House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill (Hansard, 9 May 2001)

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

§ Lord Norton of Louth
I fear that I cannot support my noble friend's amendment on this occasion. My attitude to the Bill is determined by my belief that electors should be allowed to choose whomsoever they want to serve them in Parliament. We may not like their choices, but that is a matter for them. Given my belief in freedom of choice, this Bill does not go far enough. This is a reaction to a specific problem rather than a Bill that has been introduced on the basis of considered reflection of obstacles to electors in choosing whomsoever they wish. Other obstacles could have been removed. This should have been a wider-ranging Bill; it does not go far enough.
Conversely, my noble friend's amendments, which impose restrictions, go too far. There is a case for certain people not standing by reason of the positions they hold, but the categories should be as limited in number as possible. We should start from the position that any individual should be permitted to be a candidate and serve as a Member of Parliament and that a compelling, not plausible, case must be made to forbid a particular category of person from being eligible to sit in the other place. The case for these amendments is not a compelling one. If bishops are to be prevented from standing and being elected to Parliament that should be a matter for the Church itself, not statutory provision. I am in favour of getting rid of statutory obstacles, not retaining them.
Furthermore, I see two particular problems in respect of the amendments before us. First, bishops serve in this House in a personal, not representative, capacity; they speak for themselves, not the Church of England. That may explain their interesting voting behaviour at certain times. Secondly, if a bishop is elected to another place he will be elected to speak for the electors in a constituency, not the Church of England. As my noble friend touched upon, I believe that the point is an academic one—not that there is anything particularly wrong with academic points—but the principle of freedom of choice is important and should on this occasion be overriding.

§ Lord Goodhart
I rise to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. He has put the matter extremely accurately and with his 1067 characteristic clarity. I entirely agree with him that statutory restrictions on the right to stand for election to Parliament should be limited as far as possible. I understand and accept the fact that those who are already Members of your Lordships' House, because they are Members of Parliament, should not be entitled also to elect other Members of Parliament. Nevertheless, that does not apply to bishops who are not yet Members of your Lordships' House. Although it is unlikely in the extreme that any diocesan bishop would think it appropriate to stand for election to the other place, I believe that that matter should be dealt with by the Church, not statute.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
These amendments would prevent all bishops from sitting in another place. The Bill proposes to bar only those bishops who sit in your Lordships' House as Lords Spiritual. There are 42 Church of England diocesan bishops, of whom 40 could qualify to sit in this House as Lords Spiritual. At any one time only 26 are summoned to be Lords Spiritual. It is those bishops who will be disqualified from membership of the other place as they already have a voice in your Lordships' House. That is broadly in line with the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee but goes slightly wider.
Although the Government consider it extremely unlikely that bishops, whether or not Lords Spiritual, would wish to become MPs while performing their duties as bishops, it seems right in principle to relate the disqualification to those who actually have a voice in this House. We consider it right to remove all statutory restrictions, thereby enabling anyone who so wishes to become an MP if elected, save for those bishops who are Lords Spiritual. I repeat that they already have a voice in this House. The other bishops, whether diocesan or suffragan, do not. The Church of England has been consulted specifically on this point and is entirely content with the way in which the Bill is drafted.
I believe that if a bishop is not a Lord Spiritual but is a member of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrat Party or Conservative Party he should have the right to sit in another place, and the electorate should have the right to exercise its choice in electing that individual as a local Member of Parliament.
As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has given the Committee one of his mini tours de force. I always enjoy the noble Lord's constitutional lectures in this Chamber. He makes a case for widening the choice that the electorate can freely exercise. I believe that the noble Lord makes a perfectly respectable case and has chosen an appropriate moment at which to do so. As the noble Lord acknowledges, that is beyond the scope of this Bill. But these matters should be at the forefront of our minds. No doubt during an election campaign it is right and proper to consider how one may properly extend the rights of people who for one reason or 1068 another are excluded from standing for Parliament. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for introducing that point at this stage in the proceedings.
We must resist these amendments. We believe that this discrimination is unfair and unfounded and that the further limitation which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seeks to introduce is entirely unnecessary.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that this matter should have been introduced and debated on the basis of a wider principle than simply one hard case, as it were. As I believe was pointed out at Second Reading by the right reverend Prelate who took part, in this matter the law has developed as a result of hard cases. Being lightly educated myself, I always hesitate to use the word "academic" in relation to a particular argument, in the sense that something is of small interest and not really relevant. That always seems to me to be deeply insulting, particularly to distinguished academics such as my noble friend. I would not have chosen that word, but my noble friend is at greater liberty to use it than I am.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, nearly lost me when he suggested that bishops might stand for one of the parties represented here. That would be even more improper than a bishop standing at all. I should like to think that if he stood at all he would stand as an independent. However, I do not propose to pursue this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.