House of Lords Reform

26 Anglican bishops remain in the transitional House of Lords, and the Government proposes to retain a religious representation in the new chamber. With the abolition of the right of the last of the (elected) hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords, the bishops will be the only group to sit by right of succession. This right does not last beyond a bishop’s retirement at 70.

The Lords Spiritual operate a rota for attendance at the House of Lords, with one bishop on ‘duty’ each week. By convention the bishops do not attend ‘en masse’ and it is unusual for more than half a dozen to sit in the chamber or vote at one time.

In the Middle Ages the bishops sat in the Lords, along with the hereditary peers and, until the dissolution of the monasteries, the abbots, as feudal landholders. Their numbers were limited to the present 26 (43 diocesan bishops in total) in 1847, when the new bishopric of Manchester was created, and they consist of the two archbishops, the bishops of London, Durham and Winchester and 21 other bishops selected according to seniority of appointment. They are not Peers but enjoy parliamentary privilege and take part in all the business of the House.

Bishops are chosen by the Prime Minister from a list drawn up by the Church of England’s Crown Appointments Commission, of which one non-voting member is the PM’s Appointments Secretary. Anglican clergy, alone among the faiths, are legally barred from sitting in the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification Act 1801).

The removal of the bishops would not disestablish the Church of England, but it would almost certainly generate a renewed debate on the subject, and would cause some related complications.

The Commission was in favour of retaining and broadening religious representation in a reformed second chamber. It recommended that 16 places should be made available for representatives chosen by the Church of England, 5 for members of other Christian denominations, and that (Recommendation 109) "at any one time there should be at least five members of the second chamber specifically selected to be broadly representative of the different non-Christian faith communities."

The responsibility for the non-Anglican representation would be the Appointments Commission’s, and the Commission should signal its willingness to receive nominations from the various faith communities. The Church of England should be asked to make recommendations to the Government as to the provision of its own representation.

In the White Paper, The House of Lords: Completing the Reform [Cmnd.5291, November 2001] [paras.83-85]

"The Government acknowledges the force of the Royal Commission’s proposition that religious representation helps in the recognition of the part that moral, philosophical and theological considerations have to play in debating political and social issues. It agrees that the Church of England should continue to be represented formally in the House. The Government proposes that the Church of England’s representation should be reduced to 16, in line with the Royal Commission’s recommendations.

"The Government does not feel able to accept the Royal Commission’s recommendations for formal representation for other denominations and religions. The practical difficulties are simply too great. Most other denominations and faiths do not have a hierarchical structure which will deliver readily identifiable representatives. There are many more denominations and faiths than could be accommodated by the numbers proposed.

"The Government believes, however, that leaders of other denominations and faiths have a significant contribution to make to the second chamber, and it would expect the Appointments Commission to give proper recognition to the non-Church of England faith communities as they seek greater representativeness in the independent membership of the House. The Appointments Commission ought to take particular account of any views expressed by religious communities about actual or potential members of the second chamber. A more diverse lay membership will also help to provide a broader representation of faiths."

"If we are serious about equipping Britain with a modern Parliament and constitution, it is time to modernise this aspect of our constitution too, and bring to an end formal representation of the church in Parliament….

"To give the new statutory Appointments Commission time to develop a policy on diversity in the new House, we recommend that the Bishops of the Church of England should no longer sit ex officio from the time of the next general election but one. There will be nothing to prevent the Appointments Commission from appointing Bishops, or retired Bishops, if they have a contribution to make and can give sufficient time to the House to make a real contribution, along with representatives from other faith communities."

"No doubt the position seems anomalous to some and unacceptable to others. However, Bishops can and do make a regular and valued contribution to the work of the House.

"Excluding bishops from the Senate would involve far-reaching decisions and, although not directly related to it, raise the whole question of the Establishment of the Church. We do not think it fruitful to seek to solve this question at the same time as advancing to a more powerful Senate. Nor do we think it should be allowed, as an issue, to obstruct change.

"We invite views on the way forward. The Royal Commission, the Government and the Bishops themselves have suggested a reduction in the number of Prelates in the House. The numbers proposed, varying from 16 to 20, would still be considerable, if they counted against the 60 seats proposed for independent members. Even 16 bishops would raise the proportion of the Church’s seats from some 3.7% to over 5%. Few would argue for an increase of that kind. One approach proposed might be to limit the number of voting places held by Bishops, leaving them free to speak, but that raise other issues of complexity. We believe that the Joint Committee should address this question and that a representative of the Bishops should sit on the Joint Committee to assist their deliberations."

"For some time now the Church of England has made it clear that it would very much welcome a wider representation of the nation’s spiritual life in the second chamber. Whilst the Church of England remains ready and willing to speak in Parliament as appropriate for its Christian partners and for people of other faiths and none, it does not for one moment pretend any exclusive claim to do so.

"A reformed second chamber that truly aspires to service the nation must be seen to take full account of the nation’s growing ethnic and cultural diversity. To a significant degree, such diversity is reflected in different religious traditions. The Church of England is itself a very broad church with a substantial range of cultural and ethnic diversity amongst its own membership. At the same time, the Church of England fully recognises that other denominations, and other faiths… will wish to express their own views about Parliamentary representation.

