Maiden Speech in the House of Lords

My Lords, on the feast of the conversion of St Paul, I was introduced as a new member of your Lordships' House.

The annunciator screens listed the day's order of business, saying:

2.30 pm
Introduction of the Archbishop of York
Terrorism Bill

That was ten months ago. I sincerely hope that the length of time it has taken me to make my maiden speech wasn't a major contributory factor to the rumours around the House of Commons, that in a reformed House of Lords, Bishops will not only have their number greatly reduced but that the small Bench will have to work full-time for a fixed term of nine years! Perish the thought!

Is this the consensus of reform her Majesty's government is looking for? Let the reader understand!

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. "At the heart of her Majesty's government programme" is a commitment to measures that will strengthen our diverse communities.

In the spirit of being non-controversial and in critical-solidarity with this commitment, my contribution this morning is one of 'Faith Seeking Understanding' (Fides Quaerens Intellectum)¹. Seeking some elucidation in the gracious speech to "further action to provide strong, secure and stable communities, and to address the threat of terrorism".

The speech called for "new powers", "further powers", "enhanced powers".

The words of Lord William Pitt, which he uttered in this House in January 1770, ought to give us pause for thought. He said, "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it."². He would know. He was Prime Minister for two years!

A century later, Lord Acton warned in a letter to the Bishop of London, Mandell Creighton, that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"³.

Isn't what we need from all our law enforcing agencies, like from all good teachers, maximal authority and minimal power?

My Lords, I am bound to ask whether there is an over-reliance by Her Majesty's Government, on the power of legislation and criminal sanctions, rather than on partnership with institutions and with groups of civil society and members of local communities to provide a strong, secure and stable United Kingdom. I know that a Statute is a statement of public policy.

But is it wise to use the 'statute' as a means of giving confidence and assurance to fractious communities?

By using the statute in this way, and as a means of curing all our ills, don't we run the danger of spinning a legal spider's web from which institutions, groups of civil society, and members of local communities stand little chance of ever escaping? After all, "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).

In my limited experience, "strong, secure and stable communities" can't be engineered. The changes that are necessary for such a desired transformation require a complete turn-around of the ways we think and behave. What we think and what we do depends largely on what we believe, what assumptions we make and what we value most.

A turn-around of the mindset and motivation is the most important and the most difficult task for all of us. This is what will provide "strong, secure and stable communities".

Isn't it the case that magnanimity, meeting the other person half-way, gives birth to magnanimity?

Isn't the golden chain, by which society is bound together, one of: "In everything doing to others as we would have them do to us." (Matthew 7:12)?

As Winston Churchill said in Dundee on 10 October 1908, "What is the use of living if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone? How else can we put ourself in harmonious relation with the great verities and consolations of the infinite and the eternal...."

I said a little while ago that what we think and what we do depends largely on what we believe, and what we value most, rather than on what powers and laws we invoke.

My Lords, we urgently need, as a United Kingdom, to reaffirm, fan into flame, and live those values which we owe to the Christian legacy. Without wishing to appear syncretistic or patronizing, in my experience and friendships I have seen that these are values that are also held dear in the traditions of Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism and also amongst those who say they have no faith, but are people of good will.

These are the values of trust, decency, good faith, keeping one's word, compassion, care for one's neighbour, liberty, justice and allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.

The question for me isn't whether these values suit us, but whether we suit them.
A sane person doesn't say, "The law of gravity doesn't suit me, so I can ignore it and walk over the edge of Beachy Head in security". We reject these values at our peril.

Lord Denning was right when he said that, "If we seek truth and justice, we can't find it by argument and debate, nor by reading and thinking, but only (as the Book of Common Prayer says) by 'the maintenance of true religion and virtue'.

Religion concerns the spirit in humanity, whereby we are able to recognize what is truth and what is justice; whereas law is only the application, often imperfectly, of truth and justice in our everyday affairs. The common law of England has been moulded for centuries by judges who have been brought up in the Christian faith⁴.

The precepts of religion, consciously or unconsciously, have been their guide in the administration of justice. If religion perishes in the land, truth and justice will also."⁵

My Lords, we need to find a way in which religion, morals and law are once again indistinguishably mixed together.

The severance of law from morality and of religion from law has unhelpfully gone too far. Seeing the enforcement of order as the main function of law is driving us to pass more and more laws in the hope of creating security in our communities. Wouldn't the aim of doing justice through laws which are rooted in religion and morality be a surer way of delivering "a strong, secure and stable" United Kingdom?

We must seek as a nation to create neighbourhoods that are flourishing, safe, clean and generous; as well as tackling anyone who wishes to maim and kill others by suicide bombing. We need to offer a vision of wholeness in a compelling and imaginative way that would integrate and include those who are excluded, and turn would-be bombers, self-excluding and deluded despisers of their fellow citizens, into belongers.

Relying on the security services alone won't do it.

Trusting, in tough laws alone won't do it.

Revenge and the desire to banish them to another island won't do it.

We need to create a climate where everyone is not just a 'guest', or 'tourist', but a joint home-builder in this great "green and pleasant land". Where every citizen is challenged and given an opportunity to build "a safe, secure and strong" community and that their contribution, however small, is indispensable.

On our own we can't get it together.

Together we can get it.

Notes:

¹ Anselm of Canterbury: Proslogion: Fides Quaerens Intellectum. See Westminster Press, London SCM Press 1956, pp 73-75

² Lord William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, Speech, Hansard (House of Lords) January 1770, Col 665

³ Lord Action in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, on 3 April 1887, in Louise Creighton's Life and Letters of Mandell Creighton (1904) Vol I, Ch. 13.

⁴ See Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) A.C.562,580.

⁵ The Rt Hon Lord Denning, The Influence of Religion on Law, Sterling Press, Gwent, 1989, pp 33-34