DOCSLIB.ORG

Select Committees and Public Appointments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

House of Commons Liaison Committee

Select Committees and Public Appointments

First Report of Session 2010–12

Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 July 2011

HC 1230

Published on 4 September 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited
£14.50

Liaison Committee

The Liaison Committee is appointed to consider general matters relating to the work of select committees; to advise the House of Commons Commission on select committees; to choose select committee reports for debate in the House and to hear evidence from the Prime Minister on matters of public policy.

Current membership

Sir Alan Beith MP (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Chair)

The Chair of the following Select Committees are members of the Liaison Committee:

Administration – Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

Backbench Business – Natascha Engel MP (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

Business, Innovation and Skills – Mr Adrian Bailey MP (Labour/Co-op, West

Bromwich West)

Communities and Local Government – Mr Clive Betts MP (Labour, Sheffield

South East)

Culture, Media and Sport – Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon)

Defence – Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) Education – Mr Graham Stuart MP (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Energy and Climate Change – Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative, South Suffolk) Environmental Audit – Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Miss Anne McIntosh MP (Conservative,

Thirsk and Malton)

European Scrutiny – Mr William Cash MP (Conservative, Stone)

Finance and Services – John Thurso MP (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Foreign Affairs – Richard Ottaway MP (Conservative, Croydon South) Health – Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell MP (Conservative, Charnwood) Home Affairs – Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) Human Rights (Joint Committee) – Dr Hywel Francis MP (Labour, Aberavon) International Development – Rt Hon Malcolm Bruce MP (Liberal Democrat,

Gordon) Justice – Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Northern Ireland Affairs – Mr Laurence Robertson MP (Conservative,

Tewkesbury)

Political and Constitutional Reform – Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham

North)

Procedure – Rt Hon Greg Knight MP (Conservative, East Yorkshire) Public Accounts – Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP (Labour, Barking) Public Administration – Mr Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North

Essex)

Regulatory Reform – Mr Robert Syms MP (Conservative, Poole) Science and Technology – Andrew Miller MP (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston) Scottish Affairs – Mr Ian Davidson MP (Labour/Co-op, Glasgow South West) Selection – Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP (Conservative, The Cotswolds) Standards and Privileges – Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) Statutory Instruments – Mr George Mudie MP (Labour, Leeds East)

Transport – Mrs Louise Ellman MP (Labour/Co-op, Liverpool Riverside)

Treasury – Mr Andrew Tyrie MP (Conservative, Chichester) Welsh Affairs – David T C Davies MP (Conservative, Monmouth) Work and Pensions – Dame Anne Begg MP (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Powers

The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Order No 145. The Standing Orders are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications

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/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons- select/liaison-committee/.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Jacqy Sharpe (Clerk), Philippa Helme (Second Clerk), Paul Evans (Clerk to the National Policy Statements SubCommittee), Kevin Candy (Senior Committee Assistant) and Lee Chiddicks (Committee Assistant).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Liaison Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5675; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

Select Committees and Public Appointments

1

Contents

Report

Page

  • Summary
  • 3

  • 1
  • Background

Introduction

5

56677777
The Constitution Unit findings The Institute for Government findings Recent developments
A Statutory Veto Joint recruitment by Parliament and Government An “effective veto” Broadening the scope

2345
What are pre-appointment hearings for? Agreeing the job specification
8
10

  • 12
  • Information about other candidates

  • Power of veto
  • 14

14 15 18
The Office of Budget Responsibility - an exceptional case? An “effective veto” A power of dismissal?

67
Which posts should be subject to the hearings?

The current list

19

19 19 19 20 21
The IfG’s proposals The Government’s proposals Our proposals Political appointments

  • Consolidated guidance
  • 22

  • Conclusions and recommendations
  • 23

Annex 1: List of pre-appointment hearings held, July 2008 to July 2011 Annex 2: Table of proposed categorisations of posts to be subject to preappointment hearings
26 31 32 35
Annex 3: Indicative list of posts to be subject to pre-appointment hearings Annex 4: Joint Guidance for Departments and Select Committees

  • Formal Minutes
  • 46

47 47
Witnesses List of printed written evidence

Select Committees and Public Appointments

3

Summary

In this report we consider the experience of some three years of holding “preappointment” hearings by select committees to examine the “preferred candidate” for certain public appointments, before a Minister proceeds to confirm an appointment.

