DIOCESAN bishops are facing fresh demands for the abolition of their seats within the House of Lords. Parliament is considering latest laws to finish 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 finish the hereditary element of the second Chamber before embarking on further changes.”
On behalf of the Government, she explained how the proposed laws had been a part of the Labour election manifesto this yr, and described the proposals to remove the 92 hereditary peers who currently sit as “an affordable and well-trailed piece of laws”.
Should it turn out to be 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 shouldn’t have an issue 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’s 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 entire United Kingdom, and it shouldn’t be logical that just one a part of the United Kingdom ought to be represented by the Lords Spiritual. . . One of the ways by which we go forward could be to be sure that all of 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 ought to be no faith representatives in any respect”.
Lord Birt argued for the removal of “one other feudal overhang: namely, the proper of Church of England bishops to have a guaranteed place on this House”. He noted how, within 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 don’t imagine in a God than do. We are a rustic of many religions and of no faith. Our Established Church shouldn’t be even a Church for the entire 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 transparent and cogent rationale . . . as to why the Church of England should retain a privileged position within the Upper House of the United Kingdom’s Parliament.”
When the controversy resumed, later within the day, Lord Keen, after two hours, referred again to the difficulty of the Lords Spiritual: “[regarding] the presence of 26 Church of England bishops who inherit a seat on this House when appointed to their bishopric. What do we now have from the Government on this point? Complete silence.”
Quite a lot of speakers argued in favour of retaining the established order, 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 a while in one other Session”, because he saw it as a wrecking amendment for now.
Lord Murray said that the laws would grant the Prime Minister “the only real power of patronage. . . The only group on this House not subject to that power will likely 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 talk. He made the purpose that “the Lords Spiritual usually are not peers; we’re Lords of Parliament, and that’s different.” They had, he said, “no illusions concerning the need for changes. We are behind that, but we must be wiser concerning the nature of what we’re 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 very own case, it was Soviet military intelligence as a multilinguist at GCHQ.” He said that they “are also regional. . . Probably a number of the best-connected people on this country are diocesan bishops who oversee and interact with the entire of civil society, at nearly every level within the regions.”
Referring to the Bill’s intention to introduce a compulsory retirement age, Bishop Baines clarified that bishops “retire on the age of 70; so what one or two noble Lords have asked for is guaranteed: a turnover to herald fresh blood. For one a 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 didn’t mention the Lords Spiritual.
The Bill now moves to the Committee Stage, within the Upper House.
