I NOTE with interest your report on the House of Lords debate on the Coalition Government's proposed benefits cap ("Coalition is defeated on benefits cap", The Herald, January 24).

During the ongoing arguments concerning a Scottish independence referendum, the West Lothian Question has from time to time re-surfaced (that is, the issue of Scottish MPs voting on exclusively English matters in the House of Commons). Your report raises the Church of England Question. Some Church of England bishops are entitled to sit in the House of Lords: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Durham, Winchester, and sundry others. They even have their own bench from which they are able to pontificate on whatever matters take their fancy. The rationale behind this situation is not readily understood, even in relation to legislation affecting only England. It is incomprehensible in relation to actions within the House of Lords which impact on the rest of the UK.

This group is endowed with a privilege which is an anachronism in a modern society. If their position can be justified, why should we not also have a number of Imams, presbytery moderators, and Roman Catholic bishops? Why should bishops of the Church of England be in a position as a religious grouping in a parliamentary chamber to act in defeating Government policy? The argument that it is traditional for them to be there holds little or no weight.

When the West Lothian Question is placed on the agenda for action, the authorities should also add the Church of England Question, because it is a historical anomaly which is highly deserving of attention, albeit in the face of protestations from the vested Anglican Church interests.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road,

Lenzie.

I DON'T remember voting for any Bishops.

Gordon Whyte,

86 Ormonde Avenue,

Netherlee,

Glasgow.