DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservative Party International Office Conservative Research Department

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservative Party International Office Conservative Research Department Conservative Party International Office Conservative Research Department 32 SMITH S UARE LONDON SW1P 3HH Telephone: 01-222 9000 Telex: 8814563 Conpar Chairman of International Office: Sir Anthony Royle KCMG MP Director of Research Department: Alan Howarth Head of International Office: Scott Hamilton T 2r Farlja:aentafby mblvate:7_,;Pic-betary to the Tri2e aowhin, esfeeu, Landon2.2 .1 3eth aeveseter le anthony Hoyle was concerned in case the 2 rioeIthsrliste had seen the enclosed article by pa-yitd Woca ir '2he lice a' ---ea ahilot it is true that the Ihdliticel adanittec of he 'Iuropeah Inchha:ent adopt a re-roort on a Snifors Electors' Trocedure for European electriars this w-eEh:, it to bi no eashno certain that any st).ch reledrt will be endorsed *arija.=,:t as a whole. i2he EiC, will on17 supbort a. prebcoal indl. indind an. elenent of proortionat7 if that eie lent 'in rest-HetPf te of the caz,bers elected. ihe Socialist C,rdnt also has ressrvat about certain aspects of the report as do the Gauff"Ssts. In any event, even if the -far' aneht were to adobt rebort the proposal will have to to before the Council of' hinisters, where it could qurite easily lananIsh for several years. __:lbove all, even if the oroposaio as a bhole were di,dottea toadrtraa and. atTbea isfoediatel7 b7 the sienther ',:::tates, it is widely t-sat thsho would rat:, be tise 'tj instinate pospletelv arinfsts • as-oto l,eftaf the nett e-lectens jn 19O4. acooriarbay-, thatevPr sareP,d does not stand chancP of. beinh fi-o-iehPhfPd Ihe one eSe.ieht of the enercise to the rariewart's eeliberatfs on 'hifcra ilontoral -she' sedure whico. nonid be dei use to ao, ia the open:in-:ow it wania trovide for nhtreducHna votes for en:flash •aniiond. 'Cotes for thPse wanid be useful to •as, :hat ehl7 lenrePan electjons but also ocr dohestis elections. also enc-`ose a note 0 prciaced for the Lord I'dnart- Seal The thP Cha'irtan of the -earty on the Gra....lb's de'leeratifra00 Setn'tor 011 .lectoral 3vs0e013. 1 nape this is of sote 1elp. )/i/V) Q 5 'naturally, or what protected It would equalize democratic vested political interests. values within the European Most of the obvious discrep- Parliament, although small coun- David Wood ancies have been sorted out by M tries would still have to be over- jean Seitlinger, the pathfinder of represented, as Scotland and the political affairs committee Wales are at Westminster, and whose report will be considered Westminster would still keep its in London this week and almost three nominated MEPs. A side door certainly adopted in its essentials. Nevertheless, both friends and To root out the principal flaws foes of PR, at least in Britain, move towards the committee proposes a ought to look twice arid then look compromise between the British again at any seductively dressed- first-past-the-post election and up proposals for a list system. British PR the Continental list system that Strasbourg itself has already established British parties have jibbed at some abuses. Take these For three days this week, starting rightly found repugnant. examples from many. President on Wednesday, some leading The committee's model is the Mitterrand's name stood at the members of the European Parlia- West German electoral system top of the French Socialist list in ment will meet at Lancaster which combines plurality voting the 1979 European election House to prepare proposals that in single constituencies, where a although he had no - serious may turn out to be the thin end candidate with most votes im- intention of taking a seat at of the, wedge for introducing mediately wins, and PR on the Strasbourg; he was there merely proportional representation in parties' declared national or to attract votes. Georges Spenale, England, Scotland and Wales. regional lists. The Seitlinger one of the ablest Socialists in the Leaders of the two main parties report suggests that half the European Parliament — and its at Westminster will not fall in MEPs should be ejected by each former president — had his -name love with the idea at first sight, method, and that each member arbitrarily deleted from the party but surprisingly the Conservative state should determine its own list because he had given offence European Democratic Group has singie constituency and regional to the party leadership. given its blessing to the particu- boundaries. In practice, the M Jacques Chirac, the Gaullist lar form of PR on which number of first_-past-the-post leader, headed his party's Euro- Strasbourg opinion is consolidat- seats gained by a nai-ty would be pean list, attended for a year, and ing for the next direct elections deducted from its PR list entitle- then proposed that aft sitting to the