DOCSLIB.ORG

Recall of Mps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recall of Mps House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Recall of MPs First Report of Session 2012–13 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 June 2012 HC 373 [incorporating HC 1758-i-iv, Session 2010-12] Published on 28 June 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider political and constitutional reform. Current membership Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham North) (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) Andrew Griffiths MP (Conservative, Burton) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour, Leeds North East) Simon Hart MP (Conservative, Camarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) Tristram Hunt MP (Labour, Stoke on Trent Central) Mrs Eleanor Laing MP (Conservative, Epping Forest) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West) Powers The Committee’s powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in Temporary Standing Order (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee). These are available on the Internet via http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmstords.htm. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/pcrc. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Joanna Dodd (Clerk), Hannah Stewart, Helen Kinghorn (Legal Specialists), Lorna Horton (Inquiry Manager), Louise Glen (Senior Committee Assistant), Jim Lawford (Committee Assistant) and Jessica Bridges-Palmer (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6287; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. Recall of MPs 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 Overview of the Government’s proposals 5 International comparisons 6 2 The “triggers” for recall 9 Custodial sentence of 12 months or less 9 A resolution of the House of Commons 10 The role of MPs in the process 11 What is serious wrongdoing? 12 3 Conduct of the recall petition 16 Single designated location 16 Postal voting 17 Secrecy and intimidation 18 Northern Ireland 19 Signatures 20 Wording of petition 20 Henry VIII powers 21 Campaigning 21 The 10% threshold for signatures 22 4 The rationale for introducing recall 23 Increasing public confidence in the political process 23 How participatory are the proposals? 24 How often would recall be used? 24 What impact would the proposals have on the political landscape? 25 What are the alternatives? 26 Full Recall 26 The existing disciplinary powers of the House of Commons 28 Conclusions and recommendations 30 Appendix 1: YouGov polling results on recall 33 Formal Minutes 37 Witnesses 38 List of printed written evidence 38 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 39 Recall of MPs 3 Summary The Government has published a White Paper and draft Bill on the Recall of MPs, with the aim of restoring faith in the political process after the expenses scandal. We are not convinced that the proposals will increase public confidence in politics. Indeed, we fear that the restricted form of recall proposed could even reduce confidence by creating expectations that are not fulfilled. Under the Government’s proposals, constituents themselves would not be able to initiate a recall petition. The circumstances that the Government proposes would trigger a recall petition—if an MP received a custodial sentence of 12 months or less, or if the House of Commons resolved that there should be a recall petition following a case of “serious wrongdoing”—are so narrow that recall petitions would seldom, if ever, take place. Moreover, time has shown that the existing democratic and legal processes worked in removing the MPs who were shown to have been guilty of serious wrongdoing during the expenses scandal. In addition, we do not believe that there is a gap in the existing disciplinary procedures of the House of Commons which needs to be filled by the introduction of recall. The new House of Commons Committee on Standards, which will include lay members, already has the sanctions it needs to deal with MPs who are guilty of misconduct, including recommending the ultimate sanction of expulsion in cases of serious wrongdoing. The Committee must actively consider this option, and if it does make this recommendation, the House must be prepared to act. Given that the House has confirmed the recommendations of the Standards and Privileges Committee in the past, we are confident that it will continue to do so. We recommend that the Government abandon its plans to introduce a power of recall and use the parliamentary time this would free up to better effect. However, we recognise that the Government may be unwilling to discard a pledge made in the Coalition Agreement. We have therefore made some specific recommendations for improving the recall process if the Government decides to proceed with its proposals. In particular, we recommend that the Government replace the requirement for a single designated location for signing the recall petition with a requirement for multiple locations, to make signing the petition in person as convenient as possible for everyone in the constituency. We further recommend that people who have an existing postal vote should automatically be sent a postal signature sheet in the event of a recall petition. We urge the Government to ensure