DOCSLIB.ORG

Science Communication and Engagement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science Communication and Engagement House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Science communication and engagement Eleventh Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 15 March 2017 HC 162 Published on 29 March 2017 by authority of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science and associated public bodies. Current membership Stephen Metcalfe MP (Conservative, South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Chair) Victoria Borwick MP (Conservative, Kensington) Stella Creasy MP (Labour, Co-op, Walthamstow) Jim Dowd MP (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge) Chris Green MP (Conservative, Bolton West) Dr Tania Mathias MP (Conservative, Twickenham) Carol Monaghan MP (Scottish National Party, Glasgow North West) Gareth Snell MP (Labour (Co-op), Stoke-on-Trent Central) Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Derek Thomas MP (Conservative, St Ives) Matt Warman MP (Conservative, Boston and Skegness) The following were also members of the committee during the parliament: Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP (Labour, City of Durham), Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) (Chair of the Committee until 19 July 2016), Liz McInnes MP (Labour, Heywood and Middleton), Valerie Vaz MP (Labour, Walsall South), Daniel Zeichner MP (Labour, Cambridge) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/science and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the relevant inquiry page of the Committee’s website. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are: Simon Fiander (Clerk); Marsha David (Second Clerk); Sean Kinsey (Second Clerk); Dr Elizabeth Rough (Committee Specialist); Martin Smith (Committee Specialist); Amy Vistuer (Senior Committee Assistant); Julie Storey (Committee Assistant); and Shagufta Hailes (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Science and Technology Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2793; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected]. Science communication and engagement 1 Contents Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 What is science communication? 5 Our inquiry 6 2 Science awareness and communication 7 Public attitudes to science 7 Boaty McBoatface 8 Engagement with young people 9 Role of the media 11 False balance and sensationalism 13 The pressures of the embargo and open access 14 Press regulation 15 3 Science and policy-making 17 Government and dialogue 18 Government policy-making and consultations 22 The ‘anti-lobbying’ clause 24 Conclusions and recommendations 26 Formal Minutes 28 Witnesses 29 Published written evidence 30 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 34 Science communication and engagement 3 Summary Despite the strong interest in science in many quarters, there is a collective need to do more to take science to those who are not currently engaged. It was encouraging to see that the competition to name the new polar research ship received 124,000 votes for ‘Boaty McBoatface’. There is a wide range of initiatives by organisations to increase public awareness of and engagement in science, including many encouraging projects aimed at children and young people which complement formal science learning. They all play a vital part in further building our ‘science capital’. However, further efforts are needed to change the long-standing cultural biases that pervade science. The BBC has made improvements to its science coverage, although there is an opportunity for it to widen its coverage beyond news and documentaries. The position is less clear in the print and other media which often have an agenda with inadequate place for opposing evidence. There are concerns over the media’s misuse of ‘balance’ and its sensationalism. The illegal media behaviour which prompted the Leveson inquiry, will have done nothing to improve the public’s mistrust of science reporting. The Government should ensure that a robust redress mechanism is provided for when science is misreported. The Government has a responsibility for fostering and facilitating science engagement in its policy-making. It should continue to maintain and strengthen national programmes such as Sciencewise and the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement. Their programmes should be routinely used across all government departments, so that public opinion is fully captured in developing government policy where science is involved. Science, politics, finance and the law are all components in the policy-making process. When these components do not fully align, it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that trade-off decisions between what the ‘science’ says, what is affordable and legal, and ultimately what the public will accept, are transparent. It is not unreasonable for the Government to weight scientific evidence to a lesser or greater extent, but where they do not follow the results they must ensure that they do not dismiss or discredit legitimate scientific evidence. The public consultation process unhelpfully pitches science and other factors together which makes it difficult for a clear foundation of scientific understanding to be established without being co-opted—and misinterpreted—by the political debate. The consultation process should be adjusted so that it addresses the scientific issues separately from the political and other trade-offs. We believe this could bring significant benefits for public engagement and reduce unnecessary disputes over the essential science. Such a separation could allow researchers to more readily confine their debate contributions to the science. If they also contributed to questions on policy implementation and the political trade-offs, that would be more transparent. We agree with the recommendation made by Lord Stern that the Research Excellence Framework (REF) should encompass a definition for ‘impact’ in the system’s assessments that includes a closer association with policy-making. The Government has 4 Science communication and engagement now abandoned plans for an ‘anti-lobbying’ clause in government contracts and grants, which for research grants would have sent precisely the opposite message to the one needed—that there should be the widest and fullest possible science communication and engagement. Science communication and engagement 5 1 Introduction What is science communication? 