DOCSLIB.ORG

This Document Contains Written Evidence Submitted to the Procedure Committee for the Inquiry Into Explanatory Statements on Amendments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
This Document Contains Written Evidence Submitted to the Procedure Committee for the Inquiry Into Explanatory Statements on Amendments This document contains written evidence submitted to the Procedure Committee for the inquiry into explanatory statements on amendments. Contents Evidence list Date reported for publication Written evidence submitted by the Leader of the 30 January 2013 House, The Rt Hon Andrew Lansley MP (P 96, 2012-13) Written evidence submitted by the Clerk of Legislation, House of Commons (P 97, 2012-13) Written evidence submitted by The Rt Hon Andrew Lansley MP, Leader of the House of Commons (P 96, 2012-13) As you will be aware, I wrote to the Clerk of Legislation on 29 November 2012, seeking a factual evaluation of the pilots of explanatory statements to amendments to legislation. I enclose the Clerk of Legislation's response of 8 January. I am pleased that the House Authorities have found that anecdotal evidence shows feedback from Members and their staff to be positive and that explanatory statements are felt to be helpful. The statistics provided by the Clerks also highlight the high level of participation in the pilot, with the notable exception of the opposition in the case of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. Our respective predecessors agreed in May 2012 that the Procedure Committee would report on the outcome of the pilots. I hope that the Committee will be able to undertake this as part of its work programme in the near future. I remain strongly of the view that for explanatory statements to be a useful part of the legislative process, it is necessary for there to be full participation across the House, from Government, the Opposition front bench and from backbench members. As I set out in my letter to the Clerk of Legislation, I am particularly interested in the proposal that explanatory statements could be voluntary in Public Bill Commit1ees but mandatory for all amending stages taken on the floor of the House. I hope that the Committee will, therefore, consider whether there is a case for explanatory statements being a mandatory part of the scrutiny process. There are a number of questions, some of which have been posed by the Clerk of Legislation, which will require thorough consideration before any moves towards making Explanatory Statements part of the legislative process. I am particularly interested in: • Whether amendments without explanatory statements should be accepted for tabling and selected for debate. The latter is ultimately a matter for the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means; • Whether explanatory statements which are defective should be accepted for tabling; • Whether self-explanatory or repeated minor, technical amendments could be exempt from requiring explanatory statements with the consent of the Public Bill Office; • The costs and overall value for money of any permanent solution. I look forward to setting out my views to the Committee in detail in due course. 24 January 2013 Written evidence received from the Clerk of Legislation (House of Commons) on Explanatory Statements on Amendments (P 97, 2012-13) 1. The Leader of the House has asked the Public Bill Office to evaluate a pilot scheme for allowing explanatory statements to be tabled alongside amendments to two Bills recently before the House1. We have been asked to evaluate the pilot on the basis of the following criteria, along with any anecdotal evidence: • The extent to which explanatory statements are tabled by (a) backbenchers and (b) the Official Opposition; • The extent to which explanatory statements require editorial or other intervention by the House authorities to ensure compliance with the guidelines; • The extent to which explanatory statements or information uniquely available from those statements is referred to in debate or otherwise used in discussion about the Bill; • The costs and resource implications, including indirect costs. 2. We have also been asked to provide a breakdown of the use of explanatory statements at Committee stage and Report stage; and to comment on the proposal that explanatory statements might be made mandatory for amendments tabled on Report stage of Bills, and optional for Committee stage. Electoral Registration and Administration Bill 3. The pilot in respect of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill covered both Committee of the whole House stage and any proceedings on consideration: in the event there were no proceedings on consideration, as no amendments were made to the Bill in Committee of the whole House. The Bill spent three days in Committee, on 18, 25 and 27 June 2012. 