Is time running out for the Lords Spiritual? The evidence of recent weeks has been rather contradictory.

The media reported that Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge of electoral reform, is keen to pursue the Liberal Democrat policy of a fully elected second chamber. The effect of this would be to see the 26 Lords Spiritual removed. Strikingly, however, the media singularly failed to report that in a clear break with convention a representative of the Bishops’ bench, not a political party, initiated the Big Society debate in the House of Lords on 16 June. The Rt Revd Tim Stevens was supported by seven bishops and more than 80 other peers, 23 of whom spoke in the debate. Speakers included the Archbishop of Canterbury and, for the first time, the newly ennobled 33 year-old Nathanael Ming-Yan Wei. Lord Wei is the founding and lead partner of Shaftesbury Partnership and an advisor to the Government on the Big Society project.

The contribution of Bishops in the debate on the Big Society challenges the view that their time could be up. In his speech, the Bishop of Leicester offered three reasons why a Big Society is needed, namely the financial crisis, the ecological crisis and the crisis in political confidence. ‘The qualities of altruism and selflessness upon which local action depends are forged not by the state,’ he said, ‘but by the numerous communities and networks in which people discover who they are through common bonds with others. They need room to breathe.’

The Bishop is right. In recent history, the public and politicians alike have tended to look to either the state or the market to solve the problems of society. The left have seen the market as the problem and government as the solution. On the right, the opposite view has been taken. In reality, both left and right have failed to recognise the centrality of everything that exists in between the market and the state. People find meaning and belonging in families, congregations, faith communities, fellowships, neighbourhoods, voluntary organisations - all of which are bigger than the individual, but smaller than the state. In the words of Lord Sacks, ‘They operate on a different logic. Families and communities are held together not by the coercive use of power, not by the contractual mechanisms of exchange, but by love, loyalty, faithfulness and mutuality: being there for one another when we need one another.’^[1]

The involvement of the Bishops in the Big Society debate highlighted the value of the contribution they and the church make. In arguments about political reform, it is perfectly possible to take a position on either side of the church-state debate with theological integrity, but the idea of the Big Society could be understood to support the continued presence of Bishops in the second chamber.

Despite Establishment, the Bishops do not officially represent the state or the Church of England in the Lords but speak as individual prelates of a Diocese. In their contributions to debates, they bring a perspective which can be absent from those of party politicians or business leaders (often the financial backers of their respective party). The presence of the Bishops and their contribution draws implicit and explicit attention to the congregations, faith communities, fellowships, neighbourhoods and voluntary organisations which are so central to civil society.

In the ongoing discussions about political reform, it is crucial to resist the temptation of thinking that a wholly elected House of Lords would be more democratic or effective in scrutinising government legislation. The evidence of the last parliament is that the wholly unelected second chamber was consistently more effective at keeping government in check than the wholly elected House of Commons. The debates on the war were a case in point. If a wholly elected second chamber is introduced, a party list system will probably be used, the most common method of proportional representation. This would not only encourage the Lords to compete with the Commons as the principal chamber but would centralise power in the hands of political parties and, therefore, reduce the degree of accountability to which they are subject.

It is a great mistake to think that democracy is only or even principally about an election every five years. Democracy needs a system of checks and balances with deep roots that develops over a long period of time. The presence of Bishops in the Lords, together with the Cross Bench peers, provides that helpful check on the political establishment.

I doubt there will be a fully elected House of Lords in the next decade. It is possible that the number of Bishops will be reduced to 16, as the Wakeham Commission recommended in 2000, but I expect only a minority of peers will be elected in any reformed second chamber. On that basis, it is likely that the concept of religious representation will be broadened to embrace other Christian denominations, in all parts of the United Kingdom, and other faith communities (again as recommended by the Wakeham report).

The Big Society debate revealed that supporting the presence of Bishops in the Lords need have nothing to do with supporting ‘privilege’ and everything to do with creating a culture that helps keep the governing authorities in check.

Paul Woolley is Director of Theos.