DOCSLIB.ORG

Shared Space Under Pressure: Business Support for Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders Guidance for Companies August 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shared Space Under Pressure: Business Support for Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders Guidance for Companies August 2018 SHARED SPACE UNDER PRESSURE: BUSINESS SUPPORT FOR CIVIC FREEDOMS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS GUIDANCE FOR COMPANIES AUGUST 2018 Shared Space Under Pressure: Business Support for Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders | 01 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This guidance is authored by Bennett Freeman with Sif Thorgeirsson, Adele Barzelay and Brooks Reed, and advised by Phil Bloomer, Mauricio Lazala, Ana Zbona and Joe Bardwell of Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), Michael Ineichen of International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), and Annabel Lee Hogg of The B Team. The guidance was commissioned by the Business Network on Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders.1 BHRRC and ISHR thank DLA Piper for its pro bono contributions and the Open Society Foundations for its funding support. 1 The Business Network on Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders is an informal network of companies, convened and facilitated by Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, the B Team and ISHR. Founded in 2016, it explores the role of companies in helping to protect civic freedoms and human rights defenders, enables discussion and mutual learning, and may be used flexibly to initiate individual or collective action around the world. 02 | Shared Space Under Pressure: Business Support for Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������6 INTRODUCTION ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������13 THE PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDANCE �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������16 1� BUSINESS AND CIVIL SOCIETY: SHARED SPACE AND COMMON THREATS ����������18 1.1. Shared Civil Society Space and Business .....................................................................................................19 1.2. Pressures on Civic Freedoms ........................................................................................................................19 1.3. Attacks on Human Rights Defenders ..........................................................................................................21 1.4. A Legacy of Mistrust to Overcome ............................................................................................................. 23 2� SUPPORTING CIVIC FREEDOMS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS: THE NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK, BUSINESS CASE AND MORAL CHOICE ���������������������������� 25 2.1. The Normative Framework ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27 2.2. The Business Case ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������31 2.2.1. Securing the Shared Space ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������31 2.2.2. Managing Operational and Reputational Risk ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 2.2.3. Building Competitive Advantage .................................................................................................... 33 2.2.4. Overcoming Mistrust; Gaining the Social License to Operate .............................................. 34 2.3. A Moral Choice ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 35 2.3.1. The "Do No Harm" Principle .......................................................................................................... 36 2.3.2. The "Good Samaritan" Principle .................................................................................................... 37 2.3.3. From Individual to Corporate Responsibility ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 37 3� WHETHER AND HOW TO ENGAGE: DILEMMAS AND DECISIONS, ACTIONS AND RISKS �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 3.1. Step 1: Establish the reality and severity of the harm to a civic freedom/HRD, including the veracity of the allegations and credibility of the source ................................................................................. 40 3.2. Step 2: Establish the degree of company involvement – cause, contribute or other linkage to the threat or the harm.........................................................................................................41 3.3. Step 3: Identify the form(s) of action that maximize the positive potential impact on civic freedoms/HRDs ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 45 3.3.1. What to Do: The Flexible Forms of Action ............................................................................... 46 3.3.2. Long-term Actions and Policies .................................................................................................... 47 Shared Space Under Pressure: Business Support for Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders | 03 3.4. Step 4: Identify the relative risks of action and inaction to the civil society/rights holders and to the company relative to the issue or situation..................................................................................... 48 3.4.1. Risks of Action ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 49 3.4.2. Risks of Inaction .................................................................................................................................51 3.5. Who Decides? ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 52 CONCLUSION ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������53 4. SPOTLIGHTS ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������54 4.1. Country Spotlights ........................................................................................................................................... 55 4.1.1. Cambodia ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 55 4.1.2. Myanmar .............................................................................................................................................. 57 4.1.3. Guatemala ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 58 4.1.4. United States ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������61 4.2. Sector Spotlights .............................................................................................................................................. 63 4.2.1. Extractives (Oil/Gas and Mining) .................................................................................................. 63 4.2.2. Agriculture, Food and Beverage ................................................................................................... 67 4.2.3. Apparel and Footwear ..................................................................................................................... 70 4.2.4. Digital Technology ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 72 4.3. Initiative Spotlights ........................................................................................................................................... 