that constituents in Northern Ireland have the same options for signing a recall petition as constituents elsewhere in the UK, rather than being restricted to signing by post. Finally, although we understand why the Government has avoided defining “serious wrongdoing” in the draft Bill, we consider that there is a need for an indication of what constitutes such behaviour. We suggest that wrongdoing in the context of recall constitutes a breach of the code of conduct for MPs, while serious implies a breach of sufficient gravity that it would merit more than a period of suspension. Recall of MPs 5 1 Introduction 1. Recall describes a mechanism designed to allow the removal of elected representatives following a special election that takes place between scheduled elections. All three of the main political parties in the UK promised in their manifestos for the 2010 general election to introduce some form of recall for Members of Parliament.1 The Coalition: our programme for government, published by the incoming Government in May 2010, included the following commitment: We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.2 2. The Government published a White Paper and draft Bill on Recall of MPs on 13 December 2011. On 15 December, we agreed to undertake the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and published a call for evidence. Our witnesses included academic experts, campaign groups, MPs, House of Commons officials, a representative of the electoral administrators who would be required to implement the proposals, and Ministers. We are grateful, as ever, to all who contributed to our inquiry. We are also grateful to YouGov who undertook a survey about recall on a pro bono basis. 3. This report scrutinises the detail of the Government’s proposals, examines the Government’s rationale for introducing recall, and asks whether its proposals are necessary and likely to achieve their intended benefits. Overview of the Government’s proposals 4. The Government proposes that constituents would be able to sign a petition to recall their MP in one of two situations: a) if the MP were convicted in the UK and received a custodial sentence of 12 months or less (MPs who receive custodial sentences of more than 12 months are already disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1981); or, b) if the House of Commons resolved that the MP should face recall. 5. Once one of these two conditions had been met, the Speaker would give notice to the relevant returning officer that a petition should be opened. In the case of an MP subject to a custodial sentence, a petition would be initiated only once his or her right to appeal had been exhausted. Constituents would be able to sign the petition for eight weeks, either by post or at a single designated location in the constituency. If at least 10% of eligible voters on the electoral register for the constituency signed the petition, the MP’s seat would 1 Conservative Party manifesto- Invitation to join the Government of Britain, 2010, pp 65-6; Liberal Democrat Party manifesto, 2010, p 89; Labour Party manifesto, 2010, p 9:2. 2 The Coalition: our programme for government, May 2010, p 27 6 Recall of MPs automatically be vacated and a by-election would ensue, in which the recalled MP would be eligible to stand. International comparisons 6. The Government states that it has “drawn on the experiences of other countries” but proposes a new model of recall “which is suitable for our system of representative democracy” and will “work within our unique constitutional framework.”3 It is worthwhile, therefore, briefly to consider the international context, before discussing the detail of the Government’s proposals.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'Opposition-Craft': an Evaluative Framework for Official Opposition Parties in the United Kingdom Edward Henry Lack Submitte
    ‘Opposition-Craft’: An Evaluative Framework for Official Opposition Parties in the United Kingdom Edward Henry Lack Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of PhD The University of Leeds, School of Politics and International Studies May, 2020 1 Intellectual Property and Publications Statements The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. ©2020 The University of Leeds and Edward Henry Lack The right of Edward Henry Lack to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 2 Acknowledgements Page I would like to thank Dr Victoria Honeyman and Dr Timothy Heppell of the School of Politics and International Studies, The University of Leeds, for their support and guidance in the production of this work. I would also like to thank my partner, Dr Ben Ramm and my parents, David and Linden Lack, for their encouragement and belief in my efforts to undertake this project. Finally, I would like to acknowledge those who took part in the research for this PhD thesis: Lord David Steel, Lord David Owen, Lord Chris Smith, Lord Andrew Adonis, Lord David Blunkett and Dame Caroline Spelman. 3 Abstract This thesis offers a distinctive and innovative framework for the study of effective official opposition politics in the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • The Journal of William Morris Studies
