Foreword by Secretary of State
Summary of responses to each issue
Annexes
Copies of the individual responses to this consultation are also available.
Foreword by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor
In September of last year I published the consultation paper Constitutional reform: Next steps for the House of Lords. This paper set out the Government's proposals for taking forward the next incremental stage of reform to the second chamber. The consultation paper proposed to remove the remaining hereditary peers, establish a new independent statutory Appointments Commission, and bring the provisions on disqualification into line with those of the Commons. In the face of determined refusal by the opposition to support these reasonable reforms, the Government has subsequently decided not to pursue this legislation at this stage.
Instead, the Government intends to reflect on the possible options for longer-term reform of the House of Lords, and to encourage wide-ranging debate on the best way forward.
Introduction
The Government published the consultation paper Constitutional Reform: next steps for the House of Lords, on 18 September 2003 (CP 14/03).
This document sets out the statistical analysis of the responses to the consultation paper. It does not contain any commentary on the possible way forward.
We received a total of 222 responses, of which 74% percent were sent by email, and the rest by post.
Of these responses, 26% were from respondents based in the South East of England, and 21% based in London. A table setting out the geographical location of respondents (whose addresses are known to us) is at Annex A.
10 members of the House of Lords responded, 1 member of the House of Commons, one member of the Scottish Parliament and one member of the European Parliament. We also received responses from organisations such as the Bar Council Law Reform Committee, the Church of England, the Constitution Unit at University College London, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fawcett Society.
In addition to the formal responses, 43 letters were received from members of the public about the general issue of House of Lords reform, of which 18 were capable of being treated as responses to the consultation paper and have been included in the analysis.
A full list of all respondents received (other than those that requested anonymity), can be found at Annex B.
This summary analyses the numbers of responses received, as well as the different views expressed, and for each question includes a chart giving percentage breakdowns of the numbers of responses favouring particular options. These figures need to be treated with some caution for several reasons. Many respondents did not address the specific questions in the consultation document, or addressed one or more of the questions, but not all of them. The percentage figures may also be misleading in suggesting the overall balance of views in favour of or opposed to particular proposals; some responses (for example those from the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Bar Council Legal Reform Committee) represent the views of large numbers of people. Others represent the views of an individual respondent. These differences have not been taken into account in calculating the percentages which are merely a reflection of the numbers of separate responses received.
Pie charts depicting the statistical analysis of responses to each issue can be found at Annex C.
Summary of responses to each issue
Issue 1:
The Government proposes that the Appointments Commission should be put on a statutory footing at the next legislative opportunity.
Should the arrangements for accountability for such a body follow those for the Electoral Commission in making it accountable to Parliament rather than Government Ministers?
If so, should the different circumstances of the Appointments Commission be reflected by (i) making it accountable to the House of Lords alone (as the Electoral Commission is responsible to the House of Commons alone); or (ii) making it accountable to both Houses of Parliament?
There were 103 responses to this issue, of which 101 agreed that accountability for the new statutory Appointments Commission should follow the arrangements for the Electoral Commission.
A large majority were in favour of establishing the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis. 98 percent of the responses support making the proposed Appointments Commission accountable directly to Parliament rather than to Ministers. These responses generally argue that this is necessary to prevent the process from appearing too close to Government.
The Bar Council Law Reform Committee commented: "accountability arrangements for a statutory appointments commission should be the same as for the Electoral Commission in that the Appointments Commission should be accountable to Parliament as opposed to Ministers".
41 people (41%) suggested that the Commission should be accountable to the House of Lords alone, and 58 people (59%) believed that the Commission should be accountable to both Houses of Parliament.
The Constitution Unit of University College London submitted a thorough response to the consultation. They welcomed the proposal to establish an Appointments Commission on a statutory basis, and commented that: "It is desirable to create parliamentary accountability for the new Appointments Commission". The Unit's response considers a number of alternative means of achieving this accountability, such as reporting to the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords, given the Lords' obvious knowledge and awareness of how the House is functioning; establishing a new joint Committee of both Houses to monitor both the Judicial Appointments Commission and the House of Lords statutory Appointments Commission; and an expansion of the Speaker's Committee which could scrutinise both the Electoral Commission and the Lords' Committee.