75 4.3.1. LGBTI Commitments ....................................................................................................................... 75 4.3.2. Mega-Sporting Events ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 77 4.4. Critical Actors Spotlights ............................................................................................................................... 79 4.4.1. Responsible Investors ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 79 4.4.2. CEO Activists ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 81 ABOUT THE AUTHORS ..........................................................................................................................................84 ANNEX 1: INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED ....................................................................................................86 ANNEX 2: KEY SOURCES AND RESOURCES............................................................................................93 ANNEX 3: RELATED ORGANIZATIONS .......................................................................................................97 ANNEX 4: INDEX OF COMPANY AND INVESTOR ACTIONS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reactionary Postmodernism? Neoliberalism, Multiculturalism, the Internet, and the Ideology of the New Far Right in Germany
    University of Vermont ScholarWorks @ UVM UVM Honors College Senior Theses Undergraduate Theses 2018 Reactionary Postmodernism? Neoliberalism, Multiculturalism, the Internet, and the Ideology of the New Far Right in Germany William Peter Fitz University of Vermont Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/hcoltheses Recommended Citation Fitz, William Peter, "Reactionary Postmodernism? Neoliberalism, Multiculturalism, the Internet, and the Ideology of the New Far Right in Germany" (2018). UVM Honors College Senior Theses. 275. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/hcoltheses/275 This Honors College Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate Theses at ScholarWorks @ UVM. It has been accepted for inclusion in UVM Honors College Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ UVM. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REACTIONARY POSTMODERNISM? NEOLIBERALISM, MULTICULTURALISM, THE INTERNET, AND THE IDEOLOGY OF THE NEW FAR RIGHT IN GERMANY A Thesis Presented by William Peter Fitz to The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of The University of Vermont In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements For the Degree of Bachelor of Arts In European Studies with Honors December 2018 Defense Date: December 4th, 2018 Thesis Committee: Alan E. Steinweis, Ph.D., Advisor Susanna Schrafstetter, Ph.D., Chairperson Adriana Borra, M.A. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter One: Neoliberalism and Xenophobia 17 Chapter Two: Multiculturalism and Cultural Identity 52 Chapter Three: The Philosophy of the New Right 84 Chapter Four: The Internet and Meme Warfare 116 Conclusion 149 Bibliography 166 1 “Perhaps one will view the rise of the Alternative for Germany in the foreseeable future as inevitable, as a portent for major changes, one that is as necessary as it was predictable.
    [Show full text]
  • Framing Through Names and Titles in German
    Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020), pages 4924–4932 Marseille, 11–16 May 2020 c European Language Resources Association (ELRA), licensed under CC-BY-NC Doctor Who? Framing Through Names and Titles in German Esther van den Berg∗z, Katharina Korfhagey, Josef Ruppenhofer∗z, Michael Wiegand∗ and Katja Markert∗y ∗Leibniz ScienceCampus, Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany yInstitute of Computational Linguistics, Heidelberg University, Germany zInstitute for German Language, Mannheim, Germany fvdberg|korfhage|[email protected] fruppenhofer|[email protected] Abstract Entity framing is the selection of aspects of an entity to promote a particular viewpoint towards that entity. We investigate entity framing of political figures through the use of names and titles in German online discourse, enhancing current research in entity framing through titling and naming that concentrates on English only. We collect tweets that mention prominent German politicians and annotate them for stance. We find that the formality of naming in these tweets correlates positively with their stance. This confirms sociolinguistic observations that naming and titling can have a status-indicating function and suggests that this function is dominant in German tweets mentioning political figures. We also find that this status-indicating function is much weaker in tweets from users that are politically left-leaning than in tweets by right-leaning users. This is in line with observations from moral psychology that left-leaning and right-leaning users assign different importance to maintaining social hierarchies. Keywords: framing, naming, Twitter, German, stance, sentiment, social media 1. Introduction An interesting language to contrast with English in terms of naming and titling is German.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany 2018 International Religious Freedom Report
    GERMANY 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT Executive Summary The constitution prohibits religious discrimination and provides for freedom of faith and conscience and the practice of one’s religion. The country’s 16 states exercise considerable autonomy on registration of religious groups and other matters. Unrecognized religious groups are ineligible for tax benefits. The federal and some state offices of the domestic intelligence service continued to monitor the activities of certain Muslim groups. Authorities also monitored the Church of Scientology (COS), which reported continued government discrimination against its members. Certain states continued to ban or restrict the use of religious clothing or symbols, including headscarves, for some state employees, particularly teachers and courtroom officials. While senior government leaders continued to condemn anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiment, some members of the federal parliament and state assemblies from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party again made anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim statements. The federal and seven state governments appointed anti-Semitism commissioners for the first time, following a recommendation in a parliament-commissioned 2017 experts’ report to create a federal anti-Semitism commissioner in response to growing anti-Semitism. The federal anti-Semitism commissioner serves as a contact for Jewish groups and coordinates initiatives to combat anti-Semitism in the federal ministries. In July the government announced it would increase social welfare funding for Holocaust survivors by 75 million euros ($86 million) in 2019. In March Federal Interior Minister Horst Seehofer said he did not consider Islam to be a part of the country’s culture, and that the country was characterized by Christianity.