    The Journal of William Morris Studies volume xx, number 4, summer 2014 Editorial – Pearls for the ancestors Patrick O’Sullivan 3 William Morris’s unpublished Arthurian translations, Roger Simpson 7 William Morris’s paternal ancestry Dorothy Coles†, revised Barbara Lawrence 19 The ancestry of William Morris: the Worcester connection David Everett 34 Jane Morris and her male correspondents Peter Faulkner 60 ‘A clear Xame-like spirit’: Georgiana Burne-Jones and Rottingdean, 1904-1920 Stephen Williams 79 Reviews. Edited by Peter Faulkner Linda Parry, William Morris Textiles (Lynn Hulse) 91 Mike and Kate Lea, eds, W.G Collingwood’s Letters from Iceland: Travels in Iceland 1897 (John Purkis) 95 Gary Sargeant, Friends and InXuences: The Memoirs of an Artist (John Purkis) 98 the journal of william morris studies . summer 2014 Barrie and Wendy Armstrong, The Arts and Crafts Movement in the North East of England (Martin Haggerty) 100 Barrie and Wendy Armstrong, The Arts and Crafts Movement in Yorkshire (Ian Jones) 103 Annette Carruthers, The Arts and Crafts Movement in Scotland. A History (Peter Faulkner) 106 Laura Euler, Arts and Crafts Embroidery (Linda Parry) 110 Clive Bloom, Victoria’s Madmen. Revolution and Alienation (Peter Faulkner) 111 Hermione Lee, Penelope Fitzgerald: A Life (Christine Poulsom) 114 Carl Levy, ed, Colin Ward. Life,Times and Thought (Peter Faulkner) 117 Rosalind Williams, The Triumph of the Human Empire. Verne, Morris and Stevenson at the end of the world (Patrick O’Sullivan) 120 Guidelines for Contributors 124 Notes on Contributors 126 ISSN: 1756-1353 Editor: Patrick O’Sullivan ([email protected]) Reviews Editor: Peter Faulkner ([email protected]) Designed by David Gorman ([email protected]) Printed by the Short Run Press, Exeter, UK (http://www.shortrunpress.co.uk/) All material printed (except where otherwise stated) copyright the William Mor- ris Society.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of STIRLING Kenneth Pardey the WELFARE of the VISUALLY HANDICAPPED in the UNITED KINGDOM
    UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING Kenneth Pardey THE WELFARE OF THE VISUALLY HANDICAPPED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 'Submitted for the degree of Ph.D. December 1986 II CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements III Abstract v 1. Introduction: The history of the welfare of the visually handicapped in the United Kingdom 1 2. Demographic studies of the visually handicapped 161 3. The Royal National Institute for the Blind 189 4. The history and the contribution of braille, moon and talking books 5. St Dunstan's for the war blinded: A history and a critique ,9, 6. Organisations of the visually handicapped 470 7. Social service-a and rehabilitation 520 8. The elderly person with failing vision 610 9. The education of the visually handicapped 691 10. Employment and disability 748 11. Disability and inco1;-~e 825 Bibliography 870 III Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people who either agreed to be interviewed or helped me to find some useful sources of information: Colin Low, Martin Milligan, Fred Reid, Hans Cohn, Jim Hughes, Janet Lovall, Jill Dean, Joan Hughes, Doreen Chaney and Elaine Bootman of the National Federation of the Blind; Michael Barrett, Tom Parker, Chris Hynes, Pat O'Grady, Frank Mytton, L. J. Isaac, George Slaughter, J. Nor mile and R. 0. Rayner of the National League of the Blind and Disabled; Donald Bell, Tony Aston, George T. Willson, B. T. Gifford, Neville Lawson and Penelope Shore of the Royal National Institute for the Blind; Timothy Cullinan of the Department of Environmental and Preventive Medicine of the Medical College of St
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • Carter Networks Use British Courts Against Callaghan
    Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 4, Number 6, February 8, 1977 Equal Employee Representation: The Key To Industrial Expansion The following are extracts from the Minority Report of ments to any form of board representation. the Bullock Committee. which were prepared by Mr. N. Our recommendation, subject to the creation or P. Biggs. Sir Jack Callard and Mr. Barrie Heath. The existence of a suitable substructure, is that if there is to Minority Report. in contrast with the Majority view of be employee representation at board level, it should be the Bullock Committee. calls for worker representation on supervisory boards. on supervisory boards. based on the West German We propose that a supervisory board, where adopted, model. which would leave the existing board structure in should consist of: one-third elected by employees; one­ British industry virtually intact. Further. the report en­ third elected by the shareholders; one-third independent visages the formation of such supervisory boards. to members. Included in the one third employee elected re­ ha ve no formal links with the trade union apparatus. only presentatives should be at least one member from the following a number of years experience with work coun­ shop floor payroll, one from the salaried staff employees, cils within each company. and one from management. If a supervisory board is to serve a useful purpose. it We present this minority report in the confidence that should not be a watchdog without teeth. It should exer­ our views will have the support of large sections of the in­ cise general supervision over the conduct of the compa­ dustrial community.
