DOCSLIB.ORG

Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith Fourth Report of Session 2003–04 Volume I Report and Appendices, together with formal minutes and oral evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 26 March 2004 HC 476–I Published on 29 March 2004 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50 Committee on Standards and Privileges The Committee on Standards and Privileges is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary. Current membership Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP (Conservative, North West Hampshire) (Chairman) Ross Cranston QC MP (Labour, Dudley North) Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) Rt Hon Derek Foster MP (Labour, Bishop Auckland) Mr Michael Jabez Foster MP (Labour, Hastings and Rye) Mr David Heath CBE MP (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome) Rt Hon Andrew Mackay MP (Conservative, Bracknell) Mr Kevin McNamara MP (Labour, Hull North) Richard Ottaway MP (Conservative, Croydon South) Mr Stephen Pound MP (Labour, Ealing North) Mr Simon Thomas MP (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion) Powers The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No. 149. In particular, the Committee has power to order the attendance of any Member of Parliament before the committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before the Committee. The Committee has power to refuse to allow its public proceedings to be broadcast. The Law Officers, if they are Members of Parliament, may attend and take part in the Committee’s proceedings, but may not vote. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/ standards_and_privileges.cfm. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament can be found in this volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Dr Christopher Ward (Clerk), Ms Charlotte Littleboy (Second Clerk) and Lisa Hasell (Secretary). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6615. Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 1 Contents Report Page Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 3 Introduction 3 Procedural issues 3 The complaint 5 General conclusions 7 Other matters 9 Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 10 Appendix 2: Written submission from Mr Iain Duncan Smith 104 Formal minutes 111 Reports from the Committee on Standards and Privileges in the current Parliament 112 Oral evidence Ev 1 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 3 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith Introduction 1. We have considered a memorandum by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards relating to the complaint against the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith, Member for Chingford, by Mr Michael Crick. The Commissioner’s memorandum is appended to this Report. The Commissioner attached to his memorandum a substantial amount of oral evidence and written material. This will be published in separate volumes.1 It is clear from this that the inquiry generated a very large amount of work for the Commissioner and his staff, and we would like to thank them all for their efforts. 2. Having been shown, in confidence, the full text of the Commissioner’s memorandum, Mr Duncan Smith made a written submission to us. This is attached to our report as Appendix 2. The oral evidence we have taken from Mr Andrew Walker, Director of Finance and Administration, is also published in this volume. 3. The introduction to the Commissioner’s memorandum sets out the circumstances of the complaint. When the Commissioner wrote to Mr Duncan Smith on 20 October 2003, he identified six related strands of Mr Crick’s complaint as arising from the material submitted by him. We set these out at paragraph 12 below. 4. Besides summarising the evidence on which he has judged the complaint against Mr Duncan Smith and forming a view on which, if any, of the strands should be upheld, the Commissioner has drawn a number of general matters to our attention. We deal with these in the section headed ‘General Conclusions’. Procedural issues 5. Before we turn to the substance of the complaint, we will address the procedural issues raised on behalf of Mr Duncan Smith, to which the Commissioner has drawn our attention.2 It is contended by the barrister acting on behalf of Mr Duncan Smith that, taken separately or together, these alleged deficiencies would justify dismissing the complaints against Mr Duncan Smith on procedural grounds, regardless of their substantive merits. 6. In considering this issue, it might be helpful if we summarised the nature of the process which the House has established for investigating complaints against Members. A key element is that it is based on self-regulation, with Members being judged by their colleagues in the light of the Commissioner’s report. It is not an adversarial process, with the complaint taking the nature of a charge, the Member cast in the role of the defendant and the Commissioner as, in effect, a judge who comes to a conclusion on the basis of the assertions of the respective parties and his own inquiries. 1 Volume II: Written Submissions received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; and Volume III: Oral Evidence taken by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. 