1. Science affects our everyday lives, not least when science influences (or should influence) how Government makes policy. Dr Karen Bultitude of University College London identified four key motivations for communicating science: • A utilitarian imperative—giving people technical skills and knowledge that will be useful in their wider lives; • An economic imperative—advanced societies require a technologically skilled workforce and science adds to the output of a country; • The cultural imperative—science represents “shared heritage”; and • The democratic imperative—science affects most major decisions in society, so it is important that the public are able to interpret basic scientific information.1 2. Imperial College defined science communication as: An umbrella term covering a wide variety of activities, including, professional communication by scientists; interactions between scientists and members of the public; the media representation of science; and the ways people use scientific knowledge in their own lives.2 3. The Lords Science & Technology Committee in itsScience and Society report in 2000 recommended a move away from presumptions about the public’s lack of scientific knowledge, towards an emphasis on dialogue and engagement.3 Our predecessor Committee examined in 2013 the public’s understanding of the science on climate change, including where people look for science information and how that influences climate change policy. Despite national policies to address climate change, the Committee found little evidence of coordination amongst the Government and its agencies on communicating climate change science.4 4. In 2012, the former Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS) concluded from its Science and Society Programme that “public engagement with science in general is gaining momentum but the current audience is largely already interested in science. This means that there is a collective need to do more to take science to those not currently engaged.”5 As a result, the then Science Minister, David Willetts, launched a Charter for Science and Society in March 2014, which included a call for science organisations to “focus on [ … ] target new audiences, embrace diversity and inclusivity, be sensitive to audience needs and perspectives, and engage with others where they naturally congregate”.6 1 Bultitude, K, The Why and How of Science Communication (2011) 2 Imperial College London (COM0014) 3 House of Lords Science & Technology Committee, Science and Society, Third Report, Session 1999–2000 4 House of Commons Science & Technology, Communicating Climate Science, Eight Report, Session 2013–14, HC 254 5 Department for Business,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Little More Conversation a Little Less Action
    A Little More Conversation A Little Less Action Speech given by Andrew G Haldane, Chief Economist, Bank of England Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Macroeconomics and Monetary Policy Conference 31 March 2017 The views expressed here are not necessarily those of the Bank of England or the Monetary Policy Committee. I would like to thank Shiv Chowla, Jeremy Franklin, Jonathan Fullwood, Chloe Gilbert, Leanne Leahy, Michael McLeay, Michael McMahon, Sam McPhilemy, Chris Peacock and Paul Robinson for their help in preparing this text. I would like to thank Mike Anson, Tom Belsham, James Benford, Rachel Botsman, Nida Broughton, Kristin Forbes, Keir Haldane, John Lewis, Clare Macallan, Mike Peacock and Eryk Walczak for comments and contributions. 1 All speeches are available online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/speeches It is a great pleasure to be here at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco conference on “Macroeconomics and Monetary Policy”. I am grateful to my old friend John Williams, President of the San Francisco Fed, for the invitation. And for one night only, John, where better to channel my inner-Elvis.1 Back in 2004, Benoit Mandelbrot observed: “So limited is our knowledge that we resort, not to science, but to shamans. We place control of the world’s largest economy in the hands of a few elderly men, the central bankers”.2 You could quibble with the detail here – a few central bankers these days are women and a few are not old. But the general sentiment is not one which would be entirely out of place today. It is not difficult to see why.
    [Show full text]
  • BHSA Newsletter
    BHSA Newsletter Autumn Term 2019 Edition 05 Welcome Welcome to our October 2019 Newsletter. We have had an incredibly busy and positive start to this aca- demic year at BHSA . I hope you enjoy reading about some of the many opportunities the girls have em- braced so far this term. It is virtually impossible to New junior school council select any favourites, but a real highlight in the Sen- ior School was welcoming Deana Puccio form The Rap Project UK to BHSA. Her presentations to all girls from Years 7 to 13 were both powerful and in- spiring, delivering an important message to every single one of us. The girls are still talking about her visit. This was made possible through funding from the GDST and we are very proud to be part of this movement in girls’ education. The highlights in the Junior School are too many to mention, but the new art work and displays throughout the Juniors show the wonderful end products from the numerous col- laborative, creative workshops this term. As always, the girls never cease to amaze me with their confi- dence, talents and determination. This was seen in abundance at our recent Open Events and there were many proud moments on receiving the glow- ing feedback about our girls from the record num- bers of visitors. I hope you enjoy a relaxing half term break and I look forward to welcoming the girls back on the 4th November. Thank you for your continued support. Rebecca Mahony Sophie the T-Rex came to visit! Did you hear about the dinosaurs visiting our school? Sophie the T- Rex came to visit! Our infant girls were immersed in a Jurassic world where they learnt paleontological and archaeological skills, and eve- rybody had a superb (and a little bit of a scary) time! Wow! What an exciting morning KS1 and Reception pupils had on Tuesday 24th September.