The experiment has been a success and the procedure represents a modest step forward in securing democratic accountability of ministerial decision-making. However, we recommend a number of changes to the system as it stands.

The list of posts to which the procedure applies should be refined. We propose, for the purposes of further discussion, a three-part list. Posts in the first tier are those we consider to be of sufficient constitutional significance as to require a process which is effectively a joint appointment by Government and the House of Commons. Posts in the second tier are those which we propose should be subject to an enhanced and improved version of the current process, and which should be subject to an “effective veto” by the House of Commons or its committees. For posts in the third tier we propose that a pre-appointment hearing should be at the discretion of committees.

The procedure for pre-appointment hearings should be refined to provide for:

•••

greater consultation between Ministers and committees at the outset of the recruitment process on the definition of the post and the criteria for selection;

more information to be provided to committees in advance of hearings about the field of candidates from which the preferred candidate has been selected;

a recognition that it may be appropriate for the Chair of a committee to discuss privately with a Minister any reservations the Committee may have about a candidate before issuing its report and before the Minister proceeds to a decision;

•

a resolution of the House of Commons confirming appointments in certain cases.
We annex to this report a draft of proposed guidance to be agreed between this Committee and the Government setting out the new procedures.

Select Committees and Public Appointments

5

1 Background

Introduction

1. In 2008, following an undertaking made in the Governance of Britain Green Paper1 and negotiations between the Cabinet Office and the Liaison Committee, a system of “preappointment hearings” by select committees was introduced.2

2. In its final report of the last Parliament, the previous Liaison Committee looked at the findings of research which it had commissioned (jointly with the Cabinet Office) from the Constitution Unit at University College London (UCL) on the operation of the preappointment hearings system.3 The research found that the hearings had met their purpose and that they should continue. The Committee agreed with these findings and recommended: a review of the criteria for determining which posts should be subject to pre-appointment hearings which were generally agreed to be inconsistent; that committees should be consulted on the formulation of job descriptions; that there should be provision for a form of conciliation process when committees were minded to recommend against an appointment; and that there should be agreed guidelines between the Liaison Committee and the Government on the purpose, scope and conduct of the hearings.4

3. The new Government, responding after the election in November last year, broadly accepted these recommendations, and agreed to further discussions.5 We decided to hold a short inquiry into how to implement the changes on which there appeared to be consensus, taking account of new research published by the Institute for Government (IfG, an independent think tank) in March 20116 and other recent developments.7

4. We received written evidence from the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the Chair of the Public Chairs’ Forum and the Constitution Unit, UCL.8 We also held an evidence session on 16 June with Lord Adonis and Akash Paun of the Institute for Government and Professor Robert Hazell and Peter Waller of the Constitution Unit as well as the Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office.9 We thank all those who contributed to our inquiry.

12
Cm 7170, July 2007 Liaison Committee, First Special Report of Session 2007-08, Pre-appointment hearings by select committees:

Government response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2007-08, HC 594, p 1

345
Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2009-10, The Work of Committees in Session 2008-09, HC 426 ibid, paras 60-72 Liaison Committee, Second Special Report of Session 2010-11, Pre-Appointment Hearings: Further Government

Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2009-10 (The Work of Committees in 2008-09) , HC 564

6

Institute for Government, Balancing Act: the right role for parliament in public appointments, March 2011,

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk (hereafter “Balancing Act”)
789
See paras 9 to 13 below QQ 1 to 45 QQ 45 to 89

6

Select Committees and Public Appointments

The Constitution Unit findings

5. The Constitution Unit’s research found that the candidates themselves were generally content with the process, both in principle and in practice. Many welcomed the public endorsement of their appointment, which had provided “additional legitimacy” in their new role. Contrary to the fears of many (including the Government), there was no evidence that the addition of pre-appointment hearings had acted as a deterrent to prospective applicants to the posts concerned. The reservations expressed within Government departments about the process mostly related to the addition of an extra stage to what is already a lengthy timetable. Otherwise, they were largely neutral.10