    [Show full text]
  • How Will the Coalition End? Cameron and Clegg May Look to the Precedent Set by the 1945 Caretaker Government
    How will the coalition end? Cameron and Clegg may look to the precedent set by the 1945 caretaker government blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-will-it-end-the-precedent-for-a-caretaker-government-at-the-end-of-the- coalition/ 5/8/2013 Alun Wyburn-Powell provides a historical account of the 1945 caretaker government and argues that it provides a useful model for thinking about when the current coalition might end. Whilst obviously very different situations, there is good logic in parting some months prior to the start of the 2015 campaign for both the LibDems and Tories. It would allow a bit more freedom for the parties to maneuver and might neutralize Labour’s attempt to attack the coalition. Nick Clegg and David Cameron’s press conference in the Rose Garden at 10 Downing Street was the image which characterised the start of the current coalition in May 2010. At that time many people believed that the government was unlikely to last the full parliamentary term. Now, past the halfway mark, most think that it probably will. History is on the side of the coalition surviving to the end. The Lloyd George coalition lasted for six years, in war and peace, from 1916 to 1922. The National Government lasted nine years from 1931 to 1940 and the most recent example, Churchill’s all-party Second World War coalition, lasted five years from 1940 to 1945. Assuming that it does last, how could the current coalition be brought to a neat conclusion, so that the parties do not end up fighting each other in an election campaign, while still in government together? The example of the Caretaker Government at the end of the last coalition in 1945 offers a precedent.
    [Show full text]
  • A Breach in the Family
    The Lloyd Georges J Graham Jones examines the defections, in the 1950s, of the children of David Lloyd George: Megan to Labour, and her brother Gwilym to the Conservatives. AA breachbreach inin thethe familyfamily G. thinks that Gwilym will go to the right and she became a cogent exponent of her father’s ‘LMegan to the left, eventually. He wants his dramatic ‘New Deal’ proposals to deal with unem- money spent on the left.’ Thus did Lloyd George’s ployment and related social problems. Although op- trusted principal private secretary A. J. Sylvester posed by a strong local Labour candidate in the per- write in his diary entry for April when dis- son of Holyhead County Councillor Henry Jones in cussing his employer’s heartfelt concern over the fu- the general election of , she secured the votes of ture of his infamous Fund. It was a highly prophetic large numbers of Labour sympathisers on the island. comment. The old man evidently knew his children. In , she urged Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to welcome the Jarrow marchers, and she battled he- Megan roically (although ultimately in vain) to gain Special Megan Lloyd George had first entered Parliament at Assisted Area Status for Anglesey. Megan’s innate only twenty-seven years of age as the Liberal MP for radicalism and natural independence of outlook Anglesey in the We Can Conquer Unemployment gen- grew during the years of the Second World War, eral election of May , the first women mem- which she saw as a vehicle of social change, espe- ber ever to be elected in Wales.