European Parliament in ment though, unlike in West Gaulist members should resign en summer 1984. Germany, each elector would cast bloc and be replaced by the The Treaty of Rome ordains only one vote. Where a seat fell reserves on the party list. Nor is that the European Parliament vacant there would be no by-elec- France alone in offending the should be elected by a uniform tion, as would now happen in Parliament's sense of amour procedure. For June 1979, when Britain; the next name would be propre. After the last election in the first direct elections took taken from the original party list the Irish Republic there were place, there was no hope of or or the seat would be filled "by protests that the Strasbourg time for achieving uniformity, the substitute for the elected replacements had never been and every member state of the representative" (whatever that presented to electors in' the PR (then) Nine was allowed to follow may mean). party lists of 1979, and that they its electoral habit. The pure were therefore no more than principle of parliamentary democ- Clearly some merit may be fairly claimed for such- an nominees of a party caucus. io,cv was consequently flawed in All in all, though- the list many important ways, not only ingenious hvbrid that has proved its efficiency and simplicity in system is well established in because Britain clung to its first- several Community countries that past-the-post method, whereas West Germany. It would preserve direct constituency represen- everlastingly proclaim the demo- everywhere else (except in cratic virtues of PR arid heap Danish Greenland) some form of tation of the British kind, scorn on Britain's first-past-the- PR was adopted. although the European constitu- encies would have to be made post, in practice it too easily An-Long -other discrepancies even larger than they already are, becomes an abused tool in the there was no uniformity on in geographical as well as hands of party leaders and party entitlement to vote, voting age, numerical terms, to allow for the managers. We might also say the equality of votes, minimum age PR factor. It would correct the list system can be the quango to ot candidates, financing of par- distortions that in June 1979 gave cap all quangos, and even British ties, nomination of candidates or Conservatives 60 seats in En- advocates of PR should examine on the role of established parties. gland, Scotland and Wales, it with due suspicion. What goes For each member state it was a Labour 17, the Scottish National now for European elections ma.,.t, question of doing what came Party one, and the Liberals none. soon go for domestic elections. •CONFIDENTIAL • • 4-3 Note on the Euro ean Democratic Group's attitude to a Uniform Electoral Procedure for Elections to the Euro ean Parliament At their Group meeting in January the EDG agreed the following: The Group supports the principle of a Uniform Electoral System for European elections in the future, believing this to be a requirement of the Treaty. All UK citizens should have the right to vote in the European elections without regard to the Member State in which they are resident. That Gibraltarians should have the right to participate in the European elections. iv) The Group set up a Working Party to consider which ectoral system the Group should support. di For the past 2 years the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliament have been considering a number of reports on electoral systems by Jean Seitlinger (French Christian Democrat). Pressure has been particularly evident from the Liberal Group to reach agreement within the Parliament as soon as possible - hoping that the Council might accept the Parliament's proposals in time for them to be implemented by 1954. The present draft of the Seitlinger Report recommends the adoption of an Additional Member System similar to that used in the Federal Republic of Germany. At their meeting in Cologne the EDG discussed the Report of their Working Party. Lord Douro outlined the background to the Report and said that it was now generally accepted that it would be impossible to implement a common electoral system for the 1934 European elections. He said that the EDG members of the Political Affairs Committee had consistently lobbied to separate the question the electoral system to be used from more technical questions ticchtes asfor the ex-patriates eligibility residentof candidates, within the franchiseCommunity. andHe particularlysaid that this approach had drawn some support and he thought there would be a possibility of progress in implementing the more technical recommend- ations in time for the 1984 election. Lord Douro mentioned that Lord Belstead, speaking on behalf of the Government had said the Government would not be producing proposals on voting rights for Britons abroad until they had seen the recommendations from the European Parliament.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • None of the Above: the UK House of Commons Votes on Reforming the House of Lords, February 2003