6. The main reservations about the new arrangements were expressed by committee members themselves to the researchers. The UCL report found that some Members were uncertain about the precise purpose of the hearings and expressed some frustration at the apparent lack of a decisive role in the process of appointment. However, most candidates interviewed by the research team said that they probably would not have taken up the post in the event of a negative report. There were few complaints about how committees had conducted the hearings: “in general the candidates were complimentary about the way the Committee had set about their task”, according to the report.11

7. The UCL research team suggest four options for the future development of preappointment hearings:

••••

a greater role for Parliament: for example, engagement with more than one candidate and a power of veto;

the status quo, perhaps with some modest adjustments to the appointments subject to hearings and the current process;

a slight step back: effectively to replace pre-appointment scrutiny with postappointment or pre-commencement scrutiny;

a hybrid approach: a greater role for Parliament in a smaller number of appointments.12

The Institute for Government findings

8. The IfG report, published in March this year, examined the operation of preappointment hearings so far. It recommended four criteria (which it set out) which should be applied to produce a three-tier list of posts. Category A appointments (about two dozen in their calculation) would be subject to an enhanced process including: early consultation on the definition of the role; an “effective” (not necessarily statutory) veto by a select committee over the appointment; scrutiny of re-appointments; an effective veto by the committee over dismissal; plus a version of the “mediation procedure” proposed by the Liaison Committee. Category B appointments would be subject to procedures which were broadly the same as the present system (plus a requirement for Ministers to justify before

10 See Second Report from the Liaison Committee of Session 2009-10, op cit, Annex 3, pp 68-133, para 3.8 11 ibid, para 3.2 12 ibid, Chapter 6

Select Committees and Public Appointments

7

the committee any decision to ignore their recommendation not to appoint). Category C appointments would be those where committees would be asked whether they wished to invoke the procedure (with an implicit expectation that in most cases they would not). 13

Recent developments

9. There have also been a number of developments in relation to appointments to certain posts.

A Statutory Veto

10. The Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 makes the appointment and dismissal of the Chair and independent members of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) subject to consent by the Treasury Select Committee.

Joint recruitment by Parliament and Government

11. The recruitment process for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman was changed better to reflect the parliamentary nature of the role. The recruitment was led by Parliament, in close co-operation with the Government (Cabinet Office and Department of Health). The Government tabled two motions to allow the House of Commons to approve the appointment and remuneration of the candidate which were debated once the Public Administration Select Committee had conducted a pre-appointment hearing with the preferred candidate.14

An “effective veto”

12. The Justice Minister announced to the House in February 2011 that, as part of the wider measures to strengthen the independence of the office of the Information Commissioner, the Government would accept the Justice Committee's conclusion from its pre-appointment hearing on whether or not the preferred candidate for the post of Information Commissioner should be appointed.15

Broadening the scope

13. Although the post of Chair of the BBC Trust is not on the current list of preappointment posts the selection of Lord Patten as the new Chair was made subject to a preappointment hearing which took place on 10 March.16

13 Balancing Act, pp 26-30

14 Ninth Report from the Public Administration Select Committee, Session 2010-12, Pre-appointment Hearing for the
Post of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, HC 1220-I and II; Votes and Proceedings, 18 July 2011, item 8

15 HC Deb, 16 February 2011, cc 87-88WS 16 Second Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of Session 2010-12, Pre-appointment hearing with the

Government’s preferred candidate for the Chairman of the BBC Trust, HC 864-I

8

Select Committees and Public Appointments

2 What are pre-appointment hearings for?

14. The Government’s original rationale for proposing pre-appointment hearings was based on “increasing democratic scrutiny of public appointments”17 and providing “greater public reassurance that those appointed to key public offices are appointed on merit”.18 The Liaison Committee expected committee hearings to focus on “the professional competence and personal independence of the candidate”.19

15. The evidence we received and the research undertaken by the Constitution Unit and the IfG shows not only that these aims have been met but that the pre-appointment hearings have generated some additional benefits. These include adding to the appointee’s legitimacy within their organisation and with the media and the public, and enabling the appointee to meet the select committee at an early stage to discuss their plans and priorities, particularly where accountability to Parliament though its committees is likely to be a significant element of the post.