David Damant (a member of the public) said: "It should be accountable to both Houses of Parliament, in that this would be a further step towards decreasing the democratic deficit involved in maintaining an appointed House of Lords".
However, others, for example the Bar Council Law Reform Committee, said that "(given its functions) a statutory Appointments Commission should be accountable to the House of Lords…other arrangements should be made for voting the Commission's funding".
Issue 2:
The Government believes it is vital that the appointment of Commissioners is transparent and open. Views are sought on the following issues in relation to the appointments process:
Should the membership of the Commission consist of representatives of the three main political parties and the crossbenchers and a number of independently appointed members?
Should the independently appointed members be in a majority? If so, should the crossbench member be appointed by the Convenor giving a Commission of at least 9? Or should the crossbench member be selected by the same independent appointment process as the lay members, thus enabling the total to be kept to 8?
Should members of either House of Parliament be eligible to apply for appointment as an independent member?
Should the Chairman be appointed separately, or should the Commission choose its own chairman?
Should there be a period during which former members of the Commission are ineligible for membership of the House of Lords. If so, what should it be?
87 percent of respondents dealing with issue 2 (a) were in favour of a Commission composed of representatives of the three main political parties and the cross-benchers and a number of independently appointed members. The Constitution Unit commented that: "This seems a reasonable suggestion to ensure that the Commission has a good understanding of the House (although this would also be provided, to an extent, by its parliamentary accountability)".
In response to issue 2 (b), the vast majority of respondents believe that a majority of the Appointments Commission should be composed of independents. The ancillary questions to this main issue are to some extent dependent on the views of the cross-benchers themselves, since they concern their representation on the Commission. The cross-benchers have indicated in their several responses to the Consultation, that they would prefer to select their own member of the Commission. Lord Craig, convenor of the cross-benchers, has said that he would prefer a Commission of 9, with the cross-benchers selecting their own representative.
In relation to issue 2 (c), 27 percent of respondents to this issue believe that members of either House of Parliament should be eligible for appointment to the Commission as an independent member. The Constitution Unit do not believe that allowing the independent members of the Commission to be members of the House would assist in distancing the Commission from the "Westminster club".
On the other hand, the Law Society of Scotland comment that there could be value in allowing members of Parliament to be eligible for membership of the Commission: "Minority parties may seek greater engagement in the reformed House of Lords and accommodation of their interest should be acknowledged in the number of Commission members".
92 respondents dealt with issue 2 (d), the appointment of a chair to the Appointments Commission. Of these, 73% were in favour of the Commission appointing its own Chair, which they believed would reinforce the independence of the Commission.
Dr Nicolas Baldwin said: "The Commission should choose its own chairman".
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (a cross-bencher with particular knowledge of the medical profession) proposed that the Chair should be appointed from amongst the Commission's members, and that "the position of Chair should be a rotating one - approximately every two years - to ensure maximum efficiency and independence within the role".
However, 27% of respondents disagreed. David Hill, former secretary to the Royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords, believed that the Chair should be recruited separately. The Constitution Unit said: "Given that the chair will in practice be the public face of the commission (as Lord Stevenson is of the current commission) this is an important appointment, and it thus seems appropriate to recruit this as a specific post".
The Bar Council Law Reform Committee said: "…it is essential that the Chairman be appointed separately….A statutory appointments Commission that has a directly appointed member as Chairman is likely to be perceived - however incorrect that perception may be - as vulnerable to party influence and/or as less than independent".
Issue 2 (e) was dealt with in the responses of 91 people. The vast majority of these, (90%) believed that there should be a period of ineligibility for appointment to the House of Lords following membership of the Appointments Commission. Various periods of time were suggested. The Constitution Unit suggested a period of 10 years, Baroness Finlay of Llandaff suggested between four and five years, Ross Johnson (a member of the public) suggested three years, Adrian Barham (Baron of Cottingham) suggested the length of a whole Parliament.
However, some respondents, such as Lord Bowness believed that there should be no period of ineligibility.
