DOCSLIB.ORG

Part 3 of the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act (CRA)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Barents Sea Norwegian Sea Atlantic Ocean Baltic Sea North Sea Bay of Biscay NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEM ASSESSMENT UNITED KINGDOM Black Sea CORRUPTION IN THE UK: PART THREE Mediterranean Sea www.transparency.org.uk 0 210 420 Miles 0 210 420 KM Transparency International (TI) is the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption. Through more than 90 chapters worldwide and an international secretariat in Berlin, TI raises awareness of the damaging effects of corruption and works with partners in government, business and civil society to develop and implement effective measures to tackle it Transparency International UK (TI-UK) is the UK chapter of TI. We raise awareness about corruption; advocate legal and regulatory reform at national and international levels; design practical tools for institutions, individuals and companies wishing to combat corruption; and act as a leading centre of anti-corruption expertise in the UK. Publisher: Transparency International UK Lead Researcher: Prof. Michael Macaulay, Teesside University Authors: Prof. Michael Macaulay, Teesside University (Chapters 2, 4, 5, 6 – 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.12 – 7) Dr Gary Hickey, Teesside University (Chapters 3, 6 – 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.10, 6.11) Research review: Suzanne Mulcahy, Transparency International Secretariat Project Coordinators: Robert Barrington, Transparency International UK Paul Zoubkov, Transparency International Secretariat First published June 2011 This publication is a product of the European National Integrity Systems project. The National Integrity Systems assessment tool has been developed and coordinated by Transparency International. Reproduction in whole or in parts is permitted, providing that full credit is given to Transparency International and provided that any such reproduction, whether in whole or in parts, is not sold unless incorporated in other works. ISBN 978-0-9566194-3-3 © 2011 Transparency International UK. All rights reserved. Disclaimer Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of May 2011. Nevertheless, Transparency International UK cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of its use for other purposes or in other contexts. Policy recommendations reflect Transparency International UK’s opinion. They should not be taken to represent the views of those quoted or interviewed unless specifically stated. This project has been funded with support from Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme European Commission - Directorate-General Home Affairs. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Prevention of and Fight Against Crime. With financial support from the Prevention of and Fight Against Crime Programme. European Commission - Directorate-General Home Affairs CONTENTS 1. ABOUT THE NIS ASSESSMENT 1 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 3. COUNTRY PROFILE 9 4. CORRUPTION PROFILE 14 5. ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTIVITY 18 6. NIS PILLARS 21 6.1 Legislature 21 6.2 Executive 35 6.3 Judiciary 44 6.4 Public sector 51 6.5 Law enforcement 61 6.6 Electoral management body 69 6.7 Ombudsman 76 6.8 Supreme audit institution 84 6.9 Political parties 92 6.10 Media 100 6.11 Civil society 110 6.12 Business sector 117 7. CONCLUSION 127 128 ANNEX 1: Summary tables of NIS pillars 134 ANNEX 2: Differences in judiicial structure Acknowledgements We would like to thank all those who contributed to this report, and in particular: those who were interviewed by the research team, some of whom have asked to remain anonymous; the Research Advisory Group, whose insights and support were invaluable; independent reviewer Rob Gallagher; our colleagues in other TI national chapters within Europe, who have shared their experiences of NIS research and project management; and our colleagues at the TI Secretariat for assistance in the project design and methodology. Research Advisory Group: Chandrashekhar Krishnan (Chair) Prof. Indira Carr Derek Elliot Prof. John Hatchard Prof. Michael Levi Colin Nicholls, QC Halina Ward Very Revd. Justin Welby Interviewees1: Alan Doig, Visiting Professor, Liverpool John Moores University Peter Facey, Unlock Democracy Gillian Fawcett, Head of Public Sector, Association of Chartered Certified Accountants William Gore, Public Affairs Director, Press Complaints Commission Sir Christopher Kelly, Chair, Committee on Standards in Public Life Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman Sir Nicholas Monck, Better Governance Initiative Christopher Newman, Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law, University of Sunderland John Peters, Senior Lecturer in Business Law, Teesside University Lord Chief Justice Malcolm Pill, Lord Justice of Appeal 1. Interviewees who asked to remain anonymous have not been named; their current or former positions are: senior officer in Confederation of British Industry (CBI); Charity Commissioner; senior police officer; senior law enforcement official. 