The Rt Revd Dr John Inge, The Bishop of Worcester
via a letter to his MP
Though I try to exercise some restraint about writing
to you, I feel that I must be in touch about the issue the Reform
of the House of Lords. This is not simply because I am scheduled
to take a seat in the House of Lords quite soon (I am next on
the list0 but because I feel that the reforms proposed in the
draft bill are very significant and will have a considerable effect
upon our nation. It seems to me, therefore, that debate about
them is something in which we should all be involved and I hope,
you will forgive me for setting out below a few thought about
the proposals for reform in general and the place of the Lords
Spiritual in particular.
As you may know, the bishops have welcomed the draft
bill as an opportunity to debate reform of the Lords, and in his
public statements as Convenor of the Lords Spiritual, the Bishop
of Leicester, has made clear that we feel some reforms are necessary
and overdue. However, the ultimate test of any reform is whether
it helps serve parliament and the nation better. It is generally
agreed that the House is too large and some reform is needed (for
example, measures to enable formal retirement to tackle the size
of the House). However, these could be achieved by more immediate
and smaller scale measures that those set out in the draft bill.
What the latter proposes is something much more radical which
brings with it considerable risks.
The introduction of an elected component into the
House, the case for which I would suggest has yet convincingly
to be made, risks destabilising a system which generally works
well. Whatever may be said, it will be very difficult thereafter
for the Lords to remain simply a scrutinising chamber since an
electoral mandate would surely lead to the possibility of it challenging
the primacy of the Commons. In addition, there would quite possibly
be unhelpful tensions over legitimacy between elected and unelected
members within the Upper House. Perhaps most importantly, there
would be loss of independence and expertise available to Parliament
since elected members would be more likely to toe party lines
and existing members, known for their professional expertise or
distinguished public service, would be less inclined to want to
stand for election. The capacity of the Lords to act as a unique
forum where the various voices of civil society (including the
voice of organised religion) can be convened and heard would thus
be seriously jeopardised.
As far as the latter is concerned, various arguments
are used against the presence of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament
which do not hold water and I take the liberty of setting out
below a few points concerning their role.
As well as reading prayers at the start of each sitting
day, bishops participate across the full range of issues before
the House, tabling questions and speaking in debates. They are
emphatically not there to simply defend the interests of the Church
of England, though when issues arise that may affect the wider
interests of people of faith (e.g. poverty, overseas aid, civil
liberties, refugees, child welfare etc), or where the Church has
a particular stake (such as educational reform) they are able
to act as informed participants in debate. Though they do not
have a democratic mandate, this is surely not the only form of
legitimate representation that should operate in a democratic
society. Bishops by virtue of their day-to-day contact with churches
in every community within their diocese, are able to speak with
authority about them in a unique fashion. The Diocese of Worcester,
for example, has within it 281 churches which are served by 200
clergy and as man lay ministers within whom I am in very frequent
contact. As the Bishop of Leicester, Convenor of the Lords Spiritual,
when debating with the Labour Humanists in January 2010 put it,
Bishops in the Lords "bring to their contribution a network
of connections into local communities which no other institution
can begin to match, a regional perspective often lacking from
the Upper House, and a framework of values which (while claiming
no moral superiority over others' values) contributes to the political
debate about what constitutes the common god." It might be
added that attendance figures at Church of England churches remain
at around one million each week. This is an attendance unmatched
by any political party, voluntary association, public institution
or trade union.
Bishops rarely influence the outcome of parliamentary
votes, given that they constitute around 3.5% of Lords membership,
are not whipped and do not act as a party (often taking different
sides). Bishops take their voting responsibilities seriously and
do not use them to act as a 'bloc'. The largest turnout for a
single vote by bishops in recent times was for lord Joffe's 2006
Assisted Dying Bill. This saw 14 of the 26 lords Spiritual vote
against the Bill (and none for), though as the majority against
numbered 48, it can be said that the bishops' votes were not determining
factors in the Bill failing to pass. This has not stopped secularist
campaigners from claiming that the bishops 'blocked' the Bill.
Although the average collective attendance of bishops
is below that for party and crossbench peers, the trend is towards
increased attendance by the bishops as a whole in the past five
years. There is always at least one—and usually more—bishop
in the House on every day that it is sitting. I might add that
the average claim for allowances from bishops is lower than that
of all members of the House. The majority of bishops who attend
the House do not claim the maximum entitlement to allowances.
The continuing place of Anglican bishops in the Lords
reflects our enduring constitutional arrangements, with an established
Church of England and its Supreme Governor as Monarch and Head
of State. The bishops are a reminder that our key constitutional
institutions, the monarchy, our systems of justice, education,
health care and our charitable sector were all shaped by the Christian
tradition and initiated by Christian motives.
Though the presence of bishops in the House of Lords
is not the determining factor of the Establishment of the Church
of England it is an important part of it. Establishment is unlikely
to end with their removal, but it would be seriously diminished.
Their removal would also be likely to trigger a wider debate about
the future of Establishment and send unhelpful signals about the
place of religious voices in the public square.
Dating back to Archbishop Ramsey, the Church of England's
public line has always been that there should be increased representation
of other denominations and faiths in a reformed House of Lords.
However, obstacles to achieving more 'formal' representatives
relate to identifying who are the leaders of the different faiths,
how many different faiths ought to be accommodated and whether
the denomination or faith allows its representatives to sit in
legislative bodies. In its past submissions on lord's reform,
the Church has offered to help an Appointments Commission grapple
with these issues.
It will be very clear from the above that I believe
that the important scrutinising role of the House of Lords should
not be undermined by wholesale reform and that, further, the role
of bishops in the House is an important one which should be retained
for the health of Parliament and nation.
Forgive me for writing at length but I do believe
that this is a crucial matter about which I wish there were signs
of wider debate. I end with some questions: could you, please,
give me some indication of your views concerning the following:
1. Are
you in favour of a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords?
2. Are
you in favour of the retention of the Bishops (as envisaged in
the draft bill)?
3. What
are your views about the place of wider religious representation
in the Upper House?
I do hope that you have not been bombarded with too
many letters like this over the course of the summer and have
been able to get some break despite the appalling nature of the
riots which so shocked us all. There were, at least, none in Worcester
and Dudley and it may be some comfort to you to know that, whilst
communities elsewhere were being torn apart, communities here
were being brought together by the most successful Three Choirs
Festival ever which was a magnificent example of hundreds of people,
professional and volunteers, working together for the enjoyment
and good of all.
22 August 2011
| 
