HL Deb 18 May 1988 vol 497 cc406-18

8.49 p.m.

Lord Tanlaw rose to ask the Leader of the House whether it is now appropriate for the bishops to continue to have to wear robes and sit and speak from the spiritual Benches when taking part in the proceedings of the House of Lords.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House for allowing time for me to raise this Question during what has obviously been a very busy period in your Lordships' House.

It was with some trepidation that I sent the wording of this Unstarred Question to the most reverend Primate to inquire whether or not there would be any objection to the phrasing of the words that are before your Lordships this evening. I am most grateful to the most reverend Primate that he did not object, and noble Lords therefore have an opportunity to proceed with this short debate. I am hopeful that the Leader of the House in his reply will be able to throw some much needed light on this ancient convention of the House, the background to which is obscure and which is considered by some to have become an historical anachronism.

I realise that as a simple layman and a Lord Temporal I must proceed with extreme caution in those areas where even angels fear to tread and which are the sole province of the Lords Spiritual. However, it is my contention that there may be some confusion in the minds of other laymen besides myself both inside and outside the Chamber as to what is the role of the Lords Spiritual and what precisely is the significance, if any, of the robes they wear when taking part in the proceedings in this Chamber. I believe that the confusion extends beyond the procedural conventions of this House when in a number of situations outside this country bishops, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, have felt it incumbent upon themselves to take part, often at great personal risk, in political action or debate against the established policies of their respective governments. The governments concerned, which are notably of an authoritarian or non-Christian institution, have become unsure as to whether to treat the bishops as political activists of societas humana or as inspired ministers of societas mystica. This confusion will continue to arise in my view, with all its attendant dangers, so long as bishops continue to make strong political statements while wearing clerical apparel associated in the minds of laymen and government officers alike with institutional religion.

My fear is that in some countries the net result could be the subsequent persecution of all Christians through classification as political agitators. Therefore I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House why it is apparently necessary for the noble Lords Spiritual to take part in the proceedings in this House relating to secular issues associated with societas humana while wearing clerical robes representing the ritual and dogma of societas mystica.

The existence or non-existence of societas mystica is a matter of private and personal interpretation. However, it can be described as an invisible communion of sentients, not necessarily tied to institutionalised religion, who possess the knowledge of personal enlightenment. Access is voluntary, the route arbitrary and the journey continuous, therefore ritual, dogma and religious instruction are only accessories, to be retained or discarded at will by the traveller.

Clerical robes are also an accessory, and it would be interesting to know from the noble Lord the Leader of the House when and why they became obligatory apparel for the Lords Spiritual taking part in the proceedings of this House. Could it be that the original instructions for this convention are to be found in the Royal Declaration of the 39 Articles of Religion of 1562, or do they appear in the subsequent Act of Ratification of the Book of Articles of 1571? Can the Leader of the House say whether these Acts are still on the statute book and, if so, have they any relevance to the Question before us this evening? I must confess that after a cursory investigation the only reference I can find to apparel appears in the Book of Articles of Religion, Article XXXV, Second Book of Homilies, Homily VI which holds forth "against excess of apparel".

Whether or not this ruling is to be found in the Acts of Parliament I have mentioned or in the Act of Uniformity of Common Prayer passed in 1562 or, as is more likely, in the Act for the Placing of the Lords in 1539, has the time not come to look again at this convention and to ask if it is really necessary or relevant to the secular work carried out in this House, or for the Lords Spiritual who participate in it to be encumbered by an "excess of apparel"? If the Leader of the House in his reply deems it necessary for the Lords Spiritual to continue with this practice, can he then explain why the noble and learned Lords, except for the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, are excused the wearing of their robes of office? Similarly can he explain why the noble and gallant Lords do not have to wear full dress uniform while taking part in the proceedings?

The second part of my Unstarred Question relates to the seating of the Lords Spiritual. In his reply, the Leader of the House will almost certainly quote to me from the Act of the Placing of the Lords 1539. If he does, can he explain why the Lords Temporal seem to have been able to ignore the contents of the said Act without incurring the displeasure of Their Majesties' Governments, regardless of their political tendency, for the past 50 years or so? If it turns out to be the fact that all the Acts I have quoted are in need of revision or repeal because they are outdated, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House not agree that now would be a good opportunity to bring this convention up to date by abandoning it?

