As we near the next Queen’s speech of this coalition government we know that reform of the House of Lords is a big priority for the junior partner in the coalition. Quite why the Liberal Democrats think that championing this particular cause will restore their electoral fortunes after two years of supporting legislation to wreck the NHS, dismantle legal aid, treble student fees and bring terrible hardship to millions through the austerity regime and changes to welfare benefit, is a bit of a mystery. Nonetheless it is part of their deal with the Conservatives that reform of the Lords will be introduced in the next session. Last week saw the publication of a report from the joint committee of both Houses, and its alternative report, which amply illustrate the lack of agreement about fundamental matters.

I have been a root and branch Lords reformer since I was introduced to the Lords in 1998, and believed that getting rid of the hereditary peerage was but the first step along the road of abolishing ourselves and setting up a modern democratically accountable second chamber. The rest of the bicameral democratic world manages pretty well with elections of one sort or another.

I was enthusiastic in my support for the ejection of the hereditary peerage, and ready to be ejected myself when the time came. But it never came. Here I am still, doing my best to be a good legislator, accountable to values and principles of Labour, and in the absence of a democratic mandate, trying to give voice to those who do not have one. Which seems to me the best a Labour peer can do under the circumstances.

For me, one of the biggest disappointments of Clegg’s proposal for a reformed House of Lords was that he caved in over the presence of the bishops in the new second chamber. If any of the proposals for the new House succeed over the next year or so, keeping even a reduced number of bishops in our legislature is sentimental, inappropriate and undermines any notion of democratic accountability.

The presence of clerics in the UK legislature goes back to the original parliament of the 14th century, The Lords spiritual and temporal (as we are still known). Of course in those days the church was a real power in the land, owned quite a large part of it, was the seat of learning, literacy and largely provided whatever passed for health and welfare for the population. Over hundreds of years there they remained, and in 1878 the current number and representation of the Church of England was agreed. This was of course in a House of Lords which consisted of, as it had since the 14th century hereditary peers, and thus only male, and peers were there only by virtue of their birth. It is hard to believe that the mother of parliaments allowed this to continue well into the 20th century.

Under these circumstances, with a modernised and even largely elected second chamber there is even less justification for the presence of the church. We would be the only democratic parliament with clerics present as of right, or one of two depending on your interpretation of democracy. The other being Iran.

There are two or three arguments running about this matter. The first is that the presence of the bishops in the Lords brings ethical, moral, theological and philosophical considerations to our deliberations. I think it is absurd, if not insulting, to suggest that our second chamber, or indeed all of those elected second chambers somehow are lacking because they do not have religious leaders in their midst. It is true taken individually most of the bishops are clever, talented, good and hardworking people, who take their duties seriously, some of whom undoubtedly could be elected if they stood for parliament. And for us in the Labour opposition in the Lords we must resist the temptation to keep them with us because in recent times the bishops have played their part in opposing some of this government’s awful legislation. This is not a reason for them to be there as of right.

The second concerns the fact that the Church of England is a faith privileged in a country of many faiths and none. One solution to the dilemma is to allow other faiths to be represented in the second chamber as of right. Even those in favour of retaining the bishops realise that this solution presents serious problems. Not least of which is the need to reduce our number from an embarrassing 820 to a much smaller number. Some estimates suggest that a true representation of all the faiths in the UK might add about 50 new members to the Lords. In reality, for example, the Catholic church is forbidden by its rules to sit in legislatures; it would be an impossible policy to deliver. And we would not even be addressing the question of faith representation in parliament if the bishops were not there in the first place.

The third argument concerns the position of the as our established church, and the suggestion – used to silence Labour reformers back in 1999, that ejection of the bishops would precipitate the disestablishment of the Church of England.

Whatever one’s views might be about the matter of disestablishment, this argument is not true.

‘In Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords’, produced by the Cabinet Office in January 1999, said:

‘In more modern times, the presence of the Bishops became increasingly associated with the establishment of the Church of England, although in law the two are quite separate. The establishment of the Church of England rests upon Parliament’s powers over its legislation and the Requirement for the Sovereign as its Supreme Governor to be in communion with it. The Bishops and Archbishops now sit by virtue of the Bishoprics Act of 1878. .’ (p.15)

In other words it would take only a simple clause in a reform act that could end the presence of the bishops in the UK parliament.

Why is the Church of England fighting so hard to remain part of a modern democratic parliament? Some might suggest that this is the last vestige of medieval power broking that really has not place in a modern democratic parliament.

Glenys Thornton is a Labour peer and shadow health minister in the Lords

Photo: UK Parliament