The UK is one of the last western democracies with a state religion: the Church of England.
The Church's entanglement with the state is bad for both.
Join our campaign to disestablish the Church.
CAMPAIGN ALERT: Support the disestablishment bill
In November 2023, a private member's bill to disestablish the Church of England was selected in the ballot.
Please write to your MP and urge them to support this bill, to make the UK are more equitable and democratic country for people of all religions and beliefs.
Since our founding in 1866, one of our primary objectives has been disestablishment of the Church of England: its formal separation from the state.
More than 150 years later, census figures show most people in England and Wales are not Christian. Surveys consistently reveal a similar picture in Scotland. The case for disestablishment has never been stronger.
Disestablishment means the Church would no longer have privileged input into government - but also that government could not involve itself in the running of the Church. Both sides would gain autonomy. This is why support for Church-state separation can be found within the CofE itself.
There have been many proponents, religious and non-religious, for church-state separation, and there are a wide variety of motivations for supporting this reform.
The existence of a legally-enshrined national religion privileges one part of the population, one institution and one set of beliefs. Removing all symbolic and institutional ties between government and religion is the only way to ensure equal treatment to citizens of all religions and none.
The Church of England has enjoyed significant privileges relating its established status for many centuries. These privileges have remained largely unchanged despite the massive and continuing reduction in support for the Church in the UK. It is highly likely that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future, making the Church of England's continuation as the established church unsustainable.
- Christians are a minority in Britain. In Wales and Scotland the majority have no religion.
- Just 1% of 18-24 year olds say they belong to the Church of England.
- Less than 1% of the population regularly attend Church of England church services.
The Church of England is also out of step with the UK public on several key issues: it remains opposed to same-sex relationships and allows parishes to reject women as bishops and priests. These discriminatory positions cannot be reconciled with the Church's status as part of the UK state.
And no institution with the shameful historical record of the Church of England safeguarding and abuse should retain its privileged role in the British establishment.
The existence of a legally enshrined national religion privileges one part of the population, one institution and one set of beliefs. Removing all symbolic and institutional ties between government and religion is the only way to ensure equal treatment of citizens of all religions and none.
Take action!
1. Write to your MP
Ask your MP to support the separation of church and state
2. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
3. Join the National Secular Society
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
Rush to register land as Chancel Repairs Act is modified
Posted: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:09
Residents, most of them elderly, of the parish of St Eadburgha in Gloucestershire had a nasty shock recently, when a letter from the Land Registry dropped through the door telling them that, because of the land on which their house was built, they had a potential legal liability to pay tens of thousands of pounds in church repairs. This applies even if they are not connected to the Church and even if they aren't Christians.
They were told that their properties are liable to "chancel repair liabilities" – due to an obscure 500 year old law that came about after Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries. The way the land was divided up meant that all properties built on monastic land were liable for the upkeep of the local church.
The law applies to some 500 parishes, but until now there has been great uncertainty about which properties carried a liability and if liable how much the liability would amount to. As far as we can establish, the right to impose these costs has existed since then. It could be argued that the chancel repair liability should have been discovered as part of the searches the lawyers make into title when land changes hands. But maybe any liability was regarded as theoretical because the Church of England and the Church in Wales haven't for many centuries exercised their right to claim the liability.
The matter came to public attention when Andrew and Gail Wallbank of Glebe Farm, Warwickshire were billed out of the blue for £100,000-worth of repairs to Aston Cantlow Church. They tried to challenge the bill and went to court with a case that dragged on for several years and ended in failure and a bill of £350,000 in 2009 as a result of which they had to sell their house. This case caused outrage, especially when it was realised that it had far wider application.
The Government realised it had to take some action, and what it presumably should have done was to declare that these ancient liabilities en bloc were no longer enforceable. Presumably they ruled this out because of pressure by and/or in deference to the Church. But it is possible that, had the Government taken such a course, the Church could have sued the Government for what it would otherwise have been able to recover.
But the Government had to do something, at least to limit the uncertainty, and so introduced a registration procedure so that at least it is known what land is subject to the liability. Any liabilities not registered before the ten year registration period expires (next year), will be unenforceable.
