Church of England: Episcopal Appointments (Hansard, 11 February 2002)

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
My Lords, currently there are not. In 1998 the Church of England set up a review to examine the working of the Crown Appointments Commission and related matters, but within the existing framework of the 1976 agreement between Church and state on the appointment of bishops and archbishops. The group's report was completed last year, and a Church steering group is now considering its recommendations.

§ Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. I take a little comfort from the use of the word "currently" in the first sentence.
883 I hope the Minister will agree that it is possible to have a sensible discussion about episcopal appointments, without necessarily getting involved in a debate about the disestablishment of the Church of England. Does he not find it extraordinary that, in 21st century Britain, we still appoint archbishops and bishops largely along the lines laid down by Henry VIII in 1533?
Would not the most satisfactory solution be for the Prime Minister to make it clear that the choice of the new archbishop—and of future bishops—should be a matter entirely for the Church and that he would welcome the introduction of a new democratic structure that would allow individual churchgoers a voice in deciding who will lead them, as happens in other Churches that are part of the Anglican communion? Those arrangements are described with great clarity in the excellent report of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, entitled Working with the faith into the workings of the Crown Appointments Commission.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the noble Lord spoke of the method of appointment used by Henry VIII which, he said, was generally similar to the present one. I think that the method of early retirement that was imposed by Henry VIII is not current in the Church of England.
The report was an admirable document. The best way forward is to follow the track that I mentioned in my Answer. The Church of England should come to its conclusions itself and then make further such reforms as may be deemed appropriate.

§ Baroness Perry of Southwark
My Lords, I declare an interest. As had been made clear, I chaired the review of the Crown Appointments Commission. Our report was issued in May last year.
I entirely support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, about the extremely odd situation in which the leaders of our Church are still chosen in great secrecy and by a programme that often seems to involve the Prime Minister asking the Church to keep guessing until it comes up with the name that she or he first thought of. Does the Minister accept that the ordinary members of the Church—the voices from the pews—would rather like to believe that our Church leaders were free to speak according to their own conscience and faith and were not dependent for preferment or promotion on a political judgment?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I agree entirely with that. There is an admirable model to the west of the border between England and Wales, where the Church, which has been disestablished since, I think, 1923, has an entirely different method of choosing bishops and archbishops and has, at the moment, an admirable archbishop who certainly speaks his mind on every appropriate occasion.

§ Lord Pilkington of Oxenford
My Lords, the Minister is a reasonable man, and I shall ask him about a 884 pragmatic point. I speak with a prejudice: I am an Anglican clergyman who has never been considered for a bishopric. Might it not be an idea for the appointments commission to interview the candidates? I have been interviewed many times. I gather that people say that bishops might be considered for six sees but should not be interviewed six times; one interview is enough, allowing a little for maturity. Will the Minister exercise his considerable influence on the Prime Minister to see whether an interview might help?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the noble Lord has also been a reverend canon. He said that he had never been considered for a bishopric: what he means is that he was never successfully considered for a bishopric.
I do not know where all these things will end. We must go cautiously and carefully. Perhaps we could elect 20 per cent of the bishops in the first place.

The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
My Lords, far be it from me to express any dissatisfaction with the present system. Does the Minister agree that the most recent debates in the General Synod have indicated a mind overwhelmingly in favour of the present relationship between Church and state in the appointment of bishops, surprising as that may seem to some?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is, I think, right so far. Of course, the discussion to which I referred, on the document produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, has not taken place. The Church steering group is considering recommendations but, as I understand it, has come to no conclusions. I also understand that the group intends to report back on an interim basis to the synod in July, in the hope that it might come to a final conclusion by the latter part of the year. It is very much the subject of discussion at the moment.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, given the deep emphasis placed on transparency by this Government, a little bit more transparency in current processes would be acceptable and that there is no reason why, for example, the Prime Minister should not make it clear publicly that political considerations will not play a role in the major appointment in the Church of England now under way?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I do not think that there is any serious question that over recent years political considerations have had anything to do with the choice either of bishops or archbishops in the Church of England.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, in considering the matter, does the noble and learned Lord believe that 885 the Church as a whole has something to learn from the ultra-democratisation of political parties in recent years?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I am not sure which political party has been subject to a great infusion of ultra-democracy. However, I repeat that there is a model not too far away which seems to work rather well. Recently the bishopric of St David's became vacant and those who have to deal with the choice of a successor to fill that vacancy are lay persons and clergy from the Church in Wales. I do not say that the Church in Wales is perfect on every occasion—necessarily.

§ Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, since we have a little extra time, does the noble and learned Lord recall that the Duke of Wellington nearly appointed the Catholic Archbishop of Armagh to Canterbury until someone pointed out that there was a second Archbishop of Armagh who was an Anglican?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, yes, and I hate those nit-picking points, as the Duke of Wellington actually remarked at the time.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, the way in which the noble and learned Lord expressed his first reference to the situation in Wales could be taken to indicate that he thought that disestablishment was necessarily bound up with a change in the method of appointment of bishops and archbishops. However, does he agree that those are two separate matters which should be considered separately?

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, they are entirely separate, as was indicated by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and from which proposition I did not dissent.