DOCSLIB.ORG

Written Parliamentary Questions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Written Parliamentary Questions House of Commons Procedure Committee Written Parliamentary Questions Third Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 1 July 2009 HC 859 Published on 16 July 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Procedure Committee The Procedure Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and to make recommendations. Membership during the Session Rt Hon Greg Knight MP (Conservative, Yorkshire East) (Chairman, from 9.11.05) Ms Celia Barlow MP (Labour, Hove) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Ms Katy Clark MP (Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran) Mr Mark Field MP (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster) Mr Roger Gale MP (Conservative, North Thanet) Andrew Gwynne MP (Labour, Denton and Reddish) John Hemming MP (Liberal Democrat, Birmingham, Yardley) Mr Eric Illsley MP (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mrs Siân C. James MP (Labour, Swansea East) Mrs Linda Riordan MP (Labour, Halifax) Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) Sir Peter Soulsby MP (Labour, Leicester South) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Mr David Anderson MP (Labour, Blaydon) Mr Jim Cunningham MP (Labour, Coventry South) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and Poole North) Mr David Gauke MP (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire) Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Sir Nicholas Winterton MP (Conservative, Macclesfield) (Chairman till 9.11.05) Mr Rob Wilson MP (Conservative, Reading East) Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 147. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/proccom. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Dr Lynn Gardner and Miss Sara Howe (Clerks) and Rowena Macdonald (Committee Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Procedure Committee, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA . The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3318; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 2 Number of Questions 5 3 Tabling Questions 8 Types of Questions 8 ‘Trivial’ or ‘frivolous’ questions 8 Round robin questions 9 Questions where the information is already available to Members 10 The Table Office 12 Resources 12 E-tabled questions 13 Cut-off point 13 Guidance on Tabling Questions 14 Authentication 16 Authentication technology 18 4 Answering Questions 19 Departmental Resources 19 Guidance for Departments and Ministers when answering questions 21 The Ministerial Code 22 Freedom of Information 23 ‘Unsatisfactory’ answers 25 Late answers 28 5 Conclusion 32 Conclusions and recommendations 33 Formal Minutes relating to the Report 38 Witnesses 39 List of written evidence 39 List of unprinted evidence 40 Reports from the Procedure Committee since 2005 41 3 Summary The use of Written Parliamentary Questions is vital to the scrutiny of Government. Although the continuing increase in the number of questions tabled has placed some strain on the systems that handle WPQs, both in Parliament and in Government, it would be wrong in principle to restrict the number of questions that Members can ask. The high volume of questions is not likely to be a temporary phenomenon, and action should be taken to ensure that these levels of questioning can be smoothly accommodated in the long term. To this end, the resources dedicated to processing questions both in the House of Commons and in Government departments should be increased where necessary to meet demand and to ensure questions are answered quickly and effectively. Cut-off times should be established for the processing of electronically-tabled questions, after which time the question would be treated as having been tabled the following day. This would help to smooth the workload of the Table Office. No such cut-off point should be applied to the processing of questions tabled in person. Concerns were expressed that the rise in the number of questions had been in part caused by Members tabling unnecessary or irrelevant questions. However, there can be a serious motivation behind even the most seemingly trivial question. In all cases the benefit of the doubt must be given to the Member, and the Government should answer the question in accordance with its responsibilities. Members would benefit from a clearer codification of the rules on what can and cannot be tabled. The Table Office should develop additional guidance to assist Members in drafting orderly and effective questions. The system of electronic tabling has been largely successful, but has raised questions over the extent to which Members should delegate the preparation and tabling of questions to their staff. We understand that researchers are likely to have a role in preparing questions, but tabling questions is an exclusive right and responsibility of Members of Parliament. We do not consider that a stronger level of authentication would adequately address this problem, given the variety of legitimate arrangements Members may have in place for preparing and tabling questions within their own offices, but we believe Members must be reminded of their responsibilities in this respect. It should be reiterated to Members on a regular basis that WPQs are a proceeding in Parliament and that they are personally and directly responsible for questions tabled in their name. There is widespread concern that many answers to WPQs are unsatisfactory. We are particularly concerned that, in some cases, information is refused under a WPQ but later granted through a Freedom of Information request. The Government has a duty to answer WPQs accurately and in full. It is unacceptable that some answers fall short of these standards, and the Government must reiterate these responsibilities both in guidance provided to officials and in the Ministerial Code. We propose that, for an experimental one year period, the Procedure Committee take on the role of monitoring unsatisfactory answers referred to us by Members. This will enable the Committee to assess the extent of any problems, and will send a message to 4 Government that if it fails to meet its responsibilities in answering WPQs these shortcomings will be recorded and pursued. We recognise that there is also a problem with answers being received late or not at all. In the event that departments need to give holding answers, the holding answer should include a explanation of the reason for the delay, and a fair indication of when an answer will be provided. We do not believe that a strict formal deadline for answer should be imposed as this could compromise the quality of answers. However, we strongly believe that ordinary WPQs should receive an answer within five working days, and certainly no later than ten working days, and we urge the Government to work to this timetable. We would encourage Members to refer any answers they consider unacceptably late to the Procedure Committee as part of its monitoring experiment. We also recommend that statistics on the timeliness of answers be compiled by Departments and submitted to the Committee, to ensure this aspect of the system is adequately monitored. 