    [Show full text]
  • Walking the Talk: 2021 Blueprints for a Human Rights-Centered U.S
    Walking the Talk: 2021 Blueprints for a Human Rights-Centered U.S. Foreign Policy October 2020 Acknowledgments Human Rights First is a nonprofit, nonpartisan human rights advocacy and action organization based in Washington D.C., New York, and Los Angeles. © 2020 Human Rights First. All Rights Reserved. Walking the Talk: 2021 Blueprints for a Human Rights-Centered U.S. Foreign Policy was authored by Human Rights First’s staff and consultants. Senior Vice President for Policy Rob Berschinski served as lead author and editor-in-chief, assisted by Tolan Foreign Policy Legal Fellow Reece Pelley and intern Anna Van Niekerk. Contributing authors include: Eleanor Acer Scott Johnston Trevor Sutton Rob Berschinski David Mizner Raha Wala Cole Blum Reece Pelley Benjamin Haas Rita Siemion Significant assistance was provided by: Chris Anders Steven Feldstein Stephen Pomper Abigail Bellows Becky Gendelman Jennifer Quigley Brittany Benowitz Ryan Kaminski Scott Roehm Jim Bernfield Colleen Kelly Hina Shamsi Heather Brandon-Smith Kate Kizer Annie Shiel Christen Broecker Kennji Kizuka Mandy Smithberger Felice Gaer Dan Mahanty Sophia Swanson Bishop Garrison Kate Martin Yasmine Taeb Clark Gascoigne Jenny McAvoy Bailey Ulbricht Liza Goitein Sharon McBride Anna Van Niekerk Shannon Green Ian Moss Human Rights First challenges the United States of America to live up to its ideals. We believe American leadership is essential in the struggle for human dignity and the rule of law, and so we focus our advocacy on the U.S. government and other key actors able to leverage U.S. influence. When the U.S. government falters in its commitment to promote and protect human rights, we step in to demand reform, accountability, and justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Amazon and Whole Foods Aren't Ruling Grocery Or
    YEAR IN REVIEW retailers to react, which several of impact of [Amazon.com buying them have done. Just look at the Whole Foods Market] has been online businesses of Walmart and overblown." Kroger, the nations top two gro• So far, it has. cery retailers, which are flourish• From a brick-and-mortar ing. They are investing heavily in standpoint, Wiole Foods Mar• online ordering and free grocery ket, with 470 stores, has a lot of pickup as well as home delivery. building to do to catch Walmart, Retailers in general are also which has more than 4,300 using their private brands pro• stores. And brick-and-mortar grams to differentiate. They are stores aren't going anywhere making investments in premium as long as retailers continue to AMAZON AND private brands to offer exclusive adapt to their customers' needs. products they know their cus• That's not to say Whole Foods WHOLE FOODS tomers cant get anywhere else. Market isn't growing. Its same- Last January, private brand store sales have grown about AREN'T RULING consultant Todd Maute, a partner 3 percent since being owned by with New York-based brand Amazon.com, and will continue agency CBX, told Store Brands his to grow. But a year after Amazon, GROCERY OR "gut feeling" is that that Amazon corn's acquisition of Whole Foods doesn't want to rule the grocery Market, it's clearly not the end of PRIVATE BRANDS world But ruling the retail world the grocery world as we know it is another matter. That said, a year isn't a long It has been almost 1.5 years "As Amazon continues to ex- time, especially when it comes since Amazon.com officially took over Whole Foods Market after purchasing the retailer for $137 billion in cash.
    [Show full text]
  • Have Guns Become Weapons of Value Destruction?
