What is RSS?

Working with the media

Church calls on Government to revise House of Lords proposals

31 January 2002

A call for the Government to revise its proposals on House of Lords reform in favour of greater independence, less political affiliation and a stronger religious presence is made today (1 February) from the Church of England.

A written response (appended below) to the Government White Paper, The House of Lords: Completing the Reform, states: "We believe parliament and the people would be better served by reducing the patronage of the political parties and shifting the balance of political and independent members. This should be done through abandoning the closed party list system for elections to the chamber and an increase in the independent nominations considered by the Appointments Commission."

The document, approved by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, supports a mainly appointed Second Chamber, but also calls for the proportion of elected members to be increased over the Government's proposals and for the overall size of the House to be larger than envisaged by the Government.

On religious representation in the House of Lords, the document is critical of various aspects of Government proposals.

At present 26 bishops of the Church of England have seats in the House of Lords. The Government proposes a reduction to 16. However, the document states: "...we continue to believe that 20 is the minimum number of members required in order to offer effective service in the context of a reformed second chamber."

The submission argues that fewer than this number would mean that a diminished range of experience and skills would be represented, and could result in bishops facing a conflict between their diocesan and parliamentary responsibilities.

The document also criticises Government proposals relating to other denominations and faiths. It says: "We believe that a broader faith presence is an important element in such a reform and that the government's proposals in this area are insufficient."

Instead of an "ad hoc" and discretionary approach, the document calls for a minimum numerical threshold to be set formally for members drawn from other denominations and faiths.

The document goes on to highlight the potential of the House of Lords as a unique forum for informed debate on the religious dimension in national and international affairs. It advocates: "...a House of Lords capable of doing justice to its important role in the parliamentary process and our national discourse, a role in which, as recent events have so clearly demonstrated, the articulate contribution of a religious and spiritual perspective is more than ever an important component."

ends

Notes
There are currently 26 Lords Spiritual, comprising the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester, and the 21 most senior diocesan bishops, by length of diocesan service.

------------------------------

Reform of the House of Lords

Comments from the Church of England on the Government's White Paper

PART ONE: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

We welcome this opportunity to respond to the government's proposals as set out in the White Paper "The House of Lords: Completing the Reform." In offering our response we are conscious that, even in advance of the completion of the formal consultation period, the government has signalled that changes are likely to its own proposals. We shall continue therefore to monitor developments closely and respond accordingly. Nevertheless, we believe it is important at this juncture to set out clearly our views on the sort of Second Chamber we would like to see and the religious presence in it.

In our view, the guiding principle of such reform must be to serve the people better. That is a goal to which the Church of England, with its long history of parliamentary service, remains strongly committed.

We do not see that commitment as a narrow or sectional one. That is why the following response touches on broad issues as well as on matters more closely related to the religious dimension of the proposed reforms.

Below, we outline the main areas of our response, on which we comment in greater detail later.

A) Broad principles and approach:

In our earlier submission to government, in response to the report of the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords, we found much to commend at the level of general principle in the approach adopted by Lord Wakeham and his colleagues. We commented:

We offer the report of the Commission a broad welcome. The issues it addresses are fundamental to the health of our parliamentary democracy. On many, though not all, of these issues, its conclusions and recommendations are persuasive and provide a good basis for the evolutionary change that is necessary.

The report is right to say that a reformed second chamber should complement the House of Commons. In a number of senses, its role is to provide a different yet complementary system of representation to that provided by the House of Commons. It should not seek to challenge that House's democratic primacy but it must not be a mere cipher. It should have powers to amend legislation, to require reconsideration and should play its part in the duty of Parliament to hold the executive effectively to account.

Given that understanding, we welcome the Commission's proposal for a part elected but mainly appointed House. We also welcome:

- the proposed separation of the honours system from membership of the House;
- the proposed establishment of an independent appointments commission.

That remains our position on the Royal Commission proposals, and to the extent that the White Paper follows the Commission on these general principles, it too has our broad support. However, on certain points, where the government has departed from the Royal Commission, we are less persuaded.

These include the areas of political patronage and the independently appointed element in the new Second Chamber. They also include the balance between elected and appointed members in the reformed House and the voting method by which elected members arrive there. These are matters of considerable importance if a representative House which carries credibility and confidence is to be achieved. The Government will need to produce convincing conceptual as well as pragmatic arguments on these points if any revised proposals it produces are to prove acceptable.

