DOCSLIB.ORG

Women's Representation in Politics: What Can Be Done Within the Law?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Women's Representation in Politics: What Can Be Done Within the Law? Women’s Representation in UK Politics: What can be done within the Law? by Meg Russell June 2000 £10.00 Contents List of Tables.............................................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................5 1. Positive Action and the UK Political Parties....................................................................6 1.1 Labour ...........................................................................................................................................8 1.2 Liberal Democrats .......................................................................................................................9 1.3 Conservatives.............................................................................................................................11 1.4 Plaid Cymru ...............................................................................................................................11 1.5 Scottish National Party .............................................................................................................12 1.6 Summary of action taken..........................................................................................................12 2. Positive Action Elsewhere in Europe .............................................................................14 2.1 Country case studies .................................................................................................................17 Sweden ...........................................................................................................................................18 Germany.........................................................................................................................................18 Belgium ..........................................................................................................................................19 France.............................................................................................................................................19 Italy ................................................................................................................................................20 Portugal..........................................................................................................................................20 2.2 Domestic legislation in other EU member states ..................................................................21 2.3 International action ...................................................................................................................22 3. The Legal Context ............................................................................................................24 3.1 Domestic UK law.......................................................................................................................24 The Sex Discrimination Act and the Jepson case...........................................................................24 A more settled view ........................................................................................................................27 Moves to change the law ................................................................................................................28 3.2 European law .............................................................................................................................30 The Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC) ..............................................................................31 The Kalanke and Marschall cases...................................................................................................32 The Amsterdam Treaty ..................................................................................................................34 The Badeck case ..............................................................................................................................35 Latest developments .......................................................................................................................35 3.3 Human rights law and international treaties ........................................................................36 4. The Legal Questions ........................................................................................................38 4.1 Legal process..............................................................................................................................39 4.2 Can parties take positive action now?....................................................................................40 4.3 Does the Equal Treatment Directive cover candidate selection?........................................41 4.4 If the Directive applies, does it allow positive action?.........................................................45 4.5 Human rights implications ......................................................................................................46 5. Ways Forward...................................................................................................................48 Option 1: Do nothing ......................................................................................................................48 Option 2: Amend the Sex Discrimination Act to exempt political selections .........................49 Option 3: Amend the Sex Discrimination Act to allow positive action by parties.................50 Option 4: A new electoral law permitting positive action.........................................................52 Option 5: Require positive action by law.....................................................................................53 Summary...........................................................................................................................................56 Conclusion............................................................................................................................57 2 List of Tables Table 1: Women’s Representation in the Welsh Assembly, 1999 election.....................................5 Table 2: Women’s Representation in the Scottish Parliament, 1999 election................................6 Table 3: Women’s Representation in the Greater London Assembly, 2000 election ...................6 Table 4: Women’s Representation in the House of Commons, 1997 election...............................6 Table 5: Women’s Representation from the UK in European Parliament, 1999 election............7 Table 6: Summary of positive action policies by UK parties.........................................................12 Table 7: Women’s Representation in National Legislatures (lower house) ................................14 Table 8: Women’s Representation in the European Parliament, by country ..............................14 Table 9: Women’s Representation in National Legislatures (lower house), by party ...............15 