5 1 Introduction 1. The Procedure Committee last considered the matter of written parliamentary questions (WPQs) in detail in 2002.1 That Report recommended a daily quota for named day questions, the establishment of an electronic system for tabling questions, and the introduction of tabling facilities during the Summer Recess period. The Report also concluded that it would be wrong in principle to seek to impose any limit on the number of ordinary written questions that could be tabled by a Member.2 2. In the five year interval between that Report and the commencement of our current inquiry, the improvements recommended by the Committee have had time to bed down and become part of the accepted system for tabling questions. Some positive innovations have been made: for example, the introduction of tabling days during the summer recess. We decided to initiate this further inquiry to evaluate the impact of the previous recommendations and to assess new challenges facing the system of WPQs. In particular, the number of WPQs has continued to rise, placing pressure on the resources of both Parliament and Government. We were also aware of frustration among Members with the quality and timeliness of some answers to WPQs. In addition, the introduction of the e- tabling system, although largely successful, has further heightened long-standing concerns over the authentication of tabled questions and the extent of Member participation in the process of drafting and submitting WPQs. 3. In 2007, we heard evidence from the then Leader of the House, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, and a group of MPs representing opposition and backbench interests: David Drew MP (Labour), Oliver Heald MP (Conservative) and David Laws MP (Liberal Democrat). We then decided to suspend this inquiry while conducting our inquiry into e-petitioning. In 2009, we returned to this subject and brought the inquiry up to date by taking further oral evidence from officials in the Table Office of the House of Commons, and from Chris Bryant MP, the then Deputy Leader of the House. We also invited all Members of the House to submit examples of questions which they felt were answered either inadequately or not at all. We are grateful to all those who took up this invitation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Celebrities As Political Representatives: Explaining the Exchangeability of Celebrity Capital in the Political Field
    Celebrities as Political Representatives: Explaining the Exchangeability of Celebrity Capital in the Political Field Ellen Watts Royal Holloway, University of London Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics 2018 Declaration I, Ellen Watts, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly stated. Ellen Watts September 17, 2018. 2 Abstract The ability of celebrities to become influential political actors is evident (Marsh et al., 2010; Street 2004; 2012, West and Orman, 2003; Wheeler, 2013); the process enabling this is not. While Driessens’ (2013) concept of celebrity capital provides a starting point, it remains unclear how celebrity capital is exchanged for political capital. Returning to Street’s (2004) argument that celebrities claim to speak for others provides an opportunity to address this. In this thesis I argue successful exchange is contingent on acceptance of such claims, and contribute an original model for understanding this process. I explore the implicit interconnections between Saward’s (2010) theory of representative claims, and Bourdieu’s (1991) work on political capital and the political field. On this basis, I argue celebrity capital has greater explanatory power in political contexts when fused with Saward’s theory of representative claims. Three qualitative case studies provide demonstrations of this process at work. Contributing to work on how celebrities are evaluated within political and cultural hierarchies (Inthorn and Street, 2011; Marshall, 2014; Mendick et al., 2018; Ribke, 2015; Skeggs and Wood, 2011), I ask which key factors influence this process.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Bulletin
    Bulletin Summer 2014 HELP HERMES UNVEIL THEIR PLANS FOR CAVERSHAM TO BUY A grand new scheme has been unveiled by the owners of St Martins Precinct, Hermes, in partnership with John Lewis The Government has created the Help to Buy PLC to rejuvenate and re-style the central scheme to help hard-working people take steps to hub of Caversham. buy their own home. Whether you want to get The plans include enlarging Waitrose by a onto the housing ladder or move up it, Help to third, adding another car parking level, Buy makes it possible to buy a new-build or existing home priced up to £600,000 with as little creating a boutique cinema, further as a 5% deposit. Here’s how it works: restaurants, tree planting, up to 50 residential apartments and a new plaza style pedestrian Help to Buy: Equity Loan - For brand new homes area beyond the existing precinct. in England. The Government lends you up to 20% Whilst the junction of Church Street and of the cost of your new-build home, so you’ll only Archway Road which creates much traffic and need a 5% cash deposit and a 75% mortgage to provides access to the car park, may still need make up the rest. You won’t be charged loan fees improving, Hermes hope that after public and on the 20% loan for the first five years of owning Council consultations the scheme will begin your home. within two years. Help to Buy: Mortgage Guarantee - For new-build More information can be found at or existing homes anywhere in the UK.