    4/23/2018 Have Guns Become Weapons of Value Destruction? Published on Directors and Boards (https://www.directorsandboards.com (https://www.directorsandboards.com)) Home (/) > Printer-friendly (/print) > Printer-friendly (/print/articles) > Printer-friendly > Have Guns Become Weapons of Value Destruction? Large investment firms have leaders at gunmakers, retailers, etc., in their sights. By Jan Alexander “We share the nation’s grief over the in comprehensible and senseless loss of life at Parkland, Florida, and we share the desire to make our com munities safer,” reads a letter that American Outdoor Brands Chairman Barry Monheit and CEO James Debney sent to the Black Rock investment firm’s stewardship team on March 6. The letter makes it clear that American Outdoor Brands, the holding company for Smith & Wesson, supports better enforcement of existing gun safety laws, is not op posed to the development of “smart gun” technology, but is opposed to legislation that would require the use of such technology. The nine page statement was the company’s response to a similarly lengthy message from BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, who announced in early March that BlackRock would initiate a series of discussions with the three publicly traded companies whose primary business is firearms manufacturing: American Outdoor Brands, Vista Outdoor and Sturm, Ruger. BlackRock invests in all three companies through index funds. American Outdoor Brands – the manufacturer of the AR 15 style rifle used to kill 17 students and teachers at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland in February – is the only gunmaker so far to have responded publicly. Whether the comments will satisfy BlackRock remains to be determined, but at their annual meetings between May and September of this year, all three gun companies will face additional shareholder scrutiny over how their products are being used.
    [Show full text]
  • March 12, 2021 Hon. Alejandro Mayorkas Hon. Antony Blinken Secretary Secretary Department of Homeland Security Department Of
    March 12, 2021 Hon. Alejandro Mayorkas Hon. Antony Blinken Secretary Secretary Department of Homeland Security Department of State 301 7th Street, SW 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20528 Washington, DC 20520 CC: Esther Olavarria, Domestic Policy Council Roberta Jacobson, National Security Council Katie Tobin, National Security Council Re: Wind Down of the Migrant Protection Protocols Dear Secretaries Mayorkas and Blinken: Our faith-based, humanitarian, legal services, immigration, and human rights organizations and law school clinics welcome the administration’s initial steps to wind down the illegal and cruel Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). We applaud the humane reception of the more than 1,400 asylum seekers brought to safety in the United States to date, the rapid processing of asylum seekers in the Matamoros tent encampment, and reported discussions to expand MPP processing to additional ports of entry. The recent designation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuela is also a crucial and long overdue measure that will safeguard thousands of refugees from deportation. We write to recommend additional actions by the administration as the process to end MPP continues and to request further engagement and coordination to ensure people seeking refugee protection can find safety in the United States. We urge the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to immediately extend MPP processing to additional ports of entry and U.S. consulates, quickly expand processing to all individuals subjected to MPP, better coordinate with bi-national humanitarian and legal service providers assisting asylum seekers, provide necessary support for border communities welcoming asylum seekers, and address continued issues with the registration process.
    [Show full text]
  • WHS Big Read Politics Books Suggestions
    THE BIG READ 2020 Government and Politics Books Popular titles are offered for those interested in government & politics. The Big Read is a FREE CHOICE assignment. You are not required to read a government and politics book. Se ofrecen títulos populares, incluidos libros en español, para aquellos interesados ​​en el gobierno. The Big Read es una tarea de ELECCIÓN LIBRE. No está obligado a leer un libro de gobierno y política. TITLE/TÍTULO AUTHOR YR GENRE DESCRIPTION/DESCRIPCIÓN The Spy and the Ben Macintyre 2019 Nonfiction; If anyone could be considered a Russian counterpart to the infamous British double-agent Kim Philby, it was Cold War Oleg Gordievsky. The son of two KGB agents and the product of the best Soviet institutions, the savvy, Traitor: The sophisticated Gordievsky grew to see his nation's communism as both criminal and philistine. He took his Greatest Espionage first posting for Russian intelligence in 1968 and eventually became the Soviet Union's top man in London, Story of the Cold but from 1973 on he was secretly working for MI6. For nearly a decade, as the Cold War reached its twilight, Gordievsky helped the West turn the tables on the KGB, eXposing Russian spies and helping to foil War countless intelligence plots, as the Soviet leadership grew increasingly paranoid at the United States's nuclear first-strike capabilities and brought the world closer to the brink of war. Desperate to keep the circle of trust close, MI6 never revealed Gordievsky's name to its counterparts in the CIA, which in turn grew obsessed with figuring out the identity of Britain's obviously top-level source.
