As hereditary peers are readied for the exit, Sir Gavin Williamson wants bishops to follow them out of the door. Harriet Symonds finds out if they have enough support to stay in the most secular Parliament in history. Illustrations by Tracy Worrall
“We want to fan the flames of radicalism in him,” declared Conservative MP Gavin Williamson from the green benches, as he urged the new paymaster general Nick Thomas-Symonds to go further on Lords reform.
The new ‘Tory radical’, as he now likes being called, is tabling an amendment to the Hereditary Peers Bill that would boot the bishops out of the House of Lords for good. “The government has made the decision to remove one outlier that has become outdated, they should also recognise the fact that there is another great outlier,” he explains.
In the biggest Lords reform shake-up in almost 25 years, the Labour government has decided to abolish the remaining 92 hereditary peers, as promised in its manifesto. But 26 Lords Spiritual also possess an automatic right to sit and vote in the Lords and have done so since the 14th century. They constitute another block now thought by some to be outdated and undemocratic, no longer representing Britain today.
It is completely out of sync with any modern democracy. It’s frankly wrong, and it’s actually quite insulting
The amendment has support from a number of Williamson’s Conservative colleagues, including Richard Holden, Alicia Kearns and Nick Timothy. It also has support from John McDonnell and Labour’s Graham Stringer.
“What can justify the Church of England having the right to such legislative power? This is completely out of sync with any modern democracy. It’s frankly wrong, and it’s actually quite insulting,” argues Williamson.
Churchgoing is in steady decline in the UK, with a growing number identifying as non-religious. This is reflected in the most secular House of Commons in history.
“The only major country that has clergy as a part of its legislature as a right is Iran. It is completely wrong,” argues the former chief whip.
One former long-standing aide to the Lords Spiritual says this argument is gratuitous. “If Gavin Williamson thinks Parliament functions like the Iranian Majles then, I suppose, that rather explains his performance as an MP for so many years.”
As expected, the bishops have not received suggestions of their demise well. “The proposal to remove the bishops has completely come out of left field,” says the Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, who has been a member of the Lords for a decade.
None of the 26 bishops have so far spoken to Williamson about his amendment: “There’s been no consultation,” says the Bishop of Oxford.
The Lords Spiritual met privately last week to discuss the amendment. They expect to publish a joint statement from all 26 bishops at some point but have not planned beyond that at this stage. “We will continue to serve while we’re still summoned to Parliament,” says the Bishop of St Albans, Alan Smith, and convener of the Lords Spiritual. “If there is a consensus that that is not what the country wants, we will respond appropriately. We don’t have special privilege.”
“I would hope that actually they recognise that they need to reform, and part of that reform is removing themselves from the legislative process as lawmakers,” says Williamson.
The Lords Spiritual insist that they should be involved in any discussions to remove them. “If there are proposals for reform, we will work consistently and supportively with it,” says the Bishop of St Albans. “At the moment, we believe we’re able to make a contribution, so we’re going to continue to offer that.”
“If Gavin wants to meet with me, I’d be delighted to meet with him,” he adds.
Historically, the Conservative Party has thought of itself as the party to defend the presence of the established Church in the legislature, but now that seems less certain.
Tensions between the bishops and the Conservatives reached boiling point during the last parliament, with relations described as “toxic” and “unfixable”. The bishops were criticised for being too political by taking strong views on government legislation, in particular its flagship immigration policy. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was one of the major critics of the Rwanda Bill at the time, labelling it “immoral and cruel”.
Some Conservative MPs still feel deeply uncomfortable about this. “They really shouldn’t see themselves as anti-government, which makes me very suspicious that they have in recent times chosen to become quite political, and I think that’s wrong,” says Andrew Murrison, Conservative MP for South West Wiltshire and one of those backing the amendment.
He insists the government has “got its priorities the wrong way round” and the bishops should have been abolished before the hereditary peers.