2 Appendix 1, para 239 and Annex 4. 4 Conduct of Mr Iain Duncan Smith 7. The House chose instead an investigatory process, with the complaint viewed as an assertion of conduct that may be in breach of the Code, backed by evidence,3 and the Commissioner cast in the role of investigator of the facts of the complaint. The Code requires the Member to assist the Commissioner with a full and truthful account of matters relevant to the complaint, to help the Commissioner get at the facts. He will also seek to agree with the Member concerned the facts on which he should form his conclusions. The Commissioner, having established the facts, then forms a view on whether these substantiate the complaint, or have otherwise revealed conduct in apparent breach of the Code, having first decided what he considers to be an appropriate standard of proof. 8. The Commissioner then reports to us details of the complaint, the facts established by his inquiry, his opinion on the merits of the complaint, and on any other apparent breaches of the Code his inquiry has revealed, and the standard of proof he has applied in coming to those opinions. On the basis of this report, any further material the Member submits to us and any evidence we may take, we reach a conclusion on whether a breach of the Code of Conduct has been established and either expressly or by implication reach a conclusion on whether the complaint has been substantiated. In a case where we conclude that the Code has been breached, it is open to us to recommend an appropriate penalty to the House. Only the House can impose such a penalty. 9. Within this procedure, no complaint has been dismissed on procedural grounds and it would be difficult to envisage circumstances in which this could arise. One of the important objectives of the standards system is to maintain public confidence in the integrity of Members of Parliament. A system which allowed Members to escape censure on procedural grounds, whatever the merits of the evidence, would not in our view be conducive in principle to this. Neither do we believe that, even if complaints could be dismissed on procedural grounds alone, such a decision would necessarily be in the interests of the Member concerned, in view of the damage that might be suffered to their personal reputation, both inside and outside the House, if there was a widespread feeling that they had ‘got off on a technicality’. 10. We see no evidence that the Commissioner’s investigation into the complaint against Mr Duncan Smith has been unfair. Indeed, the Commissioner seems to have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that he was fair to all concerned, including Mr Duncan Smith. There is no evidence in the Commissioner’s memorandum to suggest that he has been affected in any way by any publicity surrounding the inquiry, one of Mr Duncan Smith’s arguments for striking out the complaint. We therefore endorse the Commissioner’s rejection of the assertions that the process of his enquiry has operated unfairly to Mr Duncan Smith.4 More generally, we are concerned that, while Members are of course free to access professional advice, this can unnecessarily delay the process. 11. We are also satisfied that we can judge the matter fairly on the basis of the memorandum and supporting material submitted by the Commissioner, Mr Duncan Smith’s further submission, and the evidence we have taken.
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]
  • Access. Engagement. Resolution. Post Brexit Opportunities for The
    20 February 2020 Post Brexit Opportunities for the UK in the Middle East Alistair Burt was Minister of State for the Middle East at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Minister of State at the Department for International Development from June 2017 to March 2019, and previously Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Middle East from May 2010 - October 2013. Alistair also served as Minister of State for Community and Social Care at the Department of Health from May 2015 until July 2016. He entered Parliament for the first time in 1983, served successively as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State then Minister of State at the Department of Social Security 1992-97, and was Conservative MP for North East Bedfordshire 2001-2019. *************** As UK Government settles down, relationships in the Middle East and North Africa will remain key. As a recently released Parliamentarian, I have taken a keen interest in the fortunes of the new UK Government since its definitive victory in December’s General Election. Unexpectedly decisive, the election puts the UK on track for a period of domestic political stability, even if the challenges which it faces will be daunting. The consolidation of power at the heart of the Prime Minister’s office, as demonstrated through the recent Government shuffle of ministers, is evidence of a determination to deliver on the priorities set out by the Conservative Government to its voters. It is particularly keen to meet the aspirations of those it characterises as ‘new’, whose ‘lending’ of their votes to Boris Johnson won the larger than expected majority, particularly in the North and Midlands.