1 1. ABOUT THE NIS ASSESSMENT A series of high profile corruption cases in the private and public sectors has laid bare the urgent need to confront corruption in Europe. Corruption undermines good governance, the rule of law and fundamental human rights. It leads to the misuse of resources, cheats citizens, harms the private sector and distorts financial markets. Seventy-eight per cent of Europeans surveyed for the EU Commission’s 2009 Eurobarometer believed that corruption was a major problem for their country. This report is part of a pan-European anti-corruption initiative, supported by the DG Home Affairs of the European Commission. The initiative looks to assess systematically the National Integrity Systems of 25 European States, and to advocate for sustainable and effective reform, as appropriate, in different countries. The National Integrity System (NIS) assessment approach used in this report provides a framework to analyse the effectiveness of a country’s institutions in preventing and fighting corruption. The assessment has a strong consultative component involving the key anti-corruption actors in government, civil society, the business community and other relevant sectors with a view to building momentum, political will and civic demand for relevant reform initiatives. The NIS concept has been developed and promoted by Transparency International as part of its holistic approach to countering corruption. A well-functioning NIS provides effective safeguards A well- against corruption as part of the larger struggle against abuse of power, malfeasance, and functioning misappropriation in all its forms. However, when these institutions are characterised by a lack of appropriate regulations and by unaccountable behaviour, corruption is likely to thrive with negative NIS provides knock-on effects on the goals of equitable growth, sustainable development and social cohesion. effective Strengthening the NIS promotes better governance across all aspects of society, and, ultimately, contributes to a more just society overall. safeguards The UK NIS country report offers an evaluation of the principal institutions of governance against responsible for enhancing integrity and combating corruption in the UK. These governance corruption institutions are generally considered to be comprised of a minimum of 12 “pillars”: as part of Legislature Executive Judiciary the larger Public Sector Electoral Management Body Ombudsman struggle Law Enforcement Audit Institution Political Parties against Media Civil Society Business abuse of power, malfeasance, and misapprop- riation in all its forms 2 A thirteenth potential pillar, Anti-Corruption Agency, has not been chosen for research in this report. The assessment examines both the formal legal framework of each pillar, as well as the actual institutional practice, thereby highlighting discrepancies between the formal provisions and reality on the ground. Each pillar is assessed via a set of indicators which measure the following features: Capacity Governance Role within the governance system Resources Transparency Pillar-specific indicators Independence Accountability Integrity Mechanisms In order to take account of important contextual factors, the evaluation of the governance institutions is embedded in a concise analysis of the overall political, social, economic and cultural conditions in which these governance institutions operate. In addition, the assessment is based on a holistic approach to preventing corruption, since it looks at the entire range of relevant institutions and also focuses on the relationships among them. The research methodology uses a two-step approach. In a first step, qualitative information from legal documents, key informant interviews and secondary data sources is collected by a lead researcher in-country and structured along the set of indicators for each pillar. Based on the collected qualitative evidence, the second step consists of scoring these indicators on a five-point scale, in order to provide a quantitative summary assessment of the presented data. The scale applied includes five possible values – 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100. The score for each of the three dimensions (capacity, governance and role) is a simple average of the indicator scores under that dimension. The overall pillar score is attained by calculating a mean average of the three dimension scores2. The final scores for each of the pillars and their constituent dimensions are assigned labels
Recommended publications
  • Global Security: Non–Proliferation