    [Show full text]
  • Protection of Space for Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders­—The Case of Israel and Palestine
    Protection of Space for Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders —The Case of Israel and Palestine Protection of Space for Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders The Case of Israel and Palestine Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................. 3 1 | The context ................................................................................................................ 4 2 | About this report ....................................................................................................... 5 3 | New era, new measures? ......................................................................................... 6 4 | CSO “disenabling” measures in evidence ................................................................10 4.1 | In the OPT ........................................................................................................10 4.2 | In Israel ............................................................................................................15 4.3 | Other challenges faced by civil society in Israel and the OPT ........................19 5 | Recommended actions .............................................................................................20 ACTIONS FOR EU, MEMBER STATES AND OTHER STATE ACTORS ................................20 ACTIONS FOR ACT ALLIANCE MEMBERS/INTERNATIONAL NGOS ..............................21 6 | References .................................................................................................................23
    [Show full text]
  • Living Through Nigeria's Six-Year
    “When We Can’t See the Enemy, Civilians Become the Enemy” Living Through Nigeria’s Six-Year Insurgency About the Report This report explores the experiences of civilians and armed actors living through the conflict in northeastern Nigeria. The ultimate goal is to better understand the gaps in protection from all sides, how civilians perceive security actors, and what communities expect from those who are supposed to protect them from harm. With this understanding, we analyze the structural impediments to protecting civilians, and propose practical—and locally informed—solutions to improve civilian protection and response to the harm caused by all armed actors in this conflict. About Center for Civilians in Conflict Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) works to improve protection for civil- ians caught in conflicts around the world. We call on and advise international organizations, governments, militaries, and armed non-state actors to adopt and implement policies to prevent civilian harm. When civilians are harmed we advocate the provision of amends and post-harm assistance. We bring the voices of civilians themselves to those making decisions affecting their lives. The organization was founded as Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict in 2003 by Marla Ruzicka, a courageous humanitarian killed by a suicide bomber in 2005 while advocating for Iraqi families. T +1 202 558 6958 E [email protected] www.civiliansinconflict.org © 2015 Center for Civilians in Conflict “When We Can’t See the Enemy, Civilians Become the Enemy” Living Through Nigeria’s Six-Year Insurgency This report was authored by Kyle Dietrich, Senior Program Manager for Africa and Peacekeeping at CIVIC.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Shell.Reviews@Ceaa‐Acee.Gc.Ca
    Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Shell.Reviews@ceaa‐acee.gc.ca October 1, 2012 Dear Joint Review Panel Secretariat, Re: Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion We are submitting this as a request to present evidence to the Joint Review Panel hearings. This letter documents our serious concerns regarding the proposed project. One of us (Anna Zalik) was born in Alberta, lived and worked in Edmonton through her late 20s and received her first degree from the University of Alberta. The other (Isaac ‘Asume’ Osuoka) was born in Nigeria’s Niger Delta where he later devoted most of his adult life to working with communities impacted by the oil industry. This letter is informed by our individual experiences and academic research on oil industry socio‐ecological practices since 1997 (Osuoka) and 2001 (Zalik) respectively, and collaborative research since 2008. From 2000 to the present Zalik conducted extensive field work in oil‐producing regions of Nigeria and Mexico. From 2005 onward she initiated research on the sociology of the oil and gas industry in the US and in Canada from onward, with field research visits conducted in Northern Alberta and British Columbia since 2008. This work has included interviews with community members, government agencies, NGOs and industry representatives. Both of us have presented research in various international fora. With regard to precedents set through previous Shell Jackpine EIA processes, several of which are now in the JRP public materials and analysed by the Pembina Institute and Ecojustice, Shell did not fulfill its earlier commitment to the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition (OSEC)1 to mitigate CO2 emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • The BBC's Response to the Jimmy Savile Case
    House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee The BBC’s response to the Jimmy Savile case Oral and written evidence 23 October 2012 George Entwistle, Director-General, and David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, BBC 27 November 2012 Lord Patten, Chairman, BBC Trust, and Tim Davie, Acting Director-General, BBC Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 23 October and 27 November 2012 HC 649-i and -ii Published on 26 February 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £10.50 The Culture, Media and Sport Committee The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies. Current membership Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon) (Chair) Mr Ben Bradshaw MP (Labour, Exeter) Angie Bray MP (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Conor Burns MP (Conservative, Bournemouth West) Tracey Crouch MP (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford) Philip Davies MP (Conservative, Shipley) Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Mr John Leech MP (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington) Steve Rotheram MP (Labour, Liverpool, Walton) Jim Sheridan MP (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North) Mr Gerry Sutcliffe MP (Labour, Bradford South) The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament. David Cairns MP (Labour, Inverclyde) Dr Thérèse Coffey MP (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal) Damian Collins MP (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe) Alan Keen MP (Labour Co-operative, Feltham and Heston) Louise Mensch MP (Conservative, Corby) Mr Adrian Sanders MP (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) Mr Tom Watson MP (Labour, West Bromwich East) 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.
    [Show full text]