B) Representation of Christian Denominations and Religious Faiths:

With regard to religious representation, our earlier submission welcomed warmly the acceptance by the Royal Commission of including members of other Christian churches and of other faiths in the reformed second chamber - a principle long and strongly urged by the Church of England.

While appreciating the complex challenges of achieving this broader presence on a systematic basis, we do not consider the "ad hoc" and essentially discretionary approach advocated by the White Paper to be sufficient. We therefore believe that, separate from the presence of Church of England bishops, a minimum numerical threshold should be set, by law, for religious representation in the Second Chamber.

C) The Church of England's Presence in the reformed Second Chamber

The White Paper has followed the Royal Commission in proposing a reduction in the number of Church of England bishops from twenty six to sixteen. In our earlier submission, we stressed that our primary concern -- which we believe to be supported by the government --was to preserve and strengthen the quality of the contribution we made to the Second Chamber. We noted that a reduction to sixteen would weaken it, and commented further:

Assuming that the main thrust of the Royal Commission's proposals is implemented, we believe that a minimum of twenty places would enable the Church to offer effective service in the context of a reformed second chamber. Anything less would endanger that prospect.

In advancing this argument we were at pains to emphasise that it was not an exclusive one:

Any such increase should not be at the expense of our ecumenical and other faith partners but there should be a proportionate increase in their number also.

We continue to believe that a modest increase in places, over the recommendations of the Royal Commission, for both Church of England bishops and members drawn from other Christian churches and other faith communities is the best way forward.

It also offers an approach that would assist the Second Chamber in developing a valued and distinctive role as a forum in which complex and sensitive matters to do with relations between faith communities and their place in modern society can be aired and debated in a measured and well-informed manner.

PART TWO: DETAILED RESPONSE

A) Balance of Composition

The key question, in our judgement, upon which the White Paper seeks responses, is:
"Is the overall balance between elected, nominated and ex-officio members (Law Lords and Bishops) right, and the balance between political and independent members?"

These are significant issues. Underpinning a response must be a view of what the Second Chamber is for and what it can distinctively contribute. Given the "complementary" function of the Second Chamber in relation to the role of the House of Commons, we believe that an important test of its distinctiveness should be its ability to enrich the parliamentary process and our national discourse. (One measure might be: what has the Second Chamber added to a piece of parliamentary business or a debate that, for whatever reason, the House of Commons could not?)

One way of promoting that distinctiveness lies with the composition of the Second Chamber. In particular we believe that two aspects are especially significant: diversity and independence of view and approach. A membership drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds, with accumulated knowledge, expertise and insight - offered from an independent standpoint - will in our judgement be an important means to enhancing the reputation and standing of the Second Chamber, and its effectiveness as a revising and debating Chamber. The White Paper itself describes independent membership as "an element of the existing House of Lords to which people attach the highest importance."

Also central, therefore, to an appreciation of issues concerning diversity and independence of view and approach must be the role of professional politicians and the reach of political parties in the Second Chamber.

Much of the public debate since the publication of the White Paper has focused on the balance between elected and appointed members in the new House. We do not think it is for us to suggest what the balance should be. We do, however, offer the view that for public confidence in the new chamber to be achieved, it is essential that the proportion of elected members is larger than currently proposed.

It is clear that a substantial proportion of the membership of a reformed Second Chamber as envisaged by the Government is likely to be from a professional political background - either through election or in some cases through party nomination and approval by the Appointments Commission.

In addition, party nominees, even when not from a professional political background, will be expected generally to demonstrate party allegiance.

Indeed, we note that under the proposals of the White Paper, total political nominations (i.e. excluding the elected element) would account for over half the entire membership of a post-transitional House.

We recognise that the confrontational cut and thrust of party-based and party-aligned politics is a basic feature of our parliamentary practice. The political and parliamentary skills of experienced and talented politicians frequently play a valuable and effective part in enriching debate and exposing flaws in substantial matters before both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. However there must be serious doubts whether the second chamber would be serving its own distinctive though complementary purpose by appearing increasingly to mirror the political characteristics of the House of Commons. Moreover if it is to fulfil its purpose and carry credibility with the public, it needs to have at its disposal a wider range of expertise and skills than a party dominated House could necessarily provide.

We believe parliament and the people would be better served by reducing the patronage of the political parties and shifting the balance of political and independent members. This should be done through abandoning the closed party list system for elections to the chamber and an increase in the independent nominations considered by the Appointments Commission.

