BISHOPS within the House of Lords once more needed to defend their constitutional position in Parliament last week when the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill was debated in Committee Stage.
Over almost six hours, a raft of issues and amendments were discussed and largely resolved, including an attempt to scale back “the variety of bishops sitting within the House of Lords from 26 to 5” by Lord Blencathra (Conservative), due to his concerns about over-representation.
Viscount Hailsham asked “On what basis do the Lords Spiritual sit here?”, and called the automated right of some bishops to sit down within the Lords “a self-perpetuating oligarchy”.
The Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Pete Wilcox, speaking for the Lords Spiritual, explained that they were “not party political; we actually do seek to enhance and scrutinise laws.” He clarified that, of the 29 votes by which bishops have participated through the current Parliament, they’ve been “only five times with the Labour Government”.
He addressed specific points. “Since every one in every of the Lords Spiritual has full-time responsibilities outside this place, a discount to 5 would make it not possible for the remaining Lords Spiritual to perform their functions as parliamentarians alongside their duties as diocesan bishops or Primates. . . Only a minority of Lords Spiritual are capable of be present on this chamber on any given day.”
As the duty bishop leads prayers every day, Dr Wilcox emphasised that “the role of the Lords Spiritual is way more than mere chaplaincy. . . we don’t regard [prayer] as our only, nor at all times our most important, contribution.” He didn’t want something that will “effectively sever the constitutional link between Church and state. This limited Bill is just not the place to settle questions on the constitutional status of the Established Church of England — that may be a larger discussion for an additional time.”
Baroness Berridge (Conservative) was excited by the procedural entry of Lords Spiritual, with the implication of various levels of safeguarding checks. She referred to the recent resignation of the Bishop of Liverpool, Dr John Perumbalath (News, 31 January), and the withdrawal of the nominee to the see of Durham (News, 17 February). She was also anxious about “the privilege and monopoly of the Church of England” within the Lords on the apparent expense of other faiths and denominations.
In terms of appointments, though “not perfect, the method overseen by the Crown Nominations Commission within the discernment of latest diocesan bishops is at the least as thorough as the opposite processes used to appoint members to this House”, Dr Wilcox said.
The journalist Lord Moore of Etchingham (Charles Moore), whose wife is a churchwarden, referred to “the past 800 years. The history matters here, because what the Church of England represents in your Lordships’ House is a settlement.” Bishops had “turn out to be somewhat more vital in the general public eye because of recent communications”, he said.
Lord Moore recalled the defence of “No bishop, no king”, and the way “the bishops represent a warm house in our structure for other faiths and denominations . . . as is widely recognised by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Roman Catholics, of whom I’m one.” He described diocesans within the Lords as “the spiritual equivalents of the hereditaries. They inherit their role, though not by blood, and it has an actual meaning.”
Although he did “not actually consider in God”, Earl Attlee (Conservative) wanted to keep up “a revising Chamber with religious or moral input. . . I’d counsel leaving the Bishops well alone.” For Lord Wallace (Conservative), “the role of representatives of religion in a special House” was “a broader query”.
Lord Wallace (Liberal Democrat) admired Dr Wilcox’s “robust defence” and spoke in regards to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland’s decision “that there must be no bishops in a smaller House of Lords, and nor indeed should there be automatic representation of every other denomination or faith”.
With a nod to the Church of England’s perceived vulnerability, Lord Strathclyde expressed sympathy. “Everybody is slightly against the Church of England in the meanwhile. It is leaderless, with no Archbishop of Canterbury. So it’s a fairly rotten way of attacking the Church, after they are down.” He criticised the Bill’s “very piecemeal approach”.
By the top, all proposed amendments had either fallen or been withdrawn. On behalf of the Government, as Lord Privy Seal (a position once held by the Bishop of Bristol, illustrated by Lord Moore in his speech), Baroness Smith said: “We welcome the presence of the Bishops here. . . There is a spot within the House for the Bishops in the meanwhile . . . [In] wider discussions on any future composition of the House, the bishops will likely be a part of them.”
