MPs reject bid to remove Church of England bishops from the House of Lords

MPs have thwarted a bid to remove Church of England bishops from the House of Lords amid suggestions they should focus on church matters rather than trying to “run our country”.

Conservative former minister Sir Gavin Williamson argued that it is “fundamentally unfair” to have a “bloc of clerics in the Upper House who have a right and a say over our legislation, over the way my constituents live”.

But his amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, designed to prevent Church of England bishops from joining the Lords, was defeated by 378 votes to 41, with a majority of 337.

The division list included the Tory MPs who took part in the vote: 15 voted in favor of the amendment and 18 against.

Conservative former minister Andrew Murrison, who supported the amendment, said during the debate: “I’m a practicing Anglican and I appreciate the views of bishops, of course I appreciate that, but it’s just not right to let them be politicians with dog collars performance. would say, who generally promote a left-liberal worldview.

“I would much prefer if they were involved in the healing of souls in their diocese. That’s where I want to see them as an Anglican.”

SNP MP Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) also suggested that bishops “stick to their ministries” and told the House of Commons: “Couldn’t they be better deployed in dealing with some of the things we’re seeing in the have seen news (about) over the course of the last few days, and much less concerned with this attempt to govern our country.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, resigned on Tuesday after days of pressure following a damning report into the cover-up of abuse. He said his decision was in the best interests of the Church of England.

An independent investigation had concluded that John Smyth, the most prolific serial abuser associated with the church, could have been brought to justice if the archbishop had formally reported him to police a decade ago.

The Bill as a whole aims to deliver on Labour’s pledge to bring about an “instant modernisation” of the Lords by abolishing the 92 seats reserved for equals there by birthright.

Labour’s manifesto also said it would impose a retirement age of 80 on members of the Lords at a later date.

The government has yet to outline a timeline for further changes, including its long-term ambition for an “alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.

Ahead of the vote, Sir Gavin (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) told the House of Commons: “It is fundamentally unfair that we are still in a situation where you have a bloc of clergy who have a right and a say over our legislation, over the way on which my constituents live.”

He added: “For me, as an Anglican, I cannot see why I have a greater right to greater representation than my children who are Catholic.”

Sir Gavin continued: “You have those 26 bishops. They don’t come from every part of the UK. They are not from Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. They only come from England. The composition of those bishops probably does not reflect the world today.”

Cabinet Office Minister Ellie Reeves previously said previous attempts to reform the House of Lords “in one go” had failed, as she defended the government’s decision to take an “immediate first step” to remove hereditary peers .

This came in response to Sir Gavin asking why Labor had not been “braver” in its approach.

Ms Reeves responded: “Previous attempts to reform the other place, when it was done all at once, have failed. We want to see immediate reform in the other place, and that’s why we’re going straight ahead with this, immediate reform. and then we can discuss and discuss the best way to implement the outward reform that we have clearly set out in our manifesto.”

Conservative MP Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) also intervened, saying he is “somewhat cynical that you will ever bring forward a future phase and perhaps the solution is to delay the start until you bring forward these proposals”.

Ms Reeves replied: “Those on the benches opposite had fourteen years to implement House of Lords reform if they wanted to, but unfortunately they did not. Instead, this government is taking an immediate first step towards reform.”

The bill is expected to pass the House of Commons on Tuesday and then be further scrutinized in the Lords, where it could face stiffer opposition.

During a debate on Lords reform on Tuesday, Conservative peer Lord Dobbs, known for writing the House Of Cards trilogy, branded the removal of hereditary peers as “constitutional clickbait” and said it made Labor appear “narrow-minded and vindictive”.

He told colleagues: ‘We know how hard so many hereditaries have worked, how much they have contributed.

“Yet at this moment the government proposes to cut off their noble bells and balls and throw their bodies into the ditch as if they were guilty of some great personal wickedness – not so much the Salisbury Convention as the Cromwell Convention.”