    d:/1polq/74-3/mclean.3d ^ 24/6/3 ^ 16:6 ^ bp/sh None of the Above: The UK House of Commons Votes on Reforming the House of Lords, February 2003 IAIN MCLEAN, ARTHUR SPIRLING AND MEG RUSSELL The preamble to the UK's Parliament Act cent) of the members of a future house be 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5 c.13) states that that Act elected, but rejected the Royal Com- is a temporary measure only: mission's proposal that all appointed members be chosen by an independent Whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second appointments commission. Chamber constituted on a popular instead of This White Paper had a poor reception. hereditary basis, but substitution cannot be The Lord Chancellor's Department, immediately brought into operation . which issued it, later analysed the re- sponses to it. Of the 82 per cent of Attempts to bring the substitution into respondents who discussed election, operation in 1949 and 1968 failed. The 89 per cent `called for a house that was Labour Party's 1997 manifesto states: 50per cent or more elected'. Of the 17 per The House of Lords must be reformed. As an cent of respondents who discussed the initial, self-contained reform, not dependent future of the Church of England bishops, on further reform in the future, the right of 85 per cent opposed their continued pre- hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House sence in the house. Of the 12 per cent of of Lords will be ended by statute.
    [Show full text]
  • A Modern Parliament in a Modern Democracy
    A Modern Parliament in a Modern Democracy State of the Union Annual Lecture by Rt Hon. Robin Cook MP Leader of the House December 2001 Published by The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy UCL (University College London) 29–30 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU Tel: 020 7679 4977 Fax:020 7679 4978 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/ ©The Constitution Unit, UCL 2001 This report is sold subject to the condition that is shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First Published December 2001 A Modern Parliament in a Modern Democracy State of the Union Annual Lecture Rt Hon. Robin Cook MP, Leader of the House Chancellor’s Hall, Senate House, University of London It is an honour to be invited to give this lecture to the Constitution Unit on the publication of their report on the State of the Nations. One of the unequal contests between government and opposition is the difficulty of an opposition to obtaining quality advice in preparing its plans for government. It is for that reason that after taking office in 1997 we trebled the amount of Short Money available to the opposition parties. It has long been clear that a high priority for the incoming Labour Government would be constitutional reform. Indeed our first Parliament witnessed a degree of constitutional reform which probably has no match in terms of breadth or significance since the great reform acts of the nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservative Parliamentary Party the Conservative Parliamentary Party
    4 Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart The Conservative parliamentary party The Conservative parliamentary party Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart 1 When the Conservative Party gathered for its first party conference since the 1997 general election, they came to bury the parliamentary party, not to praise it. The preceding five years had seen the party lose its (long-enjoyed) reputation for unity, and the blame for this was laid largely at the feet of the party’s parliamentarians.2 As Peter Riddell noted in The Times, ‘speaker after speaker was loudly cheered whenever they criticised the parliamentary party and its divisions’.3 It was an argument with which both the outgoing and incoming Prime Ministers were in agreement. Just before the 1997 general election, John Major confessed to his biographer that ‘I love my party in the country, but I do not love my parliamentary party’; he was later to claim that ‘divided views – expressed without restraint – in the parliamentary party made our position impossible’.4 And in his first address to the massed ranks of the new parliamentary Labour Party after the election Tony Blair drew attention to the state of the Conservative Party: Look at the Tory Party. Pause. Reflect. Then vow never to emulate. Day after day, when in government they had MPs out there, behaving with the indiscipline and thoughtlessness that was reminiscent of us in the early 80s. Where are they now, those great rebels? His answer was simple: not in Parliament. ‘When the walls came crashing down beneath the tidal wave of change, there was no discrimination between those Tory MPs.
    [Show full text]
  • The House of Commons Modernisation Committee: Who Needs It?
