This week, the House of Commons is focusing its attention on proposed reforms to the House of Lords. MPs backed plans to get rid of the remaining 92 hereditary peers on Tuesday, while a second bill which will increase the number of female bishops in the Lords had its second reading on Thursday. The contrasting nature of the two bills highlights the rather problematic way Labour is pursuing constitutional reform.
The Labour party’s 2024 manifesto made a number of promises on House of Lords reform. It pledged to remove hereditary peers, instate a mandatory retirement age, and included a commitment to introduce ‘an alternative second chamber which is more representative of the regions and nations’.
In spite of this, Sir Keir Starmer’s first Kings Speech only put forward two legislative measures. A bill removing the last of the hereditary peers, and a second bill relating to the bishops who sit in the Lords. I have previously commented on the former measure, which I consider rushed and unwise.
The second bill has already passed through the House of Lords. It contains only one substantive clause and is designed to extend the life of an existing act to ensure that whenever a vacancy arises among the 21 bishops who sit in the House of Lords who do not hold one of the ‘great sees’ (Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester), the position will continue to be filled by a female diocesan bishop – if one is available.
The bill continues a temporary practice introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition to enable more female bishops to sit in the House of Lords. Assuming it is passed, the new bill will continue the practice until May 2030.
Since the passage of the original legislation in 2015, the House of Commons Library records that six female bishops have entered the House of Lords more quickly than otherwise would have been the case. When the bill was proposed, the Cabinet Office issued a press release noting that it was at the request of the Church of England. The Rt Reverend Rachel Treweek, Bishop of Gloucester, has contended that:
‘Bishops in the House of Lords seek to speak to the hopes and needs of all people across the communities they serve. By better reflecting those communities we can carry out that service more effectively.’
This is all well and good, and an argument can be made in favour of addressing gender inequality, particularly since women make up only 29 per cent of the House of Lords. However, the more pressing matter is how – when it has expedited legislation to remove hereditary peers from the Lords – can the government justify the retention of Church of England bishops?
Baroness Smith of Basildon, the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords, has argued that the ‘Lords Spiritual play a key role in the House of Lords’. However, recent headlines, following the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, suggest the Church of England should be getting its own house in order, rather than seeking to influence government policy and legislation in the Lords.
The John Smyth scandal threatens to engulf the CofE with suggestions that other senior figures may have known about and either ignored, or even covered up, allegations of abuse. These issues are toxic and victims of abuse are calling for further resignations.
Into this boiling cauldron, Sir Gavin Williamson has thrown in the quite reasonable question: why is Labour seeking to remove hereditary peers, but not the bishops, from the House of Lords? On Tuesday, he tabled an amendment to the hereditary peers bill, seeking to remove the bishops as well. His proposal was defeated. But it forced reformers into a number of convoluted contortions.
Williamson noted that only other country which has unelected clerics in its legislature is Iran. He argued that the bishops ‘do not come from every component part of the United Kingdom’ – but rather are restricted to those who hold office in England and that only 2 per cent of the British population attend an Anglican service on Sundays. He suggested that the bishops ‘have an absolute right to influence the course of public debate, but from the pulpit, not in Parliament.’
In response, Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Sarah Olney said that while her party supported Williamson’s ambition in ‘the long term’, the current bill was ‘not the correct vehicle for it’. Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds argued that the bill had ‘a clear and simple purpose’ and ‘a single focus’ and sought to avoid the question of what to do about the bishops entirely. Labour MPs were left to argue that the amendment might open up a debate about the role of the established church and that it should not be ‘tacked on’ to the bill.
For the jaded cynics amongst us the passage of these two rather contradictory bills appears to be designed to give the Labour party a smaller, more compliant House of Lords. Over 40 of the hereditary peers are Conservative, while only four are Labour peers. Perhaps the government thinks the bishops will be more likely to support its positions in the Lords.
Given the size of Labour’s majority, it seems that both bills will pass without too much controversy. However, unless Labour comes forward with further moves to reform the Lords – for example by restricting the Prime Minister’s powers of patronage and allowing the House of Lords Appointments Commission to veto unsuitable candidates – it’s hard not to conclude that the nature and timing of this constitutional reform is almost entirely self-interested.
Comments