Table 10: Options for the Future........................................................................................................55 Acknowledgements This project was funded by a social science small grant from the Nuffield Foundation. I am grateful to them for their support. The project relied heavily both on interviews and other information from people from a wide range of disciplines. The lawyers who helped with the project included: Michael Beloff QC, Geoffrey Bindman, Professor Noreen Burrows (University of Glasgow), Christopher Docksey (European Commission legal service), Sir Patrick Elias, Tess Gill, James Goudie QC, Fiona Kinsman (European Commission legal service), Alan Lakin (EOC), Lord Lester QC, Denis Martin (European Commission legal service), Muriel Robison (EOC Scotland). Those who helped with information about the UK parties included: Wendy Alexander MSP, Jackie Ballard MP, Val Feld AM, Helen Mary Jones AM, Councillor Marilyne Maclaren, Rachel McLean (Labour Party), Mike Penn (Wales Labour Party), Jenny Randerson AM, Shona Robison MSP, Caroline Spellman MP. Overseas information was provided by, amongst others: Anette Borchorst (Aarhus University, Denmark), Britta Erftmann (German SPD), Vanessa Eyre (Socialist International Women), Lissy Gröner MEP, Sylvie Guillaume (Parti Socialiste, France), Prof Jean Jacqmain (Free University of Brussels), Kim Cort (Danish Equal Status Council), Gisela Lange (European Commission), Annick Masselot (Strathclyde University), Christine Nilsson (Swedish Social Democratic Party), Ina Sjerps (Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, University of Amsterdam). I am also grateful for help to Lucy Anderson (TUC), Professor Alice Brown (University of Edinburgh), Becky Gill (Fawcett Society), Professor Joni Lovenduski (Birkbeck College), Kirsty Milne (The Scotsman) and Mary Ann Stephenson (Fawcett Society). Constitution Unit colleagues who helped with aspects of the project and gave comments on drafts of this report were: Jeremy Croft, Elizabeth Haggett, Robert Hazell, Andrea Loux, Roger Masterman and Ben Seyd. 3 Executive Summary This report considers the legal situation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Wednesday Volume 501 25 November 2009 No. 5 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 25 November 2009 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 513 25 NOVEMBER 2009 514 my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and House of Commons Arran (Ms Clark). In a letter I received from Ofcom, the regulator states: Wednesday 25 November 2009 “Ofcom does not have the power to mandate ISPs”— internet service providers. Surely that power is overdue, because otherwise, many of my constituents, along with The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock those of my colleagues, will continue to receive a poor broadband service. PRAYERS Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend makes some very important points about the decision-making powers and architecture [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] that will ensure we achieve 90 per cent. broadband penetration. We are trying to ensure that the market provides most of that, and we expect that up to two thirds—60 to 70 per cent.—of homes will be able to Oral Answers to Questions access super-fast broadband through the market. However, the Government will have to do additional things, and my hon. Friend can make the case for giving Ofcom SCOTLAND additional powers; but, again, we are absolutely determined that no one be excluded for reasons of geography or income.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wilson Doctrine Pat Strickland
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 4258, 19 June 2015 By Cheryl Pilbeam The Wilson Doctrine Pat Strickland Inside: 1. Introduction 2. Historical background 3. The Wilson doctrine 4. Prison surveillance 5. Damian Green 6. The NSA files and metadata 7. Labour MPs: police monitoring www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 4258, 19 June 2015 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Introduction 4 2. Historical background 4 3. The Wilson doctrine 5 3.1 Criticism of the Wilson doctrine 6 4. Prison surveillance 9 4.1 Alleged events at Woodhill prison 9 4.2 Recording of prisoner’s telephone calls – 2006-2012 10 5. Damian Green 12 6. The NSA files and metadata 13 6.1 Prism 13 6.2 Tempora and metadata 14 Legal challenges 14 7. Labour MPs: police monitoring 15 Cover page image copyright: Chamber-070 by UK Parliament image. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped 3 The Wilson Doctrine Summary The convention that MPs’ communications should not be intercepted by police or security services is known as the ‘Wilson Doctrine’. It is named after the former Prime Minister Harold Wilson who established the rule in 1966. According to the Times on 18 November 1966, some MPs were concerned that the security services were tapping their telephones. In November 1966, in response to a number of parliamentary questions, Harold Wilson made a statement in the House of Commons saying that MPs phones would not be tapped. More recently, successive Interception of Communications Commissioners have recommended that the forty year convention which has banned the interception of MPs’ communications should be lifted, on the grounds that legislation governing interception has been introduced since 1966.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wilson Doctrine Samantha Godec
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 4258, 12 June 2017 By Pat Strickland Joanna Dawson The Wilson Doctrine Samantha Godec Inside: 1. Introduction 2. Historical background 3. The Wilson doctrine 4. The NSA files and metadata 5. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal judgment 6. Prison surveillance 7. Labour MPs: police monitoring 8. Investigatory Powers Act 2016 www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 4258, 12 June 2017 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Introduction 4 2. Historical background 4 3. The Wilson doctrine 5 3.1 Criticism of the Wilson doctrine 6 4. The NSA files and metadata 9 4.1 Prism 9 4.2 Tempora and metadata 10 5. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal judgment 11 Emergency debate 12 6. Prison surveillance 13 6.1 Alleged events at Woodhill prison 13 6.2 Recording of prisoners’ telephone calls – 2006-2012 14 7. Labour MPs: police monitoring 15 8. Investigatory Powers Act 2016 16 Cover page image copyright: Chamber-070 by UK Parliament image. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped 3 The Wilson Doctrine Summary The convention that MPs’ communications should not be intercepted by police or security services is known as the ‘Wilson Doctrine’. It is named after the former Prime Minister Harold Wilson who announced the policy in 1966. According to The Times on 18 November 1966, some MPs were concerned that the security services were tapping their telephones. In November 1966, in response to a number of parliamentary questions, Harold Wilson made a statement in the House of Commons saying that MPs phones would not be tapped.