Issue 3:
Do you agree that the Appointments Commission should have the power to determine the number of new appointments to the House of Lords? Are the appropriate criteria for guiding its decisions:
That the Government should not have an overall majority;
That the political parties' share of the House should have regard to the result of the previous general election. Should this relate only to the votes cast, or also take some account of seats won?;
That the appointment of non party members of the House should, on average over the lifetime of a Parliament, constitute 20% of the total of appointments;
That the overall size of the House should not grow beyond its present size of about 675 members and should reduce over time to a House of no more than 600; and
That there should not be a statutory cap on the size of the House but that the Appointments Commission should have very much in mind the need to keep the House to a manageable size?
86 percent of the 98 people that commented on issue 3 (a) agreed that the Appointments Commission should have the power to determine the number of new appointments to the House of Lords.
A significant majority (96%) agree that the Government should not have an overall majority in the House of Lords.
A majority of respondents (85 people) agreed that that the political parties' share of the House should have regard to the previous general election. 89 percent believed that this should relate only to the votes cast. The Constitution Unit, for example, demonstrated the difficulty introducing some regard to seats won would cause the Appointments Commission in meeting its other requirements (particularly in controlling the size of the House).
A number of respondents recognised the Government's reasoning in introducing the idea of share of seats won. Professor Leonard Tivey said: "A small bias should go to 'seats won'. There should be no representation for parties which had many votes here and there ('flash parties') but no actual victories".
Dr Nicholas Baldwin said: "Yes - with votes cast and seats won both being taken into account".
96 respondents commented on the proposals to maintain a strong independent element in the House (issue 3 (d)). Most (89%) agreed that 20% or more of appointments to the House should be of independents. The Constitution Unit said that of new appointments, the Appointments Commission should be required to make 25% independent appointments, in order to maintain the House's current active independent membership.
Nigel Beard MP commented: "I certainly agree….that the appointment of non-political members should average 20% of new appointments over the course of each Parliament".
A majority (90%) of respondents supported the proposal in issue 3 (e) that the House should not grow beyond its present size. Most also agreed that reducing over time to no more than 600 was a good proposal. A number or respondents suggested that the House should be composed of a significantly smaller number - around 300.
Edward Rhodes (a member of the public) said: "I believe that it ought to be the long-term aim of the Commission to reduce the overall size of the chamber to about 300. At the very least, the House of Lords ought not to be permitted to exceed the size of the House of Commons".
82 people responded to issue 3 (f), of whom 80 percent agreed that a statutory cap on the size of the House would be unnecessarily inflexible.
Julian Gould (a member of the public) said: "A statutory cap may be unwieldy, but clear guidelines … should be monitored by both Houses of Parliament".
Adrian Jones (a member of the public) commented: "There should not be a statutory cap but there should be a statutory provision for a review if the spirit of the targets is not being achieved".
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York commented: "if an appointed chamber is to have a ceiling on membership, wherever that is fixed, it is important that room is available to refresh regularly the membership and thus the expertise of the House".
Issue 4:
The Government is strongly of the view that the House of Lords should better reflect the make up of UK society.
Views are sought on the range of measures against which the Appointments Commission should assess the suitability of potential independent members. The Government proposes that these should particularly include regional diversity, gender balance, ethnic representation, age profile, disability representation, and faith representation.
Should the same range of measures be applied to the political parties?
A large majority of respondents supported the proposal that the House of Lords should better reflect the make up of UK society.
90 percent agreed with the suggested criteria in issue 4 (a). A number of interest groups responded to this issue alone.
The Campaign for the English Regions said that "The most efficient and effective way to ensure regional diversity in the House of Lords would be a system of territorially-based membership. This could most easily be achieved by direct or indirect election".
The Scottish Executive commented: "The Executive welcomes and supports the proposal for enhanced geographic representation and greater regional diversity".
The Equal Opportunities Commission commented: "The EOC would like to see a requirement on the Appointments Commission to move towards balanced representation in all its nominations (ideally, as was suggested in the last White Paper, with a floor of at least 30 per cent women/men)". They also commented: "In addition, the EOC believes it will not be sufficient to apply these measures only to proposed independent members - some 20% of new appointees - or for them to be merely "guidelines" as proposed. A power should be given to the Appointments Commission to reject a political party's list of nominees if it, too, failed to fulfil the criteria in relation to bringing about more balanced representation (again, possibly with a requirement that every political party list should contain at least 30% women and 30% men)".
Some other respondents that commented specifically on gender as one of the proposed criteria also believed that the criteria should be applied more strictly. Dr Joan Draper commented: "It is essential that the gender balance in the new House of Lords should reflect that of our country, that is half women and half men". She also commented: "I know that there has been a conscious effort in recent years to increase the number of peers of ethnic origin, but more will be needed to make the new House truly representative".
The Fawcett Society said: "Fawcett believes that the Government's reform of the House of Lords presents a real opportunity to increase women's representation in the Lords".
Many respondents commented that reflecting the age profile of the UK in the House of Lords was neither possible nor desirable. These respondents said that to achieve this would require appointing very young members to the House to make up for the preponderance of older members. Some respondents also said that older members were beneficial to the House in view of the experience and expertise they could bring to debates. A group of seven independent peers submitted a response to the consultation in which they said: "…it will surely never be possible, or even desirable to attempt, to achieve a balance of age. There will be very few people under, say, 40 who have the required ability and experience and yet are able to devote a considerable part of their time to an unpaid House".
The Free Churches Group said: "The Commission's policy should be inclusive in regard to gender and ethnic origin. The Commission should not be discouraged from nominating appropriate candidates on account of any physical disability they may suffer".
Faith representation was the suggested criterion that inspired perhaps the greatest diversity of opinion. For example, the British Muslim Research Centre said: "We support the Government's position that the proposed Appointments Commission should encourage nominations and appointments from underrepresented groups. We support the Government's position that in considering the make-up of the UK society as a whole for representation in the House of Lords, the proposed Appointments Commission should specifically consider the religious make-up of the UK" (their emphasis).
The African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance said: "We welcome the government's strong view that the House of Lords should better reflect the make up of the UK society.…we suggest that a reformed and representative House of Lords must recognise and acknowledge the vastness and diversity of the Black Majority Churches/Organisations' constituency".
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York said: "We continue to hold that this diversity of representation should include the nation's spiritual and religious life. In an era of growing interest and concern about relations between faiths, their approach to moral and ethical issues, and their impact on the modern world, the House of Lords has considerable potential as a forum for serious and well-informed debate on these matters".
On the other hand, some respondents were opposed to any faith representation in the House at all. The National Secular Society and British Humanist Association both represent individuals who believe that all religions should be excluded from the House of Lords (and other governmental bodies), and their submissions reflected this view.
Sir Nicholas Goodison suggested that "the over-representation of the Church and the Law aggravates the lack of balance". He also believes that "the Appointments Commission should have the last say on the political appointments…Otherwise the political parties will appoint people without regard to other appointments and may distort the total representation of any requirement (e.g. geographical)".
The Board of Deputies of British Jews had a more complex view: "It is important that if a member of the second chamber is appointed as a representative of a community, that person should have legitimacy within that community. It will be difficult to achieve this in practice. It is our belief that to attempt to appoint official representatives from the faith communities could be divisive within the communities and cause more harm than good". Instead, they propose that new members' religious background is given "due regard" when deciding the balance of appointments to the House.
On the other hand, some respondents pointed out that suitability to the Lords and merit should be the overriding criteria. The Law Society of Scotland said: "The Appointments Commission should appoint primarily on merit but have regard to the balancing factors mentioned in this paragraph [issue 4]".
In relation to issue 4 (b), some respondents felt that the political parties should not be restricted in making their appointments by representativeness criteria. For example, Lord Cobbold said: "The political parties must be allowed to make their own choices".
However, 76 percent of respondents argued that the criteria should be applied to the political parties' nominations. These responses commented that requiring the Appointments Commission to have regard to the stated criteria in making its nominations, but placing no such requirement on the parties, would result in a limited increase in the representativeness of new appointments to the House. For example, the Constitution Unit said: "If the commission is to be charged with securing a House which is properly representative, and maintains a healthy spread of expertise, it will simply not be able to do this on the basis of controlling appointments to only one fifth of the chamber".
Issue 5:
Should the same rules on disqualification that apply to the Commons apply equally to the Lords, in relation to conviction for an offence? In addition, should conviction for an offence lead to the loss of the title?
108 people responded to this issue, of whom a significant majority, 91 percent, agreed that the same rules that apply to the Commons in relation to conviction for an offence should apply equally to the Lords.
The Bar Council Law Reform Committee said: "There can be no doubt in the Committee's view that the same rules on disqualification that apply to the Commons should apply equally to the Lords. It is anomalous that the position should be otherwise and it is entirely inconsistent with the proper role and function of a second chamber that the position should be otherwise".
The Scottish Executive commented: "The Executive also believes that there should be as much consistency as possible in the arrangements governing disqualification from membership of the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament, on the basis that it would be anomalous if a person could sit in one Parliament although disqualified from sitting as a member of the other. The criteria for disqualification from membership of the Scottish Parliament are modelled closely on the corresponding arrangements governing membership of the House of Commons. The Executive accordingly welcomes the Government's proposal that the criteria governing disqualification from the House of Lords should be aligned more closely with those governing the House of Commons, and therefore also the Scottish Parliament, in areas such as criminal convictions, bankruptcy and mental health".
Opinion was more divided on the issue of whether such a disqualification should also lead to the loss of the title.
The Law Society of Scotland said: "Conviction for a disqualifying offence should lead to the loss of the title."
Adrian Barham (Baron of Cottingham) said: "I do not believe that the removal of the title itself is appropriate - it being a stage beyond the penalty applicable to those in the Commons".
A number of respondents also dealt with the proposal that such a measure should have retrospective effect. These respondents criticised this proposal, which they said could be seen as vindictive to an individual. Some responses cautioned that retrospective legislation on this matter could set a dangerous precedent.
A number of respondents seemed to oppose the measure on the basis that disqualification would be permanent and irrevocable. However, the intention is that such disqualified peers would be eligible for re-appointment in the same way as anyone else would be eligible for appointment.
Issue 6:
Do you agree that the Prime Minister should continue to be able to recommend peerages for the past holders of certain offices?
Do you agree that there should be a presumption that former holders of high judicial office are entitled, by virtue of that office, to membership of the House of Lords?
54 percent of respondents agreed with issue 6 (a), that the Prime Minister should continue to recommend peerages for the past holders of certain offices.
However, the Constitution Unit said: "The proposal that various groups continue to be appointed to the chamber directly by the Prime Minister undermines the Appointments Commission, and will make its job of maintaining balance and size limits in the house more difficult. As far as possible the Appointments Commission should have sole control over appointments to the house, and all members should be considered on their merits. Such an arrangement would be easier if the peerage link were broken".
At issue 6 (b), 58 percent of respondents supported appointing former holders of high judicial office to the House of Lords. Some respondents queried the definition of "high judicial office", with Adrian Barham (Baron of Cottingham) defining this as "presumably the new Supreme Court etc", while others seemed unsure what was intended by the phrase. Some respondents queried removing serving Law Lords from the House of Lords. This is primarily the subject of the consultation paper A supreme court for the United Kingdom (CP 11/03). These respondents argued that the Law Lords bring significant benefit to the House's deliberations, and that their legal knowledge in particular is invaluable. For example, William Norman said: "…who better to advise on how proposed legislation will work in practice than the judges who have spent a lifetime working in the courts?"
Most of those that supported retaining serving Law Lords also supported, in the event of their removal from the House, the appointment of retired Law Lords to the House.
Dr Noel Cox said: "…it is highly appropriate for senior judges to receive peerages. This will mean that the House continues to have the benefit of a wealth of judicial experience, which is important when considering legislation".
A number of other respondents also believed that retired Law Lords should be appointed to the House.
The Law Society of Scotland said: "there could be benefits to the House if former holders of high judicial office might be entitled to membership of the House of Lords. To reinforce the separation of powers, those retired judges who make themselves available for the Supreme Court reserve panel should not be appointed to the House of Lords".
However, the Bar Council Law Reform Committee was "not persuaded that this is an acceptable proposal…the proposal inevitably raises the question of why only certain distinguished office-holders should be considered worthy of automatic entitlement to the House of Lords".
Issue 7:
Should provision be introduced to allow for voluntary resignation from the Lords and disclaimer of life peerages?
An overwhelming majority (92%) of those that responded to this issue agreed that voluntary resignation and disclaimer of peerages should be allowed for.
Some of those that responded drew the distinction between voluntary resignation and voluntary disclaimer of title, as opposed to voluntary resignation and then obligatory removal of title along with that. Of those that drew this distinction, the majority were in favour of separating the two, so that a member of the House could retain his/her title upon resignation from the House. These responses said that this would encourage a greater number of inactive peers to resign their seat. For example, the group of seven independent peers said: "If retirement necessarily involves renunciation there will be very few retirements".
Lord Rix proposed that two different levels of retirement should be permitted. Those that 'partially retired' would be able to continue to participate in the House in every way except voting, and those that 'fully retired' would still be permitted to attend the House and use its amenities, but would not be permitted to sit and vote.
The Constitution Unit says that allowing peers to resign their seat and stand for the House of Commons could be damaging to the culture of the Lords. The Unit says that there should be a bar on members standing as MPs for 10 years after their resignation.
Other Issues
Elections
A significant number of responses to the consultation also covered the issue of election to the House of Lords. Of the 222 responses received, 123 mentioned elections, of which 112 were in favour of some form of election to the second chamber. Some of these responses then went on to respond to at least some of the issues the Government is specifically consulting on, whereas others simply proposed elections as an alternative to other reform.
Many responses welcomed the continuing search for consensus, for example, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York said: "While we are familiar with the political and parliamentary factors that have helped to determine the current limits of that thinking, we believe it is important that efforts continue to build a consensus for shaping the longer term future of the Second Chamber and its wider parliamentary setting".
Removal of the hereditary Peers
A number of respondents objected to the Government's proposal to remove the hereditary Peers from the House. These responses often argued that a better option was to not replace deceased hereditary Peers, so that over time the hereditary membership to the House would be removed, but at a more gradual pace than proposed. For example, Lord Bowness said: "The situation could be solved by the repeal of the provisions providing for By-Elections. Existing members of the House at the date of the passage of any future Act should be offered Life Peerages (which they are already de facto), or alternatively the situation left to solve itself with the abolition of By-Elections".
A group of seven cross-bench peers submitted a response which said that "The presence of the hereditaries would still be a forceful incentive to complete the reform, if the Government kept to its undertaking that they could only be removed when the reform took place".
Fixed Terms
A number of respondents commented that membership of the House of Lords should be for fixed terms. Reverend Smith suggested seven years, the Sutton Group of Charter 88 ten years, and the Constitution Unit fifteen years.
Retirement age
A number of respondents commented that there should be a retirement age for members of the House of Lords. Lord Cobbold believed this should be fixed at 75 or 80. He suggested that: "…individuals reaching that age and not wishing to retire should be entitled to apply for an "Emeritus" status which if agreed by a majority vote of all members would allow the individual to remain for the remainder of that Parliament. A new vote would be needed at each subsequent new Parliament".
Obtaining This Paper
Further copies can be obtained from;
Bola Akinbileje
House of Lords Reform Team
Department for Constitutional Affairs
6th Floor, Selbourne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Annex A - Geographical location of respondents
This table gives a crude indication of the geographical origin of respondents to the consultation paper. It should be treated with caution, since not all respondents provided an address, particularly those that sent their response by email.
Due to rounding, the figures here do not add up to 100.
| Government area | Percentage of respondents |
| East | 8 |
| East Midlands | 4 |
| London | 21 |
| North West | 7 |
| Northern Ireland | 1 |
| Outside the UK | 2 |
| Scotland | 6 |
| South East | 26 |
| South West | 13 |
| Wales | 3 |
| West Midlands | 3 |
