Bishops in the House of Lords?

The new Government is proposing a Bill to remove all hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Conservative MP and Anglican Gavin Williamson has announced that he will introduce an amendment to remove the entitlement of Church of England bishops to sit in the House of Lords. Mouse takes a look at the history, purpose and performance of the Lords Spiritual.

Image created using Microsoft Designer AI

The Bishop's formal role in the House of Lords traces its origins to the 14th century when two distinct parliamentary bodies emerged. The representatives of the shires and boroughs became known as the Commons, and the meetings of magnates and church leaders became the Lords.

Until the 16th century, the Lords Spiritual were Bishops as well as Abbots and Priors from the monasteries and priories. Following the suppression of the monasteries in 1539, only bishops remained.

Bishops have been removed from Parliament for a short period before. In 1642 they were removed during the civil war, following which the House of Lords itself was abolished before it resumed sitting in 1660. The bishops returned following the Clergy Act of 1661. During this period, the Commons established its primacy over both the King and the Lords, culminating in the 1689 Bill of Rights.

While the Lords Spiritual only come from the Church of England, this has not always been the case. Welsh bishops were historically represented since the Welsh and English Church was united until the 20th century. Following the 1800 Act of Union with Ireland, four senior Irish clergy were sent to the Lords. However, following the disestablishment of the Irish and Welsh churches in 1869 and 1914 respectively, the Welsh and Irish bishops lost their rights to sit in the Lords. 

The Scottish church went in quite a different direction. Historically, Bishops, Abbots, and Priors had sat in the Scottish Parliament, as their equivalents had done in England. The nature of the reformation, however, took the church in a different direction in Scotland and it became a presbyterian church, removing the role of bishop altogether. Scotland has never sent clerics to the UK Parliament.

The current composition of the Lords Spiritual, with 26 bishops entitled to sit, was finalised in 1847 following the establishment of the Bishopric of Manchester. This results in 21 senior Diocesan Bishops (out of 44 dioceses) sitting in the Lords alongside the two Archbishops and bishops of London, Durham and Winchester, which are permanent roles.

The nature of the House of Lords itself has similarly evolved. From an initial entitlement to sit in Parliament on a hereditary basis on equal footing with the Commons, the Lords today has a hollowed-out Parliamentary role and a reformed membership. Life Peerages were created in 1958 (largely) in the gift of the sitting Prime Minister. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 finally established the total supremacy of the Commons, removing the right of the Lords to block legislation that has been approved by the Commons and reducing the Lords' ability to delay the enactment of Bills passed by the Commons. Tony Blair's reforms removed all but a rump of hereditary peers and made the Upper House a wholly appointed body, with the role of debating and revising legislation, but ultimately one which cannot compel the Commons to act or prevent the Commons from acting, if it is determined not to.

Historically the Lords also had a judicial role as the ultimate court of appeal for civil and criminal cases (with the exception of criminal cases in Scotland which were dealt with in the Scottish judicial system). Appeals were heard by specially appointed Law Lords. However, this role was also removed in 2009 with the establishment of the UK Supreme Court.

Despite all this change, Lords reform has the sense of an incomplete process. The Coalition Government of 2010 initiated Lords reform with the intention of creating a significantly smaller House which would be 'largely or wholly' elected. However, disputes between coalition partners led to that legislation being dropped. Interestingly, the proposals included the retention of the Lords Spiritual, albeit in slightly reduced numbers.

Mouse observes, however, that the question on most reformers' lips is 'what should the Upper Chamber look like' rather than 'what should the Upper Chamber do'. The discussion is dominated by the methods of appointing or selecting peers, rather than on their powers and prerogatives, making it a lopsided discussion, struggling to explain why the chamber should be elected or appointed without an adequate explanation of what the purpose of the chamber is in the first place.

Today, a range of criticisms are levelled at the makeup of the Lords. The rump of hereditary peers feels like a historical relic, for example. And, of course, there have been calls to remove the automatic right of bishops to sit in the Lords. It is, however, the appointments process which has attracted the most criticism. Successive Prime Ministers have appointed new peers at impressive rates in an attempt to level up the numbers on party lines, leading to an ever-growing group of Peers, now totaling over 800 with no mandatory retirement age in place. Each PM has favoured appointees based on political persuasion, which regularly attracts scrutiny. And some individual appointments have attracted particular controversy. Boris Johnson's decision to appoint the son of a Soviet KGB agent was a notable case, although there are plenty of historical examples, such as Harold Wilson's infamous 1976 resignation honours, known as the 'Lavender List'.

Source: House of Lords Library

In this context, some have argued that the Bishops are a model of consistency, probity and integrity, being free from a duty of obligation to the politician or party who nominated them. Democratic arguments are futile in a body which is clearly undemocratic to its fingertips, and a group with a form of 'ex officio' presence makes some sense.

The English Bishops sit as independents. They have not formed a 'party' and do not agree on lines to take or which way to vote. They are, however, organised to some extent. A 'convenor', currently the Bishop of St Albans, Alan Smith, ensures through a rota system that there is some presence in the upper house, not least to formally open business for the day by reading prayers. Different bishops also agree to take the lead on particular issues where they have a strong interest, specialism or experience. Nevertheless, bishops can essentially turn up whenever they want, speak or vote whenever they want and however they want.

As a result, they tend to have sporadic attendance, speaking and voting records. Their attendance has averaged around 15% in recent parliaments. Mouse observes that their voting record tends to skew towards issues they are voting against rather than issues they are voting for. This has particularly been the case in recent Parliaments, with less than 5% of their votes supporting the government since 2019 as their participation in Parliamentary votes jumped significantly then too.

The bishops hold fewer than 3% of all votes and Mouse cannot identify a single vote where they can be said to have clinched the outcome. However, it is often said that their contributions carry considerable moral weight, so their influence is likely greater than their votes alone.

The excellent Church in Parliament website keeps a record of all the bishops' interventions and votes and a scroll through that shows that they tend to speak and vote on moral and social issues, or bring out the moral and social issues in wider topics, which is to be expected.

It is unlikely that Gavin Williamson's amendment will succeed. But pressure for wider reform of the House of Lords is building and a wider package of measures is more likely to include reform of the Bishops' bench.

Support for the current position is thin on the ground. A recent survey of clergy by The Times revealed that only a third of clergy thought the current position should remain. Most argued either for an expansion of the presence of religious leaders from a range of traditions (45%) or other reforms to reduce the number or remove the bishops from the Lords altogether (15%).

A recent YouGov poll showed that 52% of the public supported the removal of the bishops' entitlement to sit in the Lords, and 55% agreed that the Lords should be wholly elected. Only 16% supported retaining the current model.

The best argument the bishops have for keeping their place seems to be that they are a positive presence in the Lords and a proposal to remove them should take a wider review to ensure it doesn't simply make the Lords a worse place.

Mouse's take is that it is impossible to argue that the current setup is anything other than a historical anachronism. However, there are some benefits. The bishops undoubtedly add a positive moral voice in the Lords. Whatever reforms come next, Mouse would advocate for a positive voice from religious communities, including the Church of England, and it would be unwise to remove that from the current Lords without an alternative in place. His advice to the Bishops is to get to work on engaging with the issue and proposing options for the future, as it is unlikely the status quo will remain forever.