16. Lord Adonis argued that a select committee scrutiny hearing:
[...] serves another key aspect of the public interest, which is to see that there is proper parliamentary accountability for major appointments, and that there is an acceptability test that is met, policed by parliamentary Committees in respect of the most significant of those public appointments.20

17. There is still residual concern in some quarters about the risk that exposure of appointees to select committees will lead to “politicisation” of the process.21 The main reservations have come from the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The current Commissioner, Sir David Normington (himself having been subject to a pre-appointment hearing), believes that “If [select committees] do question the merits of the candidate, they are not only challenging the decision of the panel and the appointing Minister, they are also calling into question the regulatory system itself”.22 Select committees have a dilemma “... reviewing a decision which has already been taken by a properly regulated process”. His predecessor, Dame Janet Gaymer, expressed similar reservations.23

17 Public Administration Committee, Sixth Special Report of Session 2007-08, Parliament and public appointments: Pre-

appointment hearings by select committees: Government response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2007-

08, HC 515, p 3
18 Liaison Committee, First Special Report of Session 2007-08, Pre-appointment hearings by select committees:

Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2007-08, HC 594, p 1

19 Liaison Committee, HC 384, 2007-08, para 13 20 Q2 21 Public Chairs Forum evidence, point 10, Ev 21; Constitution Unit, An Evaluation of Pre-Appointment Scrutiny

Hearings, 22 January 2010 pp 31-32; Balancing Act, pp 20-22

22 Ev 17-18 23 Public Administration Select Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08, Parliament and public appointments: Pre-

appointment hearings by select committees, HC 152,Ev 16-18

Select Committees and Public Appointments

9

18. It is a proper function of Parliament to oversee the role of regulators. In any event, we do not see any contradiction between the role of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) to ensure the conduct of a fair and transparent selection process and select committee scrutiny of how Ministers have arrived at their decision about who the preferred candidate should be for particularly significant posts. They each perform a specific and distinct function.

19. However, the purpose and objectives of pre-appointment hearings would benefit from greater precision which we would characterise as:

••

scrutiny of the quality of ministerial decision-making, which is a proper part of ministerial accountability;

Recommended publications
  • Interpreting Parliamentary Scrutiny

    Interpreting Parliamentary Scrutiny

    Interpreting Parliamentary Scrutiny An enquiry concerning everyday practices of parliamentary actors in select committees of the House of Commons Marc Geddes A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Politics Faculty of Social Sciences The University of Sheffield May 2016 Contents Abstract v Acknowledgements vi List of tables and figures viii Introduction 1 Part I: Theoretical Foundations Chapter 1: Traditions 9 Chapter 2: Theory 35 Chapter 3: Methodology 58 Part II: Interpreting Scrutiny Chapter 4: Members 81 Chapter 5: Chairs 111 Chapter 6: Staff 137 Part III: Scrutiny Landscapes Chapter 7: Relationships 165 Chapter 8: Evidence 194 Chapter 9: Conclusions 223 iii Notes Appendix A: List of select committees 245 Appendix B: Ethics agreement 247 Appendix C: House of Commons confidentiality agreement 249 Appendix D: Standard interview consent form 251 Appendix E: Interview themes and checklist 253 Appendix F: Summary statistics for committee members 255 Appendix G: Summary data for witnesses 257 Appendix H: Summary of witness database categories 259 Bibliography 261 iv Abstract This doctorate looks at the role of parliamentary select committees in the UK House of Commons. Though the literature on this topic is extensive, this research project explores the issue from a distinctive vantage point. While research on committees has predominantly focused on their outputs, such as committee reports, in order to assess the effectiveness of Parliament in holding the executive to account, this thesis looks at the input-side to committee work. It explores the individual beliefs, everyday practices and perennial dilemmas of parliamentary actors in select committees. In doing so, this thesis argues that understanding beliefs and practices of committee members, chairs and staff are crucial ways to better comprehend the way that scrutiny works in the House of Commons.
  • Ethnic Diversity in Politics and Public Life

