should beware: there is an overwhelming consensus behind Lords reform by Alan Renwick at Reading Politics (A blog of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Reading.)
7 CommentsThe government launched its proposals for reform of the House of Lords two weeks ago. At the time, there were widespread rumours that senior Labour and Conservative peers were gearing up to scupper the plans. A survey of peers reported in The Times this week appears to confirm this: 80 per cent of the peers who responded said they opposed a wholly or largely elected second chamber.
As The Times points out, if peers do indeed choose to oppose the government’s plans, they will be acting counter to the manifestos of all three main parties in last year’s general election. Labour promised “to create a fully elected Second Chamber” (in stages). The Liberal Democrats, similarly, pledged to “replace the House of Lords with a fully-elected second chamber”. The Conservatives were only slightly less reformist, saying, “We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords”.
But peers tempted to flex their muscles on this issue should be aware that the consensus across the parties surrounding House of Lords reform runs much deeper than this…