    The House of Commons Modernisation Committee: Who Needs It? British Journal of Politics and International Relation (2007), vol.9, no.1, pp.138-157. Alexandra Kelso Department of Politics and International Relations, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. [email protected] Abstract Modernisation has been rhetorically important for the Labour government since 1997, and it found a dedicated outlet through the House of Commons Modernisation Committee. This committee has pursued a particular type of modernisation, which this article seeks to explore. It does this by focusing on three issues. First, it examines the role of the Leader of the House of Commons in the chair of the Modernisation Committee. Second, it looks at the work of the Modernisation Committee in comparison to that of the Procedure Committee. Finally, it contextualises the discussion of modernisation with reference to the distinction between efficiency reforms and effectiveness reforms, and explores what this reveals about the complexity of executive–legislative relations at Westminster, and about the course of the modernisation debate since 1997. Introduction New Labour came to power in 1997 committed to a modernising agenda informed by its adherence to the so-called Third Way, and its promise of renewing social democracy (Giddens 1998 and 2000; Clift 2001). The discourse of the Third Way signified a ‘reconfiguration of relationships between economy and state, public and private, government and people’, in which ‘modernisation was a label attached to a wide-range of institutional reforms, including those of government, party and the political process itself’ (Newman 2001, 40).
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Ireland and the EU Referendum
    House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Northern Ireland and the EU referendum First Report of Session 2016–17 HC 48 House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Northern Ireland and the EU referendum First Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 25 May 2016 HC 48 Published on 26 May 2016 by authority of the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Northern Ireland Office (but excluding individual cases and advice given by the Crown Solicitor); and other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (but excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland and the drafting of legislation by the Office of the Legislative Counsel). Current membership Mr Laurence Robertson MP (Conservative, Tewkesbury) (Chair) Tom Blenkinsop MP (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) Oliver Colvile MP (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) Mr Nigel Evans MP (Conservative, Ribble Valley) Mr Stephen Hepburn MP (Labour, Jarrow) Lady Hermon MP (Independent, North Down) Kate Hoey MP (Labour, Vauxhall) Danny Kinahan MP (Ulster Unionist Party, South Antrim) Jack Lopresti MP (Conservative, Filton and Bradley Stoke) Dr Alasdair McDonnell MP (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South) Nigel Mills MP (Conservative, Amber Valley) Ian Paisley MP (Democratic Unionist Party, North Antrim) Gavin Robinson MP (Democratic Unionist Party, Belfast East) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.
    [Show full text]
  • Holders of Ministerial Office in the Conservative Governments 1979-1997
    Holders of Ministerial Office in the Conservative Governments 1979-1997 Parliamentary Information List Standard Note: SN/PC/04657 Last updated: 11 March 2008 Author: Department of Information Services All efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this data. Nevertheless the complexity of Ministerial appointments, changes in the machinery of government and the very large number of Ministerial changes between 1979 and 1997 mean that there may be some omissions from this list. Where an individual was a Minister at the time of the May 1997 general election the end of his/her term of office has been given as 2 May. Finally, where possible the exact dates of service have been given although when this information was unavailable only the month is given. The Parliamentary Information List series covers various topics relating to Parliament; they include Bills, Committees, Constitution, Debates, Divisions, The House of Commons, Parliament and procedure. Also available: Research papers – impartial briefings on major bills and other topics of public and parliamentary concern, available as printed documents and on the Intranet and Internet. Standard notes – a selection of less formal briefings, often produced in response to frequently asked questions, are accessible via the Internet. Guides to Parliament – The House of Commons Information Office answers enquiries on the work, history and membership of the House of Commons. It also produces a range of publications about the House which are available for free in hard copy on request Education web site – a web site for children and schools with information and activities about Parliament. Any comments or corrections to the lists would be gratefully received and should be sent to: Parliamentary Information Lists Editor, Parliament & Constitution Centre, House of Commons, London SW1A OAA.