    Global Security: Non–Proliferation

    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Global Security: Non–Proliferation Fourth Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 3 June 2009 HC 222 [Incorporating HC 1176-i,ii,iii, Session 2007–08] Published on 14 June 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South), Chairman Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife) Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour, Leeds North East) Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells) Mr John Horam (Conservative, Orpington) Mr Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford) Andrew Mackinlay (Labour, Thurrock) Mr Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire) Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mr Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn) Mr Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston) 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. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee.cfm.
  • Windfall Tax Campaign Toolkit ‘A Windfall for Social and Environmental Justice’

    Windfall Tax Campaign Toolkit ‘A Windfall for Social and Environmental Justice’

    cDIREoCTIONmFOR THE pass DEMOCRATIC LEFT February 2009 Windfall Tax Campaign Toolkit ‘A windfall for social and environmental justice’ By Gemma Tumelty & Jenna Khalfan Windfall Tax Campaign Toolkit Introduction & Contents Rising energy and fuel prices are affecting everyone but it's the poorest and those on fixed incomes who are paying the heaviest price for the essentials of life - light and heat. This situation is unsustainable and should be challenged. Compass believes that the moment is right for the government to levy a sensible one off windfall tax on the energy and oil companies to guarantee social and environmental justice for the common good of people living today and for future generations. The government can move quickly and decisively now - but it needs to know that this is what the people want. We have developed a toolkit to help you campaign locally and nationally to have your say in this important debate. Contents 1. Briefing questions and answers 2. Key statistics 3. Campaign aims and actions 4. What you can do locally a. Get local Labour Party, Students’ Union and trade union support b. How to Lobby your MP c. Local media d. energy companies 5. Building a local coalition: pensioners groups, anti-poverty groups, church groups, fuel poverty groups, single parent networks etc Appendix 1. Who supports a windfall tax 2. Model letter to MPs 3. Model letter to the Chancellor Windfall Tax Campaign Toolkit www.compassonline.org.uk PAGE 1 1. Briefing questions agreed to raise this to a £150 million a be particularly targeted at families in or and answers year by 2010, with the rate of price rises facing fuel poverty.
  • Environmental Crime: Wildlife Crime

    Environmental Crime: Wildlife Crime

    House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Environmental Crime: Wildlife Crime Twelfth Report of Session 2003–04 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed Wednesday 15 September 2004 HC 605 Published on Thursday 7 October 2004 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £22.00 The Environmental Audit Committee The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House. Current membership Mr Peter Ainsworth MP (Conservative, East Surrey) (Chairman) Mr Gregory Barker MP (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle) Mr Harold Best MP (Labour, Leeds North West) Mr Colin Challen MP (Labour, Morley and Rothwell) Mr David Chaytor MP (Labour, Bury North) Mrs Helen Clark MP (Labour, Peterborough) Sue Doughty MP (Liberal Democrat, Guildford) Mr Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Mr Mark Francois MP (Conservative, Rayleigh) Mr John Horam MP (Conservative, Orpington) Mr John McWilliam MP (Labour, Blaydon) Mr Elliot Morley MP (Labour, Scunthorpe) Mr Malcolm Savidge MP (Labour, Aberdeen North) Mr Simon Thomas MP (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion) Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) David Wright MP (Labour, Telford) Powers The constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally Standing Order No. 152A. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
  • Final Edit Version Indd SMALL FILE SIZE.Indd

    Final Edit Version Indd SMALL FILE SIZE.Indd

    Corporate Reporting - : The Competitive Landscape Corporate Reporting: The Competitive Landscape* *connectedthinking Building Public Trust Awards Judges 2 Contents Winners & Highly Commended 3 4 Introducing Best Practice 5 6 12 18 22 26 Tax Reporting 30 People 34 Corporate Responsibility 36 Economic Performance 38 40 Other Publications 43 Introduction 2 In the year that we celebrate our fifth annual Building Public Trust Awards (BPTA), I am delighted to introduce our first compendium of best practice — Corporate Reporting: The Competitive Landscape. As with the awards event, in this publication we celebrate the best of corporate reporting by UK-listed companies and the public sector. As we engage with companies on corporate reporting and consider the demands for greater accessibility and transparency, we find that an understanding of how others are responding is essential. The BPTA process provided us with valuable insights, as the initial part of the process consisted of a review of reporting by the FTSE 350 as well as more than 90 public sector bodies. During this process, we captured examples of best practice, which demonstrate what good reporting actually looks like. This publication brings our insights and best practice examples together in one compendium – I hope you find it useful. The challenge for every business remains the same as in previous years: to get ahead of the curve and recognise that simply meeting regulatory reporting requirements is unlikely to satisfy the expectations of investors and other key stakeholders. If companies are to be properly understood and valued, there is a growing need for them to explain their full contribution to wealth creation and other aspects of life.
  • Oxford Said Business School