One hereditary peer, sad about his final days in the Lords, agrees and says if he must go the bishops should too.
“As a member of the Church of England, I’d much rather the bishops tended their flock and cured souls, rather than tried to be mighty politicians which, in recent years, they have tried to be.”
Religion has always had a place in Parliament, sittings in both Houses begin with prayers, and prayer cards are still used to book seats in debates. “It seems a little bit reminiscent of people putting towels down on lounges on some sort of Mediterranean holiday in the 1980s,” jokes one Labour MP. “You get there early, mark your spot, and nobody can sit there for the rest of the day.”
But the bishops insist they are not there to proselytise and unlike other groups don’t have a leader or ‘party whip’, leaving them free to vote how they please on any issue.
“We are there to engage in the political process. If the General Synod ever tries to tell us what we ought to tell the government, we are very robust, we are not there as a special constituency,” insists the Bishop of St Albans.
But with the Labour Party now in government, its relationship with the Church of England could quickly end up in a similar place. “They share many common values and the key to the growth missions can be bolstered by the church. Alas, no doubt, the two will spend their time bickering over matters of sexuality and gender identity,” says the former long-standing aide to the Lords Spiritual.
Keen to show her support for the bishops in her new role as second church estates commissioner, Marsha de Cordova says: “They scrutinise government legislation, which is what the Upper Chamber is there to do and one of the positive things is that they are not partisan… To me that is something we should be applauding.
“I always believe there will be a place in the Lords for our bishops. I can’t see any space where that wouldn’t be the case.”
If Gavin Williamson thinks Parliament functions like the Iranian Majles then, I suppose, that rather explains his performance as an MP for so many years
Most new Labour MPs privately agree with abolishing the bishops in the Lords, but say they won’t be drawn into political game-playing by the opposition that would ultimately force them to vote against their own principles.
“Of course Gavin is playing games,” remarks one influential new Labour MP.
Another new Labour MP tells The House they thought Williamson’s numerous interventions were “rude” – he intervened or attempted to intervene 13 times – and doubts it’ll win him much support from Labour colleagues.
“The interventions weren’t all they seemed to be,” adds a different new Labour MP, Patrick Hurley. “I’m not sure Gavin is entirely in favour of removing the bishops from the House of Lords… A bit of game-playing there I think.”
Undeterred, Williamson challenges Labour MPs to support his amendment: “I would hope Labour MPs show some bravery and vote for what they believe and what is right as opposed to being obsessed about promotion.”
Hurley adds: “He’s playing some Byzantine-rule load of nonsense, just trying to catch people out for his own purposes. He would be better advised to look at sorting his own party out.”
“I got very carried away,” Williamson admits of some of his interventions. “I’m quite enjoying opposition,” he chuckles.
In a bid to garner support, he has also tabled an amendment which includes an age limit of 80 for all peers – something promised in Labour’s manifesto. However, as the bishops are quick to point out, they already have a retirement age of 70.
“We should eventually look to have the bishops removed,” says Hurley. But he believes it must be done “piecemeal”, so won’t be supporting Gavin’s amendment.
“Sooner or later I think the bishops would even accept that they shouldn’t have a place there as a right.”
But if not now, then when? “I’m pushing 50 and I hope it’ll be within my lifetime,” he adds. “It’s been 25 years since the last major reform of the House of Lords and if we continue on the same trajectory I’ll be 73 years old.”
Unless Labour abstains, it is unlikely the bill will pass given the size of the government’s majority. One bishop says hearing a few rum comments from senior Conservative MPs in the tea rooms reassured him about Williamson’s amendment.
However, one influential Labour MP tells The House they are considering voting for it. Many of the new Labour intake are in favour of radically modernising the Upper Chamber, most preferring an elected second chamber to an appointed one.
“I think the new intake will be on a steep learning curve,” says the Bishop of St Albans. He believes that, having only experienced Parliament for a few short months, they have yet to realise the bishops’ true value in moments of crisis.
