BISHOPS in the House of Lords once again had 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 reduce “the number of bishops sitting in the House of Lords from 26 to five” by Lord Blencathra (Conservative), because of his concerns about over-representation.
Viscount Hailsham asked “On what basis do the Lords Spiritual sit here?”, and called the automatic right of some bishops to sit in 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 really do seek to improve and scrutinise legislation.” He clarified that, of the 29 votes in which bishops have participated during the current Parliament, they have been “only five times with the Labour Government”.
He addressed specific points. “Since every one of the Lords Spiritual has full-time responsibilities outside this place, a reduction to five would make it impossible 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 able to be present in this chamber on any given day.”
As the duty bishop leads prayers each day, Dr Wilcox emphasised that “the role of the Lords Spiritual is much more than mere chaplaincy. . . we do not regard [prayer] as our only, nor always our most significant, contribution.” He did not want something that would “effectively sever the constitutional link between Church and state. This limited Bill is not the place to settle questions about the constitutional status of the Established Church of England — that is a bigger discussion for another time.”
Baroness Berridge (Conservative) was interested in the procedural entry of Lords Spiritual, with the implication of different 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 worried about “the privilege and monopoly of the Church of England” in the Lords at the apparent expense of other faiths and denominations.
In terms of appointments, though “not perfect, the process overseen by the Crown Nominations Commission in the discernment of new diocesan bishops is at least as thorough as the other 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 “become a little more important in the public eye because of modern communications”, he said.
Lord Moore recalled the defence of “No bishop, no king”, and how “the bishops represent a warm house in our constitution for other faiths and denominations . . . as is widely recognised by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Roman Catholics, of whom I am one.” He described diocesans in the Lords as “the spiritual equivalents of the hereditaries. They inherit their role, though not by blood, and it has a real meaning.”
Although he did “not actually believe in God”, Earl Attlee (Conservative) wanted to maintain “a revising Chamber with religious or moral input. . . I would counsel leaving the Bishops well alone.” For Lord Wallace (Conservative), “the role of representatives of faith in a different House” was “a broader question”.
Lord Wallace (Liberal Democrat) admired Dr Wilcox’s “robust defence” and spoke about the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland’s decision “that there should be no bishops in a smaller House of Lords, and nor indeed should there be automatic representation of any other denomination or faith”.
With a nod to the Church of England’s perceived vulnerability, Lord Strathclyde expressed sympathy. “Everybody is rather against the Church of England at the moment. It is leaderless, with no Archbishop of Canterbury. So it is a pretty rotten way of attacking the Church, when they are down.” He criticised the Bill’s “very piecemeal approach”.
By the end, 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 place in the House for the Bishops at the moment . . . [In] wider discussions on any future composition of the House, the bishops will be part of them.”