    Oxford Said Business School

    2266tthh AAUUDDIITT && AASSSSUURRAANNCCEE CCOONNFFEERREENNCCEE Organised by The Auditing Special Interest Group (ASIG) of the British Accounting & Finance Association (BAFA) at Said Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Conference Programme DDAAYY 11 –– TThhuurrssddaayy 55 MMaayy 22001166 09.30 Registration/coffee in Club Room 10.00 - 10.10 Room 02 Introduction – ilias G Basioudis , Chairman of Auditing Group, and Aston Business School 10.10 – 10.40 Session 1 : Room 02 Keynote speech 1: “Enhancing audit quality: the audit committee's role after the EU audit reform and Audit Quality Indicators” Noémi Robert , Senior Manager, Audit, Assurance & Integrity , FEE Federation of European Accountants Chair: ilias G Basioudis , Chairman of Auditing Group, and Aston Business School 10.40 - 11.40 Session 2a: Room 01 Session 2b: Room 02 “Assurance Reporting” “Auditor reporting decisions” Combined Assurance As A New Does the reporting of key audit matters affect Assurance Approach: Is it Beneficial to the auditor’s report communicative value? Analysts? Experimental evidence from investment Shan Zhou professionals (The University of Sydney) Annette G. Köhler Roger Simnett (University of Duisburg-Essen ) (The University of New South Wales) Nicole V.S. Ratzinger-Sakel Hien Hoang (University of Hamburg) (The University of New South Wales) Jochen C. Theis all from Australia (University of Duisburg-Essen ) all from Germany Audit committees and the demand for sustainability reporting assurance Tell Me More: A Content Analysis of Mahbub Zaman Expanded Auditor Reporting in the United (Queensland University of Technology, Kingdom Australia) Kecia Williams Smith Habiba Al-Shaer (Texas A&M University, USA) (Newcastle University, UK) Chair: Marcel Steller , University of Chair: Roy Chandler , Exec Cmt member, Innsbruck, Austria Auditing SIG of BAFA, and Cardiff Univ., UK 11.40 – 11.55 Coffee break in Club Room This event is sponsored by ICAS and supported by Aston Business School in Birmingham.
  • 37139 British Library 18/7/03 7:39 Pm Page 2

    37139 British Library 18/7/03 7:39 Pm Page 2

    37139 British Library 18/7/03 7:39 pm Page 2 Introduction British Library 2002/2003 CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION Economic and social progress is critically dependent on the advance of knowledge. The British Library plays an important role in providing the raw material for new thinking and hence stimulating the generation of ideas. The British Library is a world-class institution devoted and Skills Committee said, ‘We are proud that the British to the support of research and innovation through its Library is recognised as a world leader and we pay collections, services and staff. The Library is an integral tribute to its work in providing research resources for component of the national research infrastructure and higher education and for enterprise.’ plays a significant role in ensuring UK research excellence. Over 50 per cent of what the Library does is Most importantly perhaps, Government recognition of associated in some way or another with supporting our unique and important contribution was reflected Higher Education and a further 25 per cent of British in a positive Grant in Aid funding settlement for the Library activity is directed towards support of industry Library for the period 2003/04 – 2005/06. A substantial and business. capital allocation for the construction of additional storage capacity to meet projected collection growth The British Library also has much to offer the general alleviated some of the concerns I expressed in last year’s public. Whether in our Reading Rooms or via our report about the need to obtain the necessary Document Supply service some ten per cent of our investment in infrastructure.
  • CARR REVIEW Contents