    [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]
  • Women Mps in Westminster Photographs Taken May 21St, June 3Rd, June 4Th, 2008
    “The House of Commons Works of Art Collection documents significant moments in Parliamentary history. We are delighted to have added this unique photographic record of women MPs of today, to mark the 90th anniversary of women first being able to take their seats in this House” – Hugo Swire, Chairman, The Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art. “The day the Carlton Club accepted women” – 90 years after women first got the vote aim to ensure that a more enduring image of On May 21st 2008 over half of all women women's participation in the political process Members of Parliament in Westminster survives. gathered party by party to have group photographs taken to mark the anniversary of Each party gave its permission for the 90 years since women first got the vote (in photographs to be taken. For the Labour February 1918 women over 30 were first Party, Barbara Follett MP, the then Deputy granted the vote). Minister for Women and Equality, and Barbara Keeley MP, who was Chair of the Labour Party Women’s Committee and The four new composite Caroline Adams, who works for the photographs taken party by Parliamentary Labour Party helped ensure that all but 12 of the Labour women party aim to ensure that a attended. more enduring image of For the Conservative women's participation in the Party, The Shadow Leader of the House of political process survives Commons and Shadow Minister for Until now the most often used photographic Women, Theresa May image of women MPs had been the so called MP and the Chairman “Blair Babes” picture taken on 7th May 1997 of the Conservative shortly after 101 Labour women were elected Party, Caroline to Westminster as a result of positive action by Spelman MP, enlisted the Labour Party.
    [Show full text]
  • Annexes a to J
    PCR Annexes A-C Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) Post-Consultation Report on the Site for Interim Storage of Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Annexes A to J July 2015 Contents A Consultation Press Release B Consultation Document Map C Exhibition Adverts D Local Workshop Reports E National Workshop Reports F Submissions from Organisations and Elected Representatives G Feedback Forms H Emails and Letters I Advisory Subgroup Reports J Statistical Breakdown Annex A: ISS Consultation Press Release PRESS RELEASE 134/2014 16 October 2014 MoD confirms sites for submarine dismantling consultations Five UK nuclear facilities have been confirmed as potential sites to store waste from decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines. A public consultation process will now help to determine which site is selected. The sites, which already hold radioactive materials, are either owned by MOD, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) or industry. They are: • the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire which are owned by MOD and run by AWE plc; • Sellafield in west Cumbria, owned by the NDA; • Chapelcross in Dumfriesshire, owned by the NDA; • Capenhurst in Cheshire, which is run by Capenhurst Nuclear Services. Philip Dunne MP, Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology: “When the submarines in the Royal Navy fleet reach the end of their lives we need to dispose of them in a way that is safe, secure and environmentally sound. “This open and transparent public consultation process provides the opportunity to work closely with local communities near to potential sites to listen carefully to their views with the aim of delivering a solution that achieves these objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMITTEE of PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Briefing for Posts & Hosts Visit To
    Finansudvalget FIU alm. del - Bilag 146 Offentligt COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS www.parliament.uk/pac [email protected] Briefing for posts & hosts Visit to Copenhagen and Stockholm 20-24 May 2007 Membership of the Committee of Public Accounts The Committee consists of sixteen members, of whom a quorum is four. The members are nominated at the beginning of each Parliament (before December 1974, Members were nominated at the beginning of each Session) on the basis of a motion made by a Government minister, after consultation with the Opposition. Changes in membership are made from time to time during the Parliament, often because Members have become Ministers or front-bench opposition spokesmen. The party proportions of the Committee, like other committees, are the same as in the House, and at present this gives 9 Labour members, 5 Conservative members, and 2 minority party members (at present from the Liberal Democrats). One of the members is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who does not normally attend (Rt Hon John Healey MP). The Committee chooses its own chairman, traditionally an Opposition member, usually with previous experience as a Treasury minister. Divisions in the Committee are very rare, generally occurring less than once a year. The current membership of the Committee is as follows: Mr Edward Leigh MP (Chairman) (Conservative, Gainsborough) Mr Richard Bacon MP (Conservative, South Norfolk) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and Poole North Mr Greg Clarke MP (Conservative, Tunbridge Wells) Rt Hon David