However, I suspect that the noble Lord may not be able to consider this very reasonable suggestion until he has first established in what capacity the Lords Spiritual make their very constructive contributions to the proceedings of the House. Can he say in his reply if Lords Spiritual are contributing solely as representatives of the Church of England to the exclusion of all other churches, including Scotland and Wales, and the other denominations? Or do the Lords Spiritual sit as moral and spiritual guardians of Protestant Christian doctrine? The clerical robes which they wear indicate that either or both these postures are correct. However it is my contention that neither may be correct because the Lords Spiritual appear to me to act in this Chamber to all intents and purposes as though they were Lords Temporal who could sit as free agents on these Cross-Benches.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and his spiritual colleagues have demonstrated considerable political impact in the past few weeks by moving secular amendments to a secular Bill with notable assistance from the Cross-Benches but usually against the wishes of Her Majesty's Government.

However, when, during the course of these manoeuvres, the right reverend Prelate was confronted with a simple doctrinal—as opposed to political—question, he avoided a direct reply. That is recorded in Hansard at cols. 427–28 on 3rd May. Nor did any other of the Lords Spiritual give an authoritative answer to what in my view was a very fair question, considering that the amendment was about the religious education of children. I have since received a letter from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and from the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, which has explained to me that his intervention was a technicality and the reason he was asked that he be no longer heard in this Chamber was for this reason and not because he had asked a doctrinal question.

If noble Lords will bear with me, I believe it would be helpful if the noble Lord the Leader of the House could now give a ruling whether, in spite of the fact that the Lords Spiritual wear clerical robes—which presumably represent their high qualifications relating to the doctrine of the established Church—any questions on this subject by Lords Temporal are to be ruled out of order. Similary, are any other doctrinal questions raised in the future to be considered disrespectful to the proceedings in the House if they are raised by Lords Temporal?

Anyone who read the Official Report of the proceedings on 3rd May may be left as I was, perhaps wrongly, with the impression that such a ruling may already he in existence. What would happen in future if the Lords Spiritual or their equivalent were to take their seats on the Cross-Benches without the robes of office? Would the noble Lord the Leader of the House not approve of this move, which would publicly demonstrate that the functions of the Lords Spiritual within your Lordships' Chamber were entirely confined to secular matters relating to societas humana? Would he also not agree that philosophical and doctrinal questions could then be addressed to the Lords Spiritual or their equivalent only in their capacity as members of Synod, of the House of Bishops or of any other establishment associated with societas mystica, where the wearing of robes would correctly reflect their authority and ability to answer questions of this nature?

If this simple convention were to be implemented, might it not pave the way for more ecumenical representation to become acceptable in your Lordships' Chamber—perhaps similar to the suggestions made in a recent issue of the Church Times? Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House foresee the day when the Lords Spiritual could be replaced by a similar number of ecclesiastical Life Peers, who could sit on the Cross-Benches without robes and who would represent the episcopalian churches, with the Church of England in the majority and the balance filled with other denominations?

Finally, if a convention were to be accepted globally by bishops of every denomination that they would decline to wear ecclesiastical apparel while indulging in political activities, would that not reduce the risk of persecution, especially in non-Christian and totalitarian countries, of Christians who might wish to worship in public out of spiritual rather than political motivation?

It is clear that since Christianity became institutionalised in the third and fourth centuries AD, bishops have always been involved in secular activities connected with the establishment of the Church as part and parcel of societas humana. The recent encyclical, The Social Concerns of the Church, which was written personally by His Holiness Pope John-Paul II, confirms it and so do the contents of the address given last month by the most reverend Primate at the global forum of spiritual and parliamentary leaders.

All I am asking through this Unstarred Question is that bishops or any other officials of institutionalised religion who wish to take part in political activities may be able to do so on equal terms with their secular counterparts, without the props of excessive apparel. If the noble Lord the Leader of the House would kindly agree to look into this matter, I am sure there would be benefits to all concerned through clarification of the respective roles which we, whether Lords Temporal or Lords Spiritual, are intended to play within this secular Chamber of Parliament.