    [Show full text]
  • Unravelling the New Plebiscitary Democracy: Towards a Research Agenda
    Government and Opposition (2021), 56, 615–639 doi:10.1017/gov.2020.4 . ARTICLE Unravelling the New Plebiscitary Democracy: Towards a Research Agenda Frank Hendriks* https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Tilburg University, Department of Public Law and Governance, Tilburg, the Netherlands *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] (Received 2 August 2019; revised 25 November 2019; accepted 17 January 2020; first published online 20 March 2020) Abstract Pushed by technological, cultural and related political drivers, a ‘new plebiscitary democ- racy’ is emerging which challenges established electoral democracy as well as variants of deliberative democracy. The new plebiscitary democracy reinvents and radicalizes longer-existing methods (initiative, referendum, recall, primary, petition, poll) with new tools and applications (mostly digital). It comes with a comparatively thin conceptualiza- tion of democracy, invoking the bare notion of a demos whose aggregated will is to steer actors and issues in public governance in a straight majoritarian way. In addition to unrav- , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at elling the reinvented logic of plebiscitary democracy in conceptual terms, this article fleshes out an empirically informed matrix of emerging formats, distinguishing between votations that are ‘political-leader’ and ‘public-issue’ oriented on the one hand, and ‘inside-out’ and ‘outside-in’ initiated on the other hand. Relatedly, it proposes an agenda for systematic research into the various guises, drivers and implications of the new plebis- citary democracy. Finally, it reflects on possible objections to the argumentation. 28 Sep 2021 at 17:33:14 , on Keywords: new plebiscitary democracy; democratic transformation; electronic voting; digital democracy; populism Vox populi redux 170.106.35.229 In May 2018, the Spanish left-wing political party Podemos organized a digital party referendum, as they called it, on its leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Diversity in Politics and Public Life
    BRIEFING PAPER CBP 01156, 22 October 2020 By Elise Uberoi and Ethnic diversity in politics Rebecca Lees and public life Contents: 1. Ethnicity in the United Kingdom 2. Parliament 3. The Government and Cabinet 4. Other elected bodies in the UK 5. Public sector organisations www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Ethnic diversity in politics and public life Contents Summary 3 1. Ethnicity in the United Kingdom 6 1.1 Categorising ethnicity 6 1.2 The population of the United Kingdom 7 2. Parliament 8 2.1 The House of Commons 8 Since the 1980s 9 Ethnic minority women in the House of Commons 13 2.2 The House of Lords 14 2.3 International comparisons 16 3. The Government and Cabinet 17 4. Other elected bodies in the UK 19 4.1 Devolved legislatures 19 4.2 Local government and the Greater London Authority 19 5. Public sector organisations 21 5.1 Armed forces 21 5.2 Civil Service 23 5.3 National Health Service 24 5.4 Police 26 5.4 Justice 27 5.5 Prison officers 28 5.6 Teachers 29 5.7 Fire and Rescue Service 30 5.8 Social workers 31 5.9 Ministerial and public appointments 33 Annex 1: Standard ethnic classifications used in the UK 34 Cover page image copyright UK Youth Parliament 2015 by UK Parliament. Licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 / image cropped 3 Commons Library Briefing, 22 October 2020 Summary This report focuses on the proportion of people from ethnic minority backgrounds in a range of public positions across the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2014 Society Meetings Society and Events SHEPHARD PRIZE: NEW PRIZE Meetings for MATHEMATICS 2014 and Events Following a Very Generous Tions Open in Late 2014
    LONDONLONDON MATHEMATICALMATHEMATICAL SOCIETYSOCIETY NEWSLETTER No. 437 June 2014 Society Meetings Society and Events SHEPHARD PRIZE: NEW PRIZE Meetings FOR MATHEMATICS 2014 and Events Following a very generous tions open in late 2014. The prize Monday 16 June donation made by Professor may be awarded to either a single Midlands Regional Meeting, Loughborough Geoffrey Shephard, the London winner or jointly to collaborators. page 11 Mathematical Society will, in 2015, The mathematical contribution Friday 4 July introduce a new prize. The prize, to which an award will be made Graduate Student to be known as the Shephard must be published, though there Meeting, Prize will be awarded bienni- is no requirement that the pub- London ally. The award will be made to lication be in an LMS-published page 8 a mathematician (or mathemati- journal. Friday 4 July cians) based in the UK in recog- Professor Shephard himself is 1 Society Meeting nition of a specific contribution Professor of Mathematics at the Hardy Lecture to mathematics with a strong University of East Anglia whose London intuitive component which can be main fields of interest are in page 9 explained to those with little or convex geometry and tessella- Wednesday 9 July no knowledge of university math- tions. Professor Shephard is one LMS Popular Lectures ematics, though the work itself of the longest-standing members London may involve more advanced ideas. of the LMS, having given more page 17 The Society now actively en- than sixty years of membership. Tuesday 19 August courages members to consider The Society wishes to place on LMS Meeting and Reception nominees who could be put record its thanks for his support ICM 2014, Seoul forward for the award of a in the establishment of the new page 11 Shephard Prize when nomina- prize.