    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.
  • Wednesday 8 February 2017 COMMITTEE of the WHOLE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS

    Wednesday 8 February 2017 COMMITTEE of the WHOLE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS

    1 SUPPLEMENT TO THE VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS Wednesday 8 February 2017 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS EUROPEAN UNION (NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL) BILL [THIRD DAY] GLOSSARY This document shows the fate of each clause, schedule, amendment and new clause. The following terms are used: Agreed to: agreed without a vote. Agreed to on division: agreed following a vote. Negatived: rejected without a vote. Negatived on division: rejected following a vote. Not called: debated in a group of amendments, but not put to a decision. Not moved: not debated or put to a decision. Question proposed: debate underway but not concluded. Withdrawn after debate: moved and debated but then withdrawn, so not put to a decision. Not selected: not chosen for debate by the Chair. NEW CLAUSES AND NEW SCHEDULES RELATING TO THE PRIORITIES IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION; CLAUSES 1 AND 2; REMAINING NEW CLAUSES; REMAINING NEW SCHEDULES; REMAINING PROCEEDINGS IN COMMITTEE NEW CLAUSES AND NEW SCHEDULES RELATING TO THE PRIORITIES IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION Jeremy Corbyn Mr Nicholas Brown Keir Starmer Paul Blomfield Jenny Chapman 2 Committee of the whole House Proceedings: 8 February 2017 European Union (Notice of Withdrawal) Bill, continued Matthew Pennycook Mr Graham Allen Ian Murray Ann Clwyd Valerie Vaz Heidi Alexander Stephen Timms Mike Gapes Liz Kendall Mr Ben Bradshaw Mrs Madeleine Moon Angela Smith Stephen Doughty Owen Smith Sarah Champion Mr Clive Betts Helen Goodman Seema
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim

    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.
  • Download (9MB)

    Download (9MB)

    A University of Sussex PhD thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details 2018 Behavioural Models for Identifying Authenticity in the Twitter Feeds of UK Members of Parliament A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF UK MPS’ TWEETS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2012; A LONGITUDINAL STUDY MARK MARGARETTEN Mark Stuart Margaretten Submitted for the degree of Doctor of PhilosoPhy at the University of Sussex June 2018 1 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 1 DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... 6 TABLES ............................................................................................................................................
  • Student Visas

    Student Visas

    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Student Visas Seventh Report of Session 2010–11 Volume I HC 773 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Student Visas Seventh Report of Session 2010–11 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/homeaffcom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 15 March 2011 HC 773 Published on 17 March 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament. Mr Aidan Burley MP (Conservative, Cannock Chase) Mary Macleod MP (Conservative, Brentford and Isleworth) 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.
  • Sessional Diary 2016–17

    Sessional Diary 2016–17

    HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSIONAL DIARY 2016–17 18 May 2016 to 27 April 2017 Prepared in the Journal Office of the House of Commons INTRODUCTION 1. This diary records the business on which the House spent its time in Session 2016–17, analysed into categories, and similar information for sittings in Westminster Hall. It is intended mainly to provide information in response to statistical inquiries, and in using it the following points should be borne in mind: (a) The diary does not include business which took little or no time, such as presentations of bills, unopposed private business, and motions agreed to without debate or division. (b) Divisions are normally included with the business to which they relate. (c) Timings are taken from the Official Report, using the printed times where available, and otherwise taking a column of debate to last three minutes. Daily prayers are assumed to last a standard five minutes, unless stated otherwise (and are not itemised in the analysis). (d) Periods of suspension are included in the total sitting time, and are listed in section 14j of the analysis (Miscellaneous). However, the 2½-hour suspension from 11.30 to 14.00 in Westminster Hall on most Tuesdays and Wednesdays (introduced on 1 January 2003) is shown in brackets in the “Duration” column and is left out of the totals. Other suspensions in Westminster Hall are included in the totals and in the analysis under section 7. (e) The times in the column headed “After appointed time” refer to business taken after the time appointed as the “moment of interruption”.
  • Nations and Regions: the Dynamics of Devolution