    [Show full text]
  • After the Referendum Alan Renwick the CONSITTUTION SOCIETY AFTER the REFERENDUM OPTIONS for a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
    Report Options For a For Options Constitutional Convention After Referendum the After Alan Renwick Renwick Alan After the Referendum Alan Renwick THE CONSITTUTION SOCIETY AFTER THE REFERENDUM OPTIONS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Alan Renwick First published in Great Britain in 2014 by The Constitution Society Top Floor, 61 Petty France London SW1H 9EU www.consoc.org.uk © The Constitution Society ISBN: 978-0-9928904-0-7 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval 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. AFTER THE REFERENDUM 3 Contents About the Author 5 Summary 6 Part 1: Constitution-Making: The Building Blocks 6 Part 2: Constitution-Making around the World 8 Part 3: How Should the Options be Judged? 9 Part 4: Designs for Constitution-Making in the UK 10 Acknowledgement 13 Introduction 14 Part 1: Constitution-Making: The Building Blocks 17 1.1 What are the Purposes of the 17 Constitution-Making Process? 1.2 Who is Represented? 19 1.3 What Basic Structures are Available? 21 1.4 Who can Influence the Constitution-Making 25 Body’s Deliberations? 1.5 What are the Constitution-Making Body’s 26 Operational Procedures? 1.6 What Happens to the Proposals that are Made? 27 4 AFTER THE REFERENDUM Part 2: Constitution-Making around the World 30 2.1 Expert
    [Show full text]
  • The 'Dispossessed', The'never-Possessed' and The
    The ‘Dispossessed’, and the ‘Bastards’ the ‘Never-Possessed’ ‘Dispossessed’, The the‘Never-Possessed’ The ‘Dispossessed’, and the‘Bastards’ Debunking Major’s Myths of the Eurosceptics the‘Never-Possessed’ Euroscepticism within the Conservative Party has been growing steadily since the Maastricth Rebellion of 1993. And yet the lessons of those turbulent months have yet to be learned properly. This book sets out clearly the reasons why some MPs rebelled and the‘Bastards’ and others did not - and points the way to the future. Debunking Major’s Myths of the Eurosceptics Between 1992 and 1993 the Maastricht Rebellion tore apart John Major’s Conservative Government. An ever-shifting group of Eurosceptic rebels consumed hours of Parliamentary time, derailed legislation and brought the government to the brink of collapse. Major denounced the rebels as the ‘Dispossessed’, the ‘Never-Possessed’ and the ‘Bastards’. This paper rebuts the myths about the Maastricht rebels. Luke Stanley Debunking Major’s Myths of the Eurosceptics Myths of Debunking Major’s With Prime Minister Cameron’s proposed renegotiation and referendum on EU The Bruges Group membership set to take place in 2017 recognising the factors affecting MPs’ willingness to defy the party line is vital. Should Cameron secure re-election at the head of a minority or slim-majority government, the ensuing Europe debate within the Conservative Party is likely to be even more divisive than Maastricht. Understanding MPs’ behaviour on Europe will allow the pro-withdrawal faction to assess the optimum methods of convincing MPs to side with them, as well as how to counter the Europhile faction’s attempts to poach their followers.