    [Show full text]
  • PCC Minutes 29 Jan TRANSCRIPT APPENDIX
    Appendix 1 Police and Crime Committee – 29 January 2014 Transcript of Item 3: Discussion with the Mayor on the Proposed Deployment of Water Cannon by the Metropolitan Police Service Joanne McCartney AM (Chair): Then we move to our main item, which is looking at proposals for the Metropolitan Police Service to purchase water cannon. Before I start, this is the first of a series of three meetings we have. We have this meeting today to question the Mayor. Tomorrow we are questioning the Deputy Mayor [for Policing and Crime, Stephen Greenhalgh] and the Deputy Commissioner [Craig Mackey]. Then next week we have Sir Hugh Orde [President, Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)] and a representative from Liberty and an academic as well who we are talking to, looking at some of the broader issues around this. Perhaps I could start the questioning today and my question is to the Mayor initially. In December 2010 you said you had no plans to bring in water cannon in London. You stated at that time that you did not want to see an arms race developing between the police and protesters. Can I ask what has changed your mind? Boris Johnson (Mayor of London): Very simply, I reiterate what I said. I do not want to see an arms race and I do not think that necessarily would be caused by having water cannon at the disposal of the Metropolitan Police Service. What has changed, really, is that ACPO has done a study about some of the situations in which water cannon might be used and it has concluded that there could be circumstances in which life could be saved and serious injury could be prevented.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 a Personal View
    Amnesty International Cambridge City Group May 2016 - April 2017 Cambridge Cambridge is an extraordinary city. It is immensely rich - intellectually, historically, culturally, financially. The University of Cambridge has nurtured more Nobel Prize winners than any other institution. Its thriving high tech industries produce the most patent applications in the country. It comes only second in the tables for pupils achieving good GCSE results in maths and English. It has a high population of young people, very few of whom claim benefits. The average weekly income is near the top nationally, as are house prices. As are house prices. Cambridge is the most unequal city in the country. Listed third for house unaffordability, a rise of 122% in homelessness over 2015, five food banks in the city centre, lowest per capita welfare spending, with 30% of children living in poverty in three of the city wards : the difference between those who have and those who have not is stark. This is the environment in which the Amnesty International Cambridge City Group works, a vibrant exciting place to be with problems common to the rest of the country. Cambridge was an early participant in the Amnesty movement. The group, the eighteenth still active in the country, was established in February 1969, a year of great social upheaval in Europe. The relationship between those in power and those who felt unrepresented was put to the test, sometimes violently. In 2016 that relationship was tested on the world stage. The Amnesty International Report 2016-17 says : ‘For millions, 2016 was a year of unrelenting misery and fear, as governments and armed groups abused human rights in a multitude of ways.’ With growing suppression comes growing resistance, an awareness that inaction is not an option.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
    PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee ADVANCED RESEARCH AND INVENTION AGENCY BILL Sixth Sitting Thursday 22 April 2021 (Afternoon) CONTENTS SCHEDULE 3 agreed to. CLAUSES 10 TO 15 agreed to. New clauses considered. Bill to be reported, without amendment. PBC (Bill 264) 2019 - 2021 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Monday 26 April 2021 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2021 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 183 Public Bill Committee22 APRIL 2021 Advanced Research and Invention 184 Agency Bill The Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairs: JUDITH CUMMINS, †MR PHILIP HOLLOBONE,ESTHER MCVEY,DEREK TWIGG † Baker, Duncan (North Norfolk) (Con) † Onwurah, Chi (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) † Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) Owen, Sarah (Luton North) (Lab) † Blackman, Kirsty (Aberdeen North) (SNP) † Richardson, Angela (Guildford) (Con) Butler, Dawn (Brent Central) (Lab) † Solloway, Amanda (Parliamentary Under-Secretary † Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con) of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) † Fletcher, Mark (Bolsover) (Con) † Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her † Flynn, Stephen (Aberdeen South) (SNP) Majesty’s Treasury) † Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) † Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab) (Lab) Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con) Sarah Ioannou, Seb Newman, Committee Clerks † Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland) (Con) † Metcalfe, Stephen (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) † attended the Committee 185 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Advanced Research and Invention 186 Agency Bill information requests in 2020 and has answered 100 in Public Bill Committee the first three months of 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Inclusive Science Communication: a Landscape Study