"The Church urges no particular view on the numbers of denominations, or faiths. Whilst it appreciates that representation will not invariably be sought or conveniently arranged, it must be right to achieve as wide a range as possible so that Parliament may in this dimension, as in other, reflect the diversity of the nation’s life.

"As the White Paper recognises, the ability of Church of England bishops to offer service to the nation through Parliament is linked to their numerical presence in the chamber. Although the number of diocesan bishops has over the years been steadily increased in response to population and particularly urban growth, since 1847 the number of bishops in the House of Lords has been restricted to 26.

"In practice the number of bishops in the chamber nowadays ensures that all diocesans in England may expect to succeed for a period to membership of the House and to bring the particular regional flavour of their dioceses as well as the contribution of their own particular personal expertise and interests. At the same time, the Commission will understand that contemporary bishops are hard pressed with demanding workloads. It is, of course, precisely in the range and diversity of their interests and commitments that a large part of their value as servants of the nation in Parliament resides. That is understood, but it inevitably means that to give priority to the business of Parliament for any length of time, or appearing at short notice in order to contribute to a particular debate, could well demand for them some sacrifice and promise elsewhere.

"A substantially reformed second chamber facing a challenging agenda, and possibly with new responsibilities, will rightly expect much of its members. The Church of England identifies with such aspirations, and the necessary implication is that an adequate level of representation has to be maintained to cover the work of the chamber. Reducing the number of bishops available to the chamber risks compromising the service of the Church of England by impoverishing the range of contributions – regional and otherwise - that it can offer. This is not, of course, a problem unique to the Church… it is one faced by any effort to secure the effective, continuous presence of people representative of our national life other than those with the leisure to devote to attendance, or those who are in practice professional politicians."

"(B4) The Government’s decision to reject Recommendation 98 of the Royal Commission makes the Appointment Commission’s task impossible. If a party’s list of nominees does not help to achieve the required gender, ethnic and faith-community representation, what is the Appointment Commission to do about it? If a gender, ethnicity, or faith is under-represented among the political senators (elected or appointed) and if the political parties (or some of them) do not voluntarily produce ‘balanced tickets’, the Appointments Commission will have no powers to make them do so.

"(B5) In such an event, the Commission would have to produce diversity in a house of 600 while being able to control the relevant features in only 120 members. This gearing could make the gender requirement (at least 30% of each) impossible to achieve, and the ethnic and faith requirements extremely difficult. Table 2 shows the relative size of the UK’s faith communities. If the Church of England is assigned 16 representatives (whether by ex officio bishops or otherwise) then a total of 77 senators will be needed to represent all faith communities. Many of them will have to be female, whatever the wishes of the faith community in question, to satisfy the gender requirement. At worst, this could leave the Appointments Commission with only 53 crossbench places to fill with representatives of anything other than faith communities.

"(B6) The only solution I can see is that the Appointments Commission must ask each party voluntarily to produce a ticket of nominees that is balanced as to gender, ethnicity, and faith….

"(B7) If the Government does not remove the Bishops (all of one gender, and all from one minority faith) and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (historically almost all of one gender) from the senate, then the above becomes even more problematic.

"(C1) There is no good argument for retaining either bishops of the Church of England or the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in the senate…. (C2) If faith communities are to be represented in proportion to size, then the Church of England should have approximately 21% of those seats. Nothing … in the White Paper explains why the ex officio representation should remain."

His own position is that "there should be a group of cross-bench senators chosen for their expertise by the Appointments Commission. These could include religious leaders and lawyers."

Charter88 supports a model of a directly elected Senate with no special place for religious representation. These views can be represented by, and to, elected members.

The proposals in the White Paper for 21 Christian representatives, comprising 16 Anglicans and 5 non-Anglicans do not reflect the reality of belief and non-belief in the UK. This could in fact represent an increase in Christian representation in the House of Lords as, by convention, the Anglican bishops do not all attend at once.

* elected to the House of Lords in 2001

In the current session of Parliament, since 20 June 2001, 26 different bishops have spoken on more than 150 occasions.

Topics debated by bishops in this period have included: Afghanistan, Asylum, Biofuels, Channel Tunnel Freight Services, Child Abuse, the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol, Countryside and Tourism, Foot and Mouth, Gambling, Lords Reform, Human Cloning, International Terrorism, Post-16 Education, Prison, The Sudan and Wind Energy.

Bishops have taken part in discussion on the following Bills: Animal Health Bill, Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, Christmas Day Trading Bill, Civil Partnerships Bill, Education Bill, Employment Bill, Export Control Bill, Homelessness Bill, International Development Bill NHS Reform and Healthcare Professions Bill Police Reform Bill and the Religious Offences Bill.

Bishops have initiated debates on the concept of Public Service and the situation in Pakistan.

Source: British Social Attitudes Surveys

Policy: 020 8880 6088 policy@charter88.org.uk