    [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]
  • Z675928x Margaret Hodge Mp 06/10/2011 Z9080283 Lorely
    Z675928X MARGARET HODGE MP 06/10/2011 Z9080283 LORELY BURT MP 08/10/2011 Z5702798 PAUL FARRELLY MP 09/10/2011 Z5651644 NORMAN LAMB 09/10/2011 Z236177X ROBERT HALFON MP 11/10/2011 Z2326282 MARCUS JONES MP 11/10/2011 Z2409343 CHARLOTTE LESLIE 12/10/2011 Z2415104 CATHERINE MCKINNELL 14/10/2011 Z2416602 STEPHEN MOSLEY 18/10/2011 Z5957328 JOAN RUDDOCK MP 18/10/2011 Z2375838 ROBIN WALKER MP 19/10/2011 Z1907445 ANNE MCINTOSH MP 20/10/2011 Z2408027 IAN LAVERY MP 21/10/2011 Z1951398 ROGER WILLIAMS 21/10/2011 Z7209413 ALISTAIR CARMICHAEL 24/10/2011 Z2423448 NIGEL MILLS MP 24/10/2011 Z2423360 BEN GUMMER MP 25/10/2011 Z2423633 MIKE WEATHERLEY MP 25/10/2011 Z5092044 GERAINT DAVIES MP 26/10/2011 Z2425526 KARL TURNER MP 27/10/2011 Z242877X DAVID MORRIS MP 28/10/2011 Z2414680 JAMES MORRIS MP 28/10/2011 Z2428399 PHILLIP LEE MP 31/10/2011 Z2429528 IAN MEARNS MP 31/10/2011 Z2329673 DR EILIDH WHITEFORD MP 31/10/2011 Z9252691 MADELEINE MOON MP 01/11/2011 Z2431014 GAVIN WILLIAMSON MP 01/11/2011 Z2414601 DAVID MOWAT MP 02/11/2011 Z2384782 CHRISTOPHER LESLIE MP 04/11/2011 Z7322798 ANDREW SLAUGHTER 05/11/2011 Z9265248 IAN AUSTIN MP 08/11/2011 Z2424608 AMBER RUDD MP 09/11/2011 Z241465X SIMON KIRBY MP 10/11/2011 Z2422243 PAUL MAYNARD MP 10/11/2011 Z2261940 TESSA MUNT MP 10/11/2011 Z5928278 VERNON RODNEY COAKER MP 11/11/2011 Z5402015 STEPHEN TIMMS MP 11/11/2011 Z1889879 BRIAN BINLEY MP 12/11/2011 Z5564713 ANDY BURNHAM MP 12/11/2011 Z4665783 EDWARD GARNIER QC MP 12/11/2011 Z907501X DANIEL KAWCZYNSKI MP 12/11/2011 Z728149X JOHN ROBERTSON MP 12/11/2011 Z5611939 CHRIS
    [Show full text]
  • (2017) Women Leaders in the Political Field in Scotland: a Socio-Historical Approach to the Emergence of Leaders
    Robinson, S. and Kerr, R. (2017) Women leaders in the political field in Scotland: a socio-historical approach to the emergence of leaders. Leadership, (doi:10.1177/1742715017710592) This is the author’s final accepted version. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/140039/ Deposited on: 27 October 2017 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Women leaders in the political field in Scotland: a socio-historical approach to the emergence of leaders Authors: Sarah Robinson University of Glasgow [email protected] Ron Kerr University of Edinburgh [email protected] Introduction This study responds to a call for papers for the International Studying Leadership Conference (Edinburgh 2015) to ‘rethink leadership research1. We address this call by providing an example of how a turn to historical methods can help leadership scholars ‘move away from ideas of individual agency and control, and take into account the power relations that shape the more emergent processes of organising and change’ (Harrison, 2016). This move might involve, we suggest, looking to the past to understand the present. We therefore present an approach to leadership studies that combines history, sociology and politics, in identifying ‘emergent processes of organisation and change’ (Harrison, 2016). In so doing, we also respond to calls to bring together sociological and historical approaches (Calhoun, 2013; Hobsbawm, 2016) in order to write a ’social history of the present’ (Bourdieu, 1995: 111).