    The State of Inclusive Science Communication: A Landscape Study Katherine Canfield and Sunshine Menezes Metcalf Institute, University of Rhode Island Graphics by Christine Liu This report was developed for the University of Rhode Island’s Metcalf Institute with generous support from The Kavli Foundation. Cite as: Canfield, K. & Menezes, S. 2020. The State of Inclusive Science Communication: A Landscape Study. Metcalf Institute, University of Rhode Island. Kingston, RI. 77 pp. Executive Summary Inclusive science communication (ISC) is a new and broad term that encompasses all efforts to engage specific audiences in conversations or activities about science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) topics, including, but not limited to, public engagement, informal science learning, journalism, and formal science education. Unlike other approaches toward science communication, however, ISC research and practice is grounded in inclusion, equity, and intersectionality, making these concerns central to the goals, design, implementation, evaluation, and refinement of science communication efforts. Together, the diverse suite of insights and practices that inform ISC comprise an emerging movement. While there is a growing recognition of the value and urgency of inclusive approaches, there is little documented knowledge about the potential catalysts and barriers for this work. Without documentation, synthesis, and critical reflection, the movement cannot proceed as quickly as is warranted. The University of Rhode Island’s Metcalf
    [Show full text]
  • JPBM Communications Award Is Given to He Takes a Particular Interest in Problems That Lie Ian Stewart of the University of Warwick
    comm-jpbm.qxp 3/5/99 3:49 PM Page 568 JPBM Awards Presented in San Antonio The Joint Policy Board for Mathematics (JPBM) The sheer volume of this work is staggering, but Communications Award was established in 1988 the quality is spectacular as well. With clarity and to reward and encourage journalists and other humor, Ian Stewart explains everything from num- communicators who, on a sustained basis, bring ber theory to fractals, from Euclidean geometry to accurate mathematical information to nonmathe- fluid dynamics, from game theory to foundations. matical audiences. Any person is eligible as long He conveys both the beauty and the utility of math- as that person’s work communicates primarily ematics in a way seldom achieved by a single au- with nonmathematical audiences. The lifetime thor, and he does so with charm and eloquence. award recognizes a significant contribution or ac- cumulated contributions to public understanding Biographical Sketch of mathematics. Ian Stewart was born in 1945, did his undergrad- At the Joint Mathematics Meetings in San An- uate degree at Cambridge, and his Ph.D. at Warwick. tonio in January 1999, the 1999 JPBM Communi- He is now a professor at Warwick University and cations Award was presented to IAN STEWART. Below director of the Mathematics Awareness Centre at is the award citation, a biographical sketch, and Warwick. He has held visiting positions in Ger- Stewart’s response upon receiving the award. This many, New Zealand, Connecticut, and Texas. He has is followed by information about a JPBM Special published over 120 papers. His present field is Communications Award presented to JOHN LYNCH the effects of symmetry on nonlinear dynamics, and SIMON SINGH.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Attitudes to Science 2011: Literature Review
    Contents Introduction .....................................................................................1 Key Findings....................................................................................2 1. Defining the Sciences ........................................................................ 2 2. Levels of Understanding of the Sciences ........................................... 3 3. Engagement with the Sciences .......................................................... 4 4. Trust in the Sciences.......................................................................... 5 5. The Place of the Sciences in Society ................................................. 7 6. Attitudes towards Specific Scientific Issues...................................... 10 7. Attitudes by Demographic Group ..................................................... 15 8. Conclusions...................................................................................... 18 Appendices ....................................................................................19 Appendix A: Inclusion Criteria .................................................................. 19 Appendix B: Review Pro Forma ............................................................... 20 Appendix C: Index of Main Sources......................................................... 21 References.....................................................................................23 Public Attitudes to Science 2011: Literature Review Introduction This report presents the findings of a literature
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]