    Nations and Regions: the Dynamics of Devolution

    Nations and Regions: The Dynamics of Devolution Quarterly Monitoring Programme Devolution and the Centre Quarterly Report February 2003 by Guy Lodge The monitoring programme is jointly funded by the ESRC and the Leverhulme Trust 1 Contents Contents Key Points 1 Devolution and Westminster 1.1 House of Lords Debate on the Constitution 1.2 New Breakaway Conservative Party 1.3 House of Lords Constitution Committee 1.4 Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill 1.5 Parliamentary Questions to the Wales Office 1.6 The Work of the Territorial Select Committees 1.7 The Work of the Grand Committees 1.8 Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor’s Department 1.9 Minority Party Representation on Select Committees 1.10 Barnett Formula 1.11 House of Lords Reform 2 Devolution and Whitehall 2.1 Edwina Hart accuses Whitehall of obstructing National Assembly 2.2 Helen Liddell Announces Decision on MSP Numbers 2.3 The Future of the Territorial Offices 3 Intergovernmental Relations 3.1 Meeting of JMC (Europe) 3.2 British-Irish Council Summit 3.3 Meeting of the British-Irish Council Environment Group 3.4 Meeting of the British-Irish Council Drugs Group 3.5 UK Government and the Devolved Bodies Launch the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy Consultation 2 Key Points • Assembly Finance Minister Edwina Hart criticises Whitehall civil servants • Lord Norton debate on the British Constitution in the House of Lords • Helen Liddell announces that the number of MSPs will remain at 129 in the outcome of the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament. • House of Lords Constitution Committee publishes Devolution: Inter- Institutional Relations in the United Kingdom • House of Lords debate on the Barnett Formula • Second Reading and Committee Stage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill • Seven options for Lords Reform fail to gain a majority.
  • Diversity and Democracy: Race and the 2015 General Election

    Diversity and Democracy: Race and the 2015 General Election

    June 2015 Intelligence for a multi-ethnic Britain Diversity and Democracy: Race and the 2015 General Election Summary Table 1. Top 15 Labour vote share increases in diverse seats, 2015 • In 2015, Labour remained the first preference for most Labour Minority Black and minority ethnic voters, with around 60% choosing Constituency increase population Labour. The Conservatives have increased their vote share Birmingham, Hall Green 26.9% 64% significantly, from around 16% in 2010 to over 25% in 2015 Brent Central* 20.9% 61% • The Liberal Democrats got around 5% of the BME vote, and Poplar and Limehouse 18.6% 57% the Greens less. Only 2% of BME voters chose UKIP Bethnal Green and Bow 18.3% 53% • There is increasing variation in how different ethnic minority Birmingham, Ladywood 18.0% 73% groups vote, as well as regional differences Walthamstow 17.0% 53% • There are now 41 BME MPs, a significant rise, suggesting a Manchester, Gorton 17.0% 48% future BME Prime Minister could now be sitting in Parliament Birmingham, Hodge Hill 16.4% 64% • The success of Britain’s democracy depends not only on BME Leyton and Wanstead 15.0% 51% voter participation and representation, but on policymakers Ilford South 14.6% 76% responding to ethnic inequalities Leicester South 14.2% 51% Bradford East 13.8% 47% Introduction Bermondsey and Old Southwark* 13.8% 42% The 2015 General Election saw the Conservative Prime Ealing Southall 13.5% 70% Minister David Cameron returned with his party’s first overall Ealing Central and Acton* 13.1% 37% majority since John Major’s win in 1992.
  • First Review of the National Security Strategy 2010