    [Show full text]
  • The Royal Prerogative Redefined. Parliamentary Debate on the Role
    JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 224 Teemu Häkkinen The Royal Prerogative RedeÀned Parliamentary Debate on the Role of the British Parliament in Large-scale Military Deployments, 1982–2003 JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 224 Teemu Häkkinen The Royal Prerogative Redefined Parliamentary Debate on the Role of the British Parliament in Large-scale Military Deployments, 1982–2003 Esitetään Jyväskylän yliopiston humanistisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi yliopiston Historica-rakennuksen salissa H320 helmikuun 1. päivänä 2014 kello 12. Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by permission of the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Jyväskylä, in building Historica, hall H320, on February 1, 2014 at 12 o’clock noon. UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2014 The Royal Prerogative Redefined Parliamentary Debate on the Role of the British Parliament in Large-scale Military Deployments, 1982–2003 JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 224 Teemu Häkkinen The Royal Prerogative Redefined Parliamentary Debate on the Role of the British Parliament in Large-scale Military Deployments, 1982–2003 UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2014 Editors Pasi Ihalainen Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä Pekka Olsbo, Ville Korkiakangas Publishing Unit, University Library of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities Editorial Board Editor in Chief Heikki Hanka, Department of Art and Culture Studies, University of Jyväskylä Petri Karonen, Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä Paula Kalaja, Department of Languages, University of Jyväskylä Petri Toiviainen, Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä Tarja Nikula, Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä Raimo Salokangas, Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä URN:ISBN:978-951-39-5592-2 ISBN 978-951-39-5592-2 (PDF) ISBN 978-951-39-5591-5 (nid.) ISSN 1459-4323 (nid.), 1459-4331 (PDF) Copyright © 2014, by University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä University Printing House, Jyväskylä 2014 ABSTRACT Häkkinen, Teemu The Royal Prerogative Redefined.
    [Show full text]
  • BUSINESS BULLETIN No. 73/2013 Tuesday 7 May 2013
    BUSINESS BULLETIN No. 73/2013 Tuesday 7 May 2013 Summary of Today’s Business Meetings of Committees 9.45 am Health and Sport Committee Committee Room 5 10.00 am Education and Culture Committee Committee Room 2 10.00 am Justice Committee Committee Room 1 10.00 am Subordinate Legislation Committee Committee Room 4 10.30 am National Trust for Scotland (Governance Committee Room 6 etc.) Bill Committee ________________________________________________________________ Meeting of the Parliament 2.00 pm Time for Reflection – Reverend Dave Slater, Minister, Gartcosh linked with Glenboig Parish Churches followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions followed by Public Petitions Committee Debate: PE1441 Flood Insurance followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members‘ Business – S4M-05783 Gordon MacDonald: Dads Rock 1st Anniversary For full details of today’s business, see Section A. For full details of the future business, see sections B and C. 1 Contents The sections which appear in today‘s Business Bulletin are in bold Section A: Today‘s Business - Meetings of Committees - Meeting of the Parliament Section B: Future Meetings of the Parliament Section C: Future Meetings of Committees Section D: Oral Questions - Questions selected for First Minister‘s Questions - Questions selected for response by Ministers and junior Scottish Ministers at Question Time Section E: Written Questions – new questions for written answer Section F: Motions and Amendments Section G: Bills - New Bills introduced - New amendments to Bills - Members‘ Bills proposals Section H: New Documents – new documents laid before the Parliament and committee reports published Section I: Petitions – new public petitions Section J: Progress of Legislation – progress of Bills and subordinate legislation Section K: Corrections to the Official Report 2 Business Bulletin: Tuesday 7 May 2013 Section A – Today’s Business Meetings of Committees All meetings take place in the Scottish Parliament, unless otherwise specified.