9.3 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark

My Lords, when some of the bishops first heard about this Question we asked ourselves what lay behind it. Was the noble Lord perhaps a friend of the honourable Member for Chesterfield in another place who is today proposing to disestablish the Church of England? Our researchers produced no obvious connection and it seemed unlikely, so we settled on the possibility that it was an oblique way of expressing disapproval either of one of us or possibly all of us but that I would have to wait for this evening in order to be sure.

I am somewhat relieved to hear the noble Lord's very interesting comments and to realise that we were a bit wide of the mark. But before coming to the more precise points which he raised about taking off our robes and changing our places, I should first like to say a word about certain things which need to be stressed rather clearly in relation to the Bench of Bishops in your Lordships' House. We do not regard ourselves, any of us, in any sense as party politicians. I realise that the noble Lord did not make that point, but it ought to be said because of the confusion that often arises here. We may occasionally make a speech or cast a vote this way or that which will support or criticise a policy, be it of government or of opposition. But few of us are card-carrying members of any party and still fewer of us, if any, would ever wish to be bound by some kind of party Whip—looking in the right direction while making that comment! We sit in this House, as has been pointed out, as spiritual Peers, and of course the robes are a very visible reminder of this. We would be happy to answer doctrinal questions—I want to assure the noble Lord about that—but the case that he cited, as he explained, was one in which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London found himself in some difficulty because he believed that it was not the right moment to be dealing with that question, and indeed it was out of order, as the House subsequently decided.

However, I think I am right in recalling some debates not so very long ago about divorce and remarriage; for instance, where Members of this Bench made what might certainly be regarded as philosophical or doctrinal comments on the points at issue. That does not mean that we can never pronounce an opinion on any of the subjects which your Lordships discuss or debate here, since all are in the strict sense political. To say that we are dressed as members of what has been called the societas mystica makes a distinction which is very difficult to sustain unless you are going to attach enormous significance to this particular dress at this particular moment.

There is for us no sharp distinction between the spiritual and the temporal of such a kind that we can live our lives, as it were, in two distinct compartments. We shall come back to the question of whether the dress in some way marks an emphasis which is particularly confusing. I believe that the noble Lord used that word, and that may be the point around which this Question revolves. But I want to stress that politics, as distinct from party politics, is about the science and art of government, and it is difficult to see why Her Majesty should summon us here at all if she then requests us to be silent after Prayers.

So the issue is and always has been how and where to draw the line between the principles of justice, moral considerations and the assessment of human consequences—all of which must be our primary concern as spiritual Peers—and those details of legislation and administration about which we are certainly as fallible as anyone else.

Let me give your Lordships an historical illustration of the way in which this has often worked in the past. We are not talking about a relatively new issue. Herbert Hensley Henson was Bishop of Durham in the 1930s—a firm supporter of Tory principles and government, and known as such, and certainly not a prelate who could ever be accused of courting popularity. Yet in 1938 he came to this House one day to debate on foreign policy—an area normally regarded as somewhat outside a bishop's concerns and perhaps outside societas mystica—and began with these words: My Lords, there could have been no Englishman, whatever his denomination or political description, who did not read with a sense of dismay and humiliation the report of the recent proceedings at Geneva. … The representative of Great Britain was the noble Viscount, the Foreign Secretary, a man whose character stands so high" — and there is more along those lines— and from his lips one heard the language—he must forgive me—the cold sophistry of cynical opportunism."—[Official Report, col 138; 18th May, 1938.] Reading that again it struck me that the language used is a good deal stronger than any we have heard from these Benches in recent years. Here was moral outrage, as I suppose one could call it, not party politics, although sometimes it is easy to confuse the two. At one point I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, was actually raising the question of disestablishment, though for quite other reasons to some. The noble Lord is shaking his head, and that is fine because the issue is obviously far too large and complex to be dragged in by the tails of robes and benches, so to speak.

I should like to turn briefly to the specific proposals that he has made and the confusion about which he is concerned. I believe it is true that, if one asks most bishops, they will say that it is a bit of a nuisance to have to keep taking off one's robes and putting them on again every time one wants a cup of tea or something a little more fortifying, or to go into the Library. I do not believe that we have a sense of changing our personality, character or concern by putting our robes on and taking them off.