4. Forty-eight amendments (including 5 New Clauses) were tabled, none of them government amendments. 37 were from the Official Opposition and the remaining 11 from backbenchers.2 Explanatory statements were tabled to all but one of the backbench amendments. No explanatory statements were tabled to the Official Opposition amendments. Electoral Registration and Administration Bill Committee of the whole House Stage Government Amendments (with statements) 0 (N/A) Official Opposition Amendments (with statements) 37 (0) Other amendments (with statements) 11 (10) Total No. of Amendments tabled (with 48 (10) statements) 1 Letter from the Leader attached. 2 There were eight different lead names to the 11 amendments, representing the three largest parties in the House. 5. Explanatory statements to amendments were mentioned in debate on two occasions: On 18 June 2012, the Minister (Mr Mark Harper) said They [backbench Members] have participated very well in the experiment that the Procedure Committee has asked us to undertake. This Bill is an example of it, because all hon. Members tabling amendments were asked to include explanatory statements to enable hon. Members to better understand the nature of the amendments. I am pleased that they have done so, as it is very helpful to the House. It is just a shame that the official Opposition appear to have ignored the fact that we are conducting that experiment and have not taken that opportunity. I am sure that the Procedure Committee will draw the appropriate conclusion. The Shadow Minister (Mr Wayne David) replied: I am more than happy to provide an explanation. Resources are extremely limited for Opposition Members and the Minister will have noticed how many amendments we have tabled. That shows our concern about the fine detail of the Bill. However, we thought it was far better to follow the time-honoured practice of tabling amendments and using the facility of being at the Dispatch Box to explain our points and that is precisely what we are doing.3 On 25 June 2012, there was a slight misunderstanding as to the purpose of an Opposition amendment. The Minister (Mr David Heath) noted that “we would have understood her [Angela Smith’s] amendments more clearly had she produced an explanatory memorandum”.4 Small Charitable Donations Bill 6. The pilot in respect of the Small Charitable Donations Bill covered both Public Bill Committee Stage and Report stage. 7. At Committee stage (16 to 30 October 2012), 42 amendments (including 5 New Clauses) were tabled. 15 amendments were tabled by the Government: all had explanatory statements. Of the non-Government amendments, 26 (including two amendments to Government amendments) were from the Official Opposition, and one was from a spokesman for a smaller party5. All of the non-Government amendments had explanatory statements, other than two (fairly self-explanatory) New Clauses. 8. At Report stage (26 November 2012), 40 amendments (including 3 New Clauses) were tabled. 9 of the amendments were Government, 22 were Official Opposition and 9 were from other Members (one Government backbencher, and two spokespersons for smaller parties). Three of the Official Opposition amendments (again fairly self- explanatory) were tabled without explanatory statements. 3 HC Deb, 18 June 2012, col 633 4 HC Deb, 25 June 2012, col 669 5 Mark Durkan, SDLP Small Charitable Donations Bill Committee Stage Report Stage Government Amendments (with statements) 15 (15) 9 (9) Official Opposition Amendments (with statements) 26 (24) 22 (19) Other amendments (with statements) 1 (1) 9 (9) Total No. of Amendments tabled (with 42 (40) 40 (37) statements) 9. There were two references to explanatory statements in debate at Committee stage and none at Report stage: On 25 October 2012, Mr George Mudie sought clarification from the Minister on the meaning of Government amendment 6, with specific reference to the explanatory statement.6 On the same date, Cathy Jamieson quoted from the explanatory statement to Government amendment 11.7 The role of the House service: editorial intervention, and cost and resource implications 10. Most of the explanatory statements were drafted by Members, with no or minimal intervention from the Public Bill Office. Where Public Bill Office staff helped to draft amendments, they also helped to draft explanatory statements, but they report that this took little time (no more than five minutes per amendment), and usually saved time elsewhere by establishing a verifiable shared understanding of what amendments were intended to achieve. Typesetting costs cannot be disaggregated but are minimal. 