The right of unelected clerics to have an automatic seat in our legislature was addressed by the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) in a panel debate held at House of Lords on 29 June. The panel expressed a range of views on their retention or exclusion, however most concluded the Government’s proposals as they stand are unsatisfactory.
The debate was held in response the Government’s proposals for reform of the House of Lords, which includes a proposal to retain reserved seats for 12 (from 26) Bishops of the Church of England in a reformed chamber, with a 20% appointed and an 80% elected membership. Arguing for the retention of the Bishops were Christina Rees, a member of the Church of England Synod, and Paul Bickley, senior researcher at Theos, a public theology think tank. The case for removing the reserved places for Bishops was proposed by Chris Bryant MP, Shadow Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform and the British Humanist Association’s Chief Executive Andrew Copson.
Opening the debate, Andrew Copson raised the principal arguments made for the retention of the Bishops and in-turn dispelled the defence of retaining Bishops in the Lords on the basis of their historical value, and of their role as unique moral voice. Mr Copson finished his remarks by stating that even if he was wrong, and there were good reasons for keeping the Bishops, this was not an argument for their automatic inclusion as members of a revised chamber, and they could either stand for election or submit themselves to be appointed on individual merit.
Paul Bickley responded that in a democracy, not all valuable contributions required the support of a democratic mandate. As the House of Lords is principally a revising chamber, the presence of Church of England Bishops facilitates an important forum for spiritual consideration on issues of public policy.
Chris Bryant MP opened his remarks with a reference to his background as an ordained minister in the Church of England, and referred to his profound love for a Church which he now boycotts because they ‘boycott gays’. Mr Bryant stressed that parliamentarians are only legitimate if they have gained support at the ballot-box, and urged any reform to result in a 100% chamber. Mr Bryant described how the Bishops were granted their place in Parliament by Plantagenet monarchs because the Church was a significant landowner. Now times had changed, the Bishops were wasting their time conducting parliamentary duties and really should focus on pastoral matters.
Delivering the final speech of the panel, Christina Rees, member of the Church of England Synod, argued that, while she was a reformer with a particular desire to see women granted the opportunity to be consecrated as Bishops, she supported the Bishops as independent moral voices that ensured ‘faith’ was not sidelined in the process of governance. Mrs Rees also highlighted the support that the contingent of Church of England Bishops has from members of other religions and denominations.
The subsequent floor debate included contributions from academics, representatives of religious groups and a number of Members of the House of Lords. Lord Harrison of Chester forcefully expressed his opposition to having to ‘kow-tow’ to the Bishops in the House of Lords. Not only do non-religious peers find the opening prayers initiating each ceremony disagreeable, but the practice of deferring to Bishops over others in debates was a cause of contention. In a largely self-regulating Chamber, as a matter of convention when a Bishop rises to speak they are given precedence, which, from Lord Harrison’s perspective, often came at the expense of Peers with expertise and personal experience in that area.
In response to concerns raised by the BHA’s Head of Public Affairs Naomi Phillips on the specific proposals raised in the Government’s House of Lords Reform Bill over the lack of accountability of Bishops because of their proposed wide exemptions from disciplinary procedures, Theos Senior Researcher Paul Bickley replied that he was confident in the high-standard of the Bishops’ conduct, and that any misdemeanours would be effectively checked by the Church of England themselves.
The voting patterns and conduct of the Bishops on gaining exemptions from equality legislation that would permit them to discriminate in the provision of services and employment came under particular scrutiny.
The final area covered by the debate was that of reform to the law on assisted dying, which the Bishops uniformly oppose. Chris Bryant remarked that although he was in agreement with the Bishops on this matter, the retention of clerics in the Lords should not be based on the popularity or otherwise of their views, but on the simple fact that no group should have an automatic entitlement to such a position, and no person should be exempt from the gaining the consent of the electorate to sit in Parliament.
Listen to the meeting on the Pod Delusion.
Notes:
The debate followed the Annual General Meeting of the APPHG in which Lord Warner was again confirmed as the Chair, with the re-election of the Vice-Chairs Baroness Flather of Windsor and Maidenhead , Kelvin Hopkins MP , Lord Taverne of Pimlico, Dr Julian Huppert MP and Lord Garel-Jones. The Group’s Secretary is Baroness Massey of Darwen and the Treasurer Lord Dubs.
The BHA provides the Secretariat for the APPHG but it is not affiliated to, or part of, the BHA. For more information about the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, see: https://humanists.uk/about/apphg,