It is true that robes belong more naturally to the sphere of church and worship and one feels a little out of place wandering about in them here. I take the point that there may be a connection between the wider point that the noble Lord is making and how we sometimes feel. However, I should not wish to exaggerate that. They are perfectly appropriate for the prayers. They identify us and, with television in your Lordships' House, that may be more important than it was. If we dropped the custom of wearing them all the time your Lordships might wish another custom to grow quickly by which the sartorial habits of some of the more radical clergy did not spread to the Bishops' Benches.

If the robes went, I believe that there would then be an even stronger case for continuing to sit here. In any event, I believe that there is a strong case for sitting here because we are near the Throne. It reminds us and noble Lords that we are here by courtesy of a royal choice and summons of long standing and have a particular loyalty to the Crown. We are near the Government Benches because the Christian faith requires us to pray for and support good rulers. But we are not part of government, so as a lighthearted ending perhaps I may suggest that when the House is due for redecoration and upholstering we may have little mitres at the end of the two benches rather like those on the top of church wardens' wands. That would indicate that there is something a little different about these two benches.

Finally, I should like to say a word about members of other Churches. I cannot speak for all but I believe that many of us would undoubtedly welcome a further infusion of Church leaders of other Christian Churches or other faiths, as happened recently. There are still very few, though I must recognise, as I am sure do many noble Lords, that we keep tipping over into a question of reform in this House and it is a more difficult question than is sometimes realised. However, were that to happen, even on a modest scale, I am sure that many of us would be happy to share our benches with them. After all, the noble and Methodist Lord, Lord Soper, always wears a cassock so he should feel quite relaxed among us.

9.13 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, from time to time we have some interesting Questions in this House and the Question that has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has been one of the most interesting. I have enjoyed the intervention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark.

There are a number of oddities relating to the bishops, if I may say so without disrespect. The Church in Wales was disestablished in 1921 and Buggin's turn does not appear to apply to Welsh bishops. As a result of disestablishment they lost their right to hold seats and be summoned by the Crown to Parliament. Similarly the Church of Scotland is established yet still has no representation in this House in the same way as Church of England. The noble Lord has done a service in drawing attention to those oddities.

I believe that there are three parts to the noble Lord's Question: first, should the bishops wear robes; secondly, should they speak from the Spiritual Benches; and thirdly, should they be involved in party-political or contentious political issues?

First, as to whether they should wear robes, I believe that they should because that identifies them, if I may so put it, as temporary Members of the House holding membership as long as they are bishops, unless of course through retirement and other appointments they become Members of the House. However, that is a separate procedure. While they hold episcopal or archepiscopal office, they have a certain role in the House and should be distinguished because they have that role. Therefore, they should wear robes.

However, there remains the question of what "robes" really means and what is the definition of episcopal dress. I believe that in the early 19th century a bishop was refused access to the Division Lobby in your Lordships' House because he was not wearing lace cuffs. The division was lost by one, therefore, because the bishop in question was improperly dressed. I notice that one right reverend Prelate sitting on the Spiritual Benches is wearing lace cuffs; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, I am afraid, is not. How do we distinguish?

I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to give us an instruction on how to distinguish between a bishop who is properly dressed and one who is improperly dressed. Is a pectoral cross a vital appurtenance of a bishop if he wishes to speak? Is the episcopal ring an important quality of the robes of which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, speaks? I very much hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to give some clear instruction on how we recognise a bishop when we see one and how we recognise a properly dressed bishop as opposed to an improperly dressed bishop when we see one.

Noble Lords who have visited Russia will be well aware that at Christmas time one sees, particularly in the streets of Leningrad, where it is an important festival—they call it the new year, but it is still part of the Christian tradition—a figure that to all intents and purposes looks like Father Christmas. It is in fact Father Frost, because the Soviet Union does not officially recognise the Christian religion. In Leningrad that figure is popularly known as Lenin in drag. I very much hope that we shall not reach the point where we have bishops in mufti simply because they have to take off their robes, whatever those robes may be, in order to speak on points that are not particularly pertinent to the Church of England.