    [Show full text]
  • Low Resolution Pictures
    Low resolution pictures highfieldsoffice.wordpress.com BlogBook 2 ©2016 highfieldsoffice.wordpress.com Contents 1 2013 13 1.1 January .......................................... 14 1.1.1 It’s January 2013 & The ”Highfields Curfew” Is Still In Place! (2013-01-04 18:37) 15 1.1.2 New Updates On Mahdi Hashi (Daily Mail) & Leicester’s Thurnby Lodge Drama (Leicester Mercury) (2013-01-06 11:21) ..................... 18 1.1.3 Looking Into The Future of Voting Behaviour in UK: What Might Happen When The British-Minorities Voters Grow? (2013-01-07 16:29) . 25 1.1.4 The Independent: How The British MI5 Coerce British-Somalis to Spy On Their Own Communities (2013-01-07 18:47) ...................... 30 1.1.5 For Your Self-Enlightement: Articles From This Week Newspapers (2013-01-11 12:50) ................................ 35 1.1.6 Spinney Hills LPU: A Militarized Police Station Inside The ”Local Terrorists Hotbed”!!!!! (2013-01-12 16:17) ......................... 37 1.1.7 Glenn Greenwald (The Guardian): In 4-Years, The West Have Bombed & Invaded 8 Muslim Nations (Is This not a ’War on Islam’?, he asks) (2013-01-15 11:48) . 39 1.1.8 St.Phillips Centre: Your ”Friendly” Inter-Faith Society or A Church/Diocese With A Secret? (Doubling as a Counter-Terrorism & ”Re-Education” Centre) (2013-01-19 10:29) ................................ 46 1.1.9 The Daily Mail’s First Exclusive Interview With Mahdi Hashi in The New York Jail: The Torture in Djibouti Ordeal In the Hands of CIA (with British Government ”Acquiescence”) (2013-01-20 10:36) ....................... 49 1.1.10 Important Additional Information for Muslims & Counter-Terrorism (and those in Leicester on FMO) and A Great Reading Collection from Public Intelligence (2013-01-20 19:11) ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • Boris Johnson
    DEC-01/08 REPORT OF AN INVESTIGATION BORIS JOHNSON MAYOR OF LONDON CHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN POLICE AUTHORITY BY JONATHAN GOOLDEN, BA(LAW) SOLICITOR 24th February 2009 SCHEDULE OF EVIDENCE jonathan goolden SOLICITORS PO Box 117 Louth LN11 0WW Tel 0845 370 3117 Fax 0845 370 3118 [email protected] www.goolden.co.uk regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority 1 This page is intentionally blank 2 Schedule of evidence Page Number Description 5 JTG 1 Letter dated 5th December 2008 from Len Duvall to Fiona Ledden, GLA – complaints against Boris Johnson 8 JTG 2 Biography of Boris Johnson 9 JTG 3 Home Secretary’s statement to the House of Commons on Home Office leaks 28 JTG 4 Times article – 29th November 2008 29 JTG 5 Transcript of London Assembly Plenary – 3rd December 2008 47 JTG 6 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee press announcement of inquiry into policing process of Home Office leak inquiries – 11th December 2008 48 JTG 7 Home Affairs Committee – uncorrected transcript of oral evidence – Rt. Hon. Jacqui Smith MP and Sir David Normington – 20th January 2009 75 JTG 8 Home Affairs Committee – uncorrected transcript of oral evidence – Mr. Boris Johnson – 3rd February 2009 88 JTG 9 Home Affairs Committee – uncorrected transcript of oral evidence – AC Robert Quick – 10th February 2009 120 JTG 10 Statement of Len Duvall – 11th February 2009 3 123 JTG 11 Statement of Catherine Crawford – 13th February 2009 127 JTG 12 First Statement of Guto Harri – 10th February 2009 135 JTG 13 Statement of Sir Paul Stephenson – received 19th February 2009
    [Show full text]
  • Resistance to Metaphor in Parliamentary Debates
    Resistance to metaphor in parliamentary debates Published by LOT phone: +31 20 525 2461 Kloveniersburgwal 48 1012 CX Amsterdam e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration: Ysabelle Tierie. ISBN: 978-94-6093-376-9 DOI: https://dx.medra.org/10.48273/LOT0591 NUR: 616 Copyright © 2021: Kiki Renardel de Lavalette. All rights reserved. Resistance to metaphor in parliamentary debates ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. ir. K.I.J. Maex ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op donderdag 17 juni 2021, te 13.00 uur door Kiki Yvonne Renardel de Lavalette geboren te Leiderdorp Promotiecommissie Promotores: prof. dr. G.J. Steen Universiteit van Amsterdam prof. dr. C.F. Burgers Universiteit van Amsterdam Copromotores: dr. C. Andone Universiteit van Amsterdam Overige leden: prof. dr. E.O. Aboh Universiteit van Amsterdam dr. C.J. Forceville Universiteit van Amsterdam dr. I.R. Hellsten Universiteit van Amsterdam prof. dr. J.A.L. Hoeken Universiteit Utrecht prof. dr. A. Rocci Università della Svizzera italiana Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen The research for/publication of this doctoral thesis received financial assistance from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO); Free competition project number 360-80-060 To my father, Diederik To my mother, Yvonne Table of Contents Acknowledgements 11 List of figures and tables 13 Author contributions 15 Chapter 1 Introduction 17 Chapter 2 “I did not say that the Government should be plundering anybody’s savings”.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrections to the Official Report