    [Show full text]
  • From 'Greenest Government Ever' to 'Get Rid of All the Green Crap': David Cameron, the Conservatives and the Environment
    This is a repository copy of From ‘greenest government ever’ to ‘get rid of all the green crap’: David Cameron, the Conservatives and the environment. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/85469/ Version: Submitted Version Article: Carter, Neil Thomas orcid.org/0000-0003-3378-8773 and Clements, Ben (2015) From ‘greenest government ever’ to ‘get rid of all the green crap’: David Cameron, the Conservatives and the environment. British Politics. 204–225. ISSN 1746-918X https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2015.16 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ From ‘Greenest government ever’ to ‘get rid of all the green crap’: David Cameron, the Conservatives and the Environment by Neil Carter (University of York) and Ben Clements (University of Leicester) Published in British Politics, early online April 2015. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copy-edit version of the paper.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ANDREW MARR SHOW INTERVIEW: OWEN PATERSON CONSERVATIVE JUNE 14Th 2015
    PLEASE NOTE “THE ANDREW MARR SHOW” MUST BE CREDITED IF ANY PART OF THIS TRANSCRIPT IS USED THE ANDREW MARR SHOW INTERVIEW: OWEN PATERSON CONSERVATIVE JUNE 14th 2015 ANDREW MARR: Now then, the prime minister continues his European tour this week trying to win other EU leaders over to his plan to renegotiate Britain’s relationship. It hasn’t gone terribly well so far. Elements of the deal he’s seeking are beginning to emerge, however. How will it be received, however, by the voters and by his own party? I should say that we asked the government for an interview with a minister on this or any other subject, but we were told none was available. But we do have the leading light in the Conservatives for Britain group I was talking about earlier on, the former cabinet minister Owen Paterson. Welcome Mr Paterson. OWEN PATERSON: Good morning. ANDREW MARR: Now this is going to be an important week for Britain and for Europe of course in the House of Commons because you have the chance to debate and possibly amend the government’s legislation. There’s been a lot of talk about something called ‘purdah’, which I think a lot of people won’t understand. Can you explain why purdah matters in this debate – what purdah is and why it matters? 1 OWEN PATERSON: Yeah, Andrew, purdah is crucial. Purdah means the government cannot use agencies of the state to spend money or to send information to citizens in a period leading up to an election. And this has been well established.
    [Show full text]
  • 30/Spring 2001
    Peelites Tony Little examines the part played by the renegade Conservatives – the Peelites – in the creation of the Liberal Party. ‘‘HisHis FriendsFriends SatSat onon thethe BenchesBenches Opposite’Opposite’ In the Journal’s special issue on defectors (Journal of Although Lord Palmerston had been a part of the Liberal Democrat History , winter –), one Aberdeen coalition, his semi-detached position and group significant to the development of the modern pugnacious character made him the inevitable war Liberal Party was omitted – the Peelites. Here, by leader and he was the prime beneficiary of the pe- way of a review of Professor Angus Hawkins’ book, tering out of the war shortly after he had acceded to Parliament, Party and the Art of Politics in Britain, – the premiership. However, Palmerston had only (Macmillan, ), I aim to show the part played been able to form his government by treading on by these renegade Conservatives in the creation of the toes of oversensitive Peelites such as Gladstone, the modern Liberal Party. and without resolving a long-running quarrel with The formation of the Liberal Party is often dated Lord John Russell. to the meeting in Willis’s Rooms on June . It is at this point that Hawkins takes up the story. This meeting brought together Whigs, Liberals, The problem he poses is that, while, in Kitson’s Radicals and Peelites to defeat Lord Derby. It ush- words, it is not ‘very easy to say what specific opin- ered in a Liberal government under Lord ions were uniquely organised in the middle of the Palmerston which served until Palmerston’s death in century by the Conservative Party’, the forces that and paved the way for Gladstone’s great re- came together to oppose Derby suffered from a su- forming government of –.
