There are two aspects to the House of Lords question that need to be considered. One is the specific representation of the Church of England through the bishops, and potentially the inclusion of representatives of other faith groups. The second is the more general question about how the House of Lords ought to be reformed so as to ensure it contributes effectively to the work of Parliament within the prevailing constitutional arrangements. We will examine the second broader question first.
Bicameralism was normal in pre-democratic times, with the ‘upper’ chamber representing aristocracy and church rather than people and territory as such. In the move to democracy most states underwent significant constitutional upheavals that led to the removal or entire replacement of their second chambers. England came nearest to this in the 17th century when the House of Lords was removed for a time. But the Cromwellian revolution was followed by a restoration of monarchy and Lords and then a ‘glorious revolution’ which saw the balance of power between parliament and the monarchy more decisively adjusted. The monarchy had been restored but never again would a monarch be able to act independently of Parliament. Rather, successive monarchs would be restrained ever more precisely to follow the wishes of parliament. Institutional continuity masked the extent to which relationships had altered, and there were good practical reasons for not attempting to define too quickly or precisely the new relationships that were still emerging. Britain’s later gradual advance to democracy through franchise extension saw the junior position of the House of Lords confirmed, most notably by the 1911 Parliament Act. For the next fifty years the role of the Lords became progressively more marginal. Britain became a de facto unicameral system. The House of Lords remained essentially unreformed in its composition and therefore lacked the legitimacy necessary to play a truly effective parliamentary role.
This began to change with the arrival of life peers after 1958. The House gradually assumed a distinctive role, both in scrutinising legislation and selected government responsibilities, and in representing professional and other groups whose representation in the Commons was eroded by the rise of a professional political class. Through containing a large non-party element the House added something different to the parliamentary processes. But it remained a House still numerically dominated by hereditary peers, with the remainder all being appointed members (and all except the bishops appointed for life).
House of Lords reform was often spoken about but rarely was any serious attempt made by successive governments to initiate reform. The Conservatives under Mrs Thatcher took a generally negative view of constitutional reform, and in regard to the House of Lords frequently uttered the mantra, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’, and in truth from the point of view of government and the Commons the House of Lords was a very convenient, generally docile and helpfully diligent institution. But of course, its membership was in principle objectionable to those committed to democracy.
Labour eventually devised a two-stage policy, first to remove all hereditary peers, then to seek a political consensus about further reform (because it was assumed that an all-appointed House could not be considered acceptable). Legislation in 1999 brought about the removal of all but ninety two hereditary peers, left temporarily in the House to give some continuity and as a guarantor of further reform.
However attempts at further reform have foundered (though it is reported recently to have re-emerged on the Prime Minister’s agenda). Argument has particularly centred on composition, with some advocating an all-appointed House and others arguing that legitimacy can only be established through some form of election for at least part of the House. Both Opposition parties have come out officially in favour of a largely elected House (albeit one elected on quite different principles to the Commons). But within the major parties there have also been serious differences of view.
We believe it is important that reform of the second chamber is given serious attention. In practice it provides within the British body politic a significant balance to the House of Commons. An increasingly complex political agenda, with a House of Commons seemingly ever more dominated by professional career politicians in tightly disciplined competitive parties, and a media that shows very little serious interest in politics – all these factors underline the need for a second chamber that is able to act as a focus for a different kind of public debate to that encountered elsewhere. Democracy is in danger of degenerating into a market-driven exercise, orchestrated by party technicians and propagandists competing for the votes of an increasingly bored electorate. A second chamber can help to provide a corrective to this. Reform must seek to establish the chamber as a body that speaks with genuine authority based on understanding and experience, and with legitimacy derived from public support for the manner in which its members are appointed.
Where does this leave the role of bishops, or other faith representatives? In principle, they certainly have a contribution to make to such a second chamber. The Wakeham Commission recognised this and recommended that the number of Christian representatives from throughout the UK remain at twenty six, but with Church of England representatives reduced to sixteen, with five more from Christian denominations within England, and five from the Churches of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To these would be added five representatives of other non-Christian faiths. Wakeham invited the Church of England to decide how its representatives might be appointed, suggesting that they need not be bishops, and recommended that all appointments should formally be made through the new Appointments Commission that also formed part of the Commission’s recommendations. The non-Anglican faith representatives would have been chosen after consultation with appropriate ecumenical bodies. The Wakeham Commission set considerable store by the independence of this new Appointments Commission, which would be established by statute and be accountable to Parliament to which it would report. In its White Paper the government proposed cutting bishops to 16 and relying on new selection processes through the independent Appointments Commission (which it accepted in principle) to produce appointed members of the House who would represent other churches and faiths within the UK.
The Church of England has made clear that it does not wish to see itself as having a monopoly of faith representation in the second chamber. The fact that it does at present have this through ex officio membership of the House is a relic of history, in the same way as the continued presence of peers by succession. Faith representation that is exclusively from one church within one part of the UK may be anomalous, but there are great difficulties in providing any mechanism for including official representatives of other denominations (as the Wakeham Commission and the response to the Wakeham report demonstrated). For many, rejection of the Wakeham proposals was regrettable as they were keen to see how the recommendations would work in practice. But in the absence of any viable alternative means of providing faith representation present arrangements should not be seen as indefensible.
The presence of bishops in the House is in part a symbolic matter. It would be foolish for the Church of England itself to take any initiative to remove or limit the number of bishops. But if such moves are made elsewhere the question arises as to how seriously they are to be resisted. If a proposal to remove bishops is made in the context of a thoroughgoing reform of the House intended to enhance its significance and make an effective response to the decline of Parliament, then this should not be opposed. For example, if proposals to establish a House the majority of whose members were elected were to be carried through, it would be unwise for the Church of England to fight to retain specific Church representatives among the minority of the House that might continue to arrive there through appointment. If however modest reform is proposed (e.g., simply the removal of remaining hereditary peers) then it would certainly be appropriate to fight for the retention of bishops. The churches and the Christian communities within the UK should take seriously the need for religious representation in Parliament and throughout public life. But this does not necessarily depend on places being specifically reserved in Parliament for ‘Faith Representatives’. Many Christians have found places in both Houses of Parliament through the normal electoral and selection processes. And of course others, including Roman Catholic bishops and Jewish Rabbis, have exerted great influence while not having places in Parliament at all.
Along with membership goes responsibility and the difficult question for the bishops is how they should make use of their membership. At present as a group they cannot be classified as active members of the House. Most attend infrequently, some never at all. The pressure of responsibilities within the church and within their dioceses makes any committed attendance difficult. It is unusual for bishops to offer significant leadership in the House. Frequently the bishops are themselves divided on issues.
It is possible that their presence in the House adds to the mission effort of the Church of England, but it is a very moot point. We are concerned that too great an importance is being invested in some quarters in this matter. Our conclusion is that no initiative should be taken by the churches to remove the bishops. To do this would send out quite the wrong signal to society generally because it would be understood as a diminution of Christian involvement in society. However, if a responsible initiative to remove bishops comes from elsewhere, and is made in the context of fundamental reform aimed at strengthening the parliamentary role of the second chamber, it should not be resisted. Meanwhile, continuing efforts should be made to assist the bishops in making a responsible contribution to the work of the House, and this should include ecumenical arrangements.