Perhaps I may go back in time like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. In 1188 a certain Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury went through Wales—mid-Wales, I should tell my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones—and through the princedoms of Elvel and Maelienydd. He wore chain mail. At that time the Archbishop of Canterbury, as he was, wanted to recruit people for the crusade and was undoubtedly entitled to wear chain mail. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, had he had a suit of chain mail, might have felt yesterday that it was appropriate to wear it. Is a bishop who enters the Chamber in chain mail, following the example of the Archbishop of Canterbury of 1188, out of order?

I turn to the question of whether bishops should speak from the Spiritual Benches. In terms of the First World War song, which your Lordships will no doubt remember, it seems to me that we are here because we are here because we are here. I suspect that the answer to the question is that they are there because they are there because they are there. I do not believe that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to give us any clear, logical definition of why the bishops happen to sit where they do rather than anywhere else. I make just one comment. Since the other side of the House is known as the Spiritual Benches because of the presence of the bishops, to enter a slighty political note, I find it very curious that the Government are sitting on the spiritual side of the House rather than on the temporal side of the House. Surely the Opposition should be on the spiritual side of the House and the Government should be on the temporal side. No doubt the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to clear up the point.

The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, raised another point of a quite serious nature. It came down to whether the bishops were entitled in some curious way to speak on secular matters at all. The right reverend Prelate addressed himself to this point. I wholly agree with him that there is no serious distinction between societas mystica and societas humana. I do not think that the practice of religion can be separated from the practice of governance of society. I believe that that is the fundamental point that the right reverend Prelate made. We on these Benches would certainly agree with that. I think that it was said that some churchmen were political agitators.

I am greatly looking forward to hearing what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has to say, particularly concerning the distinction between a properly dressed Bishop and an improperly dressed one. In the meantime, I believe that the noble Lord has raised one or two serious points but, having occupied the attention of the House for a little too long, I conclude.

9.20 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for asking the Question this evening which has led to interesting speeches from the noble Lord himself, from the right reverend Prelate and from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The noble Lord asked whether it is now appropriate that bishops should need to continue to wear robes and to sit and to speak from the Spiritual Benches when taking part in the proceedings of your Lordships' House.

First, perhaps, I may deal with the question of whether right reverend Prelates should continue to wear robes when taking part in the proceedings of the House. That is really a matter for your Lordships, Spiritual as well as Temporal, having regard to the custom of the House. The Companion to the Standing Orders provides that a bishop, on introduction, should wear episcopal robes, but the practice of wearing such robes at ordinary sittings of the House appears to rest on custom alone. In answer to the first of the questions put to me by the noble Lord, that does not arise from any of the ancient Acts which he itemised.

Episcopal robes comprise a white rochet with black bands, a black chimer and scarf. I understand that rochet and chimer were the ordinary outdoor habit of bishops in the 16th century; and 16th century bishops attended in their everyday dress. While the everyday dress of bishops in the world outside has changed somewhat, old customs die hard in your Lordships' House. However, I have to confess that there are colleagues of mine on the Front Bench who deprecate the passing of both the gaiters and the apron. I am sure that your Lordships respect the customs of the House and as regards this particular custom I am not aware that your Lordships would wish to see it changed.

The second question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, was, if that is the case, why not a particular dress for certain other noble Lords; for instance, the Law Lords. My only answer to that is that there is simply no historical custom of dress for other Members of your Lordships' House other than for right reverend Prelates. At that point the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about some other items of dress. As I say, I am advised that episcopal dress consists of a white rochet with back bands and a black chimer and scarf. As ruffs are not to be found in the Companion to the Standing Orders, presumably ruffs are not part of the episcopal dress for parliamentary purposes. I am advised that neither is chain mail. Of course, if a right reverend Prelate were to wear chain mail under his rochet, probably that would be acceptable.

I now turn to the seating arrangements and here again I believe that we have to look at custom which pre-dates even the 16th century. Your Lordships' seating arrangements seem to have evolved from medieval times. Until the 16th century I am advised that the normal seating arrangement of the House had the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York to the left of the King and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury to the right. The bishops and abbots sat on Benches below the Archbishop of Canterbury; that is to say, on the right hand side of the House. The earls and barons sat below the Archbishop of York; that is to say, on the left-hand side of the House.