Currently, because of the uncertainty as to which land is liable, (which the registration will eliminate) landowners are taking no chances and insuring for chancel liability, most often when purchasing a property. Others are entirely unaware of their "obligation" until an official notification or the bill from the Church drops through the door. It also potentially makes their property unsaleable.
There seems no likelihood that this Government would be any more prepared than its predecessor to declare the ancient liabilities unenforceable. And unravelling this mess in a fair way is rapidly becoming impossible. Some buyers have purchased their property in the knowledge of a liability, and secured a substantial discount from the seller or payment by the seller for the insurance premium, while others are waking up to the liability for the first time. The latter may be facing bankruptcy over this, while the former have incurred no loss at all.
According to Wikipedia:
After that date, new owners of land will only be bound by chancel repair liability if the latter is entered on the liable Registered Title kept at the Land Registry. This puts the onus on Parochial Church Councils to identify all affected land and register their interest before that date (no fee is charged).
An online petition to the Prime Minister requesting legislation to remove this liability resulted in the following response in 2008:
"Chancel Repair Liability has existed for several centuries and the Government has no plans to abolish it or to introduce a scheme for its redemption. The Government has, however, acted to make the existence of the liability much simpler to discover. From October 2013, chancel repair liability will only bind buyers of registered land if it is referred to on the land register. By that time, virtually all freehold land in England and Wales will be registered. The Government believes that this approach strikes a fair balance between the landowners subject to the liability and its owners who are, in England, generally Parochial Church Councils and, in Wales, the Representative Body of the Church in Wales.
"The Government acknowledges that the existence of a liability for chancel repair will, like any other legal obligation, affect the value of the property in question, but in many cases this effect can be mitigated by relatively inexpensive insurance. It is for the parties involved in a transaction to decide whether or not to take out insurance."
The Charity Commission has warned that they if they do not register in time, individual members of the Parochial Church Council could be liable for the repairs or even found in breach of their legal duties as trustees. The Church of England said that English Heritage has also made clear that it would not provide grants for repairs to historic churches if parishioners' had a legal duty which was not imposed. It is tempting to be critical of the Charity Commission and English Heritage — and we suspect also companies insuring Church property — for acting in this way. However, all they are doing is to require those with a responsibility for collecting money due to their bodies, to exercise that responsibility – or take the consequences.
Local MP for St Eadburgha, Peter Luff, said he thought his constituents' experience was "just the tip of the iceberg." The issue would arise throughout the country.
Mr Luff added: "The divisive impact on communities, often in villages, can't be overstated. "The members of PCCs are forced to impose on their friends and neighbours a potentially crippling financial liability."
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, commented: "The liability will always hit villages much harder than towns where the liability for repairs to a church will be spread over very many more dwellings. If Mr Luff's fears are realised and result in swathes of village bankruptcies or repossessions, the Government may be forced to reconsider and make these ancient liabilities unenforceable against landowners. If it does so it will then have to decide whether this new source of income for the Church is to be curtailed, or whether to compensate them from public funds. But, particularly in these times of austerity, the level of hardship would have to be very high for the government to feel forced to act.
Bishops come under fire but Lords Reform now looks a distant prospect
Posted: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:17
An attempt by the Government to reform the House of Lords looks doomed after 91 Conservative MPs defied their party whip this week and voted against plans for a mainly elected second chamber.
Despite the rebellion (the biggest yet for the coalition) the Government still comfortably won the vote on the principle of its proposed reforms to Parliament with a majority of 338, but it faced defeat on the "programme motion" – which would have set out a timetable for the Lords Reform Bill to get through the Commons. Labour had planned to join Conservative rebels in opposing the motion, saying 10 scheduled days of debate was not enough to give proper scrutiny of the reform.
In order to avoid a humiliating defeat, the Government has now delayed a vote on this motion until the autumn, hoping it can talk the rebels round.
Nick Clegg said the vote for the plans had been a "huge triumph" and then warned the Tories that there would be "consequences" if they failed to back the bill.
During the two day debate there was much criticism of the plans to retain the bench of Church of England bishops – albeit reduced from 26 to 12.
