Peers have called for an end to the bishop’s bench and the established church in a debate on a bill to remove discriminatory restrictions on Jewish and Catholic prime ministers.
Because of the Church of England’s established status, the prime minister retains a formal role in advising the monarch on more than 350 Church appointments. However, 19th century legal provisions specifically prevent Catholic and Jewish prime ministers from fulfilling this obligation. The prohibitions do not extend to other religions or beliefs.
The Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) bill, which passed its second reading in the House of Lords yesterday, would end the restrictions.
In the debate, crossbench peer John Birt (pictured) said we should go further and “completely eliminate ancient, archaic religious discrimination or favour from every part of the UK’s constitutional settlement.”
In August, the NSS called on Andy Burnham, the UK’s first Catholic prime minister, to address the discriminatory restrictions as part of a broader review of the constitutional relationship between Church and state. The bill is set to pass its final legislative stages on November 23.
‘Time to secularise British state and constitution’
Twenty-six Church of England bishops sit by right in the House of Lords. Birt noted that “Iran is the only country in the world, besides the UK, that embeds clerics of one religion in a position of political power.”
“There can be no case, in a country of many faiths and no faith, for a single English Church to be embedded in our Parliament”, he said.
He also called for an end to legal restrictions which mean the monarch “cannot be a Catholic but rather must be a Protestant and in communion with a Church from only one part of the United Kingdom”.
All of this is an “unwelcome tangle, a legacy of a troubled and divisive past”, he said. He told the Government it was now time to consider how that legacy “can be disentangled” and “to identify exactly how we can best secularise the British state and constitution”.
‘Establishment creates the problem’
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Purvis said, “The only reason why this Bill is needed now is that the Prime Minister of the day, whoever they are and whatever they believe, still plays a part in choosing bishops in the Church of England. It is establishment that creates the problem”.
“I do not believe that the state is bound to profess a religion. Therefore, I do not believe that the political leader should advise on religious affairs, nor that clerics should have reserved places in a legislature”, he added.
Role of NSS founder Charles Bradlaugh acknowledged
Conservative peer Daniel Moylan said, “In 1829, Jews were still excluded from sitting in Parliament. In fact, atheists were also excluded until well into the 19th century and the Bradlaugh case. They were excluded by the oath because they could not take it, and the Charles Bradlaugh case changed that”.
NSS founder Charles Bradlaugh was elected MP for Northampton in 1880. As an atheist, Bradlaugh requested to affirm rather than swear the religious oath required for MPs to take their seat in the House of Commons.
His request was denied, and the House also refused to allow him to take the oath, meaning he was unable to take his seat for many years. The situation was only resolved in 1886 when the Speaker finally allowed Bradlaugh to take the oath. Bradlaugh’s Oaths Act 1888 later allowed nonreligious MPs to make an affirmation instead of an oath.
‘Discriminating against specific faiths incompatible with modern democracy’
Introducing the bill for the Government, Labour peer Angela Smith said “maintaining statutory discrimination against specific faiths is incompatible with a modern, representative democracy”.
She failed to acknowledge that state funded schools can legally discriminate on the basis of religion in admissions, even when this disadvantages racial and religious minorities. Furthermore, daily acts of broadly Christian collective worship are legally required in schools in England and Wales, even if the schools are non-religious.
The bill does not “alter the constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the Church of England”, she added.
The bishop of Manchester, who sits by right in the Lords, said the “establishment relationship is not designed for the Church of England to secure special privileges for itself.” He has previously used his position in the legislature to argue for religious exemptions to child abuse laws.
NSS: ‘Ultimately, what we need is complete separation of Church and state’
National Secular Society spokesperson Alejandro Sanchez said: “We welcome calls from peers for an end to religious privilege in every part of our constitutional settlement.
“The bill should prompt a wider review of the anomalies arising from the Church’s established status, not least the reserved seats for 26 of its bishops in the House of Lords.
“Ultimately, what we need is complete separation of Church and state.”