11. Printing costs: Estimated at £12.30 per explanatory statement.8 Anecdotal evidence 12. Staff in the Public Bill Office have informally approached Members and their staff (but not Ministers or civil servants) who were involved in proceedings on the two Bills. Feedback has been positive. Members and their staff generally found the process of drafting explanatory statements to amendments helpful, both for clarifying the arguments and intention behind amendments when drafting, and in confirming their understanding of amendments tabled by other Members. Those who did not provide explanatory statements with their amendments did so for lack of time, and have said that they would want to provide such statements if offered the opportunity to do so in future, resources permitting. Conclusions 6 Public Bill Committee Hansard, 25 October 2012, col 251-252 (attached) 7 Public Bill Committee Hansard, 25 October 2012, col 266 8 Based on an actual cost per page of £100, an estimate that 22.75 explanatory statements would fill a page, and the fact that each explanatory statement relating to the two bills in the pilot was re-printed on average 2.8 times.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Middlesex Hospital Orthopaedic Department 1920 – 2005 the 85
    The Middlesex Hospital Orthopaedic Department 1920 – 2005 The 85 years 1 Contents 1. Charles Bell (1774-1842) The Middlesex Hospital Sean Hughes Medical School 2. A Brief Overview of The Middlesex Hospital 1745 – Michael Edgar 2005 3. Blundell Bankart (1879 –1951) Roger Emery 4. Phillip Wiles (1899 – 1967) A. Total Hip Replacement James Scott B. Contribution to Scoliosis Surgery Michael Edgar 5. Phillip Newman (1912 – 1994) A. Sir Winston Churchill’s Hip Fracture: Liam Mcloughlin The Middlesex Hospital June 1962 B. Spinal Surgery Michael Edgar 6. Rodney Sweetnam (1927 – 2013) Michael Benson 7. Nursing in The Middlesex Orthopaedic Department Fiona Hamblin 8. The Athletes’ Clinic Fares Haddad Michael Edgar Reflections on being a Registrar in the Patrick Boland Athletes’ Clinic 9. The Last Fifteen years of The Middlesex Orthopaedic Department 1991 – 1996 Michael Edgar 1995 – 2005 Justin Cobb 10. The Middlesex in Africa Chris Lavy 11. The Contributions of The Middlesex Orthopaedic Steve Cannon Department to the National and International Scene 2 The Middlesex Hospital 2000, (taken after a fire drill). 3 Chapter 1 Sir Charles Bell (1774 – 1842) and The Middlesex Hospital Medical School Sean Hughes Charles Bell (1774 – 1842), a surgeon and anatomist, was also an artist and philosopher. He was born in Fountainbridge, an area of Edinburgh, the youngest of four sons of the Reverend William Bell (1704 –1779), who died when Charles was five years old. His mother, Margaret Morris, was William Bell’s second wife and was the elder daughter of an Episcopalian clergyman in St Andrews, a seaside town north-east of Edinburgh. Her father was the head of the Episcopalian Church of Scotland, the Primus, in his time, reflecting the strong religious upbringing in Charles’s early development.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Cabinet Reshuffle
    2014 Cabinet Reshuffle Overview A War Cabinet? Speculation and rumours have been rife over Liberal Democrat frontbench team at the the previous few months with talk that the present time. The question remains if the Prime Minister may undertake a wide scale Prime Minister wishes to use his new look Conservative reshuffle in the lead up to the Cabinet to promote the Government’s record General Election. Today that speculation was in this past Parliament and use the new talent confirmed. as frontline campaigners in the next few months. Surprisingly this reshuffle was far more extensive than many would have guessed with "This is very much a reshuffle based on the Michael Gove MP becoming Chief Whip and upcoming election. Out with the old, in William Hague MP standing down as Foreign with the new; an attempt to emphasise Secretary to become Leader of the House of diversity and put a few more Eurosceptic Commons. Women have also been promoted faces to the fore.” to the new Cameron Cabinet, although not to the extent that the media suggested. Liz Truss Dr Matthew Ashton, politics lecturer- MP and Nicky Morgan MP have both been Nottingham Trent University promoted to Secretary of State for Environment and Education respectively, whilst Esther McVey MP will now attend Europe Cabinet in her current role as Minister for Employment. Many other women have been Surprisingly Lord Hill, Leader for the promoted to junior ministry roles including Conservatives in the House of Lords, has been Priti Patel MP to the Treasury, Amber Rudd chosen as the Prime Minister’s nomination for MP to DECC and Claire Perry MP to European Commissioner in the new Junker led Transport, amongst others.