The most outspoken speech came from Nia Griffith, Labour MP for Llanelli, who said the bishops were not representative of all Christians in the UK, never mind those of different faiths or no faith at all.
She said:
"The Church of England is not the established Church of the United Kingdom. The Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920, in Northern Ireland there has not been an established Church since 1871 and the Church of Scotland Act 1921 acknowledged that the Kirk had never been the established Church of Scotland and so could not be disestablished. Many countries specifically separate Church and state, even countries with a clearly dominant religion, such as Italy or Spain.
"Equality legislation in this country outlaws discrimination between men and women, yet for this reformed 21st century second Chamber, the Bill proposes to include bishops from the Church of England, which has fudged on equal rights. After years and years, yet again this week the Church is fudging on women bishops, and we have had nothing but exceptions and excuses, and a ridiculous amendment that would allow parishes that do not accept women bishops to request a male bishop. This would not be allowed in other workplaces and would be a disgrace even within a non-established Church or religion, but it is utterly deplorable that a so-called established Church chooses to flout the spirit of the law of the land. It is totally unacceptable to give 12 places with voting rights in a reformed 21st century second Chamber to bishops in an organisation that still does not give equal rights to women to allow them to become bishops and which has actually contemplated an amendment that would undermine their authority.
"I oppose reserving the 12 places for bishops of the Church of England in the second Chamber because it is not the established Church of the whole UK, because the appointment of bishops does not conform to the spirit of equality legislation and because it is high time that we separated Church and state. If this is really a reform for the future, it is a good opportunity not to include bishops. I ask the Government seriously to consider that issue."
Chris Bryant, Labour MP for Rhondda said it was "bizarre" to have the bishops of the Church of England in the House of Lords. He added "I would move an amendment to get rid of all the bishops."
Ian Lucas, Labour MP for Wrexham, said having bishops as Members was "wrong". He added:"Giving precedence to Church of England clerics is an extraordinary thing to do, and it is even more inexplicable on this very day, when the Church of England has decided not to appoint women bishops. Is not having such a clause in the Bill a breach of the European convention on human rights?"
Karl Turner, Labour MP for Hull, pointed out that the Deputy Prime Minister had undermined his argument for the need for electoral legitimacy by maintaining an appointed element and failing to use the opportunity to reform the role of bishops.
Thomas Docherty, Labour MP for Dunfermline and West Fife agreed that the issue of Church of England bishops needed to be addressed. He said: "I do not believe that the Church of England should sit in the House of Lords or the senate."
Graeme Morrice, Labour MP for Livingston, said many of his constituents had expressed strong feelings about the place of bishops in the Lords.
He said:
"My constituents have been unanimous in their view that this reform is an opportunity to end the automatic right of bishops to sit in the Lords. I very much hope that whatever form the new second Chamber takes, it will contain a diversity of representatives, but they should be there because the people have put their trust in them at the ballot box, rather than because they hold a particular religious office."
Mark Lazarowicz, Lab/Co-op MP for Edinburgh North and Leith said he agreed with Opposition colleagues who argue against reserved places for Church of England bishops.
"Many bishops who attend the Lords do offer an independent and critical voice, and it has challenged over-mighty Governments of all parties, but such a challenge should come from those whose authority to speak is derived from election, not from appointment. As many Members have pointed out, the additional objection is that, by giving a privileged place to leaders of one faith group, we discriminate against every other faith group, let alone against agnostics and atheists."
Mr William Bain, Labour MP for Glasgow North East also criticised plans for keeping reserved seats for Church of England clergy. He said: "The UK would remain one of only two legislatures in the world, along with Iran's, to continue such religious representation, even though 60% of the public say that bishops should not sit in Parliament."
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, commented: "It seems there is going to have to be a rethink of this Bill before it has any chance of succeeding, which would give the opportunity for the coalition to rethink the provisions in relation to the bishops. It is clear that there would be little resistance to the abolition of the Lords Spiritual and plenty of applause for it. Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron should be bold and truly modernise the House of Lords."
Read the debates in full on Hansard:
