Annexes
Copies of the individual responses to this consultation will be made available on the internet as soon as possible.
Copies of the individual responses to this consultation are also available.
Introduction
This document is the post-consultation report for the consultation paper, Constitutional reform: reforming the office of Lord Chancellor It will cover:-
the background to the report
a summary of the responses to the report
a detailed response to specific questions raised in the report;
and
the next steps following this consultation
Further copies of this report and the consultation paper can be obtained by contacting Sophia Akram at the address given below:
Office of the Lord Chancellor Project Team
Department for Constitutional Affairs
5th Floor Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Telephone: 020 7210 0642
email: LC Functions
This paper forms part of a series of summaries on the responses to the constitutional reform consultations. The others cover:
establishing a Supreme Court;
setting up a Judicial Appointments Commission; and
the future of Queen's Counsel.
Background
On 12 June 2003 the Prime Minister announced the Government's intention to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor, putting the relationship between the executive, judiciary and legislature on a modern footing and clarifying the independence of the judiciary. The primary roles of Minister, Head of Judiciary and Speaker of the Lords must be separated in order to lead to greater transparency and increased public confidence. On 18 September Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, published a consultation paper, Constitutional reform: reforming the office of Lord Chancellor seeking views on the functions of the Lord Chancellor that are not associated with the Speakership, his functions as a Departmental Minister or his capacity as Head of the Judiciary. The consultation paper sought views on:
The consultation period closed on 7 November 2003 and this report summarises the responses. This report should be read in conjunction with the consultation paper. A list of respondents is contained in Annex A.
Summary of responses
A total of 239 responses to the consultation paper were received. Due to the specific nature of the questions, the majority of respondents only answered the question or questions that directly related to their interests. All the responses have been analysed and a summary for each question is set out in this report. These summaries report the numbers and percentages of responses received, but have not in general distinguished between the views of representative bodies, office holders or private individuals. In some cases the capacity of the respondent was not made clear. Seven respondents asked for their response to be treated in confidence. We are grateful to everyone who responded.
Question by question summaries
Ecclesiastical Patronage
How should the Lord Chancellor's patronage best be exercised once there is no longer a Minister of the Crown with the office of Lord Chancellor?
Do you prefer:
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, or another Minister of the Crown, to retain responsibility for Ecclesiastical Patronage;
The responsibility for Ecclesiastical Patronage to be dealt with in the same manner as other Crown livings (i.e. with the Prime Minister advising The Queen);
Transferring the Lord Chancellor's patronage powers, at least in respect of parochial appointments, to the Church? If so, who in the Church would be the best recipient in your view?
In each case please give your reasons.
Of the 239 responses to the consultation paper, 69% (164) of respondents chose to answer this question. Responses were split almost evenly between option b, 44% (72) handling Ecclesiastical Patronage in the same manner as other Crown livings, and option c, 43% (71) transferring the Lord Chancellor's patronage to the Church. Only 7% (12) favoured option a, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or another Minister of the Crown retaining responsibility for this function. Six per cent (9) of respondents did not indicate a clear preference.
Nearly all of the respondents to this question were connected to the Church. The majority of respondents had had experience of the current appointments process. Seventy per cent (114) of respondents stated that they were responding on behalf of or as a member of a Parochial Church Council (PCC), or were the incumbent or ex-incumbent of a benefice where the Lord Chancellor had a sole or shared right to make appointments. The preference of these respondents was narrowly in favour of option c (47%) over option b (43%). A small number of incumbents where the Lord Chancellor appoints responded both on behalf of the PCC, and on their own behalf. We have counted these replies separately.
a) patronage transfers to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or another Minister of the Crown:
Respondents felt that the Government should retain a stake in the Established Church and that this patronage should continue to be exercised through the same office. Three respondents mentioned that this system allowed them the freedom to work across diocesan boundaries.
b) patronage is handled with other Crown patronage:
Of those respondents that preferred option b, 55% (35) commented that this option would be the least disruptive as it could use the mechanisms and expertise that are already in place to handle Crown livings, which the majority of respondents considered to work well at present.
Fifty five per cent supported this option because it would retain what they consider to be the advantages of the varied patronage system. Several respondents noted that Bishops are already involved in the process, and that they welcomed an independent view from outside the Church which could assist with appointments across boundaries. Respondents said that this option provided variety for both parishes and candidates, and supported maintaining a plurality of patronage.
Twenty six per cent considered that as long as the Church of England remained the Established Church, the state should retain some involvement in the appointments system. Fourteen respondents viewed the patronage process as a significant means to maintain the link between Church and State. Of these, a number expressed the view that option c could be a step towards disestablishment.
Eleven per cent (7) of respondents commented that since historically patronage exercised by the Lord Chancellor came from the Crown, it made sense for it to revert to the same process used in other Crown livings.
A small number of respondents feared that transferring powers to the Church could cause divisions as it would not safeguard against appointments by 'Churchmanship' or 'Bishops appointing strategically'. A handful of respondents expressed the view that transfer to the Church would undermine checks and balances in the system to avoid such problems.
We received responses from seven Bishops (and also one from staff working closely with a Bishop). Six of these stated the best option was to handle this patronage with other Crown appointments, with advice from the Prime Minister through the Ecclesiastical Patronage Office. The Bishop of Southwell commented that this would "maintain the link of Church and State for the Established Church and hopefully maintain that status while any debate of disestablishment continues". The Bishop of London noted that as well as causing the least disruption, transferring powers to the Crown "offers the Church a sympathetic and well-informed but independent country-wide personnel service". Of the Diocesan Bishops expressing a preference for the Lord Chancellor's patronage reverting to the Crown, two also saw clear benefits in it going to the Church.
c) transfer to the Church:
The prime reason given (12 responses) for the right of patronage to transfer to the Church was that it would give a chance for local needs and issues to come to the fore. This would allow parishioners' needs to be recognised as part of a decision on a new incumbent. A further six respondents added that the current system, where local people do not have any right of veto or sense of choice over the Lord Chancellor's selection of incumbent, made them feel less involved with decisions about their parish. It was suggested that giving parish representatives a degree of choice in their parish priest would provide protection against the appointment of an unsuitable incumbent.
Another key reason for passing patronage to the Church was that the system was an historical anachronism (5 respondents) and no longer relevant in today's society (5). It was said the benefices in question do not have any historical link to the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister, and therefore there is no reason to transfer patronage to them.
Five respondents felt that it makes sense to transfer these powers to the Church as the Ecclesiastical Patronage Office consults extensively with the Bishops during the process anyway, as they are knowledgeable in the relevant areas, and are already patrons of a number of parishes.
Five respondents expressed the view that the Church should govern its own affairs. Five further respondents felt that it was important to take away the party political influence within the Church, and that the executive should not be responsible for Church appointments. The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship commented that "consistent with the principle of efficient government, the Church should be responsible, as far as possible, for managing its own affairs, allowing the Government to concentrate on the business of government".
Breakdown of preferences amongst those in favour of option c:
Fifty two per cent (37) of respondents in favour of option c considered the Diocesan Bishops the best recipient of the Lord Chancellor's patronage powers. Seventeen per cent (12) were in favour of powers being transferred to the Diocesan Board of Patronage and 8% (6) thought the powers should be exercised by the Archbishops in their respective provinces. Three respondents felt the best option would be for patronage to go to a patronage trust. The other 19% (13) of respondents who indicated a preference for the patronage right to transfer to the Church were unclear as to who in the Church would in their view be best placed to exercise it. Suggested alternatives were the Deans and Canons, the Dean and Chapter, and the Provincial Episcopal Visitor.
Bishops: The bishops are already patrons of a large number of benefices. They have relevant first-hand experience, are aware of suitable candidates within their diocese and can also consult with colleagues in other areas to find the best incumbent from any geographical region. Respondents supporting this option felt that the chief pastor or head of a diocese should be responsible for appointing their own staff, which is essentially an internal matter, and this would assist the Bishop in planning strategically in their diocese. This option was also seen to speed up the process of appointment when a living comes available.
Two of the Diocesan Bishops expressing a preference for the Lord Chancellor's patronage to revert to the Crown also saw a benefit in its going to the Church. The Bishop of London expressed a preference for the Crown, but if patronage were relocated to the Church, would recommend it went to the Diocesan Bishops. The Bishop of Stafford felt that the Crown was the easiest option, but that the alternative would be to pass the responsibility to the appropriate Bishop or the Diocesan Board of Patronage, which would increase parochial participation in the appointments.
The Vice Chair of the House of Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England considered patronage powers being exercised by the bishops to be the most straightforward option as bishops are already patrons of a large number of benefices and there are "sufficient checks and balances in the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986 to 'protect' local interests against the bishop's exercise of his 'power' if that is a concern".
Diocesan Board of Patronage: Those respondents (17%) in favour of powers being transferred to the Diocesan Board of Patronage felt that this would assist appointments being representative of the diocese and retain the lay voice in the process. It was felt to be important that local needs and issues were addressed fully by those people who would be affected by decisions. It was also seen as facilitating pastoral reorganisation.
Archbishops: Six respondents thought the powers should be exercised by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in their respective provinces. This would facilitate movement across dioceses. Also the Archbishops were seen to be in the best position to assess what is needed across the parishes as they consult regularly with the Bishops.
Patronage Trusts: Three respondents were in favour of using a combination of patronage trusts. These three respondents felt that patronage trusts would preserve the current element of diversity or style of ministry in appointments.
Canonries: Of the five respondents who referred specifically to the 12 Canonries, three considered that they should revert to the Crown, and two supported the transfer of the patronage to the Church.
Total responses to Q1
| Number of responses | % of responses to Q1 | |
| Option a | 12 | 7 |
| Option b | 72 | 44 |
| Option c | 71 | 43 |
| Undecided | 9 | 6 |
| Total | 164 | 100 |
Breakdown of option c
| Number of responses | % of responses in favour of option c |
|
| i) Bishops | 37 | 52 |
| ii) Board of Patronage | 12 | 17 |
| iii) Archbishops | 6 | 8 |
| iv) Patronage Trusts | 3 | 4 |
| v) Undecided | 13 | 19 |
| Total | 71 | 100 |
Visitatorial roles
How should the Visitatorial roles of the Lord Chancellor best be exercised in the future? And by whom? What are your reasons?
Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs could technically continue to carry out these reduced functions with the support of officials.
Her Majesty could delegate the exercise of her jurisdiction elsewhere. Requires the identification (or creation) of a particular office.
Advice could be given to The Queen on a case-by-case basis on who is best placed to exercise Her Visitatorial jurisdiction.
Of the 239 responses to the consultation paper, 46 (19%) of the respondents answered this question. Almost all responses received on this question were from those involved with the higher education system.
Of the 46 responses, only 24 gave a preference between the expanded options above. Eight preferred the Visitorship function to be retained by the Secretary of State; seven respondents argued that The Queen should receive advice on who should exercise Her Visitatorial jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis; and three respondents suggested that The Queen should create a new office to deal with the Visitorship functions. In addition to the above, eight respondents (20%) indicated that they would prefer to see the Visitorship function of the Lord Chancellor abolished, and six responses from Oxford and Cambridge Colleges indicated that they would like to appoint their own replacement to the Lord Chancellor. Other responses were either unclear about a preference, or suggested other alternatives (mentioned below).
Many of the universities and colleges who responded acknowledged that the implementation of the Higher Education Bill would largely remove the need for a Visitor to make decisions over student complaints, and made mention of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. All of those universities and colleges where the Lord Chancellor is Visitor or acts on behalf of The Queen have signed up to the voluntary scheme.
Colleges: Of the seven responses received from the Oxford and Cambridge colleges where the Lord Chancellor acts as Visitor on behalf of The Queen, all but one expressed a wish to make their own arrangements for the Visitorship by means of a change in college statutes. Several responses noted that there is already a precedent for this procedure at other colleges.
The exception was Oriel College, Oxford who favoured the option of Her Majesty being invited to delegate the exercise of Her jurisdiction elsewhere, commenting that as an ancient royal foundation, the College wished to retain their link with the Crown.
Universities: From the 11 universities where the Lord Chancellor acts as Visitor, we received nine responses, plus a response from the University of Cambridge. Of these, six expressed a preference for the Secretary of State to continue to carry out the reduced functions. Two universities considered that in light of the reduced role of the Visitor and the specific nature of petitions to the Visitor, the most appropriate solution was to advise The Queen on a case-by-case basis. Two universities made it clear that their preference would be to abolish the function of Visitor in universities as there are adequate provisions in place to handle staff grievances. Aston University expressed a preference for a new office to be established to handle Visitatorial cases on behalf of the Crown.
Options:
a) Secretary of State to take the functions of the Visitor
Of the eight respondents in favour of this option, six were universities
where the Lord Chancellor currently acts as Visitor. The reasons given in
support of this option were that it would make use of the experience and
knowledge of officials currently carrying out these tasks. It would also
avoid the cost of setting up a new office.
b) The Queen to delegate jurisdiction to a particular office
Three responses considered that the Crown's Visitorship functions should
be delegated to a single identifiable office. One respondent recommended
this should be the Office of Independent Adjudicator (OIA), while another
preferred a senior judge.
c) Appointments to be made on a case-by-case basis
Seven respondents considered that advice could be given to The Queen on
a case-by-case basis on who is best to exercise her Visitatorial jurisdiction,
arguing that given the reduced requirements of this role it would appear
unnecessary to create a new office. The University of Warwick recommended
that the Secretary of State advise The Crown on a case-by-case basis, as
this would lead to the "appointment of a Visitor with the relevant
experience and standing to fulfil the role effectively".
Other Options:
d) Abolition of the Visitorship function
This option was preferred by eight respondents: two students who responded
to the consultation paper; the Universities of Salford and Newcastle; the
National Union of Students (NUS); and others. The NUS criticised the Visitor
system for leading to inconsistency in the way students from different institutions
are treated and commented that the process is not always transparent or
timely.
e) Other options for Crown delegation of Visitatorial jurisdiction
Other suggestions for Crown delegation of Visitatorial jurisdiction included:
Total responses to Q2
| Number of responses | % of responses | |
| i) Secretary of State | 8 | 17 |
| ii) HMQ delegates to an office | 3 | 7 |
| iii) HMQ delegates on each case | 7 | 15 |
| Other preference | 14 | 30 |
| Unclear | 14 | 30 |
| Total | 46 | 100* |
Royal Peculiars
There is a distinction to be drawn between providing advice to Her Majesty in relation to Royal Peculiars and carrying out Visitatorial functions in respect of them. How should the two roles best be carried out in the future? What are your reasons?
The Royal Peculiars are St. George's, Windsor; Westminster Abbey and the Chapels Royal. The Chapels Royal are made up of four small chapels attached to Royal Palaces, and Temple Chapel. The Queen is Visitor at Westminster and the Chapels Royal, and that responsibility by convention devolves to the Lord Chancellor. The exception to this is at Temple Chapel, where The Queen has appointed the Dean of the Chapels Royal to act on her behalf. The Lord Chancellor is ex-officio Visitor at Windsor, therefore the Visitorship function will have to be moved elsewhere.
In 2001, a review of the Royal Peculiars took place, which recommended that a Standing Committee should be created to support and act as Visitor in any cases which arise, which would allow them the same degree of accountability and scrutiny as the Cathedrals. Since that time, continuing discussions have taken place and the final recommendations to Her Majesty were put forward prior to Christmas 2003.
This question elicited only 18 responses. These were varied, and options suggested include passing the Visitorship to The Queen for all three Royal Peculiars, with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs providing advice (3 responses); transferring the Visitorship to the Archbishop of Canterbury (4 responses); and following the advice of the Review Group and establishing a Standing Committee (2 responses).
Options:
a) Visitorship to Crown with advice from Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
Three respondents expressed the view that The Queen should be Visitor for the Royal Peculiars and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs should provide advice. The Justices' Clerks Society thought that this was the best option for the role of Visitor to the Royal Peculiars, but suggested that the Archbishop of Canterbury, or one of his representatives, carry out the formal Visitatorial function.
b) Archbishop of Canterbury
Of the four respondents who suggested that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be Visitor at the Royal Peculiars, one recommended that he should only take the formal functions of Visitor, but any dispute resolution would be done by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs on behalf of The Queen. Another suggested that the Archbishop should advise The Queen on Visitorship issues in order to maintain the close association with the monarchy. Two respondents recommended passing full responsibility to the Archbishop as the Bishop most closely linked to the Sovereign.
c) Standing Committee
Professor Averil Cameron, who was the Chair of the Review Group set up by The Queen on the Royal Peculiars in 2001, commented that the Royal Peculiars "should have a system for complaints which is fast, independent and accountable". The proposal made by the Review Group suggested that all three Royal Peculiars should fall under the responsibility of The Crown, and the Standing Committee should provide advice on any dispute.
The National Youth Advocacy Service also recommended this option in order to make the Royal Peculiars consistent with other review recommendations from the 2001 Report, and with the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 and the Cathedral Measure 1999.
d) Other responses
The Bishop of London (and Dean of the Chapels Royal) identified two existing bodies that could take responsibility for handling disputes that may arise in relation to Royal Peculiars. The proposed bodies were the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved. The former because it consists of Lay Judges and acts as an Appeal Court for various ecclesiastical questions largely related to the operations of the Pastoral Measure; and the latter because it is composed of three Chancellors (i.e. ecclesiastical judges) and two Bishops.
Other responses to the question included:
Charities and Schools
Where the Lord Chancellor has a function in relation to specific schools, charities or other bodies not connected to his Departmental or Visitatorial responsibilities, do you see any value in continuing such involvement? What are your reasons?
The Department for Constitutional Affairs is dealing individually with each of the 44 organisations where we know the Lord Chancellor has a role by convention, statute or charter. Their responses related to the specific circumstances of their own institution and the Lord Chancellor's involvement with it. The Department is continuing these discussions separately.
A handful of respondents, not connected to any institution, also expressed the view that it was inappropriate for a Secretary of State to be involved with organisations unconnected with his departmental responsibilities. Others saw positive points in a senior government minister maintaining traditional and historical links. The General Council of the Bar proposed that these functions should transfer to the new Lords Speaker.
The Nightingale Fund proposed that the duties towards various schools and charities should pass to either the Secretary of State for Education and Skills or the Charities Commission respectively.
General comments
In addition to responding on specific questions asked in the consultation paper, we also received a number of general comments. Several respondents commented on the historical significance of the role of Lord Chancellor and expressed regret at the abolition of the office. Some of these wanted the title retained. The general consensus from respondents was that the role of Lord Chancellor needed reforming, but a number regretted that the paper did not consult on the principle of abolishing the Lord Chancellor.
Conclusion
The responses summarised here relate to proposals for what should be done with the certain historical roles that the office of Lord Chancellor has inherited over the years. The abolition of the Lord Chancellor is part of the Government's programme of constitutional reforms which will also change the way judges are appointed and establish a new Supreme Court. The views received in response to the consultation paper will inform the next steps of the reform. The Government will shortly announce its further proposals for the handling of the functions of the Lord Chancellor, and will bring a Bill before Parliament to give effect to its plans. The Department will continue to work closely with those organisations and institutions that will be affected.
Annex A - List of respondents
Judiciary
Circuit Judge County Court Bench
Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges' Association - Dr Karen Brewer
Ecclesiastical Judges Association - Sheila Cameron QC
His Honour Judge Keith Hollis
His Honour Judge Paul Downes
The Judges' Council
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Carnwath
The Right Honourable Lord Mackay of Clashfern KT PC FRSE
Magistrates Associations - Sally Dickinson
The Honourable Mr Justice Lloyd, Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine
of Lancaster
Public Bodies, Agencies and Others
Isle of Man Government - A Shimmin
Commission for Judicial Appointments - Sir Colin Campbell
Kent Advisory Committee - Mike Powis
Local Government Association - Alison Sutherland
Lord Chancellor's Essex Advisory Committee - Angela Gillingham
Lord Chancellor's West Sussex Advisory Committee - Hugh R Wyatt Northumberland
County Council - Stephen Rickitt
Verderers of the New Forest - Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre
Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators - J A Reader
The Legal Professions (England and Wales)
Justices' Clerks Society - Sid Brighton
The Association of Law Costs Draftsman - Bob Tanner
The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship - John Scriven
The Society of Conservative Lawyers - Edward Garnier QC MP
Leicestershire Law Society - Kate Dawes
Grange Wintringham Solicitors - Ruth Brewin
General Council of the Bar - Jan Bye
Ecclesiastical Law Society - The Right Reverend the Bishop of Stafford
Bowling and Co. Solicitors - Rupert Barnes
The Society of Legal Scholars - Professor Nick Wikely
Chancery Bar Association - Nicholas Warren QC
Universities & Colleges
Downing College, Cambridge - Professor B J Everett
Lancaster University - Fiona Aiken
Oriel College, Oxford - Dr L G Black
Pembroke College, Cambridge - Sir Roger Tomkys KCMG, DL
Queen's College, Cambridge - The Right Honourable Lord Eatwell
St. Catharine's College, Cambridge - Master Professor David Ingram OBE
The Open University - A F Woodburn (University Secretary)
The University of Warwick - Professor David VandeLinde
The University of York - Brian Cantor
Trinity College, Cambridge - John Easterling
Trinity Hall, Cambridge - Professor Peter Clarke; D Litt FBA
University of Aston - David Packham BA FRSA
University of Bath - Jon Bursey
University of Cambridge - G R Evans
University of Newcastle upon Tyne - Dr J V Hogan
University of Salford - E O Evans
University of Surrey - Peter Beardsley
Charities and Schools
Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy - R A M Welsford
Harrow School - Andrew Stebbings
The Governing Body of Rugby School - Michael Fowle CBE
The Nightingale Fund Council - D A Wright; Margaret Hotchkiss
United Society for Propogation of the Gospel - Michael Hart
Other representative bodies or interested parties
Association of Lords Lieutenants - John H Holroyd CB CVO DL
Lord Lieutenant of East Sussex - Phyllida Stewart-Roberts
Chair of Review Group on Royal Peculiars - Professor Averil Cameron CBE
FBA
Leeds Law School - Tim Birtwistle
University College London - School of Public Policy - Robert Hazell
National Union of Students - Dr Sofija Opacic
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons - J C Hern
Disability Action - Monica Wilson
Students' Union Representative, Alton College - Ranil Jayawardena
National Postgraduate Committee - Tim Brown
University of Cambridge Centre for Public Law, Conference papers on Constitutional
reform - The Honourable Lord Reed and Christopher Forsyth
National Youth Advocacy Service - Elena Fowler
Harvard University, Class of 2004 - Alex Michael Berenburg
Churches / Parochial Church Councils
(The below respondents were expressing their own views as the incumbent or ex-incumbent of a Parochial Church Council, or the views of the Parochial Church Council as a whole, of a benefice where the Lord Chancellor is patron.)
Parishes:
All Saints Church, Hertford - Reverend W St. J Kemm
All Saints Hampton - David Vanstone; Pamela Sparks; Vernon Watts
All Saints Vicarage - Reverend Canon Andrew Cornes
All Saints Weston with St Martin's North Stoke & St Mary's Langridge
- Patrick Whitworth
All Saints, Hessle - Kenneth A David; Robert J Bretall; and Graham Marshal
Bagshot Deanery - Lynne Cowley
Barton, Coton and Dry Drayton Parish - Reverend Cheryl Collins
Benefice of Lydeard St Lawrence, Ash Priors, Combe Florey, Tolland &
Brompton Ralph, Bath & Wells Diocese - Reverend Margaret Armstrong
Benefice of Woolaston with Alvington and Aylburton, Gloucester Diocese -
Jan Taylor
Boxton, Edwardstone, Groton, Little Waldingfield and Newton - David Lamming
Bridgnorth with Tasley, Astley Abbotts, Oldbury & Tasley (Hereford Diocese)
- Andrew A Roberts
Christchurch Nailsea with St Quiricus & St Julietta, Tickenham - Prebendary
Alastair Wheeler
Christchurch, Nailsea - The Right Reverend Anthony Russel D.Phil
Church of St. John the Evangelist, Cutcombe - M White
Collingham Parochial Church Council - Nick Naracott
Coxheath, East Farleigh, Hunton, Linton and West Farleigh - Roger C Castle
Cutcomb Parochial Church Council - Margaret G Brooks
Diocese of Lichfield - Reverend Leslie Foster
Dr R Brian
Easingwold Parish - Reverend John Harrison
Ecumenical Church Council of Burham & Wouldham - Mary Davis
Farndon with Thorpe & Hawton with Cotham - John Quarrell
Greenstead with Colchester, St Anne's - Sue Rawlings
Hempnall Team Ministry - Conal Mahony & Liz Billet
Holy Trinity Church - Keith Sinclair
Itchen Valley Benefice - Reverend Jonathan Cruickshank
Kelshall Parochial Church Council - Reverend J Morgan; D King; M Bullard;
J P Batterbury; P Gartside; J Mitchell; J Rennison; S Hutchinson
Kirk Sandall & Edenthorpe Parochial Church Council - Heather Robinson
Nadder Valley Team Ministry - Reverend Humphrey Southern MA
North Creedy Team Ministry/Diocese of Exeter - Brian Shillingford
Northleach Vicarage - Canon David Nye BD MA
Parish of Abbotskerwell - Reverend Priscilla White
Parish of Lyddington and Wanborough and Bishopstone with Hinton Parva -
Reverend J R Cardwell
Parish of Market Deeping - Reverend Phillip Brent
Parish of Scotter with East Ferry, Scotton with Northope - Reverend O G
Folkard
Parish of St Pauls, Bristol - Cannon David Self
Parish of St Peter de Merton with St Cuthbert - Reverend Guy Buckler
Parochial Church Council, St Andrews, Bedford - Canon Christopher Dent
Pastoral Committee of Hereford Diocese - Sylvia Green
Parochial Church Council of All Saints Church, Markham Clinton, Southwell
Diocese - Jean Madin
Parochial Church Council of St Lawrence & St Maurice with Saint Swithun-upon-Kingsgate,
Winchester - John Aston
Polesworth Vicarage - Reverend Philip Wells
Saint Andrews Theological Seminary - Reverend Dr Andrew Daunton-Fear
St Andrew's, Girton - Reverend Will Adam LLM
St Anne's, Bagshot - Reverend Stephen Brian
St Anne's, Bagshot - Neil Bartlett
St Catherine's Church, The Parish of East and West Tilbury and Linford -
Reverend W Laurence Whitford BA DipApTh
St Clements, Norfolk - Ross Lambert
St Francis Church, Plymouth - Father Peter J Morgan
St Giles Parish Church, Rowley Regis - John Nightingale
St James' Church, Nuneaton - Reverend Andrew Wandsworth
St John the Baptist Church, Pawlett - C J Conibere; Pamela Kemp
St John the Evangelist - Gillian Langdon
St Margaret's Church - Jane Middleton
St Mary le Bow - Reverend G R Bush
St Mary the Virgin, Great Dungwall & St Andrew the Apostle, Barnston
- Reverend Canon David S Ainge
St Mary the Virgin Parochial Church Council - Stephanie Parry
St Mary the Virgin, Middlesex - D M Wooldridge
St Mary West Malling with St Michael Offham - The Reverend Canon Stevenson
St Mary's Church, Byfleet - Reverend Roger Trumper MA MSc
St Mary's Parish Church Parochial Church Council Edwardstone - Mr C J Kingsbury
St Mary's, Princes Risborough & St Peter's Ilmer - Reverend Dr Fiske
St Mary's Parish Church - Derek Winterburn
St Mary's Parish Church - Reverend Martyn Green
St Matthew's, Ipswich - Reverend Paul Hardingham
St Paul's Church, London - Reverend Mark Oakley
St Paul's Church, Yelverton - Diana Wallace
St Paul's Parochial Church Council, Yelverton - W M P H Child
St Peter with St Alphage and St Margaret and St Mildred with St Mary de
Castro - Reverend David MH Hayes
St Peters in Milton - Reverend J N O Williams MBE
The Benefice of Brimpsfield with Birdlip, Syde, Daglingworth, the Duntisbournes
& Winstone - John Jessop
The Benefice of East Marshland - Reverend Richard Bending
The Borders Group of Churches - M A Kelk; Beryl Mason; Vivian Beris
The Churches of Holy Trinity, Belbroughton, St Leonard Clent, St Mark Fairfield
- Reverend Barbara Mapley
The Churches of the Benefice of West Buckrose - Reverend Michael Sinclair
The Joint Church Council (Council of the Parish of Sturry with Fordwich
& Westbere with Hersden) - Reverend Peter Cornish
The Malkin Group of the Churches - Reverend Neil Watson
The Ness Group - Reverend Janet M Beadle
The Parish Church of Christ Church with St Laurence, Brondesbury - Reverend
David Neno
The Parish Church of St Mary Magdalene, Longfield - Reverend Katrina Barnes
The Parish Church of St Mary the Virgin, Eccles Diocese of Manchester -
Reverend Canon Ted Crofton
The Parish Church of St Mary, Boxford Parochial Church Council - Mrs C Wanniarrachy
The Parish Church of St Thomas, Kilnhurst - Reverend Nigel H Elliot Dip
CM
The Parish of All Saints, Winchester - Reverend Canon Caroline Baston
The Parish of Lydney - Reverend Paul Youde
The Parish of St Mary Le Strand with St Clement Danes - Peter Maplestone
The Parish of St. Luke's - Reverend Dave Wade
The Parish of St. Michael-in-Lewes - Fr Christopher Channer
The Parishes of Botley, Curdridge & Durley - Reverend Ian Coomber
The Parochial Church of St Marys, Watton - Catherine Blandford
The Rectory, Cocking - Colin Bradley
The Shelswell Group of Parishes - Reverend Ricky Yates
The Three Rivers Group of Parishes - Christopher Goodwin
The United Benefice of Broughton Gifford - Reverend Ron Hart
The United Benefice of St Mary the Virgin, Stamfordham, Diocese of Newcastle;
Holy Trinity, Diocese of Mafen - Alan Dyne; Enid Redford; Struan Wilson
& Jean Teansdale
The Wainfleet Group of Parishes - Father Rodney Hacking
The Waveney Group of Parishes - Christopher Whiteman
Trinity Benefice - John Tapper
United Benefice of Brandon & Santon Downham with Elveden - Reverend
Robert Leach
United Benefice of Henlow & Langford - Janice Bradford
United Benefice Woodhouse, Woodhouse Eaves & Swithland - Reverend Anne
Horton
Were Durley Parochial Church Council - Robin Whiteside
Winsford Benefice - A M Gaskill
Where no diocese/benefice was identified:
Father J C Finnemore
Parochial Church Council - Peggy Adams
Parochial Church Council - Henry Hodding
Reverend Canon Paul Williams
Reverend Canon P E Halls
Reverend John Longuet-Higgins
Reverend Kenneth Habershon
Reverend Linda Lane
Reverend Tim Dickens
Reverend Canon Edward Bryant
Other Ecclesiastical
Archbishop's Council - Stephen Slack
Archdeacon of Charing Cross for the City of Westminster - The Venerable
Dr W M Jacob
Vice Chair of the House of Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England
- Brian McHenry
Church Commissioners - Andreas Whittam Smith
Church Pastoral Aid Society - Reverend Andy Piggott
Diocese of London - The Worshipful Nigel Seed QC
Diocese of Southwell - The Right Reverend George Cassidy
Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury - P F B Beesley LLB
Guildford Cathedral - The Very Reverend Victor Stock OAM
Southwark Cathedral - Colin B Slee
The Bishop of London - The Right Honourable and Right Reverend Richard Chartres
DD FSA
The Bishop of Norwich - The Right Reverend Graham James
The Bishop of Wakefield - The Right Reverend Stephen Platten
The Church of England Clergy Appointments Adviser - Reverend John Lee
The College & Chapel of St George - Charlotte Manley LVO OBE
The Corporation of the Church House - C D L Menzies
The Diocese of Guildford - The Bishop of Guildford's staff team
The Diocese of Peterborough - The Right Reverend Ian P M Cundy MA
Wakefield Cathedral - Canon Precentor Robert Gage
Northern Ireland
Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland - Nuala O'Loan
The Bar Council of Northern Ireland - John Thompson QC
Training for Women Network - Michael Potter
Scotland
Scottish Executive - Paul Cackett
Law Society of Scotland - Michael P Clancy
Judicial Studies Committee - Sheriff Morrison QC
Members of the House of Lords
Lord Lucas of Crudwell & Dingwall
Members of the public and academics
Graeme J Allen
Sir Nigel Althaus
Professor J H Baker, Downing Professor of Laws of England, St Catharine's
College, Cambridge
Neil Barlett
Edwin Beckett
Jack Benedetto
Professor A W Bradley
Dr Roger Brittain
Captain Chatterton Dickson
David Everett
J P Gartside
Oliver Hylton
Robert C Ingham
Ann J King
Neil McDougall
Jonathan Morse
Noel Riley
David Robins
R G Sharpe
Toby Simon
Janet Wilkinson
Annex B - Definition of terms
Ecclesiastical Patronage - The Lord Chancellor is responsible for appointing the incumbent or Team Rector of a number of Church parishes throughout England, either solely, or in turns with another patron. Patronage also refers to the Lord Chancellor's involvement with the parish, including consenting to pastoral reorganisation and major changes to the benefice house.
Benefices - A Church living.
Visitatorial - Visitation is a form of supervision over the domestic affairs of an institution. The Visitor was originally appointed by the founder of an ecclesiastical, academic or charitable institution to ensure that governance and administration complies with their intentions. Any organisation established by Royal Charter has The Queen as the Visitor, unless the Charter appoints someone else. By convention, where the Crown is Visitor, the jurisdiction will fall to the Lord Chancellor.
Royal Peculiars - The Royal Peculiars are places of worship which have independent status, and are not subject to Church of England diocesan structures but only to the Visitor. Where the Visitor is The Queen, the Visitatorial responsibility devolves by convention to the Lord Chancellor.