A relevant further aspect of this question is the overall size of the House. We do not find any compelling argument for capping membership at six hundred, and certainly not one that over-rides the arguments for promoting independence and diversity of approach as key elements in characterising the composition of the Second Chamber. As we wrote in our earlier submission:

We would counsel against too dramatic a move to reduce the overall size of the House if the main intentions of reform are to be realised. Reducing overall numbers to some arbitrary level is less important than achieving effective representation from amongst groups who are not full-time politicians and who are included in the first place primarily because of their other roles and expertise. Moreover a certain minimum level of representation is critical if such groups are to play an effective role in the complex and detailed processes of the legislature.

We continue to believe that a larger House has much to commend it.

B) Religious Presence in the Second Chamber:

We have long argued in favour of a wider reflection of the nation's spiritual life in the second chamber. As noted earlier, at a time of growing interest in relations between faiths, their approach to moral and ethical issues, and their place in the contemporary world, the Second Chamber has considerable potential as a forum, arguably a unique forum, for serious and well-informed debate on these matters.

It is important that the membership of the House equips it to fulfil that role. The White Paper departs from the recommendations of the Royal Commission on how this should be achieved. It abandons the proposal of defined numbers (a total of ten members drawn from Christian churches other than the Church of England and a minimum of five from other faith communities) in favour of discretionary powers in the hands of the Appointments Commission.

While we appreciate the practical difficulties in giving substance to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, we do not believe that the response of the White Paper is adequate. If the government does not feel able to follow the exact prescription of the Royal Commission on quotas, it should nevertheless in our judgement explicitly require in legislation that a minimum level of both Christian (in addition to Church of England) and other faith representation be achieved. At the least the Appointments Commission should be placed under a statutory duty to ensure an adequate reflection of religious belief in a reformed House. As regards securing a representative Christian (in addition to Church of England) presence in such a House, we know that Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (the ecumenical body of which virtually all the mainstream Christian churches are members) would be willing to assist the Commission in this respect.

In our earlier submission we argued that the overall numbers envisaged by the Royal Commission were insufficient - a difficulty alluded to in the White Paper's response to the suggestions of the Royal Commission:

"There are many more denominations and faiths than could be accommodated by the numbers proposed."

While it would clearly not be possible under any conceivable arrangement to make that kind of accommodation, we argued in our earlier submission that both Church of England numbers and those of other denominations and faiths should be increased over the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That remains our view as set out below.

C) Church of England Presence:

A significant part of the rationale for the presence of Lords Spiritual in the Second Chamber was identified by the Royal Commission report, when it stated:

'For some of us, the presence of the Lords Spiritual is a sign that governments are in the end accountable not only to those that elect them but also to a higher authority.'

Behind this statement lies the basis of our unwritten constitution. Sovereignty is vested in the Queen in Parliament under God. Not Parliament alone, but the Queen in Parliament and both accountable to a higher authority. The presence of Bishops in the House of Lords is a symbol of this truth and of the religious reference of governance in this country. It is one element in the subtle relationship of Crown and Parliament. It characterises Government as a sacred trust under God and is an acknowledgement that a Christian perspective is an important feature of debates that concern the common good and public life as a whole.

Such a rationale does not speak directly to the number of Bishops that should be members of the Second Chamber. Our understanding of that derives substantially from the fact that bishops are not in parliament as representatives of a narrow institutional interest, but as an expression of the position they hold in relation to the whole community in the dioceses they serve. The Church of England as, in England, the national Church 'by law established' has a commitment to minister to the whole community extending far beyond the core of regular churchgoers.

That commitment places bishops in a special position in their regions as independent and authoritative voices able to draw together and articulate a range of concerns and interests that may run the risk of being overlooked otherwise. Thus, the regional role can also be invaluable for the contribution they make to the work of parliament. Indeed, when coupled with the spiritual and ethical insights that are brought to bear, episcopal contributions in parliament offer, at their best, a perspective that is both unique and richly-illuminating. Recent examples might include a wide range of contributions on relations between religious and ethnic communities, schools and education policy, cloning and stem cell research, immigration and asylum, and marriage and family issues.

