PDF Version 
[868kb] also available
To read documents in pdf format, you will need a copy of the Adobe Acrobat reader
The Government launched a consultation on proposals for House of Lords Reform on 7 November 2001. This document sets out the results of that consultation.
The consultation ended on 31 January, although submissions were accepted until the publication of the House of Commons' Public Administration Select Committee report on 14 February.
These statistics have been compiled from:
Letters to the consultation address written during and immediately after the consultation period;
Letters to Ministers from MPs and members of the public, written during the consultation period;
Views expressed in the Parliamentary debates on Lords Reform by MPs or peers who did not subsequently write in.
The letters in the first category have been published, unless the correspondent requested confidentiality. They have been posted on this website or can be ordered on compact disk (PDF format) from:
Laura Beaumont
Room 815, Millbank Tower
21-24 Millbank
London SW1P 4QP
We received 1,101 responses. The majority of these (61%) were from members of the public. 45 local Labour party groups responded, and all the major political parties in Great Britain. Only the DUP responded from Northern Ireland.
The responses from the public were well spread out around the country. London, the South East and the South West sent the most responses. Comparatively few people replied from Scotland (29 responses) and Wales (20 responses). There were no responses from members of the public in Northern Ireland.
Judging from the responses, three organisations asked their members to write in. Members of Fawcett, a group campaigning for women's rights, sent 37 letters phrased in similar terms, calling for a high quota for women in the new house. The Electoral Reform Society suggested its members write in asking for a house wholly-elected by STV, and about 50 responses that clearly originated from that campaign were received. Finally, Charter 88 held several public meetings around the country where Lords reform was discussed. At these meetings, they handed out sheets of paper on which those present wrote their consultation responses. 53 of these sheets were then forwarded to us, but they expressed a wide range of differing opinion, suggesting that Charter 88 had not made any editorial decisions or given instruction.
This was the major issue, with almost all respondents (82%) mentioning the proportion of elected members in the house.
We categorised responses into six broad groups. No group commanded 50% of the responses, but the largest minority (45%) was in favour of an all-elected house. Second most popular was 51%-79% elected, favoured by 28% of respondents. 89% of responses called for a house that was 50% or more elected.
Looking at these results by type of respondent, most groups overall favoured a house 50% or more elected. Peers were the only group to prefer a house with less than 50% elected membership.
The proportion of elected members was the only issue on which a majority of respondents commented. The next most raised issue was the method of election, on which 38% of respondents commented.
By far the largest group of respondents suggested the Single Transferable Vote (STV) as the means of election. Including with them those who called for some form of proportional representation, but did not specify what type, gives a 66% vote in favour.
34% of respondents commented on this issue. A majority were in favour of a term of about ten years (or two Parliaments).
24% of respondents commented on this issue, and three quarters of responses called for appointments to be made only by an independent commission. Those who called for independent appointments did not rule out nomination by political parties. They suggested that parties might propose a list of nominations to the appointments commission, who would then treat those names alongside other nominations.
21% of respondents commented on this issue. The largest number said that the house should be 'smaller' than the White Paper proposals. Of those who mentioned a number, the largest group called for a house comprising between 300 and 399 members.
20% of respondents commented on this issue. A large majority (68%) suggested that members of the new House should be paid a salary, but the levels proposed varied widely. They ranged between "The average national wage" to "the salary paid to directors of international companies". Several responses compared membership of the new house to being a non-executive director of a major company, and suggested remuneration at similar levels. Fawcett's write-in campaign called for a salary set as for a part-time job.
Opinion was very divided among the 205 respondents (19%) who commented on the timing of elections. The three options of 'fixed-term', 'with European Parliament elections', and 'with General Elections' each had the support of about 25% of those responding. Given that EP elections are held at fixed intervals (of [5] years), some people who called for fixed terms may be happy with elections phased with the EP. However, many of those who called for a fixed term of office specifically said they wanted elections to be on different days from all other elections.
18% of respondents commented on this issue and - as for elected members - a term of about ten years or two parliaments was by far the most popular option.
185 respondents (17%) mentioned the place of bishops in the new house specifically. 56% of these thought there should be no bishops at all in the new house. Another 15% thought that bishops should not sit of right, but only if appointed by the independent commission. A quarter of those who responded thought that there should be some bishops sitting as of right. In addition, 340 respondents called for an all-elected house, but did not mention the role of bishops specifically. Calculating on the basis that those who want an all-elected house do not want bishops (or anyone else) sitting as of right gives an 85% majority against the formal representation of the Church of England.
13% of respondents commented on this issue, and almost all wanted the name to be changed from 'House of Lords'. The largest group (41%) wanted the name changed to Senate, while 29% wanted the name changed, but did not specify what to. Second most popular name was "Second Chamber".