| Yorkshire and the Humber | 5 |
Annex B - List of all respondents
African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance
Aetheling Allen
David Allen
Allot (organisation campaigning for a more democratic second chamber)
Robin Anderson
M F Archer
Maureen Armstrong
Simon Atrill
D. R. Attwell
George P Avery
Mrs P Bain
Dr Nicholas DJ Baldwin FRSA
Mark Ballard MSP
Bar Council Law Reform Committee
Bar Council of Northern Ireland
Adrian Barham
Elie C Bassouls
Gavin Baylis
Tim Baynes
Brian Bean
Nigel Beard MP
Martyn Bebb
John Bennett
Allan Berry
Mr Blacklidge
Board of Deputies of British Jews
C H Bohling
William Boocock
Roger Boswell
S P Bowers
Lord Bowness
Fabian Breckels
British Humanist Association
British Muslim Research Centre
Laurinda Brown
Pete Browning
Buckinghamshire Federation of Women's Institutes
Dr E A Burkitt
Peter Butler
Campaign for the English Regions
Mr G Campbell-Smith (signatory of Charter 88)
John Cartwright
Catholic Bishops conference
Lord Chalfont (on behalf of a group of 7 cross-bench Peers)
Anne-Carole Chamier
Terence Chapman
Charter 88 (Sutton group)
Charter 88 (Norwich & mid Norfolk branch)
Church of England (Archbishops of Canterbury and York)
W J Clary
Lewis Cligman
Dane Clouston
Lord Cobbold
Mr Coldham
Lord Coleraine
Richard Collins
Constitution Unit (University College London)
Mr JE & Mrs DM Cooke
Dave Coomber
Cornwall Federation of Women's Institutes
Terry Coulson
Henry Cox
Dr Noel Cox
Anthony Crackett
Lord Craig of Radley
Alan D Crowhurst
R C Dales
David Damant
Anne Davies
John A Davis
Dr Sheila Day
Rodolph De Salis
T Dommett
Dr Joan Draper
Mr B E Driscoll (supporter of charter88)
Owen Dumpleton
Dr David W Dyke
Alexander R Egerton
Bryan Ellis
Dr Mary P English
Equal Opportunities Commission
Evangelical Alliance
Elizabeth and Tom Evans
Mr T A Evans
Faculty of Advocates
Fawcett Society
Dr M A Fazal
J C Robin Fennell
Professor the Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
David Finnsmore Hill
D Fox
Mr K C Fraser
Free Churches Group
Judith and Ruth French
Michael J Frost
Anne Galbraith
Philip Gates
Sir Nicholas Goodison
Lord Gordon
Julian Gould
John Graham
Rosalind Graham Hunt
Peter Gray
William Gray
David Green
Andrew Greenhalgh
Green Party
Ruth Hadman
Delia Haldane
John Hall
Richard Hall
Wayne Hall
Stephen Hardy
Ross Harley
Michael Haseler
Michael Haskell
J A Hedgecoch
Hereditary Peerage Association
Dr Ray Heyworth
David Hill
Brenda Hinks
Frank Hooley
David Houseley
David M Hunt
R J Jarrett
Ranil M Jayawardena
Mark Jenner
Cliff Johnson
Clive B Johnson
Ross Johnson
Adrian H Jones
Peter Jowitt
Matthias Kelly
A R Kennard
Jason Kitcat
Alan Knight
Labour Women's Network
Carol Lamb
Ian Lang
Law Society of Scotland
Michael Leahy
Amy Lesley
Professor Lewis Lesley
Francis Harvey Little
John R Lucas
Lord Lucas of Crudwell and Dingwall
Susan Maclean
Tom MacLean
Dr Nikki MacLeod
Chris Martin
Dinah May
Alan Mayes
Peter McCallion
Peter McColl
Eryl McNally MEP
Howard Millbank
Jeremy Mitchell
Rowland Morgan
Charles Myhill
National Secular Society
National Spiritual Assembly of Baha'is
Linda J Neale
Network of Buddhist Organisations
John Newham
William Norman
Robin Orton
Fred Ottey
Sir Dick Pantlin
John Parfitt
David Parkin
Richard Philips
Reverend Postlethwaite
Professor John Radford
Lord Renton
Edward Rhodes
O J Rich
Lord Rix
Dr Paul Robertshaw
David Robins
Royal Society of Chemistry
David Santamaria
Jack Saunders
Scottish Executive
Vicky Seddon
Donald Shell
Professor N Sheppard
Luke Slater
John Smallwood
Reverend Cecil Smith
Jane Smith
K. J. Smith
Martin Stepek
Mary-Ann Stephenson
R. L. Stephenson
Richard Stobart
Stony Stratford Women's Institute
Dr George Sudbury
Robert Sykes
Mark Taha
David Taylor
William S Taylor
Steve Taylorson
J M Thomason
Titchfield Abbey Women's Institute
Leonard Tivey
E Tozer
John Turnbull
Mark Turnbull
Edward A Vickerman
Lord Vinson
R Walpole
Dr M Watt
Robert & Winifred Watt
Dr Robert Welding
Matthew West
Mrs Wilkinson
Allan Wisbey
John Wymer
Annex C - Pie charts depicting responses
Pie charts
depicting responses
[66kb]