    [Show full text]
  • Making a Hasty Brexit? Ministerial Turnover and Its Implications
    Making a Hasty Brexit? Ministerial Turnover and Its Implications Jessica R. Adolino, Ph. D. Professor of Political Science James Madison University Draft prepared for presentation at the European Studies Association Annual Meeting May 9-12, 2019, Denver, Colorado Please do not cite or distribute without author’s permission. By almost any measure, since the immediate aftermath of the June 16, 2016 Brexit referendum, the British government has been in a state of chaos. The turmoil began with then- Prime Minister David Cameron’s resignation on June 17 and succession by Theresa May within days of the vote. Subsequently, May’s decision to call a snap election in 2017 and the resulting loss of the Conservatives’ parliamentary majority cast doubt on her leadership and further stirred up dissension in her party’s ranks. Perhaps more telling, and the subject of this paper, is the unprecedented number of ministers1—from both senior and junior ranks—that quit the May government over Brexit-related policy disagreements2. Between June 12, 2017 and April 3, 2019, the government witnessed 45 resignations, with high-profile secretaries of state and departmental ministers stepping down to return to the backbenches. Of these, 34 members of her government, including 9 serving in the Cabinet, departed over issues with some aspect of Brexit, ranging from dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement, to disagreements about the proper role of Parliament, to questions about the legitimacy of the entire Brexit process. All told, Theresa May lost more ministers, and at a more rapid pace, than any other prime minister in modern times.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr Andrew Mackay and Ms Julie Kirkbride
    House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Mr Andrew Mackay and Ms Julie Kirkbride Fifth Report of Session 2010–11 Report and Appendices, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 19 October2010 HC 540 Published on 21 October 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Committee on Standards and Privileges The Committee on Standards and Privileges is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary. Current membership Rt hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chair) Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole) Rt hon Tom Clarke MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Mr Geoffrey Cox MP (Conservative, Torridge and West Devon) Mr Jim Cunningham MP (Labour, Coventry South) Mr Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) Eric Ollerenshaw MP (Conservative, Lancaster and Fleetwood) Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) Powers The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: Initial Reflections
    Brexit: initial reflections ANAND MENON AND JOHN-PAUL SALTER* At around four-thirty on the morning of 24 June 2016, the media began to announce that the British people had voted to leave the European Union. As the final results came in, it emerged that the pro-Brexit campaign had garnered 51.9 per cent of the votes cast and prevailed by a margin of 1,269,501 votes. For the first time in its history, a member state had voted to quit the EU. The outcome of the referendum reflected the confluence of several long- term and more contingent factors. In part, it represented the culmination of a longstanding tension in British politics between, on the one hand, London’s relative effectiveness in shaping European integration to match its own prefer- ences and, on the other, political diffidence when it came to trumpeting such success. This paradox, in turn, resulted from longstanding intraparty divisions over Britain’s relationship with the EU, which have hamstrung such attempts as there have been to make a positive case for British EU membership. The media found it more worthwhile to pour a stream of anti-EU invective into the resulting vacuum rather than critically engage with the issue, let alone highlight the benefits of membership. Consequently, public opinion remained lukewarm at best, treated to a diet of more or less combative and Eurosceptic political rhetoric, much of which disguised a far different reality. The result was also a consequence of the referendum campaign itself. The strategy pursued by Prime Minister David Cameron—of adopting a critical stance towards the EU, promising a referendum, and ultimately campaigning for continued membership—failed.
