Parliamentary Voting: Lords Spiritual (Hansard, 29 June 1983)

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)
My Lords, Lords Temporal are disqualified from voting at parliamentary elections at common law. The question of whether Lords Spiritual can vote at parliamentary elections has never been expressly considered by the courts.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, after 800 years of the existence of your Lordships' House (or is it 700? I am not quite sure) is it not time that this particular point was clarified? Is my noble friend aware that I would agree—I hope he is aware that I would agree, but, if not, is he so aware—that 26 votes are not going to have a catastrophic influence upon the outcome of a parliamentary election? Furthermore, is it not verging on the irresponsible to take it upon oneself to produce a new piece of constitutional law—which, I believe, took place in the electoral district of Vauxhall at the last election?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I agree with the first inference of my noble friend's supplementary question: that the votes of the entire Bench of Bishops would not reverse what would otherwise be the outcome of any general election. I therefore feel that the outcome of any other inquiries is of academic rather than constitutional significance.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has just stated that the matter of Lords Spiritual voting in general elections has never been considered by the courts. Is it a matter to be considered by the courts? Is it not a matter to be decided by the House? Could this matter not be decided by a simple vote? If there is no one prepared to do that, then I am prepared to move that in future Lords Spiritual be precluded from voting in parliamentary elections unless every one of us is entitled to the same privilege.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I recognise the enthusiasm of the noble Lord to defend constitutional propriety. I understand that the courts became the proper arbiters of electoral procedure some time towards the end of the last century, although I am open to correction on the date. It is also generally accepted that it is not up to Members of this House to determine the composition of another place. However, as I said before, the impact of 26 widely scattered votes is hardly likely to do that.

§ The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his interesting replies, and speaking as one who since becoming a Member of this House has always regarded himself as a disqualified person—and who has been helped along the path of sanity and virtue by seeing the letter "L" against his name in the register of voters and by not receiving a polling card—may I ask whether the noble Lord the Minister is aware that neither the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury nor any other Lord Spiritual has any desire or intention to take this matter any further, and nor will any of us in future knowingly go against tradition and custom in this matter?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I am much obliged to the right reverend Prelate for his question. I am certain 244 that we can depend on the Prelates always to restrict themselves to the paths of sanity and virtue.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not agree that it is not a question of whether or not 26 individual votes would have any effect on a general election but rather that every Member of this House is free to take part in voting in this House—including the Lords Spiritual, and we welcome the fact that they do take part—and therefore we should all be in the same position when it comes to voting in parliamentary elections? Is not that the important issue? Do the Government recognise that; and if they do recognise it, will they do something?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, if the noble Lord's envy is excited by the possible defection by the Bishops' Benches from the powers of abstinence, I hope that his fears will now be allayed by the assurance he has just been given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, is it not quite unsatisfactory that the Constitution should in effect be altered by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby promising that Bishops and their successors will not vote in general elections? That is not legally binding. Furthermore, would it not be advisable that this matter should in effect be sorted out by taking it to the courts? We cannot leave the Constitution in the vague situation that exists at the moment.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, the answer given by my noble friend to the previous substantive oral question impinges on this. My noble friend Lord Onslow has imputed to the right reverend Prelate a promise, when he made only a statement of intent. As to bringing this matter before the courts, I really feel that this is a case of de minimis non curat lex.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, is my noble friend Lord Elton not aware that an undertaking by one of the Lords Spiritual is probably more reliable than undertakings of noble Lords who are Ministers, which we were discussing a little earlier?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I understand that although the Bishops are Lords Spiritual they are not Peers. This means that we are not all equal, and my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford obviously agrees that they are, in this respect at least, slightly our superiors.

§ Lord Mowbray and Stourton
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton suggested that if the 26 Bishops were to vote that would have little effect. But is it not the case that if 26 Lords Spiritual were all to announce in public before a general election their view on how they thought the vote should go this would have an enormous effect on any general election, with people taking the advice of such wise and holy men?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, if my noble friend belonged to my Church he might believe that it was even more effective if they were to pray about it.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not agree that there is likely to be indepen- 245 dent non-statutory machinery in a higher place for monitoring non-statutory undertakings by the right reverend Prelates?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, there is only one place higher than this; I do not know when the noble Lord intends to go there.

Lord Oram
My Lords, is not the right to vote a much more serious question than some of the questions and answers have implied today, in view of the history of the struggle to get that right to vote? If in any way the law is in doubt, should not the Government legislate to remove that doubt? Do not the Acts perfectly describe certain other categories of people who are disqualified from voting, and would it not be appropriate to so define those who sit on the Bishops' Bench?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I can really only return to my earlier answer, that I do not think this is a matter of such great importance—philosophic importance, yes—but in practical importance, not sufficient to engage the time of both Houses of Parliament in research and legislation.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, should this matter be moved in any direction at all, would it not be better to move it in the direction of giving us all votes, and this removing us from the somewhat surprising category of aliens, infants, certified lunatics and convicted felons, and—

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Viscount would continue after the conjunction and provide me with time to devise an answer to the first part of his question.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, I will do so willingly. I was further going to suggest that perhaps the noble Lord would have the support of the Opposition in this because they are determined as soon as they possibly can to make us into "disa-peers".

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I am suspicious of measures which have the support of the Opposition.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, would not the noble Minister agree that if one once starts legislating about the House of Lords who knows where it may end?

§ Lord Elton
Yes indeed, my Lords.