Lord Tordoff

Will the noble Lord forgive an intervention? I am grateful to him. He refers to left and the right, but looking in which direction?

Lord Beistead

My Lords, looking down the House from the Throne. I understand that was the way that the right reverend Prelates and the noble Lords disposed themselves. The reason for separate "sides" was doubtless due to the fact that before the Reformation there were rather more Spiritual Lords than there were Temporal Lords. This arrangement was broadly confirmed by the Act for Placing of the Lords of 1539, which is still in force to this very day. Under the Act, the Archbishops were moved to join the other Bishops on the right-hand side while the Lords Temporal continued to sit on the left in their degrees and according to the "ancienty" of their peerage.

It is unlikely, however, that the legal requirements of the Act were rigidly adhered to for long. Following the dissolution of the monasteries, the Lords Spiritual numbered only the two archbishops and the 24 diocesan bishops of the Church of England, while the Lords Temporal continued to grow in number and spilled over on to the spiritual side of the House, which is why one finds noble Lords who are temporal sitting on the side of the House on which I am my colleagues are sitting this evening.

The present convention is that, consistent with the statute of 1539, the bishops sit on the two Benches nearest to the Throne. Lords Spiritual must, by convention, speak from those two Benches. So we find that the seating arrangements, partly laid down by statute and partly by custom, go back a very long way. Here again, I detect no reason for change. Nor, I suspect, does your Lordships' House. Incidentally, it may be of interest that it is thought that the Government moved on to the spiritual side of the House after the union with Ireland in 1800.

One of the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, brought the Unstarred Question to the House this evening was to ask whether it is right that the bishops, sitting in the way that they do and dressed in the way that they are, should take part in the proceedings of your Lordships' House in the way that they do. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark for making the simple point that right reverend Prelates are summoned in the same way as all other noble Lords, personally, by Her Majesty, to come and give advice. It would be very strange if the advice was not wanted.

I have been interested to find that bishops could not originally be tried by their peers, nor could they take part in such trials. This was because canon law forbade spiritual persons from participating in judgments of blood. Therefore they are not Peers. Bishops are, however, Lords of Parliament and there are no restrictions on their right to vote. Not holding peerages, however, bishops leave the House on retirement. As we all know, in some cases peerages are conferred upon retiring archbishops in order that they may continue as Members of your Lordships' House.

It is to misunderstand the presence of right reverend Prelates to think that in some way on coming to the House there is something amiss by being on the Bishops' Benches but not taking full part in that capacity. The Writs of Summons are individually sent by Her Majesty. They are commanded to give counsel upon the "arduous and urgent affairs" which have occasioned the summoning of the Parliament. I therefore repeat that I very much agree with what the right reverend Prelate said: it is most important that the advice of the Bishops' Bench should be given on matters. Those are bound to include matters of political moment. I was most glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, made the point that, when the advice is given, it is important advice given always in a constructive way. The fact that the Welsh, the Irish and the Scots are not represented by the Bishops' Bench has been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I will not improve on that.

I should like to say a brief word to put a gloss on what the right reverend Prelate said about the question of doctrinal matters. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked whether the bishops were answerable on doctrinal matters. Technically, I am advised, that is not so. The bishops sit in response to their writs; where necessary they act on behalf of the Church in promoting measures, for example. But they are not answerable to the House. Technically, they do not represent the Church of England. Indeed, the Companion to the Standing Orders of the House states that it is undesirable to ask questions in your Lordships' House on Church of England matters.

I think that leaves me with one last question to answer from a noble Lord who asked: should not bishops be replaced by leaders of other Churches and right reverend Prelates possibly sit in a new capacity with the other leaders? Of course there is no reason why life peerages cannot be conferred in such a way upon leaders of other Churches. Although their peerages are personal to them, it could be said that some noble Lords, who are colleagues of ours now, are looked upon as being representative of their religions. However, I repeat that their peerages, in all those cases, are personal to those particular noble Lords and I am not aware of any present plans to alter the composition of the House in that respect.

I hope that I have gone some way, together with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the right reverend Prelate in covering the ground that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, wanted covered.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for raising what I think has been an extremely interesting debate. That is all I have to say except once again to thank the noble Lord for tabling the Question.