    [Show full text]
  • Hansard New Politics Book
    New Politics, New Parliament? A review of parliamentary modernisation since 1997 Alex Brazier, Matthew Flinders and Declan McHugh Hansard Society 2005 New Politics, New Parliament? A review of parliamentary modernisation since 1997 Text and graphics © Hansard Society 2005 Published by the Hansard Society, LSE, 9 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6XF Tel: 0207 395 4000, Fax: 0207 395 4008, [email protected] All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the Hansard Society. The Hansard Society is an independent, non-partisan educational charity, which exists to promote effective parliamentary democracy. The Hansard Society’s Parliament and Government Programme works on all issues relating to the reform of Parliament, engagement between Parliament and the public and promoting effective parliamentary government through a range of conferences, publications, public and private meetings. We set the agenda on parliamentary reform through our work with parliamentarians and others to improve the operation of parliamentary government and encourage greater accessibility and closer engagement with the public. For information about other Hansard Society publications visit our website at www.hansardsociety.org.uk The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors. The Hansard Society, as an independent non-party organisation, is neither for nor against. The Society is, however, happy to publish these views and to invite analysis and discussion of them. ISBN 0 900432 62 4 Cover design and photography by Ross Ferguson Printed and bound in Great Britain by Banjo Design & Print Limited Authors Alex Brazier is Senior Research Fellow on the Parliament and Government Programme, Hansard Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Text Cut Off in the Original 232 6
    IMAGING SERVICES NORTH Boston Spa, Wetherby West Yorkshire, LS23 7BQ www.bl.uk TEXT CUT OFF IN THE ORIGINAL 232 6 ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE Between 1983 and 1989 there were a series of important changes to Party organisation. Some of these were deliberately pursued, some were more unexpected. All were critical causes, effects and aspects of the transformation. Changes occurred in PLP whipping, Party finance, membership administration, disciplinary procedures, candidate selection, the policy-making process and, most famously, campaign organisation. This chapter makes a number of assertions about this process of organisational change which are original and are inspired by and enhance the search for complexity. It is argued that the organisational aspect of the transformation of the 1980s resulted from multiple causes and the inter-retroaction of those causes rather than from one over-riding cause. In particular, the existing literature has identified organisational reform as originating with a conscious pursuit by the core leadership of greater control over the Party (Heffernan ~\ . !.. ~ and Marqusee 1992: passim~ Shaw 1994: 108). This chapter asserts that while such conscious .... ~.. ,', .. :~. pursuit was one cause, other factors such as ad hoc responses to events .. ,t~~" ~owth of a presidential approach, the use of powers already in existence and the decline of oppositional forces acted as other causes. This emphasis upon multiple causes of change is clearly in keeping with the search for complexity. 233 This chapter also represents the first detailed outline and analysis of centralisation as it related not just to organisational matters but also to the issue of policy-making. In the same vein the chapter is particularly significant because it relates the centralisation of policy-making to policy reform as it occurred between 1983 and 1987 not just in relation to the Policy Review as is the approach of previous analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • 23 Leadership Candidates
    Old Heroes for a New Leader Liberal Democrat leadership candidates describe their historical inspirations. The Liberal Democrat History Group asked all the wherever he found it, his humanity and warmth enabled him to communicate with people who five candidates for the Liberal Democrat leadership claimed not to be interested in politics, and he to write a short article for the Journal on their never took his feet off the ground. As a young favourite historical figure or figures – the ones they man he joined the Young Liberals, he cam- paigned from the grassroots up, fighting a felt had influenced their own political beliefs most, no-hope Parliamentary seat himself and en- and why they proved important and relevant. Their couraging others to stand as Liberals in local replies are printed below. elections. He was committed to community politics and to the liberal approach to local govern- ment. Penhaligon wanted to shake the estab- Jackie Ballard MP lishment and he wanted a different type of I instinctively recoil from the idea of heroes, council – devoted to the underdog, not wed- because inevitably, being human, they all have ded to nineteenth-century ritual but open and their flaws. For this reason, and because they accessible to the public. No campaigning work- would be horribly embarrassed, I’m not going shop is complete without someone quoting to write about my two living political heroes Penhaligon’s maxim: ‘If you have something to – Conrad Russell and Shirley Williams. say, stick it on a piece of paper and stuff it The real heroes in life are the people who through the letterbox’.
    [Show full text]
  • Members 1979-2010
    Members 1979-2010 RESEARCH PAPER 10/33 28 April 2010 This Research Paper provides a complete list of all Members who have served in the House of Commons since the general election of 1979 to the dissolution of Parliament on 12 April 2010. The Paper also provides basic biographical and parliamentary data. The Library and House of Commons Information Office are frequently asked for such information and this Paper is based on the data we collate from published sources to assist us in responding. This Paper replaces an earlier version, Research Paper 09/31. Oonagh Gay Richard Cracknell Jeremy Hardacre Jean Fessey Recent Research Papers 10/22 Crime and Security Bill: Committee Stage Report 03.03.10 10/23 Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Bill [HL] [Bill 79 of 2009-10] 08.03.10 10/24 Local Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny) Bill: Committee Stage Report 08.03.10 10/25 Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [HL] [Bill 75 of 2009-10] 09.03.10 10/26 Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill: Committee Stage Report 11.03.10 10/27 Unemployment by Constituency, February 2010 17.03.10 10/28 Transport Policy in 2010: a rough guide 19.03.10 10/29 Direct taxes: rates and allowances 2010/11 26.03.10 10/30 Digital Economy Bill [HL] [Bill 89 of 2009-10] 29.03.10 10/31 Economic Indicators, April 2010 06.04.10 10/32 Claimant Count Unemployment in the new (2010) Parliamentary 12.04.10 Constituencies Research Paper 10/33 Contributing Authors: Oonagh Gay, Parliament and Constitution Centre Richard Cracknell, Social and General Statistics Section Jeremy Hardacre, Statistics Resources Unit Jean Fessey, House of Commons Information Office This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual.
    [Show full text]