Bishops are very much members of the House with a workload and range of duties that preclude the level of attendance expected of career politicians or members whose work is primarily within parliament. This is a strength to the House, both in terms of the House's diversity and of the lively experience on the basis of which bishops are able to contribute to debates. Indeed it is precisely because bishops have responsibilities outside the House that they are fitted to serve its core tasks so well. As the government recognised in an earlier White Paper "the present representation makes it possible for the Church to ensure its perspective is represented on all occasions when it would be particularly valuable."

As an example, the religious dimensions of the government's recent anti-terrorism legislation can be cited. A small team of bishops working together was able to ensure that the House of Lords had the benefit of their perspective and insight throughout the intense parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation. Such a service could not realistically be provided without a sufficient pool of bishops with places in the House of Lords
It was never intended and is not seriously envisaged that the full complement of bishops should be present at any one time. That misunderstands, and misrepresents, the purpose and nature of their contribution.

Our strong desire remains to increase still further the effectiveness of the service that the Church of England offers the nation through the working presence of bishops in Parliament.

In proposing a reduction in the number of Lords Spiritual, the Royal Commission does not pretend to be promoting that goal. It admits:

'our recommendations will create considerable difficulties for the Church of England'

Indeed, all available projections suggest that, regrettably, a reduction from twenty six to sixteen bishops would weaken rather than strengthen the service we can provide.

It would reduce the degree of parliamentary expertise we could make available to the House, by drastically cutting the period during which bishops would serve in the second chamber.

It would also reduce the breadth of experience bishops are able to bring to the House, because not all diocesan bishops could expect to serve for a period in the second chamber.

We believe there is an unhelpful arbitrariness about the proposed reduction to sixteen. It is a figure first mooted more than thirty years ago, but in the context of proposals for a much smaller Second Chamber than is currently envisaged and one in which only some members would have had voting rights. We also note that it represents a disproportionately large reduction, when compared to the proposals in the White Paper for the overall reduction from present levels in the size of the reformed chamber. (A reduction from 750 to 600 represents a cutback of 20%; a reduction of 26 to 16 represents a cutback of nearly 40%). On any measure, the figure is entirely arbitrary.

At this time it would jeopardise the contribution bishops can make to the work of parliament, and that in a context where a broader faith presence is envisaged as a discretionary matter for the Appointments Commission.

We do not believe the proposed reduction is in the interests of the parliamentary service of bishops, nor in the interests of an effective second chamber committed to reflecting the spiritual life of the nation.

Our belief remains that a total presence of twenty bishops is the minimum necessary to maintain the parliamentary service we seek to offer.

We also continue to believe that there should be a defined overall number of places for other Christian churches and other faiths. This total should be increased over the proposals of the Royal Commission in the same ratio as that for the Church of England outlined above.

Should that argument not be accepted, and should the Church of England remain the only guaranteed faith presence in the second chamber, we would wish to continue to speak as appropriate for Christian partners and for people of other faiths. That commitment would represent an additional argument against reducing the number of bishops to sixteen.

In effect, our preferred position would entail an increase of eight places (four additional Church of England bishops and four additional representatives of our Christian partners and other faiths) over the Royal Commission's proposed figure of at least thirty one places for all faith-based representatives.

If as we argue the ceiling of six hundred for the reformed Second Chamber is too low, these additional members could be accommodated without serious difficulty.

If the number of Church of England bishops remains at sixteen, a frank discussion will be needed with government and the parliamentary authorities about the expectations it is reasonable to have of such a reduced presence and about how this service is to be resourced.

CONCLUSION

Whilst we continue to support the principle of a mainly appointed House, we believe the government's proposals could be considerably improved with regard to both the balance and composition of the House. We believe a larger House with more independent, non politically-affiliated members would enhance the effectiveness of the second chamber as a brake on precipitate legislation and in helping to hold the executive to account. It would serve the public interest better and be more likely to command public respect and support.

We believe that a broader faith presence is an important element in such a reform and that the government's proposals in this area are insufficient.

So far as the Church of England is concerned, we continue to believe that twenty is the minimum number of members required in order to offer effective service in the context of a reformed second chamber.

We also urge the government to set a clearly defined minimum level for the number of members drawn from other denominations and faiths.

We encourage the government to follow these suggestions in order to promote a House of Lords capable of doing justice to its important role in the parliamentary process and our national discourse, a role in which, as recent events have so clearly demonstrated, the articulate contribution of a religious and spiritual perspective is more than ever an important component.

January 2002.

feedback | contact us | links | site map | copyright & disclaimer | privacy | site help
Supported by Ecclesiastical Insurance Group
Site developed by ILRT