    [Show full text]
  • 21595 Cat-2217
    Vrije Universiteit Brussel Juggling three life spheres in local politics in Belgium Emery, Laura; Meier, Petra; Mortelmans, Dimitri Published in: The Work-Life Balance Bulletin Publication date: 2019 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Emery, L., Meier, P., & Mortelmans, D. (2019). Juggling three life spheres in local politics in Belgium. The Work- Life Balance Bulletin, 3(1), 14-17. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 03. Oct. 2021 The Work-Life Balance Bulletin A DOP Publication Vol. 3, No. 1, Summer 2019 Message from the Co-chairs Almuth McDowall & Gail Kinman Almuth McDowall Gail Kinman Work-life balance: European insights and no one stays after hours, and short HIS EDITORIAL was written as one working weeks are common. In practice, this of us (Almuth McDowall) enjoyed means that academics don’t always find it Ta visiting professorship for a month at easy to request equipment, get support with the University of Aix-Marseille in Provence, other tasks and so on, increasing workloads.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedures for Debates, Private Members' Bills and the Powers Of
    House of Commons Procedure Committee Procedures for Debates, Private Members’ Bills and the Powers of the Speaker Fourth Report of Session 2002–03 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 19 November 2003 HC 333 Published on 27 November 2003 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £18.50 The Procedure Committee The Procedure Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and to make recommendations. Current membership Sir Nicholas Winterton MP (Conservative, Macclesfield) (Chairman) Mr Peter Atkinson MP (Conservative, Hexham) Mr John Burnett MP (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon) David Hamilton MP (Labour, Midlothian) Mr Eric Illsley MP (Labour, Barnsley Central) Huw Irranca-Davies MP (Labour, Ogmore) Eric Joyce MP (Labour, Falkirk West) Mr Iain Luke MP (Labour, Dundee East) Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) Mr Tony McWalter MP (Labour, Hemel Hempstead) Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) Mr Desmond Swayne MP (Conservative, New Forest West) David Wright MP (Labour, Telford) Powers The powers of the committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 147. 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 http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_ committees/procedure_committee.cfm.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Party Leadership Strategy and the Legacy of Thatcherite Conservatism, 1997-2005
    Conservative Party Leadership Strategy and the Legacy of Thatcherite Conservatism, 1997-2005 A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Richard Hayton Department of Politics, University of Sheffield September 2008 Acknowledgements Doctoral studies are wasted on PhD students. It is a great privilege to spend three (or even four!) years of one's life in academic self-indulgence, an honour not fully appreciated until one re-emerges, slightly bleary-eyed, back into the real world. It is an even greater privilege to get paid for it. For that I am most grateful to the anonymous referees at the University of Sheffield, who deemed a proposal on contemporary conservatism of sufficient value to award me a University Studentship, ahead, I suspect, of much more worthy applications. Sarah Cooke was instrumental in putting together the original funding application whilst I was thousands of miles away, and I am most grateful for her hard-work then and for all of her assistance since. Friends and colleagues in the Department of Politics at Sheffield have helped to make it a most conducive place to pursue postgraduate study. Too numerous to list in full here, those that spring to mind particularly include (in alphabetical order) Craig Berry, Matt Bishop, Dion Curry, Glenn Gottfried, Carissa Honeywell, Olalla Linares Segade, Vas Leontitsis, Robert McIlveen, Tim Montgomerie, Andrew Mumford, Bona Muzaka, Michael Neu, Ben Richardson, Louise Strong, and Adam White. Mike Kenny has been an invaluable intellectual support over the past three years, both directly through his comments on sections of this thesis, and much more widely through the other research projects we have pursued together.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of Proceedings
    House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments Minutes of Proceedings Session 2005–06 Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) is appointed to consider all statutory instruments made in exercise of powers granted by Act of Parliament. Instruments not laid before Parliament are included within the Committee's remit; but local instruments and instruments made by devolved administrations do not fall to be considered by JCSI unless they are required to be laid before Parliament. The Joint Committee is empowered to draw the special attention of both Houses to an instrument on any one of a number of grounds specified in the Standing Order under which it works; or on any other ground which does not impinge upon the merits of the instrument or the policy behind it. Membership during 2005-06 Session House of Lords Lord Brougham and Vaux CBE (Conservative) Lord Dykes (Liberal Democrat) Baroness Gale (Labour) Baroness Goudie (Labour) (discharged 15.2.06) Lord Gould of Brookwood (Labour) (added 15.2.06) Lord Greenway (Cross Bench) Lord Howard of Rising (Conservative) Lord Mancroft (Conservative) House of Commons David Maclean MP (Conservative, Penrith and The Border) (Chairman) (added 12.6.06) Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP (Labour, City of Durham) Mr Peter Bone MP (Conservative, Wellingborough) Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson MP (Democratic Unionist, Lagan Valley) (discharged 24.10.05) Mr Eric Forth MP (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst) (Chairman) (died: 17.05.06) Michael Jabez Foster MP (Labour, Hastings and Rye) Mr David Kidney MP (Labour, Stafford) Mr John MacDougall MP (Labour, Central Fife) David Simpson MP (Democratic Unionist, Upper Bann) (added 24.10.05) Powers The full constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Order No.
    [Show full text]