13% of respondents commented on this issue. Regional or European Parliament constituencies were favoured by 53% of respondents. Large multi-member constituencies were favoured by 29% of respondents, while 14% of respondents favoured the Conservative party's approach of counties and county boroughs as the basis for election.
12% of respondents commented on the position of Law Lords in the new house. 72% of respondents thought that there should be no Law Lords in the new house.
120 responses (11%) mentioned the possibility of indirect elections. Of those who described their meaning in detail, most wanted indirect election from 'functional bodies' - trade unions, professional bodies and charities. A smaller number wanted indirect elections to the new house from devolved, regional or local government. There was little agreement on what proportion of the house should be indirectly elected, with the majority of respondents leaving that unspecified.
7% of respondents commented on the timescale for reform, and of them 81% said that it should be phased. Often, these people called for an all-elected house elected in tranches every few years. They envisaged the current membership of the house being proportionally reduced to zero over the course of a whole election cycle.
7% of respondents also mentioned how the new house's powers should be defined. Most of those who commented (97%) said that the new house's powers should be set down in statute. In addition some respondents (not included in this group) called for a written constitution as part of Lords reform. Most of the people who commented on the definition of powers saw a statutory definition of the new house's powers as a way out of potential gridlock.
6% of respondents commented on the issue of gender quotas. Just over half of these (52%) were part of a write-in campaign from Fawcett, a campaigning organisation, calling for a 'high' quota for female representation in the new house. Of the other responses, 15% expressed general support for the Government's level of 30%. 13% wanted a quota of 50%, while 8% said that there should be no quotas at all.
6% of respondents commented on this issue. 30% of them wanted no term limits. 37% said that members should be restricted to only one term of office.
6% of respondents mentioned this issue. 39% said that other faiths should be represented of right. Most of these respondents also favoured representation for the Church of England. 26% said that other faiths should be represented as of right only if the Church of England bishops remained. Most of these respondents (where they expressed a preference) did not want bishops to sit in the new house of right.
Although this was a question posed specifically by the White Paper, only 61 respondents (6%) commented. Of them, 43% favoured the new house having the same disqualification rules as the Commons. 34% favoured a statutory system for disqualifications, while 23% thought that the new house should regulate itself on such matters.
5% of respondents commented directly on the powers of the new house. Of these, 66% wanted the new house to have the same powers as the present house, while 32% recommended that the new house should have more powers than now. PASC's recommendation supports the majority view here.
Considering those responses where specific powers were mentioned, the most popular recommendation was that the new house should have the power to amend or veto secondary legislation. Several respondents also recommended that the new house should have the power to delay Bills. There was some support for the new house to be given specific responsibility for European, constitutional and human rights issues. A handful of respondents suggested that it should be able to force referenda on controversial issues.
4% of respondents (46) commented specifically on what should happen with life peers. 28% called for all life peers to lose their right to sit and speak in the new house (in addition, 390 respondents called for an all-elected house without mentioning this issue specifically). Of those who wished to retain the life peers for a time, the most popular option was a Cranborne-style election system. Most respondents who favoured this envisioned the elections taking place from a diminishing number of life peers, as a temporary replacement for a proportion of the appointed members.
3% of respondents mentioned this issue. Of them, the majority (41%) suggested a single-term limit for appointed members. Against that, 27% of those who commented were opposed to any term limits at all.
2% of respondents mentioned a compulsory retirement age. 59% thought that there should be a retirement age, while 36% thought there should not be. The most popular age mentioned was 75.
2% of respondents mentioned setting a quota for members from ethnic minorities. Of those, 74% were in favour of a quota, and 26% were opposed to one.
In addition to the issues mentioned above, a small number of other issues were raised:
16 respondents wanted some hereditary peers to remain in the new house;
10 respondents wanted the second chamber abolished completely;
9 respondents specifically mentioned that they were opposed to appointments being used to rebalance the membership of the new house in line with General Election results;
6 respondents said that there should be a minimum age for members;
5 respondents called for a joint committee to decide on the policy; and
5 respondents said that there should be no Ministers in the new house.
These figures show every issue mentioned by more than 5 respondents. Issues mentioned by 2% of respondents or more are shown on a page of their own. The issues are treated in order of popularity, with the most-mentioned issue first and the least-mentioned issues at the end.
Responses had to specifically mention an issue to be counted - views that can be logically inferred on each question are shown in the notes to each figure, but are not included in the statistics.
If respondents expressed inconsistent views (e.g. calling for an all-elected house while saying that members should be independently appointed) we tried to reflect those views as much as possible.
If a response was signed by more than one person, it counted as more than one (identical) response.
To read documents in
format you will need a copy of the freely available Adobe
Acrobat Reader.