    [Show full text]
  • Speakers of the House of Commons
    Parliamentary Information List BRIEFING PAPER 04637a 21 August 2015 Speakers of the House of Commons Speaker Date Constituency Notes Peter de Montfort 1258 − William Trussell 1327 − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Styled 'Procurator' Henry Beaumont 1332 (Mar) − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Sir Geoffrey Le Scrope 1332 (Sep) − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Probably Chief Justice. William Trussell 1340 − William Trussell 1343 − Appeared for the Commons alone. William de Thorpe 1347-1348 − Probably Chief Justice. Baron of the Exchequer, 1352. William de Shareshull 1351-1352 − Probably Chief Justice. Sir Henry Green 1361-1363¹ − Doubtful if he acted as Speaker. All of the above were Presiding Officers rather than Speakers Sir Peter de la Mare 1376 − Sir Thomas Hungerford 1377 (Jan-Mar) Wiltshire The first to be designated Speaker. Sir Peter de la Mare 1377 (Oct-Nov) Herefordshire Sir James Pickering 1378 (Oct-Nov) Westmorland Sir John Guildesborough 1380 Essex Sir Richard Waldegrave 1381-1382 Suffolk Sir James Pickering 1383-1390 Yorkshire During these years the records are defective and this Speaker's service might not have been unbroken. Sir John Bussy 1394-1398 Lincolnshire Beheaded 1399 Sir John Cheyne 1399 (Oct) Gloucestershire Resigned after only two days in office. John Dorewood 1399 (Oct-Nov) Essex Possibly the first lawyer to become Speaker. Sir Arnold Savage 1401(Jan-Mar) Kent Sir Henry Redford 1402 (Oct-Nov) Lincolnshire Sir Arnold Savage 1404 (Jan-Apr) Kent Sir William Sturmy 1404 (Oct-Nov) Devonshire Or Esturmy Sir John Tiptoft 1406 Huntingdonshire Created Baron Tiptoft, 1426.
    [Show full text]
  • Arguing for the Death Penalty: Making the Retentionist Case in Britain, 1945-1979
    Arguing for the Death Penalty: Making the Retentionist Case in Britain, 1945-1979 Thomas James Wright MA University of York Department of History September 2010 Abstract There is a small body of historiography that analyses the abolition of capital punishment in Britain. There has been no detailed study of those who opposed abolition and no history of the entire post-war abolition process from the Criminal Justice Act 1948 to permanent abolition in 1969. This thesis aims to fill this gap by establishing the role and impact of the retentionists during the abolition process between the years 1945 and 1979. This thesis is structured around the main relevant Acts, Bills, amendments and reports and looks briefly into the retentionist campaign after abolition became permanent in December 1969. The only historians to have written in any detail on abolition are Victor Bailey and Mark Jarvis, who have published on the years 1945 to 1951 and 1957 to 1964 respectively. The subject was discussed in some detail in the early 1960s by the American political scientists James Christoph and Elizabeth Tuttle. Through its discussion of capital punishment this thesis develops the themes of civilisation and the permissive society, which were important to the abolition discourse. Abolition was a process that was controlled by the House of Commons. The general public had a negligible impact on the decisions made by MPs during the debates on the subject. For this reason this thesis priorities Parliamentary politics over popular action. This marks a break from the methodology of the new political histories that study „low‟ and „high‟ politics in the same depth.