    [Show full text]
  • MEMO+ New UK Parliament and Government
    May 2010 Minority Ethnic Matters Overview MEMO+ is an occasional series of briefing papers on topics of interest to minority ethnic communities in Scotland. Supported b y It is produced by the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities in partnership with the Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland , and is supported by the Scottish Government. Briefing: The New UK Parliament and Government General Election Results The elections to the UK Parliament in May 2010 resulted in the Conservative Party having the largest number of seats although no single party has an overall majority. Number of MPs elected in each political party Conservative 306 Labour 258 Liberal Democrat 57 Democratic Unionist Party 8 SNP 6 Sinn Fein 5 Plaid Cymru 3 Social Democratic & Labour Party 3 Alliance Party 1 Green 1 Independent 1 One seat still has to be decided. This is because one of the candidates for Thirsk and Morton died after nominations closed. As a result, no voting took place in that constituency, and a by-election will be held on 27 May. Negotiations between the main parties have resulted in an agreement to form a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government, the first such agreement since 1945. The practicalities of this are not yet clear, but the Ministerial team includes MPs from both parties, and some policy compromises have already been announced. 1 MEMO+ The New UK Parliament and Government May 2010 How does the Parliament work? The Speaker The Speaker, who is elected from among their own number by the MPs themselves, chairs proceedings in the House of Commons.
    [Show full text]
  • Sun Results 110711 Politicians Recognition and Approval
    YouGov / The Sun Survey Results Sample Size: 2571 GB Adults Fieldwork: 10th - 11th July 2011 Voting intention 2010 Vote Gender Age Social grade Region Lib Lib Rest of Midlands / Total Con Lab Con Lab Male Female 18-24 25-39 40-59 60+ ABC1 C2DE London North Scotland Dem Dem South Wales Weighted Sample 2571 692 850 207 771 703 565 1250 1321 311 656 879 725 1465 1106 329 836 550 632 224 Unweighted Sample 2571 682 814 207 764 670 568 1218 1353 209 689 956 717 1679 892 420 818 520 576 237 % %%%%%% % % % % % % % % % % % % % [A random selection of half of respondents were shown images of the following politicians] Who is this person? Image shown of IDS [Split 1 n=1265] William Hague 3 222313 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 4 2 0 4 3 David Cameron 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 George Osborne 1 100110 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 Michael Gove 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Andrew Lansley 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ken Clarke 0 001010 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Liam Fox 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Danny Alexander 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chris Huhne 0 100000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Nick Clegg 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Vince Cable 1 113122 0 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 0 Ed Miliband 0 000000 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ed Balls 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 David Miliband 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Douglas Alexander 0 000000 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eric Pickles 0 000000 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Philip Hammond 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jeremy Hunt 0 010010 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Hilary Benn 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Andy Burnham 0 010000 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Alan Johnson 0 000000 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Iain Duncan Smith 69 79 72 70 77 73 68 78 60 47 65 71 79 72 64 69 68 69 69 67 Not sure 24 15 21 25 17 21 26 17 31 43 29 22 15 21 30 22 24 26 24 25 1 © 2011 YouGov plc.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Huddersfield Repository
    University of Huddersfield Repository Hayton, Richard Leadership without authority: Iain Duncan Smith as leader of the Conservative Party Original Citation Hayton, Richard (2010) Leadership without authority: Iain Duncan Smith as leader of the Conservative Party. In: Leaders of the Opposition: From Churchill To Cameron, 9 July 2010, University of Leeds. (Unpublished) This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/9134/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ Iain Duncan Smith: leadership without authority Paper presented to the: ‘Leaders of the Opposition: From Churchill to Cameron’ conference, Friday 9 th July 2010 University of Leeds, UK Dr Richard Hayton Lecturer in Politics University of Huddersfield [email protected] Abstract This chapter analyses the tenure of Iain Duncan Smith as leader of the Conservative Party in opposition between September 2001 and October 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Cabinet Committee System