    First Review of the National Security Strategy 2010

    House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy First review of the National Security Strategy 2010 First Report of Session 2010-12 Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by the House of Lords to be printed 27 February 2012 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 27 February 2012 HL Paper 265 HC 1384 Published on 8 March 2012 by authority of the House of Commons and House of Lords London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider the National Security Strategy. Membership HOUSE OF LORDS HOUSE OF COMMONS Lord Cope of Berkeley (Conservative) Margaret Beckett MP (Labour) (Chair) Lord Fellowes (Crossbench) Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative) Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour/Co-operative) Mr Adrian Bailey MP (Labour/Co-operative, Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour) Rt Hon Sir Alan Beith MP (Liberal Democrat) Lord Lee of Trafford (Liberal Democrat) Malcolm Bruce MP (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour) Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Labour) Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP (Labour) Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Conservative) Richard Ottaway MP (Conservative) Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour) Mark Pritchard MP (Conservative) Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Conservative) Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Conservative) Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour) Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses.
  • Legislators of Non-European Origin in the British House of Commons, 2001–2015

    Legislators of Non-European Origin in the British House of Commons, 2001–2015

    Lucas Geese, Wolfgang Goldbach and Thomas Saalfeld Mobility and Representation: Legislators of Non-European Origin in the British House of Commons, 2001–2015 Abstract: While the share of immigrants as a percentage of the UK population has in- creased steadily since the 1950s, it was not until the early 2000s that the descriptive representation of such new citizens in the House of Commons became more propor- tional. Focusing on Members of Parliament with a “Black or Asian Minority Ethnic” background in the three Parliaments between 2001 and 2015, we examine the ex- tent to which these legislators’ parliamentary behaviour was influenced by their party membership, legislative experience, “immigrant generation” and constituency demographics. Based conceptually on a sociological “mobilities” framework and Fenno’s work on “Home Styles” in the US Congress, we perform a dictionary-based content analysis of over 23,000 parliamentary questions for written answer. Com- paring first-generation immigrants and the immediate descendants of such immi- grants, we find that the content of questions reflects a relatively strong concernfor transnational mobility amongst the former and a stronger focus on questions of so- cial mobility in the UK in the latter group. Having been the origin of significant levels of emigration to non-European des- tinations in previous centuries, European states have become the destinations for large-scale immigration from non-European societies since the Second World War. Great Britain is a case in point: the number of foreign-born
  • Annual Reports

    Annual Reports

    GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2004 2004 ANNUAL REPORTS Tuesday Business Board Education Board Residential Assembly 2004 PWA Nomination Board Board of Studies & Christian Training GENERAL ASSEMBLY Communications Board Ministry and Pensions Board Wednesday Doctrine 2004 2004 Church and Government General Board (Other C’ttes.) Youth Board ANNUAL REPORTS Union Commission Thursday Overseas Board Board of Mission in Ireland Shankill Road Mission ORDER OF BUSINESS Judicial Commission Notes: Business commences at 9.30 a.m. each morning. Reception of Ministers Luncheon adjournment at 1.00 p.m. each day. Inter-Church Relations Board United Appeal Board The figures printed in brackets are page references to the Annual Reports. Finance and Administration Board References to the Minutes of Assembly are given Friday in full. Trustees Trusts Social Witness Board Priorities Committee NOTES ii MONDAY, JUNE 7 Within Church House 7.00 p.m.— Service of Worship Constitution of Assembly Memorial Roll Election of Moderator TUESDAY, JUNE 8 9.30 a.m.— 1. BUSINESS BOARD: Report and Resolutions (90-100). Arrangements Committee. 2. Reports of Synods and Presbyteries (79-89). (10.00) 3. Reception of Corresponding Members and Delegates. Church of Scotland: Dr. Alison Elliot, Rev. Johnston McKay, Mr. Andrew F. Stewart. United Reformed Church: Rev. Alasdair Pratt. Presbyterian Church of Wales: Rev. Dafydd Owen. Church of Ireland: Rev. Canon W.A. Lewis, Mr. Roy Totten. The Methodist Church in Ireland: Rev. W. Graham, Mrs. Sandra Dickson. Irish Council of Churches: (10.30) 4. BOARD OF EDUCATION: Report and Resolutions (277-292). Church Education, State Education, University Education Committees. 5. 2004 Assembly Conference Committee: Report and Resolutions (353).