    [Show full text]
  • FDN-274688 Disclosure
    FDN-274688 Disclosure MP Total Adam Afriyie 5 Adam Holloway 4 Adrian Bailey 7 Alan Campbell 3 Alan Duncan 2 Alan Haselhurst 5 Alan Johnson 5 Alan Meale 2 Alan Whitehead 1 Alasdair McDonnell 1 Albert Owen 5 Alberto Costa 7 Alec Shelbrooke 3 Alex Chalk 6 Alex Cunningham 1 Alex Salmond 2 Alison McGovern 2 Alison Thewliss 1 Alistair Burt 6 Alistair Carmichael 1 Alok Sharma 4 Alun Cairns 3 Amanda Solloway 1 Amber Rudd 10 Andrea Jenkyns 9 Andrea Leadsom 3 Andrew Bingham 6 Andrew Bridgen 1 Andrew Griffiths 4 Andrew Gwynne 2 Andrew Jones 1 Andrew Mitchell 9 Andrew Murrison 4 Andrew Percy 4 Andrew Rosindell 4 Andrew Selous 10 Andrew Smith 5 Andrew Stephenson 4 Andrew Turner 3 Andrew Tyrie 8 Andy Burnham 1 Andy McDonald 2 Andy Slaughter 8 FDN-274688 Disclosure Angela Crawley 3 Angela Eagle 3 Angela Rayner 7 Angela Smith 3 Angela Watkinson 1 Angus MacNeil 1 Ann Clwyd 3 Ann Coffey 5 Anna Soubry 1 Anna Turley 6 Anne Main 4 Anne McLaughlin 3 Anne Milton 4 Anne-Marie Morris 1 Anne-Marie Trevelyan 3 Antoinette Sandbach 1 Barry Gardiner 9 Barry Sheerman 3 Ben Bradshaw 6 Ben Gummer 3 Ben Howlett 2 Ben Wallace 8 Bernard Jenkin 45 Bill Wiggin 4 Bob Blackman 3 Bob Stewart 4 Boris Johnson 5 Brandon Lewis 1 Brendan O'Hara 5 Bridget Phillipson 2 Byron Davies 1 Callum McCaig 6 Calum Kerr 3 Carol Monaghan 6 Caroline Ansell 4 Caroline Dinenage 4 Caroline Flint 2 Caroline Johnson 4 Caroline Lucas 7 Caroline Nokes 2 Caroline Spelman 3 Carolyn Harris 3 Cat Smith 4 Catherine McKinnell 1 FDN-274688 Disclosure Catherine West 7 Charles Walker 8 Charlie Elphicke 7 Charlotte
    [Show full text]
  • Welsh Disestablishment: 'A Blessing in Disguise'
    Welsh disestablishment: ‘A blessing in disguise’. David W. Jones The history of the protracted campaign to achieve Welsh disestablishment was to be characterised by a litany of broken pledges and frustrated attempts. It was also an exemplar of the ‘democratic deficit’ which has haunted Welsh politics. As Sir Henry Lewis1 declared in 1914: ‘The demand for disestablishment is a symptom of the times. It is the democracy that asks for it, not the Nonconformists. The demand is national, not denominational’.2 The Welsh Church Act in 1914 represented the outcome of the final, desperate scramble to cross the legislative line, oozing political compromise and equivocation in its wake. Even then, it would not have taken place without the fortuitous occurrence of constitutional change created by the Parliament Act 1911. This removed the obstacle of veto by the House of Lords, but still allowed for statutory delay. Lord Rosebery, the prime minister, had warned a Liberal meeting in Cardiff in 1895 that the Welsh demand for disestablishment faced a harsh democratic reality, in that: ‘it is hard for the representatives of the other 37 millions of population which are comprised in the United Kingdom to give first and the foremost place to a measure which affects only a million and a half’.3 But in case his audience were insufficiently disheartened by his homily, he added that there was: ‘another and more permanent barrier which opposes itself to your wishes in respect to Welsh Disestablishment’, being the intransigence of the House of Lords.4 The legislative delay which the Lords could invoke meant that the Welsh Church Bill was introduced to parliament on 23 April 1912, but it was not to be enacted until 18 September 1914.
    [Show full text]
  • Proquest Dissertations
    British Policy Towards Russian Refugees in the Aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution Elina Hannele Multanen Ph.D. Thesis The School of Slavonic and East European Studies University College London University of London ProQuest Number: U120850 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest U120850 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT This thesis examines British government policy towards Russian refugees in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Civil War in Russia. As a consequence of these two events, approximately one million Russians opposing the Bolshevik rule escaped from Russia. The Russian refugee problem was one of the major political and humanitarian problems of inter-war Europe, affecting both individual countries of refuge, as well as the international community as a whole. The League of Nations had been formed in 1919 in order to promote international peace and security. The huge numbers of refugees from the former Russian Empire, on the other hand, were seen as a threat to the intemational stability. Consequently, the member states of the League for the first time recognised the need for intemational co-operative efforts to assist refugees, and the post of High Commissioner for Russian Refugees was established under the auspices of the League.
    [Show full text]