    House of Commons Procedure Committee Corrections to the Official Report Second Report of Session 2006–07 Report, together with formal minutes and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 23 May 2007 HC 541 Published on 5 June 2007 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Procedure Committee The Procedure Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and to make recommendations. Current membership Rt Hon Greg Knight MP (Conservative, Yorkshire East) (Chairman) Ms Celia Barlow MP (Labour, Hove) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Ms Katy Clark MP (Labour, North Ayreshire and Arran) Mr David Gauke MP (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire) Andrew Gwynne MP (Labour, Denton and Reddish) John Hemming MP (Liberal Democrat, Birmingham, Yardley) Mr Eric Illsley MP (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mrs Siân C. James MP (Labour, Swansea East) Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintolloch East) Mrs Linda Riordan MP (Labour, Halifax) Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) Mr Rob Wilson MP (Conservative, Reading East) Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 147. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/proccom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Tuesday Volume 507 16 March 2010 No. 58 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday 16 March 2010 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 707 16 MARCH 2010 708 feel that, as the Government have a stake in a number of House of Commons such institutions, perhaps they should have taken a lot more action to curtail the amount that bankers are still Tuesday 16 March 2010 being paid. Ian Pearson: The whole House will have had The House met at half-past Two o’clock representations from constituents on the issue of bankers’ bonuses. My hon. Friend will be aware that UKFI PRAYERS manages the Government’s interests in RBS, Lloyds Banking Group, Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley on an arm’s length basis. It is not in the interests of [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] shareholders, including the taxpayer, for banks to lose key profit-making staff, but we have to ensure an appropriate balance. As she will be aware, RBS made a commitment to pay the minimum possible, to protect the banking Oral Answers to Questions franchise, and it is in investment banking where that issue is most apparent. On behalf of the Government, UKFI took independent analysis and looked at sector TREASURY averages in coming to its conclusions, and it was entirely appropriate that it showed that due diligence.
    [Show full text]
  • What Brexit Means for Charities and What They Can Do
    Keep calm and carry on helping people: What Brexit means for charities and what they can do September 2016 Ciaran Price Policy Officer Directory of Social Change 352 Holloway Road London N7 6PA [email protected] © Directory of Social Change 2015 1 Contents 1. Introduction 2. The political situation 3. The economic situation 4. The social situation 5. The legal situation 6. Conclusion Notes: links to important information and further reading 2 1. Introduction On the morning of Friday 24 June 2016 Europe awoke to the largely unexpected news that the British public had voted (51.9% to 48.1%) to leave the European Union after 43 years of membership. The impact was felt instantly with an immediate fall in the value of the pound and global markets sent into turmoil. The UK, the EU, and hundreds and thousands of UK charities and community groups are entering an uncertain period. At the time of writing, there is a crisis in British politics. Until the UK invokes Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, the UK remains a full member of the EU. Constitutional law experts have suggested that legislation may be required before this can happen. Until then, and until British and EU negotiators work out the technicalities of ‘Brexiting’, the UK’s longer-term relationship with the 27-member bloc remains unclear – but we do know that the UK will remain an EU member in the near-term, as there is a two-year (or longer) negotiation process under the treaty. Charities and community groups will no doubt have major concerns about how this affects their ability to continue helping their beneficiaries.
    [Show full text]