    CARR REVIEW Contents

    Risk&Regulation Magazine of the Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation No.1 Spring 2001 CARR REVIEW Contents 3 Editorial CARR Co-Directors, Bridget Hutter and Michael Power, welcome readers to Risk and Regulation and set out CARR’s programme. 4 Guest Column Chris Swinson discusses the problems of regulating professions. 5 CARR News CARR has its ESRC launch, makes new appointments and hosts an international conference on the regulation of the public sector. Risk&Regulation: CARR Review 6 CARR Research The BP Complex Risk Programme is launched and Jonathan No 1 Spring 2001 Rosenhead and Tom Horlick-Jones discuss their joint project funded by the programme. Editor: HENRY ROTHSTEIN Editorial Assistant: ABIGAIL WALMSLEY 7 Risk Research Institute The Risk Research Institute holds its first Risk Forum sponsored Enquiries should be addressed to: Centre Administrator by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation London School of Economics and Political Science 8 CARR Network Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE CARR sets out to be a national centre and research resource, United Kingdom and hosts its first academic visitors from overseas. Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 6577 Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 6578 9 CARR Seminars Website: http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/carr/ David Vogel compares risk regulation in contemporary Europe Email: [email protected] with that in the USA during the 1970s; Fiona Haines discusses Published by the juridification and legitimation crises in late modern capitalist Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation democracies; and Tim Forsyth examines conflicting pressures London School of Economics and Political Science on environmental risk management in developing countries.
  • Contingencies Fund Account 2005-2006 HC 1589

    Contingencies Fund Account 2005-2006 HC 1589

    Return to an order of the Honourable The House of Commons, dated 11 October 2006 Accounts, of the Contingencies Fund, 2005-2006, showing (1) a balance sheet, (2) a cashflow statement and (3) notes to the account; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon. (In continuation of House of Commons paper No 755 of 2005-2006.) Contingencies Fund Account 2005-2006 Treasury Chambers 11 October 2006 } John Healey ORDERED BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO BE PRINTED 11 OCTOBER 2006 LONDON: The Stationery Office 27 October 2006 HC 1589 £5.00 The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending on behalf of Parliament. The Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, is an Officer of the House of Commons. He is the head of the National Audit Office, which employs some 850 staff. He, and the National Audit Office, are totally independent of Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments and a wide range of other public sector bodies; and he has statutory authority to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other bodies have used their resources. Our work saves the taxpayer millions of pounds every year. At least £8 for every £1 spent running the Office. This account can be found on the National Audit Office web site at www.nao.org.uk Contingencies Fund Account 2005-2006 Contents Page Foreword 2 Statement of Accounting Officer’s responsibilities 4 Statement on Internal Control 5 The Certificate and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General 8 Balance Sheet 10 Cash Flow Statement 11 Notes to the Account 12 Appendix - Accounts Direction 14 1 Contingencies Fund Account 2005-2006 Foreword Scope of the Account The Contingencies Fund is used to finance payments forurgent services in anticipation of Parliamentary provision for those services becoming available, and to provide funds required temporarily by government departments for necessary working balances, or to meet other temporary cash deficiencies.
  • Foi Request: Saudi Arabian Armed Forces Project

    Foi Request: Saudi Arabian Armed Forces Project

    Helping the nation spend wisely Switchboard +44 (0)207 798 7000 Facsimile +44 (0)207 798 7070 Ceri Gibbons Direct Line +44 (0)207 798 7264 [email protected] Email [email protected] Date 7 November 2019 Dear Ceri Gibbons FOI REQUEST: SAUDI ARABIAN ARMED FORCES PROJECT Thank you for your email of 10 October 2019 requesting a review of our response to your Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request of 7 August 2019. We responded to your initial request on 3 September 2019, informing you that we did not hold copies of the information you requested. In your review request you asked us to review our search terms and provide some more explanation as to why the report 'The Saudi Arabian Armed Forces Project Report by the Comptroller & Auditor General - NAO February 1997’ could not be found. Your initial request and your review request are shown in Annex A. We asked a National Audit Office Director with no involvement in your previous request to review our response. Following the review, the Director confirmed that it was reasonable to search for the document using the report title or subsets of the title as your initial request identified a specific document title. However, they asked us to reconsider our searches and asked us to include other search terms. With regard to electronic information, in addition to searching for ‘Saudi Arabian Armed Forces Project’ we have now also searched using the term ‘Saudi Arabian’ and ‘Saudi Arabia’. And while we did not mention it in our earlier reply, given the reference in the newspaper article to ‘Al-Yamamah’, we also searched under that term.
  • Keeping the Lights On: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change

    Keeping the Lights On: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change