    CABINET COMMITTEE SYSTEM 1. Cabinet and Cabinet Committees are groups of Ministers that can take collective decisions that are binding across Government. The Cabinet is the supreme decision-making body in government, dealing with the big issues of the day and the Government’s overall strategy. Cabinet Committees reduce the burden on Cabinet by enabling collective decisions to be taken by a smaller group of Ministers. The composition and terms of reference of Coalition Cabinet Committees are a matter for the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister. 2. The Coalition Committee is a formal Committee of Cabinet which meets to consider issues relating to the operation of the Coalition. It is co-chaired by The Prime Minister and The Deputy Prime Minister. 3. Each Committee has a Chair from one Party and a Deputy Chair from the other Party. The Chair and Deputy Chair have the right to remit an issue to the Coalition Committee if it affects the operation of the Coalition and cannot be resolved by the originating Committee. The use of this right will be kept to a minimum. 4. With the approval of the Chair (with the exception of those Committees requiring limited or specific attendance due to the nature of the discussion) Ministers are able to send a deputy from either their Department or their Party, as appropriate, to Committee meetings. 5. The Coalition Operation and Strategic Planning Group is a working group and is not a Cabinet Committee. It is co-chaired by the Minister of State – Cabinet Office and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
    [Show full text]
  • The NHS Internal Market
    The NHS Internal Market Edited by Eleanor MacKillop, Sally Sheard, Philip Begley and Michael Lambert Department of Public Health and Policy University of Liverpool Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool. All rights reserved. This material is made available for personal research and study only. We give permission for this file to be downloaded for such personal use. For reproduction and further distribution of all or part of this file, permission must be sought with the copyright holder. Published by: Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, 2018. ISBN: 978-1-9999209-1-3 2 The NHS Internal Market The Transcript of a Witness Seminar held at the University of Liverpool in London, UK, on 5 December 2017 Acknowledgements: The convenors would like to thank the witnesses for their involvement, the audience, and the staff at the University of Liverpool in London. They would also like to thank Ubiqus for transcribing the event. Photographs: Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool. 3 Contents Instructions for citation ................................................................................................................... 5 Contributors .................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Areas for discussion .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ANDREW LANSLEY Unlucky Or Incompetent? Many Doctors Will Have Been Pleased by Andrew Lansley’S Departure from the Health Department in the Government Reshuffle
    NHS ANDREW LANSLEY Unlucky or incompetent? Many doctors will have been pleased by Andrew Lansley’s departure from the health department in the government reshuffle. Nigel Hawkes assesses where it went wrong for one of the best informed health secretaries long apprenticeship does not who, if not the health secretary, is to answer in he was not being allowed to lay out his stall and always lead to a happy inherit- parliament for the spending of almost £100bn that might lead to trouble, he was over-ruled. ance. In politics the best example (€126bn; $159bn) a year? And realists were is Anthony Eden, glamour boy made uneasy by the party’s promise to defend Uneasy compromise of the 1930s, whose decades of district hospitals to the death, with a moratorium The policy succeeded, in that it kept the NHS away waitingA for the top office ill prepared him for it. on closures. Although it was an easy way to win from the limelight during the election campaign. The same might be said—on an altogether more local popularity— Jeremy Hunt, the new health But it also failed, because the C onservatives modest scale— of Andrew Lansley, who lost secretary, was heavily involved in a campaign in did not win an overall majority. Lansley was his job as England’s health secretary in David 2006 to “save” Royal Surrey County Hospital— excluded from the ensuing discussion about how Cameron’s reshuffle. Seldom has any health the policy could not easily be reconciled with the differing Conservative and Liberal Democrat secretary known more about the NHS than C onservative promises to let clinical priorities health policies could be reconciled.
    [Show full text]
  • Glaziers & Window Breakers
    Second edition Glaziers & window breakers Former health secretaries in their own words Acknowledgements The Health Foundation and the author are deeply indebted to the 11 former health secretaries who found time for the interviews featured in this book, and to Sir Alan Langlands and Brian Edwards who read a late draft of the first edition, correcting errors of fact and interpretation. Any remaining instances of either remain the responsibility of Nicholas Timmins. The author also thanks Edward Davies for his contributions to the first edition, and at the Foundation, Sean Agass and Hugh Alderwick for all their excellent work on the second. Written by Nicholas Timmins About the author Nicholas Timmins is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Government and The King’s Fund. Between 1996 and 2011 he was Public Policy Editor of the Financial Times. He is also a Senior Associate of the Nuffield Trust and a Visiting Professor in Social Policy at the London School of Economics, as well as being the author of the award-winning The five giants: a biography of the welfare state. When referencing this publication please use the following URL: https://doi.org/10.37829/HF-2020-C03 Glaziers & window breakers is published by the Health Foundation, 8 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8AP ISBN: 978-1-911615-49-1 © 2020 The Health Foundation Contents Preface to the second edition ii A letter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 1 1. History and analysis 5 Introduction 6 A short history of health secretaries and the NHS 8 Analysing the views of the former health secretaries 38 How the world looked in 2015 56 The new dispensation 63 References 86 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Recognition and Approval of Politicians While the Party
