My point was Steve that the existence of the House itself is the issue to me. The fact that for historical reasons 3% of the seats are guaranteed to the Church of England is secondary. A much bigger proportion are guaranteed places for hereditary peers simply given seats for who their parents were. The rest of the seats are non elected placements made into life peers by the gvt of the day and even several of these would qualify for hereditary seats so it is another way to keep the establishment in. I am against the whole edifice so see the inclusion of a few bishops as neither here nor there. Plus other religions may wish for a guaranteed voice in the House (rather than individuals made into life peers) but would they be willing to have gvt interference over their own institution in return like there is over the CofE?? The CofS historically wasn't prepared to allow that and I suspect others wouldn't be either. I'd say enough with the tinkering around the issue, as Labour did, but go with the likes of the Nats who approve of the abolishing of the non-elected chamber completely and they have a policy of not accepting seats should they be offered unlike the other main parties who scramble for places.