    House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Keeping the lights on: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change Sixth Report of Session 2005–06 Volume II Oral and Written Evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed Tuesday 28 March 2006 HC 584-II Published on Sunday 16 April 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £24.00 The Environmental Audit Committee The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House. Current membership Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative, South Suffolk) (Chairman) Ms Celia Barlow, MP (Labour, Hove) Mr Martin Caton, MP (Labour, Gower) Mr Colin Challen, MP (Labour, Morley and Rothwell) Mr David Chaytor, MP (Labour, Bury North) Ms Lynne Featherstone, MP (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green) Mr David Howarth, MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Mr Nick Hurd, MP (Conservative, Ruislip Northwood) Mr Elliot Morley MP (Labour, Scunthorpe) [ex-officio] Mr Mark Pritchard, MP (Conservative, Wrekin, The) Mrs Linda Riordan, MP (Labour, Halifax) Mr Graham Stuart, MP (Conservative, Beverley & Holderness) Ms Emily Thornberry, MP (Labour, Islington South & Finsbury) Dr Desmond Turner, MP (Labour, Brighton, Kempton) Mr Ed Vaizey, MP (Conservative, Wantage) Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) Powers The constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally Standing Order No.
  • Appendix: “Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament”

    Appendix: “Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament”

    Appendix: \Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament" August 8, 2017 Appendix Table of Contents • Appendix A: Wordscores Estimation of Ideology • Appendix B: MP Membership in Ideological Groups • Appendix C: Rebellion on Different Types of Divisions • Appendix D: Models of Rebellion on Government Sponsored Bills Only • Appendix E: Differences in Labour Party Rebellion Following Leadership Change • Appendix F: List of Party Switchers • Appendix G: Discussion of Empirical Model Appendix A: Wordscores Estimation of Ideology This Appendix describes our method for ideologically scaling British MPs using their speeches on the welfare state, which were originally produced for a separate study on welfare reform (O'Grady, 2017). We cover (i) data collection, (ii) estimation, (iii) raw results, and (iv) validity checks. The resulting scales turn out to be highly valid, and provide an excellent guide to MPs' ideologies using data that is completely separate to the voting data that forms the bulk of the evidence in our paper. A1: Collection of Speech Data Speeches come from an original collection of every speech made about issues related to welfare in the House of Commons from 1987-2007, covering the period over which the Labour party moved 1 to the center under Tony Blair, adopted and enacted policies of welfare reform, and won office at the expense of the Conservatives. Restricting the speeches to a single issue area is useful for estimating ideologies because with multiple topics there is a danger of conflating genuine extremism (a tendency to speak in extreme ways) with a tendency or requirement to talk a lot about topics that are relatively extreme to begin with (Lauderdale and Herzog, 2016).
  • The 2009 British Mps' Expenses Scandal: Origins, Evolution And

    The 2009 British Mps' Expenses Scandal: Origins, Evolution And

    The 2009 British MPs’ Expenses Scandal: Origins, Evolution and Consequences Jennifer vanHeerde-Hudson and Orlanda Ward This chapter introduces the British MPs’ expenses scandal; its origins, evolution and consequences. We argue that despite some early predictions, the scandal was limited in its impact: the purported ‘revolution’ never occurred. We briefly review the comparative literature on political impact of scandal, which illustrates why the effects of scandals are usually limited and reasons why voters may choose not to punish malfeasant politicians. We situate this scandal against other, international scandals, highlighting similarities and differences in the effects of scandal depending on cultural contexts. The chapter illustrates the mediated nature of the scandal and how it is best understood as comprised of not only the acts of politicians themselves, but a series of moves and counter-moves by the press and other actors. Introduction On 8 May 2009 the Daily Telegraph began publishing un-redacted expenses claims made by British MPs. The revelation of parliamentary expenses showed how, and the extent to which, some MPs took advantage of an unregulated expenses system—a system designed by, and vigorously protected against outside interference, by MPs themselves. The expenses regime was intended to cover the costs of performing parliamentary duties: operating costs for running constituency offices (including staff salaries, rent, computers, etc.) and communications and travel as part of their parliamentary duties. The regime also included Additional Costs Allowances (ACA)1, worth up to £24,000 annually, to reimburse MPs for the expense of staying away from their primary home while performing their parliamentary duties.