    [Show full text]
  • Tory Modernisation 2.0 Tory Modernisation
    Edited by Ryan Shorthouse and Guy Stagg Guy and Shorthouse Ryan by Edited TORY MODERNISATION 2.0 MODERNISATION TORY edited by Ryan Shorthouse and Guy Stagg TORY MODERNISATION 2.0 THE FUTURE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY TORY MODERNISATION 2.0 The future of the Conservative Party Edited by Ryan Shorthouse and Guy Stagg The moral right of the authors has been asserted. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a re- trieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. Bright Blue is an independent, not-for-profit organisation which cam- paigns for the Conservative Party to implement liberal and progressive policies that draw on Conservative traditions of community, entre- preneurialism, responsibility, liberty and fairness. First published in Great Britain in 2013 by Bright Blue Campaign www.brightblue.org.uk ISBN: 978-1-911128-00-7 Copyright © Bright Blue Campaign, 2013 Printed and bound by DG3 Designed by Soapbox, www.soapbox.co.uk Contents Acknowledgements 1 Foreword 2 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP Introduction 5 Ryan Shorthouse and Guy Stagg 1 Last chance saloon 12 The history and future of Tory modernisation Matthew d’Ancona 2 Beyond bare-earth Conservatism 25 The future of the British economy Rt Hon David Willetts MP 3 What’s wrong with the Tory party? 36 And why hasn’t
    [Show full text]
  • Peacebuilding and Post–Conflict Reconstruction
    House of Commons International Development Committee Conflict and Development: Peacebuilding and Post–conflict Reconstruction Sixth Report of Session 2005–06 Volume I HC 923-I House of Commons International Development Committee Conflict and Development: Peacebuilding and Post–conflict Reconstruction Sixth Report of Session 2005–06 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 17 October 2006 HC 923-I Published on 25 October 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 International Development Committee The International Development Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for International Development and its associated public bodies. Current membership Malcolm Bruce MP (Liberal Democrat, Gordon) (Chairman) John Barrett MP (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West) John Battle MP (Labour, Leeds West) Hugh Bayley MP (Labour, City of York) John Bercow MP (Conservative, Buckingham) Richard Burden MP (Labour, Birmingham Northfield) Mr Quentin Davies MP (Conservative, Grantham and Stamford) James Duddridge MP (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East) Ann McKechin MP (Labour, Glasgow North) Joan Ruddock MP (Labour, Lewisham Deptford) Mr Marsha Singh MP (Labour, Bradford West) Mr Jeremy Hunt MP (Conservative, South West Surrey) was also a member of the Committee during this inquiry. 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. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Disraeli and Gladstone: Opposing Forces by Robert Blake
    Disraeli and Gladstone: Opposing Forces By Robert Blake Disraeli and Gladstone were both politicians of extraordinary ability - but their personalities clashed and they heartily loathed each other. Robert Blake, the British constitutional historian, compares their political careers, and charts their stormy relationship. Mutual dislike In the general election of 1 April 1880, the Conservative party under Benjamin Disraeli was crushingly defeated by the Liberals (known as Whigs) - under William Gladstone. Lord Granville, a moderate Whig, wrote to Queen Victoria who would, he knew, be bitterly disappointed by the decision of the electorate: 'Lord Beaconsfield [Disraeli] and Mr Gladstone are men of extraordinary ability; they dislike each other more than is usual among public men. Of no other politician Lord Beaconsfield would have said in public that his conduct was worse than those who had committed the Bulgarian atrocities. He has the power of saying in two words that which drives a person of Mr Gladstone's peculiar temperament into a state of great excitement.' There is no doubt that the two statesmen hated each other. There is no doubt that the two statesmen hated each other. Disraeli referred to his rival in a letter to Lord Derby as '...that unprincipled maniac Gladstone - extraordinary mixture of envy, vindictiveness, hypocrisy and superstition'. And Gladstone more moderately said of his old enemy, 'the Tory party had principles by which it would and did stand for bad and for good. All this Dizzy destroyed'. When Lord Granville wrote to Queen Victoria, Disraeli, born in 1804, had one more year to live; Gladstone, who was born in 1810, had another eighteen.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Civil Service
    HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 1993-94 TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE Fifth Report THE ROLE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE VOLUME I Ordered by The House of Commons to he printed I November 1994 k 27-1 House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online. Copyright (c) 2007 ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. 2 FIFTH REPORT FROM The Treasury and Civil Service Committee is appointed under S.O. No. 130 to examine the expendi- ture, administration and policy of the Treasury and the Office of Public Ser\'ice and Science (but exclud- ing the Office of Science and Technology and the drafting of bills by the Parliamentary Counsel Office), the Board of Customs and Excise and the Board of the inland Revenue. The Committee consists of a maximum of eleven members, of whom the quorum is three. Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to the Committee continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of the Parliament. The Committee has power: (a) to send for j>ersons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time; (b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference; (c) to communicate to any other such committee and to the Committee of Public Accounts their evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest; (d) to meet concurrently with any other such committee for the purposes of deliberating, taking evidence or considering draft reports.
    [Show full text]