On Wednesday Jack Straw, the Leader of the House of Commons, summarised his latest proposals for reform of the House of Lords. The Government has recommended a hybrid House (50% appointed, 50% elected) but will present the Commons with a range of options nonetheless. In passing, he said that the Bishops of the Church of England will continue to be represented. “Why?” shouted someone. Indeed.
Since the budget crisis of 1909, reform of the House of Lords has been the great unfinished business of constitutional affairs. Presently, it is wholly unelected and includes large hereditary element. This offends democratic sensibilities. Uniquely in the western world, twenty six bishops of the state church also hold seats in the second chamber. For some, this is one of the last vestiges of retreating Christendom, soon to disappear entirely. For others, it is an unwelcome sign that the national church continues to flex moral and spiritual muscles in an otherwise neutral public square. For still another group, their presence, while not a guarantee that faith perspectives shape legislation (the Bishops’ bench almost never swings a vote), is a welcome indication that moral and spiritual perspectives have not yet been ironed out of our increasingly monochrome and managerial public life.
The idea that the presence of Lords Spiritual is simply a ‘mediaeval hangover’ surely belongs to an enlightenment/progressive determinism that assumes that the institutions which we now have ought inevitably to be different, and certainly less religious, than the institutions we had before. Those who would subscribe to this view will be disappointed to learn that along with the wider re-emergence of religion as both a subject and a driver of political debate, the Bishops are becoming more active in the House of Lords. Theos’ new report Coming off the Bench: The Past, Present and Future of Religious Representation in the House of Lords, which takes a statistical picture of the activity of the prelates in the second chamber, shows that bishops are attending more, voting more and speaking more, in spite of their considerable responsibilities elsewhere.
For all their alleged social conservatism (actually overestimated), you are most likely to hear Lords Spiritual speaking on issues like homelessness, development, third world debt, prison overcrowding, social care or tourism. Not only would their overall contribution generally be considered benign by most standards, but their speeches and votes also tend to reflect the interests of the poor and the marginalised, rather than the rich, the elite or the influential. For the assurance of those who take the view that contributions to public debate ought to be made from publicly shared premises (an argument which is more often than not strategically employed to exclude religious people per se from expressing any contrary view, regardless of how they make their case), prelates’ use of so called religious reasoning is not just limited, but almost non-existent.
So what of the future? In line with Theos’ suggestions, the White Paper on House of Lords reform proposes that the bishops are retained, but with a reduction in numbers and an adjustment in the Church of England’s internal procedures of appointment. As the Wakeham Commission observed, few other religious traditions have a tangible structure or hierarchy which could deliver representatives, but the statutory Appointments Commission could and should have a responsibility to consider how it can reflect the religious make up of the United Kingdom. A reformed second chamber, particularly if retaining a significantly proportion of appointed representatives, could offer an opportunity to redress some of the deficiencies of the House of Commons and ensure that women, ethic minorities, the regions, and the plurality of faiths and worldviews, are appropriately represented in the legislature.
A concern for democratic legitimacy is right and proper but there are, after all, other kinds of legitimacy - the kind of legitimacy, for instance, that comes from first-hand knowledge of local people and situations. It is also entirely possible that political institutions can have the form of democracy but deny its power (think of all those back room deals which are done to find safe seats for favoured MPs who lose constituencies after boundary changes). As these jaded structures and systems command less and less support from the general public, it will be the allegedly anachronistic and undemocratic House of Lords, along with broadened religious representation, which could more closely fit the warp and weave of public life in the United Kingdom.
What do you think? Join the debate!
Paul Bickley is a researcher at Theos and is co-author of the report, Coming off the bench: The past, present and future of religious representation in the House of Lords.
