DIOCESAN bishops are facing fresh demands for the abolition of their seats in the House of Lords. Parliament is considering new legislation to end the centuries-old presence of hereditary peers, and is questioning the presence of the Lords Spiritual (News, 1 November).
In the Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, debated over two sessions last week, Baroness Smith of Basildon, the Leader of the House, said: “The intention is crystal clear: to end the hereditary element of the second Chamber before embarking on further changes.”
‘The house of the Lord has many rooms. The House of Lords may not have room for every bishop’
On behalf of the Government, she explained how the proposed legislation had been part of the Labour election manifesto this year, and described the proposals to remove the 92 hereditary peers who currently sit as “a reasonable and well-trailed piece of legislation”.
Should it become an elected House, Lord Wallace of Tankerness said, with “a direct election, there would no place in a second Chamber for the Lords Spiritual. I do not have a problem with that.”
He referred to the Bishop of Sheffield’s remarks in a debate in November: “It is an expression of our vocation to service in all communities that is core to our constitutional status as an Established Church,” and that bishops brought “a voice for faith and for our local communities” (News, 15 November).
Lord Wallace said: “This is a Chamber of the Parliament of the whole United Kingdom, and it is not logical that only one part of the United Kingdom should be represented by the Lords Spiritual. . . One of the ways in which we go forward might be to ensure that all the nations and regions are fairly and properly represented.” Nor did he favour, he said, a balancing out through the introduction of other faith leaders, taking the Church of Scotland’s view on the General Assembly, “that in a small House, there should be no faith representatives at all”.
Lord Birt argued for the removal of “another feudal overhang: namely, the right of Church of England bishops to have a guaranteed place in this House”. He noted how, in the last census of 56 million people, “fewer than half declared themselves to be Christian . . . more are Catholic than Anglican; and more people say that they do not believe in a God than do. We are a country of many faiths and of no faith. Our Established Church is not even a Church for the whole of the United Kingdom.”
He described how “recent events have demonstrated powerfully and emphatically that the Church of England is losing moral authority. I ask [for] . . . a clear and cogent rationale . . . as to why the Church of England should retain a privileged position in the Upper House of the United Kingdom’s Parliament.”
When the debate resumed, later in the day, Lord Keen, after two hours, referred again to the issue of the Lords Spiritual: “[regarding] the presence of 26 Church of England bishops who inherit a seat in this House when appointed to their bishopric. What do we have from the Government on this point? Complete silence.”
A number of speakers argued in favour of retaining the status quo, for the sake of history, tradition, and avoiding “change for the sake of change”. Lord Rooker said that he “would vote to remove the clerics from lawmaking”, but, “at some time in another Session”, because he saw it as a wrecking amendment for now.
Lord Murray said that the legislation would grant the Prime Minister “the sole power of patronage. . . The only group in this House not subject to that power will be the 26 bishops of the Church of England.”
It was not until after 9 p.m. when the Bishop of Leeds, the Rt Revd Nick Baines, rose to speak. He made the point that “the Lords Spiritual are not peers; we are Lords of Parliament, and that is different.” They had, he said, “no illusions about the need for changes. We are behind that, but we need to be wiser about the nature of what we are doing.”
Arguing in favour of retaining the Lord Spiritual, he described them as “not born in dog collars”, but bringing “other stuff as well. In my own case, it was Soviet military intelligence as a multilinguist at GCHQ.” He said that they “are also regional. . . Probably some of the best-connected people in this country are diocesan bishops who oversee and engage with the whole of civil society, at just about every level in the regions.”
Referring to the Bill’s intention to introduce a mandatory retirement age, Bishop Baines clarified that bishops “retire at the age of 70; so what one or two noble Lords have asked for is guaranteed: a turnover to bring in fresh blood. For one part of the House, that seems to me to be quite helpful.”
In summing-up, Baroness Smith referred to the “range of views expressed”, but did not mention the Lords Spiritual.
The Bill now moves to the Committee Stage, in the Upper House.