Fully Elected House of Lords not in the Interests of Freedom

Speaking in the House of Lords on the second day of a three day debate on the reformation of the House of Lords the Archbishop said:

"Despite the apparent surface fairness of a second elected House, it may seemingly be in the interests of democracy but may ultimately fail this nation in its desire to value freedom.

"We should think very carefully and be sure that the rumours of self-interest of various parties within the House of Lords are not merely a smokescreen to cover something which we might miss horrendously once lost for ever.

"The key issue is how to maintain freedom for the Nation and for each and every individual within it...full election in both Houses may not be in the interests of freedom."

Expanding on his theme of Freedom, the Archbishop suggested that the role of the Lords as a revising chamber was in danger of being lost if it simply became a party dominated replica of the lower house:

"In an age where our House of Commons is ever more homogenous, with more and more professional MPs in all parties, less and less breadth of experience from a wide range of operational life, we should note that election does not bring the following: an age-range of 18-90, the breadth of experience through luck in life, sheer hard work which leads to some appointments, specialist gifts in areas of life, and conscience and values which stem from beyond the elector. These make for wisdom and, most importantly, freedom.

"The aim of this your Lordships' House has always been to provide a wise check and balance for the Nation using the diversity of skills and experience in revising legislation, delaying ill-thought or over-hasty legislation, being deliberative and acting as a Bastion of Democracy by not allowing a party in government to extend its life beyond the timetable set in the Parliament Act."

"Your Lordships' House has always been not just in the interests of democracy, but of that higher freedom, which supports our values and our culture. Freedom to think and say what is right; freedom to check and balance legislation for the whole nation and freedom to learn from the diversity within the House."

Defending the role and work of Church of England Bishops within the House of Lords, the Archbishop said:

"We do not see ourselves are representatives but as connectors with the people and Parishes of England. Ours is a sacred trust. To remind Your Lordships' House of the Common Law of this nation, in which true religion and virtue, morals and law are intermingled."

Full text of the Speech:

My Lords,

I too share the view that Jack Straw has tried his best to reconcile conflicting opinions about the Lords Reform.

However, in my mind the key issue is how to maintain freedom for the Nation and for each and every individual within it. In modern Britain a two-tier House has, to-date, provided a very effective means for this to happen.

The House of Commons represents a form of democracy in which everyone aged 18 and above has a right to vote for its members.

It has been throughout the last century, and even longer, a symbol of British freedom and, indeed, since the Magna Carta there has been a culture in this country of ensuring that the rights of all could be seen to be valued.

However, full election in both Houses may not be in the interests of freedom. Our 21st century fashion for a particular form of democracy may, in the end, not give us freedom; election and freedom are not necessarily coterminous.

Voting does indeed provide a peaceful way of changing government, giving a political party to form Her Majesty's Government, or become Her Majesty's Opposition in Parliament.

But it does not necessarily guarantee freedom or success. Given voter-apathy and low turnouts, the House of Commons should take the warning of the Teacher of Galilee – of taking the beam out of its own eye before it tries to take the speck of dust out of the eye of this your Lordship's House.

Where is the empirical evidence for the bold claim in the White Paper, at paragraph 6.12, that "in many people's eyes", this House of Lords "still lacks the legitimacy to carry out its current role."

If I am not mistaken, a survey soon after the last General Election suggested that two-thirds of the public backed the House of Lords' right to delay unpopular legislation, even if it comes out of the party in Government. What gives the House its legitimacy is simply this: it is established in law and part of the Parliamentary constitutional agreement of this country. And no-one serves in this your Lordships' House or the House of Commons until they have taken their oath of allegiance to the Queen.

L Blake, Barrister at Law, in his book The Royal Law, (2000, Shepheard-Walwyn), locates for the reader where our freedom really lies. He says that few people realise how important for our civil liberties the words of the coronation service for the Sovereign really are. A service embedded in an Act of Parliament (the Coronation Oath Act 1689).

The service is not just a meaningless pageant. "The Coronation Service is where the Divine Law is placed before the law of the State, acknowledged and reverenced. It reminds us of the source of all our law, in truth and in justice. We should not forget the words in which are conveyed the truth which inspires our Common Law." (L Blake, p.15)

As a thirteenth century lawyer, Bracton, rightly said, the King or Queen "must not be under man but under God and the law, for the law makes the king". In forcing King John to sign the Magna Carta, were the barons not insisting that he observed this principle and his coronation oath?

The noble Prelate of Chelmsford spoke yesterday of Parliament needing to take into account the spiritual dimension of people as it legislates: that beliefs affect people, and the voices of a religious life needed to be heard. And the presence of the Lords Spiritual is a necessary reminder of this. I would go further, and say, the Queen in Parliament is sovereign; but also she is Queen in Law and in Council.

The Lords Spiritual remind Parliament of the Queen's Coronation Oath and that occasion when the Divine Law was acknowledged as the source of all our Law.

We do not see ourselves are representatives but as connectors with the people and Parishes of England.

Ours is a sacred trust. To remind Your Lordships' House of the Common Law of this nation, in which true religion and virtue, morals and law are intermingled.

As Lord Irvine and Baroness Deech reminded us yesterday, the aim of this your Lordships' House has always been to provide a wise check and balance for the Nation using the diversity of skills and experience in revising legislation, delaying ill-thought or over-hasty legislation, being deliberative and acting as a Bastion of Democracy by not allowing a party in government to extend its life beyond the timetable set in the Parliament Act.

Your Lordships' House has always been not just in the interests of democracy, but of that higher freedom, which supports our values and our culture.

It was right that the House of Lords should be reformed. But why not allow time to assess whether further reform is needed. Is not evolution a better way, compared to activism and the pressure to modernise?

We should think very carefully before losing the breadth of experience of hereditary Lords, appointed Lords, retired Supreme Court Justices, and others with automatic right to sit.

In an age where our House of Commons is ever more homogenous, with more and more professional MPs in all parties, less and less breadth of experience from a wide range of operational life, we should note that election does not bring the following: an age-range of 18-90, the breadth of experience through luck in life, sheer hard work which leads to some appointments, specialist gifts in areas of life, and conscience and values which stem from beyond the elector. These make for wisdom and, most importantly, freedom.

Freedom to think and say what is right; freedom to check and balance legislation for the whole nation and freedom to learn from the diversity within the House.

What L Blake's book also shows is that "there is a government behind government, with a greater purpose and permanence than the changing spectrum of party political strife. This government consists of institutions, mostly of medieval origin, the monarchy, parliament, common law, jury system, church, universities, the police and the armed forces. The powers working through these institutions (which meet in the House of Lords) are made available to the government of the day. Lord Whitty told us yesterday that "who makes the law must have the consent of the people".

What would he make of Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562, where he clearly established the law of the duty of care towards one's neighbour, based on the story of the Good Samaritan? Or Lord Denning in many of his judgements?

What matters in the end is how people behave when they get here. Are they equal to the task? And will the suggested changes make this House better at doing the task set before it?

Despite the apparent surface fairness of a second elected House, it may seemingly be in the interests of democracy but may ultimately fail this nation in its desire to value freedom. We should think very carefully and be sure that the rumours of self-interest of various parties within the House of Lords are not merely a smokescreen to cover something which we might miss horrendously once lost for ever.

For these reasons I shall be voting most strongly for Option 1, a fully appointed House by a Royal Commission established by Statute; and, if persuaded, I may vote for Option 2.