    Recognition and approval of politicians Method: Respondents were presented with a series of poli- ticians’ photos and asked to identify them from among a long list of political figures. If they were unsure they were asked not to guess. These recog- nition data were used to supplement and deepen attitudinal insights. There are few surprises in overall recognition rank- ings but levels for many politicians are remarkably low • Party leaders, ex-leaders and long-standing politicians feature highest in terms of public While the Party conferences and the resignation recognition. of Dr Liam Fox have brought the personalities of government into stark relief in the media during • Little change since July implies a negligible October, a YouGov-Cambridge study finds large role for short-term exposure and events (July parts of the population fail to even recognise many dataset: http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_im- major politicians. Women, the young and the so- port/yg-archives-pol-sun-politicianrecogni- cially disadvantaged all recognise fewer and incum- tion-030811.pdf) bent politicians fare better than those in opposition. Approval mirrors closely events in the news, but • Seismic shifts in the political landscape do have interestingly also reflects levels of recognition for impact though. Recognition of Liam Fox has in- members of government. creased from 34% to 50% in the past 3 months. % Recog- Politician Position % Recognise Politician Position nise Deputy leader of the David Cameron Prime Minister 98 Harriet Harman 55 Labour party William Hague
    [Show full text]
  • Ministers in the 2010 Coalition Government
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 06544, 15 October 2017 Ministers in the 2010 Compiled by Coalition Government Sarah Priddy This list notes ministerial office holders in the 2010 Coalition Government. Ministers’ dates of office Until the 2015 General Election, all Minsters carried on in their posts. After the Conservative party won a majority in the 2015 General Election, the Prime Minister announced senior government Cabinet appointments on 8 May 2015 at which point all Liberal Democrat Ministers ceased to be Ministers. Where a Conservative Minister continued to serve in the new Government, this is indicated in the end date column in the note: • Continued to hold the same office is indicated by ‘continued in post’ • Continued in Government but in another Department, is shown by ‘continued in Govt’ • Another role within the same government department is shown by ‘continued in Dept’ An end-date is given for all Ministers who left the Government where known. Further information The Commons briefing paper on limitations on the number of Ministers and the size of the payroll vote sets out the statutory limits that apply to ministerial appointments. Further information on Ministers is available on the Ministers’ topic page on the Parliament website which contains links to briefings produced by the House of Commons Library, the House of Lords Library and Select Committee reports. Sources Members Names Information Service; DODS People; Hansard and Number 10 press notices and the Government List of Ministerial Responsibilities. Feedback Please send any comments or corrections to: Parliamentary Information Lists Editor, Parliament & Constitution Centre, House of Commons, London SW1A OAA.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2010 Coalition Government at Westminster
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 06404, 8 May 2015 The 2010 Coalition By Lucinda Maer and Oonagh Gay Government at Westminster Inside: 1. Coalitions in the 20th Century: an overview 2. The Coalition in May 2010 3. The Coalition in Government 4. The Coalition and Parliament 5. Agreements to differ 6. Support for the Government in Parliament 7. Ending Coalitions www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 06404, 8 May 2015 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Coalitions in the 20th Century: an overview 4 2. The Coalition in May 2010 5 3. The Coalition in Government 7 4. The Coalition and Parliament 10 5. Agreements to differ 11 5.1 Parliamentary boundary changes 13 5.2 The Electoral Registration and Administration Bill 2012-13 13 5.3 Statements on Leveson report 14 5.4 Debate on the Address following the Queen’s Speech 15 5.5 Legislative proposals for an EU referendum 15 5.6 Immigration policy 16 5.7 Amendment to Crime and Courts Bill 2013-14 17 5.8 Affordable Homes Private Members’ Bill 5 September 2014 17 5.9 Counter-terrorism and Security Bill 2014-15 18 5.10 The Liberal Democrat’s “alternative economic plan”, March 2015 18 6. Support for the Government in Parliament 20 7. Ending Coalitions 23 7.1 Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 24 Cover page image copyright UK Parliament 3 The 2010 Coalition Government at Westminster Summary Following negotiations between the political parties, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties formed a coalition government in May 2010.
    [Show full text]